The Privatization of God

Blaise Pascal first explained his wager in Pen...

Image via Wikipedia

The Privatization of God


by Jorge Majfud

The University of Georgia

Custom-made for the consumer

In the 17th century, the mathematics genius Blaise Pascal wrote that men never do evil with greater pleasure than when they do it with religious conviction. This idea – from a deeply religious man – has taken a variety of different forms since. During the last century, the greatest crimes against humanity were promoted, with pride and passion, in the name of Progress, of Justice and of Freedom. In the name of Love, Puritans and moralists organized hatred, oppression and humiliation; in the name of Life, leaders and prophets spilled death over vast regions of the planet. Presently, God has come to be the main excuse for excercises in hate and death, hiding political ambitions, earthly and infernal interests behind sacred invocations. In this way, by reducing each tragedy on the planet to the millenarian and simplified tradition of the struggle between Good and Evil, of God against the Devil, hatred, violence and death are legitimated. There is no other way to explain how men and women are inclined to pray with fanatical pride and hypocritical humility, as if they were pure angels, models of morality, all the while hiding gunpowder in their clothing, or a check made out to death. And if the leaders are aware of the fraud, their subjects are no less responsible for being stupid, no less culpable for their criminal metaphysical convictions, in the name of God and Morality – when not in the name of a race, of a culture – and from a long tradition, recently on exhibit, custom-fit to the latest in hatred and ambition.

Empire of the simplifications

Yes, we can believe in the people. We can believe that they are capable of the most astounding creations – as will be one day their own liberation – and also of incommensurable stupidities, these latter always concealed by a complacent and self-interested discourse that manages to nullify criticism and any challenge to bad conscience. But, how did we come to such criminal negligence? Where does so much pride come from in a world where violence grows daily and more and more people claim to have heard the voice of God?

Political history demonstrates that a simplification is more powerful and better received by the vast majority of a society than is a problematization. For a politician or for a spiritual leader, for example, it is a show of weakness to admit that reality is complex. If one’s adversary expunges from a problem all of its contradictions and presents it to the public as a struggle between Good and Evil, the adversary undoubtedly is more likely to triumph. In the final analysis, the primary lesson of our time is grounded in commercial advertising or in permissive submission: we elect and we buy that which solves our problems for us, quickly and cheaply, even though the problem might be created by the solution, and even though the problem might continue to be real while the solution is never more than virtual. Nonetheless, a simplification does not eliminate the complexity of the problem in question, but rather, on the contrary, produces greater problems, and sometimes tragic consequences. Denying a disease does not cure it; it makes it worse.

Why don’t we talk about why?

Let’s try now to problematize some social phenomenon. Undoubtedly, we will not plumb the full depths of its complexity, but we can get an idea of the degree of simplification with which it is treated on a daily basis, and not always innocently.

Let’s start with a brief example. Consider the case of a man who rapes and kills a young girl. I take this example not only because it is, along with torture, one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, but because it represents a common criminal practice in all societies, even those that boast of their special moral virtues.

First of all, we have a crime. Beyond the semantics of “crime” and “punishment,” we can evaluate the act on its own merits, without, that is, needing to recur to a genealogy of the criminal and of his victim, or needing to research the origins of the criminal’s conduct. Both the rape and the murder should be punished by the law, and by the rest of society. And period. On this view, there is no room for discussion.

Very well. Now let’s imagine that in a given country the number of rapes and murders doubles in a particular year and then doubles again the year after that. A simplification would be to reduce the new phenomenon to the criminal deed described above. That is to say, a simplification would be to understand that the solution to the problem would be to not let a single one of these crimes go unpunished. Stated in a third way, a simplification would be to not recognize the social realities behind the individual criminal act. A more in-depth analysis of the first case could reveal to us a painful childhood, marked by the sexual abuse of the future abuser, of the future criminal. This observation would not in any way overturn the criminality of the deed itself, just as evaluated above, but it would allow us to begin to see the complexity of a problem that a simplification threatens to perpetuate. Starting from this psychological analysis of the individual, we could certainly continue on to observe other kinds of implications arising from the same criminal’s circumstances, such as, for example, the economic conditions of a specific social underclass, its exploitation and moral stigmatization by the rest of society, the moral violence and humiliation of its misery, its scales of moral value constructed in accordance with an apparatus of production, reproduction and contradictory consumption, by social institutions like a public education system that helps the poor less than it humiliates them, certain religious organizations that have created sin for the poor while using the latter to earn Paradise for themselves, the mass media, advertising, labor contradictions… and so on.

We can understand terrorism in our time in the same way. The criminality of an act of terrorism is not open to discussion (or it shouldn’t be). Killing is always a disgrace, a historical curse. But killing innocents and on a grand scale can have no justification or pardon of any kind. Therefore, to renounce punishment for those who promote terrorism is an act of cowardice and a flagrant concession to impunity.

Nevertheless, we should also remember here our initial caveat. Understanding a social and historical phenomenon as a consequence of the existence of “bad guys” on Earth is an extremely naive simplification or, to the contrary, an ideologically astute simplification that, by avoiding integrated analysis – historical, economic, political – exempts the administrators of the meaning of “bad”: the good guys.

We will not even begin to analyze, in these brief reflections, how one comes to identify one particular group and not others with the qualifier “terrorist.” For that let it suffice to recommend a reading of Roland Barthes – to mention just one classic source. We will assume the restricted meaning of the term, which is the one assumed by the press and the mainstream political narratives.

Even so, if we resort to the idea that terrorism exists because criminals exist in the world, we would have to think that in recent times there has been an especially abundant harvest of wicked people. (An idea explicitly present in the official discourse of all the governments of countries affected by the phenomenon.) But if it were true that in our world today there are more bad people than before, surely it isn’t by the grace of God but via historical developments that such a phenomenon has come to be. No historical circumstance is produced by chance, and therefore, to believe that killing terrorists will eliminate terrorism from the world is not only a foolish simplification but, by denying a historical origin for the problem, by presenting it as ahistorical, as purely a product of Evil, even as a struggle between two theological “essences” removed from any social, economic and political context, provokes a tragic worsening of the situation. It is a way of not confronting the problem, of not attacking its deep roots.

On many occasions violence is unavoidable. For example, if someone attacks us it would seem legitimate to defend ourselves with an equal degree of violence. Certainly a true Christian would offer the other cheek before instigating a violent reaction; however, if he were to respond violently to an act of aggression no one could deny him the right, even though he might be contradicting one of the commandments of Christ. But if a person or a government tells us that violence will be diminished by unleashing violence against the bad guys – affecting the innocent in the process – not only does this deny the search for a cause for the violence, it also will serve to strengthen it, or at least legitimate it, in the eyes of those who suffer the consequences.

Punishing those responsible for the violence is an act of justice. Claiming that violence exists only because violent people exist is an act of ignorance or of ideological manipulation.

If one continues to simplify the problem, insisting that it consists of a conflict produced by the “incompatibility” of two religious views – as if one of them had not been present for centuries – as if it were a matter of a simple kind of war where victory is achieved only with the total defeat of the enemy, one will drag the entire world into an intercontinental war. If one genuinely seeks the social origin and motivation of the problem – the “why” – and acts to eliminate and attenuate it, we will most assuredly witness a relaxing of the tension that is currently escalating. We will not see the end of violence and injustice in the world, but at least misfortune of unimaginable proportions will be avoided.

The analysis of the “origin of violence” would be useless if it were produced and consumed only within a university. It should be a problem for the headlines, a problem to be discussed dispassionately in the bars and in the streets. At the same time, we will have to recognize, once again, that we need a genuine dialogue. Not a return to the diplomatic farce, but a dialogue between peoples who have begun dangerously to see one another as enemies, as threats – a disagreement, really, based on a profound and crushing ignorance of the other and of oneself. What is urgent is a painful but courageous dialogue, where each one of us might recognize our prejudice and our self-centeredness. A dialogue that dispenses with the religious fanaticism – both Muslim and Christian – so in vogue these days, with its messianic and moralizing pretensions. A dialogue, in short, to spite the deaf who refuse to hear.

The True God

According to the true believers and the true religion, there can be only one true God, God. Some claim that the true God is One and he is Three at the same time, but judging by the evidence, God is One and Many more. The true God is unique but with different politics according to the interests of the true believers. Each one is the true God, each one moves the faithful against the faithful of other gods, which are always false gods even though each one is someone’s true God. Each true God organizes the virtue of each virtuous people on the basis of true customs and the true Morality. There is only one Morality based on the true God, but since there is more than one true God there is also more than one true Morality, only one of which is truly true.

But, how do we know which one is the true truth? The proper methods for proof are disputable; what is not disputed is the current practice: scorn, threats, oppression and, when in doubt, death. True death is always the final and inevitable recourse of the true truth, which comes from the true God, in order to save the true Morality and, above all, the true believers.

Yes, at times I have my doubts about what is true, and I know that doubt has been condemned by all religions, by all theologies, and by all political discourses. At times I have my doubts, but it is likely that God does not hold my doubt in contempt. He must be very busy concerning himself with so much certainty, so much pride, so much morality, behind so many ministers who have taken control of his word, holding Him hostage in a building somewhere so as to be able to conduct their business in public without obstacles.

Jorge Majfud

Translated by Bruce Campbell.

Monthly Review (New York)

La privatización de Dios

Blaise Pascal first explained his wager in Pen...

Blaise Pascal

The Privatization of God (English)

La privatización de Dios

A la medida del consumidor

En el siglo XVII, el genial matemático Blaise Pascal escribió que los hombres nunca hacen el mal con tanto placer como cuando lo hacen por convicciones religiosas. Esta idea —de un hombre profundamente religioso— tuvo diferentes variaciones desde entonces. Durante el siglo pasado, los mayores crímenes contra la humanidad fueron promovidos, con orgullo y pasión, en nombre del Progreso, de la Justicia y de la Libertad. En nombre del Amor, puritanos y moralistas organizaron el odio, la opresión y la humillación; en nombre de la vida, los líderes y profetas derramaron la muerte por vastas regiones del planeta. Actualmente, Dios ha vuelto a ser la principal excusa para ejercitar el odio y la muerte, ocultando las ambiciones de poder, los intereses terrenales y subterrenales tras sagradas invocaciones. De esta forma, reduciendo cada tragedia en el planeta a la milenaria y simplificada tradición de la lucha del Bien contra el Mal, de Dios contra el Demonio, se legitima el odio, la violencia y la muerte. De otra forma, no podríamos entender cómo hombres y mujeres se inclinan para rezar con orgullo y fanatismo, con hipócrita humildad, como si fuesen ángeles puros, modelos de moralidad, al tiempo que esconden entre sus ropas la pólvora o el cheque extendido para la muerte. Y si sus líderes son conscientes del fraude, sus súbditos no son menos responsables por estúpidos, no son menos responsables de tantos crímenes y matanzas que explotan cada día, promovidos por criminales convicciones metafísicas, en nombre de Dios y la Moral —cuando no en nombre de una raza, de una cultura y de una larga tradición recién estrenada, hecha a medida de la ambición y los odios presentes.

El imperio de las simplificaciones

Sí, podemos creer en los pueblos. Podemos creer que son capaces de las creaciones más asombrosas —como será un día su propia liberación—; y de estupideces inconmensurables también, disimuladas siempre por un interesado discurso complaciente que procura anular la crítica y la provocación a la mala conciencia. Pero, ¿cómo llegamos a tantas negligencias criminales? ¿De dónde sale tanto orgullo en este mundo donde la violencia aumenta cada vez más y cada vez más gente dice haber escuchado a Dios?

La historia política nos demuestra que una simplificación es más poderosa y es mejor aceptada por la vasta mayoría de una sociedad que una problematización. Para un político o para un líder espiritual, por ejemplo, es una muestra de debilidad admitir que la realidad es compleja. Si su adversario procede despojando el problema de sus contradicciones y lo presenta ante el público como una lucha del Bien contra el Mal, sin duda tendrá más posibilidades de triunfar. Al fin y al cabo la educación básica y primaria de nuestro tiempo está basada en la publicidad del consumo o en la sumisión permisiva; elegimos y compramos aquello que nos soluciona los problemas, rápido y barato, aunque el problema sea creado por la solución, aunque el problema continúe siendo real y la solución siga siendo virtual. Sin embargo, una simplificación no elimina la complejidad del problema analizado sino que, por el contrario, produce mayores y a veces trágicas consecuencias. Negar una enfermedad no la cura; la empeora.

¿Por qué no hablamos de los por qué?

Tratemos ahora de problematizar un fenómeno social cualquiera. Sin duda, no llegaremos al fondo de su complejidad, pero podemos tener una idea del grado de simplificación con el que es tratado diariamente, no siempre de forma inocente.

Comencemos con un breve ejemplo. Consideremos el caso de un hombre que viola y mata a una niña. Tomo este ejemplo no sólo por ser uno de los crímenes más aborrecibles que podemos considerar, junto con la tortura, sino porque representa una maldita costumbre criminal en todas nuestras sociedades, aún en aquellas que se jactan de su virtuosismo moral.

En primer lugar, tenemos un crimen. Más allá de los significados de “crimen” y de “castigo”, podemos valorar el acto en sí mismo, es decir, no necesitamos recurrir a la genealogía del criminal y de su víctima, no necesitamos investigar sobre los orígenes de la conducta del criminal para valorar el lecho en sí. Tanto la violación como el asesinato deben ser castigados por la ley, por el resto de la sociedad. Y punto. Desde este punto de vista, no hay discusiones.

Muy bien. Ahora imaginemos que en un país determinado la cantidad de violaciones y asesinatos se duplica en un año y luego vuelve a duplicarse al año siguiente. Una simplificación sería reducir el nuevo fenómeno al hecho criminal antes descrito. Es decir, una simplificación sería entender que la solución al problema sería no dejar ni uno solo de los crímenes impunes. Dicho de una tercer forma, una simplificación sería no reconocer el fenómeno social  detrás de un hecho delictivo individual. Un análisis más a fondo del primer caso podría revelarnos una infancia dolorosa, marcada por los abusos sexuales contra el futuro abusador, contra el futuro criminal. Esta observación, de ningún modo quitaría valoración criminal al hecho en sí, tal como lo anotamos más arriba, pero serviría para comenzar a ver la complejidad de un problema que amenaza con ser simplificado al extremo de perpetuarlo. A partir de este análisis psicológico del individuo, seguramente pasaríamos a advertir otro tipo de implicaciones referidas a su propio contexto, como por ejemplo las condiciones económicas de una determinada clase social sumergida, su explotación o su estigmatización moral a través del resto de la sociedad, la violencia moral y la humillación de la miseria, sus escalas de valores construidas según un aparato de producción, reproducción y consumo contradictorio, por instituciones sociales como una educación pública que no los ayuda más de lo que los humilla, ciertas organizaciones religiosas que han creado el pecado para los pobres al tiempo que los usan para ganarse el Paraíso, los medios de comunicación, la publicidad, las contradicciones laborales… y así sucesivamente.

De la misma forma podemos entender el terrorismo de nuestro tiempo. Está fuera de discusión (o debería estarlo) el valor criminal de un acto terrorista en sí mismo. Matar es siempre una desgracia, una maldición histórica. Pero matar inocentes y a gran escala no tiene justificación ni perdón de ningún tipo. Por lo tanto, renunciar al castigo de quienes lo promueven sería a su vez un acto de cobardía y una flagrante concesión a la impunidad.

No obstante, también aquí debemos recordar la advertencia inicial. Entender un fenómeno histórico y social como la consecuencia de la existencia de “malos” en la Tierra, es una simplificación excesivamente ingenua o, de lo contrario, es una simplificación astutamente ideológica que, al evitar un análisis integral —histórico, económico, de poder— excluye a los administradores del significado: los buenos.

No vamos a entrar a analizar, en estas breves reflexiones, cómo se llega a identificar a un determinado grupo y no a otros con el calificativo de “terroristas”. Para ello bastaría con recomendar la lectura de Roland Barthes —por mencionar sólo un clásico. Vamos a asumir el significado restringido del término, que es el que han consolidado los medios de prensa y el resto de las narraciones políticas.

No obstante, aún así, si recurriésemos a la idea de que el terrorismo existe porque existen criminales en el mundo, tendríamos que pensar que en los últimos tiempos ha habido una cosecha excesiva de seres malvados. Lo cual se encuentra explícito en el discurso de todos los gobiernos de los países afectados por el fenómeno. Pero si fuera verdad que hoy en nuestro mundo hay más malos que antes, seguramente no será por gracia de Dios sino por un devenir histórico que ha producido tal fenómeno. Ningún fenómeno histórico se produce por azar y, por lo tanto, creer que matando a los terroristas se eliminará el terrorismo en el mundo no sólo es una simplificación necia, sino que, al negar un origen histórico al problema, al presentarlo como ahistórico, como producto puro del Mal, incluso como la lucha entre dos “esencias” teológicas apartadas de cualquier contexto político, económico y social provocan un agravamiento trágico. Es una forma de no enfrentar el problema, de no atacar sus profundas raíces.

En muchas ocasiones no se puede prescindir de la violencia. Por ejemplo, si alguien nos ataca parecería lícito que nos defendamos con el mismo grado de violencia. Seguramente un verdadero cristiano ofrecería la otra mejilla antes que promover una reacción violenta; no obstante, si reaccionara con violencia ante una agresión no se le podría negar el derecho, aunque esté en contradicción con uno de los mandamientos de Cristo. Pero si una persona o un gobierno nos dice que la violencia se reducirá derramando más violencia sobre los malos —y afectando de paso a inocentes—, no sólo está negando la búsqueda del origen de ese fenómeno, sino que además estará consolidándolo o, al menos, legitimándolo ante la vista de quienes sufren las consecuencias.

Castigar a los culpables de la violencia es un acto de justicia. Sostener que la violencia existe sólo porque existen los violentos es un acto de ignorancia o de manipulación ideológica.

Si se continúa simplificando el problema, sosteniendo que se trata de un conflicto producido por la “incompatibilidad” de dos concepciones religiosas —como si alguna de ellas no hubiese estado ahí desde hace siglos—, como si se tratase de una simple guerra donde el triunfo se deduce de la derrota final del enemigo, se llevará al mundo a una guerra intercontinental. Si se busca seriamente el origen y la motivación del problema —el “por qué”— y se actúa eliminándolo o atenuándolo, seguramente asistiremos al relajamiento de una tensión que cada día es mayor. No al final de la violencia y la injusticia del mundo, pero al menos se evitará una desgracia de proporciones inimaginables.

El análisis del “origen de la violencia” no tendría mucho valor si se produjese y se consumiese dentro de una universidad. Deberá ser un problema de titulares, un problema a discutir desapasionadamente en los bares y en las calles. Simultáneamente, habrá que reconocer, una vez más, que necesitamos un verdadero diálogo. No reiniciar la farsa diplomática, sino un diálogo entre pueblos que comienzan peligrosamente a verse como enemigos, como amenazas, unos de otros —una discusión, más bien, basada en una profunda y aplastante ignorancia del otro y de sí mismo—. Es urgente un diálogo doloroso pero valiente, donde cada uno de nosotros reconozcamos nuestros prejuicios y nuestros egoísmos. Un diálogo que prescinda del fanatismo religioso —islámico y cristiano— tan de moda en estos días, con pretensiones de mesianismo y purismo moral. Un diálogo, en fin, aunque le pese a los sordos que no quieren oír.

El Dios verdadero

Según los verdaderos fieles y la religión verdadera, sólo puede haber un Dios verdadero, Dios. Algunos afirman que el verdadero Dios es Uno y es Tres al mismo tiempo, pero a juzgar por las evidencias Dios es Uno y es Muchos más. El verdadero Dios es único pero con políticas diferentes según los intereses de los verdaderos fieles. Cada uno es el Dios verdadero, cada uno mueve a sus fieles contra los fieles de los otros dioses que son siempre dioses falsos aunque cada uno sea el Dios verdadero. Cada Dios verdadero organiza la virtud de cada pueblo virtuoso sobre la base de las verdaderas costumbres y la verdadera Moral. Existe una sola Moral basada en el Dios verdadero, pero como existen múltiples Dios verdadero también existen múltiples Moral verdadera, una sola de la cual es verdaderamente verdadera.

Pero ¿cómo saber cuál es la verdadera verdad? Los métodos de prueba son discutibles; lo que no se discute es la praxis probatoria: el desprecio, la amenaza, la opresión y, por las dudas, la muerte. La muerte verdadera siempre es el recurso final e inevitable de la verdad verdadera, que procede del Dios verdadero, para salvar a la verdadera Moral y, sobre todo, a los verdaderos fieles.

Sí, a veces dudo de lo verdadero y sé que la duda ha sido maldecida por todas las religiones, por todas las teologías y por todos los discursos políticos. A veces dudo, pero es probable que Dios no desprecie mi duda. Debe estar muy ocupado entre tanta obviedad, ante tanto orgullo, entre tanta moralidad, detrás de tantos ministros que se han apropiado de su palabra, secuestrándolo en un edificio cualquiera para actuar puertas afuera sin obstáculos.


© Jorge Majfud

Athens, diciembre 2004

The Privatization of God

Custom-made for the consumer

In the 17th century, the mathematics genius Blaise Pascal wrote that men never do evil with greater pleasure than when they do it with religious conviction. This idea – from a deeply religious man – has taken a variety of different forms since. During the last century, the greatest crimes against humanity were promoted, with pride and passion, in the name of Progress, of Justice and of Freedom. In the name of Love, Puritans and moralists organized hatred, oppression and humiliation; in the name of Life, leaders and prophets spilled death over vast regions of the planet. Presently, God has come to be the main excuse for excercises in hate and death, hiding political ambitions, earthly and infernal interests behind sacred invocations. In this way, by reducing each tragedy on the planet to the millenarian and simplified tradition of the struggle between Good and Evil, of God against the Devil, hatred, violence and death are legitimated. There is no other way to explain how men and women are inclined to pray with fanatical pride and hypocritical humility, as if they were pure angels, models of morality, all the while hiding gunpowder in their clothing, or a check made out to death. And if the leaders are aware of the fraud, their subjects are no less responsible for being stupid, no less culpable for their criminal metaphysical convictions, in the name of God and Morality – when not in the name of a race, of a culture – and from a long tradition, recently on exhibit, custom-fit to the latest in hatred and ambition.

Empire of the simplifications

Yes, we can believe in the people. We can believe that they are capable of the most astounding creations – as will be one day their own liberation – and also of incommensurable stupidities, these latter always concealed by a complacent and self-interested discourse that manages to nullify criticism and any challenge to bad conscience. But, how did we come to such criminal negligence? Where does so much pride come from in a world where violence grows daily and more and more people claim to have heard the voice of God?

Political history demonstrates that a simplification is more powerful and better received by the vast majority of a society than is a problematization. For a politician or for a spiritual leader, for example, it is a show of weakness to admit that reality is complex. If one’s adversary expunges from a problem all of its contradictions and presents it to the public as a struggle between Good and Evil, the adversary undoubtedly is more likely to triumph. In the final analysis, the primary lesson of our time is grounded in commercial advertising or in permissive submission: we elect and we buy that which solves our problems for us, quickly and cheaply, even though the problem might be created by the solution, and even though the problem might continue to be real while the solution is never more than virtual. Nonetheless, a simplification does not eliminate the complexity of the problem in question, but rather, on the contrary, produces greater problems, and sometimes tragic consequences. Denying a disease does not cure it; it makes it worse.

Why don’t we talk about why?

Let’s try now to problematize some social phenomenon. Undoubtedly, we will not plumb the full depths of its complexity, but we can get an idea of the degree of simplification with which it is treated on a daily basis, and not always innocently.

Let’s start with a brief example. Consider the case of a man who rapes and kills a young girl. I take this example not only because it is, along with torture, one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, but because it represents a common criminal practice in all societies, even those that boast of their special moral virtues.

First of all, we have a crime. Beyond the semantics of “crime” and “punishment,” we can evaluate the act on its own merits, without, that is, needing to recur to a genealogy of the criminal and of his victim, or needing to research the origins of the criminal’s conduct. Both the rape and the murder should be punished by the law, and by the rest of society. And period. On this view, there is no room for discussion.

Very well. Now let’s imagine that in a given country the number of rapes and murders doubles in a particular year and then doubles again the year after that. A simplification would be to reduce the new phenomenon to the criminal deed described above. That is to say, a simplification would be to understand that the solution to the problem would be to not let a single one of these crimes go unpunished. Stated in a third way, a simplification would be to not recognize the social realities behind the individual criminal act. A more in-depth analysis of the first case could reveal to us a painful childhood, marked by the sexual abuse of the future abuser, of the future criminal. This observation would not in any way overturn the criminality of the deed itself, just as evaluated above, but it would allow us to begin to see the complexity of a problem that a simplification threatens to perpetuate. Starting from this psychological analysis of the individual, we could certainly continue on to observe other kinds of implications arising from the same criminal’s circumstances, such as, for example, the economic conditions of a specific social underclass, its exploitation and moral stigmatization by the rest of society, the moral violence and humiliation of its misery, its scales of moral value constructed in accordance with an apparatus of production, reproduction and contradictory consumption, by social institutions like a public education system that helps the poor less than it humiliates them, certain religious organizations that have created sin for the poor while using the latter to earn Paradise for themselves, the mass media, advertising, labor contradictions… and so on.

We can understand terrorism in our time in the same way. The criminality of an act of terrorism is not open to discussion (or it shouldn’t be). Killing is always a disgrace, a historical curse. But killing innocents and on a grand scale can have no justification or pardon of any kind. Therefore, to renounce punishment for those who promote terrorism is an act of cowardice and a flagrant concession to impunity.

Nevertheless, we should also remember here our initial caveat. Understanding a social and historical phenomenon as a consequence of the existence of “bad guys” on Earth is an extremely naive simplification or, to the contrary, an ideologically astute simplification that, by avoiding integrated analysis – historical, economic, political – exempts the administrators of the meaning of “bad”: the good guys.

We will not even begin to analyze, in these brief reflections, how one comes to identify one particular group and not others with the qualifier “terrorist.” For that let it suffice to recommend a reading of Roland Barthes – to mention just one classic source. We will assume the restricted meaning of the term, which is the one assumed by the press and the mainstream political narratives.

Even so, if we resort to the idea that terrorism exists because criminals exist in the world, we would have to think that in recent times there has been an especially abundant harvest of wicked people. (An idea explicitly present in the official discourse of all the governments of countries affected by the phenomenon.) But if it were true that in our world today there are more bad people than before, surely it isn’t by the grace of God but via historical developments that such a phenomenon has come to be. No historical circumstance is produced by chance, and therefore, to believe that killing terrorists will eliminate terrorism from the world is not only a foolish simplification but, by denying a historical origin for the problem, by presenting it as ahistorical, as purely a product of Evil, even as a struggle between two theological “essences” removed from any social, economic and political context, provokes a tragic worsening of the situation. It is a way of not confronting the problem, of not attacking its deep roots.

On many occasions violence is unavoidable. For example, if someone attacks us it would seem legitimate to defend ourselves with an equal degree of violence. Certainly a true Christian would offer the other cheek before instigating a violent reaction; however, if he were to respond violently to an act of aggression no one could deny him the right, even though he might be contradicting one of the commandments of Christ. But if a person or a government tells us that violence will be diminished by unleashing violence against the bad guys – affecting the innocent in the process – not only does this deny the search for a cause for the violence, it also will serve to strengthen it, or at least legitimate it, in the eyes of those who suffer the consequences.

Punishing those responsible for the violence is an act of justice. Claiming that violence exists only because violent people exist is an act of ignorance or of ideological manipulation.

If one continues to simplify the problem, insisting that it consists of a conflict produced by the “incompatibility” of two religious views – as if one of them had not been present for centuries – as if it were a matter of a simple kind of war where victory is achieved only with the total defeat of the enemy, one will drag the entire world into an intercontinental war. If one genuinely seeks the social origin and motivation of the problem – the “why” – and acts to eliminate and attenuate it, we will most assuredly witness a relaxing of the tension that is currently escalating. We will not see the end of violence and injustice in the world, but at least misfortune of unimaginable proportions will be avoided.

The analysis of the “origin of violence” would be useless if it were produced and consumed only within a university. It should be a problem for the headlines, a problem to be discussed dispassionately in the bars and in the streets. At the same time, we will have to recognize, once again, that we need a genuine dialogue. Not a return to the diplomatic farce, but a dialogue between peoples who have begun dangerously to see one another as enemies, as threats – a disagreement, really, based on a profound and crushing ignorance of the other and of oneself. What is urgent is a painful but courageous dialogue, where each one of us might recognize our prejudice and our self-centeredness. A dialogue that dispenses with the religious fanaticism – both Muslim and Christian – so in vogue these days, with its messianic and moralizing pretensions. A dialogue, in short, to spite the deaf who refuse to hear.

The True God

According to the true believers and the true religion, there can be only one true God, God. Some claim that the true God is One and he is Three at the same time, but judging by the evidence, God is One and Many more. The true God is unique but with different politics according to the interests of the true believers. Each one is the true God, each one moves the faithful against the faithful of other gods, which are always false gods even though each one is someone’s true God. Each true God organizes the virtue of each virtuous people on the basis of true customs and the true Morality. There is only one Morality based on the true God, but since there is more than one true God there is also more than one true Morality, only one of which is truly true.

But, how do we know which one is the true truth? The proper methods for proof are disputable; what is not disputed is the current practice: scorn, threats, oppression and, when in doubt, death. True death is always the final and inevitable recourse of the true truth, which comes from the true God, in order to save the true Morality and, above all, the true believers.

Yes, at times I have my doubts about what is true, and I know that doubt has been condemned by all religions, by all theologies, and by all political discourses. At times I have my doubts, but it is likely that God does not hold my doubt in contempt. He must be very busy concerning himself with so much certainty, so much pride, so much morality, behind so many ministers who have taken control of his word, holding Him hostage in a building somewhere so as to be able to conduct their business in public without obstacles.

Translated by Bruce Campbell.

Jorge Majfud is a Uruguayan writer. His most recent novel is La Reina de América (Baile de Sol, 2002).

Η ιδιωτικοποίηση του Θεού

Η ιδιωτικοποίηση του Θεού του ΧΟΡΧΕ ΜΑΧΦΟΥΝΤ* […] Κατά περιόδους έχω τις αμφιβολίες μου για το τι είναι αληθινό, και ξέρω ότι η αμφιβολία έχει καταδικαστεί από όλες τις θρησκείες, από όλες τις θεολογίες και από όλους τους πολιτικούς λόγους. Κατά περιόδους έχω τις αμφιβολίες μου, αλλά είναι πιθανό ότι ο Θεός δεν περιφρονεί την αμφιβολία μου. Πρέπει να είναι πολύ απασχολημένος με την τόση βεβαιότητα και υπερηφάνεια, την τόση ηθική, πίσω από τόσους πολλούς εκπροσώπους που έχουν πάρει τον έλεγχο του λόγου Του, κρατώντας τον όμηρο κάπου σε ένα κτίριο, ώστε να είναι σε θέση να κάνουν τη δουλειά τους δημόσια, χωρίς εμπόδια…

http://www.monthlyreview.gr/antilogos/greek/periodiko