In this chapter, Ernst explores how the definition and perception of religion has changed throughout history. Much of this, he asserts, can be traced back to modern European Christianity and Imperialism which has affected the way Islam is perceived in the West, as well as how Muslims practice Islam. This chapter raised many questions for me, such as how can and should politics and religion (state and private life) be separated, if at all? Why does Christianity have such a strong history of violent conversion and aversion to other religions? One part I found particularly interesting was on page 43 and 44. Ernst states that this Christian mission of worldwide conversion has no comparison in Islam, and that Christians have, through a form of projection perhaps, labeled Islam as ‘the enemy’ who’s wish is to violently convert everyone. I’m curious about this change of attitude about religion in modern times. If it is true that a religious (monotheist) person believes a non-believer is going to burn in Hell for eternity, would it not be a high goal to attempt to convert them? And wouldn’t it also be important to practice the faith in all areas of life, including state affairs? Ernst goes on to say that religion is more than just belief, which holds more emphasis in Christian doctrine than in Judaism or Islam, which place more value on Ethics and Law. I’m curious about the idea of religious pluralism, since it seems to be an accepted framework; yet at the same, so many people consider religions to be in competition with one another. Can religions and religious people co-exist together, and if so, can it be possible for one group to not face persecution from another?
Leave a Reply