Category Archives: Extremism

Warriors for Christ

Evangelical Christianity, Extremism, Polarization

 

In my last post I pointed out how Will Braun, our instructor in the CMU class Christiane and I took, in my mind, exemplified some of the best of Mennonites who claimed to be “Die Stillen im Lande” and how it could be used to dissolve extremism.  He was gentle in his thinking and his opinion making.

 

I should point out however how much this attitude is missing from so much current theology particularly from the Evangelical Right.  They don’t want a gentle leader they want a “warrior for Christ” and believe sincerely that they have found one in the person of Donald J. Trump.

 

Many modern evangelical Christians would not be impressed by Will Braun.  They would see him as a Caspar Milquetoast figure. That’s not what they want. They want an extremist. They want a fighter. That’s why they love Donald Trump.

 

Robert Jeffress the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and a big fan of Donald Trump, spoke for many Christian Evangelicals in an interview he gave to NPR in 2016. This is what he said about why he defended Trump  Christians would support: “I don’t want some meek and mild leader or somebody who’s going to turn the other cheek. I’ve said I want the meanest, toughest SOB I can find to protect this nation. And so that’s why Trump’s tone doesn’t bother me.”  That does not exactly sound like he wants Jesus

 

As Peter Wehner said in an article in The Atlantic, Jeffress is

 

“one of Donald Trump’s most fawning supporters. By his own account, one reason for his loyalty is that Trump embodies an ethic—cruel, vengeful, and mendacious—that Jeffress and many millions of evangelicals and fundamentalists not only tolerate but welcome.

 

3 years later Jeffress unapologetically said, referring to Trump,  evangelicals “don’t want to see this warrior removed from his place of leadership in our country.”

 

After Trump in 2026 posted an incredible, even by his standards, post in which he railed against the leaders of Iran basically saying in message laced with expletives, he would bomb them into the stone age on Easter Day. Jeffress faithfully continued to support his warrior Christian with these words, “If President Trump were a third-grade Sunday school teacher in our church, that might be a problem, but he’s not a third-grade Sunday school teacher,” he said. “He’s the president of the United States, and presidents sometimes have salty language.”

 

By now it is obvious that nothing Trump can do will result in the Christian Evangelicals giving up on him. They have true religious devotion for him.  He is the leader they want. In fact, Wehner summed up their support this way: “The more merciless, lawless and foulmouthed Trump became, the more his support among conservative evangelicals grew.”

 

That is extreme devotion indeed. I doubt that they give more faithful support to Jesus Christ.

 

Imagine that extremist Christians.

The Gentle Path

Extremism, Polarization

 

Will Braun our course leader in the course we took at Canadian Mennonite University  always slid towards the gentle. That, largely, is what I liked so much about the talks he facilitated largely without preaching.  He did it with gentleness. He reminded me of what I know about Vaclav Havel and his velvet revolution.

He also reminded me of Mennonites. In fact, I thought he exemplified the best of the Mennonite perennial philosophy of trying to be Die Stillen im Lande.” (The quiet on the land ) That really is the essence of negating the tensions as Braun called  it and dissolving the extremes as I call it. Mennonites like to consider themselves as peace makers as well. Again dissolving opposition. Though sometimes it seems Mennonites are happy to reap the benefits of the violence of others. There is nothing morally great about that.

 

I think some people in our class found it difficult to follow Braun’s example. They wanted to oppose what they thought of as morally wrong, even if that merely sharpened the polarizations. I tend to do that too,  but it makes a difference how you oppose it. Some means of opposition result in the other cementing his or her position more tightly and indelibly. Braun’s way is to meander towards reconciliation wherever possible. He does it softly and always with gentleness some find irksome and I found encouraging.

 

I would say the best part of Braun’s classes on the upside down view of polarization as he called it, was his example of gentleness in action.  He taught by example. Usually the best way to do it.

 

I wish I could be more like that.

 

The Spy

Extremism

 

The Spy is a powerful and thought-provoking Netflix limited series in which Sacha Baron Cohen is found in a serious role rather than his more common comic roles.  I loved the comedies that I watched. He plays the male lead in the series which purports to tell the true and tragic story of Eli Cohen (no relation), an astounding under deep cover Israeli Mossad agent in Syria in the 1960s.

 

Hadar Ratzon Rotem plays Cohens intense wife, Nadia, and Noah Emmerich  his morally conflicted handler, Dan Peleg. It is basically a thriller, and a good one, but it is also more than that.

This film asks some interesting and important questions about how far can a state go in asking one of its citizens to go in making sacrifices for his or her country? How big must an ask be, before it is too big? Are there limits on what a country can ask, if the work of that individual astonishingly valuable to the country?

As well there is a corollary question, when is an individual wrong in sacrificing himself and his family for the benefit of his or her country? When is it legitimate for the citizen and family to say the limit of sacrifice has been reached?  When must the country say, this is the limit and refrain from using him or her anymore because anything beyond this is intolerable?

Or are there no such limits? What can possibly be right and just?

Finally, what would it mean if there were no limits?

These are interesting and important questions handled with maturity rather than juvenile bravado unlike so many other films. Especially, action films which I sometimes think have reached their limits.

I think this series is worth a watch.

The idolatry of worshiping our own opinions

Extremism, Truth Seeking

 

Will Braun said he had done some work with indigenous people in Northern Manitoba whose land would be affected greatly by hydro-electric dams being constructed. They ask you to stop the work you are doing because it is harming our first nation.  At the same time, others say we need this development for more badly needed hydro-electric power and sometimes jobs in their community.   There was a lot of tension. The good guys and bad guys are all mixed up. None of the people can be dismissed. How do you dissolve  the tension? How do you hold the tension in check?

 

Added to that, Will Braun is a journalist. In that job he has from time to time been called to interview people with whom he disagrees. How should he speak to such people?

 

One time, when he was interviewing someone about climate change who was opposed to doing anything about it, Braun realized he had never seriously considered the views of such climate deniers. Then he decided to do that. Take those contrarian views to seriously to heart.  That helped ease the tension.

 

This is an aspect of intellectual modesty. Consider that you might be wrong.  Don’t make an idol of your own opinions.

 

Will Braun had what  I thought was a very inteersting way of saying what he felt we should not do. First, we must remember the obvious that none of us is infallible. Whether you are a person of the left, the right, or the centre, there are reasonable people of goodwill who do not share your fundamental convictions. This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that all speakers are equally worth listening to. It certainly does not mean that there is no truth to be discovered. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily wrong. But “they” are not necessarily wrong either. So someone who has not fallen into what Braun called  “the idolatry of worshiping his or her own opinions” and loving them above truth itself will want to listen to people who see things differently in order to learn what considerations—evidence, reasons, arguments—led them to a place different from where one happens, at least for now, to find oneself.

As John Stuart Mill, my favourite philosopher on such issues said, a recognition of the possibility that we may be in error is a good reason to listen to and honestly consider—and not merely to tolerate grudgingly—points of view that we do not share, and even perspectives that we find shocking or scandalous. Intellectual modesty is also very important if one actually wants to learn from the other.

What’s more, as Mill noted, even if one happens to be right about this or that disputed matter, seriously and respectfully engaging people who disagree will deepen one’s understanding of the truth and sharpen one’s ability to defend it. That is what truth seeking is all about,

Some of us, me included, have a hard time being humble. That is not helpful.  Humility  can go a long way towards melting the extremes.

 

A Peak at the Darkness

Extremism, Left-wing Extremism, Right-wing Extremism

 

Our instructor Will Braun, whom I mentioned in my most recent post, is  the editor of the Canadian Mennonite. The class I also mentioned  was an  on-line virtual class facilitated by Canadian Mennonite University.  The invitation from them  had said it would “an upside down look at polarization.”  That title intrigued me. What did it mean? What could I expect? Is there a better more fruitful way of looking at this issue?

 

A lot of people have been talking about polarization for a couple of years now, and virtually everyone says they hate it, but no one seems to be able to do anything about it. Some of us hate it but actually contribute to refinforcing it. Could we do something about that  with Will Braun’s help?  I was hoping so. I knew I could use some help.

 

First, he said, he wanted us to take a deep breath, because the issue of polarization requires us to look at our own inner lives. That requires our attention, so the first thing we need to do is slow down.

 

Braun started with a thought experiment, as he called it. He asked us to

 

“think about a person with whom we disagree with quite sharply. That person calls us up and acknowledges we have butted heads over the years and I know there is some underlying tension between us. I want to understand you better and how you got to where you are and to how you think. Can we get together to talk about this?”

 

 

This assumes of course that we would be willing to participate in such a discussion. What would motivate a person to do that? What would I think about that? How would I feel about this?

 

We will come back to this later.

 

The word “polarization” denotes two poles. As a result, we need some way to define those poles whether we like to do that or not.  For example, the poles could be left-wing or right-wing. Or conservative or liberal (or progressive). All such categories are insufficient. He said he assume most of us are left or progressive, but says he has become disenchanted with the left though that has been his team. “The camp I was once in does not feel as comfortable any more as it once did.” I would like to suggest that this is part of a common shift to the right. Not a complete shift but a widespread partial shift in that direction. Perhaps the left has gone off the rails and it has become a little too overheated or too extreme or too polarized.  Or perhaps the right is just fatigued with the issues the left keeps bringing up.

 

I think many feel this way. The most famous person I think who has said something like this was  Bill Maher. He seems to me to like the left less and less. In fact he has admitted that. He claims they have changed not him. I too come from this perspective too but perhaps am still more or less on that side.

 

What we have to do to have discussions about issues like this is that we must banish bashing. And sneering too. No mocking.  Will used an expression that he likes more than I like and that is this: “we must remember that we are all beloved of God.” I agree with the tone of this comment if not all of the specific contents of it. To discuss such issues, I would suggest we must hold our polarized views in check. If we are sliding towards hate, we have certainly gone too far. None of us are worthless. I think that sums up Braun’s view which aligns closely with my own.

 

Will is like me in that he lives in a very derisive community where most of the people I talk to are much more conservative than I am. Yet I know that most of them are good people, even though they are different from me. I don’t want to sneer at them or mock them. I want to understand them better and either move closer to their views or nudge them in my direction. As Braun said, “I don’t want to throw such people under the bus.” I don’t want to dismiss them. I won’t put them all into “a basket of deplorables” like Hillary Clinton did so disastrously. Nothing good would come of that, I am certain.

 

Some people who engage in discussion about polarization quickly assume that this will be a good opportunity to bash the other side. The bad guys, of course are wrong, for they disagree with me and I am right. I think that is a fairly normal attitude.

 

In such discussions there is often some tension. The blood pressure might go up. We will have to accept that. This is an issue about what people feel strongly about.

 

Then Braun used an expression I have trouble with. I have trouble with it because to me it does not seem that clear. He says, he wanted us always, “to tend to the heart.” He calls this a grounding point.  Braun said, “when I engage in such questions my goal is not to change minds, but to change my heart.”  Again, I have a little trouble getting this? It sounds attractive but what does it actually mean? Yet I think there is something to this notion.  I feel like if I am concentrating on that task I have a better chance of finding common ground with the other. Perhaps that might ease the tension. Frankly, I have recently experienced exactly the tension Braun mentions with good friends and I would like to ease that tension. Is it possible? Can I do it?

 

Introduction to Extremism/Polarization

Extremism

 

A lot of people are talking today about polarization.  To my mind this is just a modern word for an old concept—namely extremism. At least they go together if they are not the same.

 

Former American President, Bill Clinton mad a very important point about extremism:

“We are getting siloed in the TV shows we watch, the web sites we look at. America has come far: we are less racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-religious of specific religions, than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry left, we don’t want to be around anyone who disagrees with us.”

 

 

I think we are living in an age of extremism. Surely it was not the first. Nor likely not the last. It keeps coming back. Why is that? What is the attraction of extremism, or polarization.  The harms are so visible. It seems like we must see it and must understand the evils of extremism. Yet we don’t. At least we don’t see it clearly enough or we would not permit it to come back.

 

This is what I want to explore. I have posted about it before. I have been thinking about it for quite a while, but it came back to me sharply recently as a result of a course Christiane and I signed up for at Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg, of all places. It was the third course we took for adults. Each a short course was about 6 weeks 1 day per week. Not taxing, but very interesting.

Our leader, lecturer, and facilitator, was Will Braun, who is an editor for a Mennonite magazine and he exemplified a person who tried to avoid the extremes. He was kind and gentle and thoughtful.  All traits I wish I had more of than I do.  I could learn a lot from him.

I want to share my reflections on the subject of extremism/polarization from this course and other readings I have done in the past. I have mulled over some things. I have meandered through the idea of polarization and will try to share what I have learned.

 

One Battle After Another

Extremism, Movies

 

 

This film much to my delight, won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the Year 2026.  That was a good choice.  But I was very disappointed by the few patrons that watched it. How can that be? It had great stars with great acting. I thought it was very funny. I laughed harder the second time I watched it than the first time. It had some great actions scenes, including a 3-vehicle car chase that made me feel as if I was on roller coaster. It was very well written. What are people going to see if they don’t go to see this film?  I am perplexed. My theory is that any film not designed to attract teenagers won’t be watched by enough people to make much of a profit, if at all. That’s a pity.

The film is about some young left-wing revolutionaries who are definitely not treated as heroes. Neither are their opponents, the right-wing Christmas Adventurers and their leading military style cop, Col. Steven Lockjaw, played with insane aplomb and bravado by the brilliant Sean Penn. The film definitely does not worship the revolutionaries or counter-revolutionaries. It mocks them both unmercifully. Hence the ample platform for comedy. What could be better than mocking extremists in this age of extremism?

Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor) is the female revolutionary and seeing her 9 months pregnant, if not more, firing an automatic rifle, is a heart stopper. She tells her too tame boy-friend, Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio) to “Snap Crackle Pop.” This is revolution to the sound-track of breakfast cereals. She also makes clear to Bob that she is not his “udder buddy.” Her job as a revolutionary means she is too busy to be a mother, so poor Bob has to raise their daughter as best he can.

After the radicals bomb a few buildings, rob a bank, and kill a teller, the film changes direction. Perfidia gets caught and the establishment lands on her like a tank.

 

Then the film springs ahead 16 years when her daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti) is a feisty and strong rebel, but rebelling as much against her revolutionary father as the establishment, and explains to her perplexed friends that her father is “a fucking paranoid.” But Bob, now a has-been rebel with a drug addled brain, hassles her friends and insists she says, “I love you Bob” before she gets in the car with her friends

 

My favorite character in the film is the incredibly laid-back revolutionary Sergio (Benicio del Toro), who calmly leads a long line of refugee children through a revolutionary melee while sipping a beer and encouraging Bob to chill, as all around him everyone except for the trusting children, are frantic. The refugees have to flee, but  Sergio takes the time to introduce Bob to them as “the gringo Zapata.” Bob ends up running in a panic through the streets in his dressing gown, whining that he has nowhere to charge his phone.

 

Sergio sends Bob out to follow 3 young punk revolutionaries carrying skateboards, running on the roofs of buildings, jumping and bounding exactly like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Bob follows as best he can, but inevitably, tries to jump from one building to another, and does not make it, instead landing on a tree that fortunately breaks his fall as he crashes to the ground.

 

What are they fighting for? As one revolutionary says, to oppose “a white bread, philistine, asshole, corporate, culture whose only end is to profess the science of advertising.” In other words, this is modern American-style revolution as absurd as the society that spawned it.

 

Of course, the corporate counter revolutionaries are no better. They say their goal is “no more lunatics,” but their lunacy is on steroids. These money glazed idiots called the Christmas Adventurers are introduced with a sound track of a very loud and obnoxious version of Hark the Herald Angels Sing.  They meet in a secret meeting room in a bunker underneath a mansion that looks like a hunting lodge and greet each other with a hearty “Hail Saint Nick.” To be admitted to the group, each proposed member must conclude a vulnerability study called “a double Yankee anti-white Inquisition completum.” Basically that means they must demonstrate proper racial animus against all non-whites and then they are good to go. They want to attack the refugees in Baktan Cross, a sanctuary city full of thousands of “wets and stinkies.” They are flown in on a large helicopter  and use automatic weapons and flack jackets, to harass the grade 6 & 7 students. Their main target is Chicken Licken Frozen Farm which they believe is a front for a large-scale heroin operation.

 

Willa is aided in her flight from the Christmas Adventurers by dope smoking nuns. She had been taught from an early age that when a revolutionary comes to her and says “Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies, and Petticoat Junction” (the names of 3 inane TV comedy series years ago) she must follow their instructions to be led to safety. When Bob tries to get help for her from his old revolutionary pals, he must first give them a very complicated secret code that he learned 16 years ago.    Sadly, Bob can no longer remember the Code and as a result a left-wing revolutionary, called Comrade Josh,  who is a stickler for the rules, will not help Bob or Willa. Bob is extremely upset because he learned the Code so many years ago when his brain was French-fried by hallucinogenic drugs and complains to the revolutionary: “This is not how revolutionaries do shit! You’re a little nit-picking prick. What kind of revolutionary are you brother? Get a better name Comrade Josh, that’s a ridiculous name for a revolutionary.”  The only thing the Comrade does tell him is his location. “I am in a secure location somewhere in between the stolen land of the Wabanaki and the stolen land of the Chumash.”

 

Watching 10 films nominated for best picture I thought I noticed a common theme. Many of them were infused with insane goals. This movie illustrated that well.  In this film, both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, had insane goals—revolution or fighting it. Neither made any sense at all.

 

We can’t Speak anymore

Books, Critical thinking, Decline of the west, Extremism, Hate

 

I did not realize it but Carol Off the former host of CBC’s long running talk show As it Happens on his radio network, and the author of a very good book, At a Loss for Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage, has a lot of wise things to say about words. Words and our inability to use them properly. In this respect she follows in the path of that great English writer George Orwell. Of course, Off has experience as she was employed by the CBC for many years to talk to people around the world 5 days a week. She knows how to have conversations from personal experience, not just book-learning.

 

Off points out that in our current age, which she calls, not without justification, ‘The Age of Rage,’ it has become very difficult to hold rational conversations.  People don’t want to talk anymore. They want to yell instead. She believes the reason for that is that our lives have been taken over to a significant extent by extremists.  It often seems like only the extremists get to speak. Only extremists have platforms. The rest of us have to suck socks.  Off put it this way:

 

…we have become incapable of talking to each other. The language we once shared has been co-opted by extremists and we’re reduced to barking and snapping. It’s not just that we dispute what path to take; we no longer agree on the meaning of the words that define our destination. I’m not saying we should be of one collective mind about anything, but surely, we need the vocabulary to coherently disagree, to negotiate our way to some rational understanding, with reasonable  people on all sides. Without an embrace of a shared and logical discourse, we can’t even agree on the facts. Without facts we can’t hope to conclude what is true, and without truth we lose trust. This is not a good position to be in as the planet burns.

 

In the current era, much of the power of words has been unleashed by the power of algorithms that encourage rage, fear and hate because they attract engagement on the internet and multiply its power. Masters of harnessing such language include people like Donald Trump. He knows that by turning  people such as immigrants and Muslims and foreigners into objects of hatred people will pay attention to him. That is how demagogues take power. They are able to persuade ordinary people that they need a strongman, like Hitler, Mussolini, or Trump to control the rabble and bring them peace. Lately this is what is happening on the streets of Minneapolis. Recently, on PBS broadcasting who are working hard to listen to all points of view, they interviewed an intelligent right-wing commentator who really believed that Donald Trump was a moderating voice in Minneapolis bringing peace to quell the rabble.

Words are dynamite in the age of rage. And dynamite is dangerous.