§ Prologue
In
The Politics (1310a: 12-36), Aristotle reminds us that there are two fundamental ‘goods’ for
preserving any system of government, which includes a government of the People,
by the People, and for the People. One, is to educate The People into the ideas
of that government; and two, is to teach The People that an appropriate
education is not necessarily what The People wish for or what brings The People
pleasure.
The greatest
thing of everything that has been mentioned for preserving a system of
government, although this is the thing everyone slights, is providing education
in accordance with the system of government. For even the most beneficial and
widely approved laws bring no benefit if they are not going to be inculcated
through education and the habits of the citizens. Education appropriate for a
democratic system of government is not to be guided by what brings enjoyment to
the partisans of democracy but rather by what makes it possible to run a system
of government democratically.
To summarize from Pars Prima: Act I. Humanities,
Crisis, & Inhumanities
There is crisis
in the Education of The People, which manifests itself in the study of
Humanities, although this should not be the case if Americans are interested in
the long-term success of the Enlightenment Project as America’s trade-mark mode
of self-expression in the world.
Pars Prima: Act II. Plato's Euthyphro: An Ancient Drama of
Religion and Politics
As an explanation and a metaphor for at least some elements
linked to crisis in the Humanities, we can look to the various “FAILURES” that
were experienced by the great philosopher Socrates, and especially his striking
failure so dramatically represented by Plato in the Euthyphro dialogue.
[…] On this reading, does not Plato lead us to the conclusion that
genuine “Socratic” dialogue, which should ideally lead us to convert
intellectually to the ‘good life’ and thereby transform us into wise men, is in
fact futile when confronted with an audience that is disposed neither to
conversion nor to wisdom? And by metaphorical extension, are we not guided
toward the same conclusion of futility when we consider that the same
insurmountable obstacles that faced and finally crushed Socrates, continue to
face those who engage in the modern humanistic pursuits?
[…]
In Jefferson’s vision of American, however, the education of the people […]
strives after the ongoing improvement of democracy’s gatekeepers, teachers of
Humanities must continue to argue and to militate for the study of those
subjects that keep our eyes riveted upon Power of all sorts, and, how much
more, upon the subtle permutations of power into tyranny. We need to study
history, and politics, civics and current events in order to keep before our
eyes the political institutions whereby Men define and govern themselves; and
we need to study foreign languages, philosophy, religions, mythologies and
literatures, and all the sciences in order to understand that it is through
various and diverse languages and “stories” that we as a people initially begin
to frame, and then to flesh out, our political and social institutions, which
in turn become reflections of the intellectual life of the American demos. Why
do we do this? Because, "[i]f the
children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us
much dearer in their consequences than it would have done in their correction
by a good education" (Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1818. FE
10:99).
Will Democracy Survive in the Age of Aquarius_Pars
Secunda Proper
But, then, do not
these Socratic failures also dominate in our own moment in history? Because it
certainly seems that, in a post-facto kind of way, we inhabit the antechambers
of Enlightenment’s new-age inferno. Enlightenment Man is fundamentally
anhistorical, in that he represents an attempt, fairly unique in human history,
to create Man entirely and whole-clothe in the image of man. Along with the
king’s Crown, the Enlightenment philosophes
of the 18th century deposed the Christian God of Western History.
But new intellectual battles lines are now arising whose forms are only
starting to become clear. It is the dawning of a new age—the Age of Aquarius.
§ In a galaxy a lot like our own...
Hamlet said a
mouthful when he said to his friend Horatio: “There are more things in
heaven and Earth,
Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” where ‘your philosophy’
really means ‘what you think you know by your empirical sciences’. According to western astrology there are 12 signs or houses of the
zodiac, and therefore twelve astrological ages, each one lasting approximately
2155 years, for a total astrological cycle of 25,860 years. Our Wiki-source unravels the
calculations for the cycle of the ages:
The approximate 2,160 years
for each age corresponds to the average time it takes for the vernal equinox to
move from one constellation of the zodiac into the next. This can be computed
by dividing the earth's 25,800 year gyroscopic precession
period by twelve, the number of Zodiac constellations used by astrologers.
According to different astrologers' calculations, approximated dates for
entering the Age of Aquarius range from 1447 AD (Terry MacKinnell) to 3597
(John Addey).
This source continues on to explain the
whys and wherefores of these supposed ages, which are certainly based more on a
mixture of speculative and historical evidence rather than any verifiable
empirical science:
Astrological ages exist as a
result of precession of the equinoxes.
The slow wobble of the earth's spin axis on the celestial sphere is independent
of the diurnal rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the annual revolution
of the earth around the sun. Traditionally this 25,800-year-long cycle is
calibrated for the purposes of determining astrological ages by the location of
the sun in one of the twelve zodiac constellations at the vernal equinox, which
corresponds to the moment the sun rises above the celestial equator, marking
the start of spring in the Northern hemisphere each year. Roughly every
2,150 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have
moved into a new zodiacal constellation. However zodiacal constellations are
not uniform in size, leading some astrologers to believe that the corresponding
ages should also vary in duration. This however is a contentious issue amongst
astrologers.
 |
| Zodiac Sign for Aquarius |
§ The Age of Aquarius.
In the eyes of a
whole generation a musical group named The
5th Dimension formally ushered in the "Age of Aquarius," early in
1969, with their eponymous platinum song, which was to go on to become one of
the most popular songs of that year worldwide, winning Grammys in 1970 for Record of the Year and best Pop Vocal Performance by a Group. According
to Wiki sources, the “Age of Aquarius” is listed at #66 on Billboard’s “Greatest Songs of All Time.”
In their song, The 5th Dimension celebrates a celestial
transition that marks the end times of an astrological “age” –the world’s
passage out of the Piscean Age, or Age of Pisces, and its
entrance into a new age of the world: the Age of Aquarius. Now according to our
Wiki-source,
the Piscean Age, whose dust we are apparently in the process of collectively shaking
off our sandals, is the “Age of Monotheism, deception, & fraud,” and
could be called the “Age of
Deception.” Some of the keywords symbolizing Pisces are: deception, illusion,
hidden, misled, confusion, fraudulent schemes, fantasy world, secrets, false,
fake, mysteries, drugs/alcohol and on the positive side, kind, intuitive, and
gentle. It rules the arts and humanities. You can see the “deception” and
“illusion” in every aspect of your life; appearance, finances, communication,
your home, entertainment, health, the foods you consume, drugs, government, and
religion.
 |
| Zodiac Sign for Pisces |
However, the new age of the world, the “Age
of Aquarius,” will be marked by “love, light, and humanity.” Whence all the
chitter-chatter about ‘new-age’ philosophy, religion, et al.
Traditionally, Aquarius is
associated with electricity, computers, flight, democracy, freedom,
humanitarianism, Idealism, modernization, astrology, nervous disorders,
rebellion, nonconformity, philanthropy, veracity, perseverance, humanity, and
irresolution.
All of this sounded delicious to a
generation of young Americans in the 1960s and 70s, who were wandering lost
through a wasteland war in southeast Asia, and who were being culturally drafted,
through ideas, music, and drugs, into an infinitely more desirable vision of a
new, peaceful age of the world. The end of an age, the Piscean age, marked by
the ravages of war, supposedly had given way to peace on a cosmic level,
although when this rather fluid event began to occur is not precisely agreed
upon by those in the know.
In 1929 the International Astronomical Union
defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established
between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian
Age around 2600 AD. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the
varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations and overlap between the zodiacal
constellations. […] Many astrologers consider the appearance of many of these
Aquarian developments over the last few centuries indicative of the proximity
of the Aquarian age. However, there is no agreement on the relationship of
these recent Aquarian developments and the Age of Aquarius.
The changing of an age, when put to music, might
well sound like the music and words of the The 5th Dimension.
But in going the extra mile visually, Milos Forman’s cinematographic
translation of Hair perfectly translates the
cultural spirit of the times, rendering
for us the day when America’s youth found itself awakening to a new dawning as the
New Age of the World made its hippy-esque entrance into the world of men.
Age
of Aquarius (1969)
When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius! Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or derisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius! When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius! Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in The sun shine in |
The times were delicious, and heady,
indeed. And then, as the urgency surrounding the war in southeast Asia faded,
the peacenik Flower Child movement was slowly subsumed into the Jesus
Revolution of the American 70s. It was a transvaluation of Nietzschean
proportions, where a movement for political and military peace was co-opted by
new leadership in the form of the sometime Son of the war-mongering God of the
Jews. Jesus, the Palestinian Jew who had to remind his friends of his warrior status
and attitude: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did
not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34), which
was clearly reminiscent of his claim to be El-Gadol, the Great Warrior God of
Isaiah 9:14, was transformed by the new Jesus Revolution into Jesus, the Prince
of Peace.
A peace
movement morphed into a religious revolution,
with all the pertinent military accoutrements of language, metaphor, and
overtone. Which brings us to the problem
of the place of Religion in the Civil Society.
§ On Religion and the Enlightenment State: Homo Luminis & Homo Tenebrarum
The various pre-state
territories of Europe were embroiled in religious wars from 1524 to 1648. This
represents just about 80 continuous years of bloody conflict about Religion among
the various European territories, before allowing that the “Holy Roman Empire” (which
included the Kingdoms of Germany, Bohemia, Burgundy, Italy, and a variety of
other, smaller territorial players) would recognize three distinct Christian
traditions: Roman Catholicism, and the two reformed traditions of Lutheranism
and Calvinism.
History may well
be repeating itself, perhaps just in order to test our collective memories. For
Men of Light (Homo Luminis), those
who favored the creation of a Civil Society where reason and education hold
sway, continue to this very day to remain locked in a philosophical, and
ultimately political struggle with Men of Obscurity (Homo Tenebrarum), those who defer to “Other” authorities beyond human ken. So the
question for contemporary Civil Society is entirely philosophical in nature. The
Enlightenment goal is not to invalidate the religious experience, such as do those
who ask the idiotic question of whether, for example, “radicalized people are
mentally ill,” and whether “religious conviction can be ‘treated’ by a pill?”
Nor is Enlightenment’s philosophical goal, in the sense of this essay, to
discern whether or not Religion makes legitimate claims to truth. Rather, it is
to determine how men of differing convictions about reality, and knowledge, and
truth, can live together meaningfully in Civil Society.
 |
| John Locke |
For John Locke (1632-1704), the English
Enlightenment philosopher who was born while the blood was yet flowing from the
various European religious wars, the philosophical challenge confronting
England during his life was not that of expunging religion from Civil Society,
nor of invalidating or even challenging religious belief, nor, finally, that of
denying the possibility of authentic religious experience. Rather, the
philosophical experiment was to try first to determine and then to establish
how various and conflicting religious traditions could successfully cohabit the
public space together with civil and Enlightenment values. It would only be
later, however, well after Locke’s time, that the American pragmatic philosopher,
John Dewey (1859-1952), would confirm the importance of a Jeffersonian idea as an
essential cornerstone for the completion of Locke’s initial philosophical
direction, and which would lay a reasonably definitive philosophical foundation—public
Education—for the possible coexistence of civil society and religion. Following
Jefferson in this, Dewey contended that for democracy to continue existing,
society must educate the successive generations of youth in the fundamental
precepts of the democratic philosophy. The possibility and hope for democracy
lays in public Education. From John Dewey, Democracy
and Education (1958, 4):
If
a plague carried off the members of a society all at once, it is obvious that
the group would be permanently done for. Yet the death of each of its
constituent members is as certain as if an epidemic took them all at once. But
the graded difference in age, the fact that some are born as some die, makes
possible through transmission of ideas and practices the constant reweaving of
the social fabric. Yet this renewal is not automatic. Unless pains are taken to
see that genuine and thorough transmission takes place, the most civilized
group will relapse into barbarism and then into savagery. In fact, the human
young are so immature that if they were left to themselves without the guidance
and succor of others, they could not even acquire the rudimentary abilities
necessary for physical existence. The young of human beings compare so poorly
in original efficiency with the young of many of the lower animals, that even
the powers needed for physical sustentation have to be acquired under tuition.
How much more, then, is this the case with respect to all the technological,
artistic, scientific, and moral achievements of humanity!
However, an additional ingredient must be
added to Dewey’s witches’ brew of Human Civilized Society, which is an idea suggested
by the study of both anthropology and sociology. And that is the ingredient of Religion. In Dewey’s phrasing:
every barbarism on its journey toward civilization, ultimately grounds itself
in some sort of a religion.
In
his A (Very) Short Primer on Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Joshua Broggi
reminds us that the question of religion also lies at the very heart of Immanuel
Kant’s quintessentially Enlightenment thinking.
I take it that the question
Kant is asking in the 1793 Religion is this: How much of
Christianity (or religion
more generally) can we responsibly believe and practice, if our decision is
grounded solely on some basic skills of reasoning? The answer is, ‘not very much’,
and in arriving at that answer, Kant formulates arguments that would profoundly
affect how subsequent philosophers and theologians thought about religion. Such
a question about religion is not original to Kant, but was widely asked among
the vanguard of Enlightenment intellectuals – and their answers covered a range
of possibilities, some far more skeptical than Kant’s.
§ Homo Luminis Versus Homo Tenebrarum: The Conflict.
In the New Testament
(Romans 13), the apostle Paul makes the case that all authority, political and
other, is given by God and that men must submit to that authority as unto God
Himself. Christianity, which is inherently theocratic, stands in opposition to
the wider conception of the liberal democracy. To extrapolate a more general Enlightenment
principle—authoritarianism exists wherever there is an appeal made to any
authority whatsoever other than to that of human reason alone. The philosophical
challenge that any and all Religion opposes to the Civil Society is therefore
obvious.
In media there
are an almost infinite number of examples of the multifaceted conflict between Homo Luminis and Homo Tenebrarum.
My argument in a nutshell is that the
apocalyptic theology that developed in the 1880s and 1890s led radical
evangelicals to the conclusion that all nations are going to concede their
power in the End Times to a totalitarian political leader who is going to be
the Antichrist. If you believe you’re living in the last days and you believe
you’re moving towards that event, you’re going to be very suspicious and
skeptical of anything that seems to undermine individual rights and individual
liberties, and anything that is going to give more power to the state.
[insufficient, given Biblical statements]
But
their conclusions, broken down to their simplest form are these: We’re living
in the church age and we’re moving towards the Rapture. Jesus will Rapture all
true believers out of this world, they’ll just disappear, they’ll go up to
heaven with Jesus, and then with the loss of Christian influence in the world,
Satan will have free rein to take power through a political leader, called the
Antichrist, who is then going to rule over the world for seven years. This
period is called the Tribulation.
Religion, it would seem, breeds
violence. Far from being great, God might be thought terrible.
In
a globalized world, the terror of God’s crazy-eyed followers is threatening
lives, peace and prosperity of everyone on the planet. We are tempted to
conclude: The sooner that humanity either eradicates or quarantines off
religion, the better our world will be. This conclusion would be too hasty,
however.
First,
if the hope for the world depends on eradication of religion, we should all
despair. Religions are in fact growing in absolute and relative terms. In 1970,
there were 0.71 billion unaffiliated or non-religious people, while in 2050,
there will be 1.2 billion. That’s impressive growth, until you compare it with
the projected growth of religions.
Between 1970
and 2050, the number of Hindus is projected to grow from 0.43 to nearly 1.4
billion, the number of Muslims from 0.55 billion to 2.7 billion and the number
of Christians from 1.25 billion to 2.9 billion. And due to the immense
popularity of the democratic ideal, religious adherents are becoming
increasingly politically assertive.
But if the goal is to understand
ISIS, then I, and other analysts who happen to be Muslim, would be better
served by cordoning off our personal assumptions and preferences. What Islam
should be and what Islam is actually understood to be by Muslims (including
extremist Muslims) are very different things.
Those commentators that seek to
distinguish among sorts of Muslim communities and political views are
considered to be guilty of pursuing "nuances." Apparently, the enemy
has to be comprehensive and singular to be vanquished, and the difference
between muslim and jihadist and ISIL becomes more difficult to discern in
public discourse. The pundits were sure who the enemy was before ISIL took
responsibility for the attacks. (Judith Butler)
Source:
Salon: “This is the religious right’sradical new plan: The very real efforts to create an American theocracy inplain sight”
Religious
Pluralism. This brings us to the very core of the problem:
Religious freedom is not about religion vs. irreligion, but about individual freedom vs. institutional
coercion.
Lane and his network of
pastors say they are well within their rights to bring politics into the
church. “The founding fathers never meant for the church not to participate in
government,” said Lane. “They meant for the government not to interfere with the
church.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-and-the-cliche-of-civilizations_us_566ad2a6e4b0cdc1831f6863. Levy’s article from Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.686732
But
Levy … deliberately wades into the conflict taking place within Islam itself, a
clash within a civilization, between
what he identifies as the good guys, the “Islam of the enlightenment,” and the
bad guys, the Islamofascists.”
[…]
“Which brings us back to this question of a civilizational conflict. To repeat,
there is no clash between Islam and the
West, except in the minds of the Islamic State and the ideologues of the “free
world” who believe that inside every Muslim is an Islamofascist dying to get
out. The real clash is taking place within a civilization, within Islam, over
doctrinal issues, the nature of the state, the relationship with the market,
and so on — and the Islamic State is largely peripheral to this ideological
clash.
More
fundamentally, an equally contentious struggle is going on within the so-called
free world. Here is where the civilizational rubber really hits the road. Will
enough good people of conscience — enough moderate Christians and moderate Jews
and moderate whatevers in the United States — stand up to the intolerance of
our native extremism?
As an unknown French wit once said in the 1930s,
America is the only society to go from barbarism to decadence without knowing
civilization. Bernard-Henri Levy is free to take potshots at Islam. But,
honestly, we here on this side of the Atlantic, in the throes of Trumpian
decadence, are in desperate need of an Enlightenment of our own.
The role of religion in the
civil society
 |
| François-Marie Arouet, dit Voltaire |
§ I Spy in My Mind’s Eye… what does Voltaire see?
So there was the
Prontisterion Puppenmeister, reading
along in the Oeuvres of Voltaire
(volume 8, “Philosophy,” § 1, Paris:
1847) in the quiet of a fine summer morning, enjoying an early cup of coffee
and minding one’s own business in a polite, philosophical kind of way, when, in
a very impolite way indeed, Voltaire pricked one’s early-morning, still
semi-slumbering wits.
One becomes
accustomed to Voltaire’s uncompromising tones when he is speaking about the barbarism of the fanatical mind. He is
of course wholly inclusive and non-discriminating on the question of
fanaticism, including All & Sundry – the religious, the political, and the romantic
barbarisms, and V insists that the barbarically minded, like rabid dogs driven
to attack some new victim, will always and inevitably persecute the
philosophically minded. Sigh….
In this
particular section of Voltaire’s text (p. 126), he takes to task the Welch for
rabidly attacking the English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, and who
were entirely focusing their attention on L’s contention that, while it is
impossible to make any final philosophical determinations concerning the immateriality of the soul, it is obvious
that the soul must be immortal,
because God, etc. Apparently, the Welch
were of the mind that philosophers, at least in Wales and for the Welch, ought
not, and are not even permitted to, weigh in on such matters, to which Voltaire
(p. 127) responds that, O contraire, mes
amis: “this is indeed quite permissible and quite useful for the French,
and that nothing does more good for the English, and that it is high time to
exterminate this barbarousness” (“cela est très permis et très utile chez
les Français ; que rien n’a fait plus de bien aux Anglais, et qu’il est temps
d’exterminer la barbarie.”)
Then
comes the less than politically correct rub, when Voltaire addresses the reader
in an exergue (p. 128): “You reply to me that we shall never be able to
complete this task. No, perhaps not among the people and the imbeciles; but
among those who are honest you will win the day” (“Vous me répliquez qu’on n’en
viendra pas à bout. Non, chez le peuple et chez les imbéciles ; mais chez tous
les honnêtes gens votre affaire est faite.”)
There is a disturbing idea suggested in
this Voltairean conclusion, which does not bode well for the long-term future
of democracy as a political and social philosophy. And it is the intimation
that the philosophy of democracy is doomed to failure to whatever degree it
depends upon the good graces of either ‘The People’ or ‘Imbeciles’, terms
which, frankly, might well be interchangeable in Voltaire’s context. And to add
the final bit of bitterness to the Prontisterion
Puppenmeister’s early summer-morning coffee, there is then Voltaire’s concluding
idea, that the distribution of power among individuals, which is after all the
anchoring philosophical principle of democracy, will work, will be effective
and therefore fruitful, if and only if we use the tools of thought and
persuasion on those who are already in and of themselves ‘honest’. However, because
honesty is not necessarily an intrinsic characteristic of the Human Animal, there
is cause for fear & trembling among the enlightened.
 |
| CH_140916_No 1260/9 |
§ A Media Muddle Surrounding the Survival Potential of Democracy as a
Participatory Political Philosophy
There is however an excellent
argument that it is not possible to prevent politicians in a democracy from
endorsing antidemocratic attitudes. A chief value of democracy is liberty.
Liberty is the freedom for all to pursue their own paths; the common interests
are to be found where these diverse paths intersect. But liberty centrally
includes freedom of political speech. One might legitimately wonder whether a
society that bans antidemocratic speech in the political realm is genuinely a
democracy. We cannot force politicians to commit to protecting democratic
values by restricting their democratic freedoms, chief among them the freedom
of speech.
In Book VIII of “The Republic,” Plato is
clear-eyed about these perils for democracy. He worries that a “towering
despot” will inevitably rise in any democracy to exploit its freedoms and seize
power by fomenting fear of some group and representing himself as the protector
of the people against that fear. It is for this reason that Plato declares
democracy the most likely system to end in tyranny. Plato’s prediction is most
dramatically exhibited by Weimar Germany. But more mundane recent examples of
his description of democracy’s breakdown and descent into tyranny exist to varying
degrees in the cases of Hungary and Russia. The fragmentation of equal respect
is a clear alarm for the United States. We must heed it by categorically
rejecting politicians who seek to gain office by exploiting the mistaken belief
that democratic values are weaknesses.
Source: In this article from
The Huffington Post.fr, the remedy for democracy, and the unique intrinsic
value that, according to this article’s author, we need to transmit to our upcoming
generations for democracy to survive, is a critical spirit.
Esprit critique as the cornerstone of democracy? This is equivalent to, as the
foundation for philosophical thought, the Socratic elenchus, which only
demonstrates a negative truth, i.e., that your interlocutor is ignorant, but it
does not necessarily yield up positive or true knowledge. It is for this reason
that the reader walks away from the majority of the Socratic dialogues
thoroughly persuaded that the non-Socratic speaker is ignorant: per Euthyphro,
Cratylus, Glaucon (Resp.), Meletus
and the jury of judges (Apology), but
neither is the reader any further enlightened as to the true nature of the
question debated—piety, language, justice. The critical spirit does not bring
us any true or positive insight on the questions we ask, but only shows us that
we do not necessarily have or know a right answer to our questions. When we
have only a critical spirit to transmit as the summation of our culture, then
it is no wonder that terrain is lost in the struggle for Democracy. We are interested
in transmitting skills as the framework for Democracy, instead of some kind of real,
arguable knowledge. But as a framework, skill-sets are empty of ideas.
Further Readings:
From
Phrontisterion:
From
Media Sources:
·
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ties-That-Bind-Jihadists/234161. Scholars explore the “culture” that surrounds radical Islam.
· Source: http://www.lepoint.fr/invites-du-point/jean-paul-brighelli/brighelli-quand-daech-declare-la-guerre-a-notre-ecole-08-12-2015-1988058_1886.php -- Daech declaring war against
public (secular) schools.
