The biblical story of the Tower of Babel is fascinating to me, in part because I sense that the story is replaying itself as we speak. Here are several passages from chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis:

 

The whole earth was of one language and of common purpose...

...They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them in the fire." ...And they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

God descended to look at the city and tower which the sons of man built, and God said, "Behold, they are one people with one language for all, and this they begin to do! And now, should it not be withheld from them all they propose to do? Come, let us descend and there confuse their language, that they should not understand one another's language."

And God dispersed them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel, because it was there that God confused the language of the whole earth, and from there God scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you think we've somehow gone back to building a Tower of Babel? For some 2,000,000 years, our prehistoric ancestors lived as cavemen, hunting and gathering, and eking out an existence any way they could. It was a short, brutish life they had, but it was a life, nonetheless. It could easily be said of that period in history that: "The whole earth was of one language and of common purpose."

 

To survive yet another day, no small accomplishment at that time, we had no choice but to use our common sense, and to help each other out. And indeed, anthropologic research bears out the fact that for the most part, cavemen were good to one another, as depicted in the film The Rise of Man on the Discovery Channel.

 

And then, some 10,000 years ago, we decided to become "civilized," and in the last 200 years, with the advent of the industrial age, to become truly modern. True, we're not exactly building "...a tower with its top in the heavens...," although we do have some tall buildings out there, but in many other ways, we are taking God on, in an all out attempt to create our world as we see fit.

 

Let's face it; we do seek to "...make a name for ourselves..." No? Look at what we've wrought as part and parcel of our creation: towering cities, cutting edge technologies, scientific discoveries, top notch universities, thriving multinational companies, and the laundry list goes on and on, ad infinitum. Our many accomplishments, in this, the modern age, do not amount to a "Tower of Babel," in the strict sense, but they do constitute an edifice of sorts, an edifice which, in many ways, reaches for the heavens.

 

If God is indeed a Creator, and if He created us in His image, then we too are creators, and we have chosen to create a world in our image. Our prehistoric ancestors were of "...one language and of common purpose." Can we say the same of ourselves? Or is it rather the case that with all our maneuverings toward modernity, and in our attempt "...to make a name for ourselves...," we may have lost our "common purpose," and no longer "...understand one another's language?"

 

A small example, if you allow me. We have used our ingenuity to create the internet, a remarkable tool for which I am personally grateful, which enables the free flow of information, and which allows each of us to talk to whomever we wish. And so, now that we are technologically able to talk to one another in such a state of the art manner, and with virtually no interference of any kind, the question arises: What do we really have to say to each other?

 

Doesn't it seem, at times, as with the story of Babel, that while we are certainly talking to each other, very few of us actually connect? Our technology seems to have taken us to a place where there is a disconnect between the tools at our disposal, and our ability to put them to good use.

 

In the story of Babel; before man tried to reach for the heavens: "The whole earth was of one language and of common purpose." Is it just me, or do you also sense that we must somehow find a way to come back to that-"one language and of common purpose." Only then, it seems, will we have a chance to reclaim our rightful place in the infinite vastness of God's creation.

Many religious traditions espouse the notion of the Messiah, a person who will be sent to redeem the world from sin and suffering.

 

In Judaism, the Hebrew Bible doesn't really mention the idea of a personal Messiah who will end evil and usher in an age of peace. But the idea became popular as a result of rabbinic teachings, after the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 C.E. It is understandable that in the wake of the Temple's destruction, and the scattering of the Jewish people, the notion of a personal savior was a source of solace for a battered and beleaguered people.

 

Christianity, more than any other religion, has celebrated the idea of a Messiah, and portrayed Jesus as sharing in God's divinity. Jesus is revered as the bearer of God's grace, as a sacrificial lamb whose death erased original sin and saved humanity, as a spiritual being who bridges the gap between God and humankind, and who tells humankind that it is loved and saved. Especially in the Book of Revelation, Christianity speaks of the End of Days, and the battle of Armageddon between good and evil, after which the world will experience a Second Coming of the Messiah, and a reign of peace for 1000 years.

 

In Islam, the Qur'an does not mention a Messiah, but he crept into Islamic tradition as al-Mahdi, the divinely guided one. He will bring peace and justice, restore the true religion, and usher in a golden age that will last seven to nine years before the end of the world. The Shi'ites in particular believe that the Twelfth Imam will be al-Mahdi, who will herald the coming of the golden age and the Last Day.

 

I, for one, without intending any disrespect, prefer to believe that there will be no Messiah coming; that we, in effect, are the Messiah who can usher in the golden age, if we only choose to make it so. I offer a simple common sense principle for your kind consideration: If you know something to be true, then believe in it. If you don't know something to be true, then ask yourself, "Is this thing worth believing in?" If the answer is yes, believe in it. If the answer is no, then let it go.

 

For me, the idea of a Messiah coming here to make things right doesn't seem to coincide with current realities on the ground. And waiting for the Messiah to come, can make a dangerous world even more dangerous. It makes more sense, and is less risky, to assume that making things right is up to us. If we've messed things up, doesn't it make more sense that it is up to us to undo what we've done, and to bring a semblance of order to this good earth?

 

Suppose I'm wrong. It could happen. Suppose the Messiah will eventually make his presence known. Well, if we assume that it is up to us to make things better, and if we do just that, then his coming will be like the icing on the cake. He will come only to find that we beat him to the punch by taking things into our own hands, and making things better, in preparation for his arrival. If, however, he never comes, then we would have still made the world better, relying on our own redemptive powers, instead of waiting for things to come.

 

You see, that's how common sense works. It covers you coming and going. Any way you turn, it's right there, ready to guide your way along the path of life, like a compass you carry with you, the universal moral compass of common sense.

Is there any validity to some of the claims being made by the ideological extremists in the Middle East? The answer is probably yes. If they look to the past, they can point to the Crusades, and more recently to the injustices wrought by colonialism. If they look to the present, they can point to the accelerated spread of Western culture and influence, and to the reality of Western economic and military power, as posing a threat to their religious beliefs, and their way of life. If they look to the future, they can point to the strong possibility that the West will continue to capture the imagination of young people, even in the Muslim world, at the expense of the rich legacy of Islamic culture and tradition.

 

There is no question that the Western model for civilized behavior is becoming the norm in many areas around the world. Look at the spread of capitalism in China, India, and Russia. There is also no question that Western thinking stands in stark contrast to certain interpretations of Islam, particularly the interpretations as enunciated by ideologues like Osama Bin Laden, and others like him. And so, from the point of view of the ideological extremist, Western civilization has threatened his version of Islam in the past, continues to threaten it in the present, and will continue to threaten it in the future.

 

It is not that the ideological extremists don't have a point. It is rather that they miss the point by advocating indiscriminate violence. As Robert F. Kennedy used to say, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

 

The ideological extremists could legitimately say that their way of life, their traditions, and their religious beliefs are being threatened by forces beyond their control such as globalization and the spread of Western civilization. And the answer would be to find ways for religious belief to co-exist with modernity, to use common sense to find common ground. But the minute you advocate on behalf of violence, you undermine whatever legitimacy you may have had, because the call for violence will bring into question the legitimacy of your positions, especially positions predicated on religious belief. "Religious violence," so prevalent in our world, should be considered an oxymoron, the sooner the better.

 

To have any credibility, an advocate on behalf of religion must advocate on behalf of peace. Religious belief, by its very nature, points us in the direction of peace, not of killing. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all teach that man was created in God's image. Therefore, when we choose to kill one another, aren't we, in effect, spitting on God's face, by undoing the sanctity of His creation, the part of His creation that mirrors Him?

 

There are legitimate ways to deal with the threats which are perceived by the ideological extremists. We recognize that they are trying to hold on to their deeply held beliefs. We know that they believe that their actions, of behalf of their religion, are being judged by God. We can agree that they should have the right to compete for the hearts and minds of their young. We can admit that things have happened in the past, on all sides, and are continuing to happen in the present, which are unjust, and which undermine the pride of a very proud people. And we are prepared to work together to build bridges, so that the noble traditions of Islam could be passed on from generation to generation.

 

But having said all that, we have no choice but to conclude that to advocate indiscriminate violence, even in the name of our closely held beliefs, is morally wrong, and cannot be tolerated within the framework of civilized behavior. Whatever legitimacy the extremists may have had, is negated and made null and void by their willingness to kill indiscriminately. The hope is to find a way to bridge the ideological divide by saving face, by restoring pride, by Selling a Vision of Hope, and by leaving by the wayside the inclination to kill.