Extorting “respect” is disrespectful; Capitulating is moral sanction
I don’t think I used the word "brilliant" enough in the last post.
Here’s a brilliant article by Christopher Hitchens from Slate on the hypocritical one-way street of tolerance regarding the demands and sensibilities of Muslims. The argument applies to any group demanding "respect" at the price of other group’s respect or any individual’s rights; the religion of Islam is simply among the more current brandishers of this flawed logic and emotionalism. The sad and dangerous thing is that until about the 20th century, this argument would have been rejected from political and intellectual discussions as an example of the kind of childist, petulant threats of violence that the Modern Era explicitly left behind.
See also from the Principles in Practice blog:
The Rushdie Fatwa and ‘Religion vs. Free Speech’
America’s Sanction of Its Enemies
US Should Shut Down Al Hurra TV
Don’t Extend the ‘Hate-Crime’ Law - Abolish It
The UN Human Rights Council’s War on Human Rights
UCLA Penalizes Student Group’s Exercise of Free Speech
Iran Sponsors Terrorism, US Seeks ‘Dialogue’
US Negotiates with Iran, Iran wins
The Real Disgrace: Washington’s Battlefield ‘Ethics’
Study of Troops’ Mental Health, Ethics Indicts Bush’s Selfless War
Diplomacy Only Encourages North Korea’s Belligerance
Speaking In (and of) Tongues
li>
One should bear in mind that there are many God-fearing muslims that wouldn’t dream of raising their fists in anger toward another - ever. If you look at the East with the same eyes in which you view the west 1000 years ago, you get a more complete paradigm of Islamic society. Much of the eastern world is still very fuedalistic. This is not so much a question of theolgy but one of cultural developement. Duels to the death ensue because of one man having insulted another man’s goat. This happened in Europe 1000 years ago, happened in places like USA not more than 200 years ago (wild west), and happened in places like Japan and Korea well into the 1900’s. We take care not to offend because we are living in the societal norms by which we are judging people who are not. My opinion does carry with it a bit of ethnocentricity, but if one follower of Christ, he doesn’t publically burn books or speak ill of another monotheistic religion, because to do these things is disrespectful and escalatory. Much more is expected of us.
Great blog, by the way!
John
Comment by John — August 6, 2007 @ 5:46 am
Thanks for your comment; you have many good and relevant observations. I agree that the Middle East and related geographies’ cultures are still very feudalistic (I would say tribalistic, but I’ll avoid that tangent), and the comparison to Europe of 1000AD is quite apt with one key difference: Europe of 1000AD did not have the example of Western culture of 2000AD, whereas the modern Middle East does. That these people (the ones I am most concerned with, anyway) have a global view and global aspirations (however fragmentary and skewed) is obvious.
A crucial next question then is, Why are they still so medieval? At some level of the culture (and therefore of all individuals - some much more than others) it must be willful, that is, a product of choice. Why, then, do they choose as they do? And an even more important follow-up question to that is, Are all cultures and philosophies equally good? Equally valuable? And to whom, and for what reason? Is cultural diversity a value in and of itself? If we are to draw a line, and say that some cultures are better than others, by what criteria do we do that, and for what purposes?
This of course far exceeds the scope and purpose of the articles linked to above, but this blogger, for one, thinks that one can evaluate cultures much as one can evaluate the characters of men, and that although before objective law all men are created and viewed on equal grounds, not all men make for themselves honorable characters. I therefore find that some individuals are better and more valuable than others, and likewise some cultures are better and more valuable than others. Far from a tribalistic motivation for ‘ethnocentricity,’ I look at the requirements for civil, healthy human survival and thriving, and ask which attitudes, which philosophies, what kind of social systems make that kind of life possible and sustainable, and then ask - which elements of which existing cultures meet these criteria, and which are in flagrant, dangerous defiance of them? And then I judge cultures accordingly, to the best of my ability. I think such an analysis (beyond my full ability and purpose right now) would show why modern Islamic cultures are by and large so backward and so dangerous.
And as knowledge is a means for effective action, knowledge from such an analysis then immediately informs the actions necessary to protect the healthy elements of modern, (mostly Western) culture, at the individual and national levels, from the snarling, scheming feudalists who threaten human well-being the world over - however small a minority they are in their native, enabling cultures.
Respect is granted where respect is deserved, and denunciation is meted out as a similarly just desert. Both act to protect human life as it should be. And while I am content to allow others to lead their lives as they see fit, no matter how different from mine, their right to do so ends where I, my life, and my rights begin. And to the degree that I am able, in the ways in which I am able, I will fight back both the existential transgression and the mindset that is the motor behind it.
Comment by praxical — August 6, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Praxical,
You’re very astute. But…
Keep in mind, the tribes of which we are speaking are featured on CNN; they themselves don’t watch CNN (on that point, Oh, how I envy them!)
As far as having an example of modern western culture…
I’m not sure if the French, English, and Italian “Tribes” would’ve been better off with Nietzche, Microwaves, and credit card debt. Third-world tribes or societies are as misrepresented as we are. What if even 80% of their exposure to 20th cent. western culture is CNN and a military presence. I would argue that they don’t have the same opportunity for societal maturation as you are I do.
Today is my day off of work, so I find a good argument on the web. I’m sitting back in my $1200 couch, enjoying some debate with a seemingly highly educated person about our philosophy of how we should view the’lesser cultures.’
“Why are they still so midieval?”
It’s a question of hermeneutics. Like it or not, western society has been LARGELY shaped and influenced by the Pope, or the office of the Pontiff. Our Christianity (and our Christian, and Christian-derived secular society has behind it 2000 years of hermeneutics, revelations. Developed ideas about the value of human life, the importance of the law of charity, etc.
All of the world’s major religions, in their maturity, point to Christ, if not directly. But love of God and love of neighbor are paramount, yes? Read the Koran and you will, over time, see evidence of this pointing to Christ, as well. It is easy to see violence in historical scripture (Maccabees, hello?)
Hermeneutics, in continual fashion has shaped our society in the west, atheist or monk.
My point being, exposure to a “better way” is only as effective as one’s perception thereof.
Comment by John — August 6, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
I don’t take census data, or statistics, or majorities of anything, as defining what is possible for a group - family, tribe, nation or culture. The numbers are interesting, and contain information, to be sure, but they rarely reveal the essence or animation of a phenomenon the way outliers and ‘purists’ and extreme cases do, if only because it’s easier to contextually understand one person (however odd he may be) than to contextually understand a hundred million people.
Therefore, given my purposes for observation, fact that most poor people (of this culture or of others) are not laden with opportunities on a par with those that you and I have, and have had, is not relevant for the ‘motors’ of a culture I am concerned with. (I tried to draw a line around this distinction in the first paragraph above, but clearly it was too vague). As is implicit in your arguments, most people are largely on the receiving end of a culture, an economy, a geography, and so forth. They do not create a culture so much as experience it.
The flipside is, as you pointed out about the Pope and Catholic Church’s influence on Western culture, it is a small group of people who *do* influence, change, direct and thereby create a philosophy and a culture. It is their choices and actions which most lastingly reverberate through history - and the countless people who constitute that history. Although each man owns his actions, some are more responsible than others - in the realms of both credit and blame.
And, althought there is great heterogeneity within any multi-million-person group, it is still meaningful to speak about a group collectively so long as its members are more similar in the relevant respects than those judged not to be part of the group. In doing so, we can look at the nature, action and effects of abstractions such as ideas and philosophies and cultures, even though the full story may not play itself out in the life of any single individual. Nevertheless, such abstractions are always and only derived from the (many) people that hold them, and there is no sense in damning or praising an idea or a way of life while ignoring those who chose it for themselves (and there are many kinds of choice, here, not all equally culpable).
As to the issues of exposure to other cultures, and one’s perception, I would first substitute the word ‘judgment’ or ‘opinion’ for ‘perception’, in order to distinguish it from ’sensory perception’ and highlight the conceptual nature of those perceptions. After that, the above paragraphs apply, but let me be more concrete here: The people most responsible for the culture of Islam - in creating, intellectualizing, disseminating, and directing it in any slice of history - are a tiny fraction of practitioners of that religion; a larger but still tiny percentage of the practitioners have the opportunity (usually resulting from wealth, rank, ‘connections’, or achievement of some kind) to intersect with that group of creators, even if they don’t create anything new for themselves.
In our day and age, as the intellectuals, peri-intellectuals, and the financially elite, it means these people *do* have comparatively huge ‘exposure’ and opportunity to ideas of other cultures and philosophies. In many cases, they *are* surfing the web and watching CNN (if only for laughs) and experiencing other ideas and other parts of the world first-hand. These are the few of Islam that have a choice, and a tremendous choice at that - the ability and choice to pursue information and ideas - Islamic or Christian or secular, in religion and history and science and politics and anything else - and they must choose at some level how to evaluate and deal with clashing information, clashing values, clashing interests. Most often, these people *must* hold their values and philosophies more explicitly than others in order to deal with new and difficult situations; they must recollect their current values, observe the present situation, identify discrepancies with their values, and weigh old against new, choose a standard, judge, and act – sometimes in small bits, sometimes at the grandest scale over a long period of time. It is their choices, as reflected in their actions, words, policies, and example, that ‘trickle down’ through their cultures, often like a tidal wave when viewed from an historian’s perspective. These key choices, and the lines of reasoning that motivate them, are a window on a worldview, as they most plainly expose the fundamentals animating it.
And in Islam, it is precisely from these privileged few that the purest, clearest attacks on individual rights and America stem. Yes, there are many dishonorable things about American culture, but that is true of all cultures and nations today. So what very European and American *ideas* do they consistently and vehemently denounce, when distilled from the many and diverse concrete examples? Why is America a particular target? What do we symbolize and stand for that is so objectionable and incompatible with their worldview?
I think that at the broadest scale - at the level of wide abstractions that both subsume and explain a myriad of particulars - we are disliked for our economic *system*; for the premises that make our politics a very different *sort* than the kind of Islamic politics some would like to institute globally; for our (comparative) secularism, particularly in law which is formally cleaved from religion (not an exhaustive list, but hopefully representative). And these in turn can be boiled down to individual rights in the technical meaning – an individual’s exclusive right to his own life. The idea (if not the written words) of individual rights is the common and animating basis of laissez-faire capitalism (not purely our system today, but historically and intellectually it is), of a Declaration of Independence, of a constitutionally limited government, and of a Bill of Rights (for individuals). These then make the ideals of Enlightenment both possible and practical – values such as independence, self-esteem, optimism, ambition, and productivity. Taken singly, each of these may be found elsewhere. Taken as a group and interconnected by purpose, history and logical principle, America is the odd duck of the last 1500-2000 years.
In short, I don’t think it’s an accident that many of the most well-educated, wealthy, opportunity-laden and powerful figures of the religion and culture of Islam push the ‘extremist’ position and consequently pose a very real danger to other nations and cultures the world over, and America in particular. Do they speak for and reflect the essence of Islam more than the destitute and uneducated of their countries who have known and will likely know nothing else? I think so.
And, finally, I should point out that many tribal peoples in non-Islamic cultures have no trouble grasping the basics of other ways of life, and Western culture in particular. In many cases their ‘exposure’ to it comes from the intellectuals and multiculturalists of their country smearing the shallow, decadent, capitalist ways of America and her ilk. Many of these people are minimally literate (if at all), will never leave their county (or equivalent), and would consider it a success to live past 50. And yet my experience with such people has been overwhelmingly positive. The more educated, ambitious and/or mentally active they are, the more they think well of America and basics of our way of living and working and the “American” reasons for it: not hand-outs or sympathy or special treatment, but freedom and potential for success and the blessing of expected anonymity: that what most counts at the end of the day is how well and how hard you worked – not where you’re from or how you’re different or how unique or sad your story is. It’s a land of high rewards for anyone willing to work for it (though less so today than 100 years ago), and those rewards originated from the hard work and vision of other people.
Any time I spoke of hard work, thinking long-term, planning ahead, making hard decisions, scrimping and saving, and how many American’s *don’t* have it easy like they think - their smiles only got wider. Much to the chagrin of the newspaper editors and university professors and other cultural leaders, exposure is not sufficient so long as people are free to think. I’ve been happily surprised to see how many people lacking so very much, resolutely and unabashedly make the most of and defend the one opportunity they do have: to think.
One last joust: I nominate Ancient Greece, not Christianity, for having the greatest influence on Western culture, stemming from Plato with his other-worldly metaphysics and ineffable epistemology as taken up by Christianity later, and Aristotle with his incredible grasp of so many subjects, but crucially biology and logic, and his vision of the proud, self-made man of virtue. Indeed, it was Aristotle that fueled the Enlightenment, Aristotle as the cause of the rebirth of men’s minds in the Renaissance, Aristotle as introduced to the west through the cognitive devotion and meticulous applications of Aquinas, Aristotle breaking away from Plato’s teachings in so many crucial respects and specifying and demonstrating a methodology for living and thinking in This World, whose discoveries and their rediscovery made it possible for searching intellects in darker, distant times to see with earthly eyes once more and to be the light that was the dawn of the Age of Reason.
Comment by praxical — August 7, 2007 @ 12:30 am