How to Discuss Religion Without Appeasing Tyrants
by Mary
Madigan
Pajamas Media
April 14, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2118/how-to-discuss-religion-without-appeasing-tyrants
When discussing religion, how do we know when respecting
apparently faith-based beliefs leads to contempt for our beliefs? Should
we tolerate the intolerant? These questions are particularly relevant when
a secular political body, the United Nations, recently passed an
anti-blasphemy measure (backed by the 57-state Organization of the Islamic
Conference) combating "defamation
of religions."
The Columbia University School of Law conference Candor or Respect: Talking About
the Religion of Others, held on February 26, was supposed to focus
on the treatment of all religions within the realms of the public sphere
(governance, diplomacy, and journalism). It was not supposed to
concentrate solely on Islam. But these days, when a discussion focuses on
religion, and when panel members agree that "there is reason to believe
that a failure of either candor or respect could be profoundly dangerous,"
the subject of Islam will tend to take center stage.
As several panelists noted, the association of religion with
profound danger and abuse would not have occurred to the majority of the
population ten years ago. But we all understand the concept now. Speaker
Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society said, "We've seen a shift" in the
concept of respect for religion since pre-Cold War times. The old
definition, described in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, concerned the need to protect religious belief against
coercion by the state. The religious defamation resolution that was passed
by the UN Human Rights Council in 2008 defines respect of religion as the
protection of Islam from "attempts
to identify [it] with terrorism, violence, and human rights
violations." As Mr. Leo noted, restraints on criticism of Islam
were not just directed at states; they were also directed against
individuals.
This definition of respect was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, an organization of 57 states that call themselves "the
collective voice of the Muslim world." Flemming Rose, the
Jyllands-Posten editor who published the "Danish
cartoons," understood why the OIC demanded censorship in the name
of "respect." As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, he saw how
the Russian government and mafia used intimidation to gain "respect." In
his Washington Post article titled "Why
I Published Those Cartoons," he said: "I am sensitive about calls
for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of
totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult
and punish the offenders. … The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give
in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed
in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not
appease totalitarian tyrants."
Lately, it's sadly obvious that most Western elites have
changed their policies on appeasing totalitarian tyrants.
In 15-minute segments many panelists offered insights on
dealing with the candor-or-respect issue. Journalist Ari
Goldman admitted that objectivity "is dead." The best option is
for journalists to use "fairness." Respect is what journalists owe the
subject of an article and candor is what they owe the reader.
Faisal Devji,
assistant professor of history at the New School, discussed the
limitations of the law in dealing with boycotts and other protests against
blasphemy. In the following Q&A session, Bat Ye'or, an
Egyptian-born historian who has researched the history of dhimmitude,
pointed out that Islamic law does not recognize these legal
limitations.
When Bat Ye'or spoke as part of a panel discussion on "Why is religion such
a touchy subject?" she investigated the reasons why Muslims were so touchy
about criticism. Muslims believe that the Koran is a "divine truth" and
that the prophet was a perfect model for all to follow, whose every word
and deed was inspired by God. Islam is not just a religion; it's a
lifestyle, a political system, and a legal system. For believers, if one
criticizes only one aspect of the belief, the entire system is under
attack.
Marci Hamilton of Cardozo Law School discussed the tension between what
one is allowed to say about religion and what one is not. This concept was
basically unknown to her ten years ago, when a religious lobbyist told her
that it was "wrong" to use the words "religious" and "lobbyist" in the
same sentence. But when she found out about this unwritten and
unenforceable law, she lightly noted that she was determined to say those
words in the same sentence every day.
Legal theorist Brian Tamanaha discussed the way the subject of religion can cause
disagreements among friends or colleagues who otherwise agree on most
principles. Of all of the insightful observations expressed during this
conference, this one was very apt. The majority of the speakers agreed
about basic political issues: most disagreed with the UN and the OIC's
attempt to stifle free speech; most agreed that respect should be earned,
not forced through intimidation. All agreed that nations based on Sharia
law were totalitarian states, attempting to impose their legal system on
the rest of the world. But when the subject of religion and discussions
about faith began, panelists were criticized (and criticized each other)
for not respecting or condemning enough. Since the introduction of
religion to a discussion does tend to create insolvable conflict, even
among allies, how can issues of candor or respect be resolved?
Keeping religion out of political discussions would be one
solution, but these days that's not an option. Philip Hamburger
of Columbia Law School, who arranged the conference, said that
before 9/11 there was a brief period in human history in which we could
pretend that religion didn't matter anymore. Then, he said, it "all came
crashing down." Religion matters, so we have to deal with it.
David Littman, a
UN historian and human rights activist, whose right to speak out
against Sharia law is relentlessly censored by
other UN delegates, suggested that we follow the advice of Sir Karl Popper,
who said:
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are
intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against
the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed,
and tolerance with them. …
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the
right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Another useful idea to remember is the quote often
attributed to Voltaire: "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." The violent Muslim reaction to Jyllands-Posten's
publication of the Muhammad cartoons was an attempt, organized by Islamist
states like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, to enforce
Sharia law in Europe. The Western government and media response to
this violent intolerance and this attack against our laws was, for the
most part, submission. The elites showed that they were not willing to
stand beside the people who bravely created and published the drawings.
They were not willing to risk death or even mild social discomfort to
defend our rights. This obsequious reaction proved to the Islamists that
they had free rein to bully us further.
The opponents of the "anti-blasphemy" resolution need to put
various divisive religious and cultural arguments aside, and we need to
unify to defend our right not to tolerate the intolerant. In addition to
Littman and the participants in the conference, many rational
voices are speaking out against the United Nations' attempt to
make the "anti-blasphemy" resolution binding for member nations. The West
missed — or chickened out of — our last opportunity to defend our rights.
We can't let that happen again.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-to-discuss-religion-without-appeasing-tyrants/
Mary Madigan, publisher of the Exit Zero blog, wrote this
article for Islamist Watch.
Related Topics: Freethinking & Muslim
apostasy | 
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment