Hitchens and Manji
Hitchens explains what’s really worrying about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (it’s not the location of the planned Islamic cultural center):
For example, here is Rauf’s editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.
Roughly translated, Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs.
In other words, totalitarian theocracy. Imam Rauf was saying Obama should say his administration respects the guiding principle of totalitarian theocracy. No he shouldn’t. No, he really really should not say that, anywhere, ever.
Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject were that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything “offensive” to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …
And no, this kind of thing is not part of the glorious patchwork of benign multiculturalism, it’s the entry point for communal theocracy.
Irshad Manji also has useful things to say.
If Park51 gets built, thanks to its provocative location the nation will scrutinize what takes place inside. Americans have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.
• Will the swimming pool at Park51 be segregated between men and women at any time of the day or night?
• May women lead congregational prayers any day of the week?
Of course, people who make a fetish of “tolerance” without really thinking about what it should mean tend to think questions of that kind are none of their business. That’s why they need, as Manji points out, to think about all this, not just emote about it.
I think it’s wonderful that Irshad Manji is trying to develop a moderate, demoractic Islam suitable for the West, but I think it is all a dream, a rather sad, hopeless dream. Just read her list of questions. You just know what the answers will be from the only Islam that would remain credible to its millions of believers. There is simply no way that Islam is going to adopt a point of view that respects “individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.” Even after three hundred years of Englightenment thinking Christianity is not prepared to do this, and Christianity doesn’t have the sacred book problem that Islam does.
Islam believes that every single word (aside from the embarrassing ‘satanic verses’ — there should be a lot more embarrassment), even every single syllable (since early Arabic script causes all sorts of problems here) of the Qu’ran is dictated by God himself, first to Gabriel, then the Mohammed, and then, infallibly, Mohammed rememberd and reported exactly God’s words and no others, and then just those words were recorded and are inerrantly written in the Qu’rans available today. It’s simply a mad mad idea, but it’s part of Islam, and there’s no point in Ms. Manji trying to pretend that Islam is fine for women and lesbians and everyone else.
It’s good that Ms. Manji thinks these questions are important to answer. She cannot really think that they will receive the answers she wants, and it is not clear why she should even entertain the idea. As they stand, they are simply anti-Islamic questions. The questions themselves pillory and condemn Islam, because Ms. Manji knows that Imam Rauf cannot answer those questions in the way that will uphold her commitment to liberal freedoms. I don’t know why she should expect that he would. Religions simply don’t work this way. She is living in a dream world, a very nice dream perhaps, but, I regret to say, a dangerous one, because it suggests, what is by no means clear, that Islam could answer those questions in a way that would respect individuals and their rights. I know of no version of Islam of which this is true. (I don’t know a version of Christianity which, when push came to shove, would respect individuals and their rights either. That’s a growing problem, and the reason that so many Christians are now seeking theocratic answers.)
And just remember, when all the answers to these questions are in, the Qu’ran and the Hadith are standing there unchanged, and Mohammed’s example, as Wafa Sultan says, is still spreading its poison into Muslim minds. This is a man who murdered people for plunder, and enslaved their women and children, distributing them as booty amongst his thugs. This is a man who at fifty married a girl of six and consummated the marriage at 9. Can any good come from such a source? I say no. I am with Salman Rushdie who ended his interview with Irshad Manji with the remark that he does not see any place for reform in Islam, and gave up on it long ago. Manji immediately said, “Oh, now here comes the patronising!” But Rushdie knows there is no way that Islam can change into a good democratic citizen.
I think Hitchens’ questions are important. I do not think we are going to hear any satisfactory answers. The ‘cultural centre-mosque’ project was bound to raise them, and it is quite clear that, in this situation, there are not going to be any answers. There is is no way that a project deliberately centred on Ground Zero could possibly help with inter-cultural/inter-religious understanding. Of course, people are going to emote about it. But even after all the thought and emotion has been poured out, Islam will remain the same, because Islam already knows, and it is not going to change its mind. Why does anyone think that it might? Until the majority of Muslims are prepared to make the declarations Sam Harris suggests, Islam will remain unsafe, and they are not going to make those declarations.
Once again, sorry to go on so at length.
Ophelia,
I couldn’t find a place for a “general letter” section so maybe I am bit off-point (but it’s really the same general subject of reality-based thinking.)
So I want to comment on linking to Susan Jacoby on multiculturalism Please don’t.
While I agree with Jacoby’s general and even specific intent, her article is very poor, with few facts, and enough inuendo and assertion to turn me off about her; and I don’t think she should be cited. It’s filled with nothing.
For example (and I think it is typical) she says”
“….Some have even suggested that dissidents like Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie have exaggerated the threats against them in order to promote their books. Such slanderous statements are invariably followed by, “This is off the record, you understand.”
That’s a sad remark. It means nothing — “Some even suggested…” but then she offers a very firm and specific denigration — “…exaggerated the threats against them in order to promote their books…”
I think it’s disgusting, an attack by rumor. So please beware of Jacoby.
Thanks for posting this. I really liked both of Hitchens’ articles on this topic. I didn’t know about Manji’s article before I read this post. I hope for more secular criticism of Islam and less of the discrimination from people who really just don’t like people who are different from them. I sometimes feel that the secular criticism is not listened to, with more attention paid (in the media) to those who actually discriminate.
Although I disagree with all religions, I am glad that Manji is speaking out in favor of a different Islam with equal rights. I may not think her version of God exists either, but at least there’s a change for the kind of faith that isn’t going to threaten other people’s lives. I don’t know how likely this is to be successful, but it’s worth a try.
Eric – it’s funny that you cite Rushdie’s interview with Manji, because I found her article because he posted a link to it at Facebook. Approvingly.
We talked about this issue in Stockholm, too – is Irshad Manji just deluded? I said well yes, pretty much, and the others pretty much thought so too. But…maybe she can be a bridge between people who think Islam-means-peace or Islam-is-about-justice or all-religions-are-about-compassion and people who think religions should be gently slid out to pasture.
Ani – quite; more Hitchens and less Palin and Co on this subject.
David, I don’t agree at all that Jacoby’s article is filled with nothing. I see quite a lot of substance, along with commentary – Hirsi Ali’s book and some of the facts about her life and career; Kristof’s review (which I also hated, and commented on here); what she has heard professors of religious studies and multiculturalism say; some history; Prince v Massachusetts; a friend of hers; the American Enterprise Institute; the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress; the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress. I can’t see why you say it’s full of nothing.
David, I’m sorry but that’s nonsense about Jacoby. She’s not endorsing the slanderous comments about Hirsi Ali and Rushdie; she’s condemning them.
And much as some journalistic practices annoy me, I don’t see any reason to doubt that such comments were made to her by some people with the caveat that it’s off the record. People dealing with journalists frequently give “information” and opinions that they are not prepared to stand by with their name attributed to what they said. It’s a common tactic in PR, and I even I have done it in an earlier phase of my career. I don’t think I’d do it now, since I now just speak for myself – rather than for a client or whatever – and I’m prepared to put my name to my own opinions. But what Jacoby says sounds perfectly plausible, and it’s legitimate for her to mention the slurs and condemn them – though not to attribute them if they really were given to her “off the record”. That’s simply how the game is played – maybe it’s not ideal, but you can’t blame Jacoby.
Of course, you wouldn’t want to put too much weight on it, since it’s not the kind of thing that can be checked easily. I wouldn’t want to base an argument on something so evidentially flimsy. But I don’t see anything wrong with her saying what she said.
I heartily agree with Hitchens that the issue deserves more critical thinking; it’s been oversimplified by the two camps getting mainstream attention: the “civilization clashers” and the “unquestioned tolerance” crowd (my own oversimplification, I suppose). Sad that this is so. It would be good to hear from Rauf himself: what does he think of Manji’s questions? In any case, I cannot see how anything but an emotive argument is possible from either side. The sorts of questions we or Hitchens or Manji might wish to ask are apparently not permissible in our current political climate. And Alan Sokal was right (again) in his brief talk titled “Truth, Reason, Objectivity, and the Left,” when he said that “truth, reason, and objectivity are values worth defending no matter what one’s political views….” A simple and eloquent point that’s extremely hard to accept for those who are utterly, unquestioningly committed to their ideologies.
I agree with what is said about Rauf and indeed about Islam, here. I don’t see how this religion can be moderated (I don’t see how any religion except perhaps Quaker and Unitarian) can be moderated and secular. I don’t think that tolerance is the key point in supporting the right of the group to build this Community Center thingy as long as they meet zoning requirements. If none of the religions I loathe for whatever reasons were to be allowed to build their buildings according to local ordinance we just wouldn’t have any edifices in the U.S. and A. Which would be fine with me, except it is not a legal proposition to make. If it was up to me there would be no Catholic Churches on the prairies of Minnesota, which were “ground zero” to slaughters of Indians and the capture of their children for Catholic orphanages. Everywhere is a “ground zero” for someone.
For those who are opposed to the center because of the “sensitivity” issue, I see a great deal of dis-ingenuousness. For those who support it because Rauf is one of the “moderates” I see a great deal of foolishness.
Eric
Maybe Manji’s version of Islam has no relation to the Islam practiced today. But you are effectively saying Jesus shouldn’t have preached because the Jews wouldn’t change Judaism.
Indeed.
It is consistently appalling, and downright shocking, to see how readily some liberal-minded folks will tolerate the most egregious kinds intolerance. The appalling part is that they do so; the shocking part is that they do so in the name of “tolerance.”
I think Mike has pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Deepak. You said.
Nonsense. Jesus didn’t change Judaism. The earliest Christians were probably a particularly conservative Jewish sect called the Ebionites, who had a special role for Jesus as Messiah. This was eventually marginalised by Hellenistic Christianity, which was a Greek salvation cult, probably created by St. Paul. The Ebionites simply disappear from history. And Judaism, don’t forget, still exists, and is as committed to the Torah as the Pharisees ever were. Arguably, the conservative Jews of today are far more committed to the book than their predecessors in first century Palestine. Christianity, like Islam, is a new religion with a new holy book, and has its own problems with redefinition, as religions of the book invariably do.
Of course, at the same time, I agree with Mike. This has nothing to do with the question of the Ground Zero mosque or cultural centre, and the right of people to build it. I think, however, that any Muslims who plan to build such a centre for the purposes of intercultural or interreligious understanding are deluded. Religions have their own reasons for building buildings, and they very seldom look to the good of the society around them, and certainly very little to the good of other religions. I have seen hundreds of English churches, and country churchyards. They are often beautiful and quaint, but they were once expressions of power. They were practically always the biggest buildings around, and they stood as warnings to the people who lived in their shadow of the promises of reward for a few, and eternal punishment for the many who neglected the church’s teachings, and failed to provide for its sustenance. In 1990, as I recall, the sign at the entrance to Canterbury Cathedral claimed that it cost 6000 pounds a day (or was it an hour?) to support the building and its staff. Religious buildings gobble money, and express social power. People may have a right to build them, but no one should forget what they are for.
One can think that building such an instution is foolish or worse, one can think the people involved are even reprehensible theocrats. But I think a democratic society has to tolerate foolish (or worse) choices. That said, Hitchens is right to debate and expose anything and everything about what is held by the people involved. Remember what Mill and Chomsky and others have said about getting things out in the open where they can be seen?
OK. Can we start asking Christians this, too?*
I mean, if we’re talking about crazy theocrats, there are plenty of Christian ones in this country – including powerful organizations – fighting with all their might against those ideals. A presidential candidate called for changing the Constitution to conform to “the word of the living God”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M
and I don’t recall many people making these arguments about Baptist (or Republican) centers.
*My Bible camp had separate swim times for boys and girls. Once, I left behind a flip-flop and went back to fetch it during the boys’ swim. The adults scolded me and made me cry. I have little doubt the segregation continues.
Would finding out answers to the various questions about Rauf and the practices of the proposed center change the underlying debate about whether it should be built? If so, how and in what way? (Is it OK to “be in favor of” the center if it promises not to segregate the swimming pool, but OK to be against it if it does segregate the pool?)
Does Manji suggest that we should also ask these questions of a rabbi proposing construction of an Orthodox Jewish Temple? Why is it that we can only ask this of Islam, and only at this spot? If Manji is serious about the importance of the “highest American ideals”, and isn’t just jumping on the bandwagon against this particular mosque, why aren’t these central issues in the construction of any religious building? I personally agree with Manji’s principle, but I question the sincerity of the statement, or at least how generally Manji is willing to apply it. It seems instead to be another excuse to oppose this particular project.
Heck, there are large Hasidic communities in Brooklyn in which virtually everything is sex-segregated (and unequal).
Tulse – who is “we”? Who says “we can only ask this of Islam, and only at this spot”? I don’t, and Manji doesn’t. Manji’s point is more like “we can ask this of Islam too, and at this spot too.” And she is a reformist Muslim; that’s her gig; so that’s what she talks about. I think it’s a bit ugly to say you question her sincerity.
If you belong to a religion to which the same questions about civic values can rightfully be asked, you should be asking them about all religions including your own or none at all. Otherwise, it’s ridiculous hypocrisy. The use of “Americans” works to camouflage the fact that many Americans belong to religions that are completely hostile to basic democratic ideals and have immense influence – far more than that of Muslims – in thwarting their actualization in this country. This presentation allows them to hide in the category of “the nation” or “Americans of all faiths and no faith” without being called out themselves. No way. I’m not saying these aren’t good questions to ask of the center-builders, or that this sort of critical engagement isn’t of value, but I’m not about to let this “Americans of all faiths” go by without comment.
@Tulse:
You say, “Does Manji suggest that we should also ask these questions of a rabbi proposing construction of an Orthodox Jewish Temple? Why is it that we can only ask this of Islam, and only at this spot?”
Perhaps we can ask it of Islam with respect to this “spot” and others, too, because of the times we live in? If Christianity and Judaism, etc., currently posed a similar geo-political threat (and, hm, perhaps an argument could be mounted to show this, I don’t know), then your concern with all religious buildings/projects being treated to the same scrutiny might seem more warranted?
Except that this list of questions (including the strange suggestion that this is public in the same manner as the Pentagon) appears to have been developed for this organization, and there’s no mention of their having been directed to, say, any (non-Muslim) of these:
http://www.citidex.com/189.htm
In the US, Christianity not only poses a threat to civic values, it has shaped our reality, resulting in a lack of basic human rights for many people. I’m quite sure many people around the world view evangelical Christianity, especially as highly influential in the US military, as a threat. The RCC causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the suffering of millions around the world through its opposition to women’s and reproductive rights and democracy (from support of bloody dictatorships and right-wing coups to hostility to currents of Catholicism working for social justice.
And are Jewish women’s rights less important if ultra-Orthodox Judaism doesn’t pose (and to the extent that they influence Israeli policy, they may well) a “geo-political threat” to particular countries?
@ Sally Current
Yes, I see your point and have also contemplated the ways in which many other religions/religious practices pose geo-political and civic threats around the world. So, I don’t know–or have not firmly decided yet–what the most reasonable stance w/respect to the Islamic center is. Again, I just wish that public discourse of the sort that gets mainstream media attention in the US were more frank, more open to tackling the sorts of questions we’re raising here.
I agree. *sigh*
(I should also note that it’s difficult to express my loathing for radical Islam; I hope no one’s reading me as minimizing that.)
Well, sure, but again, Manji’s expertise is in Islam, so that’s what she addresses. She’s also a believer in “people of the book” and “faith” and all that, so that’s why I said she had good things to say rather than saying the whole piece was good. Still – I don’t really disagree, I just figure that’s what you expect from Manji.
As I said above I of course have a problem with one religion being singled out (especially when the questioners include other religious people who don’t have a democratic-rights leg to stand on themselves!). But more generally, I don’t think the freedom of religion allows that kind of scrutiny of religious establishments from outside with an underlying threat that the survival of the institution is contingent on meeting others’ expectations. The quote above sounds like that kind of blackmail. There’s a difference between speaking out against bigoted ideas and fighting religious influence on policy and suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to have a place of worship or community center if they don’t answer “What will be taught about homosexuals?” satisfactorily.* As Mike Haubrich says:
*These questions are just kind of funny in the US context. I can imagine Mormons and Catholics and evangelicals reading through the article and agreeing and then getting to that list and realizing that tack’s not going to work for them….
@26 Salty Current: Well, Islam is arguably being “singled out” here as its adherents want to put up this building. And I certainly don’t think that permission to build should depend upon criteria like its proponents’ answers to Manji’s questions. But, as has been said by Jacoby (to paraphrase), many people are not distinguishing between the legality of the project and its wisdom.
Here’s a different question for them: why don’t you spend the money on something useful? (OB: I expect by now you’ve seen the revelation that one of the project’s main sponsors is a major shareholder in Fox News.)
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/08/fox_news_and_the_manhattan_isl.php
I have a question, OT on this thread, but relevant to a general topic that is being discussed here thoughtfully.
When Ken Piddock down in the comments of 3quarks asked Quinn O’Neil “where is the evidence” re the Phil Plait et. al. “skeptics are mean and nasty people” … meme.
Quinn just cut and pasted from PZ’s comments section. As we all know is a cheep shot.
But … what harm would it do to ask PZ, as landlord of that slum, to renovate the place and police the tenants … a bit more?
B&W for instance would never devolve into a name calling screed because OB exerts a bit of pride in ownership and has more of a broken windows outlook on policing. I’m all for argument and disagreement, and from time to time I think I’ve made mistakes in blog comments – but I also feel like Myers could agree that running a crack house drags down the property values in the hood.
If we are going to ask “where’s the evidence, and they are going to say “Pharingula” … are we just going to say, “well thats just a blog” … why not ask PZ to drain the swamp and shoot the alligators. I really don’t know what good it does?
What is the argument for not being critical of PZ’s toleration of “uncivil” smack talk? Just asking.
Posted by: Quinn O’Neill | Aug 24, 2010 5:30:41 PM
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/08/secularism-and-religious-freedom-a-place-for-everyone.html#more
What a silly comment. Religious people put up buildings – churches, temples, synagogues, community centers – all of the time, all over the place. There are religious buildings in this area and all the hell over New York.
Its wisdom for whom? If it isn’t illegal, they have the right to construct it, and if they aren’t violating the law they have to be able to construct and operate it without having the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. This isn’t the case with other religious groups, nor should it be.
Jacoby’s article is very stupid, and this is one of those created controversies that people in the future will read about and find a puzzling example of our bigotry and pathological incapacity for self-reflection.
Scott – PZ can’t possibly monitor the comments at Pharyngula closely; there are way too many of them. That’s the basic answer really – Pharyngula is just huge, so detailed management isn’t possible.
SC – I don’t think it’s at all a matter of course to have a problem with singling one religion out. They’re not identical, after all, so why would it be wrong to single one out? I sometimes (often) single out the Catholic church, and I sometimes (often) single out Islam; ditto FLDS; ditto Southern Baptists; etc. What’s wrong with that?
And as for the stuff about scrutiny – it’s not clear that that’s such a terrible idea either. I think we should all know what’s being preached in various religious edifices.
@ Eric and Canterbury Cathedral,
I found this since that was an interesting thought …
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/Domesday-Book-timbers-Canterbury-Cathedral-tower/article-1308740-detail/article.html
says it costs more than £14,500 a day to run the cathedral (£600/hour) or about 8 million (US) / annually to operate the building … a pittance for keeping our culture alive.
Even Dawkins has had to lately have himself filmed in churches lovingly admiring the art and architecture.
The sad part about religion is that if you look at what they build these days, touchdown jesus, and utility sheds mostly, you do have to miss the Gothic … don’t you?
So is bringing them up to characterize the blog and commenters without investigating the context. (If you actually read the comments there you would know that I looked up those comments and they were discussed. And we laughed.)
Here’s a project for you: Why don’t you read through all of the comments there by truth machine over a few years and the responses to them? Then do the same with Scott Hatfield and Leigh Williams (or even heddle)? Then spend some time – a few weeks on the Endless Thread, say – interacting with people there. Then you’ll have the slightest basis for an opinion on the matter. Until then, you’re another quote-mining ignoramus mewling about something you don’t understand. Or you’re just trolling. Either way, no one should bother with you.
@ OB re too big to monitor.
reminds me of Yogi Berra’s “it’s too crowded no one goes there anymore”.
but I’m not buying. Myers is helpless to clean up his comments section?
It seems like literally ALL of the childsoldiers in the GNU army live there. PZ flew to Melbourne and was received like a star by our future free thinkers …
http://freethoughtalliance.org.au/2010/03/launch-event-a-success/
He’s like Dennis Rodman of the GNU atheist movement.
and boy did that have barney zwartz seeing red
“Of the record” when used to slime someone (as Jacoby did –and I don’t agree that Jacoby was condeming –she was only tittering) is sicko.
As to the overall article you might also consider the source i.e. The Foundation.
@ SC re walk a mile in their shoes before you condemn them.
You remind me of people who tell Dawkins that he hasn’t read the serious theology or come to terms with X Y or Z argument and therefore he has no business stating his opinion, only funnier because you want me to read an endless thread, and years of comments by someone called “truth machine”.
If I’m wrong, and Pharingula is a well moderated blog, with high standards for civil discourse and the moderators there do a generally good job of keeping out the kind of quotes that O’Neil presented as “exhibit A” … then I apologize.
I assumed that everyone agreed that Quinn O’Neil was correct when he said:
My claim that atheists and skeptics can be nasty is based on observation. As an admin for a pro-evolution Facebook group and an avid reader of ScienceBlogs, I see it often. If you don’t believe me, I suggest the following experiment: The next time PZ Myers, of the ScienceBlog Pharyngula, posts something related to religion, post a comment in defense of religion and see what kinds of responses you get.
by calling me an ignoramus, you seem very close to proving Quinn’s point. But, I’m open to being persuaded that O’Neil is wrong, and that people who “interact” in a place called “the endless thread” are very thoughtful considerate and contemplative people. Though I must admit, you haven’t given me a very convincing argument that that is true.
David, come on, that’s just a drive-by. Jacoby didn’t “slime” anyone in particular; she said what she has heard from people who teach in two disciplines. And she wasn’t “just tittering” – that’s just silly abuse. “Sicko” is not explanatory. I didn’t say “could you please do another, shorter comment repeating your claims but more rudely?” I asked for more, not less but louder.
And I know it’s at the Templeton Foundation.
Ophelia, I think you’re misreading me.
If you single out different ones at different times, you’re not really singling any out. I talk about different ones at different times, too, though probably disproportionately about Catholicism because I focus on Spanish-speaking countries and history. I’m in favor of paying attention to these questions with regard to all religious establishments and openly criticizing them and pointing to the harm they’re doing, but that’s not how this is presented in either of those articles or in the larger discussion. I haven’t heard similar suggestions with regard to evangelical megachurches or Catholic churches or conservative Jewish organizations, and in fact they seem to be included in the “Americans” entitled to approve or reject this project. But more importantly, my objection isn’t to scrutiny per se (though I think there are limits). I wouldn’t particularly care if people single out one or another religion for criticism – we all have our individual concerns – though I do look at people who focus on certain religions that are in their area those of marginalized groups or seem to demonize some while ignoring similar beliefs/practices in others. My problem is with this scrutiny with an implied threat of not allowing people’s churches or community centers to exist. Freedom of religion is meaningless if people have to live in fear of that. I read that implied threat in the Manji piece, particularly in comments like the one about how “Americans” “have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.”
Sigh. It seems to be drive-by hour. Scott, I didn’t say PZ is “helpless”; don’t be silly; but he gets several hundred comments every day; yes, it would take far too long to monitor them carefully. It takes way too long just to skim one thread – I find this out every time I do it.
Literally? All?
Bullshit.
Knock it off.
SC, well I don’t think she meant to imply a threat, but I could be wrong. But I don’t think freedom of religion should be absolute in any case – I wish the free exercise clause had been written differently.
Hey, scott – I couldn’t care less what you’re persuaded of. As I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about and refuse to do any research. I won’t be responding to you again.
scott, how odd that you thought “everyone agreed” with what O’Neill said when I explicitly disagreed with what she (she, not he) said.
now you are just nit picking me on the word “all” …
I don’t think what I’m asking is “bullshit” at all. I’m observing the dialog, quoting O’Neil, you’ve even gone over there and said “is that all you got, Quinn”?
I think it is bullshit that asking the Plaits and O’Neils where their Tom Johnson is gets the answer “in the comments section of Pharingula”.
This SC guy seems to want me to believe that the comments of Pharingula are sublime, and you seem to want me to accept that the torrent of activity makes civility a dubious thing to ask.
Then you hack me for overstating my point (which yes, I did) not ALL the “childsoldiers” are there, but come on, PZ is no AC … I get that.
Is it a crack house or not? Don’t bully me with semantics, don’t call me a troll, don’t tell me I don’t have a point … because I’m not the one making the point, I’m just pointing out that Plait and O’Neil are making the point, and frankly I’m willing to concede that they are right … and it isn’t crazy to tell PZ to declare morning in Atheist America.
No I’m not nitpicking; that was a smartass remark, so I retorted. That was a retort rather than a nitpick. “PZ is no AC” – I have no idea what that means. And SC, like O’Neill, is not a guy.
It may not be crazy to tell PZ to declare morning in Atheist America, whatever that means, but it is crazy to expect him to be able to monitor comments the way I can (since you cited my monitoring).
Really? I think Jeff Chamberlain’s questions @ #15 got at it: “Would finding out answers to the various questions about Rauf and the practices of the proposed center change the underlying debate about whether it should be built? If so, how and in what way? (Is it OK to “be in favor of” the center if it promises not to segregate the swimming pool, but OK to be against it if it does segregate the pool?)” The phrasing of the article does seem to imply active opposition to its continued existence if those questions are answered the wrong way. If the Islam practiced at the site doesn’t conform to “our” expectations, what then? What does “accountability” mean in practical terms?
Well, this is really general, so I’m not sure how to respond, even though I suspect we generally agree.
sorry on the gender confusion
“PZ is no AC”
Just means that men like AC Grayling who are withering in their attacks on religious morality, and who pull no punches are not used by women like O’Neil to illustrate incivility. Or so it seems.
I think that PZ is both capable of, and has a duty to speak in a more inspirational way to “students” of Atheism. He’s a professor, it seems to me, though I can’t prove that he has a “younger” crowd, who like myself once come to my non belief though biology and scientific worldview and his message is often very palatable and yummy for “kids” … kind of like “team america” for biology students who think religion is “stupid”.
Barney, and Quinn and the well meaning “accommodation crowd” who don’t identify with “embryology” as proof positive of the superiority of our world view, are offended by the idea that “religion is stupid” … because they don’t find it stupid at all. They find it all the things they say it is.
Morning in America was simply an attempt at saying, that PZ has a large audience, he’s visible and vocal, and because of that he has influence. Morning in America is considered “effective political” speech.
PZ it seems is the go to guy for examples when we actually get examples that aren’t fabricated out of whole cloth by Tom Johnson.
To whom much is entrusted, much is expected … I think that comes from Luke.
yes, “all the childsoldiers” was a smartass remark, and it is pejorative. I meant it as shorthand for the demographics of pharyngula, who it seems are a younger crowd often oriented to biology and see the denial of evolution as a main theme of religion in the world, and like Ms. Salty Current, did above, take right away to internet manners, using words like “ignoramus” and “troll”.
I’m willing to bet that in person, she’d be much more civil and we’d get on just fine, even fondly but because of how she chose to respond, my emotional self is not inclined to think highly of her, see how that works.
I think we can accept each other’s shorthand a bit more … you jump on me for saying “all”, when you were the one who took my “can’t we ask PZ to police his comments a bit more” … and said, “we can’t expect him to monitor ALL the comments”.
I see these things as being “cultural”. He’s created a “culture” and that is what I’m suggesting he has some say over.
retort, nitpick whatever … I know a crack house when I see one, and I suspect you do too.
Scott, why is it that you think we all care so much about how you don’t like the comments at Pharyngula that you need to bang on about it at such length? You don’t like Pharyngula. The comments offend you. It’s a terrible horrible ghetto slum.
So what? Scott’s Personal Preferences aren’t that important.
Maybe. He certainly appears to have a problem with Pharingula.
Josh, this isn’t about my personal preferences and something I made up, I don’t read the comments, there. I’m responding to what others have said about them and commenting on something that the author of this blog has commented on, though admittedly, I feel like i”m abusing this thread and I don’t want to do that, but I wanted to ask OB what she thought, so I did it here … it hasn’t turned out so good for me. I’ve been called an ignoramus, and people have been critical of my smartass comments and generally denied that what I’m asking is possible or even matters.
The Plait article, the 3 quarks article, the comments on those from Coyne, Benson and Blackford … the exchange between Piddock and O’Neil in the comments of her blog – all goes like this:
1. Statement that Atheists are uncivil and mean
2. response by prominent atheists questioning the validity of the observation, and a demand for evidence of said incivility.
3. Evidence advanced in the form of a. innuendo, b. fictitious “exhibit a” slander, or C. PZ and his blog.
Therefore, all I asked was, why can’t PZ admit that there is possibly some truth to C. admit as much, and cede that point, and say to the unwashed masses to whom he broadcasts whom he presumably can’t control to admit that he could demand more from his commenters, much in the same way that Martin Luther King asked something of his followers, and how Gandhi policed his followers, there are better and worse ways to stand for a thing.
PZ does stunts, and that is a good thing, I’m not telling him to “shut up”.
But tell me, if PZ myers declared that he was going to hunger strike for civility on his blog, and would no longer tolerate incivility to religious people in standing up for the belief that humans are the only source of love we know of in the universe … would we have to keep hearing him and whatever goes on at his URL used as “exhibit A”, by “nice” people like Quinn O’Neil?
Tell me, which would help us more? Which would frost Bill
Tho I’m a fan of PZ and of most of his crowd, I think that’s a very apt point, Scott.
* * *
SC, I understand what you’re saying about all religions having their skeletons in the closets, but it is possible that more progress can be made on a case by case basis than by insisting on a universal approach. While both are important, the former is far more amenable to timely actions (& debate). As with the courts, perhaps we should work on establishing precedents, then building on them.
Additionally, the Hirsi Ali quote Jacoby pulled out of Nomad jumped out at me, too, when I read the book:
While the RCC, for example, is indeed responsible for much suffering world-wide, they are significantly reined in in the US. Perhaps the “wisdom” part of the Ground Zero mosque debate is designed to put Islam on notice that we will (or at least should) be subjecting them to the same scrutiny; that seems to me to be what Hitchens is saying.
I agree that Manji’s goal seems classicly quixotic; OTOH, “pundits” have been saying for some time now that Islam should (& will) eventually undergo the sort of reformation that has made the other monotheisms at least tolerable in Western society. I’ll believe it when I see it, I guess. I should live so long…
Which would frost Bill Donohue’s Catholic League more.
So PZ has a hunger strike for “civility” on his blog.
then, when O’Neil or the next 1000 people who are going to put that meme on endless loop say, atheists are militant and mean too!
Instead of us saying “its just a blog”
We can say, PZ Myers is just like Ghandi!!
He has many times demanded his followers use only very narrow methods of protest and has threatened to hunger strike again if his followers don’t listen. Has the pope ever refused food to keep his followers from violence?
Not sure I’d ever want to say “PZ is just like Gandhi.” :)
And I have to agree with OB that Pharyngula is just too immense to micromanage (which is not to say that a word from the top doesn’t have immediate ramifications).
An interesting thing about Pharyngula is that a sort of self-policing does evolve there. OTOH, there are in-group dynamics that are more fun to observe from a distance than first-hand…And I have a problem with their fine parsing of ad hominem, as if not precisely putting in a “because” (you say so-and-so because you’re an ass) excuses name-calling. There is an art to that, tho–somehow PZ’s own writing effectively employs pejoratives without sounding ad hom; some of his commenters–less so, IMO…It may simply be the fact that he saves his ammunition for those who have truly made asses of themselves, rather than piling on the hapless commenter…
They’re not in any closets. They’re right out there in the open if people are willing to look.
This strikes me as either disingenuous or ingenuous. People have had every opportunity to put these questions to Catholics and evangelicals. As I’ve said now more than once, I’d be very happy to have this be an impetus for this scrutiny, these sorts of questions and challenges – without threats – to be put to all religious groups. But that isn’t where this line of argumentation has appeared to me to be going. I mean, come on – why would it start suddenly, and appear to stop, with a religion that has little power or influence in the US? Why would people keep trying to compare it to Christianity, as though Christianity in the US is totally respectful of democratic values? And then when you bring up Hirsi Ali next I’m given even more pause.
They’re far more powerful than Muslims, and far more powerful than Muslims could hope to become in any reasonable time frame.
This would make sense if Christian and Jewish organizations were subjected to this sort of scrutiny, but they’re not.
This is insanity. The RCC and evangelicals are utterly and completely hostile to “the culture of the Western Enlightenment.” They say so themselves! And they show it in their actions. Why do people not believe them? They are hostile to liberalism; they actively oppose secularization and many human rights. Do I really need to list the Catholic dictatorships and RCC-abetted dictatorships of the past century, describing how people have been imprisoned and made to be forced laborers, tortured and killed, forced to remain in abusive marriages, had their children taken from them? How gay people have been persecuted and tortured by doctors trying to change them? How hundreds of thousands of women have died or seriously injured and children left orphans because of Catholic policies against birth control, sex ed, and abortion? How they keep pushing governments to sign and keep concordats? How they help foment right-wing coups? How they marginalize even Catholics fighting for social justice, even leaving them to be killed? And that’s just the beginning. Southern Baptists reject equality and several human rights. They have tremendous influence in the military, and many see wars as a religious crusade. They propagandize for brutal imperialist policies involving human rights violations (see my last blog post). They make pro-theocracy statements all of the time. I do not find any of their actions tolerable. They are terrifying.
To me, it seems contrary to the democratic values she claims to uphold. And illegal.
They are no such thing.
SC – back at 46 – if there were plans for an Islamic cultural center that planned to have sexual segregation, yes, I would be opposed to that, just as I would if there were plans for a Baptist cultural center that planned to have racial segregation. That doesn’t mean I would be calling for laws against it, but I would be opposed to it.
The fact that Islam has little power or influence in the US doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized, especially given the kinds of power and influence it has in other places.
Scott…all this explaining you had to do, about what you meant. That should tell you that you don’t write very clearly. Saying AC out of nowhere as if I’m supposed to know that you mean Anthony Grayling! Calm down a bit, and try not to be so cryptic. You might meet with less exasperation.
Ah, this format gets confusing. In the following, blockquotes are from SC, with my notes for clarification in [ ]:
That’s good. :) Must remember…
And in the US & other parts of the West, they have. Congregations have been sundered right and left over the question of ordaining homosexuals and/or women…(Well, not the Catholics, obviously. But the questions have been raised, even by priests. I remember a very different US RCC of just 4-5 decades ago.)
If you’re talking about Manji, because she’s a Muslim. If you’re talking about the US anti-mosque crowd in the news, because of politics. But I don’t think the “line of argumentation” you’re talking about is the one that Hitchens, Harris, Jacoby, or most of the posters in this thread are talking about. It’s not “build vs. don’t build.” It’s “build but be vigilant.”
Again, that doesn’t appear to be the argument in this thread or in the writings OB based the post on.
Because?
So, I guess you would know better than she would?
Isn’t this moving the goalposts? We’re talking about present-day Western churches.
And we know about these things because of the scrutiny that you deny exists.
I was speaking of what I perceive to be her overall goal—Islamic reformation. But her specific suggestions are right in line with those of Hitchens & Harris, I’d say.
Well, they do exist with us (seculars) in an imperfect but somewhat workable fashion. I’d rather live in the US of today than the Somalia or Saudi Arabia of Hirsi Ali’s experience. There are certainly countries where the RCC in particular still holds far too much power.
Speaking of your area of expertise, Salty, what is your take on the increasing acceptance of evangelicals in Central America? I am alternately amused and appalled by the stories in my local paper of evangelical mission trips to heretofore solidly Catholic countries.
What about a Baptist center that planned to have – or does have – sex segregation in the swimming pool? What about whole Jewish communities that are almost entirely sex segregated? What is with the conditional here? Are people suggesting sex segregation doesn’t exist in Christian or Jewish organizations in the US? WTF?
Sure, but what’s being discussed is the very continued existence of this place. That’s the context. I don’t see how people can ignore that. If Manji is not implying that, she should be much more clear.
Of course not! But it was a comparison – given the amount of power Catholicism has, the silence concerning the existence of its centers and institutions is rather deafening. People are not hinting that they should not be allowed to exist, nor should we be.
Baloney.
Actually, the RCC is worse now than it was then. The only thing that controls it are laws supported by people’s willingness to contain them. They need vigilance, and the focus on Muslims draws attention away from them. And these articles pretend they’re not a problem. Not so.
But this is important: the issue of people within the religion mounting challenges (supported by others or not) is distinct from people outside it threatening its existence.
See directly above.
Well, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Non-muslims in the US have some exemption?
A) As I’ve said, my sense is that this “vigilance” is threatening to the freedom of religion. I could be wrong, but clarification then is necessary, because I think my reading/questions are reasonable.
B) Where is this vigilance when it comes to the construction of other religious establishments?
I think it’s the argument underlying the articles under discussion.
See below. (And above.)
Obviously. :) Seriously – she’s wrong, co-opted by the US Religious Right, and scary as hell.
And much of what I said was in the present tense. But if we’re talking about regimes that ended a decade ago (with zero apologies from the RCC), it’s bullshit to suggest the problem is in the past. Is two decades ancient history? Three?
Oh, so now we’re in the present? OK. Same scrutiny? Same sources? How do you know about this?
Yes – sorry for the confusion. I support that goal. I was talking about her threatstioning.
I’d agree.
Speak for yourself. (Does this include interrogations of local leaders concerning the planned practices at religious centers?)
This says nothing about whether the other monotheisms in the US are tolerable or workable. I live here. I don’t find them tolerable.
Indeed. Including ours (though to a lesser extent). So do other Christian denominations. That’s the fucking problem.
Thanks for asking. I’ll have to respond to this later. It’s all dreadful. (If I forget, please remind me.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/bible-belt-megachurches-o_n_633045.html
Same scrutiny? I don’t think so. How would they answer those questions?
Every orthodox Jewish shul (synagogue) in the US is sex-segregated, and there are likely over a thousand of these in the country. Are you willing to write editorials and protest with the same vigour the next time one is proposed?
As I said above, I really do appreciate the principles that Manji lays out. But their selective application makes these concerns seem far more ad hoc, as if they are simply a convenient “principle” only adopted to cover a far more illiberal attitude toward Islam in specific.
An illiberal attitude toward Islam? What, exactly, would that be? What would a liberal attitude be?
……………………Have you read Does God Hate Women? by any chance? For that matter, have you forgotten much of the material on B&W? (I say “forgotten” because you’ve obviously read some of it.)
An illiberal attitude would be to argue that Islam deserves less of the rights granted to all other religions, regardless of their beliefs and practices, simply because it is Islam. A liberal attitude would be to apply the principles of human rights developed in Western democracies post-Enlightenment equally to all religions, recognizing that one such right is expression of religion free of restriction, as long as that expression does not conflict with other rights. (And I am happy to discuss whether sex segregation constitutes such a conflict, as long as all religions in the US are included in that discussion.)
Uh………….I don’t think Islam deserves any human rights at all; nor does any other religion. Human rights are for people, not religions. It would not be liberal at all to apply the principles of human rights developed in Western democracies post-Enlightenment equally to all religions; on the contrary, that would be very illiberal indeed. See the UN HRC and “defamation of religion”; see the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
Fair enough — that shorthand was lazy writing. Replace with “adherents of Islam”.
I suppose it depends on what one means by “liberal”. I don’t see singling out religion for special positive treatment to be any less illiberal than singling out religion for special negative treatment, but perhaps “liberal” is too ill-defined in this context, or I am using it in a non-standard way.
We don’t disagree too much then. Yes believers should have the same rights – and then the question becomes what those rights should be, which is complicated in the US by the free exercise clause; cf Wisconsin v Yoder for instance.
But as for singling out…that depends what we’re talking about. I don’t think it’s at all illiberal to “single out” Islam for having a particularly bad record on human rights if it does in fact have a particularly bad record on human rights. On the contrary, I think it’s illiberal not to.
I think some people consider it liberal to assume, as a matter of dogma, that all religions are as bad as each other. I don’t. I think Islam is worse than Quakerism, for instance.
I don’t disagree at all, but that’s not what I see as going on in this specific instance — instead Manji is using arguments that could be applied to any orthodox Jewish shul (or many Orthodox Christian churches) to oppose the building of a specific Islamic cultural centre in a specific location. It’s this selectivity that I strongly object to, as it makes the ostensible arguments seem very disingenuous, and as cover for basic anti-Muslim attitudes. (And, to be clear, these arguments have no principled relevance to the proposed physical location of the centre.)
I completely agree — if the world were populated only by Unitarians, I probably wouldn’t care about religion at all. There is a strain of unreflective, relativist liberalism that seems to take criticism of Islam as the equivalent of colonialism. By contrast, I’m a liberal who believes in human rights so much I think others should have them as well.
Exactly.
I’m not entirely convinced about Manji’s argument, but I’m not terribly invested in defending it either – I think she should just give it up and be an atheist! Anyway I think you’re at least right that her argument can be read that way.
Yes, I agree with what Tulse has said. I don’t think I have anything to add to what’s already been said at this point.
Er… Um…
*looks down*
Not…yet?
(Want to send me a copy? ;))
OK, I can’t help myself.
What do you mean by opposed, in practical terms? Are you saying that you think they shouldn’t be allowed to have this center if at any time swimming is to be sex-segregated? Does that apply to any center or organization in which this is the case? To all activities? (And, regardless of the reason? I ask this because I can see situations in which women want to have a time to be swimming without being watched by men. Should that not be allowed?) I am genuinely unclear on your position.
BTW, this interview is decent
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/12/i_fear_for_my_country_muslim
and this article is rather good
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175283/
Writing about dissension in the ranks of religion, and resultant rifts, I wrote:
“Well, not the Catholics, obviously. But the questions have been raised, even by priests. I remember a very different US RCC of just 4-5 decades ago.”
To which Salty replied:
And actually, that’s what I meant to say. [red face] I can see how it didn’t come out that way. I was thinking of a certain priest whose name escapes me who wrote popular mystery novels and was also quite outspoken about ways he thought the church should change. And of the US Jesuits’ strong presence in the antiwar movement then (today all I’ve heard from the RCC is a bunch of BS about “just wars”), and, not least, about how most Catholics then voted Democratic; today it’s the reverse. Of course, you know all that. I meant to make a point about how the church has shifted with the political winds in the recent past, and may do so again…(not that I see any signs ATM!). It takes pressure and I don’t think anyone here is arguing that we shouldn’t be vigilant about all religions.
And again, I see more to be gained by taking things instance by instance & not subsuming everything into a critique of all religion. I guess we’ll have to differ on that.
No they don’t. There’s just no reason to widen the discussion. We’re talking about short essays and blog posts about the GZ mosque issue in particular, because that’s the relevant issue of the moment. Not mentioning every related concern is not the same as “pretending they’re not a problem.”
Well, yes. But are you saying that people outside of an issue have no place commenting? Actually, I read more in the atheist/secular blogosphere about the RCC & evangelicals (& in the left-wing press as well–such as The Nation & Alter-Net), than I do about problems with Islam. Just because the MSM are running with the GZ mosque issue ATM doesn’t mean all conversation about the other concerns with keeping religion in check have fallen by the wayside.
Where is the opposition to construction of the mosque in this discussion? Hitchens: “the arguments against the construction of the Cordoba Initiative center in lower Manhattan were so stupid and demagogic as to be beneath notice.”
I would not go nearly that far. I think she is a very important voice that must be heard; I also expect that continued association with the US RR will ultimately disabuse her of some of her current thinking. I have to admit I nearly fell off my chair when I read Chapter 16 of Nomad!.
Ermm… Sometimes I forget that “the past century,” now, isn’t the past century of my first 50 years… < /codger>
I went back to read your important paragraph listing instance after instance of Christian oppression & coercion, and have to say that yes, I am aware of almost all the things you mention. (Not familiar with any specific “forcing governments to sign concordats” bit, but I’ll certainly take your word for it. It seems entirely consistent with their MO.) And that sort of knowledge has to come from the scrutiny that those who care always manage to come up with–the good-ol’ left-wing press we’ve mentioned, and just the press in general; and esp. the internet.
Actually, in my little corner of red-state MI, the Kalamazoo area (the blue-state part’s all crammed over in the SE), I’ve seen more than one letter to the editor questioning the tax-free status of churches. There was recently quite a bit of protest about the building of a mega-church, tho based on rather more selfish criteria. In 2005 we had to fight the intrusion of ID into my public school system’s middle school science curriculum. In 2008 I took on the local diocese about a matter I considered morally dubious. I lost, but I made a lot of noise. Currently I’m writing yet another viewpoint to counteract a Catholic doctor who publishes his own viewpoints once or twice a year on how abortion causes breast cancer (he never mentions his religion, of course). I see the debate going on all around me. And OTOH, there was a big spread in last week-end’s newspaper’s religion section (bleah) about the meaning and observances of Ramadan at the downtown Islamic Center, with lots of pics and a very positive spin of the “aren’t all religions just wonderful?” sort. (OK, that was my editorializing. I should just say it was an entirely positive article.)
Well, more power to ya! I find them tolerable, only because I can’t see any simple way to do away with them without violence, which I find even less tolerable, and because, of course, we’re vastly outnumbered. And, of course, because most of the people around me are religious; they’re also my friends, sometimes they’re even political allies. (I know—duh!)
Re “the increasing acceptance of evangelicals in Central America” & your reply:
Well, and this really isn’t the thread to go off on that tangent, either, I admit, and I realized that when I asked you about it. (Unless maybe OB would give you a guest post? :D ) It’s just a subject that fascinates and annoys me so much, and I couldn’t think of anyone better to ask. I also took a look at your blog this afternoon—first time in a long while, I’m sorry to say—and wow, you’ve really increased your output! So perhaps you should address the issue there when you get a chance; tho, since readers don’t seem to have found you yet, it might not get the attention it deserves. (As for me, I will be going back to catch up on what I’ve missed.)
SC, no need to look down because of not having read the book, it’s just that if you had, I don’t think you would think I was too lenient toward the Vatican or Southern Baptists etc.
About religious sexual segregation – I oppose it. That doesn’t necessarily mean I want to get the state involved, it just means I oppose it.
[…] should not shy away from asking them just as we would of any other organization or religion. As Ophelia Benson points out, “Of course, people who make a fetish of ‘tolerance’ without really thinking about what it […]