[lit-ideas] Re: Religion & Public Reason
- From: Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:31:11 -0400
On 8/12/2010 6:31 PM, Phil Enns wrote:
In other words, the French see the practice of wearing the niqab as a threat
to the very nature of French society. Furthermore, there has been a decided
shift in the rhetoric surrounding Islam in the U.S. so that, for many
Americans, Islam itself is a threat to the U.S. and all the values it
supposedly represents.
One might answer this in anthropological terms. The niqab is a form of
"cultural invasion," and every culture has its defenders, those who
arise to defend the status quo ante. A leitmotif of history. (Think of
the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greek-style culture.)
Defense against cultural invasion takes many forms: in the US, it's the
family values groups, "culture wars," and conservative legislation. In
France it may be classes in French culture. In many parts of the Muslim
world, the defense has been more violent, has consisted of blowing up
innocent people, fatwas on writers like Rushdie, and the Wahabbi/Muslim
Brotherhood coalitions.
Cultural invasion is a serious business. Anthropologists have documented
many cases of cultures being wiped out by such invasions, which may be
as simple as the introduction of a steel ax into a stone-ax culture.
Are the French wrong to defend their culture? Is it wrong to ban the
niqab? Phil considers such actions "a proxy for the banning of Islamic
extremism." There are so many questions here, I cannot list them.
For me the central question is whether the West should compromise its
core liberal Enlightenment values in the name of multiculturalism.
Phil sees these values as related to the (Western Enlightenment) right
to religious freedom. But is wearing the niqab an expression of (Western
Enlightenment) religious freedom? Or is it an emblem of the subjugation
of women? Or is it the expression of an unyielding and militant radical
politics? Or is it, as perhaps the French see it, the violation of an
explicit social contractarian position, namely "when you live in France,
act like the French"? Or is it all of these?
Certainly expression of religious freedom is unhindered in France, at
least in the sense that past ages would have understood it. There is no
Siege of La Rochelle. Mosques are everywhere. No gibbet for the Moors.
Indeed, when I lived on Avenue A in NYC there was a mosque right around
the corner from me. Everyone got along. The mosque was loud too, an
electronic loudspeaker blasted the muezzin's call to First Avenue. As
far as I could tell, nobody complained. Neighbors followed the Will
Rodgers dicta that "your right to throw a punch ends where my nose
begins." That's how I see the US attitude: a widespread understanding
that Islam has been hijacked by extremists who silence the moderates.
It's hard to respect the culture of people ideologically committed to
one's destruction.
Fortunately Muslims are trying to overthrow the extremist hegemony:
_______
Muslim cleric holds 'anti-terror camps'
Coventry, England (CNN) -- Tired of Islamic terror camps grabbing
headlines, a Pakistani Muslim cleric is fighting back by holding his own
"anti-terror camp."
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/11/anti.terror.camp/index.html?hpt=Sbin#fbid=T8gZRBGRzjW
_____
If this guy doesn't get killed in the next few months, he may do some
good. Truly a horrible irony if this cleric were murdered by a suicide
bomber in a niqab.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
