[lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:48:12 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Thu, 23/4/09, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrot
> Doesn't this example show the necessity of "standing with
> one's culture"? Bernard-Henri Levy makes the point that
> Westerners have allowed Multiculturalism to trump
> Enlightenment Liberal Core Values. For example, Universal
> Equality is a cornerstone of Enlightenment values, yet
> multiculturalism would require us to turn a blind eye to the
> treatment of women in Islamic nations.
>
> How does that fit with the stated need for "undominated
> dialogue"?
It seems true that there is a clear (logical) conflict between the principle
"live and let live i.e. accept what others do, no matter what" and the
principle "wrong and injustice must be confronted and condemned and opposed and
challenged and changed". It is also true, I think, that both principles may be
morally well-motivated: the first, by a reluctance to commit the sins that can
attend jumping on our moral high-horse and rushing to judgment; the second, by
a reluctance to commit the sins that can attend apathy and acquiescence in the
face of injustice.
The rape of women is, for me and I suspect most on the list, a case where the
wrong is so clear-cut that the second principle 'trumps' the first: that is,
the sins of acquiescence seem much weightier than the possible sins of rushing
to judgment.
There is also the point that allowing or condoning such practice under the
guise of "multi-culturalism" is misconceived - since the practice no more
represents a valid "cultural choice" than banning the practice. That is, the
issue is a moral one and not merely one of cultural tolerance.
This is clear enough when we consider that the roots of the practice do not lie
within a sacred text (I doubt the Koran, properly understood, prescribes rape
within marriage, and suspect it proscribes it) or necessary or essential
cultural practice, one that if removed would undermine vital aspects of the
wider culture. The reasons are largely historical and to do with what feminists
might call "patriarchy" and "oppression of women".
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the law in England was understood to make
rape within marriage a legal impossibility until the House of Lords said 'not
so' less than twenty years ago. This decision was understandably criticised, by
the eminent Sir John Smith for example, as a piece of retrospective judicial
legislation - since prior to the House of Lords decision any lawyer would have
advised that the law was understood to make rape within marriage a legal
impossibilty:- the theoretical basis for the law being either that by marriage
the woman became the man's property or that the marriage contract carried with
it an irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse. The House of Lords took the
view that these justifications were anachronistic to the point that they would
bring the law into disrepute if they were upheld legally. This points up not
only how Western liberal culture has often been backward coming forward but how
cultures can (albeit usually
slowly) change.
My suspicion is that the position of women in Islamic societies must be
improved if one understands the religion correctly; just as proper Christian
values hardly sanction non-consensual sex within marriage. That is, the
oppression of women is not a result of a valid cultural choice but an invalid
misinterpretation of cultural-religious norms. (For example, I recently heard
that the so-called 'talaq' divorce laws, whereby a man can divorce his wife by
saying 'I divorce you' three times, has no basis in Islam properly understood
and is simply a cultural add-on).
Donal
Ldn
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
