So, I feel the need to expand on the false equivalency I talked about in class today. By false equivalency I mean drawing a comparison between two ideas, in this case Secularism and Islamism, in such a way as to make them merely opposite sides of the same coin. It is a common tactic used by political commentators who wish to appear impartial in their judgments. Closely related is the concept of 'argumentum ad temperantiam', or argument to moderation – basically the idea that the correct interpretation of any controversy is to take the middle ground. A relevant example of this in modern American society would be the response to the recent case of a man who flew his plane into an I.R.S. Building in Texas. Talking head after talking head insisted that, while the act was certainly reprehensible, both sides of the political spectrum, with their, and here is the key phrase, 'heated rhetoric' are responsible and need to take greater caution. This is, of course, absurd, the rise in political violence has solely occurred on the right wing (see here). In fact, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, hardly a partisan group, “broad left-wing violence has been in a marked decline since the fall of the Soviet Union and a successful FBI infiltration campaign in the mid-1980s.” The point of this somewhat long digression is that this tactic is both common, and an act of intellectual cowardice.
Now, to get back to the topic at hand, I would like to start out with a few quotes of Ian Buruma's from both his book and other writings of his.
“Messianic violence can attach itself to any creed.”
“In another typical fit of exaggeration, designed to tar by association, Bruckner mentions the opening of an Islamic hospital in Rotterdam and reserved beaches for Muslim women in Italy. I fail to see why this is so much more terrible than opening kosher restaurants, Catholic hospitals, or reserved beaches for nudists.” (see here)
In reference to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he says that there are “echoes” of “her earlier enthusiasm for the Muslim Brotherhood” in her current positions.
Alright, now to unpack these quotes, and there connections to each other. They each, in their own ways, illuminate the misguided 'impartiality' of Ian Buruma. The first statement declares, basically, that all creeds are the same in the sense that they can all lead to violence. This ignores the source of the violence, the creed itself. Republicanism has, after all, resulted in death and destruction – one only needs to look at our own revolutionary war to find that. Similarly, Salifism, the creed followed by Osama bin Ladin, has resulted in much death and destruction. Their aims, self-determination for the masses and absolute dictatorship, are quite different, however, as are their results, practically the entire First World ... and Afghanistan. Ignoring both the logical backing of different ideologies and their real world impacts with vague statements about violence muddles the issue.
The second quote comes from a response piece that Buruma wrote to Pascal Bruckner, a French philosopher. At first glance, it seems reasonable, why not have Islamic hospitals or beaches when other religions (or, in the case of nudism, ideas) have their own institutions? After all, its only fair. Except, of course, that it's not. You would have to suspend equal rights laws that we have fought so long to implement. Why? Muslim hospitals have to keep female staff and patients separated from male staff and patients. And beaches reserved for women is a polite way of saying a segregated beach for women. The equivalence, in other words, isn't there because one institution follows national and international laws, not to mention enlightened understandings of gender relationships, while the other operates on discredited, medieval, and repressive concepts of modesty and sexuality. Separate but equal didn't work on a racial basis, and to enact the same on a gender basis is patently absurd.
In this third quote, Buruma alludes to a common fallacy in the 'secular/religious' debate. He is saying that Ali's current positions, argued with force and confidence, must be just as irrational as the positions of the Muslim Brotherhood because they also argue with, yes, force and confidence. Since she doesn't rely on hedging and fake impartiality, she must be a fundamentalist. This might be called secular fundamentalism, or dogmatic atheism. Again, this seems logical in a superficial sense, but once one actual examines the two ideologies one sees the truth. Namely, that atheism isn't an ideology, but merely the lack of belief – it belies nothing beyond “I do not believe in God.” Fundamentalist religion, and religion in general, says “I believe in God,” but also adds that “God created the universe and intervenes in it regularly, he cares about the words and actions of every human being, you must obey the laws that God passed down a long time ago or you will be punished.” Now this is, no doubt, a generalization, but the point is that religion goes beyond being merely the opposite of atheism (the correct term for that would be Deism) and makes a serious of ungrounded assumptions based purely upon the faith of the follower. To take this back to the original quote, comparing Ali's worldview to that of the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a way for him to discredit her without actually dealing with her prickly arguments.
I had a couple more quotes, but I will cut them out, because this is running long and it is getting late. I want to end with a rumination on what, in my mind, serves as the primary difference between my own viewpoint and that of Ian Buruma. He attributes the problems associated with Islam (and, I would think, religion in general) with the “cultural traditions, tribal customs, historical antecedents” that surround them. Religion isn't at fault, but merely the result of human corruption. I, on the other hand, place the blame on religion itself. Religion formed these traditions and customs that he speaks of, as made evident by the excessive amount of quotes in various holy books, including the Bible and Koran, that act as the basis of these traditions and customs. Now, Buruma would surely argue that these excerpts are, again, just incorrect interpretations, and, if they are to unambiguous to argue around, then either irrelevant or simply a poor translation. This makes an all too dangerous assumption, though: it assumes that, in fact, there was some type of original source, presumably God, that formulated a pure, holy, indisputably good message. The more likely explanation, though, is that religion itself is man-made. It's contradictions, bigoted rhetoric, harsh punishments, fallacious logic, and incorrect assumptions – the tangled mess that is organized religion – come not from without, but from within humanity. Until we all realize this, the shadow of nonexistent deities will prevent us from solving our many, many, real, problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment