The only solution is dissolution?

June 6, 2007 4:03 AM

Anti-Cultural Relativism Wednesday: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on tour these days. With this article in the LA Times and this legal problem in Malaysia, the tolerant of the tolerant, the problem of the Islamic East in peaceful coexistence with Secular West appears increasing less solvable. Examining the other side of the argument only seems to confirm this.
posted by ewkpates (38 comments total)

So tell me, ewkpates, how do you feel about it?
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:23 AM on June 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

the west is secular?
posted by quonsar at 4:27 AM on June 6, 2007

i thought the east was red
posted by pyramid termite at 4:31 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

the west is secular?

Compared to, say, Iran? Sure it is. Extreme right-wing fanatical Christians in America talk a good game, and occasionally one cracks and kills someone, while the extreme right-wing fanatical Muslims in, say, Iran regularly kill people for the Islamic equivalent (which often coincides with the Christian version, as in homosexuality) of what the Dominionists, say, insist that people need to die for.

In other words, psychotic right-wing American Christians tend to froth at the mouth about how sinners need to die. Psychotic right-wing Iranian Muslims tend to kill sinners. It's nothing to do with one of the two beliefs being more or less violent and everything to do with the fact that the Dominionist Christians don't live in a culture where killing sinners is acceptable.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:32 AM on June 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

the west is secular?

Yup. Except for the USA.
Hmmm, should probably also make exceptions for places like Ireland and Italy.

But, yeah. Pretty much :)
posted by -harlequin- at 5:03 AM on June 6, 2007

Tolerance, IMO, does not require me to tolerate, much less respect, a nation, religion, culture, group, or individual which violates basic human rights. As long as a nation, religion, whatever, is different within the boundaries of human rights I'm all for difference.

As such I see absolutely no contradiction between calling myself tolerant, and simultaniously being opposed to the religious nutbags of the world (whatever their religion), the dictators who claim "cultural differences" (China's current ruling thugs, for example), etc.

I'll also argue that tolerance includes a tolerance for thought, speech, art, etc but *not* a tolerance for action which violates human rights. Pat Robertson can call for the establishment of a theocracy, claim that homosexuals are evil incarnate, etc all he wants; I'll speak out against him but I don't think that the state should prevent him from speaking. However when he and his followers step into the realm of attempting to pass laws in line with their ravings, or take physical action against their enemies, etc then I do argue that the state should intervene (by declaring the laws they try to pass unconstitutional, or imprisoning them for beating gays, etc).

As for Islam, I do not feel myself under any compunction at all to tolerate its treatment of women, etc. Of course, I don't feel any need to tolerate the treatment of women advocated by Southern Baptists or Catholics either.

The problem isn't that Islam is a bad religion, its no more nutty in its holy writings than any other. The problem is that it's been allowed to be the basis for government in a lot of places and that encourages fanaticism. Back when there were Established religions in Europe they were about as bad as modern Islam.

All theocracies, regardless of the religion they are based on, are inherently dangerous to free people. And that's intollerable.
posted by sotonohito at 5:28 AM on June 6, 2007 [12 favorites]

I agree with sotonohito, but my personal view is a little more specific. I don't believe that problem is not religion. The problem is with people who are dumb/ignorant/mentally unhealthy/angry enough to let narrow interpretations of ancient texts impel them to murderous or other harmful behaviors. All religions have them. Obviously, this is much easier said than done, but longer term the problems are eradicated by addressing the root causes of the behavior, rather than attacking the religion, as Hirsan Ali does.

If it's not religion, it's something else. After all, look at what "patriotism" (crypto-nationalism) does, even today. It can make young men join up for duty, honor and courage, and commit unspeakable acts of amorality in foreign lands.
posted by psmealey at 5:49 AM on June 6, 2007

I don't believe that problem is not religion.
posted by psmealey at 5:50 AM on June 6, 2007

increasing less solvable

How could one person really make you think that?

I don't think the problem is the religion per. se. but the culture. I pretty much think people will just do whatever they like and then figure out how their religion justifies it later.
posted by delmoi at 5:54 AM on June 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

Mefi covered her earlier HERE
posted by MDA38 at 6:24 AM on June 6, 2007

Sorry, link: http://www.metafilter.com/59117/Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali
posted by MDA38 at 6:25 AM on June 6, 2007

the problem of the Islamic East in peaceful coexistence with Secular West

Sounds like someones been indoctrinated by the conservative right.

1) The West is not secular it is pluralism, cultural and religious.

2) The East vs West "Clash of Civilization" is stupid. Rather it is an internal Islamic struggle over the future of Islam and what it means to be religious and practice Islam in the modern world - it is a Reformation, just like the bloody violent one that rocked Europe for a few hundred years.
posted by stbalbach at 6:36 AM on June 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

I like delmoi's point a lot. Majority Christian areas include the US, Ecuador, parts of Nigeria. But practices vary widely. And FGM is part of culture in some Islamic areas in Africa, but is thought to be condemned in most other areas.

Culture is a real force, but it's never unified across tens of thousands of miles. And, as deep and serious as it is, it changes over time-- think the US South in 1840, 1960, and 1990.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:41 AM on June 6, 2007

This is all very useless posturing.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:00 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Increasing less?
posted by stammer at 7:03 AM on June 6, 2007

What's the point of this post? That theocracies (and monarchies, and Islamic monarchy/theocracies in particular) suck? Everyone knows that. For example, the US State Department says that Saudi Arabia sucks:

Despite close cooperation on security issues, the United States remains concerned about human rights conditions in Saudi Arabia. Principal human rights problems include abuse of prisoners and incommunicado detention; prohibitions or severe restrictions on the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, and religion; denial of the right of citizens to change their government; systematic discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities; and suppression of workers' rights.

but it also says

The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is often the leading source of imported oil for the United States, providing about 20% of total U.S. crude imports and 10% of U.S. consumption. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is the largest U.S. export market in the Middle East.

so the US will keep sending lots of money there no matter how they treat people.

Or if the point of the post is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on a book tour saying that theocracies (and monarchies, and Islamic monarchy/theocracies in particular) suck, we know that from a previous post.

Or is it about cultural relativism?

Or...

Well, if it's going to be about everything: Islamic governments will fall like communism some day. People will realize that they don't have to live in the Middle Ages, that god will not strike them down if they, for example, let women go out without wearing personal pup tents. You could keep people down in earlier times, when they didn't know any different, but now (or soon) people in every one of the many shitty places in Saudi Arabia will know about all the pleasant and possible alternatives to the way they live. And once the first one goes, they'll all go, because otherwise all the best people will walk right out and leave the fanatics to fanaticize about one another.

Or not.
posted by pracowity at 7:17 AM on June 6, 2007

stammer:
Increasing less?

It helps if you say it in a Captain Jack Sparrow voice.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:21 AM on June 6, 2007

It's not about Yo-yos, we know that much.
posted by ewkpates at 7:22 AM on June 6, 2007

Increasing less?

Why not? It's an alegebraic concept. Slope is descreasing, but still positive.
posted by psmealey at 7:23 AM on June 6, 2007

Solve for m.
posted by psmealey at 7:24 AM on June 6, 2007

Why not? It's an alegebraic concept. Slope is descreasing, but still positive.

Well slope can be whatever (positive, negative), but it's curving downward over time.
posted by delmoi at 7:33 AM on June 6, 2007

The original sentence was: the problem of the Islamic East in peaceful coexistence with Secular West appears increasing less solvable.

So, it should be "increasingly less solvable". It's a grammar issue, not an algebraic one.
posted by signal at 7:45 AM on June 6, 2007

It's not a clash of civilizations. It's a coinciding of beliefs.

That is, both neo-conservative secular / non-secular conservatives in the West and religious / non-religious-but-sure-as-heck-using-religion-as-much-as-they-can conservatives in the Islamic/Arabic world both hold the same viewpoint: that a set of beliefs actually matters to most people, and that this set of beliefs is more central than, say, the desire of pretty much everyone to just have a simple, peaceful existence, a nice home, and a better life for their kids.

Pretty much no one other than ideologues believes that their is a clash of beliefs shaping world behavior. For sure there is a clash of interests, and belief systems is one arena in which those interests are being manipulated.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:45 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

their there is a clash of beliefs
posted by Deathalicious at 7:49 AM on June 6, 2007

Great post!

Reminds me that, no how bad I loathe GWB and his stupid policies, there are places on Earth where the worst religious fantasies are the law. And while I tend to think of all religions as mass-sanctioned obsessive compulsive disorders.... dude, Islam is fucked up. (Sorry if that hurts anyone's delicate sensibilities, and you have a right to believe whatever you want to believe... but dude, c'mon.)

On the other hand, I live in Jackson Heights, Queens, and I see this kind of culture clash everyday: The muslim women walk around in black tents covering everything but their eyes, while the Hispanic girls are basically in hot pants and bikini tops, and the gay Colombian guys are... well, I guess they're also in hot pants and bikini tops. (Lots of drag queens around here.) I'm always wondering what they're thinking of each other... And yet, relatively, everyone's civil. Nobody's telling each other what to wear. Nobody's rioting and there's no lynch mobs. Can't we all just get along?
posted by fungible at 8:10 AM on June 6, 2007

The whole "cultural relativism" argument is bogus, but brilliantly set up. If you're not a nihilist (and I know very few true nihilists), you're going to have some problems with how any society is run. The right's fears that multiculturalism will allow for "anything goes" anarchy is pretty silly. OK, maybe it's not so silly, but it's such an obvious flaw in the argument that we need to respect all cultures that the vast majority of "post-modern cultural relavists" have already considered it and dealt with it.

We all pretty much agree that forcing women to cover up and disallowing religious conversions are bad things. When the left says that we need to respect all cultures (actually, I don't hear many on the left actually saying such vague meaningless statements, it's always attributed to them on the right), they generally do not mean that that particular culture can do no wrong. They simply advocate a different approach to dealing with the "clearly bad thing." The difference, and it is an important one, is that the "cultural relativists" don't frame the "clearly bad thing" as a personal failing of the advocates of the "clearly bad thing." The right most certainly does, and it is this framing of the judgement of the "clearly bad thing" that is the source of our problems. Just think about the attitude towards Muslims among the right. They see Muslims as personally accountable for views that they really don't have any alternative to because of the culture they live in. This is what the left sees and understands. When they attribute "clearly bad thing" to the culture of a certain people, they are not excusing the bad behavior. The culture of the people in question is the explanation for the behavior, not the excuse. They are actually holding the culture accountable instead of the individuals. As such, their solutions to "clearly bad thing" are more along the lines of trying to understand "clearly bad thing" through the culture, so as to try to find reasons for it and understand it. Because the right holds individuals accountable, their solutions are more along the lines of bombing and invading. The multiculturalists don't want to see these "clearly bad things" persist any more than the right-wingers do. They just know that making it a personal failing and criticising the people that do "clearly bad thing" is one sure way to piss people off and push them further away from the values you want them to uphold. Multiculturalism does not mean that we separate into our own tribal cultures and keep those cultures static. It means that we learn as much as we can about other cultures, and as a result, all cultures will grow and change slowly over time, and hopefully we're left with the best parts of all of them. All the Muslim world needs is more exposure to the West. As somebody said above, once people realize that they don't have to live in the middle ages, they won't.

Now clearly, I'm describing overall trends here. Obviously, there are some on the left that are simply apologists for Muslim atrocities and fit right into the right's fears of multicultural anarchy. These folks are generally ignored on the left. Also, on the right, there are those who are genuinely against "clearly bad thing" without alterior motive. Unfortunately, these people are shamelessly and cynically used by people on the right with much more sinister motives. Maybe it's time to redraw the lines.

So called "cultural relativism" simply means leading by example, and it's really the best thing we can do for the world. If we set a good example, people will follow it. It's that simple.
posted by SBMike at 8:15 AM on June 6, 2007 [4 favorites]

Holy cow. I just typed "beurette" - the French colloquial (but mostly positive) word for "young women of North African origin" - in Google Image Search. I somehow expected to find pictures of students, celebrities, politicians etc., as many of them do not fit the cultural stereotypes associated with muslim women.

Google only returns pictures of Franco-arab porn actresses.
posted by elgilito at 8:42 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

the west is secular?

Compared to, say, Iran? Sure it is. Extreme right-wing fanatical Christians in America talk a good game, and occasionally one cracks and kills someone, while the extreme right-wing fanatical Muslims in, say, Iran regularly kill people for the Islamic equivalent (which often coincides with the Christian version, as in homosexuality) of what the Dominionists, say, insist that people need to die for.

In other words, psychotic right-wing American Christians tend to froth at the mouth about how sinners need to die. Psychotic right-wing Iranian Muslims tend to kill sinners. It's nothing to do with one of the two beliefs being more or less violent and everything to do with the fact that the Dominionist Christians don't live in a culture where killing sinners is acceptable.

so, in your world, "non-secular" == psychotic, fanatical extremists? you might want to re-examine that delusion.
posted by quonsar at 10:15 AM on June 6, 2007

the west is secular?

Yup. Except for the USA.

wow. talk about your basic ignorance.
posted by quonsar at 10:17 AM on June 6, 2007

Amen Pope Guilty
posted by jeffburdges at 10:53 AM on June 6, 2007

so, in your world, "non-secular" == psychotic, fanatical extremists? you might want to re-examine that delusion.

How pathetic. It fulfills some kind of need for you to believe that I unreflectively hate religion and am some kind of "omg religion bad!" liberal idiot, don't you? That's not at all what I'm saying. It is, in fact, the precise opposite.

What I'm saying is that the difference between the rabid American fundamentalists and the rabid Iranian fundamentalists is the culture they exist in- one a heavily religious culture which allows religious dogma to usurp secular law and one a secular culture in which religious dogma is not allowed to usurp secular law. Your interpretation is a total and absurd non-sequiter.

It's a nice attempt at a strawman, but a really lazy attempt at trolling.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:27 PM on June 6, 2007

i'm still flabbergasted that my questioning whether it was fair to characterize the entire western world as secular brings forth from you a spew of vehement blather about fundamentalists, extremists, Dominionists etal?

secular:

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.

Your interpretation is a total and absurd non-sequiter.

well, in my world, "total and absurd non-sequiter" is a compliment. so, thanks.
posted by quonsar at 1:10 PM on June 6, 2007

Secular can also refer to societies that are not dominated by religion, and it frequently is used in that way.

Also, "vehement"? Seriously, what are you on? My first post was calm, the second mocking. The fight you're looking for isn't going to happen.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:03 PM on June 6, 2007

Er, that should be second and third posts. My first was snarky.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:04 PM on June 6, 2007

you would apparently be the only one looking for a fight. wipe the foam off your lips, dude. "pathetic"?

It fulfills some kind of need for you to believe that I unreflectively hate religion and am some kind of "omg religion bad!" liberal idiot, don't you?

no, no, no. just a plain idiot.
posted by quonsar at 2:49 PM on June 6, 2007

wow. talk about your basic ignorance.

I've lived in a few countries, and the US is so deeply religious it's kind of freaky to many of us not born there. For example, as far as I know, no openly non-Christian person has ever been elected to the highest office, it seems the opposite is true - one must espouse religion with great conviction to even be considered a contender. This is in stark contrast to many other western countries where being of strong religious beliefs is seen as a point against the candidate by the vast majority of the citizens - including the majority of the minority that are religious. That last bit especially indicates a big cultural difference.

I generally sum it up as follows - the USA is secular on paper, but not in practice. Whereas here for example (where once there was an official national religion, etc) it is the other way around.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:13 PM on June 6, 2007

Roger Scruton is in many ways a conservative asshole in print but one of the sweetest, most sensible thinkers on this subject in person. He puts it this way: in England, where Anglicanism is the 'established' religion, everyone is free to ignore religion equally. In America, where we're supposedly free, there's a tremendous social pressure to conform and religious belief actually threatens to upset the social order if the wrong person gets into power. (This is similar to Noam Chomsky's argument about the media in the US, actually, though don't tell Scruton that.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:19 AM on June 7, 2007

Quonsar, your understanding of the word "secular" is way off. A secular society is not an atheist or anti-religious society, it's just one lacking a direct connection to religion. As you quote above:

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

The vast majority of Western society qualifies as secular here, as religion is largely a private affair, and social gatherings that pertain to religion (churches etc) are carefully separated/cliqued and disconnected from the rest of society. The USA is the one major exception, though there are others that have been noted.
posted by mek at 5:44 PM on June 7, 2007