Criticizing Religion: Illegitimate?
Jonathan Freedland
Guardian Journalist
Jonathan Freedland recently published an article for the Guardian denouncing critics of Islam, "I stand with Mehdi Hasan against the torrent of Islamophobic abuse" (July 10, 2012), and he offers some examples of objectionable abuse leveled against Islam:
Islam "is not a religion worth protecting. I would welcome its extinction," wrote one. Another, preferring to play the man rather than the ball, declared, "You ARE a sh*t-head." And there were lots more, often dressed up in pseudo-intellectual language, branding Islam backward or denouncing its beliefs and practices as "odious," and culminating in an ultimatum by which Islam's, and therefore Muslims', place in Britain was deemed conditional on adaptation to suit the critics' tastes: "If Islam is to be truly accepted as part of British society it must embrace science. It must embrace rationality, sexuality and reason."Let me think out loud about this. The ad hominem attack in which an opponent is called, for example, a "sh*t-head" is certainly objectionable abuse that says more about the speaker than the spoken to. But as for the other criticisms, the ones leveled at Islam as a religion, how should we take them? Freedland offers a rule of thumb for evaluating such criticism:
Each time I come across the kind of abuse [cited,] . . . I mentally replace the word "Islam" with "Judaism" and "Muslim" with "Jew".I'm not sure this is the best rule of thumb, for the term "Jew" also includes an ethnic meaning and thus raises the possibility that the critic of "Judaism" is antisemitic. I therefore propose that one substitute "Christianity" and "Christian," respectively, and also slightly tweak such criticisms to make them fit, as in the following:
Christianity "is not a religion worth protecting. I would welcome its extinction," wrote one. Another, preferring to play the man rather than the ball, declared, "You ARE a sh*t-head." And there were lots more, often dressed up in pseudo-intellectual language, branding Christianity backward or denouncing its beliefs and practices as "odious," and culminating in an ultimatum by which Christianity's, and therefore Christians', place in [modern] Britain was deemed conditional on adaptation to suit the critics' tastes: "If Christianity is to be truly accepted as part of [modern] British society it must embrace science. It must embrace rationality, sexuality and reason."The ad hominem attack remains objectionable, of course, but it should be protected speech. People just have to grow thicker skins. As for the desire for Christianity's extinction, I'd need to know how the critic would undertake that aim. By physical attacks upon Christians aimed at their extermination? Clearly objectionable. By verbal criticism of Christian doctrines aimed at disabusing Christians of their beliefs? Welcome to modernity and free speech, sir. And concerning the denunciation of Christians' beliefs and practices as "odious," I would offer the same response. Likewise to the insistence that Christianity accept modern sexual freedom and scientific rationality. If Christians and Christianity cannot endure such expressions of free speech as these, then Christians and Christianity do not deserve to endure in the modern world.
Welcome to modernity, friends . . .
Labels: Christianity, Freedom, Islam, Judaism, Modernity
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 4:11 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I don't know if you have seen this, but it is pretty odd that more "news" hasn't been made out of it due to not only someone pretty intent on killing the CinC of the U.S., but also due to his religious and illegal immigrant background.
Pretty scary on a lot of levels, but especially the fact that he was working in a mall in the American heartland where the vast public wasn't/isn't protected by Secret Service agents against this religiously brainwashed nut job.
I think I saw some reference to it. I see news like this so often that it's become the new normal.
Good thing there's only a tiny minority of extremists to worry about, no more than 1%, probably, so there can't be more than a mere 10 million fanatics who would be willing to fly passenger planes into skyscrapers.
Lucky us.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I wonder what Freedland might make of Jefferson?
Here (again) are the opening lines from The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) by Thomas Jefferson:
"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;"
As I argue in my Ethics classes, such issues--notwithstanding their importance--really aren't matter for philosophical debate. They are political Back and forth; as academic subject matter, they are only legitimately addressed by historians. (Certainly the social scientists and journalists have nothing to contribute here, as usual, ahem).
At the root of my argument is that there is only one kind of philosophical proposition; that is, Analytic.
Here are the four types of propositions:
1) Analytic
2) Internal
3) Empirical
4) Moral
Now, there can be all four types of statements, but only the first, Analytic, is a philosophical proposition that can be proved with logic. All the others are statements about how people feel, what they observe, what they believe, and as such are not matter for philosophical debate.
This, in essence, is what Wittgenstein was trying to say to Russell when he claimed, "You cannot use logic to prove that there is no rhinoceros in the room." The exchange that followed is legendary, and although Russell was initially unconvinced, nevertheless in the wake of his involvement with Wittgenstein he abandoned his (not-very-useful) work in the philosophy of logic, and went on to write about the history of philosophy. That is, Wittgenstein convinced him that Philosophy just doesn't add much--if anything--to our knowledge. What it boils down to is this: there is only one kind of proposition, Analytic. Otherwise, as I said, you are talking about feelings, observations, convictions, beliefs (and superstitions), and politics.
I think Freedland wouldn't like the implication that he's promoting hypocrisy, but he of course is.
I have a friend who might disagree with you about philosophy: Maverick Philosopher.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home