I spent some time today reading a very interesting series of comments about a series that the Washington Post is having in its "On Faith" section. This week, it's views from Muslim leaders around the world. The particular comment that this series began with was criticism about the series from Susan Jacoby. Every comment on there--even the angry ones--is worth reading.
Jacoby, as the Washington Post describes her is "the author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, (2004) which was named a notable nonfiction book by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, and cited as an outstanding international book by the Times Literary Supplement and the Guardian." In her comment on the series, she says that the Post doesn't include enough "secularists." The people giving the views on Islam are too fundamentally-bound for her tastes, and she thinks that the spectrum of commentators ought to include people like Salmon Rushdie. I think she makes an interesting case.
One of the more interesting things she says has to do with the status of women in the Middle East:
"As for the opinions of many of these male clerics and scholars about women, they are the equivalent of what we heard from male priests, ministers, and rabbis before the rise of the first feminist movement in the nineteenth century. 'Islam adopts the perspective of gender equality, but it does not endorse the idea of gender equivalency,' writes Dr. [Ali] Gomaa. "Islam affirms the difference between the natural dispositions and constitutions of men and women....'
And that, boys and girls, is why women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and can, in fact, be stoned to death for adultery unless some merciful male Islamic judge stays the sentence. Women keep silent in the churches and cover your heads. Women wear a veil so that men won't be tempted by you and rape you. It's all the same repressive line, but the difference is that in the West, secular law forced reactionary religious men to give women equal rights in the civic sphere--something women do not enjoy in the Islamic world today."
Notice the "boys and girls" comment. There are several places in her post where Ms. Jacoby betrays a terribly smug and condescending attitude toward her readers, including a comment about the ignorant American. But the main thing that I want to say is that it is a very nice piece written by Ms. Jacoby. One could easily come away from reading just her piece, and believing that one agrees with her. But then you read the comments that very intelligent and reasonable (for the most part) people are making about her post. One of the main criticisms is that it's wrong to expect that a forum with the aim to explain what Muslims think would be comprised of people who never did, or no longer do, believe in what Islam teaches. So, the critics say, it's perfectly okay for this series to be made up of true believers.
Then there are the many other tangential arguments that come up amongst the commentators. What an interesting classroom it all makes!
Now, what I wanted to blog about today plays off of that interesting discussion. There are a number of perfectly reasonable beliefs and worldviews expressed. There are people involved in the discussion who are perfectly happy with living in the Muslim world, and who feel they are misunderstood. There are people who are anti-religious, who cannot begin to understand how anyone could be happy in such an 'oppressive' environment. There are dogmatists from Christian and Muslim backgrounds, who clearly believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. And what strikes me is that every one of the positions is reasonable, or at least reasonable enough to be made reasonable.
So, what do we do in such a life-world as this, where any of a number of lifestyles and worldviews could be rationally defended?
It seems to be that we can either (1) adopt one of of the worldviews and defend it to the hilt like a dogmatist or true believer; (2) take a completely relativist view, and say 'to each his own'; or (3) find some kind of middle road that looks for common ground amongst the positions offered, and uses that as a basis upon which to build a world society that respects the differences of opinion that lie beyond the established common ground.
The middle way, as usual, seems best to me.
There is a lot of room for finding common ground between true-believer Christians and true-believer Muslims. The only problem is that they're the least likely amongst us to be willing to take a middle-of-the-road, building-from-common-ground type of approach. And it's far less likely to find common ground between secularists and either of these groups.
The best way forward through all of this is to promote a liberal-democratic society where secular principles guide the government, and religious disputes are left to the side as questions of personal faith. Everyone should be able to develop their own worldview, and everyone should be free to act upon that worldview to the extent that it does not harm others. That is always the tricky part of liberalism: what harms others? That is what we must debate. And we must respect a democratic process for resolving such disputes, or else we have no choice but to throw in the towel and fight for the dominance of our own preferred viewpoint. I personally believe, however, that this leads to a Hobbesian "war of all against all," where life is always "nasty, brutish, and short." The only rational alternative is a free and democratic society.
But I understand the dogmatists. They say that "We are right! We have Truth on our side! And we must fight to the death to uphold that Truth!" I understand that feeling. There's something in the human breast that wants to have such a feeling that we are in possession of the Truth. It's just that I believe that as we mature, we realize that Socrates is right: he was wise in that he knew that he did not know. And Lao Tzu was right when he said that "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." A wise human being is flexible toward, and not greedy about the truth. As the Sophists knew all too well, anything can be rationalized. Socrates, in claiming that there is a truth, emphasize that the approach to it was with great humility, a sense of humor, and open questioning!
The heart-hearted amongst us are the ones who are the most afraid. I feel for them. There is a lot to be afraid of in this world. I can only hope that with enough love and patience, we can soften their hearts so that we all can engage in an experiment of ideas and ideals that helps each of us, in our own ways, to find what is right for us. And when I say "us," I mean "us" and not just "me." Because "me" is an illusion, ultimately. I cannot die alone. I cannot live alone. I am a part of a tapestry of individuals who find their meaning in the interconnected social state that we live in. So, let's find what is right for us in as gentle, tolerant, and loving a way as we can manage.
No comments:
Post a Comment