Not freedom of opinion but freedom of thought
Alan Wolfe reads BHL on speaking truth to power.
It is frequently said that we ought to tolerate religious differences; whatever we might think of Islam, we should respect the rights of adherents to believe what they want. No, Levy responds, what the Muslim world needs is not tolerance but secularism.
‘No’? What do you mean ‘no’? That’s not a ‘no’. That is in fact a yes. We ought to tolerate religious differences; whatever we might think of Islam, we should respect the rights of adherents to believe what they want, and secularism is by far the best way to create such a state of affairs, because secularism puts religion aside for purposes of government, thus making it unnecessary to meddle with or even take note of what people believe (about religion, which has to be what Wolfe means here). It is theocracy that cannot respect people’s right to believe what they want, not secularism. Secularism does not (and should not) undertake to respect people’s right to do what they want (without qualification), but that’s a different matter. My guess would be (not having read the book) that that’s what BHL meant by ‘not tolerance but secularism’ – my guess would be that if he did say tolerance is not what’s needed (if that’s not just Wolfe’s careless paraphrase) then he meant blanket tolerance for religiously-inspired actions is not what ‘the Muslim world’ needs.
It is not freedom of opinion that we ought to seek but freedom of thought. Only by applying to Islamic societies the same standards of free inquiry that we apply to our own do we treat Muslims as our equals. If Muslims say that cartoons caricaturing their prophet are offensive and should not be published, we should ignore their calls for sympathy and in the name of freedom of thought be willing to stand charged with blasphemy.
Yes, that’s right – especially when ‘calls for sympathy’ take the form of arson and riots and murder, or lawsuits, or threats. It is indeed the case that applying the same standards of free inquiry everywhere is the only way to treat people with respect; the alternative is a pitying kind of condescension.
The problem with this way of thinking is not just that secularism taken to such an extreme is itself illiberal; knowing what is right, it tramples on the sensitivities of others with little regard for how they may understand the world.
No, because secularism doesn’t take any understanding of the world away from people, it just creates neutrality about world-understandings in the public sphere.
On the other hand, I can’t disagree with Wolfe’s next point. I wish I could.
But Israel is not a secular society; it is a Jewish state. If we are to tell Muslims that they ought to open up their societies to outside influences, shouldn’t we be putting pressure on Israel to reform its incredibly strict marriage laws?
Yes.
Good post, but at the end a big “Huh?”
When were Israel’s marriage laws a matter of worldwide public condemnation? What are they anyway, if they are illiberal compared with say Jordan or Egypt? My reading suggests that Israel is a largely secular society that accords some privileges to religious zealots, such as not carrying their share in the military. Legal equality of the sexes is not in dispute for the secular majority, to my limited understanding.
If ‘we’ are able to pressure Israel over marriage laws and that will somehow engender world peace, why are we not deploying that capability to stop the cult of murder among Israel’s opponents? After all, it should be acceptable to pressure countries to stop teaching that their neighbours are ‘descendants of apes and pigs’.
BTW, some might enjoy the attempt to synthesise a ‘just’ view of both sides claims over at Norm Geras’s.
Chrisper,
Oh come on, you know OB’s not suggesting direct equivalence – but given the “you only criticise us” mentality on all sides in that region, making sure we ‘encourage’ secularism for everyone isn’t such a bad idea…
Outlawing these so-called ‘modesty patrols’ might be a more significant start…?
Thanks Andy! The part where two perpetrators were arrested may indicate these activities have been outlawed even as you were writing.
Since I wrote the first comment I thought ‘Google is my fwiend’, and discovered that the immoral and oppressive behaviour of the Israelis in regard to marriage has occasioned remark at the Grey Lady and around the prog-osphere. I wonder if that is as good as the efforts of France2 in satisfying the public’s ‘right to know’ about the death of Mohammed Al-Dura.
Of course, the neighbourhood might be more in sympathy with these morality thugs than with their legitimate secular state.
Israel is difficult to classify, since while it’s not a theocracy, it’s a Jewish state. However, it’s Jewish not in a religious sense (with some exceptions like marriage laws), but in a 19th century idea of a Jewish nation, looking upon Jews as a “people”, also a 19th century idea. I can’t think of any other country which has the same model today.
Apologies for the heaviness on the return key and accidentally posting twice
Harry: Never mind about the double posting! It was good to have a dispassionate clarification from someone who kwows the facts on this issue.
“Israel is a ‘Jewish state’ in an ethnic and cultural sense, in the same way as most states have a distinct ethnic and cultural identity.”
Hmm. Is that quite accurate? Israel is an officially Jewish (in the ethnic sense) state, isn’t it? For understandable reasons, but one can still think that’s unfortunate (to put it mildly). A state’s having a distinct ethnic and cultural identity is not the same thing as having an offical ethnic identity – and is that really true of most states anyway? Don’t most of them have several ethnic identities, which they quarrel over?
Sartre says that the anti-semite creates the Jew. It seems that in the formation of the state of Israel, the founders stood the 19th anti-semitic racial (or ethnic) definition of the Jew on its head, so to speak. Or perhaps they accepted the 19th anti-semitic definition, but gave it a positive connotation. Israel is a Jewish state. That’s not the same thing as saying that Chile is a Chilean state. Anybody can become a Chilean, if they fill out sufficient forms and wait in enough lines. I once applied to go to Israel as a future Israeli. The fact that I’m Jewish (that is, that my mother’s and father’s last name sound Jewish) was sufficient that they offered to pay my flight to Israel and several months of free Hebrew lessons in order that I could integrate myself in Israeli society. I doubt that a Muslim or even a Christian, with better professional qualifications than me, would receive the same treatment. There is a fiction: that of the Jewish people, which, as far as I can see, is just a set of last names, which the Nazis would have seen as Jewish and sent to death camps. Zionism or rather the idea of the Jewish people is identity politics to the nth power. On the other hand, there is a Jewish religion, which I find stupid and reactionary. But in ethnic terms, there is no Jewish people, just as there is no Aryan race. Finally, all identity politics is reactionary. I agree with Ophelia that it is unfortunate, although understandable, that Israel is officially Jewish.
“just a set of last names”?
The first actual question my new fiance was asked after our announcement was ‘Is he Jewish?’. The honorary Mom who asked was having a joke, as neither of us are, but she sure thought it was more than a set of last names.
You are also capable of writting a critique of jewish society without making daft parallels.
To quote Wolfe:
“shouldn’t we be putting pressure on Israel to reform its incredibly strict marriage laws?”
Does that sentence really justify all the foregoing fuss? Talk about a third rail… I wish people should be so concerned about disestablishment in the UK – now THAT would be a step towards secularising a society.
Richard,
“you are perfectly capable of writing a critique of moslem societies without feeling the need to also stick it to the jews!”
As if it is laudable to “stick it” to X & not “stick it” to Y.
As if the critique here isn’t first and foremost about stupidity with as a main gold medal candidate: all religions.
As if anybody can seriously maintain it is a secular state that’s also a Jewish state.
The issue is not so much what’s average in Israeli society because that average is clearly more secular than in a Saudi case, the issue is (see topic)whether I should ‘respect’ or ‘understand’ that a society, like the Israeli one, has any, whatsoever, ‘special’ provision in line with or inspired by religion.
For the first 20-25 years of Israel’s existence only secular or moderately religious Israelis (Mizrachi, Hapoel HaMizrachi, etc.) participated politically. The fundamentalists disdained Zionism or a “Jewish state”, which they thought should be re-established only after the arrival of the Messiah. But the right wing (Herut) in the 1970s saw the opportunity of increasing its representation in the Knesset (which, until then, had always been controlled by the left) by recruiting the orthodox. Vote for us, they said, and you’ll get political favours. New religious parties (Shas, NRP, etc.) sprung up and soon — because proportional representation pretty much ensures that every government is a coalition — even the left were courting the new religious voters. It’s the need for coalition partners that gives the religious their political clout. Israeli marriage laws would probably long since have been secularised without this anomaly.
And, mutatis mutandis, much the same thing applies to the US. Not so much the UK, as I understand it – there the ‘faith’ nonsense seems to be more a voluntary move by Blair and friends than a perceived electoral necessity. Does that sound right?
Hmmm… depends where you are in the UK, and who’s standing. (Northern Ireland, anyone?)
I’d suggest that, in general, the “I’m such a holy roller” card doesn’t do candidates any good (and might actually harm their prospects in some locales), but in certain constituencies it might make the difference in a close race…
And “religious movement” candidates are becoming more prevalent, if not, thankfully, attracting any great success – e.g. George “So Macho” Hargreaves & his Scottish Christian Party
Oh yes, Northern Ireland. Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln…
Dave not going to happen its another pipe dream like the U.K becoming a republic.
And THAT’S why I said “I wish people should be so concerned about disestablishment in the UK…”
OTOH, wait until the Queen shuffles off, and the awful reality of Charles as king hits home…
Going back to Ophelia’s response to my post – I’m not sure what the significance of having an ‘official’ as opposed to a practical ethnic identity actually is.
The most obvious feature would be the official language. But then all states have an official language, and it’s usually the language of the dominant ethnic group. (Some of course also recognise one or more minority languages as offical. In fact Israel is one of these, as Arabic is an official language alongside Hebrew – as is apparent on its stamps and banknotes.)
Again, ethnic identity often means that the festivals of the group’s religion are public holidays. So it’s true that the major Jewish festivals are public holidays in Israel, just as Christmas and Easter are public holidays in Europe. However, most Israelis, just like most Europeans, don’t celebrate these holidays in a religious fashion, nor is there any pressure on them to do so.
It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference.
Uh…right of return, to name just one item?
More expansively – I couldn’t agree less. I think having a state that is officially and explicitly one ethnic category is retrograde and also highly dangerous. De facto ethnic identity is one thing and de jure identity is quite another. An official ethnic state identity is a form of ethnic cleansing, and it’s just not a good idea. Imagine if the US suddenly announced it had an official Anglo-Saxon identity – what would that look like? So why would it look any different anywhere else?
In principal I think most people would agree with your statement about national identitys O.B but shouldnt Israel be a special case given the history of the jewish people?
Richard, I said that in the post.
OB,
I agree with your post above re: de jure vs de facto identities. Though it does raise an question:
The United States has no official ethnicity, yet it’s history would suggest it barely needed one to entrench ethnic divisions.