Immunity
I’ve been re-reading Martha Nussbaum’s brilliant essay and chapter ‘Religion and Women’s Human Rights’ in Sex and Social Justice. In it she discusses the tension between religious liberty and human rights. It’s refreshing, to put it mildly, to read someone who doesn’t pretend there is no such tension. On the contrary; Nussbaum is quite definite about it:
For the world’s major religions, in their actual human form, have not always been outstanding respectors of basic human rights or of the equal dignity and inviolability of persons…these violations do not always receive the intense public concern and condemnation that other systematic atrocities against groups often receive – and there is reason to think that liberal respect for religious difference is involved in this neglect…Liberals who do not hesitate to criticize a secular government that perpetrates atrocity are anxious and reticent when it comes to vindicating claims of justice against major religious leaders and groups.
Nussbaum goes on to detail some of the ways religion does interfere with women’s human rights, and a very thorough job she does of it. And then she raises some searching questions about group rights.
A “group” is, then, not a fused organism but a plurality of individuals, held together in some ways but usually differing in many others. The voices that are heard when “the group” speaks are not magically the voice of a fused organic entity; they are the voices of the most powerful individuals; these are especially likely not to be women. So why should we give a particular group of men license to put women down, just because they have managed to rise to power in some group that would like to put women down, if we have concluded that women should have guarantees of equal protection…?
Why indeed. And why is it that ‘Liberals who do not hesitate to criticize a secular government that perpetrates atrocity are anxious and reticent when it comes to vindicating claims of justice against major religious leaders and groups’? Why do people who don’t otherwise defend atrocity go quiet when the atrocity is religiously based? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s one I really wonder about. Habit, custom, ingrained inhibitions, reluctance to be rude and hurtful, yes, but why does all that apply to religion and not to other sets of ideas or institutions? What is it about religion and religion alone that makes us feel so squeamish about, say, interfering with its right to oppress and harm and deprive women?
I’m not sure, and I’d like to tease out an answer. But I think the fact that we do feel this hesitation, the fact that we do let religious groups and no others get away with systematic abuse of women (and dalits, and gays, and animals, among others), is one reason I think well-meaning liberals and leftists should stop being so generous with the ‘It’s in that other sphere’ stuff. I think that’s one compelling reason for saying No it’s not, it’s right here in this one, messing with people’s lives, and not being impeded enough. So that’s one reason I’m going to carry on saying that. I might decide to write a book about it, especially if I can persuade my colleague to write it with me.
Go ahead and write it; we need more such, esp. if you can put a new slant on it, get the point across in some new way, for those that might’ve missed it before.
Didn’t the practice of mutilating boys, by cutting off their foreskins, start as a religious rite? And get universalized, or nearly so, by doctors anxious to prevent said boys from pleasuring themselves, which taboo also sprang from religion? Not to pick on Western religion alone–didn’t I read about some Australian tribes that do more than that to young men, like knocking out a perfectly good tooth? Which rites apparently have some spiritual/ mythical etiology, as if they weren’t already gotten away with by being ethnically whatever-the-word-is. That’s a case of “spherical encroachment” if I ever saw one. And just because it is traditional, that doesn’t mean it is good…
Remember that religion is still the big boy on the block: liberal, Enlightened thinking only goes back 200 years; religion has been around for at least 6000. Not so long ago people doubted whether an atheist could be a good citizen and in the USA we still swear on the Bible before testifying in court.
This chimes in with the “thin gruel” post. What thickens the gruel is nothing to do with the moral teachings–it’s the accumulated weight of the traditions and rituals.
And then there’s the certainty issue. Remember that the conviction of God-given certainty is a tremendous force multiplier against the typical Enlightenment awareness of human fallibility.
What it all comes down to is a long hard struggle and it’s extremely important to hold onto the gains that have already been made. Rust never sleeps and true believers can be incredibly patient.
You’re right. It’s unthinkingly embedded in the culture. When I was on jury service recently, I was the only one on the first jury I was called for who chose to affirm rather than swear. This jury was stood down on a technicality, but when I was called to a second panel, seven of the previous jury were with me. Before we went into the courtroom, four of them came up to me and said that they were going to affirm as well – and they did.
In many cases it’s nothing to do with genuinely believing, just what’s always been done.
Thanks for all the good comments.
“What it all comes down to is a long hard struggle and it’s extremely important to hold onto the gains that have already been made.”
Just so. Which is one good reason (I think) to go on examining all this sort of thing, even if one never says a word that hasn’t been said a million times before. There are always people who haven’t heard, people who want to re-think, etc.
So maybe I just will write that book, when I get a minute.
Whenever one talks about religion, the “herd mentality” aspect comes into the picture. How many people would like to stand in front of a frenzied mob and accuse them of atrocities? Whether that cowardice or common sense, depends on the individual’s perspective i guess.
But just for the sake of discussion, which religious atrocities were ignored (or given muted criticism) by the so-called liberals?
If one looks at the reaction to Dixie Chicks’ criticism of the War on Iraq, the herd mentality is evident in a non-religious way. Guess its just a question of whether something enjoys the majority’s consent.
jp
Nussbaum goes into much detail on the ‘which’ question. Among the items she cites are unequal divorce laws, different laws about legal testimony, the right to travel and associate, to leave the house, to go to school, to work. Threats of violence from mullahs in Bangladesh. The fact that all women living in countries that are wholly or partly governed by Islamic law are under the guardianship of a man.
The whole “immunity from criticism” card seems to pop up way too often in the realm of religion. A corrolary tactic often used involved screaming “discrimination” anytime someone questions the legitimacy of their beliefs.
I’m taking education classes right now, and these kind of issues recently came up regarding evolution and information about homosexuality in school curriculums. A number of my classmates, who will sadly be teaching one day, have no problem arguing that parents should have the right to forbid that teachers expose their children to information about evolution or homosexuality. They even claim that forcing children to learn about evolution is “discriminatory” against parents who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. That’s a rather odd definition of discriminatory – demanding the right to place certain kinds of knowledge off limits simply because you don’t like them.
Of course, they use weasel words like “discriminatory” precisely because they don’t have the foggiest idea how good the evidence for evolution is, and try very hard not to learn. It’s a way of making ignorance look morally attractive, by cloaking it in the spiffy garb of victimhood.
Phil