On Violence, or Pluralism's Strange Unwillingness to Fight for Itself
I realize this is all old news by now, but I felt like taking a crack at it too, so here goes.
Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece for Slate earlier this week critiquing Pope Benedict’s speech. The overall thrust of the article was to slap both sides with charges of hypocrisy and ultimately bemoan the spectre of religion altogether. My biggest problem with his argument, I think, is that it fails to take account of the reality of the situation as it stands right now, which is that Islam is, in fact, exactly what the Pope said it was (apology notwithstanding) and that the Catholic Church is on the side of the West, whether Hitchens likes it or not.
The over-reaction to the statement “Islam is evil because it is violent” seems to imply a belief in at least one of three things:
1) Islam is not violent,
2) Violence is not evil,
3) Islam is, in fact, evil or violent or both, but simply does not like taking criticism for so being.
The first cannot be denied, but the second may be plausible - and may be reason for the third. No Left Turns posted this quote as a summation of the issue: "The alternative to a new synthesis of faith and reason...is to remove reason from the most urgent questions human beings face, including this one: How do we live together in peace?"
The question of living together in peace implies that the current state of affairs is the opposite of peace - it is, in fact, a state of violence. Thus, even raising this question should incur the same wrath as the Pope’s statement, for it demonstrates a recognition of the fact that violence is occurring and expresses the opinion that there is something wrong with that. One must wonder whether, by reacting as they have, the Islamicists actually demonstrate that they have no problem with the violent state of affairs and no desire to seek peace on the West’s terms. They just don’t like to be told that they are wrong.
After the first apology issued from the Vatican, further violence ensued because many in the Islamic world felt (correctly) that the Pope was not sorry for what he actually said, but only for the unintended consequences. Even Hitchens cannot contradict the substance of the statement, for he only accuses the Pope of “hypocrisy” and “rubbing it in” and seems to be most sorry for the existence of religion at all. He also gets the point I am trying to make:
“These [half-hearted apologies] will only serve to convince infuriated Muslims that by threatening reprisal, calling for the severing of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and issuing a few more sanguinary fatwas, they can force yet another retreat.”
But he says this with an attitude I fail to understand. It is an acceptance of the state of violence - it peers over the city walls at the hordes beating down the gates and says “don’t let’s aggravate them lest they encroach even further.” It means “How do we live together in peace?” is a taboo question for the West, or that its answer is “do nothing (and don’t ask that question).” This is dangerous, because to reject this question is to reject the entire Western paradigm. There are only two possible positions here: 1) To believe in and fight for pluralism (living together in peace), or 2) to accept of a state of violence until all the world is an Islamic state. The adherents of the second position have made their choice loudly known and are fighting for it desperately. Where are the apologists for the first?
Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece for Slate earlier this week critiquing Pope Benedict’s speech. The overall thrust of the article was to slap both sides with charges of hypocrisy and ultimately bemoan the spectre of religion altogether. My biggest problem with his argument, I think, is that it fails to take account of the reality of the situation as it stands right now, which is that Islam is, in fact, exactly what the Pope said it was (apology notwithstanding) and that the Catholic Church is on the side of the West, whether Hitchens likes it or not.
The over-reaction to the statement “Islam is evil because it is violent” seems to imply a belief in at least one of three things:
1) Islam is not violent,
2) Violence is not evil,
3) Islam is, in fact, evil or violent or both, but simply does not like taking criticism for so being.
The first cannot be denied, but the second may be plausible - and may be reason for the third. No Left Turns posted this quote as a summation of the issue: "The alternative to a new synthesis of faith and reason...is to remove reason from the most urgent questions human beings face, including this one: How do we live together in peace?"
The question of living together in peace implies that the current state of affairs is the opposite of peace - it is, in fact, a state of violence. Thus, even raising this question should incur the same wrath as the Pope’s statement, for it demonstrates a recognition of the fact that violence is occurring and expresses the opinion that there is something wrong with that. One must wonder whether, by reacting as they have, the Islamicists actually demonstrate that they have no problem with the violent state of affairs and no desire to seek peace on the West’s terms. They just don’t like to be told that they are wrong.
After the first apology issued from the Vatican, further violence ensued because many in the Islamic world felt (correctly) that the Pope was not sorry for what he actually said, but only for the unintended consequences. Even Hitchens cannot contradict the substance of the statement, for he only accuses the Pope of “hypocrisy” and “rubbing it in” and seems to be most sorry for the existence of religion at all. He also gets the point I am trying to make:
“These [half-hearted apologies] will only serve to convince infuriated Muslims that by threatening reprisal, calling for the severing of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and issuing a few more sanguinary fatwas, they can force yet another retreat.”
But he says this with an attitude I fail to understand. It is an acceptance of the state of violence - it peers over the city walls at the hordes beating down the gates and says “don’t let’s aggravate them lest they encroach even further.” It means “How do we live together in peace?” is a taboo question for the West, or that its answer is “do nothing (and don’t ask that question).” This is dangerous, because to reject this question is to reject the entire Western paradigm. There are only two possible positions here: 1) To believe in and fight for pluralism (living together in peace), or 2) to accept of a state of violence until all the world is an Islamic state. The adherents of the second position have made their choice loudly known and are fighting for it desperately. Where are the apologists for the first?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home