The misplaced defense of free speech
Asia Times Online
Feb 7, 2006
SPEAKING FREELY
A mature sense of humor must be founded on the capacity to laugh at oneself, for it is by worlds easier to make a laughing-stock of others, especially when one persists in remaining ignorant of their sensibilities. This can become seriously dangerous and lead to some absurd consequences when done in public.
This is the lesson one may draw from the events sparked by the publication of a series of frivolous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
There are some other lessons that can be learned, but first a brief excursion into some not-so-popular strands of Western philosophy will be necessary to expose some of the elementary confusions regarding faith and reason that pervade popular discourse.
Is God really dead?
Since Friedrich Nietzsche made the oft-quoted but widely misunderstood remark about "the death of God" in the late 19th century, atheism has become part of intellectual orthodoxy in the West. It is not merely fashionable to be an atheist today. It may also indicate spiritual sloth and intellectual laziness, for blind believers in material progress and the church of technology need not take the trouble of examining the underlying philosophical underpinnings and prejudices of their own thinking, not to speak of the conspicuous absence of spiritual values. Nobody born in the West during the last century needs to waste any time in doubting any more whether God exists or not. It has been scientifically "proved" that there is no God. Such is the atheistic faith, if I may be permitted a malapropism.
In fact, no such thing has ever been proved in the history of human thought. The two things hardest for human beings to prove are those for which there is no proof and those for which there might be too much! It has been as difficult to show God's existence as it has been to disprove the hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.
When it comes to divine matters, all that human thought has been able to persuade others of are probabilities. Thus the French philosopher Blaise Pascal argued forcefully in the 17th century that if one was uncertain about the existence of God, it was far wiser to bet on (and believe in) his existence, at the cost of sacrificing some pleasures, than to deny a possible great fact (and carry on with a blind way of life) for which one may suffer "eternal damnation".
Interestingly, the 19th-century Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, quoted at the start of this article, was an avowed Christian. However, he expressed his criticism of the established Lutheran Church of his day when he distinguished himself from "Sunday Christians". Importantly, he suggested that reason cannot decide the matter of God's existence. Why? Because if the fact was that God did not exist and one tried to prove his existence, it would be impossible to do so and, on the other hand, if God did in fact exist, our attempt would be all too foolish! A bit like painting the sky blue.
Thus belief in God's existence involved a "leap of faith". But faith was not, for Kierkegaard, a foul word. It was not inconsistent with the use of reason (as his many books demonstrate) and nor was it a superstition. On the contrary, "faith is the highest passion in a human being", he wrote in his book Fear and Trembling.
The irony, in light of recent events in Denmark, could not be starker.
In modern Western intellectual sensibility the reigning mainstream view, which informs most of the response in the Western media to the events emanating from the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed, is that science and reason have for a long time now overwhelmed religion as a basis for a world view and can and have replaced it.
Progress is, among other things, understood as the transition from religious to scientific societies. (Let us abstract, for the time being, from the massive church-going population of the United States that wanted only "intelligent design" to be taught in schools.) This is taken very widely as an article of faith in the popular mind of the West.
Such a view is just what Kierkegaard spent much of his life criticizing. With Pascal, two centuries before him, Kierkegaard argued that there were metaphysical truths that reason could only express, but never discover, that "the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of", as Pascal so pithily expressed it. For these two thinkers, both reason and faith were indispensable. There was no choice to be made between the two, if one knew the place of each.
It is safe to argue that present-day Western societies with their ruling ethos of material values, their willing embrace and imposition of compulsive consumerism (on the rest of the world), not to speak of the resulting narcissism, nihilism, the trivialization of spiritual values, and a total loss of faith in anything not centered on (privileged) humanity and its limited anthropocentric vision, would have terrified and ruined the digestion of such thinkers as Pascal, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
That is the extent to which Western culture is today in treason against some of the highest values of its own past.
It also bears mention that the history of Islamic societies, in which (to take just a few examples) mathematicians such as Omar Khayyam and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali found no contradiction between their religion and their reason, and in which tolerance of religious and intellectual freedom was in many cultures the very hallmark of good governance, is quite different from that of those periods of European history when true thinkers and skeptics, like Giordano Bruno, were burned at the stake. I point this out only to suggest that anxious extrapolations from the European experience of religion to that of others is free neither of prejudice nor of dangers.
Now, after that little philosophical preamble, we may approach the meaning of the events set in motion by the publication of those cartoons in a Danish newspaper three months ago.
Freedom of expression?
Is it so hard to make sense of the upset caused by the cartoons to so many Muslims across the world? If so, Palestinian writer Remi Kanazi may be of help: "Picture this: a cartoon of Jesus, with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy. The caption above it reads 'Got Catholicism'?" Or how about a picture of a rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of David - the caption reads, "The devil's chosen ones."
Kanazi points out that there is probably a minority of free-speech advocates in the West who will accept such cartoons as within the law, if not within decency. But he is right to speculate reasonably that there will be public outrage, most media outlets would not pick them up and advertisers would soon pull out of those that did. A cartoon depicting a bomb-hurling Jesus, when the Irish Republican Army was setting Belfast ablaze, would have been greeted with revulsion and indignant censure.
Why is it so hard to understand that there are millions of people living today who still have not lost their faith, who are not prey to wealthy nihilism and its frivolous excesses, who still run their lives along disciplined religious lines? Why must it be assumed, in light of what the best religious thinkers in the West have themselves pointed out, that people with faith are necessarily unreasonable and superstitious? Couldn't a case be made that precisely those without any faith in any value, or principle, or god (except power and wealth) would be unreasonable?
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen says that he cannot apologize for his country's free press.
Free press? How come we hear so little from the same free press about European governments helping the US ferry people - on no fewer than 800 flights over four years, according to Amnesty International - to be tortured in places where it is legal to do so? How is it that nobody in the European free press is talking much about the fact that Iran stopped any further discussion of its nuclear program because the three EU leaders who were parleying with them reneged on their side of the bargain, by not ensuring Iran security in the event of a foreign invasion?
We hear nothing from the free press about the fact that the success of Hamas in the recent elections may have more to do with its schools and health clinics for beleaguered Palestinian communities (while the generous "international community" has abandoned them) than with its purported Islamic fundamentalism.
The "free" media in the West do not bother to investigate the events of September 11, 2001, or allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency itself may have been involved in the Bali bombings of 2002. It does not make any demands of the Bush administration to release the more than 1,700 pictures and videos of tortures and humiliations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that the Pentagon has kept away from the public eye.
We have to hear from bloggers on the Internet about the US forces in Iraq kidnapping women and girls related to suspected insurgents. Needless to mention, no dead American soldiers are shown on the TV screens of the Western media (though there is no bar on showing those killed by suicide bombers in Baghdad). How often is it remembered, not to speak of responsibility taken for the fact, that genocidal UN sanctions prosecuted by the West killed more than a million innocent people in Iraq in the 1990s? The free media in the West keep secret from the public the fact that the US has for years given asylum to proven terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada, wanted by Latin American governments for blowing up planes and suchlike. They are exempt from the "war on terror".
Above all, the media do little to ask for the impeachment of the consummate liars and mass-murderers who occupy elected positions in more than one Western democracy today, even as they pretend to teach lessons in political morals to less fortunate countries.
Free press? Or cowardly media eager to please the wealthy masters?
European cowardice has reached such abysmal depths that the media do not even have a nose for European interests anymore, if they are at odds with those of the Americans. How many times have we heard the European media point out that the Americans and the British have gone to Iraq (and are now going to Iran) looking for oil? We are encouraged to think that the Americans are so principled that they would have been as willing to shed the blood of their young men to bring freedom to a broccoli-growing tyranny in the South Pacific.
To gain monopolistic control of the oil supply of economic competitors such as Japan, China and the Europena Union has been the little-analyzed, overwhelming reason for the invasion of Iraq (and why Americans will never leave that country unless and until their own citizens demand it) and the forthcoming attack on Iran. But free Europeans prefer to look the other way. And deep in their hearts they know that their silence is a lie.
The dangers of cultural solipsism
To philosophers, solipsism is the view that the only thing in existence of which one can be sure is oneself. From here to relegating others to the far corners of one's imagination is but a short step, especially when one has the power to control their realities, for then one can subject them at will to one's illusions. What fun! If a lot of people in a certain culture fall into the habit of doing this, one is entitled to speak of cultural solipsism.
It is often heard in Europe (less often in the United States) nowadays that immigrants – and Muslims more than others – are destroying the age-old culture of the West. It is true that Western culture has seen far more happy times, when the meaning of life was not lost. However, if truth be acknowledged, nobody has robbed Europe of its culture and its heritage as effectively as the organized greed of multinational corporations.
It is they, with their agendas for endless growth and prosperity (self-enrichment), who have enslaved everyone in their jobs (when they are lucky to have one), who have made people too busy to dance, sing and create culture. It is they who have sought cheap labor from North Africa, the Middle East and many poor parts of the world, often sending headhunters to these countries looking for workers cheaper than their own. It is they who have brought on the more or less rapid unraveling of the welfare state, robbing the working classes of the benefits of public services while levying more taxes from them (while reducing those that the rich pay), making them work harder, and pushing for an increase in the age for retirement. Much of this is meant to meet the competition from East Asia, especially totalitarian China, which was introduced to capitalism by president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger back in the mid-1970s.
It is not the contention of this writer that Muslim communities are paragons of justice. Very far from it, in fact. If one looks around the world one is immediately struck by the routine oppression of societies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, among others. However, there is plenty of oppression within Western societies too, not to forget the injustices inflicted by the West on the rest of the world.
If we are to survive globalization, communities of remarkably varied backgrounds and unequal histories have to learn to co-exist and understand themselves and each other. Most important, they have to diagnose their own ills honestly. This cannot be achieved even minimally if economically and militarily powerful Western societies continue to live in a culturally solipsistic universe in which others are mere figments of the imagination, fit for war games when they are at a distance, and the butt of racist jokes, even when they are neighbors. Far from such brutality and vulgarity, ruthless self-criticism has to be recalled as the very touchstone of democracy. It is in this context that genuine political opposition and a free media take their significance.
Western societies are duty-bound to examine themselves and their pasts in relation to others. That colonialism, imperialism and the concomitant racism have played and continue to play a huge part in the formation of the identities of everyone living today - whether they are Westerners or not - is not a theory but facts that any self-respecting scholarship acknowledges. That these facts of history inevitably color perceptions even today cannot be doubted. Only cultivated or intentional ignorance, led by state and media propaganda, can hide them.
The realities of others are also no less imperative to discover if one is to know one's own reality honestly. To surrender to parochial instincts, that too in the name of higher values, such as freedom of expression, is not only to ensnare oneself in further illusions, but to endanger today the very survival of human civilization as we know it. If the West were culturally less solipsistic it would not have found it hard to respect the sentiments of a billion-strong community that has stayed true to a key tenet of its faith: that the image of God, and of the Prophet, cannot be drawn. Even from a secular but skeptical point of view it may be wondered as to who could draw a picture of a human being whose image has never been recorded. In a similar vein, pantheists have argued that if God is everywhere, who could possibly draw an image of him/her/it?
If the realities of the lives of others are not respected and understood minimally (presumably a hallmark of civilization), the "clash of civilizations" (more accurately, the clash of barbarisms) will become all too tragically real. Thus it is absolutely necessary to imagine how it feels to be an Iraqi mother, all children lost to US bombs, whose husband has lost his job (because the factory where he worked was bombed) and now wants to help the insurgents throw the Americans out of Iraq.
Or to conceive how people on the streets of Tehran feel after European leaders have betrayed them, leaving them quite exposed to attacks by US or Israeli bombers. Without extending our imagination in these directions, one will fail to understand and alleviate the despair that people exposed to the military might of the West feel today. In the process, the despair will be aggravated with consequences all too foreseeable.
Can Europe recall its own culture?
When the arteries of human thought are prey to indoctrinated herd instincts under the tutelage of the big-brother state, how much freedom is there left to defend?
Freedom is to know the balance between silence and speech, to know when and about what to speak in public, not to rave and rant at will, not caring for the sensitivities of others. Hate-mongering is not freedom of speech. In a world situation fraught with potentially fatal geopolitical tensions generated around Islam by Western powers, it may easily become the kickoff for a terminal world war. It also demonstrates irresponsible journalism, atrophying under the force of the commercial imperative that compels it to confuse newspaper with tabloid.
The reader is urged to go back to the beginning of this article and read the quotation from Kierkegaard once again. He emphasizes thought over speech. In book after book Kierkegaard bemoaned the absence of contemplation in modern life, criticizing, among other things, the numbing effect of technology and commerce.
If one is able to think one's thoughts freely, one would not partake of vulgarity, or imagine that one's own freedom can be earned at the cost of that of others. One would never mistake power for freedom. The former is a zero-sum game, the latter is not, for it implies that the freedom of each is contingent on the freedom of all.
To have freedom of speech in a time of remarkable censorship and relentless thought control exercised by the powerful Western media on behalf of their corporate interests is a recipe for certain disaster. This is certainly one of the lessons to be learned.
It also demonstrates how dangerous illusions of freedom, when it is confused with power, are. The cartoons of Mohammed are thoughtless and vulgar, and only serve to show the absence of inner freedom in the so-called free societies of the modern world. For European newspapers outside Denmark to have reprinted the cartoons after three months (when the matter had not really had much effect outside Denmark until last week) is a sign of an infantile disorder in the public discourse of the West, not to speak of a terrifying cultural bankruptcy. The disease has now traveled westward from the US. It demonstrates the growing immaturity of a decadent polity. The 18th-century Enlightenment is but a shriveled memory, prey to Mammon.
Now how well do Danes know their cultural past, if the thoughts of their finest thinker sound alien to them today? And are Muslims to be blamed if Westerners have themselves allowed the commerce of decadent capitalism to make them forget some of best features of their intellectual heritage?
Aseem Shrivastava is an independent writer. He can be reached at aseem62@yahoo.com .
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd.)
Aseem Shrivastava responds to readers
I am grateful to those who took the time to read my long article The misplaced defense of free speech (Asia Times Online, February 6). I would like to clarify some points that have caused anguish to some people.
Free speech must be defended. I only argue against a misplaced defense, in these peculiarly tense times.
First of all, partly since I grew up in India (which has independent democratic roots), I consider myself to be a defender of the spirit of the West. By that I mean the baseline liberal traditions that have evolved from terrible birth pangs and growing pains.
I believe that today it is precisely this liberal base - which allows us free speech, public dialogue and discussion, though not a direct hand in decision-making - that is in great danger, largely from within (the USA Patriot Act, for instance, as also illegal tortures and fundamentalist Christianity in the US), but increasingly also from without (mullahs, fatwas and terror attacks). The reasons behind this are complex, but in my article I tried to point out that they have much to do with the effects that two centuries of capitalism and imperialism have had, both on the West and the rest of the world.
My intent was not to attack the notion of free speech, but only to point out the dangers of its abuse. I am certainly not an advocate for banning free speech - in the West or, for that matter, anywhere else. On the contrary, one would like to see free speech in all those parts of the world that do not have it. I only argue that free speech should also be responsible and editors have a huge role to play here. Freedom without responsibility - taking account of the sensitivities of communities who live in our neighborhood (and in the global village, who isn't a neighbor?) - is not only dangerous but, I would suggest, is not even genuine freedom.
No one should contest the right to free speech. It is one of the precious victories of liberalism, earned over a long period of time at the cost of huge sacrifices by workers and ordinary people. I certainly concur with Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
But free speech alone is not freedom. It affords a certain space in the public sphere, but when it is abused, then, as Soren Kierkegaard says, it signifies a psychological servitude (when illusions of freedom have triumphed), amounting to solipsism. I also indicate, though there wasn't space to develop the argument, that capitalism thrives on such servitude and solipsism.
In addition, my article seeks to ask the following questions.
I ask how free the media are in the West when they systematically ignore facts of huge significance, let alone the stories of victims of the West in the world outside. Only a noble few complain when the media systematically conceal the truth, but so many jump to the defense of a newspaper that publishes a silly cartoon that gives offense to a large community.
I ask whether we are free if we derive our primary enjoyment from laughing at or even insulting others in public. This may happen in the entirely hidden sphere of the mind or in less hidden enclaves of public opinion in which our audience is primarily our own community with whom we share jokes about others. It is the latter that is getting us into trouble these days, because (thanks to television etc) nothing is quite so hidden as before. Technology has stolen from us old indulgences.
I also point out the danger of mistaking power for freedom. When someone's power grows, somebody else's diminishes. Such is not the case with freedom. My freedom is ensured only if yours is. If I lock you up in your house, I gain power and you lose it. But it is not merely you who lose your freedom. (I will be constantly anxious about you escaping and what might happen to me when you do. Look at Palestine.) Those liberals who believe that my freedom ends where yours begins have confused power with freedom. Even a casual look at the world today - where terrorists can hold communities to ransom precisely because their communities have been abused and brutalized by great powers - should make this point clear.
The ongoing violence in the Middle East - the burning of flags and embassies, widespread rioting and violence - are reprehensible and have to be condemned. They are immature and foolish. They are the mirrors to US President George W Bush's fatal imperial campaign. In the West, the question needs to be asked as to what is driving people to such excesses of behavior. Is it because Muslims and Arabs are in general just irrational, violent people led blindly by their one-eyed priestly leaders? Is it because the West is envied? Some people in the West will certainly take these views. Let us concede that there is some truth in them, even if they cannot be generalized for most or all Muslims.
However, my article tries to point out that the ground for the success of the mullahs has been laid not just by themselves but by the suffering and resulting despair that have been brought upon the people of the Middle East on account of one overriding fact: oil.
Industrial economies became oil-based in the first quarter of the 20th century. Western powers - here I mean successive, democratically elected governments, not ordinary citizens - have, since the time of World War I, sought, largely successfully, to mold the Middle East from the perspective of their narrow economic interests. The straight lines that you see on the maps of the Middle East and North Africa have been drawn by the British and the French. Since 1932, when Washington signed a long-term oil and security agreement with Saudi Arabia, dictatorial petrocracies have been propped by the West. In fact, the first major coup organized by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was conducted in Iran in 1953, overthrowing the popular and legitimate government of Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the monarchy of the shah.
One reason there is such limited free speech in the Middle East today is the fact that even vaguely democratic tendencies in the region have been nipped in the bud by actions orchestrated by Western governments. The list of dictators supported by the West is long (the information can be readily obtained, so I won't repeat it here).
So this is clearly one reason people like Osama bin Laden succeed in convincing their constituencies that the West is not on their side: there is more than an element of truth in it.
To see why democracy in Middle Eastern societies might be inimical to the economic interests of the West, just consider a scenario in which US troops actually leave Iraq in the next year or two. What is the most likely thing to happen afterward? There are possibilities of a civil war, of course. But beyond that, the demographics of the region suggest that the Shi'ites (60% of Iraq, most of Iran, and a majority in the geographically contiguous regions of Saudi Arabia) are likely to wrest control of the resources that are, by geographical and historical common sense, originally theirs. "The oil corridor" of the Persian Gulf, which holds the bulk of the Earth's oil reserves, would be out of the hands of the West. An unthinkable prospect. So the Americans will stay there.
What if this region turns democratic, more responsive to the people's needs than to great power machinations? What if an oil-producing country in the Middle East democratically decides not to sell oil, say, because the word of God (Allah, in his incarnation as a Muslim Gaia, perhaps) concurs with that of the scientific experts in the West that the further use of oil, leading to terrible global warming, will destroy the human species? The country would of course be embargoed in all kinds of ways, and if that did not make it change its mind (say, if it turned toward a simple, self-sufficient, ecologically sustainable economy relying on local materials - in other words precisely what would disqualify it from being regarded as a modern industrial economy), it would face a coup led by the United States, failing which a war would follow. History teaches us all this very clearly.
Hence there cannot be democracy - or free speech - in (or about) the Middle East. Capitalism, and not just retrogressive Islam, may have to shut down tomorrow. And most people would say that capitalism is more important than democracy, especially when the loss of freedom occurs outside the borders of their country.
Now the point is that democracy within the West is entirely consistent with imperialism outside. Remember that the British Empire was also a democracy domestically. For that matter, also recall that one out of eight American adults (of the wrong complexion) was not allowed to vote in US elections before the civil-rights movement of the 1960s.
Ordinary citizens in the West sometimes feel that the West, being more democratic, is in a position to spread the virus of freedom outside. But if the virus is spread through Western military intervention, as against rational dialogue between ordinary citizens from different cultures (this latter being true globalization, which would be cultural more than economic), the enterprise not merely cannot succeed, it has to be suspected for hidden agendas. The Iraq adventure should make it amply clear why this is such an awful road to travel.
The problem with the civil-society route to democracy is that you will not be able to control the massive oil reserves.
It is also unfair for citizens in the West to judge those Middle Eastern societies in which Western powers have not permitted democracy to succeed, by Western standards, not so much because Islamic traditions are different, but because we do not know what freedom in the Middle East - on their own terms - might have achieved by now, had it been allowed by the West and its favored dictators. Saudi Arabia and Egypt might have been more like Turkey at least.
Muslims in Western societies need to engage with the surviving liberal traditions of Europe, rather than raise the walls around their communities and call for direct action or even violence. They need to explore the space for freedom to practice their values within the broad framework of European liberalism.
This vital process of peacemaking suffers a setback whenever there is provocation from either side - terror attacks or vulgar cartoons. It is in this sense that the cartoons are not merely in bad taste, but irresponsible and counterproductive.
Some readers have raised the issue of just how authentic Muslim faith is today. If mad young men go around burning flags and embassies on account of a silly cartoon, wouldn't it be fair to infer that Islamic societies suffer from the nihilism that my article accuses the West of?
I am not a Muslim and have never traveled to a Muslim country, so I am unable to answer the question as well as I might have liked to. But I come from India and have had throughout my life plenty of Muslim friends (there are 140 million Muslims in India), both in India and the United States. I have also had a number of Muslim students over the years. Many of them are devout, praying five times a day, keeping the Ramadan fast and so on. I know for a fact that their beliefs are authentic, because I have seen them practice them in well-lived ethical lives, sometimes involving huge sacrifices and suffering. Even those who are not deeply religious have ethical values that are rooted in Islam. Many of those who live in the West engage fruitfully with Western liberal traditions. When cartoons in poor taste are published, how do you think such Muslims feel?
So, just as it would be unfair to form stereotypes of Westerners based on the behavior of soccer hooligans and CIA operatives, it is imprudent to judge Muslims by the actions of arsonists and bomb-throwers.
No society is ever based solely on either faith or reason. There is no choice between them. Each one has its place. This was why I quoted Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkegaard. You might also take top physicists of the past century - people such as Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Arthur Stanley Eddington - and they express their feelings of faith in written modes - if not anything else, at a minimum a faith in reason. Likewise, Islamic civilization would not have lasted a millennium and a half solely on faith. Importantly, the Greeks may have been less known to European culture had the Arabs not translated them first. And so many of the technological achievements of Europe are rooted in developments that took place in Islam. (Take a look at Marshall Hodgson's invaluable three-volume work The Venture of Islam.)
At the same time, if you ask me what would Mohammed have done if Allah were insulted (and he was, many times in his lifetime), he would probably have asked people to ignore the ignorant. He would also have said, especially after this tragicomic cartoon crisis, that you cannot have democracy in the West anymore unless you also have it in the rest of the world - so put an end to Western imperialism.
I also want to say, lest I be misconstrued, that I have come across some of the most steadfast practitioners of Eastern faiths more often in Western societies than in my part of the world. Truly religious people don't need to organize themselves into a religion. They are able to practice their deepest values wherever they are. This, however, does not mean those who have grown up in a world of organized religion are necessarily inauthentic in their belief. We have to remember that everyone was once a child, and so has the imprint of the social setting in which she or he grew up.
The most important thing is to keep open channels of communication and dialogue - and this has to be done not merely at the level of individuals and civil societies, but of governments too (since powerful governments are getting into the habit of foreclosing dialogue all too hastily nowadays). Democracy has to be deepened, widened, universalized, thus re-created and the world re-dreamed, if there is to be a world at all for our children and grandchildren.
If we can do this, then, as one reader put it, we can genuinely hope for peaceful and just world(s) in the future, even enlightened ones, arising from the inescapable moral necessities of the present, brought on by the enormous technological success of Western civilization.
But I humbly suggest that modern civilization as we know it will have to go through some profound mutations if a new world civilization and a new world are to come about at all. And for that the first step is to retrieve the world from the edge of the nuclear precipice.
Feb 7, 2006
SPEAKING FREELY
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
- 19th-century Danish Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard
A mature sense of humor must be founded on the capacity to laugh at oneself, for it is by worlds easier to make a laughing-stock of others, especially when one persists in remaining ignorant of their sensibilities. This can become seriously dangerous and lead to some absurd consequences when done in public.
This is the lesson one may draw from the events sparked by the publication of a series of frivolous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
There are some other lessons that can be learned, but first a brief excursion into some not-so-popular strands of Western philosophy will be necessary to expose some of the elementary confusions regarding faith and reason that pervade popular discourse.
Is God really dead?
Since Friedrich Nietzsche made the oft-quoted but widely misunderstood remark about "the death of God" in the late 19th century, atheism has become part of intellectual orthodoxy in the West. It is not merely fashionable to be an atheist today. It may also indicate spiritual sloth and intellectual laziness, for blind believers in material progress and the church of technology need not take the trouble of examining the underlying philosophical underpinnings and prejudices of their own thinking, not to speak of the conspicuous absence of spiritual values. Nobody born in the West during the last century needs to waste any time in doubting any more whether God exists or not. It has been scientifically "proved" that there is no God. Such is the atheistic faith, if I may be permitted a malapropism.
In fact, no such thing has ever been proved in the history of human thought. The two things hardest for human beings to prove are those for which there is no proof and those for which there might be too much! It has been as difficult to show God's existence as it has been to disprove the hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.
When it comes to divine matters, all that human thought has been able to persuade others of are probabilities. Thus the French philosopher Blaise Pascal argued forcefully in the 17th century that if one was uncertain about the existence of God, it was far wiser to bet on (and believe in) his existence, at the cost of sacrificing some pleasures, than to deny a possible great fact (and carry on with a blind way of life) for which one may suffer "eternal damnation".
Interestingly, the 19th-century Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, quoted at the start of this article, was an avowed Christian. However, he expressed his criticism of the established Lutheran Church of his day when he distinguished himself from "Sunday Christians". Importantly, he suggested that reason cannot decide the matter of God's existence. Why? Because if the fact was that God did not exist and one tried to prove his existence, it would be impossible to do so and, on the other hand, if God did in fact exist, our attempt would be all too foolish! A bit like painting the sky blue.
Thus belief in God's existence involved a "leap of faith". But faith was not, for Kierkegaard, a foul word. It was not inconsistent with the use of reason (as his many books demonstrate) and nor was it a superstition. On the contrary, "faith is the highest passion in a human being", he wrote in his book Fear and Trembling.
The irony, in light of recent events in Denmark, could not be starker.
In modern Western intellectual sensibility the reigning mainstream view, which informs most of the response in the Western media to the events emanating from the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed, is that science and reason have for a long time now overwhelmed religion as a basis for a world view and can and have replaced it.
Progress is, among other things, understood as the transition from religious to scientific societies. (Let us abstract, for the time being, from the massive church-going population of the United States that wanted only "intelligent design" to be taught in schools.) This is taken very widely as an article of faith in the popular mind of the West.
Such a view is just what Kierkegaard spent much of his life criticizing. With Pascal, two centuries before him, Kierkegaard argued that there were metaphysical truths that reason could only express, but never discover, that "the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of", as Pascal so pithily expressed it. For these two thinkers, both reason and faith were indispensable. There was no choice to be made between the two, if one knew the place of each.
It is safe to argue that present-day Western societies with their ruling ethos of material values, their willing embrace and imposition of compulsive consumerism (on the rest of the world), not to speak of the resulting narcissism, nihilism, the trivialization of spiritual values, and a total loss of faith in anything not centered on (privileged) humanity and its limited anthropocentric vision, would have terrified and ruined the digestion of such thinkers as Pascal, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
That is the extent to which Western culture is today in treason against some of the highest values of its own past.
It also bears mention that the history of Islamic societies, in which (to take just a few examples) mathematicians such as Omar Khayyam and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali found no contradiction between their religion and their reason, and in which tolerance of religious and intellectual freedom was in many cultures the very hallmark of good governance, is quite different from that of those periods of European history when true thinkers and skeptics, like Giordano Bruno, were burned at the stake. I point this out only to suggest that anxious extrapolations from the European experience of religion to that of others is free neither of prejudice nor of dangers.
Now, after that little philosophical preamble, we may approach the meaning of the events set in motion by the publication of those cartoons in a Danish newspaper three months ago.
Freedom of expression?
Is it so hard to make sense of the upset caused by the cartoons to so many Muslims across the world? If so, Palestinian writer Remi Kanazi may be of help: "Picture this: a cartoon of Jesus, with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy. The caption above it reads 'Got Catholicism'?" Or how about a picture of a rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of David - the caption reads, "The devil's chosen ones."
Kanazi points out that there is probably a minority of free-speech advocates in the West who will accept such cartoons as within the law, if not within decency. But he is right to speculate reasonably that there will be public outrage, most media outlets would not pick them up and advertisers would soon pull out of those that did. A cartoon depicting a bomb-hurling Jesus, when the Irish Republican Army was setting Belfast ablaze, would have been greeted with revulsion and indignant censure.
Why is it so hard to understand that there are millions of people living today who still have not lost their faith, who are not prey to wealthy nihilism and its frivolous excesses, who still run their lives along disciplined religious lines? Why must it be assumed, in light of what the best religious thinkers in the West have themselves pointed out, that people with faith are necessarily unreasonable and superstitious? Couldn't a case be made that precisely those without any faith in any value, or principle, or god (except power and wealth) would be unreasonable?
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen says that he cannot apologize for his country's free press.
Free press? How come we hear so little from the same free press about European governments helping the US ferry people - on no fewer than 800 flights over four years, according to Amnesty International - to be tortured in places where it is legal to do so? How is it that nobody in the European free press is talking much about the fact that Iran stopped any further discussion of its nuclear program because the three EU leaders who were parleying with them reneged on their side of the bargain, by not ensuring Iran security in the event of a foreign invasion?
We hear nothing from the free press about the fact that the success of Hamas in the recent elections may have more to do with its schools and health clinics for beleaguered Palestinian communities (while the generous "international community" has abandoned them) than with its purported Islamic fundamentalism.
The "free" media in the West do not bother to investigate the events of September 11, 2001, or allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency itself may have been involved in the Bali bombings of 2002. It does not make any demands of the Bush administration to release the more than 1,700 pictures and videos of tortures and humiliations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that the Pentagon has kept away from the public eye.
We have to hear from bloggers on the Internet about the US forces in Iraq kidnapping women and girls related to suspected insurgents. Needless to mention, no dead American soldiers are shown on the TV screens of the Western media (though there is no bar on showing those killed by suicide bombers in Baghdad). How often is it remembered, not to speak of responsibility taken for the fact, that genocidal UN sanctions prosecuted by the West killed more than a million innocent people in Iraq in the 1990s? The free media in the West keep secret from the public the fact that the US has for years given asylum to proven terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada, wanted by Latin American governments for blowing up planes and suchlike. They are exempt from the "war on terror".
Above all, the media do little to ask for the impeachment of the consummate liars and mass-murderers who occupy elected positions in more than one Western democracy today, even as they pretend to teach lessons in political morals to less fortunate countries.
Free press? Or cowardly media eager to please the wealthy masters?
European cowardice has reached such abysmal depths that the media do not even have a nose for European interests anymore, if they are at odds with those of the Americans. How many times have we heard the European media point out that the Americans and the British have gone to Iraq (and are now going to Iran) looking for oil? We are encouraged to think that the Americans are so principled that they would have been as willing to shed the blood of their young men to bring freedom to a broccoli-growing tyranny in the South Pacific.
To gain monopolistic control of the oil supply of economic competitors such as Japan, China and the Europena Union has been the little-analyzed, overwhelming reason for the invasion of Iraq (and why Americans will never leave that country unless and until their own citizens demand it) and the forthcoming attack on Iran. But free Europeans prefer to look the other way. And deep in their hearts they know that their silence is a lie.
The dangers of cultural solipsism
To philosophers, solipsism is the view that the only thing in existence of which one can be sure is oneself. From here to relegating others to the far corners of one's imagination is but a short step, especially when one has the power to control their realities, for then one can subject them at will to one's illusions. What fun! If a lot of people in a certain culture fall into the habit of doing this, one is entitled to speak of cultural solipsism.
It is often heard in Europe (less often in the United States) nowadays that immigrants – and Muslims more than others – are destroying the age-old culture of the West. It is true that Western culture has seen far more happy times, when the meaning of life was not lost. However, if truth be acknowledged, nobody has robbed Europe of its culture and its heritage as effectively as the organized greed of multinational corporations.
It is they, with their agendas for endless growth and prosperity (self-enrichment), who have enslaved everyone in their jobs (when they are lucky to have one), who have made people too busy to dance, sing and create culture. It is they who have sought cheap labor from North Africa, the Middle East and many poor parts of the world, often sending headhunters to these countries looking for workers cheaper than their own. It is they who have brought on the more or less rapid unraveling of the welfare state, robbing the working classes of the benefits of public services while levying more taxes from them (while reducing those that the rich pay), making them work harder, and pushing for an increase in the age for retirement. Much of this is meant to meet the competition from East Asia, especially totalitarian China, which was introduced to capitalism by president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger back in the mid-1970s.
It is not the contention of this writer that Muslim communities are paragons of justice. Very far from it, in fact. If one looks around the world one is immediately struck by the routine oppression of societies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, among others. However, there is plenty of oppression within Western societies too, not to forget the injustices inflicted by the West on the rest of the world.
If we are to survive globalization, communities of remarkably varied backgrounds and unequal histories have to learn to co-exist and understand themselves and each other. Most important, they have to diagnose their own ills honestly. This cannot be achieved even minimally if economically and militarily powerful Western societies continue to live in a culturally solipsistic universe in which others are mere figments of the imagination, fit for war games when they are at a distance, and the butt of racist jokes, even when they are neighbors. Far from such brutality and vulgarity, ruthless self-criticism has to be recalled as the very touchstone of democracy. It is in this context that genuine political opposition and a free media take their significance.
Western societies are duty-bound to examine themselves and their pasts in relation to others. That colonialism, imperialism and the concomitant racism have played and continue to play a huge part in the formation of the identities of everyone living today - whether they are Westerners or not - is not a theory but facts that any self-respecting scholarship acknowledges. That these facts of history inevitably color perceptions even today cannot be doubted. Only cultivated or intentional ignorance, led by state and media propaganda, can hide them.
The realities of others are also no less imperative to discover if one is to know one's own reality honestly. To surrender to parochial instincts, that too in the name of higher values, such as freedom of expression, is not only to ensnare oneself in further illusions, but to endanger today the very survival of human civilization as we know it. If the West were culturally less solipsistic it would not have found it hard to respect the sentiments of a billion-strong community that has stayed true to a key tenet of its faith: that the image of God, and of the Prophet, cannot be drawn. Even from a secular but skeptical point of view it may be wondered as to who could draw a picture of a human being whose image has never been recorded. In a similar vein, pantheists have argued that if God is everywhere, who could possibly draw an image of him/her/it?
If the realities of the lives of others are not respected and understood minimally (presumably a hallmark of civilization), the "clash of civilizations" (more accurately, the clash of barbarisms) will become all too tragically real. Thus it is absolutely necessary to imagine how it feels to be an Iraqi mother, all children lost to US bombs, whose husband has lost his job (because the factory where he worked was bombed) and now wants to help the insurgents throw the Americans out of Iraq.
Or to conceive how people on the streets of Tehran feel after European leaders have betrayed them, leaving them quite exposed to attacks by US or Israeli bombers. Without extending our imagination in these directions, one will fail to understand and alleviate the despair that people exposed to the military might of the West feel today. In the process, the despair will be aggravated with consequences all too foreseeable.
Can Europe recall its own culture?
When the arteries of human thought are prey to indoctrinated herd instincts under the tutelage of the big-brother state, how much freedom is there left to defend?
Freedom is to know the balance between silence and speech, to know when and about what to speak in public, not to rave and rant at will, not caring for the sensitivities of others. Hate-mongering is not freedom of speech. In a world situation fraught with potentially fatal geopolitical tensions generated around Islam by Western powers, it may easily become the kickoff for a terminal world war. It also demonstrates irresponsible journalism, atrophying under the force of the commercial imperative that compels it to confuse newspaper with tabloid.
The reader is urged to go back to the beginning of this article and read the quotation from Kierkegaard once again. He emphasizes thought over speech. In book after book Kierkegaard bemoaned the absence of contemplation in modern life, criticizing, among other things, the numbing effect of technology and commerce.
If one is able to think one's thoughts freely, one would not partake of vulgarity, or imagine that one's own freedom can be earned at the cost of that of others. One would never mistake power for freedom. The former is a zero-sum game, the latter is not, for it implies that the freedom of each is contingent on the freedom of all.
To have freedom of speech in a time of remarkable censorship and relentless thought control exercised by the powerful Western media on behalf of their corporate interests is a recipe for certain disaster. This is certainly one of the lessons to be learned.
It also demonstrates how dangerous illusions of freedom, when it is confused with power, are. The cartoons of Mohammed are thoughtless and vulgar, and only serve to show the absence of inner freedom in the so-called free societies of the modern world. For European newspapers outside Denmark to have reprinted the cartoons after three months (when the matter had not really had much effect outside Denmark until last week) is a sign of an infantile disorder in the public discourse of the West, not to speak of a terrifying cultural bankruptcy. The disease has now traveled westward from the US. It demonstrates the growing immaturity of a decadent polity. The 18th-century Enlightenment is but a shriveled memory, prey to Mammon.
Now how well do Danes know their cultural past, if the thoughts of their finest thinker sound alien to them today? And are Muslims to be blamed if Westerners have themselves allowed the commerce of decadent capitalism to make them forget some of best features of their intellectual heritage?
Aseem Shrivastava is an independent writer. He can be reached at aseem62@yahoo.com .
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd.)
Aseem Shrivastava responds to readers
I am grateful to those who took the time to read my long article The misplaced defense of free speech (Asia Times Online, February 6). I would like to clarify some points that have caused anguish to some people.
Free speech must be defended. I only argue against a misplaced defense, in these peculiarly tense times.
First of all, partly since I grew up in India (which has independent democratic roots), I consider myself to be a defender of the spirit of the West. By that I mean the baseline liberal traditions that have evolved from terrible birth pangs and growing pains.
I believe that today it is precisely this liberal base - which allows us free speech, public dialogue and discussion, though not a direct hand in decision-making - that is in great danger, largely from within (the USA Patriot Act, for instance, as also illegal tortures and fundamentalist Christianity in the US), but increasingly also from without (mullahs, fatwas and terror attacks). The reasons behind this are complex, but in my article I tried to point out that they have much to do with the effects that two centuries of capitalism and imperialism have had, both on the West and the rest of the world.
My intent was not to attack the notion of free speech, but only to point out the dangers of its abuse. I am certainly not an advocate for banning free speech - in the West or, for that matter, anywhere else. On the contrary, one would like to see free speech in all those parts of the world that do not have it. I only argue that free speech should also be responsible and editors have a huge role to play here. Freedom without responsibility - taking account of the sensitivities of communities who live in our neighborhood (and in the global village, who isn't a neighbor?) - is not only dangerous but, I would suggest, is not even genuine freedom.
No one should contest the right to free speech. It is one of the precious victories of liberalism, earned over a long period of time at the cost of huge sacrifices by workers and ordinary people. I certainly concur with Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
But free speech alone is not freedom. It affords a certain space in the public sphere, but when it is abused, then, as Soren Kierkegaard says, it signifies a psychological servitude (when illusions of freedom have triumphed), amounting to solipsism. I also indicate, though there wasn't space to develop the argument, that capitalism thrives on such servitude and solipsism.
In addition, my article seeks to ask the following questions.
I ask how free the media are in the West when they systematically ignore facts of huge significance, let alone the stories of victims of the West in the world outside. Only a noble few complain when the media systematically conceal the truth, but so many jump to the defense of a newspaper that publishes a silly cartoon that gives offense to a large community.
I ask whether we are free if we derive our primary enjoyment from laughing at or even insulting others in public. This may happen in the entirely hidden sphere of the mind or in less hidden enclaves of public opinion in which our audience is primarily our own community with whom we share jokes about others. It is the latter that is getting us into trouble these days, because (thanks to television etc) nothing is quite so hidden as before. Technology has stolen from us old indulgences.
I also point out the danger of mistaking power for freedom. When someone's power grows, somebody else's diminishes. Such is not the case with freedom. My freedom is ensured only if yours is. If I lock you up in your house, I gain power and you lose it. But it is not merely you who lose your freedom. (I will be constantly anxious about you escaping and what might happen to me when you do. Look at Palestine.) Those liberals who believe that my freedom ends where yours begins have confused power with freedom. Even a casual look at the world today - where terrorists can hold communities to ransom precisely because their communities have been abused and brutalized by great powers - should make this point clear.
The ongoing violence in the Middle East - the burning of flags and embassies, widespread rioting and violence - are reprehensible and have to be condemned. They are immature and foolish. They are the mirrors to US President George W Bush's fatal imperial campaign. In the West, the question needs to be asked as to what is driving people to such excesses of behavior. Is it because Muslims and Arabs are in general just irrational, violent people led blindly by their one-eyed priestly leaders? Is it because the West is envied? Some people in the West will certainly take these views. Let us concede that there is some truth in them, even if they cannot be generalized for most or all Muslims.
However, my article tries to point out that the ground for the success of the mullahs has been laid not just by themselves but by the suffering and resulting despair that have been brought upon the people of the Middle East on account of one overriding fact: oil.
Industrial economies became oil-based in the first quarter of the 20th century. Western powers - here I mean successive, democratically elected governments, not ordinary citizens - have, since the time of World War I, sought, largely successfully, to mold the Middle East from the perspective of their narrow economic interests. The straight lines that you see on the maps of the Middle East and North Africa have been drawn by the British and the French. Since 1932, when Washington signed a long-term oil and security agreement with Saudi Arabia, dictatorial petrocracies have been propped by the West. In fact, the first major coup organized by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was conducted in Iran in 1953, overthrowing the popular and legitimate government of Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the monarchy of the shah.
One reason there is such limited free speech in the Middle East today is the fact that even vaguely democratic tendencies in the region have been nipped in the bud by actions orchestrated by Western governments. The list of dictators supported by the West is long (the information can be readily obtained, so I won't repeat it here).
So this is clearly one reason people like Osama bin Laden succeed in convincing their constituencies that the West is not on their side: there is more than an element of truth in it.
To see why democracy in Middle Eastern societies might be inimical to the economic interests of the West, just consider a scenario in which US troops actually leave Iraq in the next year or two. What is the most likely thing to happen afterward? There are possibilities of a civil war, of course. But beyond that, the demographics of the region suggest that the Shi'ites (60% of Iraq, most of Iran, and a majority in the geographically contiguous regions of Saudi Arabia) are likely to wrest control of the resources that are, by geographical and historical common sense, originally theirs. "The oil corridor" of the Persian Gulf, which holds the bulk of the Earth's oil reserves, would be out of the hands of the West. An unthinkable prospect. So the Americans will stay there.
What if this region turns democratic, more responsive to the people's needs than to great power machinations? What if an oil-producing country in the Middle East democratically decides not to sell oil, say, because the word of God (Allah, in his incarnation as a Muslim Gaia, perhaps) concurs with that of the scientific experts in the West that the further use of oil, leading to terrible global warming, will destroy the human species? The country would of course be embargoed in all kinds of ways, and if that did not make it change its mind (say, if it turned toward a simple, self-sufficient, ecologically sustainable economy relying on local materials - in other words precisely what would disqualify it from being regarded as a modern industrial economy), it would face a coup led by the United States, failing which a war would follow. History teaches us all this very clearly.
Hence there cannot be democracy - or free speech - in (or about) the Middle East. Capitalism, and not just retrogressive Islam, may have to shut down tomorrow. And most people would say that capitalism is more important than democracy, especially when the loss of freedom occurs outside the borders of their country.
Now the point is that democracy within the West is entirely consistent with imperialism outside. Remember that the British Empire was also a democracy domestically. For that matter, also recall that one out of eight American adults (of the wrong complexion) was not allowed to vote in US elections before the civil-rights movement of the 1960s.
Ordinary citizens in the West sometimes feel that the West, being more democratic, is in a position to spread the virus of freedom outside. But if the virus is spread through Western military intervention, as against rational dialogue between ordinary citizens from different cultures (this latter being true globalization, which would be cultural more than economic), the enterprise not merely cannot succeed, it has to be suspected for hidden agendas. The Iraq adventure should make it amply clear why this is such an awful road to travel.
The problem with the civil-society route to democracy is that you will not be able to control the massive oil reserves.
It is also unfair for citizens in the West to judge those Middle Eastern societies in which Western powers have not permitted democracy to succeed, by Western standards, not so much because Islamic traditions are different, but because we do not know what freedom in the Middle East - on their own terms - might have achieved by now, had it been allowed by the West and its favored dictators. Saudi Arabia and Egypt might have been more like Turkey at least.
Muslims in Western societies need to engage with the surviving liberal traditions of Europe, rather than raise the walls around their communities and call for direct action or even violence. They need to explore the space for freedom to practice their values within the broad framework of European liberalism.
This vital process of peacemaking suffers a setback whenever there is provocation from either side - terror attacks or vulgar cartoons. It is in this sense that the cartoons are not merely in bad taste, but irresponsible and counterproductive.
Some readers have raised the issue of just how authentic Muslim faith is today. If mad young men go around burning flags and embassies on account of a silly cartoon, wouldn't it be fair to infer that Islamic societies suffer from the nihilism that my article accuses the West of?
I am not a Muslim and have never traveled to a Muslim country, so I am unable to answer the question as well as I might have liked to. But I come from India and have had throughout my life plenty of Muslim friends (there are 140 million Muslims in India), both in India and the United States. I have also had a number of Muslim students over the years. Many of them are devout, praying five times a day, keeping the Ramadan fast and so on. I know for a fact that their beliefs are authentic, because I have seen them practice them in well-lived ethical lives, sometimes involving huge sacrifices and suffering. Even those who are not deeply religious have ethical values that are rooted in Islam. Many of those who live in the West engage fruitfully with Western liberal traditions. When cartoons in poor taste are published, how do you think such Muslims feel?
So, just as it would be unfair to form stereotypes of Westerners based on the behavior of soccer hooligans and CIA operatives, it is imprudent to judge Muslims by the actions of arsonists and bomb-throwers.
No society is ever based solely on either faith or reason. There is no choice between them. Each one has its place. This was why I quoted Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkegaard. You might also take top physicists of the past century - people such as Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Arthur Stanley Eddington - and they express their feelings of faith in written modes - if not anything else, at a minimum a faith in reason. Likewise, Islamic civilization would not have lasted a millennium and a half solely on faith. Importantly, the Greeks may have been less known to European culture had the Arabs not translated them first. And so many of the technological achievements of Europe are rooted in developments that took place in Islam. (Take a look at Marshall Hodgson's invaluable three-volume work The Venture of Islam.)
At the same time, if you ask me what would Mohammed have done if Allah were insulted (and he was, many times in his lifetime), he would probably have asked people to ignore the ignorant. He would also have said, especially after this tragicomic cartoon crisis, that you cannot have democracy in the West anymore unless you also have it in the rest of the world - so put an end to Western imperialism.
I also want to say, lest I be misconstrued, that I have come across some of the most steadfast practitioners of Eastern faiths more often in Western societies than in my part of the world. Truly religious people don't need to organize themselves into a religion. They are able to practice their deepest values wherever they are. This, however, does not mean those who have grown up in a world of organized religion are necessarily inauthentic in their belief. We have to remember that everyone was once a child, and so has the imprint of the social setting in which she or he grew up.
The most important thing is to keep open channels of communication and dialogue - and this has to be done not merely at the level of individuals and civil societies, but of governments too (since powerful governments are getting into the habit of foreclosing dialogue all too hastily nowadays). Democracy has to be deepened, widened, universalized, thus re-created and the world re-dreamed, if there is to be a world at all for our children and grandchildren.
If we can do this, then, as one reader put it, we can genuinely hope for peaceful and just world(s) in the future, even enlightened ones, arising from the inescapable moral necessities of the present, brought on by the enormous technological success of Western civilization.
But I humbly suggest that modern civilization as we know it will have to go through some profound mutations if a new world civilization and a new world are to come about at all. And for that the first step is to retrieve the world from the edge of the nuclear precipice.
Labels: Hindu Human Rights
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home