The Newsstand Sophisticate

Paul Berman has written a long, very interesting article (registration required) on Swiss Islamic “philosopher” Tariq Ramadan and the way some Western journalists, especially Ian Buruma, have downplayed the more retrograde aspects of his thought and failed to press him for specific answers on how he envisions Islam operating within European democracies. Berman also examines Buruma’s tiresome assertion that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an “enlightenment fundamentalist.”

Hirsi Ali is in Sydney now, spreading her fundamentalist belief that everybody should be free to make his or her own choices so long as they don’t directly harm anybody else. (Shocking, aren’t they, the things these fundamentalists try to shove down everybody’s throats?) In an article on her visit, one Nada Roude, of the New South Wales Islamic Council, is quoted offering a statement worthy of Mr. Ramadan in its vague authoritarianism: “Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to express their opinion is not welcome.” The use of the words “anyone who causes harm to our society” is of course misleading and irresponsible. “Anyone who hurts our feelings” would be much more accurate. Peoples’ right to believe whatever they want should be respected, and protected by the state. No state or religion has the right to curtail others’ movement or speech to protect someone’s feelings.

Today Norm quotes an article by Pamela Bone from the Australian that argues that liberal democracies “are better than countries that still operate under rules more appropriate to 7th-century Arabia.” I’m certainly on the side of Norm and Ms. Bone, and am often amazed by the vehemence with which such statements are attacked as “imperialist,” or as making a distinction without a difference because the West has committed more atrocities, allegedly, than any other civilization it holds itself superior to.

I think such attackers take statements like Bone’s as assertions of cultural and personal superiority, which they (usually) are not. Bone perhaps encourages such a reading by slipping into the use of “they” and “we” to refer to religious authoritarians and citizens of liberal democracies, but asserting that liberal democracy is better than theocracy certainly does not entail believing that people in the U.S. or Australia are better than people in Saudi Arabia or North Korea. It simply asserts that democratic institutions are more humane, more just, and more protective of human rights than are nondemocratic ones.

Liberal democracies are the only states that allow all cultures, even minority ones, to flourish. If Saudi Arabia were to become a liberal state overnight, it would certainly see a spike in the population of apostates from Islam, Mormons, libertarians, etc. You could say in response that Saudi culture would experience a rupture from its past and a loss of something it once had if it were to liberalize. But because its supposedly age-old religious and cultural uniqueness relies on the use of state power and violence to prevent individuals from say, reading about Buddhism, questioning the existence of God, or declaring that it might be all right for women to drive, it’s ludicrous to imagine that the culture is a genuine, freely chosen expression of the will of the Saudi people to begin with.

What with Christopher Hitchens all over the airwaves and the Internet and the boom in atheist books, I felt I needed a break from relentless criticism of religion. So, last night I sat down to read George MacDonald Fraser’s “Flashman and the Mountain of Light”—and what did I find at the beginning of the chapter I was on? This:

“If there was one thing worse than Jawaheer’s murder it was his funeral, when his wives and slavegirls were roasted alive along with his corpse, according to custom. Like much beastliness in the world, suttee is inspired by religion, which means there’s no sense or reason to it . . . “

And then a bit later:

” . . . why, Alick Gardner told me of one funeral in Lahore where some poor little lass of nine was excused burning as being too young, and the silly chit threw herself off a high building. They burned her corpse anyway. That’s what comes of religion and keeping women in ignorance.”

The Newsstand Sophisticate is unavailable in China, according to greatfirewallofchina.org, which allows you to test any Web site in real time to see if it’s been blocked by Chinese government servers. (Via One+One=Thr33, which is also unavailable in China.)

Tim and Eric, of the “Tim and Eric Awesome Show: Great Job!” have posted a cumulatively hilarious series of loopy “promos” for Shrek the Third here. Watch them before they get taken down. (Via BoingBoing.)

I know it’s impolite to speak ill of the dead. Christopher Hitchens knows this, too, which is why he was especially nasty when asked about the death of Jerry Falwell last night on CNN:

“I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.”

There’s more from Hitchens here. I’ve heard and read much lately that Hitchens is too abrasive in his atheism. But he’s a forceful polemicist when he writes about other topics, too, so I’m not sure why it should be different when he tackles religion or religious figures. The notion that criticism of religious ideas should be watered down simply because they are “matters of faith,” or “deeply held,” is itself a pernicious article of faith deeply held by too many.

Human Rights Watch (via the excellent Butterflies and Wheels) has a report on the arrest—on no charges—of Tasneem Khalil, a young investigative journalist in Dhaka, Bangladesh, by a government goon squad calling themselves the “joint task force.” Khalil’s “crime” has been to report on government corruption and human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings by the Bangladeshi security forces.

The Bangladesh government has an unfortunate habit of arresting people for things that should in fact be celebrated, as in the case of Salah Choudhury.

Contact information for the Bangladesh Embassy in Washington, D.C., is here. An e-mail or letter might not do much, but at least it will signal that this sort of outrage is not being ignored.

The Texas legislature meets once every two years, and the current session is scheduled to come to a close May 28. So the politicians have been working hard to push through important legislation like this, a bill to insert the words “under God” into the state’s pledge of allegiance. (Yes, Texas has its own pledge.) According to this article, bill sponsor Debbie Riddle said adding the words is “common sense.” But that’s not the only bit of hot Jehovah-on-state action the lawmakers have cooked up: the House and Senate also passed bills requiring the posting of the words “In God We Trust” in their chambers.

I deplore this sort of thing because I believe strongly in a secular state and because public servants meretriciously parading their piety to voters make me cringe. I think eventually this constant religious showboating will have the opposite of its intended effect. The sponsors of these bills hope to bring some of that heavenly sense of purpose and allegedly unalterable morality they find in religion to the business of government. But if the state succeeds in bringing the deity so visibly into its everday functioning, it may prompt some citizens to begin thinking of religion with the same fondness they have for the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Internal Revenue Service.