|
|||||
“Ecrasez l’infâme”Geert Wilders is dangerously ill-informed about the developement of liberal democracy in the West, and while I winced at his description of Islam as a ‘retarded culture’ on Sky News yesterday, I’m also appalled at his cavalier assertion that “”Our cultures, based on humanism, Judaism and Christianity, are far better than the Islamic culture.” This is to ignore how our modern freedoms were brought about by centuries of bloody struggle against the dead hand of theocracy in Europe. Unfortunately, Wilders’ confusion is typical of that of many in the west today, who naively assume that because the population of western liberal democracies are also predominantly Christian, that the Judaeo-Christian tradition helped the developement of enlightened liberal values. In reality, the link between Christianity and enlightement has usually involved much burning, at least of books and, where the Churches could manage it, of philosophers and village wise women alike. From the Donation of Constatine to the present, theocracy has always opposed progressive political philosophy. The Churches did preserve learning, but only supported it insofar as they could control it and use it to reinforce their social control. As soon as any radical reformer took any of those ideas and actually dared to apply it to address abuses in the churches or improve the lot of the common man, the Church set out to crush them, and didn’t much care about any innocent bystanders who got in the way. Men like Erasmus or Brahe got along because they kept mostly inside the lines and played ball. But Luther, Calvin, Galileo, Voltaire and others all found themselves on the recieving end of the wrath of Church. Wilders is lucky to have been raised in the Netherlands, a mostly Protestant nation where the worst problems of Church and State linkages were sorted out during the wars of religion – wars in which large tracts of Europe were devasted in order to protect the political power of the Catholic Church and rulers on her side. Whatever Dutch Protestant tradition he was raised in may be compatible with the UN Charter on Human Rights, but that is by no means common to all Protestant traditions – there are many “good” protestants in the US who still invoke the Old Testament doctrine of an “eye for and eye” to support the retention of the death penalty, or as justification for shooting workers at abortion clinics. This confusion is pervasive in the West. The US currency still boldly asserts ‘In God We Trust’. Almost every primary school is Ireland is run by the Catholic Church, has Catholic religious statutes or images around the building and sees a significant amount of class time devoted to preparing children for Catholic religious ceremonies. We have no lofty EU consititution because our politicans cannot work out how to write one without addressing their confusion – and ours – about the ‘role Judaeo-Christian’ tradition of burning liberals and their books in our political heritage. Wilders just happens to be the current, media friendly example of it. It is hard to encourage the development of democracy in the Muslim world, or to encourage Muslims in the west to stick to the western democratic tradition when we so casually assume that it is inextricably linked to Christianity. It is – the Christians were usually the ones carrying the torches to burn the books. One of those whose books were burnt at the instigation of the church was Volatire, from whom the title quote comes – it means “crush the infamy”, a phase which “refers to abuses of the people by royalty and the clergy that Voltaire saw around him, and the superstition and intolerance that the clergy bred within the people” and you might do well to click over and read the Wikipedia article on him because it also explains that other, misattributed, quote at the heart of the liberal tradition: I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” I dislike a lot of what Wilders says, but it is only by dragging those views into the light of debate that we can chase away the darkness of supersititon. 3 comments to “Ecrasez l’infâme” |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Mike Cosgrave - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
I think that this misses Wilders’s point. Every major religion has interfered with political life and acted intolerantly, but the thing about Christianity is how limited that interference has been in relative terms. Islam could never have a “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” line, because it is inextricably linked with statecraft – that’s why hopes for a “reformation” in Islam are misguided, because it’s as much a political philosophy as a religion. We probably both agree that a minimal amount religion in the public sphere is a pretty good thing, and what’s attractive about Christianity is that this is possible. The line I quoted above is a single example, but Jesus’s political pronouncements tended towards the tolerant – Muhammad’s didn’t, to put it mildly! And indeed, it’s possible to point to crazy things in the Old Testament, but the fact that these are ignored is a testament to the flexibility of Christianity.
Yes, theocracy is bad in any form, but it’s a lot easier under Islam than under Christianity, because the latter is so much more incoherent than the former. This incoherency (and its basically positive message) is in contrast to the Qur’an, which reads like a legal codex. The great strength of Christianity is the fact that, through accident or design, it forces debate and dissent.
Wilders is also mistaken in refering to ‘Islamic culture’ as if it is a monolithic entity. There are different sects within Islam, Sunni, Shia, Bahai, Ismeali, Wahibi and so forth. As well as this there are ethnic differences, buried certainly but bubbling away beneath the surface, from Arabs, to Africans, to Persians to ethnic Indians as well as Turks, Slavs etc. etc. Between these countless variations are different forms of Islam, often differing markedly not only in small differences such as the acceptance of Turks for eating pork, but also major doctrinal difference such as the acceptance of homosexuality amongst Afghan Taliban fighters. By saying Judea-Christian culture is superior to Islamic culture, Wilders is in fact saying that liberal democracy is preferable to what could be termed as Wahhabi extremism and some aspects of Turkish culture introduced to the Netherlands as a result of Germany’s gastarbiter program. The truth of the matter is that within the Islamic world, there is an undercurrent of secularisation, most obviously in Turkey and present in many Arab countries during the Cold War, where with the aid of Western intelligence agencies it was destroyed by the ancien regime of these countries, leaving militant Islam as the only credible opposition. The fear of Arab and Iranian socialism in the 60’s and 70’s is a factor in the rise of militant Islam in the 21st century.
This is just orientalism in its worst form. But don’t take my word for it: add up the piles of bodies.