Where do you stand in the culture wars debate? Post your views in the
feedback box at the bottom of this story
Take our culture wars quiz
A glorious culture clash took place in Iran recently that made me laugh
out loud. The children of Che Guevara, the revolutionary pin-up, had been
invited to Tehran University to commemorate the 40th anniversary of their
father’s death and celebrate the growing solidarity between “the left and
revolutionary Islam” at a conference partly paid for by Hugo Chavez, the
Venezuelan president.
There were fraternal greetings and smiles all round as America’s
“earth-devouring ambitions” were denounced. But then one of the speakers,
Hajj Saeed Qassemi, the co-ordinator of the Association of Volunteers for
Suicide-Martyrdom (who presumably remains selflessly alive for the cause),
revealed that Che was a “truly religious man who believed in God and hated
communism and the Soviet Union”.
Che’s daughter Aleida wondered if something might have been lost in
translation. “My father never mentioned God,” she said, to the consternation
of the audience. “He never met God.” During the commotion, Aleida and her
brother were led swiftly out of the hall and escorted back to their hotel.
“By the end of the day, the two Guevaras had become non-persons. The
state-controlled media suddenly forgot their existence,” the Iranian writer
Amir Taheri noted.
After their departure, Qassemi went on to claim that Fidel Castro, the
“supreme guide” of Guevara, was also a man of God. “The Soviet Union is
gone,” he affirmed. “The leadership of the downtrodden has passed to our
Islamic republic. Those who wish to destroy America must understand the
reality and not be clever with words.”
Don’t say you haven’t been warned, comrade, when you flirt with “revolutionary
Islam” as if it were a mild form of liberation theology. But it is time,
too, for Che to lose his secular halo. If he were still living, the chances
are he would be another dictator like Castro, who has ruled Cuba with an
iron fist for half a century but gets a pass from liberals because he
provides a modest health service.
There used to be a clear dividing line between conservatives and liberals. It
defined the culture wars of the late 20th century, which pitted reactionary
fuddy-duddies against tolerant, enlightened types, who believed in equal
rights for women, minorities and gays. That fault line is becoming as dated
as the flower power of the 1960s.
By the time Terry Eagleton, a Marxist professor of literature – how quaint and
old-fashioned that sounds – is laying into Martin Amis, the Mr Cool of
British fiction, for remarks on Islam that supposedly make the son as racist
as his father, Kingsley, “an antisemitic boor, a drink-sodden, self-hating
reviler of women, gays and liberals”, it is obvious we are into a wholly
different culture war, between phoney and real progressives.
Wasn’t one of Amis fils’s main complaints about Islamic militants that they
were “antisemites, psychotic misogynists and homophobes”? Confused? You are
not the only one.
My own test for spotting a phoney liberal is as follows. If you think Bush is
a fascist and Castro is a progressive, you are not a democrat. If you think
cultural traditions can trump women’s rights, you are not a feminist. And if
you think antisemitic rants are simply an expression of frustration with
American and Israeli policy, you have learnt nothing from history.
It is no longer possible to tell at a glance which side people are on. My
husband, a photographer, has long hair and wears T-shirts and cargo pants.
We live in stuffy Washington, where almost everybody wears a suit and tie
but secretly longs to be artistic and hip. On the school run, nice lawyers
confide to him that they hate George Bush, despise the Iraq war and are not
as reactionary as they look. They are completely thrown if he tells them he
dislikes Islamo-fascism more than Bush, is glad to see the back of Saddam
Hussein, supports Nato against the Taliban and thinks the Iranian mullahs
should never be trusted with a nuclear bomb. He considers himself an
antifascist who believes in the secular values of the Enlightenment and
human rights. There is nothing radical about being tolerant of the
intolerant, he says.
On the other side of the looking glass, jeans-clad leftists are horrified that
one of their own could possibly have anything in common with the dreaded
neocons. Christopher Hitchens is a rock star among atheists, most of whom
oppose the Iraq war. Last weekend, he travelled to Wisconsin to receive an
award from the Freedom from Religion conference for his book God Is Not
Great.
“In my acceptance speech I upbraided the audience by saying I could easily
have got the impression that they thought the only threat to our society
came from the Christian Coalition and possibly the odd Israeli settler,” he
says. “You would not have known from anything on sale, any T-shirt, any
peaked cap, any book or pamphlet, that there was such a thing as Islamic
fundamentalism.”
They didn’t like it. “I got the usual lame and bleating replies that, to the
extent that if there was such a thing, it’s been created by us,” Hitchens
says. One of the most indulgent forms of western narcissism is that
everything is “all about me” – or, in this case, the West. Myopic liberals
find it impossible to believe that radical Islam may have a dynamic of its
own that threatens their values. “You cannot stand for multiculturalism if
you represent a group that wants to kill all the Jews and Hindus. Shouldn’t
that be obvious?” Hitchens asks. “Martin [Amis] was saying, ‘Look, there’s a
real problem here’, and good for him.
“The name of the problem is religion, and there is only one religion that
threatens us with this kind of thing . . . There is a reason people look
askance at a mosque in their neighbourhood, and they are not mad or cruel or
stupid or selfish or bigoted to worry about it.”
Nick Cohen, whose book What’s Left? has just been published in paperback,
identifies progressives as antitotalitarian internationalists who subscribe
to “some kind of universal values”, as he puts it.
“The left are like old-style Tory imperialists, who believe rights are all
very well for western Europe but not for Johnny Foreigner, and that the
liberation of women is essentially for white-skinned women, not
brown-skinned women,” Cohen says.
A case in point is the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somalia-born author
of Infidel, who has received an astounding lack of support from liberals and
the left. An article in Newsweek described her as a “bomb-thrower”, when it
is Hirsi Ali who faces death threats from real bomb-throwers merely for
speaking her mind and has had to rush back to the Netherlands because its
government will no longer pay for her bodyguards while she is abroad.
Natasha Walter, reviewing her book in The Guardian, wrote blithely: “What
sticks in the throats of many of her readers is not her feminism, but her
antiIslamism” - as if the two could be separated. It was Hirsi Ali’s culture
that led her to be genitally mutilated as a girl, and it was her Muslim
former co-religionists who murdered her friend Theo van Gogh, the Dutch
film-maker. Why should she remain quiet?
Irshad Manji, the Canadian Muslim feminist, is about to become director of the
new Moral Courage Project at New York University. “It’s about developing
leaders who speak truth to power within their own community,” she says.
“Ultimately it is about defeating self-censorship.
“Human beings are born equal but cultures are not,” she believes. “They are
human-made and for the most part man-made. There is nothing sacred about cultures
and nothing blasphemous about reforming them.”
When Amis said something a little more forceful along those lines at the
Cheltenham literary festival, he set off a new firestorm. “Some societies
are just more evolved than others,” he said. Then last week on Channel 4
News, he said: “I feel morally superior to Islamists.”
Note that he is not saying he feels morally superior to Islam - but to
Islamists. Is it wrong to make such a judgment, when there is nothing
immutable about culture and society?
Manji says: “I absolutely defend his right to believe that certain
civilisations are superior to others,” but adds the important rider: “In
contemporary times he may be right, but in the past Islam gave birth to the
Renaissance.”
To my mind, Manji is a “moderate” Muslim, in that she still describes herself
as a person of faith, but to many of her Islamic brethren, she is off the
scale. Liberals have been too quick to accept as moderates Muslims who are
nothing of the kind – except in comparison with the suicide bombers and
theologians of Al-Qaeda.
“It’s not a waste of time to search for the moderate Muslim, because there is
a civil war within Islam between people who do and don’t want to live under
sharia,” says Hitchens, “but there are a lot of counterfeits who are being
seized on in our cultural cringe moment.”
The chief cringers, he might have added, are the phoney liberals. The new
culture war looks set to run and run.
It is hard to know where one stands in the culture debate as you link to the quiz doesn't work.
Simon Marshland, Bath, Somerset
To: Heather in LA:
morality is NOT an innate concept. Your statement is wishful thinking at best, and to the extent that is not based in any science; it's nonsense. I'm not much of a believer, but my morality - and that of all those that surround me - stems from the religious background that we picked up from my parents, society, culture etc. Nietzsche wrote about what will happen after 3-4 generations raised without religion and religion-based morality. Read him, rad anything beyond the NYT, for that matter.
I don't believe in any religion, but I also do not believe that we're all meant to live in any civilized society. We may end up going to some primeval state; that's how humans lived for most of their existence. But if you want/expect a world with corporations, healthy, abundant and cheap food, books, comfy shoes and ipods WITHOUT the order brought about by religion and morality... you're wrong. Not that I expect you to have any Eureka moment on reading this. You're very wrong.
Andrzej, San Francisco, CA
One question regarding the quiz; aren't the semites people of the eastern Mediterranean, including Palestinians, which makes Israel antisemitic, as many Israelis are of European origin?
b, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I lived in a muslim country where the crossroads signs were crossed curves so people did not see a cross. We built an arch to honour the sultan's birthday visit and had to redo it because someone said it looked like a cross. The designs were circular but had points like acompass rose. The christian cemetary had a high fence around it. Islam is today the most intolerant faith, the Shi'ites and Sunnis cannot tolerate each other or even minor schisms.
Conversion as we know is punishable by death, even at the hands of one's own family. We permit mosques but no Christian activity is allowed in many muslim states. Even multi ethnic Malaysia is increasingly dominated by sharia.
Tolerance is a one way street at least for the Islamists.
Tolerance is seen as weakness, just as a desire for peace was seen as weakness by Hitler in the 30's. Moderate muslims do not speak out, as it has been shown the answer
to dissent even not wearing a scarf can be death. I have no religious preferences
billcarr, turku, finland
Heather in LA,
If you need to believe in a god in order to be morally upstanding and compassionate, then I am glad you are a believer. But morality doesn't come from religion. Morality is an inate trait that has evolved over time. People all over the world of various faiths and backgrounds (including atheists) have similar moral values. Religion is not required.
Alex in Miami,
I couldn't tell your position on Islam based on your post, but I would fight against an Islamic Empire with all of my strength and will. And so that Muslims don't feel I am only against them, I am fighting against the US being a Christian Nation as well. All religions are false.
JHouse in Alpharetta,
Zach Wamp, Bart Stupak, Mike Doyle, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, Mark Pryor, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels, James Dobsen, Rob Bell, Robert Schuller, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Theodore McCarrick, Binny Hinn, Bill McCartney, etc.
The reach millions. Let me know if you need more names...
Eric, Irvine, CA, USA
Brilliant article! Keep up the good work. If readers would like even more insight into the predicament we are in, I highly recommend Walid Phares 'The War of Ideas: Jihadism vs Democracy'. Prof. Phares has some very penetrating insights that we should all benefit from.
Mike Woodman, Bradford, UK
Say what you want pray to whoam you want, do what you want,
go where you and when you want, and don't care who likes it.
Krys,Houston Tx
Krys, Houston, Texas
Liberal? Conservative? Means practically nothing anymore - or at least not what these terms once meant. I grew up in Democratic family in the 60s and 70s, when the party was that of the middle-class - not the party of radicalism and Hollywood pinheads. Republicans were beyond the pale - rich, uncaring country-clubbers - or so we thought.
As the Carter administration limped to its sorry close, my family reviewed the situation and "did a 180" (turned completely around, for you non-Americans) - we became (with a few notable exceptions) Reagan Democrats. I've become fed up with the hypocricy of the left (not that it's not on the right, too) that preaches tolerance - but only when it suits their political agenda - or states that "future generations will judge us by how we treat the least among us" - but ignores the most helpless - the UNBORN; or blathers all day long about First Amendment rights - but only for those who agree with them. Where ELSE would I stand?I'm sane - are you?
Sharon Eide, Bridgeport, Washington; U.S.A.
Another poster pointed out the indisputable fact that in the religion of Islam, if you've studied the Koran and the Shariah, you know that man is to follow no law but God's. In fact, "There is no God, but the God, and Muhammed is his Prophet," is the first utterance you must make to become a Muslim. The concept I speak of is foreign to Western society, because in our Judeo-Christian traditions, to obey a ruler (i.e. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's") is completely acceptible. In Islam, the Koran is the LIVING word of God. It is to Muslims what Jesus Christ is to Christians--NOT what the gospels are to Christians. Therefore, to obey a ruler that does not obey God is to defy God. Furthermore, the Koran calls for the formation of one holy state: the Islamic Empire, which Muhammed himself set out to create immediately after his "revelation". The idea of a nation-state (e.g. Iran, Iraq, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc.) is completely foreign to Islam... (More...)
Alex Fumero, Miami, FL, USA
Maybe I am being too simplistic. Here is my faith:
Think what you want.
Say what you want - but accept the consequences of you doing so.
Do what you want - but don't impose (either physically, mentally, spiritually or otherwise) yourself forcefully upon or restrain (either physically, mentally, spiritually or otherwise) any other human being.
The problem is, when you push this to its literal extreme (as with many other faiths) it becomes unworkable ...
MC, London,
In the late 90s and early 0s, I used to attend protests against the big corporations and their corrupt dealings with the government. After a while, I realized that while many of the protesters had good intentions, they don't really realize that both sides are corrupt, not just their own. Not only that, but some of the people they stand for are much worse, in that their corruption isn't based on greed, but on killing people. Just as you will see all sorts of issues at a protest, there are evil people who join their causes with good causes, tricking good people into supporting evil, and they have sullied everything good that the left wing could've stood for.
Aaron, New Haven, ct
Perhaps people in the past needed religion, but more and more people these days are agnostic or atheist. People don't need religion or spirituality. But I digress, the real issue at hand is respect for life. One would think that in these modern times people wouldn't kill over things they cant prove. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, including that they, their society or their religion are better than someone else, but the competition to 'prove' such things should be kept nonviolent. That's why we have the Olympics, that's what international trade is good for. Religion is one of the few things that has had an undeniable ability to put blinders on the morality of large numbers of humans to get them to hurt other humans. The left doesn't support radical religion, it recognizes it's right to exist, provided it isn't killing people.
kris, Austin, TX
Some of the greatest figures in fighting for human rights have been deeply religious (and spiritual) people. Religion, in fact, is the reason that many of us believe that social justice is so important..it is our faith that drives us to act for the good of humanity. What is foolish is to lump all people who are religious together. Let's be real and speak the truth...religion is not the enemy, ignorance is...and NO they don't go hand in hand!
Heather, Los Angeles,
A previous poster said;
"It's foolish to declare religion is foolish. It seems that one of the universal traits of mankind is a need for faith. "
What is truly foolish is to confuse religion with faith.
(Or spirituality.)
eric, Millersport, OH
It's foolish to declare religion is foolish. It seems that one of the universal traits of mankind is a need for faith. Without faith we're nihilists. Religion satisfies our need to believe in something. Worship an ice cube if you want; but please keep your religion to yourself, and I'll do the same.
Jrod, San Francisco, CA
The case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a good one to consider. The author of this article claims that the left has not supported Ms Ali. It was the rightwing Rita Verdonk who tried to take Ms Ali's citizenship away. It was the rightwing VVD party, for which Ms Ali had been an MP, that supported this. It was the hard left GroenLink, the socialist international member PvdA, the Socialist Party, and (credit where credit's due) the centre right D66 that tried to force Ms Verdonk to resign over this shameful episode.
Pieter, Berlin, Germany
You simply don't understand Islam if you think there can be a separation of church and state' or reform of that nature (i.e., towards secularism).
In the Koran, God's laws are man's laws, and vice versa.
The whole extremist movement in Islam is in part a reaction to secularism and humanism.
In the long term, it will be difficult for the moderate and non-violent muslims to win over the extremists and non muslims.
In todays's 24 hr media culture, spectacular violence gets much more notice in the press.
j house, Alpharetta, USA
Eric,
You have a right to feel morally superior to anyone else, but you overestimate the power of the 'Christian Right' in the U.S.
The notion of the 'Christian Right', as some unified force in US politics and law, has been invented by the Democrat Left and the media as a bogeyman for political purposes.
Name 10 influential 'Christian Right' leaders in the US and the total number of lock-step followers that would vote on their command? What? Pat Robertson? Your average 'Christian conservative' considers him a joke.The whole thing is ridiculous.
Trust me, the 'Christian Right' didn't put George Bush into office...twice. HIs opponents just refuse to this day to believe that Americans other than this 'Christian Right' would vote for someone other than John Kerry or worse, Al Gore (remember him losing his home state in 2000?). Please...
I'm not one of these you label a 'Chistian Right' (whom you fear so much right alongside Islamic extremists), but I am a conservative.
j house, Alpharetta, USA
On what basis anyone can judge that certain civilization is superior then other civilization? on superitory of arms? or financialy strong,?
No doubt western civilazation is strong in arms and in money matter.but no one consider how the western civilazation acquired this plus point.In my openion every culture is unque,there are some very marveliios vertues and some very bad ritual in every culture.Every culture is florish in geographical and histroial circumstance.Main reason for advance ofcivilazation depend on grographical circumstance.so it is futile to blame or compare culture forward or backword. we must respect all civilazation. that is real humanism
Ramesh Raghuvanshi, Pune 411030, Maharastra[India]
Those who are very proud of their culture and think themself superior compare to other culture. They must take kit of gene testing macine and go to Africa and test Babun or Gorila and findout their ancient forefather.
Those who think themself superior must understand all mankind was born from BABUN. WE ARE IN SAME BOAT. So please stop this nonsense comparism
Ramesh Raghuvanshi, Pune 411030, Maharastra[India]
Jon from Bristol writes that he "dislikes" the moral code offered in the Koran. Well, I'm a bit different. I harbour a mortal fear of it. I am anxious about Islamic moral strictures because they are among the harshest in the world. In so far as they seek to regulate much of daily behaviour, they are uttterly totalitarian. Unlike there's a separation of Church and State in the Islamic world, and until Islamists have been defeated (hopefully by argument, but I'm not holding my breath) by either liberal democracy or by liberal democrat Muslim moderates, I will very uneasy.
Thor, Vancouver , Canada
What do they mean, "We can't condemn evil in their society if it exists in ours'? What rot. Of course we can. They do it al the time. The difference is we listen to their condemnations but radical Islamists do not hear ours so we need to do it more
vociferously.
We must not just condemn religion, we must recognize that a
form of it has arisen in every human society. spontaneously. We start life as children and we remain children who invent
a diety to make our world bearable in adversity. The problem
occurs when some of the species play upon this crying need
and set up priesthoods to gain personal power and to pervert
this logical source of solace and guidance to their own ends.
Patrick MacKinnon, Victoria,
Of course the more moderate should condemn the less moderate, whether Muslim, Christian, or Jew! How any Christian can criticise radical/intolerant Islamists or jews without first publicly chastising, condemning, and excluding their own fascists has always been beyond me.
But that does not mean we cannot condemn evil wherever we see it, as long as we are not blind to it in our own house. "Judge not" and "Glass houses" do not forbid us to criticise or to throw stones, so long as we do so equitably.
Eric Bagai, Portland, Oregon, USA
I agree with Irshad Manji. It is high time that we speak truth to power. Why is it that , in this day and age, we have to shy away from religious critique for fear of "hurting someone's feelings?"
I am an atheist, and I, too, feel morally superior to Islamist and Conservative Christians. I believe that both groups are competing to see which one can inflict the most damage on humankind. Islamist are taking a direct, head-on approach, while Conservative Christians are trying to undermine society incrementally. Either way, I honestly feel that there can be no "peace on earth" until all religions are exposed as fatuous myths and as relics of humankind's infancy.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child. I understood as a child. I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.
It's time we admit that religion is a childish thing and simply put it behind us.
Eric, Irvine, CA, USA
There is a culture war on.
I quote; to make peace after a war there has to be a winner and a loser.
Let's go to war and win it.
Jacob Goldberg MD, Ramot Naftali, Israel
Excellent article.
"He considers himself an antifascist who believes in the secular values of the Enlightenment and human rights. There is nothing radical about being tolerant of the intolerant."
Absolutely! If only everyone was this enlightened. Well said!
Scott, Durham, NC, USA
Eagleton's objection to Amis wasn't about his view of Islam as such. He objected to Amis demanding that all Muslims be discriminated against to force them to curb the extremists themselves.
His error was that he described Amis' comments as written when they were in fact spoken, in an interview, and quoted him selectively to imply that the statement represented his actual opinion. In fact Amis had merely said that he felt an 'urge' towards this sentiment, with the implication that considered reflection would lead you to reject it.
However, setting aside the question of the context in which Amis made his remarks, they must surely be considered unacceptable as an actual policy recommendation, even by people who, as I do, dislike the moral code offered in the Koran.
Jon Eccles, Bristol, UK