There's a lovely chapter in Roger Scruton's Green Philosophy. I want to put to one side his (minor) comments on Islam but it never ceases to amaze me that people can comment on some topic about which it is abundantly clear they have little knowledge of. I mean, it would sound slightly ridiculous if a non-scientist made remarks about the scientific method. Of course, in an era which supports ever more fantastically rigid lines of demarcation between branches of knowledge it may be that no-one can say much now about anything except their own tiny area of specialization. So, yes, tradeoffs.
~~~
There's been some comment about the youtube clips which, no doubt, many Muslims will find offensive. And the recent decision by Channel 4 to pull the plug on a programme on the origins of Islam (Tom Holland?) has also brought widespread criticism (rightly so, in my opinion).
Some will say that freedom of speech isn't the real issue here; what we should be concerned about is the terrible violence and stupidity associated with some religious groups in the modern world (some may wish to go further and say that violence is inextricably linked to religion-or at least one religion-both at the historical level and at the textual/doctrinal one). I think that that's a reasonable and fair discussion, even though I don't really have much time for that point of view. Violence and the Sacred: Dudley Young, of course.
There's the minor point that it does appear that one group of people (Muslims) in the world is highly sensitive to criticism or ridicule and quite childlike in their reactions. Again, broadly speaking, that sounds about right- putting to one side Jewish complaints of anti-semitism.
My question is off tangent to those discussions: can people who have lost the sense of reverence for anything holy truly be said to be irreverent? When it was said of Eckhart: the more he blasphemes, the more he praises God, this was against a background of faith; in a similar vein, the idea of liberty, or one idea of liberty-that of freedom from constraint-was really a pressing concern when the state, custom, tradition, and religion bore down heavily on the individual. But I don't think complaints against authority were tantamount to the desire to abolish the idea of limits, restraints altogether (even the Reformation was about a reform of the Church, surely?).
This reminds of a brilliant essay by Cavell on Kierkegaard. Up there with Kristeva on Holbein and his own superb reading of Endgame. Words and concepts like "holy", "revelation" ..what can they mean in the times we live in?
What must strike the modern world as profoundly strange is that so many Muslims do in fact have a reverence for holy persons (of different faiths..as a matter of dogma, actually). Not talking about the barbaric views towards images (Buddhist and Hindu) of some, but of the day-today religious views of the majority. And then there's one of my favourite stories-which sounds authentic-about how the Prophet protected the image of Christ from being destroyed in the Kaba (see Titus Burckhardt's Art of Islam for details).
To go back to Scruton: is there something about the modern way of living, capitalist society, that destroys the sense of reverence, attachment to a place or the past or to nature? Is there something about it-its emphasis on use value, for example-that erases the boundaries between public and private, sacred and profane, the different "spheres of justice" (Walzer) so that the very notion of transgression becomes redundant? What happens when the shock of the new doesn't shock any more? Is nothing sacred, Rushdie asked, and the answer was: No!
Illich has this phrase: the 'revolt against necessity' and Hannah says: the 'unnatural growth of the natural'. To speak of "necessity" or "needs" and not wants and desires is to go against the grain. Are we in need of a different view of austerity, one that means living in one's limits with a sense of joy and responsibility?
It might be said-and with some justification-that religious people have rarely tolerated other people (minorities, unbelievers, etc) and so why should they now be afforded such space. Such a view really only mimics the hatred expressed by religious people. What would the world be like if the so-called religious people and the so-called non-religious people actually sat down and listened to one another as human beings, instead of ridiculing the other, instead of trying to determine the limits of free speech? Surely free speech is one that is easy-going, full of light-heartedness, but respectful of other people's sensibilities. Although the art of conversation still survives (despite the internet!) one does sometimes wonder if it will continue to do so when the voices of hatred and bigotry are so resoundingly loud.
~~~
There's been some comment about the youtube clips which, no doubt, many Muslims will find offensive. And the recent decision by Channel 4 to pull the plug on a programme on the origins of Islam (Tom Holland?) has also brought widespread criticism (rightly so, in my opinion).
Some will say that freedom of speech isn't the real issue here; what we should be concerned about is the terrible violence and stupidity associated with some religious groups in the modern world (some may wish to go further and say that violence is inextricably linked to religion-or at least one religion-both at the historical level and at the textual/doctrinal one). I think that that's a reasonable and fair discussion, even though I don't really have much time for that point of view. Violence and the Sacred: Dudley Young, of course.
There's the minor point that it does appear that one group of people (Muslims) in the world is highly sensitive to criticism or ridicule and quite childlike in their reactions. Again, broadly speaking, that sounds about right- putting to one side Jewish complaints of anti-semitism.
My question is off tangent to those discussions: can people who have lost the sense of reverence for anything holy truly be said to be irreverent? When it was said of Eckhart: the more he blasphemes, the more he praises God, this was against a background of faith; in a similar vein, the idea of liberty, or one idea of liberty-that of freedom from constraint-was really a pressing concern when the state, custom, tradition, and religion bore down heavily on the individual. But I don't think complaints against authority were tantamount to the desire to abolish the idea of limits, restraints altogether (even the Reformation was about a reform of the Church, surely?).
This reminds of a brilliant essay by Cavell on Kierkegaard. Up there with Kristeva on Holbein and his own superb reading of Endgame. Words and concepts like "holy", "revelation" ..what can they mean in the times we live in?
What must strike the modern world as profoundly strange is that so many Muslims do in fact have a reverence for holy persons (of different faiths..as a matter of dogma, actually). Not talking about the barbaric views towards images (Buddhist and Hindu) of some, but of the day-today religious views of the majority. And then there's one of my favourite stories-which sounds authentic-about how the Prophet protected the image of Christ from being destroyed in the Kaba (see Titus Burckhardt's Art of Islam for details).
To go back to Scruton: is there something about the modern way of living, capitalist society, that destroys the sense of reverence, attachment to a place or the past or to nature? Is there something about it-its emphasis on use value, for example-that erases the boundaries between public and private, sacred and profane, the different "spheres of justice" (Walzer) so that the very notion of transgression becomes redundant? What happens when the shock of the new doesn't shock any more? Is nothing sacred, Rushdie asked, and the answer was: No!
Illich has this phrase: the 'revolt against necessity' and Hannah says: the 'unnatural growth of the natural'. To speak of "necessity" or "needs" and not wants and desires is to go against the grain. Are we in need of a different view of austerity, one that means living in one's limits with a sense of joy and responsibility?
It might be said-and with some justification-that religious people have rarely tolerated other people (minorities, unbelievers, etc) and so why should they now be afforded such space. Such a view really only mimics the hatred expressed by religious people. What would the world be like if the so-called religious people and the so-called non-religious people actually sat down and listened to one another as human beings, instead of ridiculing the other, instead of trying to determine the limits of free speech? Surely free speech is one that is easy-going, full of light-heartedness, but respectful of other people's sensibilities. Although the art of conversation still survives (despite the internet!) one does sometimes wonder if it will continue to do so when the voices of hatred and bigotry are so resoundingly loud.
No comments:
Post a Comment