Martha Nussbaum: "The New Religious Intolerance"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-24/martha-nussbaum-new-religious-intolerance
C Jill Reed via Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mulmatsherm/
Some Rights Reserved: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mulmatsherm/2221223106/sizes/z/in/photostream/
Fear of others based on their religion has a long history. It is a problem that continues today. A professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago talks about overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age.
Guests
Martha Nussbaum
professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago.
Program Highlights
In a new book "The New Religious Intolerance," Martha Nussbaum explores a long history in Europe and the United States of fear and discrimination against those of other religions. In recent years, much of this has been directed at Muslims. By understanding the sources of these fears, she writes we can overcome them and extend the rights we demand for ourselves to others.
Constitutional Principles of Religious Tolerance
Since the colonial period, Nussbaum said, we've been concerned with two big things - the exercise of free religion and non-establishment of religion. One clause that applied, the so-called "free exercise" clause, protects people in the exercise of their religion, even when it involves them in asking for dispensation from some law that applies generally to other people. As an example, people from pacifist religions are exempt from the military draft. But there are always ongoing questions about how much accommodation authorities are required to make for someone's religion.
Which Religions Glorify Martyrdom?
A caller asked which religions glorify martyrdom, and Nussbaum said Christianity has a long tradition of it. "I think what often happens is that people are so familiar with the scriptures of their own religion and they make selective use of it and selective use of the history. But when it's Islam that they don't know much about then certain things jump out at them and they think, oh this glorifies martyrdom," Nussbaum said.
The Question of Atheism
Guest host Susan Page said she had heard that Americans would rather elect a Muslim to office than an atheist. "Certainly we do have a very long and unfortunate tradition of demonizing atheists," Nussbaum said. It's hard for some people to believe someone else is an honest person if they don't believe in God, she said, and this is not necessarily a new phenomenon - John Locke thought that atheists shouldn't be tolerated because they can't swear an oath.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Growing up in the netherlands during the immigration boom of the Marrocans and turkish people I have to note thet there was little respect for western woman from the moslim man. You are perceived as a prostitute which can be very disturbing and scary for young girls Tolerance has to come from both directions. I have no problem with the head scarf but do think that when moving to another country you should adapt to their culture just as I had to do when I moved to the U.S. Learn to speak the language.
@ Patsy Nomore
I can't comment on the crusades or the ideology of Christian thinking at that time. I can comment that I am not comparing the two.
What is Shariah?
Adherents to shariah are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to the survival of the Constitution of the United States. Shariah is based on the Quran, which Muslims believe is the “uncreated” word of Allah as dictated to the prophet Mohammed; hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed; and agreed interpretations by Islamic scholars. Shariah commands that Muslims carry out jihad indefinitely until the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where shariah is not enforced, is brought under the domination of the Dar al Islam, or House of Islam (literally the House of Submission), where shariah is enforced.
Ms. Nussbaum fails to recognize that it is possible that societies are fighting some religious practices because they are in conflict with human rights and freedoms. There are many examples of this: It was very customary for some religions to support slavery or to deny education for women. Without pressure from secular side many religions would still be supporting many o these points of view. Denying women freedom to dress as they like and forcing them (and please don't tell me that they have a choice because most don't) to wear burka is something that most people would think is oppression and limitation of basic rights. Most European societies are recognizing this. Laws against burkas are laws that are forcing religious and cultural practices to change. Nobody tolerates genital mutilation although it is a cultural and religious practice in many places. Covering your face completely has many, many implications from psychological to existential. How many careers and jobs one can hold when wearing a burka? American view that whatever is classified as religious should be tolerated is just plain wrong.
Thanks to political correctness,this naive professor is missing the point, because according to the Islamofascists themselves, their mission in life is to take over the whole world for Allah the arab God and the establishment of sharia law all over this planet.
Sasha-
Good points. This "law" professor needs to go back to school and learn how progress really happens. It isn't by upholding and codling all (or even any) religious teachings - it happens by expanding our understanding of the world, how it works and how it can be made better for all. Oppression of any kind (religious or otherwise) is generally a very bad thing and outlawing religion altogether would be a form of oppression. But it is one thing to allow people to be religious - it's another to force them to be religious or act in certain ways that are detrimental to their individual well being. No one has a right (even based on religious doctrine) to physically abuse another person (or animal for that matter). If people want to start a small commune to practice antiquated religious traditions, that may be one thing (as long as they don't coerce members, or abuse them), but for them to expect the rest of "modern society" to go along with their "now dopy" and/or "ancient and antiquated" ideas is another. Every point of view is NOT equally meritorious and deserving of societal protection. The overall goal should always be to maximize our collective well being and knowledge, not to stifle it. Being fixated on old religious "teachings" is just not the way for any modern society to go. Also, can we really afford to just "talk about" our differences for another 700 years, or do women and animals deserve some more immediate protection from secular society?
I consider myself a "Humanist" and preferably disassociate with religion.
Ask this professor if we should have just "talked" about our philosophical differences with slave owners and if we could have "talked" our way to the freeing slaves from those who owned them? Didn't the "talking" go on for thousands of years before Lincoln acted? What's that saying ... "talk is cheap"???
Well one thing is clear, when it comes to protecting women and animals from abuse, this lawyer seems to sure prefer talking (especially on the radio) and writing books to sell, rather than actually standing up for women around the world.
Muslim men are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (including having mistresses) and they certainly don't have to wear any "special" garb that prevents them from being seem by other people. Also nuns are voluntary formal members of a religious order, religious women in general (including most Jews) are not required to wear such oppressive and antiquated attire. The sole purpose of such compulsory dress is to oppress women - nothing else.
What other modern religion actually threatens people with death for just saying or doing the "wrong thing" (even by accident)? Have Jews ever threatened to kill anyone for insulting their religion? What other modern religion equates "martyrdom" with strapping explosives onto their own kids and women and sending them out into the street to blow up other innocent people (especially other kids)? Is Nussbaum actually trying to say that anyone who died in the Holocaust is pretty much the same as "Muslim martyrs" who blow up civilians just because they are "pissed off" and then tells people that they will go to "heaven" for doing such things? Does she really think these things are the same? Martyring yourself against an oppressive military dictatorship is not the same thing as attacking random civilians - no sane person can believe this!
There SHOULD BE "intolerance" of things that can be used to oppress and/or abuse members of society - and that even includes certain religious teachings and practices! Sorry, even in a free society, not everyone can have EVERYTHING they want You still can't own a bazooka or guided missile (even thought the NRA is probably working on that one). Religion should no longer be considered "hands off" when it comes to further the aims of a progressive society. Some religious practices are just plain "mean spirited" and bad and should go the way of slavery, crucifixion and torture .
How can she argue that there is less religious tolerance in America when Islamic countries execute their citizens for "leaving the Muslim" religion? Ms. Nussbaum should worry less about the exploitation of women in pornography and more about fact checking the statements she makes in that farce of a book she wrote.
Why is she so obsessed with porn?
The Bible is full of violence and aggression. The Koran is also full of love. Remember those books were written by a variety of people expressing a variety of opinions at different times. Obviously, I'm an atheist.
The amount of misinformation in the comments here is evidence, I should think, of Professor Nussbaum's general thesis. My being appalled is hardly worth noting. However, that so few others seem to be amazed at the vituperative comments here about a conversation about listening and respecting and being good neighbors to those who are in some outward ways different is most distressing.
I really enjoyed the show today with your great guest Martha Nussbaum. it is always good to her from the few sane people who have some knowledge. It sadens me though to see all those ignorant people who left hateful posts.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (part 1)
As Professor Nussbaum (PN) has been roundly lambasted in these commentaries (with the exception of one or two short, very questionable defenders), I shall endeavor to both defend and criticize the Professor.
Firstly, I do think that PN has in some ways been misunderstood and in other ways been understood quite well. She has been misunderstood in that (a) she is primarily interested in promoting intercultural and intracultural tolerance, not in promoting extremism, and (b) she has brought forth that in context the same apparent fact may have different meaning (e.g. a burkha freely worn by choice is not the same thing as a burkha worn by imposition).
Secondly, she could have done a better job of supporting her objectives, had she chosen better examples. For example: Christian Europe, which gave the world Ghettoes, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Pogroms, and The Holocaust, can hardly be touted today as a model of religious tolerance or as an example for the USA in any way, shape, or form. For example: The religious profiling Muslims have faced in America subsequent to Nine-Eleven is nothing compared to the forced encampments of the Japanese during WW2, and this fact is the better measure of American advancement in religious tolerance, not the freshly-wounded reaction of America to the proposed building of a Muslim Center proximal to Ground Zero.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (part 2)
It is worth commenting that Jews have flourished and been persecuted in Christian and Muslim lands.
Even in the best of circumstances in Christian lands, Jews are defined by that faith as responsible for the death of "The Savior" and have been persecuted or had to fear persecution accordingly; more extreme anti-Jewish bigotry regards Jews as "Spawn of the Devil".
In Muslim lands Jews [and Christians] at best could be "Dhimmi" -- subject to special taxation, stoned with rocks to and from worship houses, prohibited to build new worship houses or to enlarge the older worship houses, prohibited military service, prohibited equal rights to Muslims, subject to other humiliations and persecutions -- and this was and is the "benifiscent, protective" Muslim attitude towards "The People of The Book" -- Jews and Christians (such "respect" for the Torah and the Bible). And Jihadists continue to regard Jews and Christians as the "Little Satan" and the "Great Satan", respectively.
Both the Christian and Muslim expansions attained geographical victory in the greatest part at the point of a sword; both faiths preach great love and sublimation to God; both faiths preach terrible punishment and persecution of unbelievers (in this world and in the next world). Israel (Palestine, as Israel was so re-designated as an humiliation by the occupying Ancient Romans), is today caught in the middle of the never-ending wars between Europe, Eastern Europe, Arabia, Persia, and Africa. And, who is blamed for all these wars? Take a guess....
A LITTLE HUMOR
There was a Muslim astronomer and publisher named Ibn Jihad, who studied the night sky, and who recombined the stars into newly constructed constellations. In his magazine "Jihadist Today" he named these constellations "Great Satan" and "Little Satan". He sold many copies of his magazine throughout the world. As a result, today many international navigators use the Ibn Jihad star chart to guide their way.
I was very disappointed in this professor and disappointed in the Diane Rehm show for not challenging this woman. How can this professor equate warm weather gear to a burka or head scarfs worn be Muslim women. Really madam? Your simplistic view was nauseating and I turned off the show after such an idiotic comment. Your views were given in an condescending lecturing form, and again, the Diane Rehm should have taken you to task on it. We allow all religions to flourish in this country, not unlike many muslim majority countries. Is there religious intolerance? Absolutely. But I and many Americans believe in the "e pluribus unum" motto.
An interesting discussion, and Prof Nussbaum makes many interesting points. However, two corrections.
In India, not all passengers are patted down while going through airport security; rather, each passenger goes through the usual metal detector and then is searched more closely with a hand wand. Men and women have separate lines. India can afford to search everyone because labor is so cheap. How cheap? At a mall with an automated gate that dispenses tickets for parking, one person actually presses the button for each car and hands that driver the card. Make labor more expensive, and any responsible government would have to become more selective.
Second, and more important, although it is true that al Qaeda does not represent all, let alone most, let alone a significant minority of muslims, they perpetrate their attacks in the name of Islam. 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid, ... McVeigh did not invoke Christian doctrine or defending Christianity as his motivating cause. Thus, the analogy, that we do not blame all Christians or say that all Christians are evil murderers, does not hold up. The proper analogy would be to ascribe such motives and methods to be the desires of all individuals who staunchly protect their rights to own firearms.
Both of these are absolutely false. As is the case with all stereotypes and analogies based upon bigotry.
The vast, vast majority of muslims are peaceful and live harmoniously with others and certainly do not support the Taliban or al Qaeda. Those blights on humanity that seek to stifle freedom and liberty are as representative of 1.2 billion Muslims as Pat Robertson is of all Christians. And no, I'm not calling Robertson a blight; just that when he claims the Haiti earthquake is God's vengeance or punishment, such comments are hardly shared by most Christians.