Post a response:
|
Piece by piece: Well, I don't want to be cast in the role of defending the makers of these silly videos. There is indeed a tension between Islamic culture and Western LGBT identity that these videos elide. My point is that this tension is a part of a project: the deliberate juxtaposition of world-views that in their juxtaposition act as pincers against the Judeo-Christian world-view that you, that indeed we, largely defend. I am not clear what you see in the "Anglo" "way of life" that you regard as worth preserving. The Anglosphere is responsible for the latest wave of our persecution - America in particular. You seem to decry its liberalism whilst at the same time wanting to preserve it against being eroded by Muslim migrants. I don't really see the culture of the migrants as inferior to my native culture. The Ancient Greeks were surely much closer to contemporary Arab cultures than to any modern European culture. But anyway, that's all by-the-by. By "Anglo way of life" I mean just a local instantiation of some (at least semblance of) tradition, stability, meaning. I mean 95% of what I grew up with and loved, of incredible cultural accomplishments of infinite value and beauty, especially its music and art; of its striving toward humanistic ideals, of its defeat of Hitler, of its staying of Stalinism (which may not be lasting). Call me naive for that, but it is a position I unsentimentally defend. It is not defense of modern liberal democracy, it is not a defense of capitalism, it is not a defense of sexual politics. It is a defense of a sense of place. I do not think the Anglosphere is itself responsible for the latest wave of "our" persecution, to be honest. It is its locus, to be sure. The collapse of its fundamental, traditional structures was the result of risks that it has incurred. It has made mistakes, and (I speculate here) it lost faith in itself, and now serves greater historical forces that transform its capacity for self-criticism to the point of nihilism. It has not been "itself enough," it has not lived up to itself. But this is not the time or place either to mount a grand philosophical defense of the value of the culture I was born into, or to mourn its passing. I could not even hate it for what I hate it for without being essentially of it. En passant, Islam came from outside Europe geographically, but Arabia was full of both Jewish and Christian communities, and both influenced the Prophet. And when you say that Europe had a "Judeo-Christian tradition, philosophy, and theology" I would add that Scholastic Christian theology and philosophy was very much influenced by Arabic scholars as well. But there was no Islam in what we call Europe. Christendom both East and West fought bloody battles to keep Islam out. Andalusia was Muslim for centuries, but it was Europe that drove it away. I don't know what you mean by "Arabia," but we agree that the more educated and cosmopolitan elements of Islamic culture, Turkish Arabic and Persian, Istanbul Fez Baghdad and Tehran, were profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thought as well. Smart people manage to influence smart people. Islam can be thought of as a Christian heresy. Europe's Christendom was always Hebraic, however much it hated and subjugated own Jews. (Muslims more recently prove the Jews' greater foes -- though the "progressive" secular Anglophone West presently seems again to conspire against them.) Despite Arota's characteristically abrasive style of expression, it did seem to me that he was right in saying that "For over a thousand years, Christianity rejected Jews and Judaism", and that Europe was specifically Christian and barely tolerated Judaism when it wasn't actively persecuting Jews. But again, that's not what we were talking about, or at least not what I thought we were talking about. Again: It makes sense to speak of Europe as a Judeo-Christian "thing." (I can live with the word "thing," for now at least, though perhaps "confluence" works better: I believe it was Pope Benedict who described "Europe" as that confluence of Greek philosophy, Roman Law, and Hebraic religion. I find it a satisfying depiction (as you do too, below).) If, however, you wish to use the term "Judeo-Christianity" as a synonym for "Christianity" (for it seems to me that this is what you are doing), on the ground that Christianity has its roots in Judaism (along with Greek metaphysics, and Roman organisational genius and jurisprudence) then I have no objection; I shan't argue over words. I don't wish to impose such a synonym. I mean only that European culture for the last many centuries is of a coherently Judeo-Christian quality, including all of the internal conflicts that that quality has sustained. Christians, Jews, Christianity, Judaism: these have been central to European culture, for better or worse, for many centuries. Jewish influence on European hardly be underestimated. Despite their oppression, Jews have been some of the most successful people on the continent, economically, philosophically, scientifically, artistically -- you name it. Muslims have not. And they show no signs of ever doing so. Windfalls of oil money surely make their impression in the West, as do waves of immigration from those who haven't benefited from those windfalls, but none of these are rhetorical strategies of inherent merit: they are only anti-European. We have a lot to learn, no doubt, from a theological philosophy that takes gender difference seriously, that does not hate child-bearing, and that has left a lot more space of BL than the West; there is wisdom there. Catholicism carries that wisdom too, but the secular West shuns these idea for their aboriginal Christian origin. As you and Pope Benedict agree, the Hebraic traditions tie together with Roman Law and Greek philosophy to create the great panoply of Judeo-Christian, European civilization. I may have been mistaken in applying the term "Islamophobic" to you, but the term itself is not meaningless or silly. You have accused those who oppose genocide of being antisemitic, so you are not yourself above using the corresponding term concerning prejudice against Jews. In my country, real violence has been whipped up by lies being told about Muslims on the part of the far right. We need a term for this phenomenon, and Islamophobia will do nicely. I have never accused "those who oppose genocide" of being "antisemitic." What a ludicrous claim! I oppose genocide as much as you do, and consider myself far less antisemitic than I consider you, all things considered. We have entirely different analyses of what's going on. As far as I'm concerned, the very accusation of "genocide" on the part of Israel can only be rationally reached through an irrational faith in sources of information and analysis that are, already, antisemitic. I may be wrong in my own analysis (though no one ever seems to disprove it), but your claim that I accuse "people who oppose genocide," as a class, with "antisemitism," is sheer folly at best, slander at worst. In your country, which I pay attention to, violence has also been whipped up by Muslims, and been ignored or defended by Islam's apologists, far more than by any "right wing lies". Of course the term "islamophobia" is not meaningles. My contention is that it is a secular concoction bent on demonizing any natural defense of traditional ways of life, ways that being undermined by any number of factors, Islam/Muslim immigration being just one. The concept is a convenient way of shunting the profound alienation that accompanies massive, multidimensional cultural and technological changes into a blunt accusation of intolerance and "racism." (The word "transphobia" is similar to "islamophobia" in this regard: both terms work to stir up images of irrational fear, of torch-bearing Nazi-like hatred against individuals. Both connive to work like the N-word -- except you can say them.) |