Why Opposing Religion Via A Politico-Secular Discourse Is A Blunder

[rug]

Irshad Manji

MAY 9, 2016
EMANUEL L. PAPARELLA, PH.D.

The current stratagem, quite popular in the West, of opposing intolerant social norms as practiced by some Muslim communities vis a vis women, gays, human rights and freedom in general (be it of speech, or political, or artistic); that is to say, opposing certain religiously condoned intolerances and orthodoxies with a libertarian “enlightened” secular discourse (which usually advocates the liquidation of religion per se, at best tolerating a mere vapid cafeteria-style sort of “spirituality”) is an inadequate, clever by half, solution to the problem at hand.

It makes those who feel that their faith is under attack all the more determined to defend it zealously. In Islam they call that kind of extreme defense Jihad and it has been carried in one form or another for centuries now.

What usually happens is that the table adroitly gets turned around and the “enlightened” “progressive” secularist alleging human rights violations that need to be abolished ends up accused of intolerance, of trying to impose his particular brand of intolerance, i.e., his extreme secularism and enlightenment, on believers. It all turns into a vicious circle. This is particularly true in those modern societies where religion has been abandoned as just another myth or lie, long superseded by modernity progressive positivistic science. The best example of that is the EU. Not to be modern is to be medieval, obscurantist, retrograde, undesirables who cannot be accommodated in a modern progressive society based on the tenets of the Enlightenment, a la Voltaire.

This strategy usually misfires and ends up producing more animosity and intolerance with accusations of zealotry and extremism on both sides of the fence. There is however a much better approach and it is that advocated by the influential philosopher Jurgen Habermas in his essay “A post-secular Europe” and that of the Ugandan born Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji, author of two best-selling influential books: The Trouble with Islam Today (translated into 30 languages), and How to Reconcile Faith and Freedom.

http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1399:why-opposing-religion-via-a-politico-secular-discourse-is-a-blunder&Itemid=678

[MisterP]

1. polarization and violence is in the interest of a great many ideologies and persons

[Albertoo]

2. This overlooks it is the Quran itself* which is "medieval, obscurantist, retrograde"

not to mention contradictory or flatly plain wrong in certain passages.

*just like the other 'holy' books

[Cartoonist]

3. Whatever it takes

This is becoming a new meme. Whine about how mean and nasty atheists are, and how it's not working, and will you just stop it.

The truth is, it is working. Secularism is on the rise. We will not be silenced.

[rug]

4. You strike me as sensitive.

[Brettongarcia]

5. Criticism from both outside and inside religion is vital

Working from within has some usefulness. And I tried working from within for years. But the problem was that as long as you flatter religion to any degree, it will go away feeling just that it has simply been reaffirmed once again. And will learn almost nothing. Then too, if you stay inside, your thoughts are compromised. And you might backside, yourself.

So today, a double barrel of criticism - from within and without - is important.

And by the way: the secular approach is more effective than ever. More people than ever say their religious affiliation is " none", or atheist.

[rug]

6. I agree they're both vital.