# European secular humanism vs. American relgious faith



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Interesting op-ed piece that makes me understand how different Eurpeans and N. Americans are. I never really thought about secular humanism or religion that much. I am agnostic. I now see it is another complicated factor in international relations.

Written by a Canadian Muslim woman.

*New York Times
November 18, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR 
Under the Cover of Islam
By IRSHAD MANJI*

Toronto

As a young Canadian Muslim who has called for reform in Islam, I've been traveling throughout North America and Europe over the past year. Last week, I toured France and Spain. God help me.

I didn't expect a warm reception from fellow Muslims. But now, I'm also not sure that liberal Muslims like me fit comfortably in a secular European crowd. I say this even after the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, who police officials say was shot and stabbed by a Muslim extremist. Mr. van Gogh had exercised his right to criticize Islam - a right that I, as a modern Muslim, defend unequivocally.

*What then gives me the sense that even modern Muslims can't be modern enough for Western Europe? It's precisely that, from Amsterdam to Barcelona to Paris to Berlin, people incredulously ask me one type of question that I'm never asked in the United States and Canada: Why does an independent-minded woman care about God? Why do you need religion at all?*

I'll answer in a moment. To get there, allow me to observe key differences between the debate over Islam in Western Europe and North America. In Western Europe, the entry point for this debate is the hijab - the headscarf that many Muslim women wear as a signal of modesty. By contrast, the entry point in North America is terrorism.

Some might say that difference is understandable. After all, Sept. 11 happened on American soil. But March 11 happened on European ground, yet the hijab remains the starting point for Europeans. Meanwhile, it makes barely a ripple in North America.

This difference speaks to a larger gulf in attitudes toward religion. To a lot of Europeans, still steeped in memories of the Catholic Church's intellectual repression, religion is an irrational force. So women who cover themselves are foolish at best and dangerous otherwise.

Not so in North America. Because it has long been a society of immigrants seeking religious tolerance, religion itself is not seen as irrational - even if what some people do with it might be, as in the case of terrorism. Which means Muslims in North America tend to be judged less by what we wear than by what we do - or don't do, like speaking out against Islamist violence.

*But there's something else going on. The mass immigration of Muslims is bringing faith back into the public realm and creating a post-Enlightenment modernity for Western Europe. This return of religion threatens secular humanism, the orthodoxy that has prevailed since the French Revolution. Paradoxically, because many Western Europeans feel that they're losing Enlightenment values amid the flood of "people of faith," they wind up sympathizing with those in the Muslim world who resent imported values that challenge their own. Both groups are identity protectionists.*

*We see such protectionism playing out in the debate about whether Turkey may join the European Union. Reflecting a sizable segment of public opinion, European Union commissioners have argued that Turkey is too "oriental." And let us stay that way, proclaim some Muslim puritans who fear the promiscuity of pluralistic values. But is Turkey all that different from Europe?*

It's a longtime member of NATO. Its so-called Islamist government has updated the country's human rights statutes to conform to the standards of the European Union. It's home to an astonishingly free press. Recently, a left-wing newspaper questioned the Koran's origins, a right-wing newspaper wrote about gays and lesbians lobbying for sexual orientation to be included in anti-discrimination laws, and a centrist newspaper editorialized that the education system should be reformed to promote diversity.

*As one young Turk told me, "If Western values are tolerance, democracy, justice, equality and freedom, then I live in a Western country: Turkey." Try explaining that to those Europeans who want to impose their baggage from the Vatican onto Muslim immigrants. Their secularism can be zealous, missionary - dare I say it, religious.*

Which brings me back to the question of why I, an independent-minded woman, bother with Islam. *Religion supplies a set of values, including discipline, that serve as a counterweight to the materialism of life in the West.* I could have become a runaway materialist, a robotic mall rat who resorts to retail therapy in pursuit of fulfillment. I didn't. That's because religion introduces competing claims. *It injects a tension that compels me to think and allows me to avoid fundamentalisms of my own.*

*Islam today has deep flaws, and I know saying so makes me a blasphemer in the eyes of countless Muslims. C'est la vie. If they move beyond emotion, they'll come to appreciate that for the rationalists among us, religion can be a godsend.*

*Irshad Manji is the author of "The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith.*


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2004)

VERY interesting editorial.

To me, it makes perfect sense that the most aggressive countries are always the most religious. A powerful desire to BE aggressive will produce powerful needs to find justification for it. Bloodlust is counter-weighted with a sactimonious "we are GOOD, we represent the Ultimate Good" i.e., we've got His seal of approval.

So, we're not ugly/beautiful humans with ordinary sadistic impulses. We're children of God, light as angels who are only doing Right.

If we could just say "oh, no....you're not hitting me in MY back yard, you bastards..." and go after whoever is threatening our sense of grandiose pleasures, at least we'd know when we're done. But trying to change the world for God is going to be a very very bloody battle that can't even acknowledge its own origins.


----------



## = n (Nov 17, 2004)

Dreamer- I agree differences of belief are a complicating factor in international relations. But a rather flawed article in my opinion.



> What then gives me the sense that even modern Muslims can't be modern enough for Western Europe? It's precisely that, from Amsterdam to Barcelona to Paris to Berlin, people incredulously ask me one type of question that I'm never asked in the United States and Canada: Why does an independent-minded woman care about God? Why do you need religion at all?


If Miss Manji has gone around Spain and France asking people about this subject then i can see such a question being raised. But in no way in europe do people go out searching for muslims or other believers in order to pose such questions. There is no great pan european proselytizing movement seeking to convert people to atheism. If you go to London you will find Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Christians protestant and catholic and probably every other religion under the sun represented. People are free to believe as they will.



> allow me to observe key differences between the debate over Islam in Western Europe and North America. In Western Europe, the entry point for this debate is the hijab - the headscarf that many Muslim women wear as a signal of modesty. By contrast, the entry point in North America is terrorism.
> 
> Some might say that difference is understandable. After all, Sept. 11 happened on American soil. But March 11 happened on European ground, yet the hijab remains the starting point for Europeans. Meanwhile, it makes barely a ripple in North America.


This is at best a great generalisation and i would go so far as to say that it is untrue. France (where miss Manji visited) has a great debate on the Hijab because there has been a move to extend the separation of church and state into the realm of the way students dress whilst in school. This is a French initiative not an EU or western european idea. Yet France has suffered from attacks from islamist extremists in the past _before_ september the eleventh (incidentally it seems unlikely it was because terrorists hated the French way of life but instead they were attempting to influence French government policy in the middle east).

In Britain the Hijab is not a great issue as far as i am aware. Students are permitted to wear them in schools (there is no official separation of church and state in the UK anyway), yet the prospect of Islamist terrorism certainly is a pressing issue. In Sweden there is no particular terrorism problem (Bin Laden even used it as an example of a liberal democracy he had not attacked) and so if there is problem there it is with integration of muslims into Swedish society. In Germany there is a large turkish population and again integration (or lack of) is an issue but as far as i know the hijab is not a particularly hot issue there.

In short, in every european country there is a different (though related) debate. Many countries have suffered from terrorism in the past though (including that of islamist extremism)



> This difference speaks to a larger gulf in attitudes toward religion. To a lot of Europeans, still steeped in memories of the Catholic Church's intellectual repression, religion is an irrational force. So women who cover themselves are foolish at best and dangerous otherwise.


As well as countries with a catholic heritage there are also those with a protestant heritage and those with an orthodox heritage, still others with breakaway national churches. If europeans are steeped in memories in relation to religion i would suggest it is one of how divisive and harmful religious clashes have the potential to be and have been in our collective past. It is to europes credit how far religious tolerance has become the unquestioned norm (and a cornerstone of the EU). If people think women who wear the hijab are dangerous it is due to ignorance and false perceptions. Would i fail to find these phenomena if i went travelling through middle america and the 'bible belt'? Ignorance and fear of the unknown are global.



> Not so in North America. Because it has long been a society of immigrants seeking religious tolerance, religion itself is not seen as irrational - even if what some people do with it might be, as in the case of terrorism. Which means Muslims in North America tend to be judged less by what we wear than by what we do - or don't do, like speaking out against Islamist violence.


After sept.11 i seem to recall a fair number of attacks against mosques, attacks and verbal abuse against people wearing hijab. Perhaps religion is indeed seen more as an irrational force in western europe though (not necessarily eastern europe, not necessarily southern europe). Given all the events of europes past this is not too difficult to understand. Perhaps ill get back to this.



> But there's something else going on. The mass immigration of Muslims is bringing faith back into the public realm and creating a post-Enlightenment modernity for Western Europe. This return of religion threatens secular humanism, the orthodoxy that has prevailed since the French Revolution.


Mass immigration always creates a stir. Im not sure 'mass immigration' is even the right term. It smacks of hysteria and the situation is markedly different throughout europe. Think of the immigration problems and growth of the hispanic population in the US and the talk of spanish becoming a second language, it is as easy to see the rise of an islamic section of european society in these terms as opposed to some religious/secular tension.



> Paradoxically, because many Western Europeans feel that they're losing Enlightenment values amid the flood of "people of faith," they wind up sympathizing with those in the Muslim world who resent imported values that challenge their own. Both groups are identity protectionists.


'many Western Europeans ... wind up sympathizing with those in the Muslim world who resent imported values that challenge their own'

eh?

Whos that then? First ive heard of it. If we regard religion as irrational then how could we as rational beings empathise with 'those in the Muslim world who resent imported values'? I dont even know what this comment has to do with the rest of the article. Is it supposed to imply that europeans support religious fundamentalism and saudi style Wahhabist islam? Rubbish.



> We see such protectionism playing out in the debate about whether Turkey may join the European Union. Reflecting a sizable segment of public opinion, European Union commissioners have argued that Turkey is too "oriental."


Which commissioners have argued that and when? The EU commissioner for enlargement doesnt seem to think so-http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/rehn/key_issues/key_issue_en.htm. Much of Turkey is different from much of europe but that can be a source of strength.



> But is Turkey all that different from Europe?


Ive been to Turkey in the last two years. The area around Istanbul is quite european, indeed much of the west of the country is. But we are talking about a country that borders Iraq and Iran. The further east you go the less european it gets.



> It's a longtime member of NATO. Its so-called Islamist government has updated the country's human rights statutes to conform to the standards of the European Union. It's home to an astonishingly free press. Recently, a left-wing newspaper questioned the Koran's origins, a right-wing newspaper wrote about gays and lesbians lobbying for sexual orientation to be included in anti-discrimination laws, and a centrist newspaper editorialized that the education system should be reformed to promote diversity.


Turkey has committed a holocaust against the Armenian people (still not officially admitted) and has in the recent past brutally repressed its kurdish population. In addition the economy is a shambles and the average wage is far below the EU average. The media have only recently been allowed to broadcast in Kurdish and then _only_ to conform to EU statutes regarding freedom of the press and human rights. This 'astonishingly free press' is a recent phenomenon and a result of Turkeys desire to join the EU. Also recent is the way the military is not interfering in politics as it used to. Despite all of this i think Turkey should be permitted to join the EU but only when its been brought 'up to speed'. To allow Turkey into the EU right now would be act of stupidity.

Besides which , following your own line of argument on this forum Dreamer, to put it bluntly it is none of the business of any Canadian or American who the EU chooses to admit into the union.



> As one young Turk told me, "If Western values are tolerance, democracy, justice, equality and freedom, then I live in a Western country: Turkey


As one young American told me "If Saddam Hussein controlled his people through fear, played on religion to gain popularity and invaded another country without apparent provocation then i am governed by a man no better." Proves nothing.



> Try explaining that to those Europeans who want to impose their baggage from the Vatican onto Muslim immigrants. Their secularism can be zealous, missionary - dare I say it, religious.


Um, what? I seriously start to get the impression this writer doesnt know what shes talking about. "impose their baggage from the Vatican onto Muslim immigrants", nice use of non specific emotive language there. The second sentence is simply rubbish. Secularism in western europe predominantly takes the form of indifference _not_ proselytization.



> Which brings me back to the question of why I, an independent-minded woman, bother with Islam. Religion supplies a set of values, including discipline, that serve as a counterweight to the materialism of life in the West. I could have become a runaway materialist, a robotic mall rat who resorts to retail therapy in pursuit of fulfillment. I didn't. That's because religion introduces competing claims. It injects a tension that compels me to think and allows me to avoid fundamentalisms of my own.


Oh. Im not a robotic mall rat who resorts to retail therapy in pursuit of fulfillment either. Does this mean im a muslim?



> Islam today has deep flaws, and I know saying so makes me a blasphemer in the eyes of countless Muslims. C'est la vie. If they move beyond emotion, they'll come to appreciate that for the rationalists among us, religion can be a godsend.


Yes sure. Believing in an afterlife is wonderful and i wish i could. There is however no rational basis for such a belief. Rational people have religious beliefs. But i contend that it is not the rational part of them that believes. The 'rational' explanations of conventional supernatural religious beliefs have been pretty comprehensively undermined by science. Unrepentant european atheist here.

But i believe everyone is free to believe what they want as long as it doesnt harm others. Toleration of beliefs and fundamental respect for all people is the key. I also believe this is a common european value.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear = n,

You said:


> If people think women who wear the hijab are dangerous it is due to ignorance and false perceptions. Would i fail to find these phenomena if i went travelling through middle america and the 'bible belt'? Ignorance and fear of the unknown are global.


Agreed, and I appreciate the time you took to analyze this. This is the frustration I have. I read something like this in the New York Times and I acknoweldge it is an op-ed piece -- not fact but the experience of one woman.

It helps me understand a bit more about how Americans/Europeans may be perceived, but I also see the flaw of generalizations again.

You said:


> But i believe everyone is free to believe what they want as long as it doesnt harm others. Toleration of beliefs and fundamental respect for all people is the key. I also believe this is a common european value.


I agree with this 100%. I would say it is a common value as well in the US, but I find so many examples to the contrary. It is a common value we should all aspire to but as you noted:



> I agree differences of belief are a complicating factor in international relations.


Thanks,
Best,
D


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

There are of course innate flaws in this article, but I think her motive was to make generalizations about religion in Europe vs. the rest of the world. When you take that vantage point, everything is arguable.

I don't live in Europe, so I obviously don't know what all the facts are. But, from everything I've ever read, seen on TV, or heard from others, there are a lot of consistencies here in this article. But, once again, I'm 5,000 miles away and don't really know anything.

Here is a question which has been pestering me for some time and would like a European opinion.

I often get the impression that when the U.S. starts meddling in foreign affairs, we are criticized for trying to be the "world doctor" in everything from peace in the Middle East to trade. But, when it comes to stuff like humanitarian causes and the environment, like stopping AIDS in Africa, lending aid to countries victimized by genocide, everybody else looks to us first and accuses us for not doing enough. This isn't anything new, it's something I've noticed since I was old enough to understand politics, which means the early Clinton years. The U.S. really does spend buttloads of money in just random foreign aid. I don't know enough about world politics to know what every other country is doing, so I really have no comparison.

It's just kind of weird when I'm watching election night coverage and I see Bono talking to Bill O'Reilly about how we need to get involved in helping the AIDS epidemic in Africa. In words Bono wasn't being critical, he was very polite. But, his being there was kind of enough criticism. It kind of sent a message like: Vote Kerry, stop your war, and help our cause instead of yours. I just thought he was out of place.

Probably what has helped shaped my impression is the fact that the news hardly ever focuses on anything positive, for the simple fact that it spells bad ratings and bad press.

Anyway, any input would be appreciated.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

:lol:

Dare I ? Dare I ?

Dreamer....how many goddam times do I have to tell you that there is no such thing as an Agnostic ? You're gonna drive me around the bend woman !! :wink:

Just a quick note on this topic. The Christian Right in America terrifies not just us secular humanists, but also the euro-religious. The religious fanatasism and pious self-righteousness that has been more evident in the last four years in the states is getting out of control. Your gibbon of a president (HOW ?) and, to a lesser extent, our gibbon of a Prime Minister, are constantly raving about how their faith in their 'god' justifies just about everything they do. How scarey is that ??? Their imaginary friend dictating world affairs, gay rights, female rights, war, civil rights !!! Not to mention that, at the latest conservative estimate, a whopping 24% of the worlds population doesn't believe in a 'god' of ANY sort....nearly a billion people !!!!!!! Ye gods !

Good day.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2004)

What, the helll.

Dreamer you make me feel stupid


----------

