http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html

Defenders of the Faith 
By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
London

FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more
than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of
a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher
spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of
murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim
or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble
spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about
restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and
perhaps our only chance for peace?

More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works,
Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing
in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The
French philosopher André Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique
of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in
Manhattan," suggests. 

This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's
terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up
thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who
claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to
God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and
considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than
the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted
since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity,
the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism. 

During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how
he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish
full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand.
Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she
would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water
she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them:
"Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of
Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today,
this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill
God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is
the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of
morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining
God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in
the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a
believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the
only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring
God's existence.

Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether the preamble of the
European Constitution should mention Christianity as a key component of
the European legacy. As usual, a compromise was worked out, a reference
in general terms to the "religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was
modern Europe's most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern
Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which
atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post.


Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for, not least because it
creates a safe public space for believers. Consider the debate that raged
in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home country, as the
constitutional controversy simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant
workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be allowed to build a mosque?
While conservatives opposed the mosque for cultural, political and even
architectural reasons, the liberal weekly journal Mladina was
consistently outspoken in its support for the mosque, in keeping with its
concern for the rights of those from other former Yugoslav republics.

Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes, Mladina was also one of
the few Slovenian publications to reprint the infamous caricatures of
Muhammad. And, conversely, those who displayed the greatest
"understanding" for the violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused
were also the ones who regularly expressed their concern for the fate of
Christianity in Europe.

These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims with a difficult choice:
the only political force that does not reduce them to second-class
citizens and allows them the space to express their religious identity
are the "godless" atheist liberals, while those closest to their
religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their
greatest political enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real allies
are not those who first published the caricatures for shock value, but
those who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression, reprinted
them.

While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking
believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the
Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for
other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things:
either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in
order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of
multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any
clear insistence on truth. 

What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions
— to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical
analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for
Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.

Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for
the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of "The Parallax View."


Copyright 2006The New York Times Company 
   

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to