Features » Politics And Society

Comments on the article: The "Islam in Europe" debate

22/03/2007

 
scow105
(1 comments)
registered on 11/02/2007
interesting articles, but I'm afraid it doesn't say much for your understanding of multiculturalism that you begin your "multicultural" section with the question "Who should the West support...," implying a) that there is one "West" which has only to make its mind up and b) that Mr. Ramadan and Ms. Ali are in some sense outside of this West. So "we" will listen to what these two outsiders have to say, then "we" will choose between them.
Created on 11/02/2007 | Reviewed on 11/02/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
Editor
(3 comments)
registered on 15/01/2007
Job: editor of perlentaucher.de and signandsight.com
› Visit my page
Quote:
you begin your "multicultural" section with the question "Who should the West support...," implying a) that there is one "West" which has only to make its mind up and b) that Mr. Ramadan and Ms. Ali are in some sense outside of this West. So "we" will listen to what these two outsiders have to say, then "we" will choose between them.
We don't say that. Neither Ayaan Hirsi Ali nor Tariq Ramadan are "outside of this West". They live in the West, they studied in the West, they are discussed in the West, they ARE the West. We don't have to choose between "them". We have to choose between their attitudes. The way we had to choose between Voltaire and, hm, let's say someone like Monseigneur Marcel Lefebvre.
Created on 13/02/2007 | Reviewed on 13/02/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
Jose R_dos_Santos
(1 comments)
registered on 20/02/2007
Human Individual rights are discoveries, not inventions
Multiculturalism has been an easy way to apply relativism. In fact, as it has been said, it leads to separate development of social groups, who tend to build ever further on their differences to exist and to exclude the other. When this applies to the so many situations in which groups are not equal in force and power, we may have appartheid schemes.
When they are similar in power and number, we do have the risk of war (see Habermas on nation-state and nationalism).
I believe that the process of individuation (that is, the emergence of an ever stronger notion of individuality, of individual autonomy, capacity for decision and rights) is an universal, so to say an anthropological process. It amounts to the discovery of universal capacities of individuals for judgment, goal definition, decision, action, and not to the invention of a device (an institutional, thus contingent and transient social form).
These capacities were present in many different degrees in every people, communities, across time and space, wherever human beings lived and live. But they are discovered, enhanced, used, at different rates and in different ways.
This is the anthropological basis for this movement that, in a certain historical moment, Europe called "Enlightment", or "Modernity": an incomplete discovery.
Who discovered the circle? And who invented the wheel? Any human society has, and if not yet, soon or later, will.
Human rights are NOT our (european or call it western) property. They are not our invention. They were discovered in many places and times, by bits and chunks, and are an "open source" heritage.
Cheers.
josé
Created on 20/02/2007 | Reviewed on 21/02/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: ***** (1 user rated)
 
Jenny C
(1 comments)
registered on 23/02/2007
enlightenment fundamentalism or racism of the anti-racists?
your translator is mistaken. Chauvinisme is not the same as chauvinism in English. In French, it means patriotism. Also laisist is not an English word. Your translator should have written secularization.
Created on 23/02/2007 | Reviewed on 23/02/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)
 
Nick
(1 comments)
registered on 25/02/2007
How many gods?
We, Christians, Muslims and Jews, are heirs of the single God culture and therefore spend our lives desperately looking for Unicity in everything: science, faith, humanity, economics… Mutual ignorance shared by the three religions of the Book reaches its limits nowadays in a globalized and geographically limited world. A new intellectual framework has to be designed.
Different possibilities come to my mind:
- Complete ignorance thanks to closed borders and intellectual embargo.
- Union of the 3 religions in a unique one.
- Union of the 3 religions in a reasoned framework
- Union of all religions in a multi-theist framework
To me the first possibility will only lead to conflicts, instability and imperialism (fight for global power).
The second possibility could be a very long term solution but doesn’t resolve anything with “out of the Book” faiths.
Enlightenment advocates for the third possibility. This is also called modernity, where reason created by men to reach consciousness allows universal dialogue between cultures and faiths. This means that all cultures should be submitted to reason with no exception, cf. Islamism. Therefore only democracy could and should control reason which can be a very powerful tool for mislead ideologies.
The last possibility is my favourite, like a mystical multiculturalism. But, then, we need to modify the roots of our western faiths to progress from individuals sharing a unique god to individual beliefs, in a shared mystical universe. Reason, which originates in the critique of western monotheism and maintains a conflicting relationship with it, doesn’t help its evolution.
That might be the stumbling block between the two sides in the current debate.
Created on 01/03/2007 | Reviewed on 01/03/2007
› Report this comment to editors
to rate a comment › login
Rating: (0 users rated)

Write a comment

You have to › login to write a comment.