Big Questions Online
 
Multiculturalism and its  Discontents
 
Why are liberal excusing religious excuses on grounds of  cultural 
relativism ?
 
Susan Jacoby
Auguest 19, 2010
 
I am an atheist with an affinity for non-fundamentalist religious believers 
 whose
faith has made room for secular knowledge. I am also a political liberal. I 
 am not, however, a multiculturalist who believes that all cultures and 
religions  are equally worthy of respect. And I find myself in a lonely place 
in relation  to many liberals, political and religious, because I cannot 
accept a  multiculturalism that tends to excuse, under the rubric of 
“tolerance,”
  religious and cultural practices that violate universal human rights.  
The latest example of the Left’s blind spot on this issue is the antagonism 
 of so many liberal reviewers toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s recent memoir, 
_Nomad_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Nomad-America-Personal-Journey-Civilizations/dp/1439157316)
 . The Somali-born Hirsi Ali immigrated to  the United States in 
2006 after her close friend, the Dutch film director Theo  Van Gogh, was 
_murdered by a radical Islamist_ 
(http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/) . Hirsi Ali still  
needs bodyguards because of frequent death 
threats. 
She was educated as a child in Muslim schools, subjected to genital  
mutilation, and broke with her family when she refused to consent to an 
arranged  
marriage. She first settled in Holland, where she worked as a Somali-Dutch  
interpreter, and her convictions about violence in many (though not, she  
emphasizes, all) Muslim families are rooted in her work with immigrants as 
well  as her own upbringing. Yet Nicholas D. Kristof, _reviewing Nomad for the 
New York Times  Book Review_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/review/Kristof-t.html) , writes that 
“I couldn’t help thinking that perhaps Hirsi 
 Ali’s family is dysfunctional simply because its members never learned to 
bite  their tongues and just say to one another: 'I love you.'" 
I was startled by this patronizing comment, because I admire Kristof for  
being one of the few male columnists who writes frequently about violence  
against women. Somehow, “I love you” isn’t the first thing that would come to 
 mind if I were being held down by female relatives while my clitoris was 
maimed  or if my father told me I had to marry a stranger. 
As a journalist, I have heard many similar observations from professors of  
religious and multicultural studies. Some have even suggested that 
dissidents  like Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie have exaggerated the threats 
against 
them in  order to promote their books. Such slanderous statements are 
invariably followed  by, “This is off the record, you understand.” 
I do not agree with everything Hirsi Ali has to say — about Islam or the  U
nited States — but I strongly agree with the essential point she makes in  
Nomad: 
Here is something I have learned the hard way, but which a lot of  
well-meaning people in the West have a hard time accepting: All human  beings 
are 
equal, but all cultures and religions are not. A culture that  celebrates 
femininity and considers women to be the masters of their own lives  is better 
than a culture that mutilates girls’ genitals and confines them  behind walls 
and veils or flogs and stones them for falling in love. . . . The  culture 
of the Western Enlightenment is better. (italics in the  original)
It is understandable that American liberals, and particularly religious  
liberals, are wary of anyone who makes negative public judgments about other  
faiths. There is a long history of disrespect for various minority cultures 
and  religions in America, although the Constitution and the First Amendment 
—  products of Enlightenment secularism and Enlightenment-influenced 
religion —  have (usually) stopped the disrespect from turning into bloodshed.. 
But it is one thing to recognize the legal right of all Americans to 
believe  whatever they want and quite another to maintain that all belief 
systems 
are  compatible with democracy. In a free society, religion should be no 
more immune  to criticism than atheism, and the First Amendment does not give 
anyone carte  blanche to violate secular law in the name of faith. This 
crucial distinction  applies to all religions, not only to Islam. 
In _Prince v. Massachusetts_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0321_0158_ZO.html)  
(1944), the  Supreme Court upheld the 
conviction of a Jehovah’s Witness for violating state  labor laws by requiring 
children to distribute religious literature at night.  The Court declared: “The 
right to practice religion freely does not include  liberty to expose the 
community or child to communicable diseases, or the latter  to ill health or 
death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves.  But it does 
not follow [that] they are free . . . to make martyrs of their  children.” 
In recent decades, state and federal courts have cited Prince in  taking a 
much harder line against parents who deny standard, life-saving medical  
treatment to their children out of religious conviction. Similarly, polygamous  
religious sects do not have the right to force their minor daughters into  “
celestial marriage.” And parents may not physically abuse their children  
because their religion sanctions corporal punishment. 
Furthermore, the fact that some traditional religious and cultural 
practices  are technically legal does not make them right. An 80-year-old 
friend of 
mine —  a woman of forceful intellect who used to teach Renaissance history —
 now lives  in a Florida retirement community where many of the part-time 
staff are teenaged  children of recent Afghan immigrants. When my friend saw 
one of her favorite  young Afghan-American women — a high school senior — 
weeping in the dining room,  she asked what was wrong. “Oh, madam professor,”
 the girl replied, “my father  has arranged for me to meet my future 
husband. He is 40 years old, and the  wedding will take place in six months. I 
wanted so much to go to college, and  this will not be permitted.” 
My friend replied gently, “You know, Yasmin, you don’t have to marry 
anyone  in this country because your parents say so. There are organizations to 
help  girls like you think these things through. There are college 
scholarships. I can  give you the names of people to talk to.” Another resident 
of 
this community  sharply reproved my friend, saying, “We have no right to 
interfere with her  culture, her religion, her family,” 
Wrong. This type of “interference” — telling a troubled young woman that 
she  has choices other than an arranged marriage — is exactly what a true 
liberal  ought to be doing. The idea that someone should ignore the tears of a  
17-year-old who says she is being pushed to give up her education is 
utterly  perverse. 
Finally, it is a politically strategic error as well as a form of moral  
blindness for liberals to push people like Hirsi Ali into the eager arms of 
the  political Right. She is a fellow at the _American Enterprise Institute_ 
(http://www.aei.org/) , and that alone is  enough to make her a pariah to 
many liberals. Her thinking has clearly been  influenced by the narrow prism of 
her colleagues — she is under the mistaken  impression, for example, that 
most American feminists are indifferent to  universal human rights — but 
liberals ought to be asking themselves why they  never reached out to her. 
AEI was, in fact, the only American think tank to offer Hirsi Ali a job 
when  she needed one badly. Several years ago, I made repeated inquiries at the 
 Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress about this 
issue and  was stonewalled by their press aides. Panderers to the multicultural 
gods, in  foundations and academia, often assert that religiously sanctioned 
violence  against women and other human rights violations are matters of “
tribe and  culture, not religion.” But what is more central than religion to 
most of the  world's cultures? 
This muddled thinking allows the American religious and political Right to  
misrepresent itself as the chief defender of Enlightenment values. More  
important, reflexive liberal multiculturalism fails every child being denied, 
in  the name of faith and family, full access to the promise of this  nation.

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to