The End of the Academic Orgy: Incest, Coprophagy and a Few Cases of Necrophilia for Good Measure

In plain sight and shamelessly exposed stand the ravished bodies of the American universities, brothels where administrations grow like cancers, the inane product of clientelism and the demise of thought are celebrated. The pictures have been revolting but were hidden from view. They no longer are.

There are two assets to an administrator: the student and the incompetent faculty. Both of these groups always pay. If the student pays he pays and there is the cash. These are foreign students and administrators love them. If he does not pay, the government puts down the cash and charges him for the dubious service of sustaining an entirely corrupt structure in which no longer discernible intellect is fostered for the rest of his life.

In such confabulation, ineptitude is promoted and this is for a very simple reason. Nothing is more stable institutionally that a sustained confabulation of mediocrities in which the ineptitude of students is groomed by the obsequios repugnance of faculty. In return, these students satisfied egos offer praise to the kindness of their mentors who, in keeping their public satisfied, guarantee their overweight administrators the sustained influx of checks provided by government or distant parents.

The preservation of a student body from whose fibers resources are extracted directly or as the bi-product of funding mechanisms is guaranteed by these forms of professorial imbecility. The flow of cash for salaries, houses, vacations and cars from parent or government agencies is guaranteed with the same idiotic smiles that fast food restaurants use to convince its customers that the compounded ring of radioactive styrofoam colored with lead-laced yellow 158 is chicken.  This explains the tragic ascension to relevance of the student evaluations, popularity tests in which excitement, etiquette and personableness are purposefully conflated with pedagogic aptitude.  Obsequious stupidity produces adoring fans, tedium only character. So any thought arduous or otherwise uncomfortable may be easily dispensed with and replaced with another expression of adorable idiocy and palatable ineptitude. Stemming to a great extent from ivies, these imbecility creeps powerfully.  In the academic institutions of our intellectual Sodom,  well-certified stupidity is cheap and impressively easy to replace.

Thus, institutions can build monstruous administrations with 12 Vice-Presidents including a refreshment-machine officer and a secretary of mopping or colleges with one provost for one dean and a baker’s dozen of faculty members. This is how, in the mix, fat presidents endowed with friends and a terminal case of intellectual intermittence hire faculty summarily and summarily eliminate them relaying on multi-toothed smiles always ready to deliver bad news. This is how academic officers can hire their closest of friends with little or not oversight and allow the deportation of students while singing from the other hither of their mouths the songs of equality and redemption.

This is how those who smile and tell tantalizing tales of homosexuality in islamic texts or deliberate on St. Augustine‘s penis have taken over the temples of thought. Exchangers of flattery who know that its easier–always easier–to sell St. Augustine’s penis, Socrates‘ homosexuality, the victimization of stupidity and the many forms of senseless poetization which can be easily regurgitated from mouth to mouth at the modest price of learning empty gestures and turns of phrase. No longer the need for the pain of thinking through informal fallacies, ontological proofs and theological voluntarism.

But this appeal to idiocy is no more than demagoguery in a chain of clientelism and in that sense revolting: in order to preserve their position, these professional victims of ancestral oppression flater the stupidity and ineptitude of their audiences and their overblown sense of indignation and in those ways hide their own. But what is easier than to flater an adolescent ego?

The functionality of these horse-persons of intelectual doom is their unmatched ability to keep customers satisfied. And to the most minimal indication of protest react with a lofty sense of righteous indignation. Feminism has been used to shelter nepotism, corruption and inefficiency as has all other forms of professional minoritism. And with this veritable tradition of slave morality to stand on, when is pointed out that a reflective judgment cannot be a determinate judgement, or asserted that the Symposium ought to be read philosophically… when one has the gall to argue that nobody should be taking skiing vacations when their students have barely money to eat, these beasts of convenience deploy their arsenal built over centuries of cunning of the oppressed.

They defend their cultural studies, their speculative sociology and their lonely planet political theories, their post-colonial empathy, their long meditation of the political use of the penis and the historical suffering of the vagina or their Cold Cuts Digest scientific literacy, in short, their willful imbecility and happy ineptitude with accusations of misogyny, racism and persecution. But all who care to look know that the only true persecutor of these destroyers of nobel thinking are their own consciences. The university has been destroyed by the ravaging advance of political perversity with the unstoppable metastasis of malignant growth.

So who will be left? All that institutions need is time because time is always on their side. Students will go and faculty will mostly preserve the status quo. And in the end, voices of protest will not even need to be addressed. But here is the thing: if the logic of this beasts is the logic of the client, then it behooves the client to punish the poor service that is rendered on dues that one day they will have to  settle. Either those who can will have to raise their voices when stupidity and flattery are presented as thought or they will be complicit in the collapse of their own thinking and in the abandonment of their own good conscience.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A few collected thoughts on the end of American Democracy

What we just witnessed in Boston is an absolute aberration of the political order and–as it has always been the case–it happened with security as the excuse. The day that Bostonians accepted to hide at home from a 19 year old suspect and relinquish the public space to the police may become known to history as the day in which democracy in America entered its final phase. Could one imagine the French police locking down the entire city of Lyon in order to capture a criminal?  What was just normalized was a state of siege directly under the nose of approving citizens who celebrated the foundation of arbitrary suppression of public rights. From now on, locking a city is not only acceptable but desirable.

That day, we were made to witness the fact that Americans in fear will do just about anything to protect their flesh and at the most infirm sign of safety will go on to celebrate in pageants of political perversity saluting those who just abused their rights and subverted the political order. At least this time they did not go out blowing up other countries… though we may be speaking too soon. Either way, this was just more of the traditional American trial by mob, which a decade ago brought us Iraq and the mass pouring of French wines into gutters around the country along with the sagacious political operation to re-baptize fried potatoes to disguise their putative ethnicity. While as a matter of fact, the 19 year old on the run was a suspect it was only by an act of sheer grandstanding that the Boston police could claim that justice had been done. In fact, the very declaration that justice had been done was the very act of perverting justice. A lie. In god’s american, policemen and their friends are now prosecution, defense and judge?

So what would be called for in this hour of mayhem? How should Mr. Zarnajew be dealt with? Much in the way that Norway handled the Brevik case and not in the was that the American system handled the Strauss Kahn case. No public showing of the suspect, no walk of shame, no lock down of a city and no ‘usa-usa-usa’ college party in the streets of Watertown. The scenes in Boston were truly nauseating.

Since this should end up in a trial by jury, the jingoism and hysteria disqualify just about anyone with a TV or Internet from adjudicating this case. Not only is Massachusetts  no longer a state where this man can receive a fair trial. No longer is the US a place where this man can receive a fair trial. Should we trust any of those in the street waving flags and chanting to treat the case fairly and the evidence objectively? These people have already decided that this man is guilty and no evidence–not a shred–has yet been presented. A bait has been swallowed whole. In fact, the recipe is an important AngloAmerican contribution to justice: due process.

Meanwhile Carmen Ortiz the prosecutor who came under heavy artillery after threatening Aaron Schwartz with 50 years of jail time and ultimately leading him to commit suicide has just showed her face as the force behind the epic Boston salvation. Ortiz who will likely prosecute the case just saved her career by mounting this entire circus and appearing on a press conference to declare guilty the man that she has not yet prosecuted. This woman should be investigated and she should under no circumstances be allowed to prosecute the Zarnajew case.  The conflict of interest should be obvious: her legal and political career depends not on a fair trial, not on serving justice but on Zarnajew being guilty. This is precisely what the American legal system has to weed out from the prosecutorial culture, the presumption of guilt. Yet, such a reform in the cultural fiber of the American legal system is virtually unattainable.

A confabulation of media, political cadres and the public has been put in place and justice is again effected with pitchforks. Open any newspaper or news outlet and the cautionary voices are a minuscule minority. The tragedy of all of this is that if the man is indeed guilty, the US will have denied itself the happy conscience of having served justice and if he is innocent it will have added another name to the list of the unjustly punished. Meanwhile, the system will continue to crumble though its final song will come when finally the fat lethargy of the American public realizes that the mob that they joined can just as easily turn on them. . Take a look at Boston and see how nations wilt exactly in the same part of the plant where they had once bloomed.

The Bible, The Constitution and the American Gun

By the standards of a developed country, the American is a violent society though surely not only on account of guns. The US is one of the only developed nation–save Japan–with an active and busy death row. Over the past few years, it has ventured in more military interventions that any other western country, often playing the role of a geopolitical cowboy. To underwrite these adventures, it has built a massive military machine which for the first time in half a century begins too look too small and insolvent for its global aspirations. In some sense, the American way is the way of the gun, the sword, the punch and the stick. And if there are ever any carrots, the carrots are mostly use for target practice and to measure the sharpness of the blade.

But this is also the society of the book. Or rather, of the two good books: the bible and the constitution. And just like most of the pious America which takes theology lessons from Glen Beck and learns comparative religion by the scholars at FoxNews, the American constitution is also approached with passionate devotion and abysmal ignorance. This combination of brutality and piety issues in one of the most remarkable aspects of the American socio-political character: the moral justification of brutal violence. The American gods are bloodthursty and, needless to say, always right.

It is no surprise that a society historically bound to the morality of violent death will find ways to justify the conditions necessary for violent death. Even in the face of what for any other civilized human being would be an outrage of decency and common sense, in the face of the death by fire of children and teachers, movie goers and high-school students, almost half of the US insists that the instruments of death–guns certainly do not shoot themselves–should be preserved for the use of the civilian population. Why? Because of the always impending need to kill or prevent one’s own killing.

But, the political use of firearms among the civilian population is something of which the American society has no tolerance, even if militias and tea partiers insist that they do. These people are mostly adults playing make-believe games. The buy guns, move to the middle of the woods and roll around in the mood pretending to free a country from an enemy that they conjure in their minds. At a younger age, this can be adorable. With a severe midlife crisis and live ammunition, it is rather frightening though not for that matter any less ridiculous.

In fact, when in the 60ies and 70ies the US saw the emergence of groups brandishing weapons for political purposes (Symbionese Liberation Army or the Black Panthers) they recoiled and fell back in line with the political intuition of most adults. Societies are safer when the monopoly of violence is kept by the state. However, since those days are long gone and a black president has stirred the fears of the white heartland, the country has seen the escalation–rather steep–of civilian militarization. In fact, if we are to believe the latest statistics based on NRA new memberships, private arsenals have grown at a tune of a quarter million in just the last month. So Obama has done what any sensible individual would do if granted enough power and the 14 executive orders plus the legislative plans had the texture of the stuff American political movies are made of.

So will this measures end gun violence in the US? Well, the NRA does not think so and it seems that half the country agrees. But that half of the country need hardly be taken seriously. The majority almost never knows what best administrative practices are let alone public policy and governance. Take for instance the often repeated claim that gun bas have not worked in Chicago and New York. The statement is so inane that it is hardly understandable that anyone would advance it without blushing. Chicago and New York do not have customs and immigration officers controlling the flow of people and goods at the border. The gun you buy in Gary, Indiana you can shoot in West Wicker Park.  So while the ban in Chicago is nominal, it is, because of federal law unenforceable.  Making it impossible for anyone to find a gun from California to Bangor, would make chicago a gun free area by virtue of what we may call environmental profilaxis. If the neighbors are not sick, then it is unlikely that there will be contagion. This is particularly important with assault weapons.

Making assault weapons illegal ensures that law abiding civilians will not get them and reduces quite radically that chance the other types of civilians will find them. It is not a full-proof solution because the borders of the US are still porous, but eliminating access of civilians to assault weapons will have a significant effect in, well, reducing their presence in civil society.

Mostly this should go without saying, though in the US the ‘go without saying’ category has severely shrunk. This is nowhere as visible in the latest salvo by the NRA–pun intended. “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.” or so says Mr. LaPierre. We should not take weapons away from law-abiding citizens, the good guys. But it seems important to point out that the people that have used assault weapons in mass shooting over the past few years were by and large law-abiding citizens, until, of course, they no longer were. It is not Dr. Evil who was running  through the American small towns and big cities, robbing banks and shooting old laides with assault weapons.  Assault weapons were used in these cases by people that belonged to the average population. University students, dejected teenagers, etc. To wit, the problem with assault weapons is that people with no previous convictions, as was the case with Harris and Klebold, Laughner and now Lanza, can get them and use them. In other words, the very problem with assault weapons in the US is that it is available to law abiding citizens often with very little provisions and precautions.

Of course, for the NRA and its choir, these are de facto, ‘bad guys’ and who would want to disagree. These are the people against whom murderous violence is morally justified ut it is precisely this which should be kept in mind: these ‘bad guys’ against whom violence ought to be exercised, were, before unloading their weapon, good guys.

So then, there is the legalistic piety: the holly constitution grants the right to own gun and ammunition for the sake of forming a well-trained militia. Of course, these well-trained militias at the service of freedom from repressive military machines are not really there other than in the infantile mind of the boys with toys in Michigan and Montana. What a militia could do against Red Coats, no assault weapon can do against a professionalized army with a nuclear arsenal. The second amendment is entirely obsolete. If the grounds for holding onto weapons is preserving the state from a modern oppressive power then the constitution ought to be amended to permit private citizens to hold anti-aerial and ballistic misiles in their backyards. This would be the standard necessary for a well-trained and armed militia.

Thus, the constitutional argument is not an argument for anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the unfolding and evolution of legal statues. The construction of the constitution as all else is time sensitive and historically contextual, despite what Scalia in his drunken rants may believe. In fact, a modern democratic state, demands an informed citizenry that is capable of rectifying the legal sins and  juridical fossils that are inherited form times of olden.  Just as we have given up on the right to punish slaves in certain ways once we have given up on slavery–even if the constitution granted some the right to own other human beings–we have come to recognize that it is the state upon which we grant the right of the use of force. And it is from the state that we demand the right to use force under certain circumstances. But to demand by a reference to the 18th century’s political context the right to exercise political violence is an expression of complete political ineptitude.

Thus, the constitution is certainly not a sacred document–if there are any sacred document at all–even if half of the American public has the strange habit of approaching everything in the way that they approach religion–with ignorance and piety. These people, however, can rest assured that society is not a jungle divided between ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. Society is a much more rich and complex tapestry of social mechanisms which includes ‘deranged guys’ and an enormous amont of ‘stupid guys’ which mostly, seem to live below the Mason Dixon line. It is indeed not evil from which we must protect children but from ‘good intentions’ which the rode to hell is paved with. For this, it is important that the instruments for exercising such intentions be made sparse. The fewer assault weapons, the fewer bullets that can be fired a second by the pious, the deranged and the stupid. And to deal with the evil, Americans will have to learn the lesson that their parents and grandparents knew perhaps a bit too well. They will have to learn to trust the state.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Memo to the NRA

A week and two days after the Newtown shooting, the NRA reiterated its call for armed security in all schools. Wayne LaPierre explained on friday that “”the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Really?

Well, here is the memo to Mr. LaPierre: Columbine had an armed guard. Virginia Tech had their own police department. Fort Hood was a military base.

Wayne LaPierre

Wayne LaPierre (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Likud and Hammas: Bedfellows

Meshaal’s inflammatory speech  was just what Netanyahu needs to guarantee his reelection as well as what Meshaal needs to maintain his popularity in the face of the UN vote which has revived the political fortune of Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas and the Likud-Israel Beiteinu coalition are truly bedfellows who need each other to survive and they are perfectly willing and able to give each other a leg up whenever needed. All else is sound and fury.

English: Khaled Meshaal in a meeting with span...

English: Khaled Meshaal in a meeting with spanish journalists (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Almost Everyone Wins in Gaza

The Ceasefire in Gaza seems now official and Hillary Clinton will get credit for it.

Netanyahu got most of what he really wanted, namely, a better shot at his own reelection and a discovered check against Abbas and the PA, who are now seen as even more feckless in the eyes of the Palestinian people. This works well for Netanyahu who much prefers Hamas to the PA. He doesn’t want to be pressured into negotiating anything that could amount to slowing down, let alone stopping, the continued settlement growth, land confiscation, home destruction and evictions.

With Hamas ascendent, Israel can just keep on keeping on and so can Likud. Evidently that’s perfectly fine with Obama and Clinton, too.

Martin Mould (Guest Blogger)

Enhanced by Zemanta

The 5 Theses of Cyber-cosmopolitanism: The virtual domain of enlightenment.

Virtual platforms have been condemn for a variety of reasons. Among them, a certain sense recurs concerning the lack of ‘authenticity’ of the modes of online interaction. Yet, the internet is in all sorts of way neither better nor worse than many of the other modes of interaction that characterize the public sphere.

 

As in the public market, a person can lie, can present itself in disguise, can pretend, can misrepresent himself, can violate privacy. But as in the public space—in the public square—the internet can be thought as the space in which the public sphere finds its home. The Habermassian café has now included innumerable living rooms and offices around the world.

 

Under this light, and considering the constitutive importance that the public sphere in the development and promotion of the values and practices of enlightenment, the challenge ahead concerns the articulation, regulation and protection of the internet as the space for the exercise of the political.

 

Here I sketch the grounds of the following guiding idea: The internet is the best and most powerful tool for the promotion and proliferation of the ideals and practices of enlightenment. That is, the internet is—especially in the guise of so-called “social media”—the very space for the development of a global democracy.

 

These are the reasons:

 

The 5 Theses:

  1. The internet is currently the ideal space fort he development of a trans-national and meta-juridical public sphere.
  2. The internet is currently the ideal space for the trans-national and meta-geographic construction of communities of care.
  3. The internet is currently the ideal space for the development and exercise of a trans-national and meta-demographic community of reason.
  4. Reason and care can be thought as central tropes in a productive dynamic of democratic deliberation.
  5. The internet is currently the most powerful tool for the development, fostering and practice of a trans-national, meta-juridical, global and inter-demographic democracy.

 

The project could be defined in three parts. 1. The articulation of the internet as a political space in the guise of the theses just enumerated. 2. The articulation of governance and policy for the promotion and strengthening of these positions and 3. The design and deployment of tools for the promotion of political enlightment: cosmopolitanism, tolerance and reason.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tony Nicklinson: Escaping the Life Penalty

On 22nd August, Tony Nicklinson reclaimed his right to life by starving himself to death.

The 58 year-old British man, who had requested a good death after having suffered from Locked-In Syndrome for 7 years, was instead forsaken to a prolonged and painful process in his struggle to determine the outcome of his own life. The day that the UK’s High Court ruled against his request to be assisted in his death, Tony Nicklinson was sentenced to a Life Penalty.

This language may seem hyperbolic, but Mr. Nicklinson’s punishment was not so far removed from that of the Death Penalty. To refuse a man the right to die is morally equivalent to refusing a man the right to live: it exercises the same dominion over a person’s very being. In both cases, it reveals a government’s belief that a person’s existence or inexistence should be its prerogative. In order to escape this Life Penalty, Mr. Nicklinson was driven to refuse food and liquids until he contracted pneumonia. His only crime? Being disabled and thus unable to take his life unassisted.

The High Court claimed that this was a matter for Parliament, which has not made any move towards legalising euthanasia either. The obvious scaremonger’s choice as to why not  is the ‘slippery slope’ argument: that the legalization of euthanasia could lead to ambiguous cases and abuses in the system. This is an argument we should reject. As I argued in my previous article, we should be courageous enough to make the right laws, even if they are the hardest to enforce. Whilst some are fearful of a future of complex court cases, I am petrified of a present in which disabled adults are forced to starve themselves to death in order to claim authority over what is indisputably theirs. Clearly, logistical considerations should not determine moral or legal principles.

So why would the UK government, a state that opposes the death penalty, oppose euthanasia? There is an inconsistency here: it is not willing, quite rightly, to be an arbiter of life in the former case, and yet it is in the latter. Some may claim that ‘the killing of a criminal is quite different to the killing of an innocent citizen,’ and others that ‘to take life is never right because all life is precious.’ However, the most likely, and perhaps reassuring, reason is that governments generally take it upon themselves to protect first and foremost the integrity – the ‘completeness’ – of their citizens. The critical realisation, however, is that, in cases such as these, no-one’s conceptions as to the worth of particular lives, or even life in general, are relevant. In cases of fully-informed, voluntary euthanasia, life-and-death decisions should be based on the autonomy of the person whose life is at stake.

It is distressing to think that it is possible in this age to die a subversive death, a transgressive death, a death that the state does not wish to afford us. The UK Government should recognise that the only humane stance to take on death is one that respects the principle of autonomy.

–ZB

Other related articles in TRS:

David Brooks Individual Responsibility to Individual Rights


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fundamental Right to Blasphemy

to Munther Al-Sabbagh and Angie Bayouk

When as a response to Hillary Clinton’s call for governments in Arab countries to defend foreign embassies from the mob, the Prime Minister of Egypt called on the US to do all it can to stop insults against Islam, I wondered which forms of offense were the ones that he was referring to? Prime Minister Qandil’s request happens to echoe a strong move by several Middle Eastern countries that, over the past few years, have lobbied European governments for the promulgation of blasphemy laws. Insulting a god—any god, we should assume—would become in some manner or other, illegal.

In the context of what has apparently been the reaction to Sam Bacile’s The Innocense of Muslims, one would be excused for taking this plea as an exculpation of the mob. Sure enough, the words of Mr. Qandil were nuanced by asserting the guilt of perpetrators and by appeals to moderation and balance on both sides. That is, the side that in the name of free speech supposedly slandered the Muslim god and his prophet and the Muslim gangs that protecting the honor of their scriptural prophet went on a wild rampage. Yet, the basic idea that the Prime Minister was conveying was that even if these people torching buildings and killing diplomats are criminals, the blame lies ultimately with those who provoked them.

But what type of provocation are we talking about here? YouTube movies? Koran burning? At first blush, these seemed to be the offending acts which we would be safer avoiding. But then if these almost laughable exertions by amateurs theologians and high-school artistes were to be the target of the demand for silent respect to one or other god, what was to be of my offending interest in religion, my secularism and cosmopolitanism, my Facebook postings, my gay friends and my Jewish parents? In fact, we should take stock of what constitute offense to religious sensibilities, since that is what we are being asked to forestall and possibly even legislate. Let me give you a quick list of things that have been taken to offend god and for which people have paid with their lives:

Worshipping a god other than the one your neighbors worship, for instance a golden calf. Producing a semblance of the god who your neighbors like. Saying the word ‘god’ or swearing by it. Claiming that your god had a human body. Claiming that your god did not have a human body (Refer to the Christological disputes from the 1st century onwards and their toll in blood). Denying that a god is three and one at the same time. Affirming that a god is more than one (as in the Trinitarian controversies). Denying that there is a god at all. Affirming that the god has being. Protesting clerical hierarchy (Protestants in catholic territories). Defending clerical hierarchies (as it happened to members of the counterreformation). Not ceasing all activities the day of the week that your neighbors cease all activities. Ceasing all activities the day your neighbors work. Eating meat the day your neighbors don’t eat meat. Not burning a bull the day that your neighbors burn a bull. Eating pork. Not eating pork. Burning books. Not burning books.

Observing astronomical phenomena as did Galileo Galilei. Observing biological phenomena as did Darwin. Doing anatomical research and not finding a soul. Describing a psychiatric condition as related to the body. Having a psychiatric condition which was previously taken to be a demonic possession. Having metaphysical disagreements with Aristotle. Not reading the books your neighbors read. Reading the books your neighbors read without their authorization. Translating books which your neighbors don’t like as it was the case with the Song of Songs taken by the inquisition to be a judeizing book. Philosophizing and Reasoning. Engaging in the unauthorized practice of theology.

Painting nudes, singing loudly and dancing in just about any form. Drinking alcohol. Not drinking alcohol. Eating bread from the hands of a cleric. Not eating bread from the hands of a cleric. Having sex without the approval and certification of a cleric, that is, having sex without being married. Having sex with someone other than your spouse. Desiring someone of your own gender. Having sex with someone of your own gender. Having anal sex with someone of any gender. Falling in love. Dating.

Working or studying while having a vagina. Enjoying sex while having a vagina. Engaging in political activity or military campaigns while having a vagina. Dancing in a wedding party while having a vagina.  Wearing ‘modern’ clothing while having a vagina. Sporting a modern hairstyle while having a vagina. Exposing your legs while having a vagina. Exposing your arms while having a vagina. Exposing your shoulders while having a vagina. Exposing your neck while having a vagina. Exposing your face while having a vagina. Exposing any part of your body whatsoever while having a vagina. Thinking while having a vagina.

The list, actually, goes on. And these are only a few of the activities that have been earnestly taken to insult someone’s god and for whom people have paid with stoning, stabbing, decapitation, shooting, hanging, burning or quartering. In this light, the ultimate responsibility for the murder of Theo VanGogh in Amsterdam was his own, the blame for the attack of Danish diplomatic missions was the Danish government’s and the blame for the demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban and the destruction of the mausoleums in Timbuktu by members of Ansar Dine were, well, the builders and designers of these monuments who offended some or other god.

It is indeed at this very juncture where we can see with glaring clarity the importance of the right to blaspheme. Or perhaps we should explain this right in terms that those who are inclined to defend theological concepts with theological categories can understand: it is here where we should see with complete clarity the sanctity of the right to blaspheme in a democratic society.

The respect that is demanded from us under threat of extreme violence is the pious abandonment of our right to reason. This right is incompatible with religious respect because reason offends belief and rational deliberation is incompatible with irrational conviction. It is by reason that we assert the rights of women to bare their arms and legs, to study and to work as autonomous human beings. It is by reason that we assert the right of dancers to dance and painters to paint and it is by reason that we assert the right of the members of our society to believe what they may chose to believe irrespective of whom that may offend by thought or expression. It is by reason that we assert the right to reason and understanding and this right we take to be fundamental. That is to say, the right to think and express offensive thoughts is for us members of cosmopolitan societies, inheritors of the enlightenment the fundamental right to express our reasons against the demands of belief. And this has to mean being free and thus protected from violence against the expression of our reasons. It is the zealot who will have to find a better way to deal with discomfort. Just as all adults learn to do.

See this other articles in TRS:
Enhanced by Zemanta

TRS Interviews Karsten Voigt (Part 1)

In Berlin, ethics has been compulsory for high school students since 2006, while religion has been offered as an optional course. A few years ago, in 2009, Germany’s capital found itself confronted with the question of whether ethics courses should be compulsory for Berlin high school students, while religion classes remained optional or whether students should have a choice between the two.

As an advocate of the “Pro Reli” campaign, which had the goal of giving students a choice between ethics and religion, German politician Karsten Voigt is of the opinon that religion should not be optional when ethics is compulsory. Rather, he believes, students should be able to decide for either one or the other.

Karsten Voigt was a member of the German parliament from 1976 to 1998 and foreign policy spokesman of the SPD (Social Democratic Party). He is part of the Board of Directors of the German Council on Foreign Relations and was Coordinator of German-North American Cooperation in the German Foreign Office.He was President of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly.

Three years after “Pro Reli” failed, Karsten Voigt talks to Linda Eggert of TheRadicalSecularist about the intricate relation between politics and religion.

TRS: As a supporter of the “Pro-Reli” campaign for religious lessons, what is your take on the politics of religious education?

Voigt: The point is the current constitution, not the practical question. Whether the constitution should be changed is a different matter but there won’t be a majority in the Bundestag anyway [to do so]. In Germany, everyone has the constitutional right to be offered religious education at school but it is not obligatory to take religion classes. So the state has to offer religion as a subject but no one can be forced to take religion. That is why there needs to be a choice between religion and ethics.

TRS: Why should religion be taught in schools in the first place, rather than being practiced privately?

Voigt: According to the German constitution, religion has to be taught at school. That is what the law says. Since every German citizen is entitled to religious education, different religions have to be catered to. Since there is a big number of non-believers, we have to offer ethics instead of religion. And since there are Muslims [who are part of the school system], we need to consider them too. Now, there is the problem that people, for example here in Berlin, lay claim to [receive] Islamic religious education but we have no teachers that have been educated in Germany. As a result, we agree to send people to teach in Islamic communities that have not studied at German universities. That isn’t good in the long run. We have to accept Islam as de facto German, which means that the people who preach here as Imams should be educated at German universities, not at private Islamic schools. The question to be dealt with, is how to prevent fundamentalists from teaching at German schools. The answer is establishing theological Islamic faculties at German universities.

TRS: Does the state regard its role as having to counteract religious attitudes that potentially contradict what would be taught in state schools?

Voigt: That remains to be seen. According to the Basic Law, schools are under government supervision just like the teachers. But the state has to remain neutral, which requires that in Catholic religious education, the curriculum includes lessons about Judaism, Islam and other religions.

TRS: How can the state remain neutral?

Voigt: That needs to be negotiated. Religious education needs to be tolerant of non-believers and people of other religions. It can be of Protestant or Catholic orientation while ethics classes should be tolerant of religion too. The critical factor is not whether someone is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim or not religious at all, as there are fundamentalists in all areas. After all, there are also atheist fundamentalists. What is crucial is that every religion has its own logic and is not taught at variance with enlightenment [values]. People need to be encouraged to be tolerant, they should still have their own opinions, but they need to be tolerant of others.

TRS: The state being neutral when it comes to religion, how secular is Germany?

Voigt: There is no strict separation between the church and the state according to the German constitution. But the state is neutral when it comes to specific religions, meaning that it is only neutral as to particular religions while it is favourable towards the principle of religion itself. So according to our constitution, if Catholics lay claim on a peculiar right, the same has to be afforded to Protestants and Muslims. That is the neutrality of the state in relation to specific religions. That means that the state must not itself become a representative of one religion. But it is by no means anti-religious.

TRS: When does the state interfere?

Voigt: It is tricky when it comes to religion and politics: it will always be controversial in which cases the state should do something. We have our specific traditions and that works quite well. Of course, it does not work seamlessly. Particular cases will always be controversial. Our model is not applicable to others. Today, we accept a plurality of motivations for attitudes and opinions. People organise themselves according to their political convictions and we are not to question their motives. Whether someone supports democracy for religious or secular reasons is none of our business so long as the laws are respected. If, in Germany, a representative of Islam is against other people’s religious freedom, that does not matter as long as they abide by the German law. If they do not comply with the law, they will have to be punished.

TRS: Does it not matter where such convictions and values come from?

Voigt: No, it matters what kind of values a person has. But how and where values originate, that is secondary. Whether a person’s ethical framework is constituted by religion is everyone’s own business. I can have private conversations about that but when I elect a politician, what matters to me is the position. if I am dealing with the Federal President, I’ll want him to embody democratic values. If it is the Chancellor, it is just as important that he or she be decisive and determined. If it is a fellow minister at Länder level, I don’t care whether he has five or six girlfriends but he should not be a defrauder. In short, it depends on the respective position.

TRS: Why should we draw a line between someone’s ethical values and actions?

Voigt: When I meet people, I can contemplate the origins of their values. But when I set up ethical norms and create general guidelines, I cannot use the origin of these norms as measure, only the resulting behavior, as that actually has an impact on society. Only someone’s action can affect someone else but not their thinking itself. If someone does something bad, I cannot inquire as to the reason and ask for their motif.

TRS: But surely, making the distinction between values on one hand and the resulting behaviour on the other isn’t as easy as you make it sound.

Voigt: There are people who can and there are people who can’t make that distinction. I, personally, try to do it.

TRS: Is the state capable of making that distinction?

Voigt: The state can only set up norms and sanction them. The state has nothing to do with attitudes and convictions, it really only depends on the consequences. However, in Germany, speaking can be action when it comes to stirring up hatred.

TRS: So where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and what really happens?

Voigt: That is for the court to decide. It also changes over time: Freedom of religion used to be so overriding that one could voice hatred in the church. But that has changed after 9/11.

TRS: If religious education is offered in schools, does the state not thereby propose religion as an ethical frame of reference and become accountable for the origin of certain values?

Voigt: The same applies for teaching philosophy.

TRS: So when you give people the choice whether to study ethics or religion, is that basically a choice between “philosophical” and “religious” ethics?

Voigt: Well, there is not one specific religion as such. And at the end of the day, Kant states that one should live so that one’s own behaviour could become the norm of general law, basically says that, as a human being, I do not only assert myself, but need to always be aware of my repercussions on others. That sounds nice and I agree but why should a human being act like that? There are, after all, many people who don’t, who are just selfish and who do not care about the effects of their behaviour on the common good. But myself, preferring Kant’s principle does not have to be the product of reading Kant himself. I can derive that from my idea of the human being as being both an individual and a part of society. But I can also derive that from the principle of godliness and Christian love, so I would say, I should follow Jesus and therefore I should act out of Christian charity. If someone does that, I, on a societal level and as a politician, am not interested in their motivation but only in the resulting action. Motive is something to be talked about in private but as a politician, I am not to judge.

If someone, for whatever reason, does not want Catholics to be treated equally, then that is something to be condemned whether or not it is based on religion. If someone says ethics does not matter and all they care about is making money, then I am unwilling to accept that behaviour. So on the one hand, I reject such behavior independently of whether it is founded on religion and on the other hand, I accept it, no matter whether it is religious or not. And this is a sphere where the state (and on a political level I am responsible for general norms) should not interfere.

 

Linda Eggert’s Interview for TRS.

Enhanced by Zemanta