The events of the last few days in Paris and especially the massacre in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo should turn on a red light for those who do not understand the difference between liberalism and multiculturalism * And how is the exclusion of science in the Arab world related to fundamentalist madness?
By Avi Blizovsky and Nir Lahav
The events of the last few days in Paris and especially the massacre in the satirical weekly Charlie Hedro should turn on a red light for those who do not understand the difference between liberalism and multiculturalism.
First we will define what multiculturalism is: in its extreme form, multiculturalism is postmodernism incarnate: there is no single truth, and there are no values that need to be protected. Every belief and behavior is legitimate. According to this method, ISIS and similar extremist cultures also enjoy the freedom to live in their faith.
Liberalism, on the other hand, defines as basic values the values of the Enlightenment, which holds equal opportunities, gender equality and freedom for each person to realize himself - as long as he does not harm others. No one must decide that a certain person will not be able to realize himself and it doesn't matter if this is done in the gender context (the treatment of a woman as inferior to a man and the imposition on her of clothing customs, social gatherings, the word of women, etc.), and also no one should be discriminated against in regards to his social status, nationality, religion, economic situation, etc.
According to this approach, anyone who does not carry out these basic values, for example a father who murders his home "on the grounds of dishonoring the family" even if she only talked to someone with whom she was forbidden to be in contact with, violates these basic values and should not be given the right to do so.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are two of these liberal values, but when freedom of religion takes on the status of giving autonomy to members of a certain religion to harm others - whether members of their family, people of their people, or other human beings, do not be surprised that other freedom values, such as freedom of speech, do not exist.
The massacre, there is no other word to describe it, which eliminated an entire edition of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, illustrates the abysmal difference between the Western world and Islam. While in the West it is allowed to laugh at anything, including the religious scholars in Islam it is an unspeakable sin. With us, Muni Moshunov and his friends could portray Moses breaking the covenant tablets on the head of a snoozing woman who asked him difficult questions, where it is not even allowed to mention Muhammad.
The religion, which encouraged scholars to preserve and develop the scientific heritage of ancient Greece, which invented algebra, the concept of zero, perfected the science of astronomy and navigation over hundreds of years, from Baghdad to Cordoba (in Spain this was also done in collaboration with Jewish scholars), shows no tolerance today for example For girls to study in schools, to watch television, to drink alcohol, to just have fun - according to the strict interpretation of Muslim law today, there are those who forbid even laughter (a good diagnosis was made by a Romanian journalist whom I accompanied on a tour of Jerusalem who saw children playing and laughing in the Jewish, Armenian and Christian quarters, while in The Muslim were all stern).
It is not for nothing that scientists from most Muslim countries (except Iran and Turkey) publish very few articles in the scientific press, certainly compared to, for example, Israel, where the number of scientific articles per capita (156 articles per 100 people) is dozens of times greater (Iran ranks second in the Middle East with 45 articles per capita) , and no wonder that in Arab countries and countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is the largest concentration of believers in conspiracy theories. Of course, the difference at the scientific level results in a big difference in the standard of living as well, as it is reflected in GNP per capita.
Science falls victim in these countries because the basis of science is casting doubt, and the religious sages, backed by the regimes (even the secular ones who wanted governmental calm) do not like that. The scientists question everything and make basic assumptions that man has the freedom of thought to explore nature. The Enlightenment period that began in France in the 18th century was also the period when modern science began to flourish. The connection between Enlightenment values and science is not accidental. Historically, following the scientific revolution and the success of casting doubt, philosophers began to think about how to plan a social structure that gives all human beings, and not just scientists, the freedom to explore and develop themselves and realize themselves, and thus began the Age of Enlightenment which included, among other things, the writing of the first encyclopedia in France, the drafting of the American Constitution who laid the foundation for a government in which the government operates according to these basic values, and of course the French Revolution which instilled the values of the Enlightenment - freedom, equality, fraternity.
The cartoonists emphasized that they have no God and no sacred cows. It may be possible to debate whether the cartoons were fair or pointless (and it is important to remember that each cartoon is a response to a specific event, and today it is impossible to examine it out of context), but the massacre was a kind of stabbing in the back of French democracy. What is freedom if not freedom of speech? After all, we all know Voltaire's famous sentence: "I do not agree with a word of your words, but I will be ready to be killed for your right to say them." According to the Kawashi brothers and their crazy friends, they do not agree with a single word that the editors of the satirical weekly write and are ready to kill them for exercising the right to say it.
Democracy, and advocates of liberalism should protect themselves from those who do not accept their basic values, and not agree to be killed to allow them to speak their mind.
The terrorists and another accomplice of theirs who caused the death of four customers at the Jewish supermarket in Paris yesterday are no longer alive, but to a certain extent they won: shortly after the massacre on Wednesday, many of the media that reported on it including CNN, NBC, Guardian and others blurred the cartoons or even cut them them and left the late editor Sharv showing only the logo of the weekly.
If we want to live, we must stop apologizing for being liberals, and not be drawn into postmodernism and political correctness, which will only help those who want to destroy democracy and liberal values to do so more easily. Liberals may not start a war, but if it is forced upon them, they must not make concessions to the enemy.
32 תגובות
Thanks for all the comments on the article
The main purpose of the article for me was to show the difference between multiculturalism and liberalism and why liberalism is more important than multiculturalism. Of course, this does not mean that multiculturalism is not needed, multiculturalism is an important and beautiful tool within liberalism, but it is only a tool that must be balanced.
One of the key questions of modern thought is how to balance liberalism and multiculturalism?
On the one hand, multiculturalism is supposed to accept every community with its values and beliefs, including a Nazi or extreme Islamic community, on the other hand, liberalism claims that there are basic values that must be preserved, such as individual freedom, and then there is no place for communities that take away the freedom of other people (such as, for example, Muslims who would require women to go with turban).
So how do you combine the approaches?
In my opinion, liberalism wins. He is the "father" of multiculturalism. First you have to agree that freedom is a value and then in the name of freedom different groups should get a place and representation. ZA First of all we start from liberalism and from it came multiculturalism. Because liberalism contains multiculturalism, of course it precedes it in the event of a dispute. In other words, if there is a group that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is depriving its people of the basic rights of liberalism, it should be prevented from them (for example, to prevent women from speaking), but carefully. Liberalism is supposed to give only basic laws and very broad boundaries so that within it there will be room for most subcultures (laws on what is forbidden and not laws on what is allowed, for example). I think the most important means of maintaining liberalism over time is education. In Canada, for example, they did something very smart. There was a similar problem between multiculturalism and liberalism (but not as murderous as in the current case). A certain group wanted their children to learn in the public schools their religion, with its traditions, customs and rituals. What to do? Is it allowed to teach one particular religion in the state's government schools or should we prevent the teaching of any religion in state schools? The Canadians decided on a genius step, to teach the children about the same religions. ZA that now the students learn about all kinds of religions from all over the world. This way they open up to many opinions and currents and compare them. In this way, the original group that wanted their children to know only their content, failed in their plan to "brainwash" and the children were exposed to skepticism and extensive knowledge. This is a beautiful example of how liberalism can preserve itself and educate the values of humanism, human freedom, respect for different opinions and multiculturalism. Not through prohibitions, but rather through empowerment, through imparting knowledge and comparative and skeptical thinking tools.
And what do we do with the great immigration to the developed liberal countries?
A true liberal society is a humanist society that sees a person as a person without distinctions of nationality, religion, race, gender, etc. That's why such a company should do a fusion of cultures. Slums, Muslim neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, etc. must not be created. Each person can keep in his home the tradition he came with, we will not suppress the tradition from the home, but we will require that there be a uniform education for all. All children study together in public schools, learn about their tradition and must also study core studies of comparative religions, sciences, development of skeptical thinking tools and education for liberalism and humanism. In addition, in my opinion, every immigrant must take classes on liberal culture and commit that he accepts not only the laws of the place he moved to but also the cultural basis of that place. In this way, we might be able to move from narrow nationalism and narrow religiosity that separate people to liberalism that advocates humanism - a person as a person regardless of his nationality or his religion.
pain
I think these cartoons are the result of Islamophobia, not the cause.
With all this when using a cartoon like the one that appears in the article. Then they claim that freedom of speech should be respected. After all, this expression is Disgusting and repulsive in any way it is presented here. A painting that will surely cause those close to Islam to be seriously offended. Not that it justifies the result, peace and harmony. But this freedom of expression is rude and offensive. It shows that the freedom of seeing itself does not respect those who believe. And with all this when
He is offensively disrespectful of the Convention
Zolt expects to be respected as freedom of speech. After all, this is the method of the robbed Cossack.
They were wrong. The basic one for most of them when they try to compare Christianity with Islam and Judaism... In Christianity God is divided into three. There is a statue in the form of a man to whom they pray. Hang it on the chest and anywhere possible. They carry him to the dirtiest places. And that god is actually a man. A Jew indeed. And he as an individual brings a so-called new covenant to the world. There is no proof I have seen that he is indeed a god and his words are the words of God. Apart from the things he said or his successors. In Islam there is also a man who claims to be a prophet. And to whom God speaks. But no one but him has evidence of this. These religions came after the inventions of the Jewish religion. And in order to be unique. Each of us invented something imaginary of her own. Even their Shabbat mentioned in their Torah does not take place on Shabbat. Because whether on Sunday or Friday. Judaism, on the other hand, brings an amazing story of an entire people who saw the Creator in the presence of millions. And it is passed down from generation to generation. Unlike the previous religions, Judaism not only does not force you to join it. She even makes it difficult for those who want to join her ranks. What is not the case in Christianity (Inquisition) and Islam (Jihad), in any case due to the shortness of the veil, there are many more details that separate Judaism from false religions and this is only the least of the few...
Speyer,
It is very possible that Jewish and Muslim elements cooperate against the ban on circumcision and kosher/halal slaughter, because they have a common interest in these matters. The problem is what happens in matters where Muslims have no common interest?
More than that, I will remind you that there was a Muslim worker who was employed in a store and saved Jews there, and a Muslim policeman who was shot to death, and also during the period of Muslim rule in Spain (the Golden Age) it was much better for the Jews than in the period that followed, when there was Christian rule / the Inquisition...
But all these do not help us understand the situation and find a solution. Maybe it will sound strange to you, but I don't have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam. And the fact that most of the world today has a problem with Islam cannot be ignored.
Of course there are good-hearted Muslims, but as long as they fill their mouths with water and don't help address the problem, then it doesn't matter.
You are wrong. I am sure that there are religious Jews who in his eyes are even worse than secular ones like us.
Ok," recorded in the protocol" the religious only loves religious Jews. How expected.
Religious
This personal attack is not up to par...
Bi, forgive me, but you are a demagogue from the land of demagogues. History has known a host of secular leaders and secular societies that allowed themselves to persecute religions, yes, even violently, in the name of all kinds of things. I'm talking about phenomena like this in France during the revolution and also in Communism, which I assume your parents worshiped in a remote kibbutz somewhere in the country, phenomena that continue to this day in North Korea, even though I assume that all traces of belief in God have already been eradicated there. You have no right to lie with a determined forehead and blame the religion for these actions. Judaism and Christianity developed simultaneously with the refinement of world morality and abandoned barbarism and extremism more or less when the secularists did. There are always extremists, and the secularists also have extremists. To this day, you can find the former members of the Commonwealth of Nations expressing severe violence against religious people, and remind you - they are drinking from the same communist sewage that your ancestors drank, you simply progressed, and like you Judaism and Christianity. The problem with Islam is that most of it unfortunately still supports those dark phenomena except for a negligible minority. P.S. - You are really an old fashioned scumbag, and I guess you haven't met a religious person for an in-depth conversation since you. The younger generation, thank God, is no longer as extreme and dark as you and knows its colleagues from the other side of the fence and knows how to disagree with them, without conspiratorially inflating everything they disagree on.
Avi Cohen, sometimes Jews and Muslims cooperate. Mainly in Europe, Muslims buy kosher food. And face European initiatives to ban circumcision. Or initiatives to ban kosher slaughter. We must join forces with positive factors in the Muslim world. Shalom on you or salam on you. The future will be Good. Also for the Jewish people.
The problem is that most people try to understand other religions through the glasses of their own religion (or around them) therefore they never get down to a deep understanding of the religion.
There is a problematic catch in Islam. The first part of the Koran (before the takeover of the city of Medina) is more peaceful and tolerant. Muhammad says things like: I have my religion and you have yours. But the second part is saturated with violence and blood: Muhammad's death by sword. People who approach Islam are usually familiar with the first part. After they have already become devout believers, they begin to know the second part and act on it.
According to tradition, the entire Koran was written under the inspiration of God, and therefore, without exception, it is holy and an exact copy of the Koran found in heaven. Therefore, a believer cannot disagree with what is written in it, and therefore relatively moderate opinions cannot be voiced, because the Koran itself presents fundamentalist opinions.
The Qur'an presents military and political tactics for victory over the infidels. Muhammad himself explains to the believers what to say to the unbelievers and how to win fraudulently (for example the tidings - apparently a cease-fire agreement according to the case of the Jewish tribe of Quraish with whom the agreement was signed only to return and destroy them when Muhammad gained enough military power).
Maybe stop blaming Islam.
And start blaming the people who supposedly operate under his cover.
Anyone who harasses Jews on the Temple Mount should be tried for it. If it is incitement, threats, or violence. This should be a state of law! May we have a prime minister like Daniela Wirzer. And not a belligerent like Bibi.
If a Muslim is offended, Mabibi gives an example: Muslim terrorism, or the nationality law. It would be appropriate for him to file a libel suit.
If we liken insult to theft, should every thief die? If a person is offended, he will demand an apology, and file a libel suit. It is not possible for any nonsense to be accompanied by a threat of murder.
The question is: on which side are you that the guns are thundering.
Will you defend my right to call Muhammad a pig or his right not to hear it.
Even if it means that to protect me you have to get your hands dirty...
Regarding evolution, religious people are offended that they are compared to monkeys. It should be emphasized that we have a common ancestor, and we are not "advanced monkeys". Misunderstanding of Darwinism led to the Nazis! We should not be afraid of anti-Semitism, because even if the stereotype of the Jew from the cartoons is scary. No one is allowed to hurt another person! Therefore justice is with us, and they are immoral!
Islam is only a tool, just as other terrorists used ideologies to justify violence. (Scoundrels like Stalin, Mao, and the Nazis). As an example, Islam in Turkey and Tunisia is different from Islam in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. If we give power to a liberal interpretation of Islam, and we stop if the definition of "Islamic terrorism" then There has been a change. It seems that businessmen of other religions, and weapons manufacturers encourage an extreme interpretation of Islam on the weight of "these barbarians". In my opinion, the fear of Jews on the Temple Mount is part of the problem. We give them legitimacy for violence.
Skeptic, anti-religion is a trait attributed to the liberal left, however, for some reason my friends on the left are satisfied with one anti-religion, because its laws bother us in Israel in everyday matters, but it doesn't bother them that other religions control even stronger coercion over their believers in practice or by force. I believe that there is no difference - all religions are a negative factor, and not because of faith - every person has the right to believe in anything, but that what they believe in - whatever it is - is part of nature, and those who do not keep the mitzvot, whether light or serious, are harming all of humanity, and they see themselves as As messengers of the one and only truth.
In connection with this, I once saw a video by Dawkins where he shows the map of the world's religions, and the chance of someone born in a certain country to continue the religion of his parents, that is, a connection between the place of birth and faith, and did a mental exercise. Suppose there is a discussion on a scientific issue - what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, took the same map, and said that instead of a certain color marking Catholic Christianity - there will be scientists who believe they died because of an asteroid, another color will instead mark Jews - scientists who believe the mammals ate their eggs, etc. After all, it doesn't make sense, science is one all over the world and religion has a large element of locality.
Indeed, at conferences, press conferences and other events in Europe, I get to meet Iranians, the educated ones are nice people, who don't like the way their country is run, and they tell me that they wish they could do business or establish scientific ties with Israelis, precisely because the regime turns us into the devil, They value us more. It's a shame for them that they are not free, and it was precisely in Iran that they tried to revolt and we saw how it ended. In the rest of the Muslim world, indeed the moderates remain silent and thereby let the minority take over the agenda.
Thanks for the important article. Of course, every religious person, including a Jew, should look within and examine the way his religion is conducted and those who stand at the head of it, examine his beliefs and customs. Are they unenlightened? Unfortunately it seems so. If you are religious, what should you do to initiate the improvement and change of the existing situation among your religious community?
And a question not only for the religious, is the problem in all of Islam or is it a generalization and we are talking about individual mentally ill, intoxicated or drugged fanatics? In my humble opinion, the problem is first and foremost with the inciting religious leaders, and with the moderates - who remain silent...
And also in the rest of the people who are led as a herd, who are not educated in education, in science, not to mention critical thinking, because they will immediately be eliminated by the regime if they only express a different opinion... so here, in my opinion, there is a combination of factors in the order of their influence: 1. Incitement to extremism by The religious leaders 2. An oppressive regime 3. The ignorance of the people... if the first one changes all the other peoples of Islam will flock towards enlightenment... so how do you get the moderate religious leaders to unite and raise their voice against the fanatics?
Spring.
Please be precise. I didn't say you were leftist, I said you were anti-religious (there is a difference).
Lab turtle.
I don't know about Charlie's terror against journalists in France, but according to my impressions the terrorists against Charlie do not represent all the religious people in the world, but only the fundamentalists.
I suggest you download the Persepolis video from YouTube (or download the Persepolis comic book). It is a biography that presents the majority group in Iran whose voice is not heard, it is about religious Muslims or just traditional Muslims without fanaticism who are peace-loving and culture-loving. (The author of Persepolis, Marian, described herself as a child as "the last prophetess", meaning the one after Muhammad). The attempt to portray the religious community as an obstacle to humanity and science is a noel attempt. The fact that there are religious fundamentalists does not make them a representative example of all religious people.
Avi Shalom,
We are not here just to draw knowledge*, and ignoring such significant events borders on irresponsibility. You did well to publish this column.
*I really like this site. He is one of the few who knows how to convey scientific knowledge to a relatively broad public, without harming the scientific correctness of things. its not easy. well done!
Interestingly, one accuses me of right-wing and the other of left-wing (anti-religious) everything is in the eye of the beholder. I have independent opinions on every subject
sakan
Do you see anything wrong with that?
Tom
The owner of the site Avi B. He is anti-religious and publishes anti-religious articles on his website all the time. In his opinion, it is not only his right to use his website as a platform for his views on religious matters, but also his moral duty.
hello my father
First of all, thanks for the response.
What I'm saying is that the article is more your (right wing) political opinion than a scientific article. It's not that I disagree with him, but I was surprised to find this type of article here. Nothing is forbidden, and in the end this is your site and you can do with it as you wish, I just hope you don't multiply articles like this, and let others get involved in politics, this is exactly why I spend more time reading your articles than any other site.
If the other's culture is not to be disrespected even if it is barbaric by any standard then that means we have to agree to their theory that they are the rulers of the world and all others will either convert to Islam or die. After all, if these were just criminals who want to kill for money, no one would bother to fight them. And by the way, it's not just Islam. Any religion that lets itself stew in its own juices and puts itself at the center of the universe will do so. We also eliminated Amalek and the Christians also eliminated Muslims and Jews in the Crusades. There is no choice, we must activate the education system here that will not teach multiculturalism even at the cost of intolerance, but tolerance is the basis - on both sides.
And as for the claim that the site of the scientist is not allowed to write about it - read the paragraph in the article that connects the lack of scientific literacy with the degree of primitiveness, which sometimes also manifests itself in barbarism. Science, actually being detached from nation and religion, is the pending answer.
The believers see their way and their faith as absolute truth and there is no other.
In their opinion, those who do not follow their path must join their religion. thus bringing the Messiah and redemption.
Religions are senseless, disconnected from reality. and continue their path for thousands of years, despite the rapid development
in technology, culture and more.
The non-believer's attempt to understand the way of the religious person is strange, and often try to convince him that there is no higher power.
Man's ability or need to blindly and completely believe in a leader in a leader, implies that we are an evolutionary product..
Because in the herd/band, the individual's faith in the leader is absolute and is an important part of the individual's survival mechanism.
to paint Islam as a dark religion that has passed its time.
Not that I'm saying it's not true, I haven't read the Koran and I'm not in a position to decide if it's really so or not, but it's a shame to find such an article on a site like the scientist. It seems that the editor could not calm his anger and released a beautiful article to mass and populist news sites and not to a site that stays away from politics like Mash. An article that did not innovate anything, it is clear to 90% of the readers of this site that the massacre is a challenge to democracy.
Hopefully the magazine will stick to articles and scientific articles without political seasoning, leaving it to the shallow news websites.
In the 70s of the last century, murderous anarchist groups operated in Europe. One of them was in France, named
action direct. The French police acted against this organization with full force without moral and legal inhibitions and the members of this organization were eliminated. As a reminder, not recently a Muslim cell was caught in England trying to eliminate the English Queen.. As a reminder, one of these organizations eliminated the president of Italy Aldo Moro. There is already a Muslim majority in Marseille. Daesh gentlemen in Europe. We should not be surprised that the right wing in Europe will grow stronger and when it comes to power it will not hesitate to carry out mass deportations in the best case and in the worst case concentration camps will be set up for them.
I just read the title.
And it should be remembered that one must equally differentiate between "multiculturalism" and disdain for the other's culture, which is exactly what this newspaper did.
And this is regardless of the fact that I have no idea and probably no one will know why the cartoonists were eliminated, if the murderers were really eliminated, then there is no one to tell us what the real reason is. (It's funny that many believe in some "al-Qaeda leader" from Yemen who knows the reason for the murder).
Some will say that the murderers acted under the principle of freedom of speech. The murder was an expression of their mindset.
"When freedom of religion collides with freedom of expression"
Avi fix the title... (also on the main page)