There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether we are in the midst of a “clash of civilizations” between the “West” and the “Muslim world”. I believe we are, but the clash falls within a larger context: the clash between Enlightenment values and fundamentalism (of all sorts, not just religious). Muslim mobs raging against cartoons that depict their prophet in an unfavorable light are only the most sensational example of a larger conflict that does not break down so neatly between “us” and “them”.
Within the United States the forces of fundamentalism on the right are at work in the highest offices of government: stifling scientific advances in stem cell research, and preventing money from going to family planning clinics abroad that include abortion as an option. The combined effects of these policies, driven by narrow religious views, will likely lead to more suffering and death than the acts of violence that routinely appear in the front-page news. At the state and local levels this same type of religious fundamentalism continues to fuel discriminatory legislation against gays and their families, making them suffer for no other reason than ignorance and bigotry. (The latest example is the effort to ban gays from being adoptive parents in 16 states; Florida already has such a ban in place.)
The far left also has its strain of fundamentalism. Ardent followers of the likes of Michael Moore, Global Exchange, and more recently John Perkins, who see conspiracies everywhere, and commonly espouse ideologies that preach that corporations are evil, free trade is bad, or every form of U.S. military intervention is unjust, are just as much slaves to dogma. In addition, many of the anti-free market assumptions that have become the accepted wisdom on the left are rarely examined in a critical fashion (this is especially true within the environmental movement). All of these misguided ideologies have real consequences as well that needlessly increase suffering throughout the world, and allow ineffective and self-defeating government policies to persist (e.g., trade protectionism, perverse subsidies, ineffective foreign aid, and failing public schools).
We also witness the fundamentalism of extreme moral relativism at work throughout America and the EU when people are unwilling to defend the freedom of speech when it comes under attack from religious zealots. It is a disgrace that so many newspapers in the liberal democracies have refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons. They could easily add a few cartoons of other religions to demonstrate that they are not singling out Muslims; instead they have engaged in the worst form of self-censorship, submitting to demands from religious fundamentalists bent on intimidation through violence.
All this leads me to conclude that the real battle these days is between those who rely on reason and rationality to form judgments (and are willing to stand up for these principles) and those who arrive with preconceived notions of how things are and ought to be that are in no way malleable or open to debate. This is not to suggest, as some do, that a dedication to reason automatically translates into moral relativism; it does not. But it does require that moral positions be backed up with more than religious proclamations or sloganeering. It also requires coherent arguments and logical propositions, as well as an aversion to all forms of political correctness.
Liberal democracies have the benefit of being able (for the most part) to fight against fundamentalism through the political process, which precludes the need for violence; this is why democracy is the best form of government no matter how imperfect it still may be.
In many parts of the world, however, there is no culture of open debate and no means for settling disputes through non-violent means. Much of the Arab and Muslim world fits this description, and it is no surprise that these societies harbor large numbers of people who are intent on using violence to forward their fundamentalist agenda.
For those who understand that the Enlightenment tradition (which is partially enshrined in our Constitution) is responsible for almost all of the human progress of the last few centuries, and also holds the greatest promise for global peace and security, I think it is dangerously naïve to believe that we are not in a clash of civilizations: a clash which involves a large segment of the Muslim world. Societies in which women are relegated to second-class status, Jews are considered demons, and superstition dominates numerous aspects of daily life, are not compatible with Enlightenment principles on the most basic level. Significant numbers of believers in this culture have proven through their actions that they are intent on harming us, along with any people who stand in the way of their fundamentalist vision.
On the other hand, to focus only on threats from cultures that are easily perceived as alien can degrade quickly into racism and blanket condemnation of huge segments of the world; this is wrongheaded and extremely dangerous as well. Reason dictates that we put the struggle against Muslim fundamentalism within the broader context of the larger battle against fundamentalism in all its forms. All of them must be combated so that humanity as a whole can advance and prosper, and each form requires unique responses and levels of engagement. Hopefully, violence can be avoided, but as in the case of the Taliban and Al Queada in Afghanistan this is not always possible.
Ultimately, when push comes to shove, we must never cower before the forces of fundamentalism when they take aim at our liberty and freedom, and try to substitute narrow dogmas for reasoned discourse. This is why it so important to identify and condemn fundamentalism wherever it appears, no matter who its proponents, and to firmly stand by the Enlightenment principles that so many in the West appear to take for granted.
J.S.
P.S. Seems like Michelle Cottle at The New Republic essentially agrees with my point that religious fundamentalists will never become a significant part of a larger progressive movement no matter how much people on the left want to believe that they are persuadable. It’s an amazing article on the absurdities of the religious obsession with butting in on people’s sex lives to the point where little else matters.
Jason Scorse