Peter Giesen is the editor of my favourite Dutch newspaper, and recently he wrote a beautiful critique (in Dutch) of the Right-Wing governments we've had since the eighties and certain abhorrent values that are being promoted in today's society. While I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what he said, I got somewhat upset about the sentence "de islam, die onverenigbaar zou zijn met een moderne, democratische samenleving". In context he said he takes issue with the Right Wing suggestion that Moroccan misbehavior stems from their culture or Islam, which is purported to be incompatible with a modern, democratic society. As a true left-winger, he says we shouldn't be saying that.
But Mr Giesen is preposterously wrong here. Of course Islam is incompatible with a modern, democratic society. And so are Christianity and Judaism. He who reads the scripture will inevitably conclude these religions are based on immoral, inhumane and downright nasty writings. I will not go on to discuss the immorality of the various stories in there, as I don't have enough server space to finish that volume, but my point boils down to this: A psychologist at Tel Aviv university asked 1000 Israeli children if the slaughter of Jericho was morally justifiable. "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." "And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein."
68% of the children thought this act of genocide was justifiable because "otherwise the children of Israel would assimilate with the people in the land" and because "the other religion should be stamped out". Notice how assimilation, adaption to the culture of the land you're moving to needs to be avoided at the cost of killing a people? Only 26% thought it was not OK, and 6% had ambivalent feelings. Amongst those that thought it was immoral or a bit of both, there were those who thought it was immoral because of the destruction of the city itself. "Should have kept it standing, it would have been ours."
Apparently Israelis get taught that it's perfectly OK to march into a country, slaughter all who live there, "man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass" as it were, and take the land. This psychological study aptly demonstrates why I do not wish to raise my son in Israel. Now I'm not gonna pick on the Israelis per se. It's well known that Muslims think they can burn Danish embassies and bomb innocent civilians to smithereens, while Christians think they can kill Jews, Musselmen, Witches and native populations of newly discovered lands.
The point of this story is this: Monotheistic faiths typically have a misogynistic and xenophobic world view. "Thy neighbor" in the context of the Old Testament explicitly *only* meant Jews. Maimonides pointed out as much in the 12th century. Similar views are held by Christians and Muslims. Infidels can be slain without punishment. Even if you take it as an "allegory" or "metaphor", it has no place in modern thinking and modern moral philosophy. As Blaise Pascal once said “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction”.
I'm a left winger at heart, and I believe in a multicultural society but I won't soften up on Islam. Or any of the above, for that matter.
Posted by Chris at October 22, 2008 04:08 AM