What do you think?
Rate this book
La nueva intolerancia religiosa
„Nowa nietolerancja religijna” została napisana przez Marthę C. Nussbaum w dziesięć lat po atakach na Wolrd Trade Center. Jej głównym tematem jest wolność mniejszości oraz lęk przed islamem, który od lat rośnie wśród mieszkańców zachodniego świata. Nussbaum opisuje kulturową i polityczną historię rozszerzania się wolności religijnej na Zachodzie oraz rozważa najbardziej palące spory na temat obecności innych kultury i religii w Europie i USA (spór o minarety w Szwajcarii, spór o burkę we Francji i Belgii). Jako spadkobierczyni myśli Johna Rawlsa robi to z pozycji tradycji liberalnej, kładąc z jednej strony nacisk na neutralność religijną państwa, z drugiej – na potrzebę zachowania szacunku dla religijnych przekonań innych obywateli i wykształcenie w sobie współczującej wyobraźni.
***
„Kiedyś, wcale nie tak dawno temu, Amerykanie i Europejczycy chlubili się swoją oświeconą postawą religijnej tolerancji i zrozumienia. Choć dla każdego było jasne, że historię Zachodu znamionowały silna religijna wrogość i przemoc, Europa jeszcze do niedawna lubowała się w myśleniu, że te mroczne czasy odeszły w przeszłość. Obecnie mamy wiele powodów, aby powątpiewać w tę pełną zadowolenia samoocenę. Znaleźliśmy się w sytuacji, która wymaga od nas natychmiastowego przeprowadzenia krytycznego rachunku sumienia, po to aby ujawnić źródło niewygodnych strachów i podejrzeń, gnębiących obecnie wszystkie społeczeństwa Zachodu”.
***
„Kiedyś, wcale nie tak dawno temu, Amerykanie i Europejczycy chlubili się swoją oświeconą postawą religijnej tolerancji i zrozumienia. Choć dla każdego było jasne, że historię Zachodu znamionowały silna religijna wrogość i przemoc, Europa jeszcze do niedawna lubowała się w myśleniu, że te mroczne czasy odeszły w przeszłość. Obecnie mamy wiele powodów, aby powątpiewać w tę pełną zadowolenia samoocenę. Znaleźliśmy się w sytuacji, która wymaga od nas natychmiastowego przeprowadzenia krytycznego rachunku sumienia, po to aby ujawnić źródło niewygodnych strachów i podejrzeń, gnębiących obecnie wszystkie społeczeństwa Zachodu”.
309 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2012
37 people are currently reading
811 people want to read
About the author
Martha C. Nussbaum
177 books1,363 followersMartha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
June 25, 2016
As a child of an interfaith marriage in which my father is a Moroccan Muslim and my mother a French Roman Catholic, I have intimately experienced the divisiveness of religious intolerance. Growing up, my family dynamics were a microcosm of a diverse society with opposing opinions on how to establish a dominant identity. My grandfather asked my mother: “you’re marrying, a what!?” The furtive baptism attempts were disallowed, but of course I was allowed to have a lamb slaughtered at my circumcision to ensure my virility (TMI?). My family was fighting for control of how I would end up identifying, and it all seemed arbitrary and somewhat hateful. I was confused. My 5-year old self said it best: “mom, if you’re Catholic and dad’s Muslim, does that mean I’m Jewish?” Clearly, neither side was winning.
Thankfully my parents were kind enough to limit my exposure to the hardliners of my extended family and instilled a minimum of one hour per day of literary consumption (when I still needed the knowledge nudge). It didn’t matter what I read, even comic books counted sometimes. Through literature, what started as a binary war for my identity was transformed into something much more complex. There weren’t just two perspectives, but countless ones, all of which could have a part in making me, well, me. I started holding a very strong belief that I share with Descartes; that my individual perspective is only as complete as the amount of perspectives to which I have been exposed.
Unaware of it at the time, all of the reading was helping me cultivate what Nussbaum refers to in "The New Religious Intolerance" as the “mind’s eye”. One of her main ideas in the work is that in a world of increasing divisiveness fueled by religious (and many other types of) intolerance, there needs to be further development in human compassion. Nussbaum expands on this point by quoting George Washington, making a sharp distinction between a majority-controlled power structure merely tolerating and pitying differences, and a truly pluralistic society in which individuals have an inalienable right to “freedom of conscience.” Moving from the former to the latter, Nussbaum argues, requires the cultivating of a curiosity about others that is currently being stifled by hate-mongering and conservative demagoguery. These divisive forces encourage forming opinions about minority populations around the world from a single (and mostly uninformed) vantage point.
Nussbaum deconstructs contemporary global society’s tendency for monoline opinion forming about Islam through a brilliantly crafted genealogy of fear. Drawing from a diverse arsenal of academic tools, including her vast knowledge of political philosophy and Constitutional law, she continues that certain contemporary attitudes about minority groups are not only irresponsible, but against the foundations on which this country are based. Her language may be dense at times if you haven't read much philosophy, but the narrative is well balanced with charming anecdotes about her personal experiences as a woman, a child of a racist father, a converted Jewish wife, and a Chicago White Sox fan, showcasing some of the socially constructed aspects of her personality with which she has the freedom to proudly (or not so proudly) identify.
Given the identity crisis that the current presidential election cycle has made clear America is going through, I think "The New Religious Intolerance" is an especially relevant work. It reminds us that one can always create a logical (and even sometimes legal) framework for systemic religious intolerance, but it’s an oversimplified model based on exploiting some of the physiological limitations of our brain behavior, and one in which a majority is claiming the right to define the identity of a minority. While I was reading this book, I couldn’t help but think about what Nussbaum would make of the Make America Great Again campaign. I'd oversimplify it and say it’s lazy and entitled. She'd probably be a little more specific, drawing heavily from some of the well-constructed arguments presented in this book. To make a comparison to a recent Oscar-nominated film and critically acclaimed book, if you keep a child in a Room his whole life, it’s easy to superimpose a simple set of rules that define his reality. But the maintenance of the Room/child dynamic is based on a power dominance scheme that’s at least unethical, but more likely morally reprehensible. Nussbaum’s book urges me to say, let’s free America’s identity child and give the doctor from "Room" another chance to say, “It's a good thing you got him out while he was still plastic.”
Thankfully my parents were kind enough to limit my exposure to the hardliners of my extended family and instilled a minimum of one hour per day of literary consumption (when I still needed the knowledge nudge). It didn’t matter what I read, even comic books counted sometimes. Through literature, what started as a binary war for my identity was transformed into something much more complex. There weren’t just two perspectives, but countless ones, all of which could have a part in making me, well, me. I started holding a very strong belief that I share with Descartes; that my individual perspective is only as complete as the amount of perspectives to which I have been exposed.
Unaware of it at the time, all of the reading was helping me cultivate what Nussbaum refers to in "The New Religious Intolerance" as the “mind’s eye”. One of her main ideas in the work is that in a world of increasing divisiveness fueled by religious (and many other types of) intolerance, there needs to be further development in human compassion. Nussbaum expands on this point by quoting George Washington, making a sharp distinction between a majority-controlled power structure merely tolerating and pitying differences, and a truly pluralistic society in which individuals have an inalienable right to “freedom of conscience.” Moving from the former to the latter, Nussbaum argues, requires the cultivating of a curiosity about others that is currently being stifled by hate-mongering and conservative demagoguery. These divisive forces encourage forming opinions about minority populations around the world from a single (and mostly uninformed) vantage point.
Nussbaum deconstructs contemporary global society’s tendency for monoline opinion forming about Islam through a brilliantly crafted genealogy of fear. Drawing from a diverse arsenal of academic tools, including her vast knowledge of political philosophy and Constitutional law, she continues that certain contemporary attitudes about minority groups are not only irresponsible, but against the foundations on which this country are based. Her language may be dense at times if you haven't read much philosophy, but the narrative is well balanced with charming anecdotes about her personal experiences as a woman, a child of a racist father, a converted Jewish wife, and a Chicago White Sox fan, showcasing some of the socially constructed aspects of her personality with which she has the freedom to proudly (or not so proudly) identify.
Given the identity crisis that the current presidential election cycle has made clear America is going through, I think "The New Religious Intolerance" is an especially relevant work. It reminds us that one can always create a logical (and even sometimes legal) framework for systemic religious intolerance, but it’s an oversimplified model based on exploiting some of the physiological limitations of our brain behavior, and one in which a majority is claiming the right to define the identity of a minority. While I was reading this book, I couldn’t help but think about what Nussbaum would make of the Make America Great Again campaign. I'd oversimplify it and say it’s lazy and entitled. She'd probably be a little more specific, drawing heavily from some of the well-constructed arguments presented in this book. To make a comparison to a recent Oscar-nominated film and critically acclaimed book, if you keep a child in a Room his whole life, it’s easy to superimpose a simple set of rules that define his reality. But the maintenance of the Room/child dynamic is based on a power dominance scheme that’s at least unethical, but more likely morally reprehensible. Nussbaum’s book urges me to say, let’s free America’s identity child and give the doctor from "Room" another chance to say, “It's a good thing you got him out while he was still plastic.”
February 27, 2017
Martha Nussbaum is a genteel gentlewoman, a rational preacher of religious tolerance, a punctilious student of the passions (emotions), and obviously one of the most influential moral philosophers of our era. Her style, while never naive, has a saintly honesty about it.
This book exhibits all of her virtues, most notably her commitment to liberal toleration and (beyond that "coldly" rational virtue) to a passionate, poetic and experiential openness to the lives of others. An engagement with public discourse, this book exits the ivory tower and the Empress walks among the plebeians. With the help of Athenian philosophy and literary examples, she dissects recent public controversies around religion (especially Islam) in an admirably honest way. The book does not advance any great theory; but it puts a lot of great theory into practice.
She is palpably committed to exposing the all-too-human tendency, in our psychology, to generate suspicion, fear and conflict. Her solutions range from expanding our consciousness through the development of our moral conscience and the visionary capabilities of our empathetic "inner eye."
She explains the parallelisms between the religious intolerance of yesterday (e.g anti-Semitism, anti-Quakerism and anti-Catholicism) and the religious intolerance of today (e.g. anti-Islamism). I especially loved her discussion about the differences in the European and American attitudes towards religious toleration, and the arguable superiority of the latter over the former in the constitutional protection that it grants minorities (especially minority religions). Of course, there is a downside to every tradition; but more on that later.
While competent, her insights rarely ascend above the interesting and mildly enlightening. The bourgeois caution of her liberalism mixes with an almost aristocratic disdain of the crude emotions of the masses. Her recommendations could be faulted as being occasionally paternalistic, or should I say "maternalistic": She thinks that problems could be solved with better education and moral growth, combined with a comfortable dose of anti-discriminatory and pro-minority legislation.
Perhaps I was also disappointed in the superficiality of her analysis of contemporary affairs. Her carefully worded observations on the moral virtues and follies of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, or on the origin story of the Lower Manhattan "mosque" controversy, do not contain much insight that a good op-ed in the New York Times or the Guardian has not already expressed better.
Another big failure is her attempt to slide over the problems of religious belief. This problem is shared by all writers who emphasize peaceful coexistence, but it is made worse by her open allegiance to a tradition in American liberalism that places special regard to religious belief over secular beliefs, and even wishes to grant legal religious exemptions to members of minority groups. This road had lead to a lot of strange loopholes in the legal code (what Justice Scalia justifiably decried as legal "anarchy"). It also fundamentally strengthens the power of organized religions, and entrenches religions - as privileged loci of moral force - thus making it more difficult for secular voices of conscience to be heard in the legal system and in the realm of public policy.
She also fails to face up to the special problems caused by Islam compared to many other religions. She glosses over the fiercely patriarchal and intolerant attitudes of mainstream religions. She fails to properly inquire whether the toleration of intolerance will lead to more tolerance or intolerance.
Well-meaning but one-sided liberals like Nussbaum are often willing to excuse or tolerate abhorrent practices, all in the name of friendship, tolerance and multiculturalism. This has led to a lot of problems with poor immigrant assimilation and radicalization. Religions can be quite intolerant - be it Christianity or Islam - and if one really cares about tolerance, one should try to reform religions to be more modern and tolerant. While the answer cannot be anti-religious bigotry, or rampant Islamophobia, the solution still eludes us. It cannot be the case that the cultivation of the "inner eye" - with the practice of the public virtues of friendship, mutual toleration and openness to otherness - as suggested by Nussbaum, are the end of the story.
Liberal and courteous measures, which place religion above criticism, and which sanitize marginalized groups, while a tolerable start for peace and prosperity, are only the first step. The next stage of toleration requires the exposition of the intolerance of religions themselves.
This book exhibits all of her virtues, most notably her commitment to liberal toleration and (beyond that "coldly" rational virtue) to a passionate, poetic and experiential openness to the lives of others. An engagement with public discourse, this book exits the ivory tower and the Empress walks among the plebeians. With the help of Athenian philosophy and literary examples, she dissects recent public controversies around religion (especially Islam) in an admirably honest way. The book does not advance any great theory; but it puts a lot of great theory into practice.
She is palpably committed to exposing the all-too-human tendency, in our psychology, to generate suspicion, fear and conflict. Her solutions range from expanding our consciousness through the development of our moral conscience and the visionary capabilities of our empathetic "inner eye."
She explains the parallelisms between the religious intolerance of yesterday (e.g anti-Semitism, anti-Quakerism and anti-Catholicism) and the religious intolerance of today (e.g. anti-Islamism). I especially loved her discussion about the differences in the European and American attitudes towards religious toleration, and the arguable superiority of the latter over the former in the constitutional protection that it grants minorities (especially minority religions). Of course, there is a downside to every tradition; but more on that later.
While competent, her insights rarely ascend above the interesting and mildly enlightening. The bourgeois caution of her liberalism mixes with an almost aristocratic disdain of the crude emotions of the masses. Her recommendations could be faulted as being occasionally paternalistic, or should I say "maternalistic": She thinks that problems could be solved with better education and moral growth, combined with a comfortable dose of anti-discriminatory and pro-minority legislation.
Perhaps I was also disappointed in the superficiality of her analysis of contemporary affairs. Her carefully worded observations on the moral virtues and follies of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, or on the origin story of the Lower Manhattan "mosque" controversy, do not contain much insight that a good op-ed in the New York Times or the Guardian has not already expressed better.
Another big failure is her attempt to slide over the problems of religious belief. This problem is shared by all writers who emphasize peaceful coexistence, but it is made worse by her open allegiance to a tradition in American liberalism that places special regard to religious belief over secular beliefs, and even wishes to grant legal religious exemptions to members of minority groups. This road had lead to a lot of strange loopholes in the legal code (what Justice Scalia justifiably decried as legal "anarchy"). It also fundamentally strengthens the power of organized religions, and entrenches religions - as privileged loci of moral force - thus making it more difficult for secular voices of conscience to be heard in the legal system and in the realm of public policy.
She also fails to face up to the special problems caused by Islam compared to many other religions. She glosses over the fiercely patriarchal and intolerant attitudes of mainstream religions. She fails to properly inquire whether the toleration of intolerance will lead to more tolerance or intolerance.
Well-meaning but one-sided liberals like Nussbaum are often willing to excuse or tolerate abhorrent practices, all in the name of friendship, tolerance and multiculturalism. This has led to a lot of problems with poor immigrant assimilation and radicalization. Religions can be quite intolerant - be it Christianity or Islam - and if one really cares about tolerance, one should try to reform religions to be more modern and tolerant. While the answer cannot be anti-religious bigotry, or rampant Islamophobia, the solution still eludes us. It cannot be the case that the cultivation of the "inner eye" - with the practice of the public virtues of friendship, mutual toleration and openness to otherness - as suggested by Nussbaum, are the end of the story.
Liberal and courteous measures, which place religion above criticism, and which sanitize marginalized groups, while a tolerable start for peace and prosperity, are only the first step. The next stage of toleration requires the exposition of the intolerance of religions themselves.
April 9, 2015
Full review available at: http://muslimmediareview.blogspot.com...
How can the industrialized, formally democratic societies of Europe and North America increase religious pluralism? European nations "have understood the root of nationhood to lie first and foremost in characteristics that are difficult if not impossible for new immigrants to share. Strongly influenced by romanticism, these nations have seen blood, soil, ethnolinguistic peoplehood, and religion as necessary or at least central elements of a national identity." (p. 13) Other nations, such as the United States and India, define "nationhood in terms of political ideals and struggles," thus somewhat opening the door. (p. 16)
While understanding nationhood as a political ideal facilitates religious pluralism, the chief determinant is a society's response to fear. Fear begins with a genuine problem. It "is easily displaced onto something that may have little to do with the underlying problem but that serves as a handy surrogate for it, often because the new target is already disliked." Fear is amplified by the enemy's disguise ("They pretend to be like us."), which can only be penetrated by the racist, xenophobic, patriot or religious bigot's superior insight. Humans share the emotion of fear with many other animals, and it is no doubt biologically necessary, especially in pre-agrarian societies. But "human beings [in industrialized societies] have to make decisions in a world for which evolution has given them only a very rudimentary preparation." (p. 29):
Fear is a "dimming preoccupation": an intense focus on the self that casts others into darkness. However valuable and indeed essential it is in a genuinely dangerous world, it is itself one of life's great dangers. (p. 58)
So how can human societies choose wisely despite genuine and misplaced fears?
I'll be arguing that to get a handle on our fears we need a combination of three things: sound principles involving respect for human equality; arguments that are not self-serving, targeting an alleged fault in the minority that is ubiquitous in the majority culture; and a curious and sympathetic imagination. But first we need to understand more about fear and how it works. (p. 21)
Chapter 3 discusses the first of the three legs of Professor Nussbaum's stool of religious pluralism, sound principles. If one accepts that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of their physical traits or social status or capacity for reasoning, and, if one rejects the extreme argument of the ancient Stoics that outward circumstances can never injure a person's conscience (an expression of dignity), then "we get the principle that liberty should be both ample and equal." (p. 68)
The Anglo-American legal tradition is a result of the migration of Europe's religious dissenters, which, when combined with the religions of the Native Americans, created a religious pluralistic population. The Americans rejected "toleration" as a feature of hierarchy and adopted freedom of religion as an expression of inherent natural rights. The effort to define the proper standard for government to protecting liberty of conscience found expression in two strands of thought which have persisted in United States jurisprudence until today. The first is associated with John Locke, a seventeenth-century English philosopher. The government is forbidden from enacting laws which penalize religious belief and discriminate against practices. although they may incidentally impose burdens upon those practicing them. The second tradition, which Dr. Nussbaum supports, calls for accommodation of religious minorities practices, including atheists, since laws will typically reflect the majority's practices.
Chapter 4 exposes many instances of majoritarian suppression of minorities' doing things the majority does. She uses various European nations' restrictions of clothing associated with Muslim women to illustrate how this pattern of selfish thought threatens religious freedom.
Chapter 5, "Inner Eyes: Respect and the Sympathetic Imagination," is, in my opinion, the most important for readers of this blog. In political science terms, it's like the development of soft power for oppressed minorities:
From now on, then, I'll be focusing on works that help the imagination break out of its narcissistic moorings close to "home," by challenging it to inhabit the reality of a life that is in some respects distant or difficult. (p. 148)
The literary examples of such works include Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man, Roger Williams's A Key into the Language of America, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Nathan the Wise, George Eliot's Daniel Deronda and Marguerite de Angeli's Thee, Hannah! and Bright April. She went into depth in discussing how the last four authors' opened the possibility of sympathetic consideration of the majority for Native Americans, Jews, Jews and African-Americans, respectively.
In effect, our authors have a triple task: first, to present true facts; then, simultaneously, to lure people's imaginations into that world and entice them to care about the people they find there; finally, to convince readers that the people there are not actually disgusting or evil but deserving of friendship and respect. (p. 187)
My only concern with this chapter is that, by using as examples authors who are members of the majority, Dr. Nussbaum leaves unanswered the question of a minority group's agency in this process. When a minority is most repressed, conversations about it occur without any of its members' participation. For example, a major milestone in perceptions of African-Americans was Alex Haley's Roots and the subsequent mini-series. Does Dr. Nussbaum believe that these self-expressions have limited effect unless a member of the majority precedes them?
Professor Mohammad Fadel, in June 2012, wrote a resource paper for journalists and public intellectuals to use when talking about Muslims. In it, he wrote:
In such an atmosphere [of the "war on terror"], American Muslims were subjected to a virtual inquisition, their words and actions placed under continual scrutiny, to determine whether they held any questionable beliefs. If so, they were subject to exclusion from public life. In the worst cases, sting operations were launched against individuals in the hope that they might be induced to commit a manufactured crime. A community faced with what amounts to a systematic inquisition of its beliefs, doctrines, and practices is obviously in no position to defend itself. ... As a result, American Muslims have been effectively silenced and excluded from public discussion of their own faith, not to mention important public issues regarding the future of the “war on terror,” the country’s relationship with the Muslim world, and the future of peace in the Middle East. In such circumstances, the obligation to defend Muslims’ status as equal citizens in the American political community has necessarily fallen on the shoulders of non-Muslim individuals and civil society institutions.
I've tried as much as possible in this blog to highlight and support North American Muslims' own expressions. Maybe I've imbibed too much radical and black nationalist thinking, but I've become unconcerned about the level of non-Muslim support of Muslims.
Having said, that Dr. Nussbaum's book is quite supportive, and I appreciate it. And thinking more about it, I'm a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, both of which are liberal, not radical, organizations. (Gulp), I'm probably a liberal.
Chapter 6 is an examination of the Park 51/Cordoba Institute ("Ground Zero Mosque") controversy in the light of the three necessary characteristics to overcome some people's fear.
Chapter 7 is a conclusion reiterating the importance of the imagination in establishing pluralism.
When we read this book, in addition to seeking ways to improve their own situations as minorities in industrialized societies, we Muslims should also consider how to escape our own narcissism. The audio quality isn't great, but listen to this lecture by Junaid Jahangir entitled "The Cycle of Hate." He lists the human rights abuses Muslims perpetrate against minorities in Muslim-majority societies.
Finally, I hope the author changes the book cover, pictured above, in any future printings. I guess I'm just tired of Muslim women's clothing being such a focus of attention, from both Muslims and non-Muslims. It also reminded me of the regrettable promotional poster for Showtime's Homeland.
How can the industrialized, formally democratic societies of Europe and North America increase religious pluralism? European nations "have understood the root of nationhood to lie first and foremost in characteristics that are difficult if not impossible for new immigrants to share. Strongly influenced by romanticism, these nations have seen blood, soil, ethnolinguistic peoplehood, and religion as necessary or at least central elements of a national identity." (p. 13) Other nations, such as the United States and India, define "nationhood in terms of political ideals and struggles," thus somewhat opening the door. (p. 16)
While understanding nationhood as a political ideal facilitates religious pluralism, the chief determinant is a society's response to fear. Fear begins with a genuine problem. It "is easily displaced onto something that may have little to do with the underlying problem but that serves as a handy surrogate for it, often because the new target is already disliked." Fear is amplified by the enemy's disguise ("They pretend to be like us."), which can only be penetrated by the racist, xenophobic, patriot or religious bigot's superior insight. Humans share the emotion of fear with many other animals, and it is no doubt biologically necessary, especially in pre-agrarian societies. But "human beings [in industrialized societies] have to make decisions in a world for which evolution has given them only a very rudimentary preparation." (p. 29):
Fear is a "dimming preoccupation": an intense focus on the self that casts others into darkness. However valuable and indeed essential it is in a genuinely dangerous world, it is itself one of life's great dangers. (p. 58)
So how can human societies choose wisely despite genuine and misplaced fears?
I'll be arguing that to get a handle on our fears we need a combination of three things: sound principles involving respect for human equality; arguments that are not self-serving, targeting an alleged fault in the minority that is ubiquitous in the majority culture; and a curious and sympathetic imagination. But first we need to understand more about fear and how it works. (p. 21)
Chapter 3 discusses the first of the three legs of Professor Nussbaum's stool of religious pluralism, sound principles. If one accepts that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of their physical traits or social status or capacity for reasoning, and, if one rejects the extreme argument of the ancient Stoics that outward circumstances can never injure a person's conscience (an expression of dignity), then "we get the principle that liberty should be both ample and equal." (p. 68)
The Anglo-American legal tradition is a result of the migration of Europe's religious dissenters, which, when combined with the religions of the Native Americans, created a religious pluralistic population. The Americans rejected "toleration" as a feature of hierarchy and adopted freedom of religion as an expression of inherent natural rights. The effort to define the proper standard for government to protecting liberty of conscience found expression in two strands of thought which have persisted in United States jurisprudence until today. The first is associated with John Locke, a seventeenth-century English philosopher. The government is forbidden from enacting laws which penalize religious belief and discriminate against practices. although they may incidentally impose burdens upon those practicing them. The second tradition, which Dr. Nussbaum supports, calls for accommodation of religious minorities practices, including atheists, since laws will typically reflect the majority's practices.
Chapter 4 exposes many instances of majoritarian suppression of minorities' doing things the majority does. She uses various European nations' restrictions of clothing associated with Muslim women to illustrate how this pattern of selfish thought threatens religious freedom.
Chapter 5, "Inner Eyes: Respect and the Sympathetic Imagination," is, in my opinion, the most important for readers of this blog. In political science terms, it's like the development of soft power for oppressed minorities:
From now on, then, I'll be focusing on works that help the imagination break out of its narcissistic moorings close to "home," by challenging it to inhabit the reality of a life that is in some respects distant or difficult. (p. 148)
The literary examples of such works include Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man, Roger Williams's A Key into the Language of America, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Nathan the Wise, George Eliot's Daniel Deronda and Marguerite de Angeli's Thee, Hannah! and Bright April. She went into depth in discussing how the last four authors' opened the possibility of sympathetic consideration of the majority for Native Americans, Jews, Jews and African-Americans, respectively.
In effect, our authors have a triple task: first, to present true facts; then, simultaneously, to lure people's imaginations into that world and entice them to care about the people they find there; finally, to convince readers that the people there are not actually disgusting or evil but deserving of friendship and respect. (p. 187)
My only concern with this chapter is that, by using as examples authors who are members of the majority, Dr. Nussbaum leaves unanswered the question of a minority group's agency in this process. When a minority is most repressed, conversations about it occur without any of its members' participation. For example, a major milestone in perceptions of African-Americans was Alex Haley's Roots and the subsequent mini-series. Does Dr. Nussbaum believe that these self-expressions have limited effect unless a member of the majority precedes them?
Professor Mohammad Fadel, in June 2012, wrote a resource paper for journalists and public intellectuals to use when talking about Muslims. In it, he wrote:
In such an atmosphere [of the "war on terror"], American Muslims were subjected to a virtual inquisition, their words and actions placed under continual scrutiny, to determine whether they held any questionable beliefs. If so, they were subject to exclusion from public life. In the worst cases, sting operations were launched against individuals in the hope that they might be induced to commit a manufactured crime. A community faced with what amounts to a systematic inquisition of its beliefs, doctrines, and practices is obviously in no position to defend itself. ... As a result, American Muslims have been effectively silenced and excluded from public discussion of their own faith, not to mention important public issues regarding the future of the “war on terror,” the country’s relationship with the Muslim world, and the future of peace in the Middle East. In such circumstances, the obligation to defend Muslims’ status as equal citizens in the American political community has necessarily fallen on the shoulders of non-Muslim individuals and civil society institutions.
I've tried as much as possible in this blog to highlight and support North American Muslims' own expressions. Maybe I've imbibed too much radical and black nationalist thinking, but I've become unconcerned about the level of non-Muslim support of Muslims.
Having said, that Dr. Nussbaum's book is quite supportive, and I appreciate it. And thinking more about it, I'm a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, both of which are liberal, not radical, organizations. (Gulp), I'm probably a liberal.
Chapter 6 is an examination of the Park 51/Cordoba Institute ("Ground Zero Mosque") controversy in the light of the three necessary characteristics to overcome some people's fear.
Chapter 7 is a conclusion reiterating the importance of the imagination in establishing pluralism.
When we read this book, in addition to seeking ways to improve their own situations as minorities in industrialized societies, we Muslims should also consider how to escape our own narcissism. The audio quality isn't great, but listen to this lecture by Junaid Jahangir entitled "The Cycle of Hate." He lists the human rights abuses Muslims perpetrate against minorities in Muslim-majority societies.
Finally, I hope the author changes the book cover, pictured above, in any future printings. I guess I'm just tired of Muslim women's clothing being such a focus of attention, from both Muslims and non-Muslims. It also reminded me of the regrettable promotional poster for Showtime's Homeland.
April 29, 2022
Under what conditions or by virtue of what reasoning can individual liberties, such as the freedom to exercise religious beliefs or the freedom to express opinions in public discourse, be legally constrained? This type of question is asked frequently these days in relation to Covid restrictions or those who wear religious symbols or clothing. Martha Nussbaum's book explores the philosophical and legal thinking that can provide guidance on questions which are at the heart of our civil society, especially in the complex, diverse societies that most humans live in today. Nussbaum has a towering reputation as a public intellectual. She is able to bring together, in plain language, the traditions of philosophy with the fields of psychology, law, history and literature as she examines these key questions. In The New Religious Intolerance, she wrestles with the specific question of bans on women wearing face coverings in public spaces. Nussbaum starts her arguments with an examination of the emotion of fear. "Fear is the "dimming preoccupation", an intense focus on the self that casts others into darkness. However valuable and indeed essential it is in a genuinely dangerous world, it is itself one of life's greatest dangers." She goes on to apply insights from the Stoic "practical philosophers" and early modern thinkers like Mill. To be any kind of a useful guide for public policy or law, the ego centered emotion of fear needs to be tempered, or as Mill puts it "moralized" by "sympathy" or thoughts about the well being of others. I like this approach which I take to be in line with Spinoza's idea that humans typically cannot use reason to overrule their emotions; to temper a potentially destructive emotion, they must recruit a stronger emotion. Nussbaum takes care to describe how the legal traditions around individual freedoms, informed by philosophy, law and jurisprudence, evolved differently in Europe and North America in response to the different conditions between the long established nation states and colonized territories. In the tradition reaching back to English philosopher John Locke, freedoms extended certainly to the realm of thought and public speech but, if conscience required certain action, then there may be legal consequences. The North American tradition, dealing with the reality of many religious groups - Quakers, Mennonites, Jews, atheists and Mormons - tended to be more accomodationist, at least in regard to groups of European heritage. In the days of the colonies and early nationhood, Native Americans, slaves and people of colour fell outside the ambit of accomodationist thinking. Marshaling together the philosophic, legal and historical strands of thinking about individual rights, Nussbaum puts actual or proposed legal bans on the burka to the test. To analyze the issue and arrive at a concept of the good, she argues we we need three things: good principles, an emphasis on "non-narcissistic consistency" and the "inner eye" of sympathetic consideration of the point of view of others. The "good principles" include such things as holding that all humans are equal bearers of dignity and that dignity is vulnerable to the actions of others or the law. Adding these two together brings us to the view that liberty should be "ample and equal", close to John Rawls' principle that justice requires the "maximum liberty that is compatible with like liberty for all". Applying these tests to five arguments for banning the burka in certain public realms, namely, security, civic friendship, objectification of women, religious coercion and health, she finds no compelling justifications for legal restrictions. Through the clarity and force of her argument Nussbaum changed my thinking. Notwithstanding that my gender might make me inept or ineligible, I suppose I tended to be signed up for a position in the "Ministry of Feminism" that would decide which cultural practices were offensive to the rights or status of women in Canadian society. I, like many people, tend to get confused by the lines between law and custom. As Nussbaum notes, "the idea that equal respect requires us to approve of all religions equally, or even all instances of religious conduct, is just mistaken, and the participatory imagination doesn't require it either." There are many things that the law doesn't or shouldn't regulate that are not good. Unkindness, rudeness, selfishness and willing ignorance come to mind. Good manners rather than law can regulate these areas. This is a wonderful book, authored by a person of impressive intellectual powers. There are statements that strike me as compellingly beautiful such as her conclusion: "We need the Socratic (and Christian-Kantian) commitment to examine our choices to see whether they are selfish, whether they make a privileged case of ourselves, ignoring the equal claims of others. And we need, equally, the inner spirit that must animate the search for consistency, if it is not to remain a hollow shell: we need, that is, the spirit of curiosity and friendship".
December 17, 2018
Philosopher Martha Nussbaum makes a patient, nuanced examination of the legal and ethical questions concerning tolerance of the practices of religious and social minorities in the USA. This was written in 2012, before Trump and his Muslim ban. However, the Ground Zero mosque and burqa bans give her plenty of material. Xenophobia and fear are rooted in narcissism, she says, and empathy is too demanding for Americans.
June 12, 2020
Very well written book and informative about religious arguments and differences of opinion in America. Traces back to Socrates, bringing modern thinking to encapsulate ideas and theories about the role of religion on our lives.
November 1, 2019
Second Read:
The author explicitly defines morality, culture, and legal ethos in a single term dedicated wholly to religion, and basically says that just is what religions is: Dignity.
This definition offends me. I'm not a member of any religion, and that definition of the source of all law continues to proscribe non-believers a different class of law, one in which their personal morality is irrelevant to their actions as lit by the laws and natural activities as they exist. We should bend over backwards and hold religion as the first inalienable thing about humanity, the source of humanity -- and. . .that's nonsense. It's offensive and it's nonsense. Very, very few nods are made to the existence of atheists, and they are wholly dismissive. Conscientious objectors to war are allowed to exist, but literally nothing else is permissible. There are mentions that religion should not have preference over non-religion, but no American examples are provided, but rather examples of the opposite -- non religion should not trump religion, and those are French examples.
The book is about the US -- basically, and I will treat it is as such. It is irrelevant in its own terms. The First Amendment protection of minority religion, even in the case of a Mosque on Ground Zero (as it was viewed, not as it really was) was not argued to be against the constitution. Religion is a positive right in the US, the law will go out of its way to not just respect, but actively support all religions.
Which discriminates against the non-religious. We have no equal protection.
Moreover -- all my comments from the first reading stand really. I think the author comes off as a genuinely nice 'feel-good' preacher trying to make the world a nicer place. And I also think she's ignorant about, or willfully ignored the non-religious minority to make a point specifically about Islam. . .except the point is not actually well made. Almost everything in the book is preaching to the choir, and only the very very end of the book even mentions the importance of imagining others complexly, which is what the book should have been about in the first place -- but she uses burqas in France as a totem for bigotry and it just falls flat on its face.
First read:
One useful idea of the book "Maintain the first amendment and don't be ruled by unfounded fear" -- but as the author points out, this hardly needs stating in the US.
One incredibly bad idea of this book is that morals are entirely subjective, and wholly defined thru theistic relationships. That is the purpose of the God construct - -but it is not solely its dominion, nor is it even the best construct for that domain.
The author spends a weird amount of time on the burqah bans. They're nonsense, xenophobic, oppressive and downright silly.
The author is an apologist for profiling by Homeland Security and the TSA. . .even tho all scientific inquiries suggest that none of post 9/11 policies make any positive effect on preventing terrorism.
The author is a hypocrite.
Respect individuals and basic civil liberties. No problem. Demanding that I respect religious institutions on the ground that being religious inherently makes them more important than basic ethical issues? No. Fuck that. It's moronic.
I draw the line where she suggests that religious laws are as important as social ones. A priest is entitled to keep confessions -- and she does say this in context of a thief who returned an item and confessed. . . and in that case I would personally expect a judgment call to just not even ask the priest the question. . .but when you say a priest can't be subpoena'd in any circumstance you're saying that exactly what did happen (mass cover-ups of child rape) should be legal.
In the realm of civil liberties, no -- there should be no differentiation. . .but in criminal law there can be no provision for religion. If a religion cannot meet the base standards of morality, or even criminality, of a society -- then that religion must face the consequences of its own evil. (this position is not negated by the fact criminality is not generally a good predictor of morality, it's just a sign the laws as a whole need to change)
All that said -- Islamophobia playing such a big role in the last US election was. . .downright shameful. I really think the same author writing this next year would have been more interesting.
The author explicitly defines morality, culture, and legal ethos in a single term dedicated wholly to religion, and basically says that just is what religions is: Dignity.
This definition offends me. I'm not a member of any religion, and that definition of the source of all law continues to proscribe non-believers a different class of law, one in which their personal morality is irrelevant to their actions as lit by the laws and natural activities as they exist. We should bend over backwards and hold religion as the first inalienable thing about humanity, the source of humanity -- and. . .that's nonsense. It's offensive and it's nonsense. Very, very few nods are made to the existence of atheists, and they are wholly dismissive. Conscientious objectors to war are allowed to exist, but literally nothing else is permissible. There are mentions that religion should not have preference over non-religion, but no American examples are provided, but rather examples of the opposite -- non religion should not trump religion, and those are French examples.
The book is about the US -- basically, and I will treat it is as such. It is irrelevant in its own terms. The First Amendment protection of minority religion, even in the case of a Mosque on Ground Zero (as it was viewed, not as it really was) was not argued to be against the constitution. Religion is a positive right in the US, the law will go out of its way to not just respect, but actively support all religions.
Which discriminates against the non-religious. We have no equal protection.
Moreover -- all my comments from the first reading stand really. I think the author comes off as a genuinely nice 'feel-good' preacher trying to make the world a nicer place. And I also think she's ignorant about, or willfully ignored the non-religious minority to make a point specifically about Islam. . .except the point is not actually well made. Almost everything in the book is preaching to the choir, and only the very very end of the book even mentions the importance of imagining others complexly, which is what the book should have been about in the first place -- but she uses burqas in France as a totem for bigotry and it just falls flat on its face.
First read:
One useful idea of the book "Maintain the first amendment and don't be ruled by unfounded fear" -- but as the author points out, this hardly needs stating in the US.
One incredibly bad idea of this book is that morals are entirely subjective, and wholly defined thru theistic relationships. That is the purpose of the God construct - -but it is not solely its dominion, nor is it even the best construct for that domain.
The author spends a weird amount of time on the burqah bans. They're nonsense, xenophobic, oppressive and downright silly.
The author is an apologist for profiling by Homeland Security and the TSA. . .even tho all scientific inquiries suggest that none of post 9/11 policies make any positive effect on preventing terrorism.
The author is a hypocrite.
Respect individuals and basic civil liberties. No problem. Demanding that I respect religious institutions on the ground that being religious inherently makes them more important than basic ethical issues? No. Fuck that. It's moronic.
I draw the line where she suggests that religious laws are as important as social ones. A priest is entitled to keep confessions -- and she does say this in context of a thief who returned an item and confessed. . . and in that case I would personally expect a judgment call to just not even ask the priest the question. . .but when you say a priest can't be subpoena'd in any circumstance you're saying that exactly what did happen (mass cover-ups of child rape) should be legal.
In the realm of civil liberties, no -- there should be no differentiation. . .but in criminal law there can be no provision for religion. If a religion cannot meet the base standards of morality, or even criminality, of a society -- then that religion must face the consequences of its own evil. (this position is not negated by the fact criminality is not generally a good predictor of morality, it's just a sign the laws as a whole need to change)
All that said -- Islamophobia playing such a big role in the last US election was. . .downright shameful. I really think the same author writing this next year would have been more interesting.
February 28, 2017
The beginning is a bit dense, unless you love philosophy then knock yourself out. Her arguments are strong and compelling. It's a must given the current state of Xenophobia in this country. It will definitely help you think critically about current events. You should also keep in mind that this book came out in 2012, so it doesn't, at times, reflect our current state of affairs.
October 20, 2020
Well, first of all, it's a book that's pretty outdated, considering everything that has happened since it was published in 2011. Especially after 2015 and 2016 The World and USA are completely different so a lot of authors points, are no longer influential as may have been just after publication.
Anyway, it was good to read it, but I have a few reservations about the author's approach to analysing what she wanted to write about, and what is so clearly emphasised in the title - New religious intolerance. There will be a few of these comments, some quite fundamental, in my opinion, and some simply related to the technique and, I believe, the author's desire to treat this book as a significant contribution to the scientific discourse on the issue of religious intolerance.
First, it is amazing to me that the author has not woven the most fundamental issue anywhere among her arguments, namely the very nature of various organised religions and honestly distinguishing them from the question of faith. I think so because even a rather cursory study of their history shows that religions as such are merely idologies serving different groups (priests, people of power) to exercise control and obtain great purely material and social benefits.
I believe that all organised religions, I have consciously used the great logical quantifier - All - and certainly all those that have a missionary character written in them have an ideological compulsion to transmit and cultivate intolerance towards others who do not adhere to this one and only right ideology which is backed by the "Word given" by one or another defined deity. Without recognising that the three great monotheistic religions, but the other organised religions as well, from their very beginning always strived to get rid more or less literally of infidels or as they were called by - pagans.
Without such a basic analysis of the history of all, and certainly the main idologies (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), it is impossible to understand the sinusoidal - over the centuries - increase and decrease of intolerance and religious wars. It is enough to realise that the last major religious struggle did not end a few hundred years ago, but in the 1990s - surprisingly perhaps, but the conflict in Northern Ireland was nothing more than a religious war. I do not want to present here an extensive argumentation on the issues of missionary and related intolerance, because it would probably take too much space, but I would like to point out that in this respect the author did not say a single word. With such an ambitious title, this is a huge lack. Detriment.
Second, the author writes in the spirit of the American uniqueness that is permeated by this culture. She clearly shows self-perceived superiority over, say, Europe. Of course, she has the right to do so, but in a book that has some scientific ambitions it looks quite childish. Undeniably and without any doubt, the American constitution and religious freedoms remain the benchmark for the entire modern era to this day. However, it must not be forgotten that all this was written by white men who came from the circle of Christian culture and recognised above all their right to impose only the right concepts of god originating in the Judeo-Christian tradition. All other religions, according to the Founding Fathers, could have equal rights as long as they were subordinate to the thoughts of the White Anglo-Saxon Men. Well, the only exception was the "wild redskins", that is, native peoples who had their own culture and a true, though animistic, but true religion. They had to be converted or vanish from Great America - the best place for them to be in the reserves.
And thirdly, this book lacks a solid summary and at least a definition of what scenarios, drawing conclusions from history, can materialise in the US or other places around the globe. It is not about predicting the future, but a philosophical and ethical reflection on the rise or fall of the phenomenon of religious intolerance.
Anyway, it was good to read it, but I have a few reservations about the author's approach to analysing what she wanted to write about, and what is so clearly emphasised in the title - New religious intolerance. There will be a few of these comments, some quite fundamental, in my opinion, and some simply related to the technique and, I believe, the author's desire to treat this book as a significant contribution to the scientific discourse on the issue of religious intolerance.
First, it is amazing to me that the author has not woven the most fundamental issue anywhere among her arguments, namely the very nature of various organised religions and honestly distinguishing them from the question of faith. I think so because even a rather cursory study of their history shows that religions as such are merely idologies serving different groups (priests, people of power) to exercise control and obtain great purely material and social benefits.
I believe that all organised religions, I have consciously used the great logical quantifier - All - and certainly all those that have a missionary character written in them have an ideological compulsion to transmit and cultivate intolerance towards others who do not adhere to this one and only right ideology which is backed by the "Word given" by one or another defined deity. Without recognising that the three great monotheistic religions, but the other organised religions as well, from their very beginning always strived to get rid more or less literally of infidels or as they were called by - pagans.
Without such a basic analysis of the history of all, and certainly the main idologies (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), it is impossible to understand the sinusoidal - over the centuries - increase and decrease of intolerance and religious wars. It is enough to realise that the last major religious struggle did not end a few hundred years ago, but in the 1990s - surprisingly perhaps, but the conflict in Northern Ireland was nothing more than a religious war. I do not want to present here an extensive argumentation on the issues of missionary and related intolerance, because it would probably take too much space, but I would like to point out that in this respect the author did not say a single word. With such an ambitious title, this is a huge lack. Detriment.
Second, the author writes in the spirit of the American uniqueness that is permeated by this culture. She clearly shows self-perceived superiority over, say, Europe. Of course, she has the right to do so, but in a book that has some scientific ambitions it looks quite childish. Undeniably and without any doubt, the American constitution and religious freedoms remain the benchmark for the entire modern era to this day. However, it must not be forgotten that all this was written by white men who came from the circle of Christian culture and recognised above all their right to impose only the right concepts of god originating in the Judeo-Christian tradition. All other religions, according to the Founding Fathers, could have equal rights as long as they were subordinate to the thoughts of the White Anglo-Saxon Men. Well, the only exception was the "wild redskins", that is, native peoples who had their own culture and a true, though animistic, but true religion. They had to be converted or vanish from Great America - the best place for them to be in the reserves.
And thirdly, this book lacks a solid summary and at least a definition of what scenarios, drawing conclusions from history, can materialise in the US or other places around the globe. It is not about predicting the future, but a philosophical and ethical reflection on the rise or fall of the phenomenon of religious intolerance.
January 2, 2026
Belle parole
Un libro che è un po' diesel. Parte lento, molto, poi prende velocità.
Il primo capitolo, sulla paura, mi stava facendo sbuffare alquanto, sembrava quasi una specie di lezioncina per le scuole medie.
Poi si passa alla ciccia filosofica, che è il campo dell'autrice, e tutto migliora.
Il libro è breve, i ragionamenti generali non sono molti e passano soprattutto per l'analisi di due casi specifici: l'uso nei paesi detti occidentali del velo integrale islamico (che l'autrice definisce erroneamente e sbrigativamente "burka", ma alla fine è un dettaglio da poco, si capisce comunque cosa intende) e la costruzione di un centro di preghiera islamico nei pressi del sito dell'attentato dell'11 Settembre.
Senza dettagliare, condivido grossomodo le posizioni dell'autrice in merito, liberali e a tratti quasi libertarie, anche se proprio per questo "quasi" penso avrebbe potuto essere più coraggiosa. Ma in fondo tutto il libro è molto pacato, non contiene ferocia, e allora va bene anche così.
Resto un po' perplesso sulla questione della critica alle religioni, che secondo l'autrice vanno temperate con adeguata sensibilità nei confronti dei credi altrui. Ok, posso anche essere d'accordo se parliamo di rapporti interpersonali, ma in termini più generali la libertà di criticare le religioni in maniera anche spietata, è importante e va tutelata. Nella mia società ideale se si può girare liberamente col velo integrale dev'esserci anche la possibilità di pubblicare le vignette satiriche su Maometto.
Poi l'autrice insiste molto sulle differenze, in termini di tolleranza religiosa, tra USA ed Europa, affermando che i primi se la caverebbero meglio della seconda. Cosa che può suonare strana o persino bizzarra all'europeo, che pensa agli USA bigotti dei telepredicatori evangelici, della bibbia sempre in mano e del puritanesimo sessuale. Ma il libro ragiona, oltre che in termini di Storia e di cultura politica, anche e soprattutto sulla sfera legale: in Europa ci sono paesi che il velo integrale l'hanno vietato (alcuni), o che hanno vietato la costruzione di minareti (la progredita Svizzera), o che arrivano a proibire agli studenti di indossare simboli religiosi in genere (la Francia), tutte cose che negli USA verrebbero comunque fermate dal Primo Emendamento. Qui l'autrice, per me, ha ragione da vendere: per com'è fatto il sistema politico e soprattutto legale, forse gli USA sono attrezzati meglio a far argine a eventuali derive intolleranti; quando anche in Europa avremo una destra dura al potere, magari prossimamente in Francia o in Germania, potremo verificare direttamente quanto siano forti i nostri antidoti legali e istituzionali o se l'idea europea dello Stato forte e interventista non si riveli un'arma pericolosa, quando arrivano a impugnarla i fanatici.
Nota finale partendo da qui. Il libro è stato scritto nel 2012, quando due presidenze Trump e il ritorno in forze dell'estrema destra in Europa erano ancora poco credibili. Fa tanti bei ragionamenti, sul sistema politico, sul sistema giudiziario, ma la mia impressione è che, ahimé, rimangono lontani dalla realtà, quella fatta di una popolazione che un processo e le formazione di una sentenza non sanno neanche bene come funzionino, che ragiona in termini di "cattivi da punire", ragionamento che sta via via contagiando la stessa classe politica. Il libro contiene tante belle parole (non sono ironico) su tolleranza e reciproca libertà, ma sono parole che si sfarinano rapidamente quando la società comincia a reclamare svolte drastiche e punitive, e le istituzioni possono far argine solo fino a un certo punto, poi o vengono via via occupate dagli estremisti, o finiscono per cedere, magari in maniera violenta. I 13 anni che ci separano dal libro purtroppo si sentono tutti e le sue parole sembrano quasi venire da un'epoca in cui ancora si poteva parlare.
Un libro che è un po' diesel. Parte lento, molto, poi prende velocità.
Il primo capitolo, sulla paura, mi stava facendo sbuffare alquanto, sembrava quasi una specie di lezioncina per le scuole medie.
Poi si passa alla ciccia filosofica, che è il campo dell'autrice, e tutto migliora.
Il libro è breve, i ragionamenti generali non sono molti e passano soprattutto per l'analisi di due casi specifici: l'uso nei paesi detti occidentali del velo integrale islamico (che l'autrice definisce erroneamente e sbrigativamente "burka", ma alla fine è un dettaglio da poco, si capisce comunque cosa intende) e la costruzione di un centro di preghiera islamico nei pressi del sito dell'attentato dell'11 Settembre.
Senza dettagliare, condivido grossomodo le posizioni dell'autrice in merito, liberali e a tratti quasi libertarie, anche se proprio per questo "quasi" penso avrebbe potuto essere più coraggiosa. Ma in fondo tutto il libro è molto pacato, non contiene ferocia, e allora va bene anche così.
Resto un po' perplesso sulla questione della critica alle religioni, che secondo l'autrice vanno temperate con adeguata sensibilità nei confronti dei credi altrui. Ok, posso anche essere d'accordo se parliamo di rapporti interpersonali, ma in termini più generali la libertà di criticare le religioni in maniera anche spietata, è importante e va tutelata. Nella mia società ideale se si può girare liberamente col velo integrale dev'esserci anche la possibilità di pubblicare le vignette satiriche su Maometto.
Poi l'autrice insiste molto sulle differenze, in termini di tolleranza religiosa, tra USA ed Europa, affermando che i primi se la caverebbero meglio della seconda. Cosa che può suonare strana o persino bizzarra all'europeo, che pensa agli USA bigotti dei telepredicatori evangelici, della bibbia sempre in mano e del puritanesimo sessuale. Ma il libro ragiona, oltre che in termini di Storia e di cultura politica, anche e soprattutto sulla sfera legale: in Europa ci sono paesi che il velo integrale l'hanno vietato (alcuni), o che hanno vietato la costruzione di minareti (la progredita Svizzera), o che arrivano a proibire agli studenti di indossare simboli religiosi in genere (la Francia), tutte cose che negli USA verrebbero comunque fermate dal Primo Emendamento. Qui l'autrice, per me, ha ragione da vendere: per com'è fatto il sistema politico e soprattutto legale, forse gli USA sono attrezzati meglio a far argine a eventuali derive intolleranti; quando anche in Europa avremo una destra dura al potere, magari prossimamente in Francia o in Germania, potremo verificare direttamente quanto siano forti i nostri antidoti legali e istituzionali o se l'idea europea dello Stato forte e interventista non si riveli un'arma pericolosa, quando arrivano a impugnarla i fanatici.
Nota finale partendo da qui. Il libro è stato scritto nel 2012, quando due presidenze Trump e il ritorno in forze dell'estrema destra in Europa erano ancora poco credibili. Fa tanti bei ragionamenti, sul sistema politico, sul sistema giudiziario, ma la mia impressione è che, ahimé, rimangono lontani dalla realtà, quella fatta di una popolazione che un processo e le formazione di una sentenza non sanno neanche bene come funzionino, che ragiona in termini di "cattivi da punire", ragionamento che sta via via contagiando la stessa classe politica. Il libro contiene tante belle parole (non sono ironico) su tolleranza e reciproca libertà, ma sono parole che si sfarinano rapidamente quando la società comincia a reclamare svolte drastiche e punitive, e le istituzioni possono far argine solo fino a un certo punto, poi o vengono via via occupate dagli estremisti, o finiscono per cedere, magari in maniera violenta. I 13 anni che ci separano dal libro purtroppo si sentono tutti e le sue parole sembrano quasi venire da un'epoca in cui ancora si poteva parlare.
October 16, 2018
Realizar un análisis filosófico de la religión como factor aún decisivo en la política, la cultura y la economía es un tarea delicada y densa; escribirlo, un reto. Martha Nussbamum afronta este complejo ejercicio con una narrativa clara, escritura precisa y ejemplos tan claros como cotidianos, cuya lectura llevará al lector a un innevitable ejercicio autocrítico.
Al evaluar varios episodios que buscan restringir la avanzada del islam por Europa (debido al temor frente a los fenómenos migratorios y el aumento de la población proveniente de aquellas naciones), Nussbaum evidencia no sólo los rescoldos de nacionalismo que aún persisten en los imaginarios de los países europeos, también las contradicciones de un continente que promueve ser la cuna de la civilización occidental, pero donde todavía persisten comportamientos e ideales que contradicen una supuesta modernidad, evidente en las restricciones a los minaretes en Suiza o los velos islámicos que visten las mujeres en Francia.
El miedo a lo distinto sólo desenmascara el narcisismo de quien se cree superior al otro, debido a la tradición cultural, lingüística o religiosa, baluartes intangibles que son amenazados por los preceptos del Corán y el hipotético establecimiento de la Sharia (la Ley Islámica). Ese miedo frecuentemente está justificado en que aquellos migrantes son sucios, huelen mal, tienen hábitos poco saludables (relacionados con su alimentación o su higiene personal) y su vestimenta representa un potencial peligro terrorista.
Frente a esta discriminación la supuesta imparcialidad abre el espacio a la injusticia, pues las leyes que tratan de limitar los derechos de un grupo de personas específico (sea por su raza o religión) no aplican para otros grupos, amparados en la libertad religiosa. Al evidenciar estas contradicciones, Nussbaum expone a través de la filosofía del Derecho que estas acciones afectan los principios fundamentales de respeto e igualdad que inspiraron a los fundadores de las trece colonias o George Washington.
El miedo es valioso para el discurso político que promueve la defensa de un enemigo interno, aquél que está afectando los valores tradicionales de nuestra sociedad, socavando nuestros empleos, traficando drogas y violando a las mujeres. Frente a esa amenaza silente, camuflada en nuestras ciudades, es necesario construir muros que detengan la migración de esos bad hombres (mas no aquellos extranjeros de dudosas fortunas, dispuestos a invertir petrodólares o lavar las ganancias de la ilegalidad en el mercado inmobiliario de Miami) y devolverle la grandeza a nuestra nación. Atacar aquellos que piensan, creen o se visten diferente parece ser el fundamento de un nacionalismo ignorante, dispuesto a elegir a cualquier líder que sepa agitar esos temores primitivos.
Vale la pena la lectura de este libro, no sólo por la importancia actual, sino por la solidez de los argumentos y la exposición de los motivos, para comprender la empatía como un principio de justicia y convivencia en una sociedad libre.
Al evaluar varios episodios que buscan restringir la avanzada del islam por Europa (debido al temor frente a los fenómenos migratorios y el aumento de la población proveniente de aquellas naciones), Nussbaum evidencia no sólo los rescoldos de nacionalismo que aún persisten en los imaginarios de los países europeos, también las contradicciones de un continente que promueve ser la cuna de la civilización occidental, pero donde todavía persisten comportamientos e ideales que contradicen una supuesta modernidad, evidente en las restricciones a los minaretes en Suiza o los velos islámicos que visten las mujeres en Francia.
El miedo a lo distinto sólo desenmascara el narcisismo de quien se cree superior al otro, debido a la tradición cultural, lingüística o religiosa, baluartes intangibles que son amenazados por los preceptos del Corán y el hipotético establecimiento de la Sharia (la Ley Islámica). Ese miedo frecuentemente está justificado en que aquellos migrantes son sucios, huelen mal, tienen hábitos poco saludables (relacionados con su alimentación o su higiene personal) y su vestimenta representa un potencial peligro terrorista.
Frente a esta discriminación la supuesta imparcialidad abre el espacio a la injusticia, pues las leyes que tratan de limitar los derechos de un grupo de personas específico (sea por su raza o religión) no aplican para otros grupos, amparados en la libertad religiosa. Al evidenciar estas contradicciones, Nussbaum expone a través de la filosofía del Derecho que estas acciones afectan los principios fundamentales de respeto e igualdad que inspiraron a los fundadores de las trece colonias o George Washington.
El miedo es valioso para el discurso político que promueve la defensa de un enemigo interno, aquél que está afectando los valores tradicionales de nuestra sociedad, socavando nuestros empleos, traficando drogas y violando a las mujeres. Frente a esa amenaza silente, camuflada en nuestras ciudades, es necesario construir muros que detengan la migración de esos bad hombres (mas no aquellos extranjeros de dudosas fortunas, dispuestos a invertir petrodólares o lavar las ganancias de la ilegalidad en el mercado inmobiliario de Miami) y devolverle la grandeza a nuestra nación. Atacar aquellos que piensan, creen o se visten diferente parece ser el fundamento de un nacionalismo ignorante, dispuesto a elegir a cualquier líder que sepa agitar esos temores primitivos.
Vale la pena la lectura de este libro, no sólo por la importancia actual, sino por la solidez de los argumentos y la exposición de los motivos, para comprender la empatía como un principio de justicia y convivencia en una sociedad libre.
April 12, 2018
I first encountered Nussbaum in Astra Taylor’s documentary, “Examined Life”, and also encountered her work a few times in some global development courses (e.g. stuff she collaborated on with Amartya Sen). This book was an interesting read, and what I enjoyed best about it was the wide assortment of books and writers she recommends or makes interesting to her reader, ranging from the fashion historian Anne Hollander to a wide variety of children’s books that explore religious acceptance (of Quakers, Jews, and Muslims for example, relevant to different periods in American history). This is particularly helpful because I’ve been trying to figure out a good source of children’s books that I can buy for some of my cousins’ children.
Anyways, I also find Nussbaum’s prose to possess a refreshing clarity and I found her writing in this book a lot more accessible than almost any other philosopher I’ve read.
I was fairly shocked at how much Islamophobic legislation in Europe had already been passed back when Nussbaum was writing this book. I think this current uprising of nationalist populism, particularly the racist sort, would have been a lot less surprising if I had already known the situation in Europe as Nussbaum presents it here. I had never known the extent Islamophobia was legitimized by government power in some European countries. I'm in no way condoning any sort of violence, but whenever the media portrays any act of terrorism, it's hardly contextualized within the reality of discriminatory policy that affects religious minorities every single day of their lives. Embarrassingly Canada almost stooped to such a low near the end of the Harper government.
And of course, I shouldn't be surprised, yet it's still surprising for some reason: Robert Spencer's book "The Truth about Mohammed: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion" was assigned and recommended in FBI training for new Bureau recruits, Spencer being the co-founder of “Stop the Islamicization of America,” considered a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Nussbaum mentions a little bit in this book about growing up Southern Baptist, and becoming Jewish later on in life. I think she consequently has fairly interesting perspective regarding faith, particularly as a professor in philosophy and law. Being Jewish, and having parents that were far less than supportive of that decision in her life, she showed an acute sensitivity to the history of anti-Semitism, and the deep similarities it shares with contemporary Muslim discrimination.
My political views are probably a bit more radical than Nussbaum’s for the most part. She seemed fairly more centrist on a number of points, particularly when she goes into her reflections on profiling in airport security screenings.
Overall an insightful book that offered me a look at a lot of new things I’ve never encountered before.
Anyways, I also find Nussbaum’s prose to possess a refreshing clarity and I found her writing in this book a lot more accessible than almost any other philosopher I’ve read.
I was fairly shocked at how much Islamophobic legislation in Europe had already been passed back when Nussbaum was writing this book. I think this current uprising of nationalist populism, particularly the racist sort, would have been a lot less surprising if I had already known the situation in Europe as Nussbaum presents it here. I had never known the extent Islamophobia was legitimized by government power in some European countries. I'm in no way condoning any sort of violence, but whenever the media portrays any act of terrorism, it's hardly contextualized within the reality of discriminatory policy that affects religious minorities every single day of their lives. Embarrassingly Canada almost stooped to such a low near the end of the Harper government.
And of course, I shouldn't be surprised, yet it's still surprising for some reason: Robert Spencer's book "The Truth about Mohammed: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion" was assigned and recommended in FBI training for new Bureau recruits, Spencer being the co-founder of “Stop the Islamicization of America,” considered a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Nussbaum mentions a little bit in this book about growing up Southern Baptist, and becoming Jewish later on in life. I think she consequently has fairly interesting perspective regarding faith, particularly as a professor in philosophy and law. Being Jewish, and having parents that were far less than supportive of that decision in her life, she showed an acute sensitivity to the history of anti-Semitism, and the deep similarities it shares with contemporary Muslim discrimination.
My political views are probably a bit more radical than Nussbaum’s for the most part. She seemed fairly more centrist on a number of points, particularly when she goes into her reflections on profiling in airport security screenings.
Overall an insightful book that offered me a look at a lot of new things I’ve never encountered before.
November 22, 2017
Nussbaum is a very subtle and thorough thinker and she's makes it very clear what freedom and equality are and how they are treated differently in the US and Europa. She adds the importance of knowledge and understanding. But. We are often not a very rational creature and the fear and anger in this world are very powerful and a lot less subtle.She's writes this book to counter the ugly effects of fear and anger but ratio is not an answer for most I fear.
March 6, 2018
Even though it's very short for an academic-y text, it repeats itself at times, and I'm probably more aligned with the European model of religious toleration/integration than the one Nussbaum is repeatedly endorsing, particularly with regards to male circumcision, which she defends in a not particularly convincing way at all, but this is engagingly written, empathetic, and well argued. Looking forward to getting into her meatier work.
January 27, 2021
Maravilloso estudio acerca de cómo el miedo moldea y construye el comportamiento de las sociedades en el mundo actual. Nussbaum describe el miedo a lo desconocido, a la incomprensión del otro, a la falta de respeto y comprensión por lo que me diferencia de aquel que piensa diferente a mí; un libro para educar el ego y despertarlo de su permanente ceguera.
January 7, 2024
Mucho capítulo que parece columna del New York Times. Sin embargo, rescato algunos en que plantea importantes preocupaciones por el miedo a los otros y especialmente a las personas que profesan alguna religión. De allí en más, hay una defensa desde Sócrates, Kant - Cristianismo, a buscar mínimos comunes de tolerancia religiosa.
July 19, 2018
A concise overview, both historical and contemporay, of the way that religious pluralism has developed, manifested and been challenged, in both Europe and the US.
July 28, 2022
"some sort of self-education needs to precede any rush to judgment." (p. 234)
January 23, 2016
Nussbaum hoeft geen introductie. Zij is top in de filosofie. Prof in Chicago en een groot publicist. Dit is boek is van 2012 maar meer dan actueel en bijzonder goed gedocumenteerd tot en met over de situatie in België o.a. In verband met het hoofddoekenverbod. Nusbaum is klaar en duidelijk. Na 9/11 is er een nieuwe religieuze intolerantie aan het groeien en niet het minst tegen de moslims maar niet exclusief. Zij neemt stelling op grond van een zeer grondige studie. Het eerste deel van het boek is gewoon meesterlijk. Zij weerlegt de domme praat die rond radicalisering en het aanpakken ervan wordt verteld door mensen die echt niet weten waarover zij het hebben, zoals sommige "deradicaliseringsexperten" in Vlaanderen. Zij wijst ook op de fouten die vooral in Europa worden gemaakt en die op zelf vrij korte termijn precies het omgekeerde veroorzaken dan bedoeld wordt Ter
Zij verzet zich terecht tegen waanzinnige beslissingen zoals het verbod op hoofddoeken en andere bijzonder kwetsende maatregelen die inderdaad een onmiddellijk radicaliseringseffect hebben. Haar situering van de Franse laïcité in dit kader is bijzonder interessant. Uiteraard is haar schrijven mede bepaald van uit een Amerikaanse beleving van de godsdienstvrijheid.
In een tweede deel analyseert zij het verloop van de acties en reacties op het voorstel van in New York op korte afstand van de gewezen twin towers een moskee gebedsruimte te openen. Zoals een gesprekspartner, thuis in dezelfde problematiek, hierover stelde zou het wel eens zijn dat de professor hierin een Erk van een of andere medewerker heeft opgenomen. Is leuk om lezen maar minder interessant dan het analytisch werk van Nussbaum in het eerste deel.
Een verplichte lectuur voor de Vermeerschen en andere betweters en wevers in dit land.
Zij verzet zich terecht tegen waanzinnige beslissingen zoals het verbod op hoofddoeken en andere bijzonder kwetsende maatregelen die inderdaad een onmiddellijk radicaliseringseffect hebben. Haar situering van de Franse laïcité in dit kader is bijzonder interessant. Uiteraard is haar schrijven mede bepaald van uit een Amerikaanse beleving van de godsdienstvrijheid.
In een tweede deel analyseert zij het verloop van de acties en reacties op het voorstel van in New York op korte afstand van de gewezen twin towers een moskee gebedsruimte te openen. Zoals een gesprekspartner, thuis in dezelfde problematiek, hierover stelde zou het wel eens zijn dat de professor hierin een Erk van een of andere medewerker heeft opgenomen. Is leuk om lezen maar minder interessant dan het analytisch werk van Nussbaum in het eerste deel.
Een verplichte lectuur voor de Vermeerschen en andere betweters en wevers in dit land.
January 30, 2015
Martha Nussbaum has just become my favorite philosopher of all time, not only can she wield the argument-dissection scalpel of philosophy as well as the best of them but what is better is that she can write with a clarity that is rare in philosophy. In this book she uses such events as the French ban on burqas, the Swiss ban on minarets and the US “ground zero mosque” as examples of what she calls the new religious intolerance and to show why they are misguided she discusses with great clarity and depth the notion of religious freedom both in the American and European tradition. Her analysis is not insightful but is also firmly tied to reality in her discussion of the evolving understanding of religious freedom. Lastly, though I wish she had used her powers of dissection on the topic of the limit of religious freedom (a topic to which she at least alluded), her discussion of the nature of empathy in the endeavor to uphold religious freedom was simply marvelous and take the reader that much farther in ensuring that this basic human right is upheld. I cannot recommend this book highly enough, it simply seems of the utmost importance in the times that we live in and as an atheist myself I especially challenge those who think they are “only criticizing the bad ideas of religion” to read this book and see where they need to draw the line between criticism and simple bigotry.
September 3, 2012
Nussbaum is always worth attention. This book, not surprisingly, is strongest in detailing the philosophical aspects of religious and cultural freedom.
She argues for good principles bolstered by education and use of the literary imagination. The latter encourages perspectival thinking…i.e. what is it like to see things from another person’s perspective?
The views of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, were particularly interesting as were George Washington’s response to religious minorities, stating that one of the principles of the new American democracy is that tolerance does not come from a ‘benevolent’ majority practicing nobles oblige, but is an inherent right of people. He made plain that this was one of the characteristics that distinguished America from Europe. Nussbaum points out that that distinction still exists.
One surprising detail Nussbaum points out that is that some of the largest democracies in the world (Indonesia and India) are largely or almost entirely Muslim, refuting the idea that democracy and Islam do not go together.
I found parts of the book a bit of a slog and her repeated references to going to Chicago White Sox games an unnecessary distraction. Her summary of the biological basis of fear was not up to date.
She argues for good principles bolstered by education and use of the literary imagination. The latter encourages perspectival thinking…i.e. what is it like to see things from another person’s perspective?
The views of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, were particularly interesting as were George Washington’s response to religious minorities, stating that one of the principles of the new American democracy is that tolerance does not come from a ‘benevolent’ majority practicing nobles oblige, but is an inherent right of people. He made plain that this was one of the characteristics that distinguished America from Europe. Nussbaum points out that that distinction still exists.
One surprising detail Nussbaum points out that is that some of the largest democracies in the world (Indonesia and India) are largely or almost entirely Muslim, refuting the idea that democracy and Islam do not go together.
I found parts of the book a bit of a slog and her repeated references to going to Chicago White Sox games an unnecessary distraction. Her summary of the biological basis of fear was not up to date.
Want to read
September 17, 2012The description interested me, and I was struck by the insight on the narcissism of fear.
Fear, Nussbaum writes, is “more narcissistic than other emotions.” Legitimate anxieties become distorted and displaced, driving laws and policies biased against those different from us. Overcoming intolerance requires consistent application of universal principles of respect for conscience. Just as important, it requires greater understanding. Nussbaum challenges us to embrace freedom of religious observance for all, extending to others what we demand for ourselves. She encourages us to expand our capacity for empathetic imagination by cultivating our curiosity, seeking friendship across religious lines, and establishing a consistent ethic of decency and civility. With this greater understanding and respect, Nussbaum argues, we can rise above the politics of fear and toward a more open and inclusive future.
Fear, Nussbaum writes, is “more narcissistic than other emotions.” Legitimate anxieties become distorted and displaced, driving laws and policies biased against those different from us. Overcoming intolerance requires consistent application of universal principles of respect for conscience. Just as important, it requires greater understanding. Nussbaum challenges us to embrace freedom of religious observance for all, extending to others what we demand for ourselves. She encourages us to expand our capacity for empathetic imagination by cultivating our curiosity, seeking friendship across religious lines, and establishing a consistent ethic of decency and civility. With this greater understanding and respect, Nussbaum argues, we can rise above the politics of fear and toward a more open and inclusive future.
January 13, 2013
This book is definitely thought provoking. While I felt at times the author overstates her case for how tolerant people should ideally be, she does raise questions about how we relate to each other in the world. The challenge is that it is quite difficult to see beyond radicalism when it comes to fairly judging any group of people. Even the author admits to the struggle of acceptance of those who do things that are not like her. Her short forays into describing other, more religious aspects of Judaism, there is almost an undercurrent that her tolerance only goes so far as it doesn't impede on her. Perhaps I am over reading into her words, but I found that to be the case. My other primary objection to the book was that the whole enterprise of her writing was ultimately to vindicate the building of the Muslim community center in lower Manhattan. While her arguments are sound, I felt that the whole book was just a long preamble to this point.
February 20, 2013
I was expecting so much more from this author, this topic, this human value. Yet it wasn't there. She's the philosopher, I'm not. It felt cursory, superficial, glancing, desultory, rushed almost.
Maybe the fact that I'd just read Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty [http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Williams-...] had whetted my appetite for real depth and substance within the context of the 21st century.
Maybe the fact that I'd just read Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty [http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Williams-...] had whetted my appetite for real depth and substance within the context of the 21st century.
January 3, 2015
Interesting book to read and to trigger your way of thinking, but even more important: acting (practizing). Nussbaum describes very well to understand better your neighbour and to understand what is driving him/ her. From this understanding she tries to find a connection instead of a separation. The only thing she could shorten is the reasons why you should accept burka bearing. She describes in five sections five reasons why you should refrain from discrimatory actions against the burka. This could be shorter, since she is repeating a lot of arguments in these sections.
August 1, 2016
Not sure if it's an exhaustive review on the subject of religious intolerance and it's manifestation in American and European politics - but it is a good, well-reasoned book nonetheless. Even though I was mostly aware of the overall thesis of the book, I wasn't always sure what slant she was to using - philosophy, semantics, psychology, law, politics or just a random hodgepodge of it all. Again - by no means a comprehensive book, but a good one.
April 15, 2018
A fairly interesting look at religious intolerance (read: Islamophobia) in the modern world. While I agree with much of Nussbaum's general argument, I was not convinced by her handling of whether or not a burqa ban would be legitimate. She argues that on several factors, the burqa is really no worse than other things (scarves, or tight jeans, etc.). But I do not think she dedicated enough time to proving this point. Or at least, she didn't dedicate enough time for my liking.
October 14, 2012
The author provides perspectives based on law and the Constitution regarding religious liberties and protections. She points out some of the pitfalls of majority opinions and their impacts on minority populations. The Islamic Center proposed near ground zero in New York City provides an excellent example in the closing chapter, bringing many of the arguments of the book together.
February 24, 2013
I found this book to be very interesting, and the topic is really important in our society today. Sometimes I felt as if some things were too simplified, but with that said, it was a pretty good book.
July 3, 2016
Martha Nussbaum ist Juristin und Ethikerin, eine vorteilhafte Kombination, die man ihren Büchern anmerkt. Klar strukturiert und wohl überlegt geht sie den Themen auf den Grund und bleibt dabei stets hoch aktuell.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews