Clash of Civilizations? No, of Philosophies

By André Glucksmann
Le Monde

Friday 03 March 2006

The anti-cartoon campaign began against one newspaper, then targeted Denmark, which asserts freedom of the press, and now aims at Europe, accused of practicing double standards. "Doesn't the European Union allow someone to denigrate The Prophet with impunity, while it prohibits and condemns other "opinions," like Nazism and Holocaust denial? Why is it allowed to joke about Mohammed and not about the genocide of the Jews?" ask screeching fundamentalists as they launch a competition for funny cartoons about Auschwitz. What's good for the goose should be as good for the gander: either everything must be authorized in the name of free speech, or let's censure what shocks the one the same as we do that which makes the other bristle. Many defenders of the right to caricature feel trapped. Are they going to publish jibes about gas chambers in the name of free speech?

Disrespect for disrespect? Transgression for transgression? Must Auschwitz denial and the desecration of Mohammed be put on the same level? That's where two philosophies implacably conflict. One says yes: at issue are two equivalent "beliefs," equally flouted; there's no difference between historic truth and a profession of faith; the conviction that genocide took place and that Mohammed was enlightened by the angel Gabriel are of the same order. The other says no: the reality of the death camps is on the order of a factual observation, but the sacral character of the prophets is not, since it results from the commitment of the faithful.

A similar distinction between the factual and belief is the basis for Western thought. Aristotle already separated out declarative speech, susceptible to discussion in order to arrive at an affirmation or a denial, from prayer. Prayer eludes discussion because it does not observe; it implores, promises, swears, decrees; it doesn't aim at information, but at performance. When a fanatic Islamist asserts that Europeans practice "the religion of the Shoah," the same way he practices the religion of Mohammed, he eliminates the distinction between fact and belief: for him, only beliefs exist, consequently Europe favors one set of believers over another.

Civilized discourse, with no distinctions of race or religion, analyzes and defines scientific truths, historic truths, and statements of fact that derive, not from faith, but from knowledge. They may be held as profane and of inferior dignity, yet they are not confused with religious truths. Our planet is not at the mercy of a clash of civilizations or of cultures; it is the high ground of a decisive battle between two types of thinking. There are those who decree that facts do not exist, but only interpretations - which are so many acts of faith. They either slide into fanaticism ("I am the truth.") or fall into nihilism ("Nothing is true, nothing is false."). On the other side, there are those for whom free discussion with a view to separating the true from the false has meaning such that the politician's, the scientist's, or our own simple judgments may be based on profane data independent of arbitrary and pre-established opinions.

Totalitarian thought cannot bear to be disputed. Dogmatic, it asserts - as it brandishes the little red, black, or green book. Obscurantist, it fuses politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thought, on the contrary, holds facts to be facts and acknowledges even the most hideous facts, the very same ones that either in anguish or out of practical considerations one would prefer to obscure. Bringing the gulag to light has allowed criticism and a rejection of "real socialism." Consideration of Nazi crimes and the very real opening of the extermination camps converted Europeans to democracy in 1945. Moreover, the denial of history and its cruelest truths presages a return of cruelties. With no offense to Islamists - who are far from representative of all Muslims - there is no common measure between denial of proven facts and the verbal or sketched critique of the many beliefs any European has a right to cultivate and mock.

For centuries, Jupiter or Christ, Jehovah and Allah have suffered robust jokes and marks of disrespect. In that game, Jews are the best critics of Yaweh - they have even made it a specialty. That does prevent the true believer of any confession from believing and from letting live those who do not believe as he does. Religious peace is established in this way. On the other hand, joking about gas chambers, making merry over raped women and disemboweled babies, sanctifying televised decollations and human bombs heralds an unbearable future.

It is long overdue for democrats to recover their senses and governments of law their principles; they must solemnly and in solidarity recall that it's out of the question for one, two, three religions, four or five ideologies to decide what citizens have the right to say or to think. Not only is freedom of the press at issue, but the freedom to call a cat a cat and a gas chamber an abominable fact, abominable whatever our beliefs and our faiths. It derives from the principle of all morality: on this Earth, the respect due each individual begins with universal notice and communal rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity.

André Glucksmann is a philosopher. He is about to publish "Une rage d'enfant" [Child's Rage] (Plon, 300 pages, 19,50 €).

Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.