1
00:00:04,170 --> 00:00:08,400
Good afternoon, everybody. Let us begin with our second session.

2
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:15,170
Which is about liberalism, secularism, the nation state.

3
00:00:16,150 --> 00:00:25,160
Uh the speakers this afternoon to my modify tomorrow to make far right professor professor Elizabeth

4
00:00:25,260 --> 00:00:33,560
Chapman heard a she's a professor of political science at Northwestern University of Politics.

5
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:41,930
She teaches and write on religion and politics, the politics of human rights and the right to religious freedom,

6
00:00:42,500 --> 00:00:48,680
the legal governance of religious diversity, U.S. foreign relations, and the international politics of the Middle East.

7
00:00:49,400 --> 00:00:54,020
A work pursues an integrity of approach to the study of politics and religion that offers

8
00:00:54,470 --> 00:00:59,780
insights into dilemmas of national and international governance involving difference,

9
00:00:59,780 --> 00:01:02,660
governance, power, law and pluralism.

10
00:01:03,410 --> 00:01:10,610
She is a regular contributor to public discussions on U.S. foreign policy and the politics of religious diversity.

11
00:01:11,060 --> 00:01:19,700
And among her many academic publications are the politics of secularism in international relations from 2008 and beyond.

12
00:01:19,700 --> 00:01:25,940
Religious Freedom, the new global politics of religion from 2015, both published by Princeton.

13
00:01:26,660 --> 00:01:31,370
And to my closer right. Yolanda Johnson.

14
00:01:31,430 --> 00:01:34,790
Johnson, should I say in Dutch, you say Johnson Johnson,

15
00:01:36,020 --> 00:01:40,940
who is an associate professor of social and political philosophy at the University

16
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:46,220
of Amsterdam and a board member of the Amsterdam Centre for Globalisation Studies.

17
00:01:46,700 --> 00:01:52,190
And she is also a special professor for the Socratic Foundation at VCU University.

18
00:01:52,370 --> 00:02:01,010
So the full name in the free university from the university where she holds the chair for humanism in relation to religion and secularity.

19
00:02:01,490 --> 00:02:09,020
Her research deals with social and political philosophy, in particular critical theory, pluralism, multiculturalism and democracy,

20
00:02:09,500 --> 00:02:13,880
genealogies of secularism, humanism and religion, irregular migration,

21
00:02:13,970 --> 00:02:19,220
Judaism in Europe, Islam in Europe and French culture and literature in particular.

22
00:02:19,610 --> 00:02:26,840
The Work of Marcel Proust. Among her many publications are secularism, assimilation and the crisis of multiculturalism.

23
00:02:27,200 --> 00:02:30,830
French modernist legacy is available for free online.

24
00:02:31,320 --> 00:02:37,670
Yes, yes. Yes. And the regularisation of migration in contemporary Europe.

25
00:02:38,060 --> 00:02:41,270
Deportation. Detention. Drowning.

26
00:02:42,500 --> 00:02:46,310
Thank you so much. Would you start, please, with some opening?

27
00:02:46,820 --> 00:02:52,670
Absolutely. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the invitation to my first visit to Oxford.

28
00:02:52,670 --> 00:03:02,420
So I'm very happy to be here, even just for a few hours. I study the legal and political lives of religion as a category,

29
00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:10,640
and I looked particularly at the concept of secularism and its legal and political life in my first book and then in my most recent book,

30
00:03:10,640 --> 00:03:20,480
Beyond Religious Freedom, looking at the construct of religious freedom and its very contested and contentious international legal and political life.

31
00:03:21,230 --> 00:03:27,290
So I'm interested in kind of looking at how these concepts get operationalised and lived out and

32
00:03:27,290 --> 00:03:35,300
fought over and imagined and re-imagined in a variety of public governance settings and contexts.

33
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:46,459
And so today I actually took Ya'acov up on the challenge to try to think very specifically about what the title of this symposium,

34
00:03:46,460 --> 00:03:50,600
which is Dialogues and the Geopolitics of the nation state, is really in a wider context.

35
00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:58,760
And I want to talk a little bit about a couple of concepts that I think can help us have this conversation and then talk

36
00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:06,500
about a new book that I think will also bring a comparative angle onto the Israeli case that I will turn to near the end.

37
00:04:06,830 --> 00:04:09,260
And what I'm calling this concept is the religion trap.

38
00:04:09,260 --> 00:04:15,650
And the religion trap is something that I want to emphasise all traditions and all states are equally susceptible to.

39
00:04:15,860 --> 00:04:25,730
And this trap is to conflate broad, contested, shifting traditions with specific forms of state power and state interpretations of religion.

40
00:04:26,330 --> 00:04:31,160
This is kind of secularism, par excellence. It's a form of secularist politics.

41
00:04:31,550 --> 00:04:37,910
And although we we are well past, I know, secularism and religion in any sort of stable,

42
00:04:37,910 --> 00:04:44,540
reified understanding because we've been through our deconstructive move already this morning, and I think that's important and helpful.

43
00:04:44,540 --> 00:04:48,740
And I also think we're done with that in this field. I think it's time to move on,

44
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:54,770
and I think it's time to start thinking about the fact that these concepts have political and legal lives that we have to reckon with.

45
00:04:55,010 --> 00:05:02,810
And so understanding the variety of those lives, I think, is very important to to understand better how they shape people's actual lives.

46
00:05:03,230 --> 00:05:09,380
So the religion trap, I think, is a is is this just a heuristic that I'm using?

47
00:05:10,450 --> 00:05:19,209
That reflects secularist anxieties about defining the religious in confining it to certain legible and manageable spaces and places.

48
00:05:19,210 --> 00:05:24,130
So whenever you hear a reference to religion or the religious, it is a secularist claim.

49
00:05:24,130 --> 00:05:28,720
It is a secular move in our contemporary context to make those kinds of statements.

50
00:05:29,770 --> 00:05:36,880
What the religion check does and this collapsing of these broad traditions into very narrow understandings of them, specific forms of state power.

51
00:05:36,910 --> 00:05:43,870
What it does is that it reproduces certain collective understandings of how the religious or religion looks in the modern world,

52
00:05:43,870 --> 00:05:49,990
which is something that has legible authorities, texts and institutions that often look more or less like churches.

53
00:05:50,500 --> 00:05:56,620
When Sullivan refers to religion in the American legal imaginary as taking up a church shaped space.

54
00:05:57,010 --> 00:05:58,690
In her new book, That'll be out next year,

55
00:05:58,900 --> 00:06:05,170
and I think this is really helpful to think with The Religion Trap also reflects an inability to really think about religion,

56
00:06:05,170 --> 00:06:13,780
to think theologically, to contend with the political and the ethical stakes and the limitations of trying to do so in its starkest forms.

57
00:06:13,780 --> 00:06:21,100
I think it reflects a secular tendency to take at face value, state sponsored realisations of representations of religion or the religious.

58
00:06:21,730 --> 00:06:29,890
It also, and I think this is important to understand, enjoys the support of many religious authorities who are well served by a stable,

59
00:06:30,490 --> 00:06:38,500
bifurcated binary between the secular and the religious that allows them to be comfortable and empowered politically.

60
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:43,570
So this is part of what I refer to in Beyond Religious Freedom as the new global politics of religion.

61
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:50,260
And this is a completely different stage in the trajectory of what we call secularism or secularisation.

62
00:06:50,650 --> 00:06:54,459
So I think it's worth remembering, as Nadia Marzuki argues,

63
00:06:54,460 --> 00:07:01,690
that the religious secular divide is contextually produced and contested rather than existing as any kind of predefined historical structure.

64
00:07:02,050 --> 00:07:08,320
And there's a quote from a 2015 piece by Title Assad that I think illuminates the focus of my remarks today.

65
00:07:08,410 --> 00:07:15,610
Assad says My aim is to explore a problem that remains generally obscured in the secular hostility to what is assumed to be religion.

66
00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:20,049
The problem with what can be called political religion is the politics that derives from

67
00:07:20,050 --> 00:07:24,040
the sovereign state and the religion that is conceived and practised in response to it.

68
00:07:24,490 --> 00:07:29,320
And I think for thinking with with and against Israeli politics in a number of violences,

69
00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:32,200
this is the problem space that I would want to focus on today.

70
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:38,770
So the particular forms of political religion that are so often confused and conflated with much broader shifting,

71
00:07:38,770 --> 00:07:42,070
essentially contested and amorphous religious and social fields.

72
00:07:42,400 --> 00:07:47,830
And I would intentionally open that up so that it becomes a claim that's very fuzzy borders and boundaries.

73
00:07:48,610 --> 00:07:53,140
So in one of its stronger forms and in the context of American support for Israel,

74
00:07:53,500 --> 00:07:59,740
the religion expresses itself clearly in the form of a total reduction of Judaism to the Israeli state project.

75
00:08:00,190 --> 00:08:05,560
This naive and often problematise tendency has been, of course, widely criticised,

76
00:08:05,860 --> 00:08:12,579
including in rich historical and philosophical detail by Yaacov in his book, which I highly recommend to you all.

77
00:08:12,580 --> 00:08:15,790
And he was kind enough to send over to me Judith Butler,

78
00:08:15,790 --> 00:08:20,710
as Yolanda will discuss attacks head on this violent reductionism with her contrary

79
00:08:20,720 --> 00:08:25,780
proposal to sever Jewishness and Zionism altogether to part ways once and for all.

80
00:08:26,230 --> 00:08:29,469
I think it's important to consider as a prelude to Yolanda's talk,

81
00:08:29,470 --> 00:08:34,420
the discursive field in which Butler's proposal is situated and from which it emerges.

82
00:08:34,780 --> 00:08:39,280
This is a field which, due to its facile equation of Jewishness and Judaism,

83
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:45,459
with particular interpretations of Zionism and Israeli state politics and policy due to the religion trap.

84
00:08:45,460 --> 00:08:53,080
In other words, that is the trap. It has become normal in the US to equate anti-Zionist political and religious views with anti-Semitism,

85
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:57,400
something that's come up numerous times in our informal discussions at this workshop.

86
00:08:57,790 --> 00:09:03,819
Butler's formula is a rejection and outright slam of that equation, and in some ways,

87
00:09:03,820 --> 00:09:08,500
in rejecting so badly and awkwardly and tragically, as Yolanda I think will explain more,

88
00:09:08,860 --> 00:09:16,120
may reinforce some of the problematic assumptions about Zionism, Judaism, Israel and their interrelations that we want to talk about here.

89
00:09:16,570 --> 00:09:19,360
How did we get to a place where Butler takes the position she does?

90
00:09:19,990 --> 00:09:27,040
So I'm hoping that this we will in this way open a space for Yolanda's talk, which will highlight the broader, extra Zionist,

91
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:34,270
non-Jewish political and theological fields in which concepts of Judaism, Zionism and so on are and always have been embedded.

92
00:09:34,780 --> 00:09:41,440
How do we get to a place where Butler's parting of ways between Jewishness and Zionism became not only possible, but also for some necessary?

93
00:09:41,710 --> 00:09:45,790
And what are the alternatives? So before turning to Israel, though,

94
00:09:45,790 --> 00:09:51,819
I want to make a comparative move with the religion trap and talk briefly about how it operates in a different context.

95
00:09:51,820 --> 00:09:58,990
And that context is contemporary Malaysia. It's very important to my work to keep a comparative lens open at all times.

96
00:09:59,230 --> 00:10:04,510
I think it makes it possible to refract questions that we may want to ask about Israeli politics

97
00:10:04,810 --> 00:10:09,820
through a wider lens that encompasses that the politics of the nation state in general.

98
00:10:09,820 --> 00:10:15,459
The. Because I think we are talking about, if not universal, somehow generalising tendencies.

99
00:10:15,460 --> 00:10:21,970
And I like to compare these cases. So in his new book that some of you may have had a look at constituting religion,

100
00:10:21,970 --> 00:10:27,640
Tom or Mustafa writes about these two poles of state liberalism on the one hand,

101
00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:31,390
and state interpretations of Islamization and Islamic law on the other.

102
00:10:31,780 --> 00:10:40,270
The trap, of course, in the Malaysian case, as in others that I'm asking us to think with, is the conflation of Islam in general, whatever that is,

103
00:10:40,450 --> 00:10:48,310
with specific forms of state sanctioned Islam and specific construal of Islamic law and projects of Islamization in Malaysia today.

104
00:10:48,880 --> 00:10:54,130
Now this conflation is so common, this collapse of Islam in general, with what the state is interpreting as Islam,

105
00:10:54,430 --> 00:11:02,090
that it can be very difficult to see, after all, how many Islamization projects present themselves as departing from the real Islam.

106
00:11:02,110 --> 00:11:06,310
It would not actually really help your case. Mustafa avoid this trap, though.

107
00:11:06,350 --> 00:11:12,130
And he does this in a way that I think is helpful for us, who want to think about religion and state in a different register,

108
00:11:12,370 --> 00:11:19,720
moving beyond the discursive limitations of the secularist imaginary, which which I think we're all at least sort of agreeing that we need to do.

109
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,290
So Malaysia has two legal systems that are kind of parallel.

110
00:11:23,320 --> 00:11:27,610
One is understood to be secular or civil, and the other as Islamic.

111
00:11:27,910 --> 00:11:32,230
And this binary, of course, does not resist, reflect a sort of pre-existing reality.

112
00:11:32,500 --> 00:11:34,180
It actually helps to construct it.

113
00:11:34,630 --> 00:11:43,290
So what Mustafa does is he tells us the history of how this came to be, that we had this creation and entrenchment of a binary over several decades.

114
00:11:43,300 --> 00:11:49,360
And I think this is really helpful in terms of what was discussed this morning and to what do we do next with deconstructed everything?

115
00:11:49,570 --> 00:11:57,399
How do we get down to specific contexts and how these categories are actually shaping lived legal and political realities?

116
00:11:57,400 --> 00:11:58,660
And I think here in Malaysia,

117
00:11:58,660 --> 00:12:07,330
we have a kind of an inescapable fact that what constitutes Islam and who participates in Islam are always deeply contested.

118
00:12:07,660 --> 00:12:12,190
And these are theological, legal and political questions that can never be fully disentangled.

119
00:12:12,460 --> 00:12:16,420
So any secularists claim to have disentangled them is just that it's a political

120
00:12:16,420 --> 00:12:20,920
claim and we can situated in its context and not take it as face at face value.

121
00:12:21,670 --> 00:12:23,559
So the world we live in, of course, though,

122
00:12:23,560 --> 00:12:30,070
is one where state power tends to and often endorses one interpretation of religious tradition over another.

123
00:12:30,310 --> 00:12:38,920
This is also the case in the US. We have a particular understanding of disestablishment, which of course also involves particular state endorsements,

124
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:42,910
of particular traditions, practices, institutions as religious.

125
00:12:44,920 --> 00:12:53,800
The Malaysian system that Mustafa describes, though, continually breathe new life into this binary between Islam and secular liberalism.

126
00:12:53,810 --> 00:13:00,510
So the result is that secular religious difference has become kind of hard and kind of ossified in the society there.

127
00:13:00,910 --> 00:13:06,010
And we have a secular religious divide, defining and polarising politics in society.

128
00:13:06,370 --> 00:13:12,670
And this polarisation between what Mustafa calls rights and rights are as and right.

129
00:13:12,890 --> 00:13:20,230
These this polarisation between rights and rights is policing the boundaries of legal and religious possibility,

130
00:13:20,230 --> 00:13:23,950
and alternatives are getting passed below the threshold of legitimacy and legibility.

131
00:13:24,190 --> 00:13:27,180
And I think this happens in the Israeli case all of the time.

132
00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:34,510
And I think your book is an attempt to actually retrieve and to bring back those possibilities into our field of vision.

133
00:13:34,810 --> 00:13:39,250
So in Malaysia as elsewhere, again, I want to refract and bump these cases against each other.

134
00:13:39,580 --> 00:13:47,379
NGOs, the media, advocacy groups and even regular, ordinary folks have all been swept up in this legal and discursive storm that is fuelled

135
00:13:47,380 --> 00:13:51,550
by an either or duality between what the state considers as Islam on the one hand,

136
00:13:51,550 --> 00:13:55,480
and liberalism on the other. This has become like an either or situation.

137
00:13:55,480 --> 00:14:03,700
What gets lost in this tsunami of litigation and popular mobilisation is the distinction between Islam and projects of state Islamization.

138
00:14:04,170 --> 00:14:09,740
So the Religion Trap, as an MP today have recently argued on the imminent frame.

139
00:14:09,760 --> 00:14:14,260
Islam is a fluid set of ways of being Muslim that is both contingent and coherence.

140
00:14:14,830 --> 00:14:22,210
These and this is not back to my words can it can be reduced to state law only with extraordinary interpretive license, power and violence.

141
00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:30,400
And nowhere is this collapse of Islam and state Islamization more evident than in Malaysians own understanding of Islamic law.

142
00:14:31,210 --> 00:14:36,670
So they have a very particular understanding of Islamic law that Mustafa describes

143
00:14:36,670 --> 00:14:41,080
as a legal code that will yield one correct answer to any given question.

144
00:14:41,290 --> 00:14:47,500
And this, of course, is a complete change and a complete shift from previous understandings of Islamic law.

145
00:14:47,510 --> 00:14:49,089
So what I want to just give you one quote.

146
00:14:49,090 --> 00:14:57,610
He says, The finding in this is a survey finding that most lay Muslims understand Islamic law is a legal code yielding only one.

147
00:14:57,610 --> 00:15:04,180
Correct answer to any given question is a testament to how the modern state has left its imprint on legal consciousness.

148
00:15:04,660 --> 00:15:09,790
Whereas Islamic jurisprudence is diverse and fluid, it's understood by many Malaysians as singular and.

149
00:15:10,700 --> 00:15:16,010
Implementation of a codified version of Islamic law through the Sharia courts is assumed to be a religious duty of the state.

150
00:15:16,370 --> 00:15:23,030
And indeed, it appears most Malaysians believe that the Sharia law do apply God's law directly, unmediated by human agency.

151
00:15:23,420 --> 00:15:29,390
So now if we believe his survey results and everyone here is probably rightly sceptical of surveys, I know I am.

152
00:15:29,990 --> 00:15:31,879
They're always partial, they're always oversimplified.

153
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:38,660
So if we believe it, though, this is a kind of capture of the Malaysian legal imaginary and it runs deep and it's very complex.

154
00:15:39,020 --> 00:15:45,200
So what we have is a distinct. The distinction between Islam and state projects of Islamization has crumbled,

155
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:49,880
and not only for scholars, for public officials or for judges, but for ordinary Malaysians, too.

156
00:15:50,090 --> 00:15:50,870
And I'm curious,

157
00:15:50,870 --> 00:15:58,120
and this is more of a question than a statement about the extent to which this has also occurred in the case of contemporary Israeli geopolitics,

158
00:15:58,120 --> 00:15:59,570
politics. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

159
00:15:59,960 --> 00:16:06,260
So anyway, what this means is that if you publicly criticised a legal initiative that is construed by the authorities as Islamic.

160
00:16:06,620 --> 00:16:12,199
Many Malaysians will receive this as an attack on Islam in general, as a defence of liberalism.

161
00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:15,650
And you can see this leads to a culture where along the lines of what we have in the US.

162
00:16:16,100 --> 00:16:22,250
This means conventional readings of Article 31 of the Malaysian Constitution, which states Islam is the religion of the federation,

163
00:16:22,760 --> 00:16:28,970
which emphasises its ceremonial and symbolic meaning are being not only pronounced unfaithful to the federal constitution,

164
00:16:29,300 --> 00:16:31,550
they are said to challenge Islam itself.

165
00:16:32,300 --> 00:16:39,630
So conversely, if one criticises a law as liberal, a secular or human rights based, this is quickly categorised as being pro-Muslim.

166
00:16:39,650 --> 00:16:43,190
So this is like an either or situation that has really taken hold.

167
00:16:44,270 --> 00:16:49,399
So there's a there's some examples of this we can talk about specific cases.

168
00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:54,380
I think I'll skip that over in the interest of time. I also want to bring up the question of race, which has not come up yet.

169
00:16:54,410 --> 00:16:57,290
Race is also part of the picture. This is also the case in Israel.

170
00:16:57,770 --> 00:17:05,389
The conflation of a state centric, racialised and ethnicity side with legal interpretations of Islam, with Islam in its entirety.

171
00:17:05,390 --> 00:17:09,140
If we can even talk about such a thing haunts the Malaysian legal system.

172
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:18,260
It renders certain forms of solidarity impossible, certain ways of being Muslim unimaginable, and certain understandings of Islam unthinkable.

173
00:17:18,770 --> 00:17:23,060
It's gotten worse as religion has become increasingly judicial ized and politicised.

174
00:17:23,450 --> 00:17:26,020
So Mustafa shows us the way out of this impasse.

175
00:17:26,030 --> 00:17:33,200
He says that Anglo Muslim law, as it's developed in Malaysia, is just simply not the full and exclusive embodiment of the Islamic legal tradition.

176
00:17:33,530 --> 00:17:39,589
Yakub spoke does that to some extent with the various traditions of Judaism and Jewishness

177
00:17:39,590 --> 00:17:45,230
that flowed into and fed and contradicted and interacted with contemporary forms of Zionism.

178
00:17:46,700 --> 00:17:52,190
So I see them as complementary. At the same time, liberal secularism and this goes back to this morning's conversation,

179
00:17:52,490 --> 00:17:57,830
is not an unchanging monolith that exists outside of particular political and legal contexts.

180
00:17:58,250 --> 00:18:05,240
So neither these neither that neither Islam nor liberalism can be said to exist as autonomous, pure or coherent formations.

181
00:18:05,600 --> 00:18:07,850
I think that that's a pretty important takeaway.

182
00:18:08,510 --> 00:18:15,530
So I have another story I love to tell about counterrevolutionary Egypt in my recent trip Down the Nile,

183
00:18:15,530 --> 00:18:17,660
which was extremely enlightening in a lot of ways,

184
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:28,280
but I'm going to skip over that and in the interest of time and just go say a few words about some of the some of the what's going on in the US.

185
00:18:30,170 --> 00:18:38,090
But first of all, let me just say that if we understand with Tony Howe that part of our job as scholars and as commentators is to challenge

186
00:18:38,090 --> 00:18:44,270
and expand established ideas of what constitutes and who participates in the discursive traditions that we're studying,

187
00:18:44,540 --> 00:18:45,559
which I think it is.

188
00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:52,910
I think that that is part of the challenge that we take on board when we problematise and contextualise the religious secular binary is that we then

189
00:18:52,910 --> 00:19:00,920
need to question how people who depict themselves as speaking for a particular tradition and others is not how they came to have that authority.

190
00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:02,450
This is part of the job we have.

191
00:19:03,380 --> 00:19:08,240
If we want to do that, then we also have to do this for other political theological traditions and not only for Islam.

192
00:19:08,540 --> 00:19:13,219
I don't know about you guys, but I am tired of Islam being the kind of go to example of how,

193
00:19:13,220 --> 00:19:15,200
you know, if we're going to talk religion, we're going to talk about Islam.

194
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:19,850
So that's one of the reasons I'm here, is because I appreciate the fact that you're putting the spotlight on Israel.

195
00:19:19,850 --> 00:19:25,459
So if we fail to reckon with this religion trap, then there's this temptation to collapse.

196
00:19:25,460 --> 00:19:29,510
Islam into whatever project of Islamization is prominent, might be Saudi,

197
00:19:29,510 --> 00:19:35,240
might be whatever Christianity gets collapsed into a in the US case, a project of Christian nationalism.

198
00:19:35,840 --> 00:19:40,129
Or as the debate rages and here I'll talk about Israel for American support for Israel,

199
00:19:40,130 --> 00:19:46,670
Judaism gets collapsed with the particular project of Zionism, and that temptation is, in many cases, irresistible.

200
00:19:46,940 --> 00:19:51,200
We've seen it in Malaysia. We're seeing it now in the Israeli American relationship.

201
00:19:52,040 --> 00:19:58,160
So I'm just going to say a few words about that by way of segue into Yolanda's contribution.

202
00:19:58,520 --> 00:20:05,510
And I think that one thing we've seen and of course, everyone here knows that criticising a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic.

203
00:20:06,560 --> 00:20:09,800
But in the US there has been a remarkable and pronounced.

204
00:20:09,980 --> 00:20:11,800
Tendency to collapse the state.

205
00:20:11,810 --> 00:20:18,620
The distinction between a tradition on the one hand, which we may or may not call a religious tradition, I don't think I would,

206
00:20:18,710 --> 00:20:25,340
after having read your book and its state sponsored and always partial and incomplete and contested realisation.

207
00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:28,160
On the other hand. So in the Israeli case, of course,

208
00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:34,790
Judaism gets reduced to state sponsored political Zionism and criticism of the latter is depicted as an attack on the former.

209
00:20:35,630 --> 00:20:39,590
So if, as Israel's most impassioned American defenders insist,

210
00:20:39,950 --> 00:20:45,020
it is by definition anti-Semitic to criticise Israel because Israel embodies the Jewish people,

211
00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:49,310
then any criticism of it is forcibly of the state is forcibly anti-Semitic.

212
00:20:49,910 --> 00:20:51,530
So the Israeli state, of course,

213
00:20:51,530 --> 00:20:57,950
does a lot to support that narrative and a lot of active work on American campuses that I have experienced firsthand there.

214
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:03,770
They have created this legal and sociological reality, reproducing a discriminatory, religio national hierarchy,

215
00:21:03,980 --> 00:21:09,440
which then inoculates itself against criticism with the argument that it is anti-Semitic to acknowledge

216
00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:13,590
that hierarchy because it dismisses the Jewish Jewish people's right to self-determination.

217
00:21:13,610 --> 00:21:19,610
That's the argument that we get. So we could talk here a little bit about the new basic law and hoping that that comes up,

218
00:21:19,790 --> 00:21:22,790
which is called Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

219
00:21:23,540 --> 00:21:29,720
I think that this is this law is suggestive of Israel's attempt to capture the field of possibility of Jewish statehood.

220
00:21:30,530 --> 00:21:37,159
Darrell Lea argued in a recent review that the idea that the basic law is a surprise or a perversion of the Zionist project,

221
00:21:37,160 --> 00:21:44,030
as some have suggested, is questionable. Lee criticises what he calls the agonised handwringing of this balancing model.

222
00:21:44,120 --> 00:21:51,409
He writes Israeli jurists and legal scholars circulate to and from Europe and the Anglophone settler colonies to engage with interlocutors,

223
00:21:51,410 --> 00:21:59,180
largely white, through a dense web of professional connections, l'om and doctoral programs, conferences and workshops, visiting faculty appointments.

224
00:21:59,180 --> 00:22:03,589
Clerkships. Israel Palestine is a particularly poignant case of this problem,

225
00:22:03,590 --> 00:22:08,750
as a glaring example of how the Global South and Global North can unfold in the same space and not by accident.

226
00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:16,370
The result is a parochial cosmopolitanism, a kind of moderation or echo chamber that can only see the nation state law as a

227
00:22:16,370 --> 00:22:20,120
betrayal of Israel's promise rather than a sadly predictable fulfilment of it.

228
00:22:20,630 --> 00:22:23,240
This is what I think Judith Butler is reacting against.

229
00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:30,350
Butler aside, in the US, we have limited space for dissent from the official consensus around unequivocal support for Israel.

230
00:22:30,800 --> 00:22:34,400
Some would say, as I did in a recent op ed, that there's no room for Judaism.

231
00:22:35,060 --> 00:22:39,500
Mustafa's description of the collapse of a distinction between Islam and projects of

232
00:22:39,500 --> 00:22:45,350
state Islamization in Malaysia then finds its parallel in US debates over Israel.

233
00:22:45,920 --> 00:22:53,810
And I think this is just. It's important to see this as one way of reckoning with unfounded charges of anti-Semitism because it's not only Israel.

234
00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:58,250
This is something that is inherent and arguably in the DNA of the modern state.

235
00:22:58,310 --> 00:23:06,620
Right. So there's also a sense in which us in the US, anti-Semitism has been weaponized as a means of silencing political and theological critique.

236
00:23:07,010 --> 00:23:12,410
So the space for debate on Israel is constricted like almost no other in the in the US politics.

237
00:23:13,010 --> 00:23:17,060
And I think it's important to come to terms fully with the reasons for this constriction.

238
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:23,570
I want to conclude with an anecdote that illustrates one of them and also segues into what I think Yolanda will be speaking to us about.

239
00:23:24,110 --> 00:23:31,610
Last week I was reading grad student papers all week for my class on religion, race and politics an imperial and global perspective.

240
00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:32,750
It was a really fun class,

241
00:23:33,140 --> 00:23:40,930
and one of the students is writing her dissertation on American Christian interactions with the Holy Land, both real and imagined.

242
00:23:40,940 --> 00:23:45,440
So she's looking at tourism and she's looking at pilgrimage to the real Holy Land,

243
00:23:45,800 --> 00:23:52,520
and she's also looking at all of the romanticised and commercialised replicas of the Holy Land that are located in the United States,

244
00:23:52,520 --> 00:23:56,420
which some of you may know about. This is something that is absolutely fascinating.

245
00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:00,290
An example is the Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando.

246
00:24:00,320 --> 00:24:03,920
Has anyone heard of it? We might experience theme park and theme park.

247
00:24:03,920 --> 00:24:07,549
Now you've heard of it. Okay, so I read this paper.

248
00:24:07,550 --> 00:24:08,300
I was blown away.

249
00:24:08,300 --> 00:24:14,030
And I, of course, could not resist visiting the Holy Land Experience website and especially the shopping section because I love to shop.

250
00:24:14,420 --> 00:24:18,950
So for those of you who haven't yet explored the website, you will not be surprised to hear that.

251
00:24:18,950 --> 00:24:24,590
When I clicked on Judaica to see what would be for sale, the first thing was a big Israeli flag.

252
00:24:24,650 --> 00:24:29,960
Yeah. For us. Mm hmm. Okay. So that gives you something to think about in the American imagination.

253
00:24:30,110 --> 00:24:34,099
And this for me, includes the commercial evangelical Christian imagination,

254
00:24:34,100 --> 00:24:38,120
which is in some ways coterminous with the American imagination as a whole.

255
00:24:39,440 --> 00:24:46,670
We are all evangelicals as a family. There is literally no room for the possibility that Judaism in Israel are not the same thing.

256
00:24:47,270 --> 00:24:52,819
This is cultivated actively through religio commercial enterprises like the Holy Land experience,

257
00:24:52,820 --> 00:24:56,000
which create the conditions of possibility for the religion trap,

258
00:24:56,390 --> 00:25:00,800
for unconditional support, for American support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, despite everything.

259
00:25:01,700 --> 00:25:03,950
Speaking of evangelicals in US politics,

260
00:25:03,950 --> 00:25:09,680
another challenging aspect of this situation involves the risk of unwittingly exculpate and Christian Zionist non-Jew.

261
00:25:09,750 --> 00:25:15,750
As Europeans and other parties for responsibility for what Israel has been and is becoming.

262
00:25:16,020 --> 00:25:20,970
So I want to turn now to Yolanda to think about the possibility and the perils of critique in such an environment.

263
00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:36,550
Thanks. I hope I didn't go too. I'm sorry for distracting you with my Coca-Cola problem before.

264
00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:41,830
Thanks a lot. But it goes with the American evangelicals, you know?

265
00:25:41,860 --> 00:25:47,120
Yeah. I was also a little bit afraid of having them wrong. But it's still not well that we talk about.

266
00:25:47,440 --> 00:25:50,950
But, um. Yeah.

267
00:25:51,430 --> 00:25:54,890
Thank you, Yaakov, for the. Thank you for coming. Yeah.

268
00:25:55,050 --> 00:26:03,310
And we had been asked to prepare dialogue with, as you see, still difficult not to prepare a little paper still.

269
00:26:03,730 --> 00:26:06,790
So I'm trying to keep a little bit short.

270
00:26:06,790 --> 00:26:15,549
So you have some questions to ask you? Three. Um, we were talking about this morning's discussion before already.

271
00:26:15,550 --> 00:26:23,110
And as I said, like, we sort of, um, um, we, we,

272
00:26:23,470 --> 00:26:30,790
we have been talking about the difficulty of religion as a category and political and ideological dimensions for a long time already.

273
00:26:31,180 --> 00:26:35,350
And it's time to take a next step in many ways.

274
00:26:36,040 --> 00:26:47,950
Um, and I would like to, I was just before the break we were discussing, during the break we were discussing with the growth and um,

275
00:26:49,150 --> 00:26:53,920
we were discussing like, why is it so important that you were also hinting at this?

276
00:26:54,520 --> 00:26:58,950
And um, I was wondering to say two things about that.

277
00:26:58,960 --> 00:27:00,340
Like, um.

278
00:27:01,430 --> 00:27:10,240
Um, there's a nice piece from Brian Luke about the use of the concept of Islamophobia, and he comes up with a stunning perspective and he says,

279
00:27:10,270 --> 00:27:18,760
like, we know that these gateways are constructed and that they have their ideological uses, but still they are being used in specific contexts.

280
00:27:19,090 --> 00:27:24,430
And you have to look at those contexts and their they can have a legitimate fear or at least they cannot be replaced so easily.

281
00:27:24,910 --> 00:27:31,780
And also, if you look at the use of all those concepts, then you can see that very often there are something like family resemblances.

282
00:27:31,780 --> 00:27:35,859
So it's not they they are contentions and they they are problematic.

283
00:27:35,860 --> 00:27:42,970
But there are also like you can look at the genealogies and then see how they develop in which political context you can learn this a lot.

284
00:27:43,330 --> 00:27:55,569
So that's also why it's important to really look at the uses of the concepts in specific contexts and not just remain at the remain circling around.

285
00:27:55,570 --> 00:28:04,360
They're constructed to us. So and the second thing I would like to do, and that was what we were talking about like I'm,

286
00:28:04,580 --> 00:28:09,549
um, so my appointment as a Scottish professor is, it's a bit strange appointment.

287
00:28:09,550 --> 00:28:15,100
It's, it's like we have something like special professorships in the Netherlands and originally these

288
00:28:15,100 --> 00:28:21,640
are professorships which are financed and also supported by specific religious organisations.

289
00:28:22,300 --> 00:28:27,490
So we have to help out a professorship for Catholic studies and the like to support

290
00:28:27,490 --> 00:28:32,889
this professorship for a so as I came as a like a real academic philosopher,

291
00:28:32,890 --> 00:28:40,420
having done work on secularism in France, they ask me to to apply to be a professor of humanism so I can send it.

292
00:28:40,420 --> 00:28:44,920
And I was really it's really nice because now I'm also sorry humanism.

293
00:28:46,150 --> 00:28:53,110
Well it has its problems but but anyway so I really like that appointment.

294
00:28:53,110 --> 00:29:02,650
But it's also strange because now I am at a originally Protestant university and there I'm teaching in the religious studies or theology department,

295
00:29:03,010 --> 00:29:06,610
but they have a policy of having religious diversity studies.

296
00:29:07,000 --> 00:29:12,790
And now I'm there as a humanist and as a representative of one of the religious pillars.

297
00:29:13,300 --> 00:29:20,200
So it's but it's so that's that's this has all these like contingent aspects.

298
00:29:20,470 --> 00:29:31,530
But, um, one of the things I was asked to do, for example, is to look at the documents and the questions that I and,

299
00:29:31,720 --> 00:29:42,549
and that's the Dutch immigration organisation that they use to assess whether people who claim to have fled from mostly Muslim countries,

300
00:29:42,550 --> 00:29:49,090
that they who claim there have been flying atheists and that they're persecuted for reasons for religious reasons,

301
00:29:49,510 --> 00:29:52,600
like how do you assess whether this is the true story?

302
00:29:53,830 --> 00:29:59,170
So and then they ask me to look at that and I found it's very like challenging.

303
00:29:59,170 --> 00:30:03,010
Should I do that or not? How do I get involved in this or not?

304
00:30:03,070 --> 00:30:12,790
It's I oppose all those policies. So and all those kinds of questionnaires, whether it's about homosexuality or about religious, it's so complicated.

305
00:30:12,790 --> 00:30:20,649
But still, if I don't do it, maybe someone else with less scholarly views may get the to do it.

306
00:30:20,650 --> 00:30:25,480
So I did look at it. And then the first question they asked the people who.

307
00:30:25,810 --> 00:30:34,630
It's like, when did you convert to atheist? So I tell the world goes with the history.

308
00:30:35,560 --> 00:30:38,860
Now you look at it. So, um.

309
00:30:39,460 --> 00:30:45,550
So that's where it gets so complicated. You can say, okay, well, religion is constructed, convert all those concepts, have their issues.

310
00:30:45,550 --> 00:30:49,150
But still, then what do you do in a practical situation like that?

311
00:30:49,360 --> 00:30:54,099
Can you can you say something about it? What does it help to know all these historical vicissitudes?

312
00:30:54,100 --> 00:31:01,300
Where do you direct people then? So that's the kind of questions I would really like to be able to deal with, but it's still very difficult.

313
00:31:02,190 --> 00:31:15,249
Yeah. So now Beth already told me that, already told you that I was going to try to react to some things in a Judith Butler's book,

314
00:31:15,250 --> 00:31:22,030
because I've been working on an article about it on the request of some people working on a special issue about it.

315
00:31:22,030 --> 00:31:28,780
And I would like to share this with you, because this is a very good public also, but I'm very insecure about it.

316
00:31:29,230 --> 00:31:36,460
And I want to give some introduction first so that you know where I come from.

317
00:31:37,140 --> 00:31:44,860
Um, so I've been working a lot on what the sociologist Marcus Dressler has called religious secularism,

318
00:31:44,860 --> 00:31:54,350
and it's more or less what we've been talking about here. But he what I like about it is the idea that we have to talk, that we have to maybe, um, um,

319
00:31:55,090 --> 00:32:02,559
step aside a little bit more than we even did yet outside of the, like what you could call the religious,

320
00:32:02,560 --> 00:32:13,360
secular paradigm in the sense that they are being used as epistemological categories to understand social conflict concerning religion or

321
00:32:13,360 --> 00:32:21,459
cultural difference in a very broad sense and relatively privileged categories in comparison to conceptualisations more focussed on culture,

322
00:32:21,460 --> 00:32:29,020
economy, politics, migration, history of coloniality race and the articulation between all of them.

323
00:32:29,770 --> 00:32:33,520
And I think religious secularism has different layers.

324
00:32:33,520 --> 00:32:36,099
We need to distinguish them so we can talk about,

325
00:32:36,100 --> 00:32:44,589
like the history of secularism and the history of like using religion as a more or less reified concept.

326
00:32:44,590 --> 00:32:50,430
And we can have a reflection on that. But there's other and then for example,

327
00:32:50,440 --> 00:32:56,290
work we have often been doing is talking about how this has stimulated understanding

328
00:32:56,290 --> 00:33:02,860
religion from a Protestant or a secular assumptions with their colonial Oriental dimensions.

329
00:33:03,100 --> 00:33:08,290
That's what we've been talking about this morning. But I think there's one other dimension to religious secularism,

330
00:33:08,290 --> 00:33:15,190
which is that the critique of this history is still being held very much in terms of religion and secularism itself.

331
00:33:15,670 --> 00:33:23,770
And that's my worry a little bit with, for example, the work of Mahmoud and also that it remains like when you're talking about post secular,

332
00:33:24,130 --> 00:33:29,860
it remains very much in terms of that the contending terms are still religion and secularity.

333
00:33:29,860 --> 00:33:36,009
And I think we need to insert more terms to the debate to get it in a better place.

334
00:33:36,010 --> 00:33:41,020
And that's where, for example, I would think that Coloniality race,

335
00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:46,720
economy are very important to have them on the same level than the secular religious terms.

336
00:33:47,230 --> 00:33:58,330
So that's that's one thing I've found important and maybe I'll show you relation to what we were talking about,

337
00:33:58,330 --> 00:34:07,450
terms of the, um, the relation between liberalism, secularism and um, and the nation state.

338
00:34:08,740 --> 00:34:16,530
Um, what, uh, what I would think also in the European context, I can explain this more later.

339
00:34:16,540 --> 00:34:19,570
What is important is that, um,

340
00:34:20,080 --> 00:34:24,129
there have also been versions of liberalism and of liberal democracy which have

341
00:34:24,130 --> 00:34:31,510
tried to think beyond the concepts of religion and secularism as much as possible.

342
00:34:31,810 --> 00:34:36,370
So it's important not to conflate liberalism and secularism too much.

343
00:34:36,760 --> 00:34:44,830
Of course, they're very much interrelated. But there are versions of liberal and multiculturalism which have tried to, um,

344
00:34:44,860 --> 00:34:51,969
to accommodate religion and religious tradition and religious practices much more than

345
00:34:51,970 --> 00:34:58,660
we tend to see when we look at where just with the lens of critique of secularism,

346
00:34:58,660 --> 00:35:05,860
and it makes it impossible to see different versions of liberalism also and also different possibilities of accommodation,

347
00:35:05,860 --> 00:35:09,610
of different religious traditions in the European context.

348
00:35:09,610 --> 00:35:19,360
And I think this is important to remember also because in the 1980s, 1990s, there were from within like lighter versions of liberal democracy.

349
00:35:19,360 --> 00:35:23,979
There were inventions of all kinds of tolerating and tolerance practices.

350
00:35:23,980 --> 00:35:34,390
Not. And I mean. Told once in a very broad sense that we saw first of pluralism that we shouldn't forget as auctions.

351
00:35:34,690 --> 00:35:42,190
So now if we reconstruct the role of secularism in having certain conceptions of the nation state,

352
00:35:42,190 --> 00:35:48,580
we may also overlook options within this these traditions.

353
00:35:49,480 --> 00:35:52,900
I'm a little bit fake. Sorry. I mean.

354
00:35:57,920 --> 00:36:00,229
Can I interject here and maybe ask you a question regarding this?

355
00:36:00,230 --> 00:36:11,120
Because this something that comes up from both of your comments and I think maybe would be a way to, you know, to think of you more down to the point.

356
00:36:11,630 --> 00:36:16,790
Is there a way to when it comes to liberalism and multiculturalism and religious

357
00:36:16,790 --> 00:36:21,650
tolerance or tolerance of religious diversity and so forth and so forth,

358
00:36:22,940 --> 00:36:32,929
so on and so forth? Is there a way to think of a multicultural setting without a liberal multicultural setting,

359
00:36:32,930 --> 00:36:41,720
without necessarily forcing the cultural diversity into these Christian categories?

360
00:36:41,840 --> 00:36:45,690
What Beth referred to as the collapsing of everything into existence.

361
00:36:45,780 --> 00:36:51,889
No, that's it. No, there's no way that we may disagree.

362
00:36:51,890 --> 00:36:56,960
So. Yeah, no, no, I, I, I tend to agree as well.

363
00:36:57,200 --> 00:37:07,669
Yes, but there's different outside, there's different gradations of how bad it is to be inserted into those categories.

364
00:37:07,670 --> 00:37:12,050
And that's what I mean, that there are options within like European,

365
00:37:12,200 --> 00:37:20,479
like if we now think again that the nation state is something very, uh, nationalistic by nature and that it's, it's,

366
00:37:20,480 --> 00:37:28,790
it's so in a certain sense we say the populists are right in their conception of the nation state as something very monolithic,

367
00:37:28,790 --> 00:37:37,760
which cannot be pluralist, pluralistic, which can only be, well, either nationalistic or maybe Christian nationalist or maybe whiteness oriented.

368
00:37:38,210 --> 00:37:45,800
It's also a way of of of of agreeing with that kind of discourse and thinking we need something radically different.

369
00:37:46,100 --> 00:37:46,999
And on the one hand,

370
00:37:47,000 --> 00:37:55,879
I think theoretically we have to think about that very much and also step outside religious secularism and the Christian kind of backgrounds of it,

371
00:37:55,880 --> 00:37:59,600
and the European Christian like colonial kinds of backgrounds of it.

372
00:37:59,870 --> 00:38:07,129
But it remains important to see that there are different version of different versions of this kind of history,

373
00:38:07,130 --> 00:38:15,410
and that we can have more and less acceptable versions. And that in the 1990 and early 2000, in all kinds of multicultural theories,

374
00:38:15,590 --> 00:38:24,830
there were options for accommodation and even conviviality or other concepts that we shouldn't forget about.

375
00:38:24,890 --> 00:38:26,720
Yes. So we have to do both.

376
00:38:26,840 --> 00:38:37,040
Like remember, like there were better, much better options within the the the like the secular religious framework than we tend to think of now.

377
00:38:37,580 --> 00:38:44,870
And we have to theoretically rethink the whole picture, taking into account much more how it's always,

378
00:38:45,290 --> 00:38:52,910
um, has this like Christian civilizational background, which is very problematic.

379
00:38:53,240 --> 00:38:56,389
So, but I think we should do both. But can you elaborate on your.

380
00:38:56,390 --> 00:39:02,180
No? Yes. The notion of religious diversity is a liberal secular concept.

381
00:39:02,540 --> 00:39:09,590
I don't think we can get out of that. It presumes that there is something called religion that can be segregated from other areas of human life.

382
00:39:10,130 --> 00:39:14,750
And this is part of what we're I understand the gesture that we got to this

383
00:39:14,750 --> 00:39:19,760
morning is that that is a problematic and artificial separation and segregation.

384
00:39:20,480 --> 00:39:28,310
And that move is itself a secularist move, which is something that, you know, the sort of societies have been arguing for a long time.

385
00:39:28,550 --> 00:39:36,650
And so if you if you want to acknowledge that the notion of religious diversity is always and already a problematic notion,

386
00:39:36,650 --> 00:39:41,450
because it is the secularist claim that segregates religion from the secular and then defines and

387
00:39:41,750 --> 00:39:48,049
then you can't really work with that concept and you have to somehow find other vocabularies.

388
00:39:48,050 --> 00:39:56,300
And you say in a little bit earlier, other terms, other categories of analysis, other modes of relationality, of sociality,

389
00:39:56,990 --> 00:40:04,040
other kinds of legal institutions, political institutions that do not depend on the difference that religion makes.

390
00:40:04,190 --> 00:40:07,250
Can you be more concrete examples of what would be so?

391
00:40:08,120 --> 00:40:15,170
Well, for example, there would be no projects to promote moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.

392
00:40:16,010 --> 00:40:18,709
There would be no such thing because there is no such thing.

393
00:40:18,710 --> 00:40:27,380
And the last thing we need is the US government shopping for moderate Muslims and then promoting them politically, which is the kiss of death anyway.

394
00:40:27,380 --> 00:40:31,490
So a lot of them don't want that promotion. So politically it's very problematic.

395
00:40:31,490 --> 00:40:39,229
But this idea that there is something out there that can be identified as moderate Islam is has generated, as I argue,

396
00:40:39,230 --> 00:40:47,299
in beyond religious freedom, an enormous religio industrial complex which a lot of people have staked their careers on.

397
00:40:47,300 --> 00:40:50,150
It's not just like a one time thing, it's their entire career.

398
00:40:50,540 --> 00:40:56,120
And they're earning their money, either analysing these people or doing the theological analysis of the.

399
00:40:56,280 --> 00:41:02,430
Karen to figure out which part of it is is causing violence and which part of it is causing moderation.

400
00:41:02,760 --> 00:41:07,920
And there's a big industry and there's a lot of famous people. And this is not only the right, this is the left as well.

401
00:41:08,280 --> 00:41:16,500
In fact, it's everybody in the US. I mean, it's like it's it's a huge cottage industry and there's a lot of room for academics to get involved too.

402
00:41:16,830 --> 00:41:20,489
And this entire project is fatally flawed as far as I'm concerned.

403
00:41:20,490 --> 00:41:26,280
And if you want to read a really cool book that helps to explain why there's an edited volume, I'm not in it and I have nothing to do with it.

404
00:41:26,280 --> 00:41:30,960
So it's actually not an ad. It's called After Pluralism Reimagining Religious Engagement,

405
00:41:31,170 --> 00:41:35,760
and it's a volume that was edited by Courtney Bender and Pamela Classen quite a number of years ago.

406
00:41:36,000 --> 00:41:42,300
And it is excellent and it Problematise is exactly in the introduction, which is like 15, 20 pages long.

407
00:41:42,930 --> 00:41:50,430
Why the concept of pluralism, which is quite similar and is very much inter-related with the concept of religious diversity,

408
00:41:50,430 --> 00:41:53,880
religious diversity, religious pluralism are even sometimes used interchangeably.

409
00:41:54,870 --> 00:42:04,589
Why this concept is so problematic and why we need to think outside of these boxes that we're being forced into by a received tradition of

410
00:42:04,590 --> 00:42:13,170
basically political political socialisation into secularism and secularist understandings of religion that have that we are so reliant on.

411
00:42:13,530 --> 00:42:19,830
They've taken hold so strongly in our collective political and social imaginaries that we cannot think otherwise.

412
00:42:20,160 --> 00:42:25,770
And I think the best and the brightest people in this field are people who are thinking otherwise and offering

413
00:42:25,770 --> 00:42:32,040
these alternative vocabularies for thinking about human social life outside of these very limited rubrics.

414
00:42:32,460 --> 00:42:38,730
Is that a specific enough? Yes. If I think of Yolanda, can you know what she was still.

415
00:42:38,760 --> 00:42:48,389
Yeah, so but but you want to just add to the same challenge and give some concrete examples of what would be within the religious secular discourse,

416
00:42:48,390 --> 00:42:53,460
a more accommodating framework which is not assimilationist.

417
00:42:54,960 --> 00:42:59,460
Um. Yeah, I think, um.

418
00:43:01,080 --> 00:43:04,120
Well, let me just to connect to what you were saying.

419
00:43:04,140 --> 00:43:09,270
You know, I in an ideal world, I very much agree.

420
00:43:09,270 --> 00:43:18,630
And I also think this is one of the the the the the the the feet of the project that we have to go on that to invent new vocabularies.

421
00:43:18,900 --> 00:43:21,750
But connected to your question this morning,

422
00:43:21,750 --> 00:43:28,680
like we have all kinds of groups and people who understand themselves in these terms, it's just not enough to say.

423
00:43:30,030 --> 00:43:36,960
The terms are very problematic. And and it's also it's not the concept that creates the power relations.

424
00:43:37,530 --> 00:43:41,280
It's the concepts that give them some, uh, shape.

425
00:43:41,760 --> 00:43:48,930
But these, uh, the power relations are there and they could have taken shape, maybe, you know, other concepts as well.

426
00:43:48,930 --> 00:43:51,920
So it's not just a matter of correcting the concepts, of course.

427
00:43:51,930 --> 00:44:02,550
And so the, so how to address the power relations there, I think, um, uh, it's, it's, well it's very important to,

428
00:44:02,970 --> 00:44:10,080
to, to see how they work, but also to see that, for example, pluralism and like divide and rule.

429
00:44:10,080 --> 00:44:18,750
It's of course, it's a it's a religious pluralism is one way to divide, but there are other ways, and it's about the invention of these ways.

430
00:44:19,170 --> 00:44:20,640
So that's that's what I would like to.

431
00:44:21,150 --> 00:44:34,139
So, but I think, uh, if, um, in the, in the European context, it's just, I think there's, it's good to remember the,

432
00:44:34,140 --> 00:44:47,370
like the, the series of multiculturalism and of like, uh, multicultural jurisdictions, how they could work, how, um, um,

433
00:44:47,670 --> 00:44:53,670
how there could be a complexity taking into account the differences between

434
00:44:53,700 --> 00:44:58,230
traditions and how they would fit or not fit within certain categories that,

435
00:44:58,620 --> 00:45:08,280
um, I think a lot of good work could be done there, even within the religious, secular a paradigm.

436
00:45:08,700 --> 00:45:15,780
And we like in the, I think the blackening of I don't know if you use the correct word, but I mean,

437
00:45:15,800 --> 00:45:25,380
the, um, the, the critique of multicultural options has come from the right but also from the left.

438
00:45:25,980 --> 00:45:35,820
And it has been so radical that some of the options that were like working in practice, not only in English, for example, also in France,

439
00:45:36,180 --> 00:45:45,450
they have sort of like been wiped out as s as possibilities, both from the radical left critics critique and from the right.

440
00:45:45,450 --> 00:45:51,090
And I think in practical ways, these options were not so bad after all.

441
00:45:51,900 --> 00:45:54,210
If you compare it to what we have now,

442
00:45:54,450 --> 00:46:02,220
where we have this like increasing nationalist interpretations of the nations as secularist issues of the nation states and.

443
00:46:04,810 --> 00:46:07,950
And polarisation. So that's that's that's what I would.

444
00:46:08,110 --> 00:46:11,590
But it wasn't it. In fact, it was just a side remark.

445
00:46:12,010 --> 00:46:17,680
And I they didn't want to make such a big point of it because I think one.

446
00:46:17,770 --> 00:46:24,339
Well, my second step would be like, what does religious secularism hide from view?

447
00:46:24,340 --> 00:46:28,030
And then we have talked about part of it already, like the racial,

448
00:46:28,030 --> 00:46:33,909
colonial and etc. dimensions that I think we should stop talking so much in terms

449
00:46:33,910 --> 00:46:37,840
of religion and secularism and insert the other categories in on the same level.

450
00:46:38,230 --> 00:46:44,560
But something else and something also important and you also talked about it already is.

451
00:46:45,010 --> 00:46:57,040
Um, I think we have to see more the how relational and like the the professor this morning was talk about cultural semantics or cultural

452
00:46:57,040 --> 00:47:07,360
semiotics like how relational the identities of the different groups are and how much semantics plays and semiotics plays a role in there.

453
00:47:07,540 --> 00:47:13,660
So we have to take a more cultural, analytical perspective than just look at specific categories.

454
00:47:14,050 --> 00:47:18,160
And there I would have wanted to show a few quotes.

455
00:47:18,520 --> 00:47:27,070
I think we can learn there very much from some work that has been done on the position of the Jews in Europe before the Second World War,

456
00:47:28,210 --> 00:47:37,480
because there was so much consciousness of how relational the and the mirroring kind of identities and how this works.

457
00:47:37,480 --> 00:47:40,660
So for example, there's a quote from your me you'll feel, which I like.

458
00:47:40,870 --> 00:47:45,850
It's a bit complicated, but I can read it for you. And he says Like Jews.

459
00:47:46,090 --> 00:47:49,540
So in the pre work context,

460
00:47:49,720 --> 00:47:57,500
Jews provided Europeans with a mirror correct and laid a mirror in which to see a reflection of their own identity problems.

461
00:47:57,520 --> 00:48:00,099
The Jewish problem was basically a European problem.

462
00:48:00,100 --> 00:48:06,429
That is not only a problem for Europe, but a reflection of Europe's own problem with itself of how,

463
00:48:06,430 --> 00:48:11,589
in an age of rapid transformation, Europeans were understanding their own identity, future and meaning of life.

464
00:48:11,590 --> 00:48:17,470
So it's a fully relational kind of a process of meaning making.

465
00:48:18,130 --> 00:48:20,980
And another one from Hannah Arendt.

466
00:48:20,980 --> 00:48:28,750
And she makes it a little bit harsh, but then still very clear whether the Jews are a religion or a nation, a people or a race,

467
00:48:28,750 --> 00:48:35,590
a state or a tribe depends on the special being and non-Jews in whose midst Jews live have about themselves.

468
00:48:35,980 --> 00:48:40,210
But it certainly has no connection whatsoever with any German knowledge about the Jews.

469
00:48:40,600 --> 00:48:42,579
As the people of Europe became nations,

470
00:48:42,580 --> 00:48:49,120
the Jews became a nation within a nation as the Germans began to see in states something more than their political representation,

471
00:48:49,360 --> 00:48:55,390
that is as their fundamental essence. The Jews became a state within a state, and since the end of the last century,

472
00:48:55,570 --> 00:49:00,910
when the Germans transformed themselves into audience, we have been wandering through the world as Semites.

473
00:49:02,020 --> 00:49:07,569
So that's where the relationality of the categories become really important.

474
00:49:07,570 --> 00:49:12,639
And that's also something which is not so visible from this religious religio secular paradigm.

475
00:49:12,640 --> 00:49:18,129
That's that's something that I would like to bring up. And then so in my book,

476
00:49:18,130 --> 00:49:27,610
I worked very much on the like how Marshall pushed and uses all kinds of metaphors to study the this mirroring kind of questions.

477
00:49:27,850 --> 00:49:33,729
So then you can really look at literature and what it does like how does this work in the imagination?

478
00:49:33,730 --> 00:49:42,760
But we can't do this now. And but this this is as an introduction to what I would was working on when studying Judith Butter's book,

479
00:49:43,720 --> 00:49:46,600
parting ways, Jewishness and the critique of Zionism.

480
00:49:46,600 --> 00:49:56,230
But maybe we can first and then I think I think it's time for me to open it up to, you know, other people to question and that's fine.

481
00:49:56,560 --> 00:50:07,120
Yeah. So and maybe through this you will go through and anyone want to comment and question right now or.

482
00:50:14,910 --> 00:50:16,680
Well, I'm going to take that. I mean,

483
00:50:16,740 --> 00:50:32,340
I have with I want to talk about the collapsing again or the restriction of the discourse through a specific tradition which hides behind the state.

484
00:50:33,870 --> 00:50:38,639
So, for example, when it comes to different models of cultural multiculturalism or diversity,

485
00:50:38,640 --> 00:50:45,090
the only question that is not asked is sovereignty, can the sovereign changes its its shape?

486
00:50:45,090 --> 00:50:50,040
And obviously the answer is obviously never ask. So we can always ask how people correspond within it.

487
00:50:50,730 --> 00:51:04,200
One of the interesting phenomena in this regard is how, um, and this is already predicted in both remarks, uh, Islam, Judaism,

488
00:51:04,260 --> 00:51:16,920
whatever we manufacture it produces as a set meaning is starting to understand itself through American, Christian or evangelical concepts.

489
00:51:17,280 --> 00:51:25,350
So just to give an almost always obvious example, uh, there obviously are a rabbinical or traditional understanding of,

490
00:51:25,380 --> 00:51:33,760
uh, of abortion, but it has never been a political issue through a religious political issue, right?

491
00:51:33,870 --> 00:51:37,560
Until the Americans make it one and then Israel is adopted.

492
00:51:37,980 --> 00:51:41,370
So all of a sudden it becomes a new demarcated line of demarcation.

493
00:51:41,670 --> 00:51:43,680
So my question would be, again, along these lines,

494
00:51:43,680 --> 00:51:52,650
can you maybe comment a little bit about how we can indeed have this conversation without not just essentially saying Islam and Judaism and so forth,

495
00:51:52,950 --> 00:52:00,450
but without forcing or I would say positively while listening to these traditions on ways of understanding themselves?

496
00:52:01,560 --> 00:52:08,730
Well, yeah, I think that one thing we need to always ask and this is what the Tanaka quote that I that

497
00:52:08,730 --> 00:52:13,650
I read a couple of times is we need to ask who is speaking on behalf of the tradition.

498
00:52:13,950 --> 00:52:18,450
And that's not to say we shouldn't listen to that representative, whoever he or she is.

499
00:52:18,810 --> 00:52:27,299
But it is to say that we should always think about and this goes for other, you know, politics of representation in general.

500
00:52:27,300 --> 00:52:32,700
Right. So we need to ask who's speaking on behalf of that tradition and understand how they're situated in

501
00:52:32,700 --> 00:52:37,590
a particular set of institutional or state hierarchies that gives them the authority to represent.

502
00:52:37,950 --> 00:52:46,679
And so I think that's one way to get at this. I don't think that I mean, this is this is something we were discussing earlier,

503
00:52:46,680 --> 00:52:53,219
because this question of news comes back for at least for many academics, to a question of religious literacy and religious education.

504
00:52:53,220 --> 00:53:00,990
So how do we get enough different views from each tradition to represent a full and accurate?

505
00:53:01,350 --> 00:53:06,959
And I think that this falls back into this sort of secularist trap that I'm trying to diagnose here,

506
00:53:06,960 --> 00:53:11,820
which is to say that there is such a thing as this as these world religious traditions.

507
00:53:11,820 --> 00:53:16,560
And if we could just get our the right representatives, I'll give you an example.

508
00:53:16,800 --> 00:53:24,959
So when I was writing Beyond Religious Freedom, I went and hung around with religious freedom advocates because they were my ethnographic objects.

509
00:53:24,960 --> 00:53:30,660
So I went to their meetings and to the advocacy groups meetings and um, to try to understand what was,

510
00:53:30,660 --> 00:53:35,430
what their worldview was and how they understood themselves in relation to the politics of religious freedom.

511
00:53:36,030 --> 00:53:39,989
That's one of the main things that they would always say to me is, well, would you?

512
00:53:39,990 --> 00:53:50,040
They knew I was unhappy with it because I wouldn't join the movement. Would you be happy, Beth, if we had a Hindu on the International Commission,

513
00:53:50,040 --> 00:53:53,130
the Commission for US Commission for International Religious Freedom Users,

514
00:53:53,640 --> 00:53:58,049
because then, you know, we would have a representative, then you can't complain because there's a representative of each tradition.

515
00:53:58,050 --> 00:54:00,870
And what if she was even a woman? Then would you be happy?

516
00:54:01,170 --> 00:54:09,600
And this is part of this it's sort of part of this mindset that if we could just it's I call it religious freedom to point out in a snarky way,

517
00:54:10,080 --> 00:54:14,250
if we could just make it better, if we could just like turn it up to 11 for those of you,

518
00:54:14,250 --> 00:54:19,440
you're old enough to remember that me then we it would be okay, right?

519
00:54:19,440 --> 00:54:22,710
And I'm saying, no, it's the problem is much bigger than that.

520
00:54:22,800 --> 00:54:27,420
It is the entire epistemology, epistemology and you guys, I mean preaching to the converted here literally,

521
00:54:27,780 --> 00:54:37,050
but we have to find different ways of understanding what we're talking about when we think we're talking about religion.

522
00:54:37,080 --> 00:54:41,130
Yeah. And I think part of that is to get very close to the ground.

523
00:54:41,610 --> 00:54:45,899
And I mean, the example I gave about looking at the Holy Land Experience website and going

524
00:54:45,900 --> 00:54:49,650
to the Judaica shopping section and seeing the Israeli flag right there,

525
00:54:49,650 --> 00:54:55,440
it's very material. It's very real. It allows us to see how Americans are politically socialised,

526
00:54:55,440 --> 00:55:05,159
to get to the place where they actually believe wholeheartedly, that to be against Israeli policy is to be an anti-Semite.

527
00:55:05,160 --> 00:55:10,290
It is to be a Nazi. How do you get to that place? Well, that's a long distance to travel, right?

528
00:55:10,290 --> 00:55:13,800
Because there is a there are a lot of opportunities to take other paths and road.

529
00:55:14,310 --> 00:55:21,480
But that is a cultural, commercial capitalist, political and social socialisation process.

530
00:55:21,780 --> 00:55:25,200
That again, in order to see it, you do have to get pretty close to the ground.

531
00:55:25,230 --> 00:55:28,530
You have to look at the whole Going Experience website. So for me,

532
00:55:28,530 --> 00:55:34,769
it's going and finding those examples that help us to sort of to jar us out of the assumptions that we're so

533
00:55:34,770 --> 00:55:41,820
comfortable sitting in and so that we stop looking around for the Hindu to put on the commission and we start saying,

534
00:55:42,450 --> 00:55:48,810
what? Why do we have this commission? And as you know, if you've read my stuff, I have a big public op ed that says that we need to abolish it.

535
00:55:48,820 --> 00:55:55,050
So it's not a secret what my position is. But I'll tell you that they did try to put me on it too, because the Dems want to abolish it too.

536
00:55:55,440 --> 00:56:01,670
So now that I'm over religious freedom, I have to work in this field anymore where I can tell all of the dirty secrets of the religious freedom feel.

537
00:56:01,680 --> 00:56:11,010
It's very, very deeply, hotly politicised and it's very, I think, important to sort of be able to pull back and say,

538
00:56:11,580 --> 00:56:16,590
what is this project doing and whose name is it bringing freedom?

539
00:56:16,830 --> 00:56:19,830
I mean, it's the new it's the new civilising discourse, right?

540
00:56:19,830 --> 00:56:24,090
I mean, clearly, it's extremely, deeply racialized. It's gendered.

541
00:56:24,540 --> 00:56:36,719
Yes, it has got I mean, I appreciate what Yolanda was saying about bringing these other lenses out of your word to bear on these contemporary events.

542
00:56:36,720 --> 00:56:40,650
But I do think we need to be pretty close to the ground in order to rethink our assumptions on this,

543
00:56:41,010 --> 00:56:44,010
because otherwise it just becomes a trafficking in abstractions.

544
00:56:44,370 --> 00:56:52,379
And it is they're an utter religious group, which is so clearly identified with one state like Hindu.

545
00:56:52,380 --> 00:56:55,680
Is it identified with India or. But I would like.

546
00:56:55,680 --> 00:57:02,250
Sorry, you mean in the religious freedom world? Yes. Because you said there is this immediate identification with the state of Israel.

547
00:57:02,580 --> 00:57:09,150
And is that is there an utter example of where a religious group would be identified so much with one?

548
00:57:10,140 --> 00:57:14,280
Well, so what I mean in the US, I mean the good Muslim,

549
00:57:14,280 --> 00:57:18,959
bad Muslim non Danny which and I also picked it up because I think it's good religion, bad religion in general.

550
00:57:18,960 --> 00:57:22,890
That's what structures that's the lecture that I give now on the circuit is good religion,

551
00:57:22,890 --> 00:57:25,740
bad religion, because I think it's how people understand religion today.

552
00:57:26,220 --> 00:57:30,870
But I think that in in in the U.S. terms and in the religion freedom discourse,

553
00:57:32,370 --> 00:57:38,910
good religion or good Islam is associated with countries that keep their Muslims in check.

554
00:57:39,210 --> 00:57:48,600
And that's what actually I was going to talk about in terms of Egypt and Sisi today and the Saudis and bad Islam is those

555
00:57:48,600 --> 00:57:54,270
countries where Muslims run the place and have free reign to do whatever they want and create theocracy like in Iran.

556
00:57:54,900 --> 00:58:01,920
And that is the like distorted, crazy world that American foreign policy operates in.

557
00:58:02,370 --> 00:58:06,029
So I think in terms of Islam, it's divided into good and bad.

558
00:58:06,030 --> 00:58:12,299
In terms of Judaism, it's Israel. And if you want to talk about other traditions, if you want to talk about Hinduism, for example,

559
00:58:12,300 --> 00:58:20,330
I don't think that there's enough even basic understanding of where where these people are or what they're up to.

560
00:58:20,340 --> 00:58:22,450
I don't think most Americans have any idea what's going on.

561
00:58:22,510 --> 00:58:30,300
Hinduism, the only people who do are the people who are protesting yoga in the American public schools as a violation of the establishment clause,

562
00:58:30,660 --> 00:58:35,850
because they are saying that their their children are being secretly indoctrinated into Hinduism via yoga,

563
00:58:36,390 --> 00:58:41,160
which is actually a fabulous I teach this case. It's a it's a legal case in Encinitas, California.

564
00:58:41,430 --> 00:58:48,899
And it's a fabulous case, teach case to teach, because the students are I mean, they're like, wait a minute, what is it?

565
00:58:48,900 --> 00:58:51,930
Is yoga a religion? And there's actually, you know,

566
00:58:51,930 --> 00:58:58,709
it shows up the impoverished kind of edges and the ragged edges of the category in the ways

567
00:58:58,710 --> 00:59:02,910
in which it doesn't actually encapsulate the complex realities that it pretends to represent.

568
00:59:03,330 --> 00:59:07,860
And so, with the exception of those people, I don't think anyone knows what's going on with Hinduism.

569
00:59:07,860 --> 00:59:15,659
But they did want but they did have this naive sense that if they put a Hindu on that on the commission, that it would then be religiously diverse.

570
00:59:15,660 --> 00:59:23,100
And they and what I read as as a critic of this work, I am read as someone who just wants more diversity.

571
00:59:23,850 --> 00:59:30,600
There's not enough diversity, mean more diversity. And I think that that is actually that misses the bigger problem that we're trying to deal with,

572
00:59:31,470 --> 00:59:34,980
which is just this whole entire physiology of secular.

573
00:59:34,980 --> 00:59:42,629
Religious. Hmm. So one of the rhetorical tools that I'm sure is thrown at you and I'm going to throw it just for the sake of the discourse,

574
00:59:42,630 --> 00:59:48,180
is are you willing to give up on all of your hard fought and acquired liberties?

575
00:59:49,140 --> 00:59:58,150
My liberties, yes. Oh, I'm going to force you to wear a burqa now or forced me to take it off.

576
00:59:58,530 --> 01:00:02,519
Right. Yes. I don't know.

577
01:00:02,520 --> 01:00:09,749
So. So this is in the context of the not willing to give up liberties.

578
01:00:09,750 --> 01:00:15,909
But I don't usually talk about liberties. I guess I. So if we are, do I want to get we're challenging liberalism, right?

579
01:00:15,910 --> 01:00:20,139
We are challenging liberalism that we are challenging the framework within religious diversity as discussed,

580
01:00:20,140 --> 01:00:25,190
which is the challenging liberal constructs of religion. Yes. So are you challenging liberalism as a whole?

581
01:00:25,210 --> 01:00:31,960
Realism as a whole? It depends what you mean by liberalism. There are certain aspects of it that that I'm definitely sympathetic toward.

582
01:00:32,350 --> 01:00:37,120
But again, this goes back to something in the legislator role that you brought up, Bill.

583
01:00:37,120 --> 01:00:40,329
He said, you know, was it you're in a tin tin tin.

584
01:00:40,330 --> 01:00:45,880
I can't see you. You said you were a legislator and you know, you're a critic, not a legislator.

585
01:00:46,090 --> 01:00:47,950
And I think I feel that way, too.

586
01:00:47,980 --> 01:00:56,910
I don't feel like I'm in the business of legislating how you know which particular school of thought people need to affiliate themselves with.

587
01:00:56,920 --> 01:00:59,110
I find that not that interesting.

588
01:00:59,530 --> 01:01:06,519
So, no, I'm not going to say that I'm against liberalism, but I also feel like that's just that's trafficking in the abstractions I know.

589
01:01:06,520 --> 01:01:09,249
And this is what happens with political philosophers who deal with these questions.

590
01:01:09,250 --> 01:01:13,270
We have to ask these questions and then they get trapped in this imagination.

591
01:01:13,900 --> 01:01:19,010
But so maybe you it more specifically when it comes to your notions of maybe again,

592
01:01:19,120 --> 01:01:26,110
if you if we if we do legislate and we think constructively of what would be a more or a better multicultural setting,

593
01:01:26,710 --> 01:01:36,160
how do we the obvious question that is asked in this context, how do we balance the well, the acknowledgement of certain traditions right.

594
01:01:36,160 --> 01:01:39,400
To be expressed with, let's say, individual liberties.

595
01:01:40,150 --> 01:01:45,070
Right. I mean, I think from the 1980s and I was shooting the 1990s, the question would be,

596
01:01:45,070 --> 01:01:51,530
so what do we do with the tribe whose tradition demands the subjugation of women, for example?

597
01:01:51,580 --> 01:01:55,150
Can we allow that all these again, political, philosophical, analytical questions.

598
01:01:55,750 --> 01:02:01,210
Can you maybe address this in a in a more constructive way than might delay between question?

599
01:02:01,750 --> 01:02:04,750
Well, it's a I think it's an important question.

600
01:02:05,350 --> 01:02:12,879
And I was also thinking it was maybe linked to what Bill was talking about this morning when we were

601
01:02:12,880 --> 01:02:21,110
talking when you were telling him about the use of the category of religion with the Pueblo Indians.

602
01:02:21,850 --> 01:02:30,129
Yeah. And then you told about how the category was invented for them.

603
01:02:30,130 --> 01:02:37,150
They didn't have it. It gave them some space, otherwise they wouldn't have had.

604
01:02:37,810 --> 01:02:44,140
But then it gave also individuals within the community the space to withdraw and to say, well, it's my rights not to do it.

605
01:02:44,860 --> 01:02:50,980
And then I was thinking and asking myself. And do you have any normative evaluation of that?

606
01:02:51,160 --> 01:02:58,059
Because it's an important question. If you don't, that's you can remain entirely neutral.

607
01:02:58,060 --> 01:03:04,480
But you can also say, well, there's an ambivalence to it and not just be nostalgic about when these rights weren't there.

608
01:03:04,900 --> 01:03:06,490
And I would say it's ambivalent.

609
01:03:07,150 --> 01:03:17,440
And I was also reminded of a discussion among anthropologists that a few years ago that I had is in the entire upper north of Europe in Tromso.

610
01:03:17,890 --> 01:03:30,040
And it was about a research one of them had done in on a South American island where the concept of freedom of religion came

611
01:03:30,040 --> 01:03:38,300
up very much with the whole American baggage and also with the advent of Christianity and with conversion and the like.

612
01:03:38,320 --> 01:03:39,640
It's old age, though.

613
01:03:40,420 --> 01:03:50,020
But then I think there was some consensus among them, like there is an ambivalence to this whole it is not you cannot say it's good or bad.

614
01:03:50,620 --> 01:04:00,460
And that's also like, would you be willing to give up the the liberties that are there under religious freedom of belief?

615
01:04:00,700 --> 01:04:04,749
You can also say, well, we have to understand better what it would mean in different contexts,

616
01:04:04,750 --> 01:04:11,260
but it's still an important concept and especially I think that's what I meant with like the multiculturalism too.

617
01:04:12,280 --> 01:04:20,260
Like in the European context, it's one of the ways we have in the legal system some leeway for different groups and also for different traditions.

618
01:04:20,680 --> 01:04:26,080
And it's not it wouldn't be wise to give it up before we have this other language, but that's my idea.

619
01:04:26,410 --> 01:04:30,819
And so that's the that's the ambivalence.

620
01:04:30,820 --> 01:04:35,469
And just be critical about it. That's that's important. Like, what does it hide from view?

621
01:04:35,470 --> 01:04:41,890
Where does it doesn't it do the work that's very important, but not to just bash it too much.

622
01:04:42,340 --> 01:04:47,780
That's that's that's that's what I would think. Also in the legal system, it's like we were talking about that.

623
01:04:47,800 --> 01:04:58,540
It's really like if you talk with judges or with people who have to, to use the category in a in a legal system,

624
01:04:58,840 --> 01:05:06,070
then you cannot do with just saying it's a very problematic category and you have to do something with it.

625
01:05:06,430 --> 01:05:12,460
And that's where we're. But to invent this other language and to say, what are the problems, it's very important.

626
01:05:12,920 --> 01:05:16,360
But. Yeah. Yeah. So that's that's what would be my.

627
01:05:16,520 --> 01:05:18,380
So I want to go to I mean actually to go to battle.

628
01:05:18,390 --> 01:05:23,450
But through, I mean, through a segway of the the Malaysian and maybe the Egyptian or, you know, Arab Muslim cases.

629
01:05:23,780 --> 01:05:30,169
I'm thinking specifically about the wild book, The Impossible State, where the argument is made.

630
01:05:30,170 --> 01:05:34,810
I think it's again, it should be preaching to the converted in our case that maybe not everybody.

631
01:05:34,820 --> 01:05:43,950
Well, not so. The argument being that if we consider authentically and truthfully what, uh,

632
01:05:44,570 --> 01:05:51,950
Muslim traditions tell us about governance, we see that it is simply incompatible with the modern notion of sovereignty.

633
01:05:52,190 --> 01:06:01,670
So to designate a certain state, an Islamic state, is simply an oxymoron, because the notion of the modern state, as we understand it today,

634
01:06:01,940 --> 01:06:08,790
and the notion of Islamic, as he would say, emerges out of the traditions of, uh,

635
01:06:08,810 --> 01:06:14,450
of Muslim law, of Sharia, whatever, are simply two fundamentally incompatible.

636
01:06:14,720 --> 01:06:20,240
And then an interesting question that emerges out of it is that what happens when it is nevertheless done?

637
01:06:20,690 --> 01:06:29,660
So when a state calls itself an Islamic republic of Iran, or when Israel identifies as a Jewish state to certain degrees?

638
01:06:30,080 --> 01:06:34,729
Um, I haven't written most of his book and I know that they should. What happens in other cases?

639
01:06:34,730 --> 01:06:38,540
Can you maybe think about this nationalisation of tradition?

640
01:06:38,930 --> 01:06:47,870
Yeah, I think what happens is this trap, this inevitable ineluctable and the judges are in this position, as Yolanda was just saying, reduction.

641
01:06:48,020 --> 01:06:51,460
Yes. Collapse. Yes. Flattening, yes.

642
01:06:51,530 --> 01:06:56,929
Of what? Of what is it? Kind of impossible to even encompass?

643
01:06:56,930 --> 01:07:03,440
Yes. Set of traditions, histories, practice, institutions, etc., which we may or may not want to classify as religious.

644
01:07:03,440 --> 01:07:11,360
To me, it doesn't matter. Yeah, it's it's it's immaterial. But nonetheless, they get collapsed into a particular and authoritative.

645
01:07:11,540 --> 01:07:16,459
So where is the resistance coming? And this is this is this is I mean, this is what's interesting.

646
01:07:16,460 --> 01:07:20,090
I mean, there's a I think that there are different answers to that question.

647
01:07:20,090 --> 01:07:27,890
Some people would say, including Hillock, that this is a sort of the violence of modern sovereignty in the modern nation state.

648
01:07:28,520 --> 01:07:30,979
And in that and that's the sense in which I think for him,

649
01:07:30,980 --> 01:07:37,820
Sharia is inherently definitionally ontologically incapable of being assimilated into the modern

650
01:07:37,820 --> 01:07:42,650
state project that it does so much damage to what Sharia was as a living set of practices,

651
01:07:42,980 --> 01:07:48,590
that it cannot be encapsulated or encompassed by the modern state without changing it to such

652
01:07:48,590 --> 01:07:52,639
an extent of transforming it to such a degree that it's no longer recognisable as Sharia.

653
01:07:52,640 --> 01:07:56,120
It's something else and it's not a pretty something else in his view.

654
01:07:56,510 --> 01:08:04,129
So I think there's a sense in which he's what he's what he's referring to is very similar to what I'm referring to.

655
01:08:04,130 --> 01:08:07,940
And what Thomas is referring to is I'm calling it a trap, Tom.

656
01:08:07,940 --> 01:08:14,690
He talks about it just as this rights versus rights capture of the legal and social imaginary that the field of political

657
01:08:14,690 --> 01:08:22,760
possibility is so delimited in Malaysia because of the capture by the state of the ability to construe what is Islamic,

658
01:08:23,060 --> 01:08:28,040
what is this authentically Islam and authentically Islamic and what is liberal, secular,

659
01:08:28,250 --> 01:08:36,709
and that because the state has kind of monopolised that field of possibility, there's very little room for alternative interpretations.

660
01:08:36,710 --> 01:08:41,150
And not only is it is that these judges don't choose to interpret is that and so what

661
01:08:41,150 --> 01:08:44,900
I was getting at and talking about who surveys it's that people have been socialised,

662
01:08:44,900 --> 01:08:50,959
kind of trained and they've come to understand Islam as what the state is telling them.

663
01:08:50,960 --> 01:09:00,310
It is, as opposed to any number of other interpretations which would be arguably equally valid or should be considered given the, you know,

664
01:09:00,380 --> 01:09:08,300
multi faceted tradition as it's been lived out historically in many different contexts, including but not limited to the Malaysian context.

665
01:09:08,720 --> 01:09:14,480
So there so I guess I'm not sure if that answers your question.

666
01:09:14,520 --> 01:09:15,889
You want to talk about other states,

667
01:09:15,890 --> 01:09:28,010
but there's a sense in which any state from this perspective that is claiming to be a Christian state, a muslim state, a Jewish state,

668
01:09:28,490 --> 01:09:36,319
is that that claim is a particular kind of politics and in particular kind of geopolitics that I think

669
01:09:36,320 --> 01:09:43,280
has to be unpacked and reckoned with and understood in much more nuanced way than what we usually see.

670
01:09:44,450 --> 01:09:48,880
So. Any questions we have.

671
01:09:49,060 --> 01:09:52,639
What, ten more minutes before? Or comments or comments or.

672
01:09:52,640 --> 01:09:55,690
Oh, yeah. You can't all agree with everything that said.

673
01:09:56,040 --> 01:10:09,290
Yeah, it is after lunch. Piece of information.

674
01:10:10,130 --> 01:10:13,540
You mentioned that. I don't really. Yeah, that was.

675
01:10:13,720 --> 01:10:18,360
That was it. Oh, I'm in the running.

676
01:10:18,860 --> 01:10:23,510
No, no, no. That's not a book. It's a Hegel, Nietzsche and the Jews.

677
01:10:24,770 --> 01:10:32,570
Um, and then. I don't know, I don't remember the subtitle by heart, but if you look at Hegel nature and the Jews, you will find it.

678
01:10:33,290 --> 01:10:38,240
Yeah. And this quote was from the introduction. Because I know.

679
01:10:40,590 --> 01:10:44,230
And then she said, Yeah, yeah, it's the same old. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

680
01:10:45,030 --> 01:10:55,360
And. Basically, Chris, the idea that there is this run or converted but you know,

681
01:10:55,750 --> 01:11:08,080
the convert from Judaism Christianity to forced conversion and this creates a split identity which is at the heart of European modernity.

682
01:11:10,240 --> 01:11:17,740
And I find that somehow radicalised is something which is really very complex.

683
01:11:17,950 --> 01:11:22,990
So that's why my ears perked up when you mentioned his name in a quotation.

684
01:11:23,470 --> 01:11:28,720
Yeah, very, very interesting. So I just. I need to.

685
01:11:30,470 --> 01:11:36,730
And I want to read I have the book on my shelf because it's sort of like what

686
01:11:36,760 --> 01:11:41,950
would be interesting to me there is that how it's sort of like looks at how like,

687
01:11:42,180 --> 01:11:53,170
um, um, uh, differences within identities, how this has a history in Europe and it's part of the history of modernity and that it doesn't,

688
01:11:55,210 --> 01:11:59,530
it doesn't start with a modern secular subject and it's just not that.

689
01:11:59,530 --> 01:12:04,089
So that, that there's like. That's what interests me in that book.

690
01:12:04,090 --> 01:12:11,200
But I didn't really yet but read it in conjunction with a scathing review, I'll tell you that.

691
01:12:12,290 --> 01:12:19,780
Oh, and the title of is reviews for the Unpronounceable Cause I Come From A.

692
01:12:23,040 --> 01:12:26,760
And more trouble, possibly. Yeah.

693
01:12:27,840 --> 01:12:33,700
If we already discussing you were going to have to mention he's very interesting in this regard because we are and I'm sorry that he's not here.

694
01:12:33,720 --> 01:12:40,550
Maybe he's out of, uh, because you that wrote an interesting, uh, review of another project with which you really were,

695
01:12:40,620 --> 01:12:47,850
was involved, which was an attempt at encyclopaedia ing sort of to make an encyclopaedia of secular Jewish identity,

696
01:12:48,540 --> 01:12:57,089
where you will write this introduction where he needs to account for what is secular Judaism, and he goes through a whole list of negation.

697
01:12:57,090 --> 01:13:00,630
It's not about law, it's not about religion. Obviously, it's, you know, it's secular.

698
01:13:01,080 --> 01:13:12,630
And he ends up with an, uh, an affirmation that what defines the Jew as a Jew, specifically the secular Jew, is the anti-Semitic look at the Jew.

699
01:13:13,110 --> 01:13:19,710
So it's exactly the reverse of the quote. You you mentioned that in a sense, the outside forces on the circle.

700
01:13:20,490 --> 01:13:28,050
So without antisemitism, there would not be this project of positively asserting a secular Jewish identity,

701
01:13:28,290 --> 01:13:33,060
which was, uh, you know, setting to doing this, uh, and this collection, which is very interesting.

702
01:13:33,270 --> 01:13:36,360
This is like strata. It is, yeah. Yeah. So. Mm hmm.

703
01:13:36,480 --> 01:13:40,890
But he's not here to defend himself and this. So, you know, we can't. Uh huh.

704
01:13:42,420 --> 01:13:48,760
It's kind of. It's. It's a bit more on this whole question, I mean.

705
01:13:49,930 --> 01:13:57,059
Opting out of that. Used to do it talking about. But you said you wanted to critique the critique system.

706
01:13:57,060 --> 01:14:04,470
And I saw that it was very sort of an internal critique of Western liberalism.

707
01:14:07,320 --> 01:14:10,799
What's your sense of ways of being that?

708
01:14:10,800 --> 01:14:14,340
He's very much like that, of course.

709
01:14:14,340 --> 01:14:23,970
What I mean is often his own critique is being absolutely right, kind of naive or romanticising what pre-modern was.

710
01:14:24,210 --> 01:14:27,830
Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about this.

711
01:14:28,440 --> 01:14:33,299
How do you think about this sort of these dilemmas of opting out?

712
01:14:33,300 --> 01:14:38,310
And I don't to couch as a religious freedom because like you don't have a sense of catch cause you're deconstructing.

713
01:14:38,310 --> 01:14:44,250
But then what would be sort of a positive way of being that would allow, you could say,

714
01:14:44,700 --> 01:14:50,840
ways of protesting or negotiating as a community to find ways of being like, what?

715
01:14:51,180 --> 01:14:53,700
How should we think about this? What kind of tools to use?

716
01:14:54,000 --> 01:14:58,510
Because it is this dilemma between the internal voice of secular majority and the full practices.

717
01:14:58,780 --> 01:15:03,030
And I just think, yeah, and it's a vicious sort of circles, but it's important as well.

718
01:15:03,060 --> 01:15:11,040
I think we have to contend with. I mean, anyone who knows critiques of Western liberalism and also freedom of religion or the press as they should be.

719
01:15:11,340 --> 01:15:15,510
Yeah especially has tons of period is this is a mostly I'm very much sympathetic but

720
01:15:16,110 --> 01:15:19,739
automatically from people within these conservative Thomas who actually contesting

721
01:15:19,740 --> 01:15:23,370
power relations in the high court in a record setting immediately they will come back

722
01:15:23,370 --> 01:15:27,689
to this anyway using these tools to open up that kind of space that we can do X,

723
01:15:27,690 --> 01:15:31,350
Y and Z. I think it's something you can't just dismiss.

724
01:15:31,470 --> 01:15:36,300
Now you have just reminded me. Yeah, that's a supplement with some critique I just came through.

725
01:15:36,310 --> 01:15:42,030
So, I mean, for me personally, I think it has to be critiqued on many levels,

726
01:15:42,030 --> 01:15:45,879
but I think what she did in that article is essentially remove him from the Iranian context,

727
01:15:45,880 --> 01:15:49,500
and it puts him in this logic of which I think that I was talking about, which is the war on terror.

728
01:15:49,800 --> 01:15:58,780
Moderate Muslims are not completely does a massive injustice seem to actually have a massive transformative effect?

729
01:15:58,780 --> 01:16:05,630
So I don't know if it's critiquing him either, but I think we have to do it correctly and.

730
01:16:07,580 --> 01:16:11,510
Sort of site of proportion and in the context of this.

731
01:16:11,920 --> 01:16:14,980
So if you have any thoughts. I agree.

732
01:16:14,990 --> 01:16:19,670
And I think she did the same with the national site in the Egyptian context.

733
01:16:19,670 --> 01:16:27,950
It's also a very problematic kind of and also romanticisation after of the of the Islamists as a critique.

734
01:16:28,370 --> 01:16:37,470
So that's the risk if you critique secularism of very much like what is what is the kind of politics this is doing?

735
01:16:37,850 --> 01:16:47,330
And it's that's an and that's important. What I would think is very important is like we in the break, we talked about decolonising political theory.

736
01:16:47,660 --> 01:16:58,819
I think what we what would be important, I think, is to have to to use different categories at the same time.

737
01:16:58,820 --> 01:17:02,810
So not to concentrate on religion and secularism too much.

738
01:17:04,280 --> 01:17:06,530
Look at the history, also their colonial history,

739
01:17:07,340 --> 01:17:15,680
but then also look at intersections with other concepts and fields like with race, but also with gender.

740
01:17:16,400 --> 01:17:20,090
So look at oh and also how they interact.

741
01:17:20,750 --> 01:17:25,670
Now, I like an article from Nikita, the one I don't know if you know her.

742
01:17:25,880 --> 01:17:35,450
She's a political theorist of Indian background, has been in Germany for a long while and now she's working still in Germany and she has one article.

743
01:17:35,450 --> 01:17:49,700
It's called The Empire Prays Back. And then it's about all the dilemmas that there are in different and how difficult it is to address power,

744
01:17:49,700 --> 01:17:53,959
relations and inequalities and that you need more categories. That's not what she says.

745
01:17:53,960 --> 01:18:01,580
That's what I saying. Like, for example, she says somewhere there's no decolonisation with without the simpleton ization.

746
01:18:01,760 --> 01:18:05,330
So also decolonisation, it's not you cannot bet just on one term.

747
01:18:05,690 --> 01:18:14,030
You have to look at I think the basic term still would be inequalities or social inequalities and their history and their very complicated histories.

748
01:18:14,030 --> 01:18:19,600
And then look at all the different categorisations that play a role and they have to address position attitudes,

749
01:18:19,970 --> 01:18:23,120
different scales as well, exactly like the local scale.

750
01:18:23,120 --> 01:18:32,090
And then of course the empire, for instance. I mean, they might interact and the way they do is to talk about concretely.

751
01:18:34,850 --> 01:18:39,200
Yeah, but I agree. And so we need the different categories.

752
01:18:39,200 --> 01:18:40,460
We cannot just use one.

753
01:18:40,670 --> 01:18:47,420
And maybe I can react to what you said about sovereignty, but for me, it's still that's such a complicated and difficult concept.

754
01:18:47,420 --> 01:18:56,629
So it's an it's the. But also like there was critique of sovereignty in I was already you wrote about sovereignty like that it's also

755
01:18:56,630 --> 01:19:04,560
the starting concept when you talk about the nation state in the sense that it has never been a sovereign as well,

756
01:19:04,610 --> 01:19:11,580
you know, more. But I mean, for example, if you look at European political practices, etc., there's the, the,

757
01:19:11,770 --> 01:19:19,900
the imaginary of sovereignty is very important, but the practices are much more like a diffuse, diffuse.

758
01:19:20,420 --> 01:19:25,220
And so that's also needs to be taken into account if you look comparatively.

759
01:19:25,640 --> 01:19:26,720
That's then yeah.

760
01:19:27,380 --> 01:19:41,780
Experience with but just interested in the way that we we so try to avoid essentialism and so we just talk about contesting power relations.

761
01:19:43,160 --> 01:19:48,260
But the people that are contesting power relations are often facing the last time.

762
01:19:48,620 --> 01:19:54,470
They don't think of themselves as contesting power relations. They think of themselves as defending the truth.

763
01:19:55,460 --> 01:19:59,930
Right. And so they want not to avoid essentialism,

764
01:19:59,930 --> 01:20:08,780
but but one of the side effects of avoiding essentialism is not allowing people to claim that certain forms of Islam,

765
01:20:08,780 --> 01:20:11,830
Christianity or whatever are true. Right.

766
01:20:11,850 --> 01:20:16,910
But this is the real the real Islam. This is the real Christianity.

767
01:20:17,300 --> 01:20:22,260
And in some ways, you have to allow people to make those kinds of claims.

768
01:20:22,260 --> 01:20:26,030
So you have to allow them to do theology.

769
01:20:26,150 --> 01:20:29,830
And that's really that's a really difficult thing.

770
01:20:30,170 --> 01:20:37,250
And oftentimes we just want to shy away. And that that seems like one of the reasons why we want to appeal to something like religious freedom,

771
01:20:37,670 --> 01:20:42,229
because we want to say, well, nobody can say what's true and what's not true.

772
01:20:42,230 --> 01:20:47,960
So all we can defend is your right to, you know, to say whatever you want to say.

773
01:20:48,890 --> 01:20:52,570
But in some ways, that doesn't justice to the idea.

774
01:20:52,580 --> 01:20:55,080
So the question that you raise, you know,

775
01:20:55,580 --> 01:21:03,260
like what happens when you you say it's impossible that you can't recognise the reconciled Islam with the state?

776
01:21:03,260 --> 01:21:06,470
Is that what happens? Would it actually happen? I mean and.

777
01:21:06,650 --> 01:21:10,010
I want to look at it from two angles or from one angle. You've got to look at it.

778
01:21:10,080 --> 01:21:16,460
And so now say, okay, maybe that is empirically speaking, that is an expression of Islam,

779
01:21:17,180 --> 01:21:24,440
but you have to allow the normative judgements as well for people that are Muslims to say no, that's not.

780
01:21:24,470 --> 01:21:32,090
Yeah, you know, and here's and here's why. Here, here we have some kind of normative criteria to say that's you know, that's.

781
01:21:33,220 --> 01:21:39,090
That's. That's not. Yeah. I think we should end here.

782
01:21:39,120 --> 01:21:47,740
Thank you so much for this. While we were sitting without noticing, there's coffee and and some refreshments for all.

783
01:21:47,790 --> 01:21:52,440
We are meeting again. We're reconvening at four. But stay here. Enjoy the refreshments.

784
01:21:53,310 --> 01:21:57,030
Thank you. Thank you so much. Talk about butlers. Oh, yes, you can do that.

785
01:21:57,040 --> 01:22:00,810
But I mean, actually, tell us exactly what Bill was saying, because it's a Jewish.