Wole Soyinka gave a video address to the Global Humanism Conference at which he was given its International Humanist award today. The Independent gives us a summary.
Atrocities carried out by fanatics such as Nigeria’s Boko Haram show the dangers of religious belief with the “scroll of faith … indistinguishable from the roll call of death”, according to the Nobel prize-winning author Wole Soyinka.
In a video address to the World Humanist Congress, at which he will be presented with its main award today, Soyinka will argue that even moderate religious leaders may be “vicariously liable” for sectarian hatred if they have failed to argue against it.
The actions of the Islamist extremists of Boko Haram – bombing churches, killing civilians and abducting girls – are a warning to the world, Soyinka said.
“The conflict between humanists and religionists has always been one between the torch of enlightenment and the chains of enslavement,” said Soyinka. “Those chains are not merely visible, but cruelly palpable. All too often they lead directly to the gallows, beheadings, to death under a hail of stones. In parts of the world today, the scroll of faith is indistinguishable from the roll call of death.”
Bravo. And damned straight this –
I still remember the Catholic clergy in Rwanda calling for the death of their neighbors, while Rome remained silent. They are culpable.
Implicit complicity by virtue of wilful inaction is certainly a type of culpability.
(Having been brought up Catholic, I learnt about about sins of commission and sins of omission at a very young age)
Rome has sins aplenty of both types. All rather recent. In fact, ongoing.
Sort of the way all Muslims (and all Arabs, too) deserve to be slaughtered because they’re “vicariously liable” for 9/11 by failing to denounce terrorists/Islam/America-haters to our satisfaction?
I certainly see the moral culpability in silence. But this is dangerous ground he’s walking on.
Masked Avenger
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the message Wole was trying to convey, or any message that he did in fact convey.
Reality_based_community,
In what way were you confused? I stated that there’s a significant problem with the concept of “vicarious liability.” I illustrated this by citing the way in which RWNJ’s use “vicarious liability” to justify atrocities against Muslims (and non-Muslims who are Arab, Arab-looking, Pashtun, Persian, or just plain brownish).
No, actually, you didn’t. That’s decidedly not what you did.
Avenger, I agree the concept can be problematic depending on how wide the net is cast and how indiscriminately it is employed. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Wole isn’t suggesting that anyone be massacred, so much as trying to awaken the moral conscious of religious leaders. Unless I’m missing something…
Reread #4 please, Ophelia. While I’m always aware that I might be expressing myself poorly or opaquely, I just reread it myself and I would say that its point in this case is CRYSTAL clear. I also do not see how anyone with normal reading skills would conclude that I am claiming Wole made that point, or any point whatsoever, about Muslims.
[OT + meta]
A Masked Avenger @9:
Perhaps to you it’s “CRYSTAL clear”, but to me it has such a marked opacity that I can’t even see to whom you addressed your comment.
(The claim about the supposed deserving nature of Arabs as slaughter victims is… dramatic, but how you interpret Ophelia’s mere quotations as such is opaque to me)
Avenger – I took your point that Wole is taking a “slippery slope” (the best kind) via your sentence “But this is dangerous ground he’s [Wole] walking on.”
It’s right to call out the “moderate” clergy for either remaining silent, or worse, contributing to the toxic atmosphere against free thinkers.