I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

"Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. I have argued that the religious dogmatism of the Jewish settlers could well be the cause of World War III. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now acknowledge the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim violence. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals. While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness. Rather than continue to squander precious time, energy, and good will by denying the role that Islam now plays in perpetuating Muslim violence, we should urge Muslim communities, East and West, to reform the ideology of their religion. This will not be easy, as the Koran and hadith offer precious little basis for a Muslim Enlightenment, but it is necessary. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world. It should be clear that I am not speaking about a race or an ethnicity here; I am speaking about the logical consequences of specific ideas.

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. If you doubt whether the comparison is valid, ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are. Palestinian Christians also suffer the indignity of the Israeli occupation. This is practically a science experiment: take the same people, speaking the same language, put them in the same horrendous circumstance, but give them slightly different religious beliefs--and then watch what happens. What happens is, they behave differently."

Is this unreasonable?

that's why, for example, you can find some middle eastern practices that western liberals find abhorrent -- "honor killings," for example -- that are traditional in the christian tribal cultures of the middle east as much as they are in the muslim tribal cultures. (they have no basis i know of in the quran, although like anything i suppose an imam who wanted to find a justification for them could.)

what i'm saying is that isolating a religion from its cultural, political and economic circumstances and pretending that the religion is the cause of everything you see in the culture is a disingenuous and not very helpful way to look at things. not that specific religious doctrines don't have cultural effects, they do. but what you find if you look at the history of religions is that different aspects of the faith are emphasized at different places and times, and the reasons for that have a lot more to do with contemporaneous politics and economics than anything "inherent" to the religion.

ascribing "inherent" traits to peoples, cultures, races and religions has a long history, but not a pretty one.

I'm still seriously shocked that anyone finds this a laudable thought. It makes me wish there were words that were fundamentally hurtful to heterosexual white men, so I could post them, over and over, and ask some of you whether you thought that was a good thing for me to do.

but see, my feelings about all this would probably be different if it were some clear-cut thing like "nigger," "kike," etc. not that i think those words should be outlawed, but it would change the discussion a little. the fact that what's at issue is outrage over the violation of religious taboos -- and that at least some of the reaction, including from moderate voices, has been this emphasis on the need to "respect" religion -- is what really trips my "danger! warning!" sensors.

because, i mean...what if i don't really respect religions, per se? and what if i, as secular liberal, am feeling just a little big beleaguered and marginalized myself these days? why am i supposed to cede ground to people who get outraged by a couple of pictures, just because some holy book says so?

You can call me every name in the book, nabisco, and I'll get offended, but I'll be damned if I claim you have no right to hurl those insults.

the point of course isn't whether it's a good thing to do. it's whether it's an acceptable thing to do

You're totally fudging by using the word "acceptable," which means very little in this context. And you're fudging, I expect, because you know very well that nobody on this entire thread -- amid hundreds of posts -- has at any point questioned whether papers have the right to print whatever they like. Nobody's questioned that we have to "accept" it. The point is that people have the right to say lots of things that are still shitty things to say, and we have every right to disapprove of it. Look again at the sentence I quoted, dude:

as soon as people start buying the idea that there are things you shouldn't say even though you theoretically can, then you're taking a step toward not actually being allowed to say them

And I think that's vaguely bullshit. I think people "shouldn't" call me a nigger. That's not some slippery-slope erosion of freedom of speech; that's hoping that people won't be idiots or assholes. And it needn't be a step toward a world where people aren't allowed to say it -- it's a step toward a world where people don't say it, because they know it's a shitty thing to say. I'm incensed that you'd pretend I'm trying to limit people's speech, that I want to disallow people from saying things, like genuinely kind of furious. (Sorry.) But this is a really simple distinction, and it's one you obviously understand: there's a difference barring speech and just thinking it's shitty, shitty, shitty. I can support people's right to say things without supporting what they say; this isn't in the least complicated. I can support people's right to say things and still call out to high heaven that I don't think they should have said it.

and omg, i agree with ethan. which gives me hope for the future.

(As for the content of the behavior being suggested from on high in that particular case: I am generally in agreement with you, although probably at different points on the spectrum. Religion operates on two very different levels in this world. One is as a system of thought; the other is as a basic point of identity, one that come very close to racial identification. Now this is me suggesting behavior: I am all in favor of people very freely and pointedly going at the first of those things, the actual systems of thought and behavior. But I also think people would generally be wise to take great care about tripping over onto the other side of that.)

no, i actually disagree with it on a right-to-speech level. or, i think the content of what they're saying itself undervalues the right to speech. but i think part of this is maybe you don't see any major threat to actual free-speech practice here. certainly some other commentators i've read treat the free-speech issue as a largely theoretical one, like, we're not in danger of losing free spech rights, and given that, we need to be really careful about how we use them. i agree we should be careful how we use free speech, for a lot of reasons, but i don't agree that it's not endangered. i think it's always endangered, and i think protecting it against erosion or encroachment is going to ultimately be crucial to navigating all of the culture/politics/economic clashes to come.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/gypsyfrocksbedlam/ofarrell.gif

the dynamics of anger in the middle east:

The crisis over the cartoons has often been portrayed as a clash in values between the Muslim and Western worlds, focusing on issues of free expression and respect for other cultures.

But that crisis and the ferry sinking also reflect another difference in perspective. While the West speaks of democracy and freedom, Muslims here tend to speak of justice. There is widespread feeling that the region's governments deny their people justice, and this feeling has been instrumental in the increased support for Islamists throughout the Middle East, whether the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or Hamas among the Palestinians.

"It has reached to the point where Egyptians do not feel entitled to anything, and all they want is justice," said Ibrahim Aslan, a leading Egyptian writer. "Across history, in literature, Egyptian peasants asked for justice, not for freedom or democracy. Just justice. Social justice."

denmark's rising right wing:

A country that touts itself as the world's biggest net contributor per capita of foreign aid recently introduced legislation making it virtually impossible for torture victims to obtain Danish citizenship. Successful asylum applications to Denmark plummeted to 10 percent last year, from 53 percent.

In a sign that the cartoon crisis is fanning even greater anti-immigrant sentiment, the People's Party leader, Pia Kjaersgaard, wrote in her weekly newsletter that the Islamic religious community here was populated with "pathetic and lying men with worrying suspect views on democracy and women." She added: "They are the enemy inside. The Trojan horse in Denmark. A kind of Islamic mafia."

and on the op-ed page, a dane on danish racism...

What foreigners have failed to recognize is that we Danes have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. To my mind, the publication of the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark.

...a muslim scholar on the politics of it...

Within the Muslim world, the cartoon imbroglio has given ammunition to the two entrenched forces for censorship — namely, authoritarian regimes and their Islamic fundamentalist opposition. Both would prefer to silence their critics. By evincing outrage over the Danish cartoons, authoritarian regimes seek to divert attention from their own manifold failures and to bolster their religious credentials against the Islamists who seek to unseat them.

...and good old stanley fish on why liberals like me just don't get it:

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me. This was certainly the message conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, who explained his decision to reprint one of the cartoons thusly: "It is one thing to respect other people's faith and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos."

Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to "accept" the taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter his behavior in any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger of crossing the line between "respecting" a taboo and taking it seriously, and he is not about to do that. ...

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give — ask for deference rather than mere respect — it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of every newspaper in the country.

I agree to a certain extent, at least it's another perspective on the whole thing. The problem is not that I don't have convincing arguments, it's that I know a huge percentage of people are not even concerned with any arguments or reflection of their position. So I think while the discussion on this thread has been very very enlightening, there's still the problem of actually getting people to consider ANY of the points made here.

Agreeing with Gypsy on a lot of his "works" in this thread, I too think it would be a dangerous precedent to endorse too many rules (laws or sociocultural norms) prohibiting stuff that could be "offensive" to any religion.

People who think it's a dangerous precedent to encourage good manners and other behaviors which encourage peace rather than trying to incite destructive protests to drive up circulation numbers sound like a bunch of sheltered, shut-in, coffeeshop activist pricks. Fire in a crowded theater = prior restraint.

gypsy you should be proud it took this long for you to just be talking to yourself on this thread, I've been doing it from the beginning with only a brief respite when a troglodytic 3-letter lurker saw a one-sentence post and thought "finally, something here that I can comprehend!"

Maybe you wouldn't be talking only to yourself here if you made the effort to provide arguments which others, i.e. me, could actually understand without taking "irony" courses.

that most recent article i linked from ohio is the kind of thing i'm worried about. which is not a matter of the first amendment being repealed. a lot of curbs on speech come not from legislation but from social norms. which, as you say, is good and necessary to the functioning of society. but those norms are always being negotiated -- the line of where things become unacceptable is always in flux. and just because some significant degree of tongue-biting is important to civil society, that doesn't mean that all tongue-biting is good. my concern with this issue is that it has the potential -- which is already maybe being realized -- to move that line in such a way that it becomes difficult to talk candidly or critically about certain issues for fear of giving offense. i guess the fact that a rabbi joined in the chorus against that paper in ohio could be seen as heart-warming interfaith sympathy. or it could be seen as religious authorities of different faiths asserting that religious faith itself should be above critical commentary. as someone with more instinctive sympathy for editorial cartoonists than religious authorities, i incline toward the latter and don't find it heartening.

Score one for BushCo!

we know what the MPAA does for a living and why it exists, too (negotiating norms)

we know what the first amendment says, and the universal declaration of human rights and what prior restraint means, and we understand the slippery slope argument

the point has been that "don't be a stupid asshole" is and always has been justifiable as a cultural form of prior restraint, and for good reason. nitsuh has made this point much better than me about 40,000 times on this thread so far, I think.
To quote Bill Cosby, "Parents aren't interested in JUSTICE! We just want QUIET!!"

there is actually not a single person on this planet, probably not even in the Vatican, who is actually trying to use this issue as a way to legislate or enforce a ban on "so jesus, mohammed and the buddha..." jokes.

and lastly, gypsy, maybe I just really, really like religious authorities. As evidenced by my post above, duh.

I normally like you but aren't you getting tired of repeating yourself here? Do you really think we've just misunderstood you all this time?

tombot you know i cosign 100% on the rest of your posts but this is bullshit

meanwhile, don't tell me there's not a person on the planet trying to use this to enforce speech restrictions, that's exactly what a lot of the most vocal protesters -- and even government representatives from iran, syria, etc. -- have in effect been calling for. and yeah, i find that ohio example worrying. if you don't, ok. but there'll be more to come.

Everyone likes to shoot their mouths off but no one wants to admit that maybe they should have considered thinking and weighing the consequences beforehand.

to quote your last post - we're not saying they can't, just that they shouldn't... - how is this a free speech issue? do you think your wife should cheat on you with your best friend? if you dont, do you think adultery should be illegal?? ppl are repeating themselves because somehow you still dont fucking get this!!!

if you think this whole thing is not going to have a serious impact on what shows up in your media, then i think you're naive. and i know, some people will say, 'well, if it makes the media more respectful and less inflammatory, then good.' but i don't think that's the real likely impact, because most of our institutions just aren't that smart. when they react, they tend to react stupidly and out of fear, and a lot of babies get thrown out with the bathwater.

xpost: i know, dan. really, i do know that. not be all "duh" like tombot, but i mean, i've worked for newspapers for nearly 20 years. i'm pretty well versed in the consequences of what gets said and what doesn't.

Whereas your frowning on certain responses here almost makes it seem like you're favor of free speech right up until someone uses their freedom of speech to be offended by something. I mean, free speech includes the right to call someone's cartoons demeaning, just as much as it includes the right to call someone's religion terroristic -- in both cases, whether you're right or wrong.

And calling the cartoon demeaning doesn't erode freedom of speech any more than calling the religion terroristic erodes freedom of religion, right?

an individual level, of course not. what makes me nervous is when you get governments and religious institutions mobilized and calling for de facto if not legislative limits on what should be said, and making blanket statements about the need to respect religious beliefs.

There is always more to come. The weather tomorrow is going to be a lot like the weather today, and so forth - I don't think this is going to be as huge as it looks from here, I don't think this is going to result in redrawing the lines back to where all caricatures have to be on samizdat - and I don't feel like I'm really seeing a serious step back from the press. As M. White points out, the embassies are the ones having to pay for extra security, Le Soir sold 40K extra copies that day.

What should have been done? The paper should have printed the cartoons. Then the editors and publisher, when confronted, should have apologized specifically for the racist portrayal of arabs and the purposeful violation of the taboo and made a retraction. Then there most likely never would have been a problem. There's nothing wrong with freedom of expression and there's nothing wrong with apologies either. It's when you offend someone and stand there saying "I have free speech! I can call you the n-word all I want!" that you are effectively ruining it for everybody else. Because that is how prior restraint gets passed as legislation - when there's blood on the streets from people's blind devotion to dogma and the government/society is stuck with the cleaning bill.

This is once again evidence of my Pollyanna nature, sorry.

xpost

Leave out the "religious institutions" bit: they call for de facto limits on what kind of contraception you should use, but we're not worried about that. So how is it new for government to make moral propositions about the press? Government will take a stray remark of Hillary Clinton's and condemn it; they'll take unflattering articles about the President and condemn them; they're constantly expressing opinions on things. That doesn't stop people from saying whatever they want.

I mean, really: you can't celebrate your freedom of speech, go out and print something, and then cry like a baby when someone -- hell, even major world leaders -- decide to say it was a lousy thing to print. Annan and the Vatican have just as much right as anyone to opine about this stuff, and to make propositions about what they think constitutes polite discourse and what steps beyond it. None of it is binding.

as for the longterm effect, i don't know. i'm probably overly alarmist. it's a little hard not to be, i guess, working in the media and seeing how compromised it already is in its ability and willingness to deal with a whole bunch of things. reporters and editors are probably less sanguine about the health of free speech than your average joe, because we see how often and how easily it gets hedged -- sometimes for good reasons, but certainly not always.

It's when you offend someone and stand there saying "I have free speech! I can call you the n-word all I want!" that you are effectively ruining it for everybody else.

You are essentially saying that you can have your car in any color, provided that it's black. It calls to mind Twain's famous quote: "It is by the goodness of God that we have in this country three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either."

In that context, I don't think these responses should be looked at as in any way coming close to stepping on the press. It's world leaders making moral suggestions. We can disagree on how useful those suggestions are, but I don't think it's particularly frightening or outside their role to make them; I don't think they're even really pointed at the press so much as pointed toward platitudes. ("Children, children, let's try to respect one another's differences.")

xpost

Jesus how many times can we run round this tiny point? M White, NO, it's like saying "you can have your car in any color, but if you paint the word 'nigger' on the side panel then you're a total asshole and I'm going to tell you so."

we're not worried about that in america because we have both laws and social norms protecting us from its enforcement. there are plenty of countries where that still has a very real effect. and the social norms are as important as the laws. maybe more -- the supreme court's griswold decision was as much a concession to evolving social norms as it was a matter of constitutional interpretation (which is why some hardcore conservatives hate it). as social norms about what is or isn't acceptable change, interpretation of laws tends to follow. and in any case, if social norms change enough, the laws don't need to change in order to affect behavior.

and no i don't think we're going to reach a point where you can't ever say anything bad about organized religion. but i do think there are people who would like to get to that point, and so there have to also be people fighting against the small encroachments, because all these things happen in small steps.