Here's today's Boston Globe editorial on the Mohammed cartoons controversy:
Freedom expression is not the only value at issue in the conflict provoked by a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons satirizing Islam's founding prophet, Mohammed. The billowing controversy is being swept along by intolerance, ignorance, and parochialism. The refusal of each camp to recognize and respect the otherness of the other brings closer a calamitous clash of cultures pitting Islam against the West.
No devotee of democratic pluralism should accept any infringement on freedom of the press. But the original decision of the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, to solicit and publish a dozen cartoons of the Muslim prophet was less a blow against censorship than what The Economist called a schoolboy prank. . . .
Other European papers reprinted the cartoons in a reflex of solidarity. Journalists in free societies have a healthy impulse to assert their hard-won right to insult powerful forces in society. Freedom of the press need not be weakened, however, when it is infused with restraint. This should not be restraint rooted in fear of angering a government, a political movement, or an advertiser. As with the current consensus against publishing racist or violence-inciting material, newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance.
Just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam's prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. . . .
There's actually much that I agree with here; that one is and should be legally free to say something doesn't mean that it's right to say it. And while religious ideas, like all ideas, should be open to vigorous debate, needless emotional provocation generally doesn't much advance the debate.
This editorial, though, led me to try to search for what the Boston Globe had said about past controversies involving high-profile speech that was offensive to other religious groups. I searched in particular for editorials referring to the controversies surrounding Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" and the Brooklyn Museum's display of the Virgin Mary covered in feces that was made up in part of feces and of cutouts of bare buttocks from magazines. I may have missed some — if I have, please let me know — but here are the ones I found. Nov. 3, 1999:
This week, US District Judge Nina Gershon sent New York's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani a message he should heed: Stop trampling on the Brooklyn Museum's First Amendment rights.
Giuliani is furious about an exhibit, "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection." He called the art "sick," withheld operating funds, and started eviction proceedings against the museum. One object of his anger is a painting of a black Virgin Mary spotted with elephant dung. The mayor said: "You don't have a right to a government subsidy to desecrate someone else's religion." It's a passionate argument, but it ignores the facts and the law. None of the $2 million for the "Sensation" exhibit came from New York City. Serious allegations have been raised about the museum's fund-raising for the exhibit, but that is a separate issue. The city's contract with the museum calls for the city to pay for maintenance without, as the court says, "stating any conditions regarding the content of the museum's artworks."
Most damning is the court's finding that the city is violating the museum's First Amendment rights. Gershon quoted many cases, including the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson protecting flag-burning. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
But what about the 1998 Supreme Court ruling letting the National Endowment for the Arts use "general standards of decency" in its considerations? Gershon noted that this ruling was on awarding grants, not withdrawing operating funds. And the Supreme Court upheld these grant considerations as long as they did not permit "viewpoint discrimination."
Gershon issued a preliminary injunction ordering the city to stop withholding funds, end eviction proceedings, and refrain from retaliation or tampering with the museum's board. Too bad a judge has to remind Giuliani of his duty to do no harm to one of his city's great cultural institutions.
July 17, 1990:
The National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency created 25 years ago to function as a friend and patron of the arts. It was never intended that the NEA should serve as a moral arbiter of the projects it considers funding.
But that role has been thrust upon the NEA by Congress, following the outcry of Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and a band of conservative congressmen and critics over the exhibitions of work by photographers Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano.
Last week, the NEA issued new guidelines that attempt to define obscenity, in response to a directive from the General Accounting Office. Helms had asked the GAO to investigate whether the arts agency was implementing restrictive language added last fall to its appropriation.
Grant recipients now are required to furnish "a written justification of the project" and an explanation of how it complies with the obscenity language in the NEA's appropriation legislation. Already, some prospective recipients have refused to sign such a pledge.
Critics of the pledge-signing requirement argue that imposing such guidelines has an intimidating effect and is tantamount to censorship.
Liam Rector, executive director of Associated Writing Program in Norfolk, is right when he notes that "the place where obscenity needs to be determined is in the courts — not in Congress and not by the NEA."
The New School for Social Research in New York and Bella Lewitsky, a California choreographer, have filed separate suits in federal courts, challenging the constitutionality of the congressional restriction on the agency's grants.
Congress should grant the National Endowment for the Arts the five-year extension it is seeking and allow it to go about its business without restrictions that hamper the agency and discourage artistic expression.
May 20, 1990:
In its 25-year history, the National Endowment for the Arts has become an invaluable friend and patron of the arts, funding an impressive array of institutions and activities. Now the hysteria generated by a small group of myopic arch-conservatives, led by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, threatens the NEA's freedom.
Strong pressures are building on Capitol Hill to place limits on the way the NEA awards grants because of the misperception that it supports obscene or sacrilegious art. Supporters of the NEA are divided on whether to seek a one-year or five-year NEA reauthorization.
It would be unreasonable to expect unanimity of support for the many projects the NEA has funded over the years, given the subjectivity of creative expression. The NEA has been criticized often, and some have charged it with elitism.
However, until last year it had never been charged with underwriting smut, as it was when it financed a restrospective of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe and made an award to photographer Andres Serrano. The art of these two men has been used unfairly by Helms and an organization called the American Family Association as a device to discredit the NEA, overlooking the important work the NEA has accomplished in fostering the arts.
Where does the public stand on federal aid for the arts? A survey conducted for People For The American Way indicates that Americans strongly support the NEA's role as a promoter and distributor of arts funding and do not wish to see the methods for granting arts awards changed.
Congress should approve another five-year reauthorization for the National Endowment for the Arts and allow it to continue making its cultural contribution to the nation — without any legislative restraints.
On their own, also eminently plausible arguments; I agree with parts of them and disagree with other parts, but they are certainly quite defensible.
Yet where in those editorials are the admonitions about the need for "respect" of religious groups? The condemnations of the juxtaposition of bodily excretions with religious figures as "schoolboy prank[s]"? The denunciations of the art as undermining the "ultimate Enlightenment value" of "tolerance"? The condemnations of the artists, and of those NEA and museum decisionmakers who used their discretion to judge the work artistically excellent, as "obtuse"? And, of course, the suggestion that the works are "no less hurtful to most [Christians] than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance"?
Why the difference?
UPDET: Reader Matt Lister pointed out that the Virgin Mary painting was not "covered in feces," as I wrongly reported above, but contained elephant dung as part of the display, and also contained what seemed to be cutouts of naked buttocks from magazines. I've revised the post accordingly; I don't think the details affect the overall analysis, but I'm pleased to be able to correct them.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Daily Illini Fires Editor Who Published the Mohammed Cartoons:
- President of Bar Association in Pakistan, Plus Major Pakistani Party, Supports Murder of Danish Cartoonists:
- The Twelve Mohammed Cartoons, in Detail:...
- The Catholic Church and Free Expression:
- The Boston Globe on Speech Offensive to Different Religious Groups:
- Sorry I can't Join the "Buy Danish" Campaign...
- U.S. State Department on the Cartoons Depicting Mohammed:
- Bush Cabinet Member Condemns Anti-Christian Blasphemy, and Points to Laws Restricting Incitement to Hateful Expressions:
- Suppressing Anti-Religious Speech -- an Emerging International Law Norm?
No need to be coy. You know the difference, as I think we all do.
Could it be that the supposed need for respect of religious beliefs is of a relatively recent origin? Since the early 90's, motivated in part by events such as the one referenced, Christian groups have become more vocal about demanding respect for their beliefs. They have created strong political machines that have the ear of the legislators (and budget setters), as well as more media presence. And after 9/11 there has been an increased emphasis on being respectful of religious groups, in particular the Muslims, as a way to defuse possible sources of conflict.
I think the editorials simply reflect the particular sensibilities at the time they were written. Fifteen years ago, the issue was freedom of expression because (rightly or wrongly) respect for religious beliefs just wasn't high on the list of priorities. Since then, various religious groups have succeeded in getting that list changed.
Or does the Globe have some deranged Freudian picture of the west, in which groups like the Nazis and the KKK have no independent existence, but are merely manifestations of our collective unconscious racism? In that case, the dichotomy becomes some collective Us vs minorities of various stripes. It's like the old chestnut that there's a little Hitler in all of us reduced to a Jungian theory of history. Then Piss Christ doesn't count, because christians count as Us.
If this is the case, I wish they'd be a little bit more picky about who qualifies as Us. The Nazis, KKK, etc are all pretty firmly in the Them camp in my mind.
That being said, there *is* a difference between an artist doing something for art which has no political review, and a newspaper doing something for publicity that was done specifically for political antagonism. The difference doesn't make the comparison useless, but it isn't cut and dry.
I happen to think we should defend the Danish paper's right to say what it said, but it was a useless and unproductive political statement, and silly (I basically agree with the State Department). I also find those on the right who participate on the side of "Denmark" to not do so in pursuant to free speech but because they hate brown people and Christ rejecters. I don't find such motives lightly, but the logic they use in their arguments leads me to no other possible resolution.
I meant to say "many of those on the right"
I say perhaps, because I haven't seen the cartoons and don't know whether or not they deserve the criticism they've received. But I have seen the art, and it is neither a schoolboy prank, nor intolerant, nor obtuse. It is not "needless emotional provocation" that doesn't "advance the debate." Perhaps the cartoons were.
I don't see how you can decide without looking at the pieces at issue. There is certainly nothing wrong in principle with saying that some art that is accused of being offensive is rightly accused, and some is wrongly accused.
practicallyabsolutely no discussion of the interesting Balkin-related issues and comparisons.Actually, I would say the the Danish paper's political provocation is *more* important, if anything, than some post-post-deconstructionist's attempt at the avant garde. The Piss Christ's purpose was nothing more than to shock and insult. The Danish paper was engaging in political speech intended to satirize the hijacking of Islam by fascist, murderous psychopaths. As far as I am concerned, political speech is *far* more important than a bunch of hipster pseudo-intellectuals trying to be deep. Sorry, I just don't buy the fin-de-siecle Brooklyn art-for-art's sake mumbo jumbo.
In regards to multi-ethnic palestinians, you're absolutely wrong. I've seen at least two different segments on CNN (in just random channel flipping since I usually don't watch CNN) about Christian Palestinians. During the Lebanese demonstrations, the fact that there are many Christian Lebanese was also something that I saw reported on both MSNBC and on Fox News. So, I think that you're wrong on this count.
The Nazi comparison isn't about what the readers but rather seemed targeted at the motivations of the cartoonists. I think to say that their ideological critique of Islam is equivalent to a racialist critique of Jews or Blacks a little farfetched. And speaking of Nazis and Jews, read the stuff coming out of radical Islamic quarters these days about Nazis and Jews. I think that the people rioting in Gaza and the West Bank are more enamored with Nazis and extermination of Jews than the cartoonist could ever, even subconsciously, be.
Prof. Volokh is being, dare I say, devilish here.
However, I do think a case can be made between ridiculing or caricaturing a dominant religion such as Christianity versus a minority religion such as Islam or Judaism. That we need to tread much more carefully (for a number of reasons) when making caricatures of less powerful or minority religions that in many cases have suffered (and still do) discrimination as opposed to a religion that has greater power and influence and is better able to engage in the marketplace of ideas.
SMG
That said, I don't think you can view the issue as one of pure artistic merit or philosophical consistency independent of context. Even if it were devoid of artistic merit, a sacreligious work by a lapsed Catholic would just not be as troubling as an anti-Semitic work by a non-Jew, or an anti-Islamic work by a non-Muslim.
That is an excellent summary of the liberal/Marxist attitude towards religion. Hatred of Christianity and capitalism trumps everything for the modern liberal -- even one's own safety.
I am not convinced there is an emphasis on being respectful of religious groups. There is an emphasis of being respectful to Muslims in particular, but I suspect that if Piss Christ were to be produced today the reaction would be exactly the same.
Perhaps the answer is that the left likes those who are anti-Western. The supporters of Piss Christ are anti-Western, but the opponents of the Mohammed cartoons are anti-Western.
(That doesn't explain the US government's reaction to the drawings, but it's really not too hard to explain. The left opposes the drawings because they are hypocritical about freedom of speech. The government opposes it because they just don't believe in freedom of speech at all.)
The latest editorial says, in essence, "Just because its legal to say something, it doesn't mean you should." That's a pretty uncontroversial position. We all should exercise restraint and good taste. The Globe doesn't talk about the importance of the Danish government allowing the Danish paper to publish cartoons, becuase the Danish government never butted in (or maybe I missed that part, in which case this whole post is misguided).
In the cases of the "piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary with feces, on the other hand, government intervention in speech was the issue. The Globe may have felt that both pieces were tasteless and might have taken the time to remind the artists that just because they could portray what they wanted to, it didn't mean they should. But, in light of government censroship efforts, the Globe likely felt it was much more important to protect the right of the artists to portray whatever they wanted than it was to remind them that what they were doing was tasteless. Today, with the Danish issue, government censorship as a concern is absent, and thus it seems like a good idea to point out that some "art" can be tasteless and the Danish newspaper might want to exercise a little discretion in deciding what to publish, even though it CAN publish whatever it wants.
The different op-eds just highlight different, but all legitimate, points. Would Eugene prefer the Globe write about the pitfalls of Danish repression of free press even where no efforts to repress occurred?
They may also believe that plenty of widely-respected institutions were making noise about the artworks, and that they didn't need the Boston Globe's help for people to realize that some non-Christians found them objectionable as well. Afaik, very few people were interested in defending "piss Christ" on the merits, but lots have been defending the cartoon on the merits.
Guiliani's position was somewhere between "censorship" and "expressing outrage." He attempted to remove funding. That's a very complicated First Amendment area, and I didn't want to cloud my argument with those nuances. But the greater poitnt remains this: In the NEA and Broolkyn Museum instances, the issue of government's role was prominent. In the Danish case, it's absent.
What does the US secular left have to do with this? What I see from my vantage point, one one side, is a bunch of politically conservative Americans jumping over each other to not only defend the cartoons, but to insist on how funny they are, and publish them on their blogs, etc. On the other side, I see crowds of radicalized muslims saying nasty things and threatening violence. Don't bring us lefties into this. It's not our fight.
You folks just keep beating your chests...we'll just sit this one out, and wait and hope that both sides grow up eventually.
Well, I can safely say that conservative Americans will forthwith stop issuing death threats towards people disrepecting their religion.
But if you actually want to just look at what caused the provocations, I'm surprised at how so many see Piss Christ and Holy Virgin Mary as more insulting that the cartoons. For better or worse, it's understood that any visualization of Mohammed is an offense.
Meanwhile, Piss Christ and Holy Virgin Mary are serious (if not necessarily good) works of art that can be read in different ways. In fact, most people who talk about them are ignorant, never having seen them. I invite you to check out this and this to actually see what everyone's talking about.
(At the very least, anyone who knows about the background of Holy Virgin Mary and still insists the artist meant to offend is being perverse.)
RTGthe3RD: I'm not sure if I've missed some deep irony in your post. If so, you might try to make the irony a little less deep. If not, please avoid unfounded accusations (against outsiders as well as fellow posters) and exaggerations.
And since when did so-called unserious works of art lose all protections?
"Any visualization of Mohammed is an offense" Is not a rule that anyone except muslims themselves may be forced to keep. There's a lit of things that christianity could take official offense at, too.
The question is weather non-muslims have to submit to a tyranny of the minority.
Justin says (re Serrano):
Indeed, my original view was that the only thing giving it public attention were the Christians themselves, and if you didn't want to see it you didn't have to.
To which I respond:
Yes, no one had to see it, but every federal taxpayer had to PAY for it. I'm less offended by seeing this I dislike than by having to fork over for them.
And Wrigley says, re both pieces:
. . . government intervention in speech was the issue. The Globe may have felt that both pieces were tasteless and might have taken the time to remind the artists that just because they could portray what they wanted to, it didn't mean they should. But, in light of government censroship efforts . . .
To which I respond:
I agree with the first clause - govt "intervention" was the issue. The intervention was the funding in the first place, which intervened in my pocket and made me subsidize it. As to "censorship," I always thought that the term meant forbidding the work from being shown. If refusal-to-subsidize is truly indistinguishable, then I'm being censored every day. Even if there should be some First Amdt limits on selective govt funding, surely that's still different from true censorship?
And finally, let's ask this comparative, instead of comparing Serrano to the Danish cartoons. If someone creates a reverent crucifix as a work of art, what are the odds that it would ever get an NEA grant? And even if the NEA did, how many seconds would it take for the Establishment Clause lawsuit to be filed?
Bottom line - honor the crucifix, and it'd be unconstitutional to give a dime. Piss on it, and it'd be unconstitutional to refuse to subsidize it. The rule of decision here is pretty clear, and no amount of rationalization gets around that.
1. Insults toward Christianity are not nearly as hurtful or inflaming in America as insults toward blacks, Jews, arabs or Muslims.
2. Unless it is going to be extremely inciteful, I think a person generally has a right to be disrespectful toward something he vehemently disagrees with. Especially with religion, there is so much respect generally that people freak out when you say anything the least bit critical. So I don't think people generally have an obligation to perpetuate that.
3. Thus, I think the Boston Globe is probably right, and I'm glad they said what they said. It's why I generaly criticize Christianity a lot more than I criticize Islam, even though I have much more in common with the average Christian. It's probably also why I don't criticize Judaism, even though it makes just as little sense as the other two. I guess it's tough to be a Christian in America! (ha, right)
Well I would like you to go to a country where Muslims are the majority, and try making the same 'bold' criticisms.
If you survive, I'd like to hear about your experiences.
Such as the Branch Davidians? Rastafarians? Heaven's Gate? The Jim Jones People's Temple?
What I can't figure out is where this guy is getting this 'minority religion' crud from.
It's like his entire worldview is stuck in the USA and he can't conceptualise countries in which muslims are the majority.
I wonder if he's concerened about the 'discrimination' against christians in Saudi Arabia.
The heck with them, and the Boston Globe's little dog too.
I will start worrying about their tender sensitivities when they start acting like civilized human beings. &@#$ 'em, if they can't take a joke.
Until then billions for defense, not one cent for tribute.
The cartoons were published months ago and have recently received attention only after some particularly unscrupulous Muslim clerics in Denmark decided to go over to the Middle East and show both the cartoons that were published and some other cartoons that were not published, but were much worse (the clerics claim that they were considered for publication, but will refuse to show Western media outlets... this makes me think they're trying to inflame tensions on purpose).
There are quite a few Muslims in the world, almost as many as Christians (22% Muslims, 33 % Christian) and their growth rate is extraordinarily high. So, it's not like someone is picking on a tiny minority religion here.
I haven't seen the Virgin Mary one and so can't comment. I have seen Piss Christ and found it offensive, even though I'm an atheist.
While it is true that the cartoons could plausibly be interpreted as claiming that all Muslims believe in the "72 virgins for jihad" nonsense, it would not be reasonable to do so, since clearly the cartoon is meant to lampoon people who believe that, without any commentary on the rest of Islam.
The real problem is that the Boston Globe has decided, essentially, that criticisms of the contents of a religion as unreasonable or immoral are off-limits, but hateful speech meant to shock the sensibilities of a religion's followers (rather than merely blaspheme) are a-ok, and in fact, should be subsidized by the taxpayers of the City of New York (a plurality of whom, I believe, are Catholic).
dk35--
Why is the American Left relevant here? Because presumably, the editorial board of the Boston Globe is usually on the left of most political issues and this is the stance they have chosen to take. The other reason is because this clash between liberalism and multicutluralism is a major conflict that needs some solutions. Is the American Left going to provide us with a way to deal with this obvious conflict (as quasi-Leftist philosopher Seyla Benhabib has, for example) or not? I commend the Boston Globe for not punting the issue and pretending there is no conflict. But I think that their response is to a great extent depraved. If they can compare the cartoonists' criticism of a philosophy to Nazi and KKK racial hatred with a straight face, then I really don't know what to say.
Before 9/11, liberals felt they could get away with tweaking the noses of Islamist groups. I even remember once seeing a Tom Toles cartoon that mocked the Taliban for destroying the Bamiyan Buddha. After 9/11, when the Muslims finally brought home to liberals the fact that they were happy to kill liberals (evidently the African bombings and the Cole were too distant for your average Clintonite to care), suddenly the liberals began to care more about religious tolerance and respect. They began to try and appease the enemy, rather than ignore him as they had been doing before. This explains the dichotomy between their pre- 9/11 and post-9/11 treatments of religion quite nicely; apart from the occasional snipe at Pat Robertson, the liberals appear quite eager to invoke the Lord on every public occasion. (How much of that involves fear of Islam and how much of it involves fear of further electoral defeats at the hands of the overwhelmingly non-atheist/secularist public is open to debate, of course.)
Conservatives, in contrast to liberals, saw 9/11 as a challenge, and the Islamists as an obstacle to be overcome, not catered to. Conservatives have always had an abiding faith and love of religion, so the conservative Christian coalition was well-prepared for the spiritual challenges of combatting a worldview opposed to any religious truth and dedicated to murdering anyone who does not agree with it.
Conservatives are consistent because our views are strengthened by faith and love; liberals are inconsistent because their views are crumbling under fear.
"Muslims" aren't a monolithic group who all believe and support the same things. The multitudes of Muslims who don't support evil don't have to "take responsibility" for others' actions any more than Christians have to take responsibility for the multitudes of evils and horrors Christians have perpetrated in the name of Christianity. (That's not all in the past either: some Christians murder in the name of Christianity even today.)
The real problem here is your cavalier assumption that "they" - a group 900 million people! - are a monolith. Have you done any actual research on "their" beliefs, rather than relying on stereotypes? Granted, there are a lot of fanatics [1], and they make it into the news regularly for obvious reasons (which is why these stereotypes are so pervasive - nobody reports on "Muslims go about their daily lives in peace like everybody else"). But even if you're right (which I doubt) it's morally wrong to be making such assumptions without empirical support.
[1] I mean in objective terms, not as a fraction of Muslims as a whole.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB04Aa01.html
Good lord, I hope this is satire. Sadly, I can't really tell anymore.
People seem a little quick to draw political blood over this, and miss the more interesting, and instructive, part. The Piss Christ comparisons have been fast and furious. Let me put forward a slightly different take.
Suppose you have a sibling in your family that drinks too much. You might call him out and tell him he's a drunk, and should grow up. At the same time, J. Random Person doing the same might draw your ire; protecting one's family and family name might be considered more important than the marginal value of an outside opinion on the brother's problem.
Similarly, I feel much more qualified to criticize Christianity, having been raised in a very religious household. That I later became agnostic-close-to-atheist does not diminish my knowledge, understanding and even empathy; from that, I feel entitled to criticize, in words, or in art. I don't have the same relation to or knowledge of Islam. That doesn't mean I can't observe or provide critical commentary, but in much the same way as I might be more harsh to a family member than I would be to someone I didn't grow up around, I might be more diplomatic.
When I was a teenager, we had a substance-infused party, and someone brought a stuffed Bhudda doll. We ended up building a cross and nailing the doll to it, and planting it in a field. It was dumb, offensive, and wrong, even though and Bhuddists were likely to have seen it. The difference to me is that I understand this now, whereas many who loudly comment either don't or choose not to.
I largely agree with your point re: religious tolerance. However, it seems to me that the policital cartoons were focused on a substantive criticism of Islam and not done just to insult. I actually think that probably, it was not such a good idea to publish cartoons and I do think it, to some extent, reflects anti-religious snoottiness on the part of Europeans (they do equally blasphemous things to Jews and Christians). Having said that, however, I think that the criticism the cartoons were expressing is a legitimate one and I think that good people everywhere, regardless of our view that maybe it was unwise to publish the cartoons, should stand up for the editors and the cartoonists (who, by the way, have gone into hiding, Rushdie-style, to evade murder) and not compare them to Nazis and just pay lip service to your respect for free speech.
Wrigley, that's a nice attempt at a save of the Boston Globe, and I applaud your efforts. Unfortunately, it's based on the absurd premise that there was danger of censorship in the older cases, whereas no danger of censorship here. In fact, it's pretty clear that the reverse is the case.
One more point regarding the need to publicly support the Danish paper... if your best friend's brother called someone an idiot, unwarranted, and that person then went out, burned down your best friend's summer house, and issued a fatwa against your best friend and his entire family, you're not going to make public pronouncements about how it was a bad idea for your best friend's brother to call the guy an idiot, you will stand up for your best friend and his brother. If the reaction was to write letters to the editor denouncing the views expressed in the cartoons, that's one thing, but when the reaction is "all those who insult Islam must be exterminated," then despite the somewhat lack of insensitivity displayed on the cartoons, as Glenn Reynolds said, now is not the time for nuance.
Yassir Arafat has brilliantly proven that terrorism works. Now the Muslim community is proving that intimidation works. Of course one could read 1930s European history to learn the same lesson, but I digress...
A Danish writer who was doing a children's book on the Prophet couldn't find any Muslim illustrators willing to draw the illustrations. I wonder why? The paper wrote about the problem and solicited and published samples.
Another horror laid at the feet of children's publishing.
Not portraying Mohammed is their rule, not mine, and impoverishes the vocabulary of criticism. Given history, I consider the right to blaspheme one of the most important freedoms I have.
Government sponsorship of the arts is mostly a welfare program for starving artists that I oppose.
>Are you thinking that because Christians are the majority here, it isn't possible to commit hate against them?<
No, it's not because they're the majority or minority. First of all, I don't think anybody should hate Christians or any group of people. However, the religion of Christianity is often extremely hateful towards certain groups. Thus, I don't like Christianity, and I shouldn't have to respect it, and I don't.
Incidentally, I had a friend from high school, who was gay, commit suicide over the weekend. Is it possible that the condemnation of American society played any role in his depression? How can one really say, but it certainly doesn't seem far-fetched. It's for this reason that I strongly disagree with the idea that we should be tolerant of bigoted views simply because they are under the banner of religion. Bigotry is bigotry, and people should not respect it. (Please don't tip-toe -- I brought it up)
The question with Islam, however, is much more complicated. I do not respect Islam as a religion. Nevertheless, publishing cartoons with their Prophet as a bomber may well be counterproductive.
What if the New York Times published a cartoon depicting God having sex with the Virgin Mary? The problem to me wouldn't be that it was disrespectful, so much as that it was so extremely offensive to the extent that it reduced dialogue and increased violence.
Obviously, much of the protesting here isn't reasonable. I don't think that's where the analysis should end, though.
What I can't figure out is where this guy is getting this 'minority religion' crud from.
Sorry, I think you miss Dr. Volokh's point. And mine.
If you go to the very top of the page and read Dr. Volokh's comments, you'll see that he is talking about a Boston Globe editorial discussing the publication of cartoons or caricatures of religious symbols or figures.
Dr. Volokh's question, if you read it again, is why in America has it apparently been acceptable to hold Christian symbols in a mocking manner, e.g., "Piss Christ", but somehow, at least for the Globe, not, dare I say, kosher to mock Islamic symbols or figures.
In America. Not Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Iran.
Islam, as I'm sure you know, is a minority religion in America. As it is in Denmark, France and the rest of Europe where the cartoons have been published and have caused most of the uproar.
My point, again, is that a case may be made that mocking minority religions in America may be less acceptable than mocking dominant religions.
SMG
The basis of the conflict is that Islamics refuse to accept that non-Islamic viewpoints are as valid as their own. This is a form of agression, and it is used to justify further agression by Islamics against non-islamics.
Suppose I adopt a new religion worshiping Orulu, the hurricane god. Orulu's first commandment is that any utterance of Orulu by non-believers in any form is punishable by death, and glory awaits the True Beliver who carries out the sentence for the greater glory of Orulu.
Such a doctrine cannot be respected and tolerated by others, because to do so requires all others to surrender their rights. My adoption of my new religion does not justify suppression of your right of expression.
Islamics actively assert an overly-santimonious, self centered attitude toward the non-islamic world with the goal of impinging upon the rights of non-believers. Implicit in this attitude is the Islamic doctrine that non-believers do not really have any rights worth respecting.
I felt as far back as Desert Storm that we were making a mistake to openly surrender our right to our cultural values in deference to the Saudi's while our troops were over there. Tolerance must be a two way street - to gain my tolerance you must likewise tolerate my views.
In what societies, other than those with Judeo-Christian histories, is "religious tolerence" even practiced at all?
Very true. We have pundits who joke about blowing up the NYT, and Christian bombers who blow up abortion clinics and day care centers, but not media buildings. A useful distinction to keep in mind.
Gene: I largely agree with your point re: religious tolerance. However, it seems to me that the policital cartoons were focused on a substantive criticism of Islam and not done just to insult.
Yes, I agree. I don't believe the intent was merely to insult, which is why I contrasted it with a family member with a drinking problem - substantive, valid criticism, that is very likely to be taken the wrong way if it either isn't done delicately or doesn't come from "inside", that is, from a position where one can assume trust and lack of one-sided motives.
I agree with your point about supporting the those who publish these cartoons. I am what people tend to call a "free-speech absolutist", and at times take very intentionally offensive positions when I calculate that the emotional impact is worthwhile (something I think Duncan and the ACLU can both relate to).
Condemnation is the least those who would kill to suppress speech can hope for, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I felt otherwise. Nuance isn't terribly valued these days, but I suppose I'm a bit of an optimist, so I'll try again.
Astrology, tea-leaf reading, and similar are all roundly derided by (educated, erudite, etc.) People Like Us. Why? They're silly. Christianity, Islam and the variants of both are both held in wider regard, even though they both rely on similar non-observable events for grounding. Why?
The difference to me is that nobody has made a religion with a stable history and moral code of ethics out of reading tea leaves. Attacking a non-observable basis with a history of more-or-less leading to people having a happy, healthy life in one way or another is different than attacking a bad method of predicting the future, even if they both start from comprably bad starting points.
So, wrapped up in that paragraph, you have not only why I am a "belief athiest" and an agnostic, but also an offensive to some restatement of religion, as well as an explanation of why I respect other's faiths. I contrast that with my juvenile Christ-Bhudda by noting that this has a communicative point beyond mere offensive humor, although it is also notable that I put it in terms that I understand to be true, while noting that others might find it offensive.
There is a pernicious flavor of Islam, and indeed, it is, in an objective, pessimistic, count-the-bodies sort of way worse that the Pat Robertsons of the world. If I had a plan for teaching folks that both flavors of insanity leads to massive evil, I'd offer it. I don't have one. Offending the actual moral majority of Islam, however, is rather counter productive. Much like I don't say certain things (that I absolutely believe) around certain people that I like, admire and respect in deference to their base assumptions, learning how to co-exist seems to me the only sane way out of this game.
Thanks, Gene, for a respectful response.
Muslims -- and others -- who choose to be offended by this have only themselves to blame. Their feelings are their own responsibility.
The bottom line here is such persons' lack of the cognitive/behavioral resources needed to determine their own experience of emotions does not, in any way whatsoever, automatically obligate others to alter their behavior so as to protect such persons from experiencing emotional discomfort.
The short blunt aphoristic form of this is: "No, I Don't Like Your Behavior; You Change To Suit My Personal Preferences."
That is the essential nature of their complaint, and thus reveals its essential lack of validity. By default, if they are supposed to be entitled to demand such from myself and others, then we are likewise every bit as entitled to demand the same right back.
>The basis of the conflict is that Islamics refuse to accept that non-Islamic viewpoints are as valid as their own. This is a form of agression, and it is used to justify further agression by Islamics against non-islamics.<
That's a great point, and one I wasn't able to phrase myself. I'll have to quote you on my blog.
It's why the whole thing just seems so impossible to me. We really shouldn't respect the hostility, but it often seems like the alternative is worse.
My 6th grade teacher was a local Church of Christ preacher. He regularly taught religion in the classroom. I was forming my views at the time, and asked what he would say if I told him I was agnostic. I still remember his response: "Oh, we'll convert ya, or kill ya one." I'm not making this up. In some ways, I'm greatful to him - he made me want to get out of the south, and indirectly probably influenced a lot of the striving I did for scholarships and whatnot.
But I don't confuse Charley [last name omitted for privacy's sake] with most Christians. I understand most Christians to be sane, neighborly sorts who have a code of ethics fairly similar to mine, enough so that we can get along, even if I don't hold to the same root beliefs. Most of the Xians I know feel similarly towards me.
I find it distressing that some commenters here are willing to write off 10^12 people as potential neighbors because of the actions of a few psychopaths who do horrible things "in the name of".
Where one earth did you get the idea that conservatives have faith and love? Conservatives have rigid dogma and rigid ideoloy that they will compassionately bash over the heads of everyone who disagrees with them. Don't conservatives fear and hate gays so much they pass laws and amendements vicitimizing them? Where is the love conservatives have for their fellow gay and lesbians? Aren't conservatives so fearful of another 9/11 that they will eagerly destroy civil liberties to make us 'safe'?
Liberals have true faith and love. Conservatives have and display neither. And I can objectively say this as an athiest.
Rational behavior and thought goes out the window at the slightest provocation these days. People need to chill out, for goodness sake. People could easily die over a cartoon and that says it all.
Kindly point out one Muslim country in the World today that is tolerate of Christians. One where conversion from Islam to Christianity is not a capital offense. One where Chrisitian proselytizing is not a crime. One that provides Bibles and Christian chaplains for their Christian prisioner. Also, please provide an example of where "Christians murder in the name of Christianity even today".
The Left/msm fears Islam so it appeases it.
Msm = quislings-in-waiting.
First, I guess it's pretty sad that discourse has gotten so awful that you have to thank me for being respectful.
Second, I agree with you that one should paint with as narrow a brush as possible. And certainly, not all Christians represent the views of Charley. And of course, there are extremist lunatics in every group. But I think the question here is of percentages. The Palestinians just elected Hamas, which is radical Islam's wing in the "Occupied Territories." Osama bin Laden is to this day one of the most admired figures in the Midle East. Islamic charities which promote jihad (not just resistance against Israeli injustices, but rather the elimination of Israel and Jews) get extensive donations from many of the wealthy people in the Middle East. Every Islamic country gives very limited rights to non-Muslims. etc. etc. These seem to indicate that radical Islam is not a fringe viewpoint among Middle Eastern Muslims, but rather that it is THE dominant viewpoint. Of course, many Turks, black African Muslims, Muslims in India, and some of the Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia do not subscribe to these views (which is a lot of Muslims, by the way).
I hope this sort of ignorance hits a fever pitch soon, so that we can move beyond it within my lifetime.
It is not necessary to accept a "viewpoint" to be valid, in order to tolerant the expression of that "viewpoint". In fact, the "validity" of a "viewpoint" can only established when the expression of all conflicting "viewpoint" allows the "viewpoint" to be tested.
The extreme intolerance of Islam to competing "viewpoints" is truly proof of the weakness of that creed. On the other, Christianity is the one religion that today "tolerates" the expression and proselytizing of competing religions. To me that expresses the strength of Christianity better than anything else.
Of course, tolerance need not allow insults, as that is not "tolerance" but instead "license".
To compare insulting Mohammed to insulting Jesus, the Christ is not quite an accurate comparison, because unlike the Moslem's concept of Mohammed as "Allah's Great Prophet", a true Christian's understanding of Jesus is that he is God. Insulting Jesus would be to the Christian the equivalent of insulting "Allah" to the Moslem. Even the Moslems respect Jesus as a "prophet", however, the deny His divinity.
BTW, I have had many long, passionate theological discussion with quite a few of my learned Moslem friends, without any rancor, insults, or violence on anyone's part. Of course, these discussions took place in their countries and in their homes, and Islam has great respect for "Old Testament" type "hosptality".
And a country's policies certainly aren't evidence of the beliefs of people in OTHER countries. The policies of Saudi Arabia, for example, tell us nothing about the beliefs of Muslims in Denmark.
As for Christians murdering in the name of Christianity today, consider abortion clinic bombers. Or sectarian violence in Ireland (though I think that's basically quieted down).
Of course it is relevant, in fact, it is the ONLY RELEVANT FACT. In the US and Europe, Islam is tolerated to the point where many have converted to that religion. Please point out one Islamic country where Christians are permitted to proselytizing their faith and where an Islamic convert to Christianity is not subject to "extreme sanction". These "Sharia Laws" reflect the culture and "the people" determine the culture. Without public support these laws could not be enforce. In Nigeria the Northern States with majority Moslem population VOTED to install "Sharia Law". Under "Sharia Law" a non-Moslem is at an extreme disadvantage.
The killing of abortionists (the abortion clinic bombers typically did so when death was least likely) was not about Chrisitianity but instead an attempt to save the lives of the innocent unborn. Apparently, the death toll in excess of 40 million (more than Hitler and slightly less than Mao) in the US alone, sent some folks "around the bend" and caused them to take drastic measures. As for Ireland, both factions were normally Christian. The struggle was for "civil rights" and "power", not much different than the causes of the Civil Rights Movement in the US. Please try again!
In other words, the Leftist Elitists of the MSM do not object to Chrisitianity, per se, it is Christians that insist on "Self-evident truth" they have a problem with. Just look how they treat Catholicism as an example.
Where on earth did you get the idea that they don't have faith and love. In fact, this "faith and love" is best demonstrated by the way conservative Christians try so hard to get homosexuals to abandon their sinful ways so that their sould may be saved and enjoy heaven with the conservative Christians. If they didn't have "faith and love", they would ignore the sinful homosexuals and simply leave them to their own damnation.
But I think the question here is of percentages.
A fair complaint, but if I can be forgiven for sounding a little postmodern, one that needs to be contextualized. For the record, I'm going to mix personal opinion with the devil's advocate, because I do think the difference of starting point is interesting.
The Palestinians just elected Hamas, which is radical Islam's wing in the "Occupied Territories."
And the other choice was... Fatah? I don't pretend to understand the politics, but it isn't like there was a viable Respectable, Western-Like Party on hand (and even if there were, sorry, but is DeLay and Abramoff and tax the future what we want for the rest of the world?) It seems to me like there was a bad choice, and an extremist choice, and the extremist choice won. Little surprise, people like that, because it pretends to offer solutions.
Osama bin Laden is to this day one of the most admired figures in the Midle East.
Of course he is. There are three reasons:
- He's the analog of any number of film heros in the US, who fought The Man. The underdog, who Fights for What's Right, always gets fans, especially from folks for have little. I know, I grew up that way.
- I live in Brooklyn now, and a number of locals think back fondly on when the Mob had a heavier hand here. A father figure that runs things makes life easier than raw competition. (For the record, they aren't gone. Just more vicious and less socially acceptable.)
- Why isn't he a priority? I mean this as a question: If, in fact, he is the head of a loosely coupled group, it is true that we might not kill it by eliminating or capturing him. But, it can't hurt, and given the weight media gives to his random pronouncements as well as the weight he seems to hold with Bush, apparently he's an importnat target. So, why is he apparently not an important target?
Islamic charities which promote jihad (not just resistance against Israeli injustices, but rather the elimination of Israel and Jews) get extensive donations from many of the wealthy people in the Middle East.
Yes, they do. And the Sauds are the largest donators, by most measures. In fact, money and lives involved in the Twin Tower attack mostly came from there. So if this is a major threat, why are we not revisiting our relation to them?
Every Islamic country gives very limited rights to non-Muslims. etc. etc. These seem to indicate that radical Islam is not a fringe viewpoint among Middle Eastern Muslims, but rather that it is THE dominant viewpoint. Of course, many Turks, black African Muslims, Muslims in India, and some of the Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia do not subscribe to these views (which is a lot of Muslims, by the way).
I do share your horror at how they behave. And it is true that Islamic law is very different than ours, and is sort of hard to wrap one's head around. I suppose where I differ is where I believe that whatever people like to worship, physics and economics kicks in, and they have to start behaving like every one else in the long term. That doesn't mean that blowing shit up is to be tolerated, but it does, at least to me, mean that making a gradual transition possible is something that helps everyone concerned. And the psychopaths? Kill them. But win the people who are marginally on the fence over, and turn them into small business people instead of suicide bombers.
And just to follow up, I'm glad you noted the Maly and the Indonesian Muslims. They, mostly, subscribe to the same peaceful coexistance that the mediterranian Muslims did for a long time, including a very peaceful dual-law coexistance for a long time.
Personally, I see this in a sort of meta- sense: Christian nuts go crazy here, Islam zelots do the same. Invert, if you like; this particular statement isn't about action and reaction; more simple feedback loop.
Totally untrue. It was all about Christianity. Those same activists would condemn other activists who invade a research lab to save innocent animals from hideous mutilation and excruciatingly painful torture.
The difference, in their eyes, is that animals have no souls, and one month old fetuses do. That's a Christian position. It's certainly not my position.
Maybe we can all agree that more people throughout history have been murdered because of organized religion than for any other reason?
To truly appreciate that bit, think of Ben Stiller's character in Dodge Ball saying that.
There you have it. Opposition is not about religion. Hilter killed less than Mao. and the terrifying behaviour of this horifying, meathook future means that only if we adhere to Christian strictures, even if they aren't legislated, then everything will be OK. Wait - remember Hitler?
...
I actually don't know what prompted this comment, which was about a paper's take on cartoons. I would take this as both a cautionary fable - look at my reaction above: I nearly deleted that, but I chose not to . This sort of reaction doesbn't help anyone. I don't mind finding deep-seated reactions, and discussing them. Proxy fights don't fix the Republic. Indeed, they distract people from real threats. I do have faith that the nature of our government will steer us out of the quagmire we're in, but the last 10 or so years (yes, Clinton and Bush) does give me pause.
Then you must assume that if they win, by might, power, or what have you, then they're simply correct, yes?
Because if the situations were reversed, "shooting down" the running dogs would be proper disposal of public order enforcement, eh?
Oh, we love law enforcement, if we don't violate laws.
Obviously we should be.
There seems to be this persistent idea among liberals that conservatives like Saudi Arabia, and that therefore "if you think that's so bad, why don't you care about Saudi Arabia?" is a clever retort. It isn't true. You might argue that George Bush likes Saudi Arabia, but he doesn't speak for everyone else.
I see the cartoons as commentary on the acts of violence and terrorism being done by radical Islamist in the name of Allah and Muhammad. Seems legitimate to me.
For those who forgot or never knew, the biggest outrage over the "Piss Christ" was that government money, which comes from taxpayers, paid to it. Many, including myself, don't believe any artist has the right to be funded by the government and especially for offensive, blasphemous works, whether or not it's a "serious" work of art doesn't matter.
Also the Nazi, KKK stuff reaches the edges of complete absurbity. It is wholly apparent in whose steps the radical Islamists would follow if given the opportunity.
Maybe the Globe wrote its editorial in hopes an airplane wouldn't come flying in its window.
Frankly, I'd be happy if the islamists could stifle their killin' activities to the level of the abortion clinic bombers (and snipers, or whatever).
No, we cannot "all agree that more people throughout history have been murdered because of organized religion than for any other reason".
For one thing, most history is unrecorded, so we have no idea why murders (mass or single) occurred. The aphorism you repeat is often followed by a reference to the Crusades, so I'm assuming that you mean war and other forms of mass murder. I take it therefore that you are saying that a majority of historical deaths by mass murder came from religiously motivations. I hope that's a fair restatement.
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Chiang were not in it for any god. Neither was Genghis Khan, the greatest pre-twentieth century murderer. So that's the top six in history as far as we know, accounting for over 100 million deaths, and no religious motivation.
Brad DeLong has a great list of history's great murderous regimes, with estimated casualties. Note that DeLong's table is for non-battle, civilian casualties, while all six of our candidates were also responsible for the deaths of their own and others' soldiers and for "collateral damage" deaths (in Khan's case, in fact, war is by far his most common forum for death). So you have to watch out for that distinction.
Some suggest a total of nine million deaths (battle and non-battle) for the Crusades. Click here for reference with footnotes. That's all of the Crusades, mind you, over a period of centuries, and they don't add up to the achievements of a single lifetime (Khan would have thought the Europeans were pikers).
In fact, looking at the list DeLong cites from Rummel's work on the 20th century alone, only about 5% of the deaths seem to have any religious basis (Turkey, Pakistan, possibly the UK and Indonesia).
You may argue that DeLong's list is incomplete; if so, please cite other instances that support your statement, with reasonable estimates of casualties.
Some cases of mass murder occur when political or economic leaders conspire with powerful religious figures to use religious language as a cloak for their intentions. That's a pretty good summary of the Crusades, for example. Also, many 17th century slavers sought justification for their actions in Islamic or Christian scripture. Therefore, I don't think these murders fit your statement, because religion is here an excuse rather than a causative factor. But even if they do fit, they are greatly outnumbered by the victims of non-religious murder.
Mind you, there are genuine cases of religiously motivated murder. (See, for example, the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.) But your statement that "more people throughout history have been murdered because of organized religion than for any other reason" is completely...unsupportable by any set of facts of which I am aware.
I invite you to show me facts that support your position, or tell me how I should more accurately interpret your statement to make it line up with history. Because right now, it doesn't.
It sounds hip, and it fits the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's true.
OK. It isn't true. Please explain to us what is true. Obviously, we're too stupid. Tell it like it is. I will note this placeholder when you fail to "tell it like it is".
I'm terribly sorry, but you are, from what I can tell, a t