Shall We Live under de facto Shari'a?
That's the question posed by my latest media analysis column for Rocky Mountain News. Also in today's News, publisher John Temple suggests that fear of Islamist terrorists is a key reason why American newspapers aren't publishing the cartoons. Editorial page editor Vincent Carroll has lambasted the New York Times for its refusal to print the cartoons. And the News in its formal editorial voice has taken perhaps the most uncompromising pro-free speech position of any major daily newspaper in the United States.
Giving unnecessary offense is not the purpose of free speech. Yes, you have the legal right to do it. But it's rude.
It seems to me that some people really want to keep pushing the line on these cartoons precisely because they give offense to some people. I'm absolutely for free speech but I also understand that when one undertakes to insult people and/or their deeply held beliefs, it is to get a reaction. What reaction is it that is desired from reprinting these cartoons? Precisely the violent overreaction we've been seeing so far. Because the more you can provoke a violent reaction, the more violence you can justify using against the people you're insulting.
Nothing happens in isolation. People who feel oppressed but overwhelmed by force may not act out until they also feel insulted. That the insult seems like the proximate cause of the reaction if you ignore what has gone before.
There is absolutely no chance, none whatsoever, that "radical Islamofascism" or whatever you want to call it, is going to take over the United States. It isn't remotely sane to believe that it will. Let's operate on the more realistic basis that we need to protect against actual threats and not create more grievances in order to widen conflict.
http://futurist.typepad.com
Is it your opinion that non-aggression is per se "unAmerican"?
The Taliban destroyed two giant Buddhas that were over a thousand years old;
During the Palestinian Intefada, Muslim terrorists took over a church and defaced it;
Muslims routinely print lies about Jews, including the story that Jews use human blood for the pastries they bake for religious ceremonies;
Non-Muslims are not permitted in Mecca and Medina;
Saudi Arabia is so intolerant president Bush had to leave the country to worship when he visited the troops in 1990; and
Since the Pact of Umar in the seventh century, non-Muslims have been treated as second-class citizens in Muslim countries.
If Muslims will not respect other religions, why should non-Muslims respect theirs? Especially, when that would mean violating one of the foundations of western society?
But double standards against America, when exhibited, are examples of anti-Americanism.
It seems to me you want to blame all actions taken by particular Muslims on all Muslims. This is as invalid as blaming all Christians for the Crusades, or all Europeans for the Holocaust.
I advocate non-aggression as a general principle. I recognize that not everyone (or every country) respects this principle. I acknowledge that force may not be aggression when properly limited to defensive purpose and not excessive. This is pretty much the definition of libertarianism. Do you think libertarianism is "anti-Americanism"?
Double standards and hypocrisy in making judgements about America are anti-Americanism.
Is there any reason besides fear that I don't call you names or insult you on this forum? After all, it might be totally understandable and rational if it was important to me not to be barred from posting for breaking the rules. And actually I'd prefer not to be, as I rather like participating and some of the people here are very thoughtful and interesting to talk with.
Truthfully I don't want to call you names, because I'm not looking for a conflict with you. I don't want to insult your family, or your faith, or your other deeply held beliefs. If and when I do disagree with you, I'd prefer to do it respectfully, because it's more pleasant for me as well as for you, and more conducive to resolving whatever differences we may have.
So it offends them. Since when is it a human right to not be offended? If you are offended, protest is a legitimate response, violence is not. Of course simply ignoring the offense is the best response - it utterly deflates the one doing the goading.
I seem to distinctly remember how much flak the reporter who broke the story of American Marines shooting wounded "ragheads" in Iraq got from the conservative press, if not from this particular commenator, for THE SAME REASON that the cartoons are not being printed in the U.S. right now - our guys are in the line of fire right now - why do we want to give the Shi'a and the Sunnis another excuse to blow them up?
So can you clarify for me to what purpose your link to an article on debating "anti-Americans" served? Was it in reference to something you think I said or implied? Or was it apropos of something someone else said or implied in this thread? Was it pertinent to this discussion at all?
Why so suspicious?
Let's be clear here, since Tester's made a very important point about not being hypocritical. Do you think all the photos from Abu Ghraib ought to be printed in the newspapers as well? How about photos of all the caskets coming home from Iraq?
ALL those would have to be shown, to show both the good and the bad, to have a fully accurate picture.
Sorry if I misunderstood your intent, I just figured your original post might have some relevance to the conversation. General interest seems fine, usually it's best to point out when you're going off-topic just to prevent confusion.
But since you say that double standards and hypocrisy in making judgements about America are anti-Americanism, what if those double standards are applied in the reverse direction. Is that Americanism or is that something else?
I really don't think it would be a good idea to print all those torture photos in the newspapers. They are quite indecent and inappropriate for anyone to see without expecting to be offended. Some small number of them have been released on the net, and ought not to be suppressed. People who want to see them should be informed well enough that they can find them if they really want to see them.
No, that would be bad too. For example, implying that all Islamic women are required to wear burkhas in all nations would be inaccurate, and misleading.
I just see much more of it in this direction.
The number of media outlets, both here and abroad, trying to make America look bad are many more than those that are trying to be fair.
Given limited newsprint, it's hard to avoid some imbalance in coverage. Plus the papers are privately owned and don't have an obligation to provide equal time to all perspectives. There are too many photos of too many things, wondrous and despicable alike, to print them all. Online it's another story, capacity is nearly unbounded and everything can be found somewhere as long as someone is interested and as long as it isn't suppressed. I'm against suppressing any of these photos, or any viewpoint for that matter, though I don't expect all of either to be housed on any particular website.
Seem fair?
What would you prefer to talk about? How about cannabis prohibition?
Is your response an example of the respectful disagreement you spoke so highly of? Or was this one of the occassions on which you didn't prefer to do so?
My statement wasn't so much directed at the topic itself, but rather at the continual coverage which hasn't seemed to be adding much to the debate.
I took you at your word that you wanted to discuss something else.
This brouhaha made me study up on why idolatry became disfavored and monotheism came in with prohibitions on "graven images." Of course, that implicates one of the most important functions of religion, which is to coalesce power in one head of state over the previous factions of polytheism, with attendant advantages in social cohesion and the ability better to kill the guys next door.
Feces Virgin Mary
Piss Christ
Nothing at risk for american papers, except the chance to take a poke...
Now, in the face of the Quranic SA ....nothing?
Is that all there is for the guys who died at Bloody Ridge in Aug 42 (Guadalcanal), or driving obsolescent torpedo bombers twords the Kaga into certain death, or walked up Marye's Heights, and stood 10' from Jackson's men firing at each other for an hour at 2nd Manassas?
Is that all there is for 3,000 who were were burned and slaughtered out of a clear blue sky while having coffee one morning? Is that it for the black men who were lynched dragging themselves towards a rough equality?
If we passed a modern sedition law, I have a feeling we'd here from the brave Mr. Keller. When he has to face Karl Rove he is brave. But when he faces Qaradawi, he is silent over CENSORSHIP of the roughest kind. Civil Intimidation.
I profess my disgust. I actually didn't think I could feel worse about the NYT, but Keller et al have managed to DO IT
Where is the freedom fighter Krugman, Robert Scheer, Frank Rich, David Corn, Katrina Van Den Heuvel? When the enemy is Scooter Libby they are right there, but the enemy is one who will SCARE YOU physically?
You see, that's exactly why they NEED to be published. Because when they're not published, people are able to imagine much, much worse cartoons than the ones which were ACTUALLY published.
They're NOTT "horrendously offensive". Not in the slightest. I see more offensive editorial cartoons every day in the paper.
Not publishing them allows the illusion that the outrage is in some sense justified, to be preserved, by sheilding people from the evidence that would shatter that illusion in a heartbeat.
And so the public in the West do not realize how insane the outrage is, and become even more disgusted with Islam. And maybe *that* is the point of not publishing them, not fear. Just another ploy by the western media to keep the "irrational and bloodthirsty" public from getting mad, where the media think we need "understanding" instead.
Well, living in a cabin in Montana probably helps one with that. (See this.)
I largely agree with Kopel's RMN essay. Personally, I would like more "offensive" speech and less of that vaunted "editorial judgment" in my daily newspaper. Then I might actually read it.
My view is that bending backwards to respect and not upset Moslems is more pragmatic than either fear or multiculteralism. Rather, we are in a war in which we are trying to pacify Afganistan and Iraq, and neutralize Iran, all very Moslem. Not printing the cartoons in the major media just makes our job a little bit easier there, removing just one more reason, for example, for the native and foreign born terrorists in Iraq to make common cause against the Crusaders.
p.s. Dave, if you are reading this. Keep up the good work. Living in CO, I see your editorials quite regularly, and they are invariably some of the first I read.
Having now seen the real thing in its entirety, and in context, I am confident that any even faintly fair-minded person who holds even a whisp of respect for the legacy of Martin and Coretta Scott King would be mortified by the misrepresentations about this funeral that some on the right have been making, and that you've parroted here.
Like your article in the RM News. It looks like even lefties at the News are showing some spine. Helps to be living on the Colorado plateau with your backs to the Rockies and loose gun laws. Defensive depth.
Your quote from the Denver Post lefty blogger was funny too: "I’m so damn sick of chickensh– white boy/draft dodgeing political hacks who have never picked up a damn pencil in service to this country, much less a rifle, attacking the military service and medals of Democrats."
Someone should inform Dani Newsum of the fact that no man born after 1955 or so (and of course no woman) can be called "draft dodging" because of the lack of a draft. Conscription stopped in January 1973.
Looking at David Thibault's bio, I'm guessing he was born after 1955.
It also appears that L. Brent Bozell was born in 1956 or so. No draft dodging there.
Obviously a great many of them, given the scal eof the boycott of Denmark and Danish products.
The NYTimes just reprinted the elephant-dung Mary image for no readily apparent reason, but refuses the cartoons. Offending Christians is fun for the "cultural elites" and it's safe since they generally don't blow buildings sky-high.
Have you seen the cartoons? In what way are ALL of them offensive? Only one is even controversial, in my opinion. But the newspapers would have you think, by not showing them, that they show the worst kinds of debasement. ("Wow, they can't print them. They must be really bad!!")
Exactly right, Brett. Western freedom of speech trumps freedom from offense. If the West caves on this issue, it really will be a slippery slope.
Do you think the NY Times should syndicate the cartoons of Ted Rall?
Now, even if we take seriously that Muslims are so offended that their rioting and death threats are somehow legitimate reactions, Glenn Reynolds asked the key question on CNN: _Will and Grace_ equally offends Christians. If the Christians riot, do we take it off the air? Hindus equally revere cows as sacred. If the Hindus riot, do we outlaw representing or eating of cows? No matter what the hell we do, someone, somewhere out there will be deeply offended. Do we therefore outlaw everything offensive?
I can't figure the NY Times out, actually. They seem to have a really schizoid approach, and they've really ceased to have credibility on the left or right after Jayson Blair and Judy Miller, withholding the wiretap story for a year and then printing it (take your pick which one you think they shouldn't have done, the combination is inconsistent).
But frankly we're just whistling in the wind as far as criticizing the MSM, they have freedom of the press and similarly the freedom not to print what they don't want to. The way to have an effective voice now is to use the internet, which we're doing here.
Bottom line. I'm not going to defend the Times' decision to print the Dung Mary. It doesn't make sense to me.
There's a difference between choosing not to print something and outlawing it. It should be (and is) perfectly legal to publish the cartoons at issue.
Yes, there is. It's too damned bad the rioters will not settle for discretion, and demand outlawing the conduct instead, on pain of continued violence and death threats. Since the objection to depicting Mohammed is patently bogus to begin with, they should drop the crap and just issue their death threats unvarnished by fake outrage: Death threats to the West are the only sincerity they show in this matter.
Would it be fair to characterize your own outrage as being similarly fake? Do you seek peace with Muslims, or do you want an excuse to kill them?
Sorry I misunderstood your posts as serious in nature. Troll someone else.
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD108906
I notice that you call me a troll in order not to admit or deny your desire for conflict.
The Memri article (though selectively quoted, to be sure) made some points that we might rather not engage with, but ought to. For instance, there are laws in Europe against anti-Semitic speech and press. I think those laws do more harm than good, as the proper response to speech we don't like is more speech. We're looking at things from an American perspective but Denmark is not America.
Circumspection, please. More irrational emotion is the last thing anyone needs.
Read Glenn W Bowen's posts above:
Why would I suggest that anyone here is looking for excuses to kill? Because clearly some are.
I do have to wonder if Mr. Falwell would have invited Mr. Flynt to a duel rather than ask for 500 Benjamins.
Where is the person that has been given offense, he or she is nowhere to be found. It is impossible to libel a belief.
The poster states that publishing is a proper response. Publishing cartoons is not murder. Sheesh.
Glenn Reynolds asked an irrelevant question and the Rocky Mountain News' question was sheer hyperbole. Nothing is being outlawed. And to answer Glenn's questions about Will and Grace, a lot of TV shows have been yanked because of protests from one group or another, most recently The Book of Daniel, which painted Episcopaleans in a rather unflattering light (which I thought the hard core right wing fundamentalists would have rather appreciated). Remember the Reagan TV movie also got yanked before it was shown, apparently because they didn't depict Reagan as having a halo and neglected to show him slaying dragons, turning water into wine and curing lepers.
As indicated in the MEMRI link I posted above, the push to outlaw conduct displeasing to some Muslims is very much reality. With respect to _The Book of Daniel_, it tanked in the ratings. There were no riots, and no Christians issued death threats to anyone over it. The Reagan film was aired on cable (contrary to your contention) and, again, bombed in the ratings. Again, no one rioted or threatened to kill anyone over the Reagan movie. Please be honest in this matter: Show me other religions rioting ther streets and threatening to kill anyone who offends them and perhaps then you will have made a point.
This is not at all what is at issue. The cartoons are not even terribly offensive, not by Western standards and certainly not by standards in the ME as judged by the caricatures and other forms of propaganda wantonly and conspicuously lavished against Israel and Jews and to a lesser, but still notable extent, other groups; dhimmitude and the culturally/socially engendered hatreds and misanthropies in the ME is a huge, contrasting aspect of what is at issue.
But even more significantly, especially so given the rather mild caricatures involved, the fundamental maintenance of classical liberal forms within our polities is at issue. Over-reactions (e.g., simply or merely to offend) may need to be guarded against, at least so when it comes to more egregiously offensive depictions, but given the global environment this is taking place in, these twelve cartoons are not only mild, they are also apt and succinct forms of social/political commentary. Further still, without publishing the depictions, many people won't be able to draw their own conclusions about these and other related topics.
Given some of the commentary herein, it's profoundly ironic that the subject of this post is de facto forms of "shari'a" imposed values and governance. This is not about polities in the West being "overly" guarded in their protection and maintenance of formative liberties and bedrock classical liberal standards, this is about a proper and commensurate response to rank duplicity and a perforce, insinuating power play into our forms of governance. These are simple caricatures we're talking about, cartoons which provide trenchant commentary concerning a real-world set of issues which need to be addressed, around the globe, to one degree or another. (I.e., empirically based events such as 3/11, 7/7, 9/11, Casablanca, Bali, Istanbul, Daniel Pearl, etc.)
(Also, regarding comments concerning the "piss christ". As with the "elephant dung/virgin mary," most of the reaction, certainly so in a political vein, concerned itself with the fact it was publically funded. If an artist advances a work entitled Bill Clinton Raping Juanita Broaddrick for public display and a tandem work entitled Hillary Clinton Acting as Apologist for the Rape, all, according to the artist and various commentators, in order to artistically depict aspects of the American political/legal scene, I very much doubt people on the soft or hard Left would remain quiet if it were additionally discovered the works had been supported with the use of public funds.)
cf. British Imam Praises London Bombers; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Frankfurt Book Fair; Suicide Bombing 'for a Higher Ideal'?; Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots. What these references reflect, when contrasted with the de facto (and de jure) submission we're suppose to comply with vis-a-vis the cartoons (and other, yet to be determined compliances), is that we're not only suppose to refrain from portraying any putatively unwarranted commentary but are also suppose to (according to both de facto Islamicist standards as well as multi-culti dogmas and standards) more positively portray or "understand" events such as suicide bombings and similar, corresponding tactics.
h/t American Future, Iris Blog, Matthias Kuntzel
Perhaps I should have kept the emphasis from the original: "why would we blame Christians for the Crusades?"
Well, until very recently, Catholics and Protestents in Northern Ireland did it regularly (and had been off and on for something like 500 years).
Then you have almost constant Sikh/Hindu/Muslim violence in India (sometimes the Muslims start it, sometimes they don't). Just a few weeks ago we had white Australians rioting against Muslims.
Given how "constant" it is, you should have no trouble at all finding evidence to link to here.
And of course don't forget that the problems in the Balkans in the 80's and 90's was Christian on Muslim violence, not the other way around.
You say, about posting pictures of Abu Grahib,
"In my opinion, those photos can be printed, but at the same time, it would be fair to print photos of voters of all ages enthusiastically voting in Iraq's election, large numbers of Iraqi men signing up for the Iraqi army, training photos of the Iraqi Army, and photos of burned vehicles (and possibly even dead bodies) after Al-Qaeda sets off another bomb in Iraq. "
Let's agree that all of the pictures you want printed, presumably to add context, are "good things". I guess we should all be gratified that when the US government and US military decide to spend several hundred billion dollars and end up killing (in the President's recent admission) "about 30,000 Iraqi" civilians, that SOME good things will result.
Similarly, I suspect that if we all agreed that I could arbitrarily kill whomever I chose to and command 20% of the country's GDP, I, too, could achieve *some* good results. But isn't it a more relevant question as to where I got the right to do those things? Putting this back in context, where did the US government get the right to lie the American people into war, invade another country on false claims of "preventive" self-defense, and round up and torture Iraqi citizens on the grounds it suspects some of them may have information they desire?
The people who founded this country could distinguish between power and right. It's been amply demonstrated that the US government has the power to invade virtually any country on earth and take down their government. Whether or not they have the right to do so is something the US government is quite grateful most Americans are too scared to consider.
"Are you trying to humiliate the best golfers in the world?" one spectator asked a St. Andrews official.
"No," responded that worthy, "we're trying to identify them."
Seems to me that a practical use of the cartoon issue is to identify those Muslims who need little or no reason to get nutso. If it weren't this, it would be the next convenient excuse to push western society into retreating on itself. Which some think we ought to do. I don't see that it's working, so far.