One shocking thing about the Mohammed cartoon controversy is how tame many of the cartoons are — and therefore just how much the cartoons' critics are demanding by arguing that the cartoons ought not be published, or even ought to be outlawed. Here's the dirty dozen, with thanks to Wikipedia:
Bigger images, including translated captions, are available here.
(1) The cartoons depict Mohammed, which some Muslims claim is prohibited by Islam (though historically a good deal of Islamic art has depicted Mohammed; the Islamic world has hardly unanimous on this). Fair enough: If you're a Muslim, presumably you can't do this. But to demand that non-Muslims comply with Islamic law is a mighty big demand, much like Orthodox Jews demanding that none of us write the word "God." Thanks, but no thanks: Your sense of what your religion demands doesn't create any obligation, whether legal or moral, on me to go along with your preferences.
(2) Some of the cartoons are actually pretty interesting artistically, at least to this observer; the image of Mohammed merged with the green star and crescent, for instance, seems to me an interesting and ingenious composition. The picture of Mohammed in the desert works for me because it humanizes the character, portraying him as a man and not just a symbol.
(3) Some of the cartoons have no criticism of Mohammed, of Islam, or of Muslims at all; two (the young schoolteacher and the "PR stunt" one) criticize the newspaper.
(4) Some of the cartoons are political commentaries that are pretty clearly criticisms of some strands of modern Islamic culture, but not of Islam generally. The cartoon in which Mohammed is waving off two angry Muslim warriors by saying "Relax guys, it’s just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander," is a message that true Islam (the teachings of Mohammed) counsels against what some extremist Muslims do in Mohammed's name. The cartoon in which the cartoonist is drawing Mohammed while looking nervously over his shoulder points out — entirely correctly, as we've learned — that drawing Mohammed is a perilous activity.
(5) Finally, some of the cartoons are indeed cast as criticisms of Islam generally, or of Mohammed generally. The display with the crescents, stars, and Stars of David apparently reads "Prophet, daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb." Another cartoon depicts Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Another shows Mohammed telling suicide bombers "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!" (referring to the supposed heavenly reward for martyrs) which suggests that Mohammed would endorse the killing of innocents that is modern Muslim suicide bombers' stock in trade. The cartoon that shows a fierce-looking Mohammed with a knife and two veiled women in the background likewise seems like a criticism of Mohammed. (The lineup with Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, and others strikes me as more a joke than a criticism of the portrayed figures.)
These latter items are ones that I as an editor probably would not have published, because I think they're not entirely fair. The ones that allude to Muslim violence tar Muslims generally with the sins of particular subgroups of Muslims. The criticism of Muslim treatment of women may be more broadly accurate of a wide range of religious Islamic thought and practice (though not by any means all religious Islamic thought and practice), but seems rhetorically excessive.
Yet these sorts of overgeneralizations and rhetorical excesses aimed at historical or religious figures as symbols for a movement are an inevitable part of free debate about ideas. This is especially so for cartoons, slogans, and jokes, which because of their conciseness will almost always oversimplify. It is also so because many of these images are necessarily ambiguous. I do not, for instance, understand the Mohammed with the bomb in his turban as accusing Islam generally; it seems to me to be a condemnation of one particular aspect of Islam — militant Islam that often centers on murderous violence against those it sees as its enemies. Again, as an editor I would probably have avoided items with this sort of ambiguity; but it is perfectly understandable that other editors would have a different view. To the extent there is a transgression of editorial judgment or good manners here, it is a relatively minor one.
Of course I realize that some disagree, and see any even possibly pejorative reference to Mohammed — or for that matter any depiction of Mohammed — as a horrible emotional injury. But their subjective feelings, real as they may be to them, are not sufficient reasons for the rest of us to change the way we talk or write. "I'm offended" cannot be justification enough, either in law or in manners, for the conclusion "therefore you must shut up." (Among other things, note that many people are quite understandably offended when others say "I'm offended, therefore you must shut up." If mere offense on some listeners' part is reason enough for the speakers to stop saying, then I take it that those who are offended have an obligation to themselves remain silent.)
This is why this issue is so important: Those who demand that the cartoons not be published or republished are cutting at the heart of public debate. They are either demanding that some ideologies not be criticized, or that they be handled with such kid gloves that normal debate about them — which is inevitably impassioned, given the magnitude of the issues involved — is practically impossible. This is why the West must resist this pressure to silence, both as a legal matter and as a matter of editorial judgment.
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:
- Danish Prime Minister Speaks About the Reaction to the Cartoons,...
- 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?
Three cheers! Good example of why I read this site.
Even the sharp one with the bomb-turban is, I'm told, a play on a Danish folk saying about an apple falling into your hat.
Perhaps most surprising is that a news media which glories in "speaking truth to power" finds limp excuses not to publish the cartoons. It becomes harder and harder to give these guys any respect.
Thank you for publishing the cartoons. In my view, we should support free speech and the Danes. The more the cartoons are published the harder it is for the bullies to win.
Indeed, although the Muslim "street" has some precedent for this, from Western feminists especially in the University setting, among others. They can also point to the fact that major newspapers would not print cartoons that are racially offensive, or imply that the Holocaust did not happen. Finally, perhaps the point is just that: They seek not parity but submission from us, as does any other bully, because the submission demonstrates and enhances their power and prestige, even in the face of weakness in other dimensions.
The only saving grace is that it appears as if the issue is getting bigger than the capability of government to legislate against it. The cartoons, and support of the concept, are appearing everywhere.
Hypocrisy can only take a politician so far.
You do not reform xenophobia, militarism, and aggression by eliminating criticism of it.
As such, it has nothing whatever to do with what is going on here.
God has told certain Muslims what is allowed and what is prohibited. That's God, as in no arguing or appeals allowed. You say you are not bound by their views. Well, in a Western, free speech sense, that's a given. However, that idea is simply wrong, since whether you know it, or believe it, or not, you are bound by what God says.
Here's the thing. You only have 3 choices:
1. Convince these people that they are misunderstanding what God has said on this subject. You obviously don't try to do that.
2. Acquiesce in their interpretation and obey God's command (as, e.g., the editorial departments of various newspapers here have done).
3. Say, in words or substance, screw you, and go on talking about free speech and the need for "balance" and the "fact" that some cartoons may not be particularly offensive compared to, say, the average cartoon on the editorial pages of the Washington Post or any newspaper in Iran.
That's it. Your post effectively chooses number 3. It is well done. But it really doesn't change anything, does it?
http://www.signandsight.com/features/640.html
"Separating truth and belief
For French philosopher Andre Glucksmann, poking fun at a belief and joking about genocide are not on a par."
Here are some hightlights:
"Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations - so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ("I am the truth") or they fall into nihilism ("nothing is true, nothing is false"). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.
A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject "actually existing socialism". Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists - who are far from representing all Muslims – like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising any one of the beliefs which every European has the right to practice or poke fun at.
For centuries, Jupiter and Christ, Jehovah and Allah have had to put up with many a joke. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith. That is the price of religious peace. But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future.
It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think. What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: here on earth the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity."
Read the whole thing.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/640.html
Whaaaa? And some are surprized that they do not want to discuss this?
Does this principle govern laws regarding gay marriage or gay adoption?
But God tells his faithful "behave" and of course defines what He means by that. Has God ever told anyone "make others behave?." The latter statement seems to be assumed by the protesting Muslims, vocal fundamentalists of all kinds, and your post. I see Volokh (and many other commentators on the subject) as attacking that assumption, that there's no difference between following God's commandments and insisting that others do so.
This reminds me of the line, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." The problem is that some people think that the issue goes beyond just personal choice.
Thank you.
You think that you can eat during Ramadan.
Just wait a few years.
The way things are going we'll soon hear demands that it is an offense to Islam for anyone to do that.
And my compliments to Professor Volokh.
Where was the outcry about censorship then? Oh, wait, it's only censorship when scummy Muslims protest, not when good upstanding Christians or Jews protest, as is happening in New York right now with the postponement of the play "My Name Is Rachel Corrie." Heaven forbid we offend Jewish sensibilities by putting on a play about an idealistic American girl crushed to death by Israeli tanks. But depict Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, yeah -- that's cool!
Of course I agree with you completely. It wasn't my intention to suggest you shouldn't have blogged! I just wanted to emphasize that a lot of the philosophizing is preaching to the converted. We know how we want to live, and how we do not want to live.
But the (apparently) ennui-ridden Europeans, who with very few exceptions can't seem to rouse themselves to fight this off, will not be persuaded until guys with scimitars are on their doorsteps, and then it will be too late.
I agree with you that something must be done, but the on-the-fence muslims (are there any?) will, I think, not be persuaded by words alone, if at all.
This problem, which I would call virulent Islamicism, is a virus far more dangerous than the flu. We need to talk about how to fight it, not whether it should be fought.
"Oh, wait, it's only censorship when scummy Muslims protest, not when good upstanding Christians or Jews protest, as is happening in New York right now with the postponement of the play "My Name Is Rachel Corrie." Heaven forbid we offend Jewish sensibilities by putting on a play about an idealistic American girl crushed to death by Israeli tanks. But depict Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, yeah -- that's cool!"
First Corrie was not naive idealist, second her death was an unfortunate accident, third she was killed by a bullzdozer and not a "tank."
I don't believe in censorship, but I do agree that a distinction should be made between "belief and fact' as Andre Glucksmann argued (see post post above).
Makinf fun of Muhammad, or Jesus, or Moses, or Allah, of God or god should be allowed.
However, if a cartoon were to poke fun at the killings of Muslims in Bosnia that would be another matter.
In my mind, free speech wins, and "tolerance" is a load of horse pucky amounting to a polite way of saying "I'm too chicken to confront a culture I disagree with, so I'm just going to be nice to them instead." But it seems to me that much of the West is still trying to reconcile the two values and can't understand why radical Islam can't.
Narr
My point is not to "slam" Islam or Mohammed. My point is that: (a) Western concerns about Islam's treatment of women are not without justification; and (b) Muslim complaints that there is absolutely no textual basis for the mistreatment of women in the Qua'an, and that statements to the contrary are merely the product of religious bigotry, are themselves without justification. The concerns expressed in the cartoon are a certainly a legitimate area for vigerous discourse and debate.
I rather suspect that by 7th century standards, this being exceptionally nice.
Why? Because you find it distasteful? How is that any different than someone else finding the Mohammed cartoons distasteful out of religious feeling or obligation? There's no principled difference to be had there.
Of course, most if not all relgions have their "strict interpretation" fundementalist branches. However, not all such fundementalist branches are called on to strictly interpret passages instructing, not merely allowing, them to beat "their" women under "appropriate" circumstances.
Further, Islam may structually lend itself to fundementalism more readily than some other religions. Unlike Christianity, for example, Islam never suffered from amultiple translation problem. The multiple translations of the Bible created ambiguity and thus at least some flexibility. It may also have supported more metaphorical, and themselves more flexible, interpretations of the text. I've known Muslims who have taken pride in the fact that the Quar'an began and has remained in "unaltered" Arabic since the beginning. Not a lot of ambiguity there.
.
"However, if a cartoon were to poke fun at the killings of Muslims in Bosnia that would be another matter.
Why? Because you find it distasteful? How is that any different than someone else finding the Mohammed cartoons distasteful out of religious feeling or obligation? There's no principled difference to be had there."
This is a good question.
I chose this example because I was answering someone who seemed to be upset about the cartoon lampooning Mohammad. I could just as easily used hundreds of other examples: poking fun at people being gassed, or at inmate of a gulag or at slaves being beating by their master.
The difference is that these depictions show something REAL, while Mohammad is just the name of the supposed author of a religious book. Even if the author had been real, someone like Joseph Smith (or Moses, or Jesus, Mark, Luke, etc. he (they) would still be fair game. People, mythical or not, who pretend to have THE TRUTH, who confuse truth with belief need to be challenged.
Now, while I would not ban jokes about massacres or about abused people, these statements are about something tangible and we tend to think about statements of fact differently then we do about statements of belief which are merely someone’s subjective reaction. The joke about someone’s belief is just as valid a statement of that belief as is a respectful comment about it. They belong to the same order of discourse.
A joke about a statement of fact is on the same order as the fact being joked about. Making fun of someone receiving fifty lashes at the stake or of someone being gassed is to use an old cliché (adding insult to injury). Such jokes place the speaker on the side of the master or the murderer.
The distinction is clear; however, I said that I would not ban them. Here is why: while we all can understand the brutality behind such jokes in the case of gas-chambers, gulags, victims of massacres, etc. we can’t all agree on which jokes cross the line. It’s because of the degree of doubt that I would not ban them outright.
On the other hand, I would celebrate a cartoon or joke about religious figures depending, of curse, on its quality for reasons I outlined above.
couldn't agree more, american ace.
You seem like seeker so I will spend some energy and propose something to you, a challenge really to test you. I don't contend your blog, I think the message is clear and I agree. I have been very disappointed and disgusted with the lack of response by media to this issue. It seems overly clear to me that pandering to threats of violence only increase the chance of violence against you in the future, for increasingly weaker reasons even.
My challenge is in regards to hints of something you say in regards to Islam. You could just be "pandering" as minimaly as possible? but you hint that only a small subset of Islam is violent or "bad". I make no claims to truth or expertise so no need to worry about validation of what i say except in regards to the rational and factual content of what i am going to say. If you can respond rationally without fallacy I will change my theories, though so far nobody has been able to.
To the nut: My research of Islam has lead me to believe that it is a nasty piece of work. I had the illusion that it was sort of an arab version of Christianity or Judaism(monotheistic) and that mohammed was some sort of "christ like" figure. Further at worst it was another religion used for consolidation of power a la constantine. But one day I decided to hunt for the truth of it so i read the quran and began to research the origin of islam(for disclaimer i am an athiest and research other religions too-i consider myself an amateur philosopher).
Islam at core is nothing more than mohammed's male power grabbing excuse. Thats it. Gabriel conveniently told him whatever he needed to hear to do all the horrible things he did. Murder, rape, pedophilia, robbery, ordering assasinations, the list goes on and on. The history is all there easy to see. Pre-islam arabia was a land of freedoms for people that is unavailable in the islamic world since mohammed. This is evident from mohammed's own history of being a worker who married his much older female boss who inherited her wealth as when she was widowed. She proposed to him for example(her worker)...After she died Mohammed(at a rather old age) started his rampage of horror.
Further not only do all the specific incidents of his speak volumes(and we can certainly go there) but the CONTEXT of the message is clear and nasty as well. Convert, live as a second class citizen, or die. To be a real muslim is to BE LIKE MOHAMMED. Thats the scariest part and I hope more people understand this eventually. Any spirituality of islam is either a twisting of the true meaning by "politicians" to control the people or ignorance. How many muslims can read do you think? I think most of them get the messages via listening to others or radio etc.
Just a hint of "islamic spirituality"...there is no Hell for "bad" muslims. You can do ANYTHING to anyone as long as you praise allah and say mohammed is his prophet..you go to heaven. Hell is ONLY FOR UNBELIEVERS. At least thats where all the women will be too, he said so. Women have only one way to get to heaven...obey thier husbands completely.
Just to say it once and get it out. Islam is a religon designed by mohammed to spread like a virus, he said so himself clearly. In the quran he taunts unbelievers about it. Talks about what he has set in motion...
Last what else I have found is that "muslim apologists" are rampant and very deceptive. I have encountered such mendaciousness that I can only surmise that most of them know very well what true Islam really is. There are two wars going on. One with the sword and the other?...in the minds and mouths of the apologists. It is as if "tolerant islam" is purposefully being sold to westerners to delay and confuse us.
For example are you familiar with the term "abrogation"? In debate it is one of the favored tactics used against ignorant westerners. It allows apologists to quote mohammed out of context at will. Every apologist i have entered debate with and called on this in one way or another runs away. Pretty much conceding that they were intentionally misleading from the start, to what end?
I would be very happy if you can contend rationally anything i have said. Especially in regards to the to context(message) of Islam. My fear of absolutist institutions lead me to learn more about Islam and what i found made me more afraid. I am not a "muslim hater" i am afraid of it's origin and principles(I also do not confuse ARAB with MUSLIM). I as a self defined rational,economic liberal, athiest have no compatability with islam. If it were not a religion based on conversion i could go my own way(maybe)...clearly as the cartoon issue shows that is not going to be possible. Why should we not make as big an issue of it as possible while we are on strong footing? Negotiating from a position of strength and all that. I am of the opinion if anything I have found so far is "true" then we should "draw our lines in the sand" now rather then wait for more islamic empowerment.
So i am not confused i believe in self defense as the only moral right for violence. When I speak of drawing lines in the sand i refer to doing it by "peaceful" means. Basically "this is what i stand for and here i will not budge by threats".
Wikipedia is actually chronically low on Bandwidth. They make everything they do public and encourage people to take it and use it for their own purposes.
Dave
The Muslim response to the cartoons was not, "You shouldn't publish those," it was, "You shouldn't be allowed to publish those." In otherwords, "You can't publish those."
What the cartoons are about is almost beyond the point. The ability to mock other people's beliefs -- be they religious, political, or whatever -- is an essential component of our freedom. You can't put limits on what is fair game: if you try to, those limits will inevitably come back to haunt you. You cannot say, "Of course freedom of speech is important, but these cartoons are offensive and unnecessary." Nothing could be further from the truth. (Before the burning of embassies and the signs calling for beheadings it was possible to make this argument of taste, but no longer.) They became necessary because they are offensive, and every newspaper in the US should have run them because they are a symbol of the difference between "shouldn't" and "can't.".
Repressive regimes allow non-offensive speech. Repressive regimes do not make a distinction between "shouldn't" and "can't." What separates us is that we must tolerate -- cheerfully or not -- speech we don't like. Philosophically, there is no difference between banning anti-Ba'athist speech, banning anti-Stalinist speech, and banning anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic speech. No "ism" can be above disagreement or mockery, whether it's fascism or libertarianism, racism or egalitarianism, liberalism or conservatism, Catholicism or Judaism. As soon as one belief is elevated to a special status, the whole system is done. If I can't offend Muslims, then Christians can't offend Jews. But isn't asserting the divinity of Jesus offensive to some Jews? And isn't Jewish disbelief in that assertion offensive to some Christians? And isn't the non-acceptance of Mohammed as a prophet offensive to many Muslims? And isn't the baring of any skin by women offensive to many Muslims? There is no end.
Parenthetically, it's no accident that American liberals, who champion the banning of "hate speech," and European liberals, who have criminalized Holocaust denial, find themselves in an unholy alliance with theocrats such as Pat Buchanan on this issue. They all represent the "I'm all for free speech, but..." lobby.
freedom to criticise religion? no such thing.
freedom to wear what you want and say what you want and live where you want with who you want? no such thing.
freedom to make mistakes along the way in the excercise of independent thought, expression, dissent or belief? no such thing.
and not only do such freedoms not exist, but attempts to excercise them would bring a sentence of death under islamic fundamentalist rule.
read the whole thing, and be aware of the many many equivocations in the types of human freedoms that are allowed or tolerated.
Muslims object to any depiction of Mohamed. This includes the most respectful and admiring depiction possible. We can see that Muslims have neither pictures nor statues in their mosques.
The West is using secular Western standards to judge the cartoons. These would include taste, tameness, accuracy, fairness, etc. But that is not the standard the Muslims are using. To them any and all depictions are offensive because they believe God says so.
I agree the West should use its own standards for its own publications, but it should not think Muslims use the same standards.
Tame cartoons. Tame U.S.?Tame Danes? Yes,and yet there was "The Dane That Roared" At gringoman.com
Muslims object to any depiction of Mohamed. This includes the most respectful and admiring depiction possible. We can see that Muslims have neither pictures nor statues in their mosques."
Not true Eliott123
Shiites do draw pictures of Muhammad. It's only the Sunnis who do not.
However, their reasons for objecting are binding on non Muslims and in a democracy where free speech is the rule it doesn't matter.
Andy makes a good point, Muslims can object they can't stop non Muslims from publishing them, though.
Jackson Dyer,
You have an interesting conception of reality (your own vision is objectively true, but others' is not). To the religious believer Mohammed or Jesus are as real as your great, great grandfather whom you never met but about whom your family has told you things.
There is still no principled difference between mocking a religious figure (Jesus didn't suffer at Cavalry, assuming as a believer would that what is written about him is true?) and mocking a victim of some horrible crime. Each might be distasteful, but they will be distasteful to different people for different reason, if at all (you, for example, find one category distasteful, while the other is not). None of this is to say that you cannot rightly criticize those who say things you disagree with (that's the entire point here, in fact), but your distinction is meaningless.
SenatorX, out of curiosity, is English your first language? Some of your constructions seem odd. That aside, you're making a mistake re: Islam as such. Christianity is also a religion that preaches conversion, but the more virulent forms of it have largely been purged by interaction with liberal society (to its detriment, in the view of some).
There are secularly liberal Muslims, they simply lack power, and are vastly outnumbered by others. People talk about how Islam needs a Pope or a Reformation when what they really need is an Adam Smith and a John Locke.
It's a religious "madness of the crowds", needing little to nothing to burn hotly.
John Jenkins:
"You have an interesting conception of reality (your own vision is objectively true, but others' is not). To the religious believer Mohammed or Jesus are as real as your great, great grandfather whom you never met but about whom your family has told you things."
I wish thinking about “reality” were that easy!
From the way you stated your premise there is no difference between a belief in fairies and the fact that I had breakfast this morning. (Why invoke your great granddaddy when any elapsed period of time will do. Even an event that occurred five minutes ago can be as hard to prove and seem as ephemeral as a dream.)
A statement of belief is different in kind and not in degree from a statement of fact. It doesn’t matter if the believer takes his belief in flying saucers as fact.
Even if we couldn’t prove it to the satisfaction of a skeptic the bus that went by my window five minute ago was yellow.
How do I know? I know because I saw it and more importantly my statement can be verified. (You can call the bus company, ask other witnesses, check schedules, etc., etc.
You can’t verify a statement of belief, if you could it would be fact.
If you abolish the distinction between fact and belief than on what basis will you claim that we live in democracy or that free speech is and essential component of democratic rule?
We do live in a democracy (a fact) and free speech is the law of the land (another fact). You have the right to question, criticize or lampoon anyone’s believes. Of course, the believer can object what he can’t do is try to intimidate you into keeping from speaking your mind.
The KKK has the right to march; and I support that right. And Holocaust deniers have the right to speak out too.
But an awful lot of people try very hard to suppress the opinions of both these groups.
So Volokh: I assume you're going to join the KKK on their next march, and show up in support at the next Holocaust deniers' speech, simply in order to "resist the silence"?
Gimme a break....
There's an awfully difference between protecting someone's right to say something, and helping them to disseminate their message.
The Right to Ridicule
By Ronald Dworkin
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18811
Gimme a break Atama,
The freedom to speak is not the same as the freedom to listen.
That's the whole point. Just because a bunch of nuts dressed in white robes (with or without hoods) want to march and burn crosses doesn't mean that you or I have to join them.
Freedom of speech means letting people speak, it does not mean that you have to join them or either listen to them. It most certainly doesn't mean that you have to agree with them.
You even have a right some would say a duty to speak against them. You are also not allowed, though, to use violence against them.
Is it because Muslims don't seem to get difference between tolerating speech and endorsing it that they resort to violence?
There certainly is an objective reality, but you have no privileged view on it. You're privileging your own positions and denying the validity of those of others, then generalizing that across all times and spaces. That's not a supportable position. You're objectively stating that none of the religions to which you are referring are correct.
That may be true, but I defy you to prove it (that's a rhetorical challenge, since proving a negative is an impossibility, but that's sort of my point). A belief may or may not be true. Whether it is verefiable does not make it a fact, but once it is verified we might agree that it's a fact if we agree to the method of verification. Are you willing to admit to the degree of faith required of your epistomological view (which is apparently a weak empiricism)?
You must have *faith* that your observations are true and that your conclusions from those observations are true. Unless we're talking about necessary truths, you're on rather thin epistomological ice at that point. Not that you have much choice, but I get bored quickly with people who think that "knowledge" is wholly unrelated to faith. There are a certain set of shared assumptions about reality that we all share, which makes communication possible, but whether our conceptions are concretely true is beyond our ability to ascertain. (Compare chemistry from 100 years ago to today, and decide whether things today are objectively true. I assure you there are errors, the reason for which we have not yet even contemplated).
Mahan Atma, you're not making sense. I'd argue that the KKK has a right to march and rally, and speak as they please, but I don't have to agree with them or support their *position* to believe that they have a right to take the position.
If a group of black Americans violently rioted to suppress the KKK's message, though the KKK's message is wrong and repugnant, the actions of those black Americans would be as bad as the Muslim riots against these cartoons. You're right in one way, though. We're making the call that these cartoons aren't as morally bad as the KKK's message. Some of them are so obscure as to be just weird, others actually funny (the virgin's one). For the most part they are commentaries on the FOLLOWERS of Islam, not it's patriarch.
Suffice to say that mild artistic political commentary on actual terrorism and murder of innocents by radical Muslims is not even in the same room as the shrieking hatred shown by rioting mobs.
(BTW, the word "inculcated" should have been "instigated". Tsk, tsk.)
Man, what if we could all just be reasonable?
I am going to sleep. I'll answer your post manana.
Personally I'm hesitant to say this has much to do with the 'religion' per se, though it is near impossible to tease apart what one means by religion as oppossed to social effects. I think it has more to do with a predictable effect of a less advanced patriarchial culture clashing with a modern culture. Just imagine what would have happened if medieval Europe had run into hollywood.
However, the idea that it is always somehow unfair to tar all muslims with criticism for suicide bombing because it is only a 'small minority' seems to be misguided. Many more people than just those who are actually the extremist are responsible for creating a culture that accepts this sort of extremism. So even while I might not agree with such criticism, the same way I might not agree with the criticism of Bush over this Dubai ports deal, it is well within what should be the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Muslims in other parts of the world are just as likely to have similar views of non-Muslims. Think of Pakistan a non Arab country.
"I think it has more to do with a predictable effect of a less advanced patriarchial culture clashing with a modern culture. Just imagine what would have happened if medieval Europe had run into hollywood."
Hollywood in the Middle Ages cool! Were do you think Hollywood came from if not from those great bawdy stories told in the Middle Ages.
"SenatorX, out of curiosity, is English your first language? Some of your constructions seem odd. That aside, you're making a mistake re: Islam as such. Christianity is also a religion that preaches conversion, but the more virulent forms of it have largely been purged by interaction with liberal society (to its detriment, in the view of some).
There are secularly liberal Muslims, they simply lack power, and are vastly outnumbered by others. People talk about how Islam needs a Pope or a Reformation when what they really need is an Adam Smith and a John Locke."
First, I wasn't aware this was a grammar or spelling contest. I write for context and pointing out construction "errors" is dancing close to "ad hominem" fallaciousness. Not a good way to start your point...In any case you moved on and responded to me so I will respect you in kind.
You point out my mistake by inferring that Christianity(like Islam) is a religion based on conversion but has "largely been purged by interaction with liberal society".
a) Christianity is Christianity and Islam is Islam. Just because each share traits(Judaism) does not necessarily mean the same environmental conditions will lead to the same results
b) More importantly I think is your comment about the conversion aspects of Christianity being largely purged. I don't see that at all. I look around and still see Christianity converting quite hard. Tax money and tax breaks to Christian churches go directly to the indoctrination of children domestically and abroad. I would contend it is hard to claim a purge when our very government seems to pursue it as a social agenda. Further "in god we trust", words in the pledge of allegiance and many other insidious forms of "conversion" are quite prevalent. As well as all the "Christians" that don't go to church or practice Christianity really but continue to "believe in Christ" advocate by example Christian propaganda. I am very offended by this all the time(especially the indoctrination of children and the fruits of my labor being taken by the government for these agendas).
Also, I am not sure your point is made by use of the word "interaction". If by interaction you mean the fighting of liberals/libertarians to protect said rights then yes in-roads have been made here. Where education/perspective increases the sway of religious indoctrination weakens. So I believe my main contention is still valid. Basically that we should take the "fight" to them so all humans involved can gain freedom via this "interaction".
Your last paragraph is interesting but muddled I believe. You say "There are secularly liberal Muslims, they simply lack power, and are vastly outnumbered by others." I am not sure what a "secular Muslim" is really. Can you explain that? I fail to see how someone can claim to be a Muslim and be secular at the same time. One is a moving away from the other. Yes there are many humans who are in the process of re-evaluating their beliefs. That they have been indoctrinated so fully that it is often hard to make that final break and say "I am no longer a Muslim" is no surprise(I certianly happens though to my great joy). That was one point of my comments. That these "tolerant" Muslims are not TRUE MUSLIMS. The fundamentalist Muslims ARE the true followers of Islam and NOT some small misguided subset. This is a key concept that I believe is central to the problem.
"People talk about how Islam needs a Pope or a Reformation when what they really need is an Adam Smith and a John Locke."
I like this comment by you better than the rest. I agree a Reformation?? I hope not! Instead of an Adam Smith or a John Locke I think they need a Nietzsche.
My main point is that I fear a definite stance will have to be taken and that any gains into freeing people from the yoke of Islam will have to be made in freeing people from the religion entirely and NOT by supporting "tolerant Islam". How will you take the key message of the Quran out of the religion? I fear the "fundamentalist" view will keep cropping up by those that READ IT THEMSELVES.
So far you have not convinced me otherwise though I would be glad to hear any new information you can bring to the table.
On a change of subject to everyone else: Has anyone seen what I saw about one of the pictures included in the folder of cartoons that the Danish Muslims took on that tour? There was one picture they carried around that was not shown above. Because it was not part of the cartoon contest. It was this freaky guy in a pig costume. A person in a pig mask making a face basically. I read that nobody knows how that got mixed up in there but it was from some sort of pig festival that was reported on much earlier by that paper. No one knew how it got mixed in with the cartoon photos but I guess those guys showed it all around the Arab world as well. Considering Mohammed's comments about "people" getting turned into pigs I wonder how that fared in the viewing? Also interesting that I only saw the one article about it and nothing else since...
While I understand the desire to seem "balanced" when "defending" the cartoons by labeling at least some of them as unnecessarily "offensive," and therefore not fit for publication, the fact is that this entire selection of cartoons - the Mohammed cartoon included - is a very mild sampling of the type of stuff that you could find on any side of any issue in an American newspaper. So why is everyone missing the point? In this case, I think that the Islamist drive to erase women from the social sphere is troubling because it suggests that Islamist ideology is actively hostile to Western liberal values and may in fact be deserving of our opposition and even contempt. If an ideology that attempted to speak in the name of 1.3 billion Christians began preaching that blacks were an inferior race and should be kept as slaves, I would hope that our entire society including cartoonists would rise up in anger and do everything possible within the law to cripple that ideology and prevent it from spreading further.
So why doesn't the Islamist attitude towards women - not to mention homosexuals, Jews, atheists, Christians, alcohol-drinkers, and authors like Salman Rushdie who offend the literary tastes of a group of Mullahs in Iran - make Islamist fanaticism a fitting object of distaste and even ridicule? If Christian lunatics speaking in the name of Jesus Christ attempted to impose a regime of racial or gender apartheid on societies across the world, and converted tens of millions of people to their beliefs, and began launching a campaign of terror and murder across the planet, it would seem fair to use caricatures of "their Jesus" as a shorthand for the noxious beliefs that were being peddled in His name. Whatever they might have been in life, Mohammed and Jesus are alive today as ideas in the minds of men; to caricature Mohammed, or Jesus (emerging from a motel room with Tammy Faye Baker, say ), or Buddha (in Hollywood, naked to the waist, listening to an Ipod and giving Uma Thurman a massage) is obviously to compare the reality of the lives of some believers with the transcendent ideals embodied by these figures whose existence may or may not be a matter of historical record, but who have nothing whatsoever to do with the subsequent history of the religions that were founded in their names.
The controversy over these cartoons has convinced me that what we are seeing is a political provocation intended to intimidate Western societies into truckling to a fanatical and very dangerous ideology instead of trying to stop it cold. Islamist ideology is opposed to the values and practices of open societies. The current round of debates in Europe and here over the "proper limits" of political expression when it comes to Islam give a clear indication of who is willing to fight for their values and who is not.
Exactly. There's countries in the Islamic world in which large minorities (even majorities) support suicide bombings. Pew polls showed that a majority in Pakistan and Jordan (before the bombing this year) had a favorable opinion of Osama Bin Laden.
If the ostriches want to keep their hands in the sand, they can do so. But not all of us are going to pretend that there isn't room for legitimate criticism of Islam and the Islamic world. They need it...and it would go a long way to redress the relative lack of even constructive criticism sent their way considering the amount of violence and shocking exposes coming out of that region.
Don't like criticism? Clean out your own closets. Don't want me drawing Muhammed? Too damn bad, I'm not living under your mullahs. If that's what it takes to get people rioting, we might as well prepare for the larger clash, cause we can't placate such aggression.
And frankly, placating it makes said clash more likely. Our general pussyfooting around the issue of larger culpability within the Muslim world has contributed to their aggression. I don't care about people loving me, so long as they leave me alone. But these people rioting have zero respect for us, and considering how we've appeased their often expressions of irrationality, I wouldn't either if I was them. We look like a bunch of pushovers, and weakness invites aggression.
>So, why have so few US papers printed the cartoons? Their inaction appears to put them in opposition to Prof Volokh and the majority of the comments here.<
I think there are a million factors that play a role. For one, I think Eugene's timing here isn't on accident -- he's waited for it to die down some. For another, Eugene is just a private individual with a blog, allowing him to make a statement with out all the implications and assumptions that would accompany a newspaper action. If the Washington Post publishes these cartoons, it is obviously going to be perceived very differently than from when Eugene does, and perceptions here matter. I think this is because people, rightly or wrongly, tend to look at newspapers as almost "official."
So it may be the same reason the government can't go and say something critical of Islam. That doesn't mean they're opposed to private individuals doing it, though, even if they say otherwise.
Plus, Eugene was also able to give a compelling explanation for why he thought it was appropriate, something a newspaper may not as easily be able to do.
Then, of course, the newspapers may just disagree. Or they may be afraid. Or they may recognize they have too much influence, and the stir would be too great. I think all the complicating factors are what make this both so interesting and so frustrating.
That being said, I'm afraid that we are using an extreme example to prove a rule that is not always categorical.
My objection to the idea that one should categorically publish incendiary material in service of promoting dialogue is twofold:
(1) It is easy to defend the categorical impulse if the person doing the publishing is the one who assumes the risk of the reprisal. If you're Salman Rushdie and you are publishing Satanic Versus and you are going to be the subject uf a Fatwah, then you are a brave, brave man and deserve recognition as a hero. Likewise, if you are a professor at a university publishing inflammatory material, you are to be similarly commended. The calculus changes, however, when the person doing the publishing is not the person taking the bullet for publishing it. At that point, I think the categorical impulse disappears, and you have to take a real pragmatic look at what you are doing when you are effectively creating risks for other people. I just don't see it as categorically heroic free speech defense when a particular decision to offend incites violence that is far more likely to take the life of someone a million miles away than it is to take your own. I detest the "terrorist set to detonate a nuclear bomb in new york city" heuristic used to analyze the NSA issues, but one could easily construct similarly unlikely hypotheticals with regard to incendiary publications, and reason backwards into the proposition that it is NOT unconditionally beneficial to publish incendiary speech. Obviously when I say "pragmatic consideration" you really do have to do some pretty hard thinking about the variables - the loss in dialogue from not publishing the cartoons, the people you would put at risk by publishing them, the degree to which nonpublication encourages bully-riots in the future, etc. etc. But it's not categorical when you're not internalizing the costs of your speech. As a conceptual matter - I think this is the objection many people are actually making to the exercise of free speech rights in the NYT NSA leak. Nobody really doubts the national importance of the issue disclosed (it implicates civil liberties, separation of powers, the relationship between the government and the media, etc.), but some consider the non-internalized cost (externality, for the cheap seats in the econ departments) of that publication unwarranted. Sure, the NYT has a right to publish that information (despite what Schoenfeld says in Commentary), but everyone is asking whether it was judicious. I'm not even coming close to equating the two scenarios, just trying to identify extremes that illustrate the point about pragmatic balancing that I'm making.
(2) I think the rhetorical appeal of the following argument is seductive - the best way to promote free speech across the world is to exercise it. That sounds nice for a bumper sticker, but I'm not sure it's really true. Again, in the case of the cartoons, I think it is. But again, one could imagine situations where the long term interests of establishing a stable government monopolizing legitimate force to enforce free speech rights might require that, well, people just chill out sometimes, and acknowledge the occasional difference between promoting free speech and exercising it.
Commence with the pillory...
Commence with the pillory...
It seems to me that you're assuming that things are going in the right way, and we should not rock the vote. Indeed, as a general supporter of the current Bush objectives, which demands reconciliation with the Muslim world, I can see the attraction of this. It is the same reason that many people thought Newsweek, even if the charges had been true, shouldn't have published such inciting material while American soldiers are at war.
However, reforming (really, as someone said above - "enlightening" the Muslim world demands criticism of its current state. And so far as the ability of introspection and self-abasement can be seen in the Muslim world...well, it isn’t there, aside from the vastly outnumbered liberals.
Most peoples don't want to see the flaws of their own groups, whether that group is national, ethnic, ideological, or especially religious - the self-critical Westerner is not the norm throughout the world. And even 60 years ago, the average American on the street would have been loathe to acknowledge national faults as compared to today. It is especially true for a civilization that is drunk on its former, centuries old glory and looking for scapegoats for its current state.
If we’re not going to criticize them, and they aren’t going to criticize them, no one’s going to criticize them. And they aren’t going to see any reason to change. Up until now even our own propaganda has allowed them to maintain the fiction that only a small minority is responsible for the cancer in their region, for tactical reasons related to our foreign policy goals, but at some point criticism of their current state is required.
And they aren’t going to see any reason to change. Up until now even our own propaganda has allowed them to maintain the fiction that only a small minority is responsible for the cancer in their region, for tactical reasons related to our foreign policy goals, but at some point criticism of their current state is required.
My point is that and sometimes they are not. I'm concerned that the easy facts on the cartoons issue create this illusory categorical rule about the best way of promoting free expression always being to exercise it. That's all. On these particular facts, I agree with you.
What? The "holocaust deniers" are not people who have a different view of history, they are people spouting "nonsense." Eugene must have been in Germany at the time and done a body count to be so sure.
In fact, the vast majority of "holocaust deniers" whose words I have read through links on this site are not, in fact, denying Hitler killed large numbers of Jews during his reign of terror. They are people who think what we are taught as gospel concerning the number of Jews who died at Hitler's hands during the Second World War is inaccurate. To Eugene, that's such "nonsense" that it doesn't even merit inquiry. The fact that no two historians ever agreed on anything is irrelevant. The fact that a group of people who were monstrously persecuted and killed might have relatives and sympathetic "historians" who had a very understandable desire to make sure that such a thing never happened again and whose accounts of what happened may have been motivated by this desire, is irrelevant.
All history, in fact, is revisionist. It's only the degree to which it is revised, and by whom which differs. If someone doesn't agree with the "historian" you choose to believe, does that characterize his views as "nonsense"? Must he have an evil purpose? Might he have different facts at his disposal than you do, and put the pieces together in a different way?
As for "If all the KKK did was come up with cartoons, we wouldn't think of the KKK the way we do", oh really? Who is "we"? You? There are many blacks I know who would be equally repelled by the KKK if they saw KKK cartoons which portray people laughing and cheering as Southern Negroes are lynched.
And what actual damage is done by those who question the historical accuracy of the generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust? They may be right, they may be wrong, but are any of the more educated and widely read among them advocating harming Jews in any way?
You can say what you want about Catholicism in this country, you can say what you want about Islam, Scientiology, Mormans, Hindus , Martians or anyone, but you cannot say anything that "offends Jewish sensibilities", unless you want to be run out of town, fired from your job, subject to hate campaigns and, of course, accused of being an anti-semite. US before Israel people are anti-semites. Vanessa Redgrave is an anti-semite. Everyone is an anti-semite.
When all the "I'm shocked, shocked that anyone would try to keep someone else from publishing harmless anti-Islam cartoons" people stop contempuously attacking and distorting the views of ANYONE who says ANYTHING that ANYWAY offends someone's "Jewish sensibility", that's when I will stop doubting their sincerity. So far, I haven't seen that, despite all the false protestations otherwise.
I think when people generally refer to Holocaust deniers' nonsense, they don't have the people who operate with 5% margin of error in mind.
But I do agree with your point about a lot of the inconsistencies the outrage at the Muslim response to the cartoons creates. Many forget that these cartoons hit the press and the same time that Toles' Rumsfeld cartoon did. I know that Fox is not a particularly fair indicator of these things, but I was astonished at the number of back to back stories that were effectively:
(1) we must publish cartoons to show the muslim world about free speech
(2) we must not republish Toles' cartoons and we must shame him into the stone age for "disrespecting" american troops.
i agree with (1) and disagree with (2). i was just floored by the number of people that failed to recognize that profound inconsistency.
I also think that you're not getting the concept of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is not only a denial of the existence of the mass murder, or the magnitude of it, but also any attempt to dismiss hitler's behavior as anything other than a carefully crafted, methodical campaign to extinguish an entire race. So holocaust denial can take a lot of forms - including the claim that the fact of fewer jewish fatalitis reveal that hitler did not in fact have the motive to extinguish the jews.
The label also attaches anytime the discrepancy appears to be motivated by anti-semitic bias, and I think quite understandibly so. I think many people would find even minor understatemetns of 9/11 fatalities to be suscpicious and even reprehensible if delivered by, say, a member of the taliban.
You forgot Hollywood and the afterlife, and they're our women now.
I will say this. I grew up as a Texas Jew. When I was 14 my mother had to explain to me that the head of our congregation had embezzled 50 thousand dollars. Moral of the story: never trust a rabbi in a cowboy hat.
I must confess I don't see the point of your post. You imply (or at least I infer) that Holocaust denial is illegal in the United States: it is not. (The European nations that do prohibit it are, in my opinion, wrong to do so.)
Calling it "nonsense" (which it is) is not the same as prohibiting it. And nobody is saying that Muslims shouldn't make it known that something offends them: they just shouldn't burn down buildings and threaten beheadings when doing so. There's nothing wrong with protesting something that offends your sensibility up until you threaten violence towards those who offend you. I'm fairly certain you won't be able to come up with a modern-day instance in which Jewish or Christian protesters threatened to kill the creator of a work they deemed offensive. (If they did, the NEA would be out of business.)
Shalom.
ps: And then there's this lovely bit of news from Yemen: http://www.yobserver.com/news_9692.php
One last thing:
Why do I get the feeling you speak from experience?
I loved this little snippet from the story you referenced:
"Twelve of the prosecution lawyers turned up to the trial, crowding and jostling each other in the busy court room. Several times the lawyers disagreed among themselves, and the judge ordered them to organize their team better.
They also demanded personal financial compensation for the psychological trauma they claimed they suffered by the actions of the newspaper, which they said has impaired their ability to do their jobs and follow their normal daily lives. "
And who says the Arab world is resistant to Western ideas? They sure picked up the victimology line with amazing alacrity. "Personal financial compensation!" These guys crack me up!
I don't know whether you've seen those commercials for the magazine "The Nation," but theres one part that say, "That Famous Left Wing Media Bias."
Your point makes me think of the Dubai Ports and "That Famous Right Wing Media Circumspection."
Delephant,
What a great post! I had missed the message of that cartoon as you said. Thanks for the analysis. For the rest of your comments all I can say is well put, I doubt I could have said it better.
Orwell’s Ghost(I too love that name), ditto. You as well make great points I think. More power to you.
Kovarsky,
I want to comment on your posts. I certainly don’t disagree with you attempt to bring discourse of any sort of demarcation on the rights of free speech but I think I have an answer to you.
My answer is that it is an entirely different thing for the State to impose restrictions on free speech and self moderation by individuals in regards to the “wisdom” of saying X. Also when the state defines the rights of free speech it does so with great danger. The tendency is to encroach more and more into civil liberties and I think we are much better off leaving erroring on the side non-controlled free speech. I think Andy’s comment speaks on this as well.
The “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” is commonly tossed out as an example of the limits of free speech so I might as well go there. I view this from the libertarian viewpoint that the state should interact where it promotes competition for the purpose of providing individual citizens with more choices. Rules like this provide common ground for individuals to come together(a theater) with protection from bodily harm. This is a distinct difference from the state conceding to threats from a religious institution and instituting coercive measures(laws) to control individual behavior and limit civilian rights. Offending someone’s “sensibilities” is a right I hold quite dear and is different from my right to infringe on someone else’s rights. They do have the right to be offended but they don’t have the right to influence the policy of the coercive institution I live under. This is a place I believe “a line in the sand” should be drawn. I hope I managed to convey this correctly…
EV,
“I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Not only do we run the media, the banks, and the comedy clubs, but we're sleeping with your women”
Lol I haven’t read enough of your writings to know your character. This article was clear and to the point but very delicate as well. It is a pleasure to know you have fire and humor as well as intellect.
Andy,
I agree. Although I think you could have left off the second comment Andy where you basically accuse minni of being an anti-semite. Not that I doubt your inference but why even go there? Minnie builds (her?) own noose quite well without your help…
Cervesa,
Lol yes that’s funny stuff! Oh the trauma! I need “financial personal compensation”. The good part of that is it shows that people are people and the desire for personal gain is STRONG even in such settings. Socialists and religious institutions are always trying to weaken and denigrate this, but can they really do it? I think not.
Click here
We think in word. If we wish others to properly understand us then we must talk, and write, properly.
That makes it far more difficult to argue that what's in the Quran is subject to change (absolutely not!) or even interpretation (done only with extreme difficulty).
I can play the "game" as well as the next robot. I have the "proper education". In the case here your point is further wasted by the power of word processors. The fact that I can click spell checker, cut and paste, makes your agenda silly. Oh you could claim it is important for people to BE ABLE to get a message across using "proper" convention, and I concede that, but it was my impression that anyone I would WANT to respond to my comments would be ABLE to understand my message(not you I guess...).
You're argument is that the context of my message would be clouded by the inability of my reader to understand my message. As I pointed out that was not the case nor the contention of the poster. Rather he was attacking the messenger to avoid the points. Right?
"We are the dreamer's of dreams", there is very little I MUST do and frankly you come close to taking the stance in opposition to the point of the blog. You wish to judge what is proper and use "though shalts" to convention...
I can say/type/blog/comment however I want and there is very little you can do about it. I MAY decide to run my comments through word, but only to give the mendacious one less thing to avoid my points. NOT to get my message across properly(oh am I allowed to capitalize words? oh crap or use improper parenthesis? damn!).
Go back in your box.
I know his role, Burgess.
That's why I compared whim to Joseph Smith.
Still, as a non Muslim I don't have to accept these legends and can refer to him (whomever he was--wa she even real?) as the "author"--- as we do to Homer as the author of the Greek epic poems.
Throw all the fancy words you want at it and it is still the same thing. If our leaders cannot protect us and our liberties then they do not deserve to be our leaders.
Whether your first language was English was a casual question and by no means could be considered -- by a person completely fluent in English -- as anything but an instance of mild curiosity. I don't think that the question was by any means ad hominen; at most it was mildly out-of-place (and only very mildly.)
(Btw, I had had the same curiosity as I read your very interesting comment.)
So perhaps your response answers the question.
I'll just assume you're being deliberately unclear then. You'll note I didn't point out any specific "errors" because I said they were odd, not necessarily wrong. There are two possibilities at this point (1) a non-native speaker or (2) someone being pretentious and using words he doesn't understand. That's why I phrased is as favorably to you as possible, so as to avoid the ad hominem. I thank you for clearing up my confusion.
Now for a real one: you haven't recently read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, have you?
The term "secularly liberal Muslim" is a deliberate construction on my part. "secularly liberal" serves to modify Muslim. You don't get to split it apart and turn it into something it's not. Well, you can, but you'll be missing my point. My point is there are Muslims who can participate in secular liberal society apart from their religion. We know that to be the case because there are Muslims in the United States and other liberal countries who manage quite nicely.
It's good to know that, as the arbiter of all that is truly Muslim, you've determined these people aren't true Muslims. I'm sure they'll be concerned at first but will come around.
In the future, if anyone has any questions about what it means to be a Jew, a Christian, or a Hindu, I'll step up and save SenatorX the effort and decide who is truly a part of those religious traditions. It seems the only requirement is that one not be an adherant, and as an agnostic I qualify. BTW, Kovarsky, can I have one of the women? In return, I will give you paragraph breaks!
My point regarding interaction between Christianity and liberal society is a simple one. For the most part in the West, when Christians don't like something, they sign petitions, they bitch, they complain, they vote, and they file lawsuits. They don't, for example, riot and blow things up. This I call progress. If you don't see the difference and merely wish to take offense at all of the "Christian conversion" going on around you, more power to you.
Apparently, you don't like reasoning by analogy, and you obviously misinterpreted what I wrote, to the extent that your "deconstruction" is unsalvageable. It's this simple: there was a time when Christianity was into converting people by the sword and trying to cover the known world. It's not so much anymore. Given that we have historical experience with this sort of thing, ignoring it doesn't seem to be the best way to go.
The problem in the Islamic East is not Islam itself. The problem is that there is no split between the religious authority and the secular authority. For the longest time, this was problematic in the West, too (Divine right of kings anyone?), but it isn't anymore. We know from where the power of government is derived.
As to Nietzsche, I think the Islamic East has quite enough raving m