The author says, "It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures." Really? I haven't seen this expressed by the billion or so muslims around the world--quite the reverse, if their more outspoken leaders are to be believed, and if their fatwas and jihads are seen for what they are.

Furthermore, the concluding sentence ("‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’) seems totally off the mark. A free society is precisely that one where anybody's "fundamental beliefs" are subject to criticism. If this be "conflict," make the best of it. Without that criticism, change will never happen. Moreover, if these "fundamental beliefs" cannot stand against criticism, then it's hard to sympathize with their proponents.

The problem is not words--it is conduct. It is the notion that a fair response to words is killing the speaker. That is the problem of the age here. Unfortunately, multiculturism inhibits proper responses to this problem.

I agree wholeheartedly with John -- Just why has the response to the Salmon Rushdie Affair, and the Mohammed Cartoon Afair, and so many others, been a demand that we not utter words or express ideas that just might offend the Muslim sensibility? We really ought to be demanding tolerance - tolerance of words, thoughts, and ideas. If you are offended by Salmon Rushdie's words, it is perfectly acceptable not to buy the book, or publish a response, or even boycott the publisher; it is NEVER acceptable to call for the author's death, or to act on such demands.

The Koran itself rejects the idea that Muslims may convert by force non-believers; it accepts the right of others to their own beliefs, even if those beliefs are contrary or offensive to Islam. We all have, in the interest of liberty, a right to not only ask for, but demand, tolerance of not only our right to beliefs contrary to Islam, but our right to express those beliefs as we see fit without the threat of violent response. If the Muslim World as a whole refuses to accede, and insists on violent responses to any words, images or ideas they find distasteful or heretical, then we have the unquestioned right to respond in kind.

Nice thought, DiverDan. Too bad the real world gives lie to it.

The reality is that Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Animists, Shintoists, Pagans and Atheists rarely respond to insults to their religion with calls (and action) for murder. Those that do, such as Fred Phelps, are ignored or condemned by the mainstream of their religion.

Islam is different. Riots and murders over cartoons, fatwas, and suicide bombers are, at the very least, accepted by the mainstream muslims.

Sure, you can look around and find some muslims, usually in America, who are willing to condemn the excesses, but you have to work at it. Usually, you only get calls for tolerance and acceptance and pleas not to offend the muslims most holy beliefs.

For a simple thought experiment: What would have been the result if Robert Mapplethorpe had used Mohammed as the subject of some of his most offensive artwork instead of a crucifix? Or, on the other side, do you think atheists would have rioted if he had put a figure of Madeline Murray O'Hair in a jar of urine?

Polite people do not intentionally offend the religious beliefs of their neighbors, but we also have to live with people who are not polite. Ostracism is a far better way to deal with that sort of person than murder.

That's funny.

The lesson I learned is that the liberal/academic class gets their rocks off doing stuff like putting Jesus on the Cross in a jar of urine, and being as nasty as they can against Christians.

Exact same folks will see muslims killing people over a cartoon or novel and think that is just dandy.

Rushdie was the first time I realized the academic class were full of crap and really just hated Christians for being good. After 9-11 I realized liberals hate America so much they will accept the murder of people just like them so long as America is slightly harmed.

Since then during the war on terror the same academic class has done whatever it takes to make us lose.

Happyshooter,

Nearly everyone I know is a liberal, and not one of them hates America or accepts any murder, much less that of 9/11.

I don't know any academics who have tried to "make us lose," though I guess you could find a very small number.

It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures.

That's fine, but Rushdie comes from a Muslim family and so he was offending his own people and culture. What do the mullahs of multiculturalism have to say about that?

Tariq Modood is wrong, and preposterously so. For example, I (and many if not most mainstream Christians) think much of Mormon theology is just plain wrong, and we don't mind saying so at the right time and place. But we don't think Mormons should be persecuted for their beliefs, we don't think in the middle of a Mormon wedding or funeral is the time and place for a discussion or protest or anything like that, and we would have been willing to vote for somebody like Romney if his politics had aligned with ours.

Kirk.
And if you had been loud in your criticism of Mormons, you wouldn't have to get a remote starter for your car.

In most Muslim countries, expressing any sort of dissent gets you shot, thus no one engages in lively debate.

Right. This is of course true.

Muslims in America demand tolerance....
What intolerance have they faced?
Universities are, ahem, awash with footbaths.
On the downside, cabbies don't get to refuse folks with booze or guide dogs. IT IS NOT TO BE STOOD!

‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’

I wish the people of Iran, which renamed itself so as to make clear to call is an "Islamic Republic," better, but I am content to let them live in their dark cave of a country ruled by their obscurantist clergy. If they chose to jam all radio, television, and satelitte broadcasts to their country; block Internet access to Iranians; ban all movies, books, periodicals, and other publications from the non-Islamic world; prevent their citizens from traveling and deny non-Muslims entry; and otherwise insulate themselves from those not of their persuasion; I would not object. But if they and other Muslims want to co-habit with non-Muslims in North America, Europe, and other parts of the non-Islamic world, I don't think we should have to "subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism."

[Re Khomeni's fatwa calling for Rushdie to be killed...would a Sunni have been as likely (or unlikely) to act upon it as a Shia? Or would that fatwa meant nothing to Sunnis because it came from a Shia cleric?]

He proves that connection between race and nation. Muslim immigrants are outsiders and enemies of the values of free and democratic societies (Democratic in that there are elections but also rights for all, and, yes, that is really a republican form or government, but I digress.). Above all, Muslim immigration is nothing but a source of violent conflict and threats to the very nature of free societies. We can see this now in the U.S. with both massive Mexican and Muslim immigration. Both groups work hard to destroy freedom of speech and our indigenous culture. Was not the Rivers of Blood speech so prophetic?

‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’

Giving deference to Nathan Wagner, these are not the words of Kenan Malik but of Tariq Modood. They also are consistent with talk one hears these days from many Muslims and their apologists.

I would disagree with the sentiment, even if those propounding it intended to apply it equally, but they don't. As a case in point, note recent news reports of Ahmadinejad's claim that, were Jesus Christ alive today, he would oppose U.S. hegemony. Were Jesus Christ alive today, I am sure he would disapprove of many things, but put the shoe on the other foot. What would be the Muslim world's reaction if George Bush opined that, were Mohammad alive today, he would oppose certain policies of Muslim countries? We've be seeing a lot more shoes waived in front of television cameras.

Or take the insistence that the call to Jihad, properly understood is metaphorical, that it is really just a call for self improvement. Yet we are supposed to eschew "crusade" because of Muslim sensitivities. Except in discussions of historical events, when is the last time you heard "crusade" used other than metaphorically?

It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures. As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it: ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’

So, presumably, Malik and Modood will

limit the extent of their criticism of the fundamental belief of all of Judaism (except some of Reform) regarding of the connection between the Jewish people and the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

And presumably they disapprove of the sort of stuff you can access on memri.org-- crude invective against Jews, and cartoons that look like they come out of Nazi Germany. And presubmably they disapprove of Moslem clerics calling Jews apes and dogs.

This is actually interesting. Suppose Islamic fundamentalists became the majority is a state such as California. they then approve a ballot measure to amend the state's constitution to prohibit any marriage that is not recognized by Islam.

I suppose most people here would denounce such a move, right? And yet, if they constitute the majority, why couldn't they do such a thing both morally and legally?

Randy R hypotheses a Muslim fundamentalist majority in California and asks the moral and legal basis for objecting to their then banning in California all marriages not recognized by Islam. Off the top of my head, a legal objection would be the First Amendment's proscription of the establishment of religion.

I suppose Randy R's point is that Proposition 8 has vitiated that rule. But even if Pro 8 violates the rule, it's hardly open season on other violations. And while I don't want to defend the merits of Prop 8, it is not inherently based on religion as would be a ban on all marriages not recognized by Islam.

That most pro-Prop 8 voters were probably motivated by religion does not make the rule suspect. The government cannot act for religious reasons, but voters can, so a long as the voters' act does not compel the government to act based on religion. Whether or not one agrees with them, there are secular arguments for Prop 8.

Again, I'm not speaking to the merits of any arguments about Prop 8, but there is a big distinction between it and requiring that all marriages be recognized only according to certain religious rules.

I do think that a great many things done in the name of Islam are awful. I also think there is a greater amount of evil done in the name of Islam than that of any other religion. However, I think people here are being way to quick to somehow credit this harm to the influence of the Koran or otherwise conclude that any kind of belief in islam is going to encourage these harms, e.g., talking as if raising suburban kids in America using the Koran instead of the bible would produce harm.

What people need to realize is that while a huge (majority?) percentage of the Christian world is made of rich industrialized societies much of the Islamic world still lives in poor, primitive, semi-tribal patriarchal societies. If you go look at how Jews behaved when they lived in this fashion they were no better. Indeed, even in their holiest book they gleefully celebrate the genocide of enemies and the killing of those who choose to worship the wrong god or even just fail to worship correctly. Most of the bad things that are done in the name of Islam would be the same no matter who their prophet had been.

I mean just compare the behavior of the Christians of the crusades with those in america today. The holy book hasn't changed, only the cultural context. People interpret their religions however they need to do to behave as their cultural and economic constraints require. For instance black muslims in the US behave very differently from Arabic Muslims in the middle east.

--

Secondarily I would point out that people who don't call for censorship when things they view as sacred are verbally/symbolically defiled are few and far between. Just consider the flag burning issue here.

As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it: ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’

I think that Modood is onto something true but nonetheless misses the mark. The problem is not criticism. If people have trouble taking criticism, that is usually a sign of insecurity and that, quite frankly is their problem.

However, one thing that should go is the agonal way that most people approach criticism. For me, I love to argue, so this is something I have to temper in many areas. However, at the same time, I won't argue with people whom I don't respect, as that would be pointless. The idea, however, that the universe is a battle of ideas between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys is the problem.

If we are to have a reasonable reduction in conflict, we must forego the ideas of human arrogance that say that WE are right and THEY are wrong and argue in the spirit of seeking greater truth for both of us.

At the same time, some people just need to grow thicker skins.

"It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures."

Multiculturalism is something the west has brought upon itself by encouraging and facilitating mass immigration. Unfortunately many of the immigrants are simply incompatible with western values, and rather than adapting to their host countries they seek to change them. Thus Americans are supposed to speak Spanish and the British are expected to make concessions to Sharia law. Would Muslim countries reciprocate? Of course not. Would Mexico become bilingual to accommodate Americans? Not a chance. Does anyone care about offending Americans or Europeans? Never. There is nothing inevitable about this trend. Immigration can be halted and people can be deported. It only takes the will to stop destroying your country.

I can't believe he uses the Jewel of the Medina as an example of how much better and enlightened we are. Does he really think an outraged "academic" is what cancelled it? It was the threat of violence, and nothing else. Basically the author is stating "hooray, thanks to the continued threats of violence, they don't have to riot anymore, just have a professor say he doesn't like something, and the violence is implied and we get what we want, without rioting in our own neighborhoods"
Western culture has been cowed and beaten down and are afraid of saying anything that might be construed as offensive (and the Jewel of the Medina, if you read interviews with the author, was not meant to be offensive in any way), and this guy is celebrating it.

A. Zarkov:

Multiculturalism is something the west has brought upon itself by encouraging and facilitating mass immigration. Unfortunately many of the immigrants are simply incompatible with western values, and rather than adapting to their host countries they seek to change them. Thus Americans are supposed to speak Spanish and the British are expected to make concessions to Sharia law. Would Muslim countries reciprocate? Of course not. Would Mexico become bilingual to accommodate Americans? Not a chance. Does anyone care about offending Americans or Europeans? Never. There is nothing inevitable about this trend. Immigration can be halted and people can be deported. It only takes the will to stop destroying your country.

Do you see anything wrong with American businesses advertising the fact that they have people who do speak Spanish?

The Sharia Law issue is a better example, but to play Devil's Advocate, if Israel recognizes it in civil disputes, why shouldn't the UK?*

As for halting Immigration, I am reminded of a great political cartoon (not sure where I saw it). Two Native Americans are watching a political rally with lots of people holding up signs saying "Stop Immigration!" One says to the other, "I wish we had thought of that..."

I personally think our immigration laws need a fairly strong overhaul. They are too lax in places they need to be tighter and too tight in areas where they need to be more lax.

But then..... My wife is from a Muslim country. The BCIS took forever to process her immigration application so eventually I quit my job, moved in with my inlaws, and re-applied through the embassy there. The result was instead of a one-year wait, we had the visa in a bit under two months.

I think that there are better solutions to stopping immigration.

A Zarkov:

"Do you see anything wrong with American businesses advertising the fact that they have people who do speak Spanish?"

Yes.

Why is it a bad thing to try to make one's customers feel more comfortable as a way to build brand loyalty?

" ... if Israel recognizes it in civil disputes, why shouldn't the UK?"

It's a mistake for both Israel and the UK to accommodate Sharia law. It communicates weakness.

My original point was as devil's advocate. However, there is a HUGE difference between Israel's application of Sharia and what would happen if the UK adopted a similar measure. Sharia in Israel is recognized as an alternative to Jewish law in dealing with civil disputes. Since the common law tradition of Israel is Jewish Law, it makes sense to allow non-Jews their own alternatives. This is more-or-less mandated by the Israeli Constitution.

A good comparison would be to the fact that English Common Law is not looked to for guidance in Louisiana and French equivalents are substituted.

Immigration should only not be stopped; it should be reversed by deportation. What possible benefit is it for the US to import hordes of low-skilled incompatible people from the Third World? Already California has gone broke providing social services to immigrants both legal and illegal. What better solution is there to not creating a problem in the first place?

When you talk about reversing immigration by deportation, that suggests to my mind deporting legal immigrants, such as my wife.

However, the basic problem with illegal immigration is that we have a whole set of policies (including immigration law) which has created a tremendous black market for illegal labor. At this point, these policies are so rotten (in the structural sense) and disfunctional that this is one of those few times when it is better to build replacement policies rather than baby steps.

Here is what I would suggest:

1) Tax all employees regardless of immigration status. The IRS should not be an immigration law enforcement service. Where income tax is collected by states, this would go a long way to easing the burden. We already issue social security cards to people who don't qualify for employment under immigration law, so it wouldn't be a big change this. (I.e. anyone can apply for a social security card. If you don't qualify for employment, you will get one which says so on the card. However, this allows foreigners to come in and open bank accounts, for example.)

2) Institute guest worker programs.

3) Strengthen our borders.

4) Look for ways to bankrupt the smuggling cartels. One option would be to legalize the growing of cannabis in the US but forbid its import. This might heavily reduce the presence of large armed forces on our southern border.

Andy Freeman:

If there are folks in the US who want to work but aren't legally allowed to, some employers are going to offer them jobs paying less than said employers would have to pay legal workers and hide said employment. Said employees are probably going to try to duck taxes, piggybacking on the employers' efforts to hide their employment.

A lot of things are theoretically taxable where collection is impractical in the real world. Embezzled money is theoretically subject to income tax. In the practical world, it is not, for example.

So why not fully sever some of the requirements between immigration and employment reporting? One option would be to state that tax records may not be sent from the IRS to law enforcement personnel unless the issue is tax fraud.

"people here are being way to quick to somehow credit this harm to the influence of the Koran"

I take it you haven't actually read any of the Koran or the Hadiths.

einhverfr:

"We already issue social security cards to people who don't qualify for employment under immigration law, so it wouldn't be a big change this."

To get a Social Security card you must have a Green Card. To get that you must be here legally. I think that you are confusing a SS number with a Taxpayer ID number used by non-resident foreigners for bank accounts. These numbers are not SS numbers and cannot substitute for them. On the application you must sign a statement under penalty of perjury that you are not working in the US.

"The IRS should not be an immigration law enforcement service."

I don't know what you mean by this. The IRS enforces the tax laws. If someone has income and fails to report it, he is guilty of tax evasion. If someone fails a fraudulent tax return, say one with an invalid SS number, the IRS will take action as it would against anyone doing so. You seem to be suggesting that illegal immigrants be given some kind of immunity from the US tax code. That such a person would have special rights a citizen or legal resident doesn't have. You can't be serious.

"When you talk about reversing immigration by deportation, that suggests to my mind deporting legal immigrants, such as my wife."

Until people become citizens, they are subject to deportation. If it is in the interest of the US to reduce its population by deporting people, then it can do so. We are supposed to be a sovereign state, and the authority to deport people goes with that. Unfortunately there are a tremendous number of bogus marriages and this needs to stop. I've meet people who do it regularly to supplement their income. I not saying that yours is, but sometimes the innocent have to suffer for the guilty.

In case you are wondering why a restricted card makes sense, consider the following scenario.....

Suppose you live in Vancouver BC and have a consulting business where, say, 55% of your major customers are in the US. You want to provide a fast and easy to handle their payments.

So you drive down to Seattle, apply for a restricted SSC. You get one which basically says you can't work here (though you can work for yourself in Canada, and get NAFTA-mandated business visas which allow you to do billable work for customers on visits to the US). You then open an account near the border, but on the US side.

Once a week or so, you drive down to the bank and deposit the checks, and when you need to move the money out, you can transfer it to your bank in Canada.

This is what restricted social security cards allow you to do.