Religious Dogma Has No Place In A Secular Society (UPDATED)
For avoidance of any doubt, the above is the famous 1495 painting by Hieronymus Bosch called 'The Fourth King', depicting Muhammad standing in the background looking visibly deranged.
What are you going to do? Fire me? Threaten me with explosives? The usual Islamoqur'an bashing bully techniques seem to be alive and well, and the West has once again succumbed to the threats to our own freedom of speech and press in favor of the apology policy.
I was shaking with fury to discover this morning that the Editor of France Soir has been fired over the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Islam scores another victory. The story as it unfolded, which I partly covered yesterday:
Newspapers across Europe, in Germany, Spain Italy and The Netherlands, reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for the Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked the original Muslim outrage.
Their publication Jyllands-Posten in Denmark led Arab nations to protest. Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet. And so what? Do we live in a Shari'a ruled world now where we are governed by those draconian laws, or do we simply fall to our knees and face Mecca in surrender?
Dr. Sanity has words for the clueless Bill Clinton, who seems to think this is in order.
The Arab News of Saudi Arabia calls upon Denmark to legally ban religious hate speech, as Tony Blair is trying to do in Britain:
No one can say that the UK is any less committed to freedom of speech than Denmark. But Blair understands there are limits to freedom of speech, just as there are to freedom of action; people do not have the right to stir up riots and racial hatred, encourage mass hysteria or heap abuse on religion any more than they do to rob, rape, cheat or kill.
It's interesting that I was dealing with this very issue yesterday, pointing out that Tony Balir's path is a dangerous one, giving encouragement to Islam's Shari'a fanatics, via the draconian draft of the 'Racial and Religious Hatred Act' and the very extremists he is trying to protect. And here we have it, a shining example unfolds before our very eyes.
The cartoons have sparked diplomatic sanctions and death threats in some Arab nations, while media watchdogs have defended publication of the images in the name of press freedom. Jyllands-Posten, which is Denmark's largest newspaper, evacuated its offices in Copenhagen and Arhus after a bomb threat was phoned in. They have since printed an apology, but still the demonstrators in Gaza have burned Danish flags, Saudi Arabia and Libya have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark, and Danish goods are being boycotted across the Middle East.
And although Danish Muslim groups initially welcomed Jyllands-Posten's apology, they have since declared it "ambiguous". They would like some more serious grovelling to be taking place, and no doubt some heads to roll just for good measure.
The latest news is that the owner of one of the papers to reprint - France Soir - has now sacked its managing editor over the matter! France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show religious dogma had no place in a secular society.
Yesterday we were all praising the French for leading the battle waged against freedom of speech, by publishing the offending cartoons, today I feel absolute outrage at the cowardly move by the publication's Catholic Egyptian owner Raymond Lakah who said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".
Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."
Why were we ready to believe for a moment yesterday that the French were bravely doing the right thing. However, one brave man does not a nation make.
From Erik Svane @ No Pasaran: "Of course, Jacques Lefranc was neither stabbed, beheaded, or blown up, but still, his punishment came from the French side — aka the land of debate, openness, tolerance, reason, republican values, and never-cave-inness (even though his boss is French-Egyptian) — so that must have hurt."
This move is so outrageous, showing utter betrayal of a lack of understanding of press freedom as an essential accomplishment of democracy. And yet I still have some of my readers believing that my post 'It Is About Time We Were Politically Incorrect Part II' (and Part I), is unfair. If we do not stand up now and draw the boundaries, we will indeed soon be forced to fall to our knees at a drop of a hat and face Mecca.
Other papers stood by their publication. In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire.
The paper points out that the issue has nothing to do with "a battle between cultures" as there are "thresholds of consideration" which cannot be crossed when it comes to making fun of religion. "But the standards that Muslims require are overtaxing for open societies."
Die Welt points out that in the West there is no right of exemption from satire. "Christianity itself has become a subject of pitiless criticism, an object of satirical analysis, which marks the triumph of humour over religious worship", it argues.
It also reminds us that there was no protest when a primetime programme on Syrian TV portrayed a rabbi as a cannibal. "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial. Absolutely right!
In any event if we have an objection to anything in the civilized world, we write letters of protest to the editor or take to the streets in a demonstartion, or any number of other options available to us. We do not threaten annihilation of entire countries, plant bombs, and threaten the lives of those countries' citizens. This
is just another opportunity for Muslims to carve out yet again more
conditions in their quest to enact and enforce Shari'a laws.
Robert Spencer: "Strike a blow for freedom today. If you value freedom of speech and
freedom of the press, please -- politely and calmly -- contact your
local newspaper, wherever you are, and ask them to reprint some or all
of the cartoons. The cartoons themselves can be found here, as part of Zombie's excellent collection of historical and modern images of Muhammad."
Ed Morrissey: "These publishers, sans M. Lakah, have shown more backbone and resolve in facing down the radical Islamists than their governments have shown thus far. Perhaps their courage might finally fire their politicians into showing more backbone."
For his part, Mr. Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor has refused to back down in the face of Muslim criticism. He told The Times of London:
"There is a lot at stake. It would be very naive to think this is only about Jyllands-Posten and 12 cartoons and apologising or not apologising.
This is about standing for fundamental values that have been the foundation for the development of Western democracies over several hundred years, and we are now in a situation where those values are being challenged," he said.
"I think some of the Muslims who have reacted very strongly to these cartoons are being driven by totalitarian and authoritarian impulses, and the nature of these impulses is that if you give in once they will just put forward new requirements."
Rose refuses to apologize. "We do not apologise for printing the cartoons. It was our right to do so."
Fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride. This is a must read about what is happening in Egypt right now. Thank you to Stefan:
I was listening to the Egyptian government’s Cairo Orbit channel one day, the “Cairo Today” show, when suddenly the host, Amr Adib, threatened the life of Father Zakaria Boutros, a Coptic Christian leader. Adib did that right in front of an audience of millions. The show was broadcast in December, 2005. Father Boutros is an Egyptian Coptic priest who has peacefully inspired about 500 Egyptian Muslims to convert to Christianity, something considered a crime punishable by death in the Muslim world. For carrying out those conversions, he was imprisoned twice while he was living in Egypt in the early 1980’s and is now living in exile outside of the country.
TV host Adib, in threatening Father Boutros, said that no one will remain quiet about what Father Boutros says and does even today. He will be cut up into little pieces. If he were still in Egypt, he would never be able to return to his home alive. He was told he would not get away with those conversions of Muslims to Christianity.
Michelle Malkin has the most comprehensive round up. She tells us that Jihad Watch reports the latest from Gaza today: Armed militants threaten Europeans in cartoon uproar. Now, they say they will kidnap foreigners until Denmark apologizes.
The talented Fausta has a great round up, with photos, and Judith Apter Klinghoffer has been hot on the trail of the story. The Anchoress has more here, whilst Siggy says that:
[...] a The Muslim community would much rather deal with perceived injustices, as opposed to dealing with the more real problems that have resulted in the disconnect with reality. The Muslim community seems only too happy to escalate the tension- it is only their feelings and their beliefs that are relevant. Those feelings are invariably manifested with hysteria and hate- the Danish newspaper has been threatened with bombing, a radical and final expression, not unlike 'honor killings' or acid attacks against women, acceptable, if not always admired, forms of behavior.
From Dymphna @ The Gates Of Vienna we learn that: "the BBC is not among the media who have had the courage to show the cartoons." But then from what I uderstand neither has the American press, other than The NY Sun, and Los Angeles Times who appear to be planning to run the cartoons this weekend.
Liquid gives us more: "You can read more about how the Prophet Muhammad dealt with anyone that criticised or satirized him HERE and HERE"
More @ Le Mont de Sisyphe, Protein Wisdom, The Real Ugly American, Mark in Mexico, Sister Toldjah, The Politburo Diktat, Tammy Bruce, BrothersJudd Blog, Scotsman, The Strata-Sphere, Editors Weblog, Barcepundit, Gateway Pundit, Blinq, Running Scared, Decision '08, The Brussels Journal, Clayton Cramer's BLOG, Secular Blasphemy, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, L'Ombre de l'Olivier, The Glittering Eye, Brainster's Blog, Times of London, History News Network, Macsmind, Danske øjne … The American Thinker, lgf, The American Princess, The Belmont Club, Professor Bainbridge, Right Wing News, Angry in the Great White North, The Counterterrorism Blog,
UPDATE: Jordan makes the leap:
Meanwhile, a Jordanian gossip tabloid defiantly published three of the cartoons that have triggered outrage in the Arab and Muslim world.
"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.
He told the AFP news service he decided to publish the offending cartoons "so people know what they are protesting about... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."
UPDATE II: And of course Jihad al-Momani, the editor of the Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan, was sacked for publishing three of the 12 caricatures.
Don't miss Hugh Hewitt interviewing Mark Steyn on these and other issues over @ Radioblogger. Audio here, and transcript here.
From Robert Spencer writing for The Front Page:
Noting, as some of the cartoons do, that there is a connection between the teachings of Muhammad and Islamic violence, is simply to manifest an awareness of what has been repeatedly asserted by Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, and so many others. Do all these men and so many, many others misunderstand and misrepresent the teachings of Muhammad and Islam? This question, as crucial as it is, is irrelevant to an ethical evaluation of the cartoons. The fact is, these and other jihad terrorists claim Muhammad’s example and words as their inspiration. Some of the cartoons call attention to that fact.
Ultimately, then, the cartoon controversy is a question of freedom of speech. As I wrote in mid-December: “As it grows into an international cause célèbre, the cartoon controversy indicates the gulf between the Islamic world and the post-Christian West in matters of freedom of speech and expression. And it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those hard-won freedoms voluntarily.” Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket. Westerners seem to grasp this easily when it comes to affronts to Christianity, even when they are as sharp-edged and offensive as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ or Chris Ofili’s dung- and pornography-encrusted Holy Virgin Mary. But the same clarity of thought doesn’t seem to carry over to an Islamic context.
Yet that is where it is needed most today. The cartoon controversy, insignificant and even silly as it may be in its origins, is an increasingly serious challenge to Western notions of pluralism and freedom of speech.
[...]
Muslim cartoon rage, having spread now all across the Muslim world, from Egypt and Sudan to Pakistan and beyond, also threatens to become the tinderbox that sets off a much larger conflagration between the West and the Islamic world than the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Muslim world was enraged over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and over reports last May that a Qur’an had been flushed down at toilet at Guantanamo Bay. But although there have been no killings in connection with the cartoons yet, as opposed to the Qur’an desecration scandal, the international scope of the cartoon rage makes those other sources of anger trivial compared to it.
About the Qur’an desecration riots in Afghanistan in which people were reportedly killed — people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged desecration — I wrote: “The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur’an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.”
No one has been killed for these cartoons. But otherwise the same words apply today to the cartoon controversy. It is mad. It should be denounced as mad. The fact that Bill Clinton is the only American politician who has taken notice of this ongoing controversy, and that on the wrong side, is a travesty.
The free world should be standing resolutely with Denmark, ready to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will surely be lost.
UPDATE III: A massive round-up @ Instapundit, and a very important video compiled by Michelle Malkin, as well as the round up @ Gateway Pundit with the unpleasant news of the Danish Embassy in Damascus being burned to the ground. The building happens to house the Sweedish and the Chilean Embassies.
More @ Captain's Quarters, Daily Pundit, Right Wing News, Power Line, Secular Blasphemy, The Brussels Journal, History News Network, Gateway Pundit, The Moderate Voice, neo-neocon, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, California Yankee, JunkYardBlog, The Glittering Eye, Decision '08, Mudville Gazette, The Sundries Shack, Danske øjne … Dean's World, The Astute Blogger, Publius Pundit, BBC Outside The Beltway, The Volokh Conspiracy Andrew Sullivan, Ed Driscoll, Mark in Mexico, Telegraph, A Blog For All, Argghhh!, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Iowa Voice, The Corner on National. TigerHawk, Gina Cobb, Althouse, Tim Blair, Guardian, littlegreenfootballs
Related on ATB:
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
The Cartoon War
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Jihad Apocalypse 'A Muslim Obligation'
The Clash of Civilizations
The Enemy Within'
Secular Democracy Held To Ransom
This is just designed and implemented moral war. An extention of Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. Everyone knows that countries like Denmark, Netherlands etc. are British outposts in continental Europe.
Tell me that CIA did not diffuse into those terrorist groups.. hah..
Since the civil law of the Roman Empire freedom of speech does not contain cursing, accusing or making fun of anyone.
So "Christians" are just abusing the simple fact that Muslims can not say anything bad about Jesus Christ. Very disgusting abuse indeed. We respect him in every way.
I wonder what he would think if he saw the current state of his "followers".. (provocations,attacks, curse, porno, aids, drugs, alchohol, discrimination)
I am more Christ-ian than you are..
Keep hitting since we can not hit back.
Posted by: smyrnian | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 09:13 AM
Bob,
...was not an exercise in free speech but a willfull attack.
Anyone who thinks that the two categories are mutually exclusive doesn't understand literally the first thing about why we have a Bill of Rights.
Congratulations. Of all the things said about this controversy in past couple of weeks, I think you just won the great big kewpie doll for the silliest.
And yes, this comment constitutes a (very mild and amused rather than hateful) willful personal attack. For that matter, your own criticism of the motives of Danish newspapermen whom you have never met, is also a willful personal attack. But fortunately for both for you and for me, in the United States we have freedom of speech...at least as long as we are not undergraduates.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 04:02 PM
Bob: What makes you belive they held a contest? Is that another myth that's been floating around on the web?!
Quite a few lies and incorrect statements regarding Denmark, Danes and the Mohammad cartoons have been floating around the internet lately. I've made a list of some of them and...well...I've debunked them:
http://madsenblog.dk/?p=262
Posted by: Madsen | Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 06:16 AM
Bob: What makes you belive they held a contest? Is that another myth that's been floating around on the web?!
Quite a few lies and incorrect statements regarding Denmark, Danes and the Mohammad cartoons have been floating around the internet lately. I've made a list of some of them and...well...I've debunked them:
http://madsenblog.dk/?p=262
Posted by: Madsen | Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 06:12 AM
I support free speech and I believe all kinds of people over-react to it (Muslims, Christians and all others are quilty of this). I don't believe the Denmark paper was exercising free speech, it was a hateful attack. The Danish newspaper sponsered a contest seeking as many representations of Muhammad as they could find. It is one thing for an artist to create an image depicting a reflection of what is occuring in society, it is another to actively pursue a particular depiction as a contest, encouraging people to depict something the way you want it portrayed. What the Danish newspaper did was not an exercise in free speech but a willfull attack.
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, February 05, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Guest,
Your comments are carefully thought out and eloquently stated; and I thank you for your kind words. I agree with everything you said but would make one additional comment. Quickly, I am not an apologist for the Catholic Church in the sense that I look for a way to excuse or bolster everything that is said by anyone with an official position. I am fully aware of the Church’s many shortcomings and failings but I do think that its actions are often misunderstood or misrepresented. I have gotten used to the fact that a lot of people I meet know surprisingly little about the Catholic Church and what it believes(a lot of them Catholics) and sometimes what they think they know is “urban mythology”, so to speak, often drawn from unfavorable media stereotypes. I usually try to address some of these things if I hear them.
I am very much in agreement with thinkers like George Weigel and Father Richard John Nuehuas who are generally in favor of US engagement and intervention in the world. They make a very important point about the Vatican’s role in recent situations. The Vatican has not decided exactly how it is going to position itself in this growing tension. It is clearly on the side of freedom and democracy and has a great aversion to all tyranny but how to balance this with its responsibility to encourage peace and inter-religious dialogue? One thing that you touched on that is very important is that in the run up to the Iraq war there were many statements from all different channels in the Curia creating a dissonant cacophony, often using what could be called: unconvincing EU speak. The Church needs to speak more clearly and with fewer voices in the future. As always the Pope will see warfare as a failure of civilization because with war we have abandoned any hope of human cooperation and communication and there is the inevitable suffering of innocents. However, the Church needs to very seriously modernize and develop its formidable Just War Theory to incorporate some of the new dangers that technology and stateless actors present. This rediscovery and rethinking of an already sound theory will help the Church to engage the world anew on these difficult matters.
Lastly, I think that is vital that no matter how “hot” it gets, no matter the level of rhetoric, no matter how violent things become, there must always be attempts at communication and dialogue going on “underneath the surface” and this is one of the major roles the Church has played in the past and I hope that it can continue to help in this regard. The Church must engage not just official Islamic religious representatives and theologians, regardless of their teachings, but rather raise the profile of those who show a true spirit of openness. Islamism is a very complex issue for the Western world. With Communism we opposed Regimes and attempted to speak directly to the people because they were not all communist sympathizers but rather oppressed victims. With Islam it is different because while all the people are not radical they are mostly Muslim. If we position ourselves as attacking the Islam itself (no matter how dangerous it may be) we may end up unwittingly pitting ourselves against those whom we profess to liberate. The main point is that no matter how chaotic and fast-moving this conflict may become we must always remain clearheaded. It brings to mind JRR Tolkien’s warning to CS Lewis when Lewis was writing “The Screwtape Letters”; “Never study too closely the arts of the Enemy.”
Posted by: Stefan | Sunday, February 05, 2006 at 11:11 AM
NB to Kenny: Thank you very much for your kind and gracious words. You are one of those rare people, Kenny, with whom it is a pleasure both to agree and to disagree.
I apologize to everyone else for the general posting of this personal message, but I could not find an e-mail address on Kenny's blog to which I could send this.
Posted by: Guest at the Feast | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 02:42 PM
If I might intrude into the Stefan-Jeff debate:
I think that what happened here is that the Catholic Church is trying to be intellectually consistent. It has been appalled by the irreverence and viciousness consistently displayed in recent years, not only toward the Catholic Church, but toward Christianity, Christian symbols, and, perhaps in particular, toward both Jesus and the Virgin Mary. It has-rightly- protested about this for years, so it can't very well come out now and take the side of profaning the holy. Again, the Church is obviously not condoning Muslim violence and threats of violence; but it is protesting vociferously against the European secular trampling of religious holy things- and we should all remember that there is no untrammelled freedom of speech in Europe (try speaking out against homosexuality or any other secular sacred cow over there and you will end up, like that Swedish pastor, in jail).
While I am sure that Pope Benedict harbors no illusions about the nature of Islamism, I believe the Church was focused on something else entirely here, other than what most of us at this blog see as the core issue of the freedom to speak without being beheaded, burned at the stake, or otherwise murdered- that is, the Curia was trying to use this as a teaching moment to make its own point about religious disrespect.
That said, Stefan, I did find it disappointing that the Church chose to hitch a ride with such reprehensible people, even if they thought it was for a good end- the means were simply too impure here. Please believe me that I do not mean to impugn or traduce the Catholic Church when I make that statement; as a medieval historian, I have devoted several years of my life to studying it. Let me cite, for your personal consolation, Stefan, the great, fervently Catholic, German medievalist Gerd Tellenbach, who wrote in justification of his own history of the Church from the 10th-12th centuries: "It would be to diminish God's control over history if one were small-mindedly to try to explain away [the Church's] many weaknesses, scandals, and contradictions; God rules the world and makes human error a tool of his will- even human guilt is made use of in this way and becomes felix culpa. Such a conception allows full freedom to a scholarly study of church history. Nothing need be touched up or passed over in an apologetic spirit. The history of the church needs no human advocate..." I seem to recall, if I am not mistaken, that the doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to religious matters on which an ex cathedra pronouncement has been made, not to political ones- let alone political stances handled by the curia. So please rest assured, Stefan, that one can be disappointed in a particular Catholic political position (as were many American Catholics by John Paul the Great's stance on the Iraq war, by the way) without in any way being out to attack the Church, or casting aspersions on its mission.
I shall just add that I have frequently enjoyed your posts, Stefan.
Yours cordially,
Posted by: Guest | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 02:33 PM
Jeff,
I will be brief so as not to take this thread on too much of a tangent. No, I don’t think that the Catholic Church’s goals are a simple numbers game and a desire for power. For all the talk about the Church’s centralized power the reality is much more complex and diverse. When things get very emotional and heated in the conflicts with Islam it can be easy to over-read statements made by any of the many sides in the debate. While what people say must be taken seriously, sometimes we need to keep the “salt shaker” nearby and keep some perspective. It is important to remain clearheaded and avoid hyper-ventilating. I think that it is very important that religious leaders do not speak with the same language as our politicians and pundits in this clash. We must keep “The West” and Christianity interconnected but not symbiotic in this struggle. This must not become “Christians against the Muslims” and so there must be a third way taken by institutions like the Church. Benedict XVI does say: “No situation can justify such criminal activity, which covers the perpetrators with infamy, and it is all the more deplorable when it hides behind religion, thereby bringing the pure truth of God down to the level of the terrorists’ own blindness and moral perversion.” It is the Catholic Church’s long standing position that the most fundamental human right is the Freedom of Religion. This means they will defend Muslim’s right to be Muslim and be free from religiously based persecution. This position is not popular because the anger level with Islam is so high that any call for religious respect is derided as weakness and capitulation (this call is fundamentally different from the weak-kneed “tolerance” preached by the Left). We must take care not to become like those we oppose. Defending the moral high ground is always more difficult than attacking it. This is especially true when those who are attacking you use unspeakable violence and show no restraint. No one said loving your enemy would be easy because obviously there is nothing that is more difficult and painful. This ethic deeply informs our sensibilities and that is why we fight differently and more justly than any other nation in history.
Posted by: Stefan | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Guest at the Feast: You of all people should know the hypocrisy of such slander and you insulted me first. Some interesting links to maybe get across European sentiments. I'm not 100% in agreement but they make interesting discourse :
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/02/muslims-are-coming-again.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html
Posted by: Wolfie | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Stefan,
Just a few comments about your comments. In general, you made some good points. About the only thing I take a bit of exception to is this;
"With all due respect, this shows me that you may have brought a certain prejudice into the mix. It is a cheap shot implying the tired old theory that the Catholic Church is only interested in more power, more “subjects”, and a mood of blind obedience."
So, are you saying the Catholic Church is not interested in more power, more adherents to what it sees as the true faith and, if not blind obediance, at least more adherence to its worldview? If so, it must be one of the first organizations in human history not to be interested in these things.
I do agree that my wording was...shall we say.. a tad inflamatory. I mainly made it because I was more than a bit annoyed by what the Cardinal said. After all, while the points you made were all valid, this is not some low level flunky. When a senior member of any group opines on an issue, than we need to give more weight to that opinion than say, oh, the weight someone would give to my opinion. Further, this is a time when the West has to be pulling together. It is not helpful to have someone who commands more attention than the average man on the street (or the average man on a blog) saying we need to "limit [our] goal of making freedom an absolute (value)," when the very people who are trying to destroy the West are saying the same thing.
As to the prejudice you mention, you are right, although I think it is more of a bias. I am definitely biased against people who are either trying to destroy my civilization, or those who don't defend it with the vigor I feel is necessary. And, I recognize that this can be a weakness, as I might find myself reacting negatively to a person or a point-of-view without fully examining it or understanding them, because I think they are attacking what I consider to be the best way of life developed be mankind, thus far. Like any bias it can be useful sometimes (as a kind of cognitive shorthand) and limiting in others.
I think you were implying that I am biased against the Catholic Church. And, I can only assure you that I am not. There are aspects of the Catholic Church that I disagree with. And, I'm ambivalent about religion in general. But, my harsh words were more of a reaction to what the Cardinal (actually, Cardinals) said, than any particular dislike for the Church.
So, okay, my blanket comment about the Church looking wistfully at the Islamic fanatics was a case of "angry typing."
Finally you wrote,
"Please understand that I do not mean my comments to be combative, but mean them in the spirit of open dialogue."
Stefan, if I only wanted opinions that agreed with mine, I would just talk to myself. The way I see it, the only way we better understand why we believe what we do is by having other people challenge those beliefs. So, please, be as combative as you like...that's what I'm here for. :-)
Posted by: Jeff Durkin | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 04:05 AM
Perfectly said, Stefan.
I would expect government and church officials to take a safe path, lest they be accused of inflaming the hoards. Which they will be anyway. With the crowds saying it is Bush's fault, now they are in perfect sync with the Democrat Party.
Posted by: Darrell | Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 01:18 AM
Jeff,
I might speak to a couple of things here. First off, even a “senior churchman” does not speak for the “Church” (this is a common misconception) they are very well know for having their own strong opinions on many matters and speak on them as they wish (sometimes causing a great dissonance amongst themselves). Secondly, many of these folks are Europeans and reflect some distinctly European opinions not to mention their own personal political views (they are products of their respective cultures like any other people). Thirdly, The Catholic Church is probably the butt of more vile “satire” than any other single religious institution (Jews of course deal with much more overtly racist bile) so it will undoubtedly call for restraint in the realm of respect for the most deeply sacred topics in all religions . Fourthly, it is not necessary to defend the artistic merit, intelligence, or wisdom of the “cartoons” in order to champion the principles involved in the right to publish them. Lastly, the Church is attempting to engage Islam at the level of inter-religious dialogue (whether you think this is futile is beside the point) and it is a legitimate viewpoint to see “mockery” as being unhelpful. The Church is miles and miles from capitulating to the Islamists. That being said “Church leaders” often cause unneeded trouble or confusion opining on things; things that the media will either ignore or repeat loudly as they agree or disagree with their agenda.
You said:
“I guess it is not surprising that the Church has a certain admiration for the Islamists, who can command fanatical devotion to their faith.”
With all due respect, this shows me that you may have brought a certain prejudice into the mix. It is a cheap shot implying the tired old theory that the Catholic Church is only interested in more power, more “subjects”, and a mood of blind obedience. Please understand that I do not mean my comments to be combative, but mean them in the spirit of open dialogue. I agree with the basic position of Alexandra’s “faction” on this topic (and most likely yours). I apologize to all commentators for pursuing this tangent but I had to make a quick point on it.
Posted by: Stefan | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 07:29 PM
The Catholic Church appears to be ready to capitulate to the Islamists, at least on this issue. The following is an excerpt from ANSA and Italian news service.
<<<<...Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, the head of the Vatican's department for Eastern Churches, called in an interview published on Friday for more respect to be shown towards the Islamic world .
"Western culture must find a limit to its goal of making freedom an absolute (value). We too, here in Europe, should rebel against the idea of mocking religious symbols," he told Corriere della Sera, the country's best-selling daily .
"Freedom to satirise which offends other people's feelings becomes prevarication [I assume he means 'provocation']," the cardinal added .
[...]
Other Italian churchmen also voiced calls for "responsibility" by the press .
"Freedom of the press, including satire, must stop where religious belief begins," said Cardinal Ersilio Tonini, former archbishop of Ravenna .
"There should be more respect for religion, whatever religion it is. What has happened over the last few days is an ugly, very ugly sign which should make us think," he continued.">>>>
Further, according to Reuters, Cardinal Silvestrini said in the same interview that
<<<"One can understand satire about a priest but not about God. As far as Islam is concerned one might be able to understand satire about customs and behaviour but not about the Koran, Allah, or The Prophet," he said.>>>>
I guess it is not surprising that the Church has a certain admiration for the Islamists, who can command fanatical devotion to their faith.
However, it is disppointing that the Church, or at least a senior member of it, wants us to appease the Islamists by limiting our freedom. Further, he is obviously against our attempt to spread freedom to those multitudes who are held in thrall, whether by an oppressive government, a strife-torn socio-cultural environment or an ideology (in this case, Islam) that creates a culture that encourages ignorance, slavish devotion to orthodoxy, and a self-destructive mindset.
Western civilization should never accept limits to the logical conclusion of its development; that the retrograde civilizations we are faced with will fall and our ideals will eventually be spread to every person.
When we hear senior memebrs of the Church making common cause with fanatics in the streets who are dedicated to the eventual destruction of the Church, it should give one pause.
At least, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: Jeff Durkin | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 12:58 PM
" ... people do not have the right to stir up riots and racial hatred, encourage mass hysteria or heap abuse on religion any more than they do to rob, rape, cheat or kill.
And people do not have the right to willfully take offense at everything, just so they can claim they were stirred up to riot etc. etc., in order to find "justification" for suppressing others' rights of expression or to manipulate people into taking their eyes off the real issues.
"Taking offense" can be a seriously hostile and aggressive act these days, and make no mistake about it. Too often, it is a tool of threat rather than an expression of honest feeling.
Posted by: reader_iam | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Guest,
Vis-a-vis Wolfie's personal attack on you: am I not correct in thinking that you are yourself an Israeli, a professor in Islamic history, remarkably well informed not only about Jewish religion but also about Islam and (as I can personally attest) Christianity? I have the impression that you live in a "real world" in which you know every day that within fifty miles of you there live hordes of Hamas madmen who will kill you or your children instantly if anyone ever gives them an opportunity, and that you are far better informed both theoretically and experientially about the dynamics of Israeli-Arab conflict than are most people who babble about Machiavellian Jewish political masterminds' manipulation of the gullible masses for their own nefarious ends.
But I imagine I could be wrong about some or all of that.
I would also like to observe, my dear Guest, that while we have from time to time found ourselves on opposite sides of discussions here at ATB, and while you have even proved me wrong in at least one sweeping generalization about Jewish people, still I have always found your contributions insightful, your depth of understanding impressive, and your manners impeccable.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Yes, I am aware that different muslim sects and different muslims via the brotherhood or terrorist think they are more muslim than the other...they have been killing each other for centuries over that one....but today their is an evil spirit that is uniting them into savagery. Keep a close eye on them folks...THIS IS ISLAM...they will command each other to murder with quran verses and entice each other to cut off heads or burn flags or threats to bring on more 911...the savage is coming out....it's unleashed. AND WHY? Because Muhammed says so!
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 11:46 AM
"Race is a characteristic at birth, over which an individual has no choice at all, but religion is different because it's about ideas and belief systems that one chooses. Muslims are not a race, because anyone with any background or nationality and or race can be a muslim."
Actually, if you dig deeply into the muslim brotherhood, you will see that they believe only Arabs can be muslims. All others are useful idiots, so to speak.
Posted by: saintknowitall | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Wolfie said "You are quite happy for me to lay blame on Islamic leaders, but to place any blame on anyone else is verboten."
Where else should we lay the blame for barbaric behavior? It certainly isn't my fault that the islamic leaders are hypersensitive.
The bottom line is in a free society, you are not protected from being offended. Period. If you are, that is your fault for not understanding a free society.
Posted by: saintknowitall | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Now Nafez Assam, a leader with the Palestinian Islamist movement Islamic Jihad, blames Bush
Posted by: Fausta | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 11:26 AM
If drawings of the false prophet are prohibited, how do they know what he really looks like. The 12 drawings all look different, so first the jihadists have to decide which one is really the prophet and then explain how they know.
Should be interesting.
Posted by: saintknowitall | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 11:25 AM
You are confusing analysis with support and critique with bigotry. You have started with your own conclusion and attempted to frame any fact you can find to fit. My experience in life is that the angriest man is the one with the most to hide and you sir are very angry. I would recommend anger management classes and good manners. You are the expert in lunatic conspiracy theory, not me (who the hell are the Elders of Zion?) I just read scholarly history books (often written by Jews) - remember that newspapers are often opinion/appointed and are not scrutinised by their educated peers before publication (does an editor count?).
Its all very well saying to ourselves "this is all very bad and they want to take away our freedoms" (which may be true) but that isn't going solve anything is it? Don't we want solutions in the framework of peace?
You are quite happy for me to lay blame on Islamic leaders, but to place any blame on anyone else is verboten. If only the world was that simple (it might be in GW Bush's mind). So its clear where your proclivities lie. Harvard eh? God help us.
Posted by: Wolfie | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Quoting Rowan Atkinson...
"No one deserves the right to freedom from criticism"
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 09:38 AM
For what it's worth, thanks for reproducing one of the "cartoons" which offended some crazies, or a lot of crazies. Whatever their number, they want nothing less than total domination and submission. If that defines offense, then we should be drawing and quartering Toles at the moment.
They want me to cower in fear, begging them daily for life under their ridiculous beliefs. It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Paul of York | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Wolfie,
"Extremists on each side"? Ah, yes, beheadings and bombs are absolutely equivalent to those hot-headed Danish "extremists" who naively tried to see if their freedom of speech had been eroded or curtailed...your capacity for warped moral equivalency is astounding. I haven't noticed any other religious group on earth threatening murder because they don't like the caricatures that people draw of them.
That remark on your part was nearly as absurd and asinine as your assertion that the European press refrains from criticizing Zionism; clearly, you haven't read "The Guardian" in the past decade or so....
If you weren't so blinded by your obvious proclivities, you would have noticed that no other nation in Asia or Africa (virtually all of which arose at the same time as Israel, every last one of which is incomparably more repressive by any measure whatsoever, and most of which were totaly arbitrary creations of the British or the French) ever has its fundamental right to exist critiqued at all, let alone so steadily and unrelentingly. I suppose next you are going to tell us that the U.N. also coddles the Jews, Israel, the Elders of Zion, or what have you. Please spare us; you've made it blindingly clear where you stand.
Posted by: Guest at the Feast | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 08:28 AM
Race is a characteristic at birth, over which an individual has no choice at all, but religion is different because it's about ideas and belief systems that one chooses. Muslims are not a race, because anyone with any background or nationality and or race can be a muslim.
As for Rushdie, if this law was in effect at that time, his book would have been banned because this law would effect down into the written word such as journalist, writers, news, etc.
Freedom of expression should not walk on eggshells. If we allow that to happen we are no longer a democracy.
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 06:51 AM
Guest at the Feast,
Thank you for your grotesquely insulting and childish tirade which is as non sequitur as it is bizarre. You really should get out of the campus more often and see the real world where no issue is black and white and almost every politician a crook, then you will discover that bigots come in every creed. I have [British] Jewish family and many Muslim friends and it is THEY who complain that their religions have been hijacked by extremists. And that is what this discussion is all about...
Anti-discrimination laws intended to tackle racism have accidentally provided religious protection to some groups because of their unique relationship between religion and race, namely Sikhism and Judaism. Some British Muslims view this situation as unfair as it provides protection against the criticism of the religion and in the case of Judaism the criticism of Zionism (although it can be argued that it is a political movement) and want these laws extended to cover the deformation of religion as well so that Islam and its followers can enjoy these rights as well, the more hard-line elements to avoid examination of jihadism. Ironically both sides view themselves as victims.
However all this provides an uncomfortable dilemma for the west because our laws of freedom of expression expressially allow the criticism and ridicule of religion and we feel that our freedoms are being eroded by such legislation.
It gets even more complicated yet.
This whole debate is being manipulated by extremists on each side. Islamic fundamentalists are exploiting young unemployed Muslims stirring up anti-Semitism and hatred of western values (particularly anti-Americanism) and inspiring them with fantasies of an Islamic world state and in the middle of all this sits the mess in the middle-east of Palestine and Iraq, and its our incompetent leaders who have contributed to that mess.
Its all an uncomfortable problem but the fight has been brought to our shores and we are going to have to face the music sooner or later and the key to it all is making a bigger effort to heal the problems in the middle-east but with so many missed opportunities in the past its going to be tough now.
On the cartoons. Britain learnt its lessons over the "Salmon Rushdie" affair, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that its wise to do it, frankly they are rather childish and unnecessary. Innocent people are going to pay with their lives for this foolishness and that's very sad.
Posted by: Wolfie | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 06:18 AM
The thing everyone must understand is that many of the muslims that are responding to these "cartoons" and are reacting in these violent ways are just repeating their own prophet's behavior. It will not stop because it's part of their being faithful to him.
Some will say they are just over-reacting and some are puzzled at why they would be acting so vile, but the fact of the matter is that this type of response is taught from generation to generation. This goes back to the days of Muhammed himself. They are following his passions. They are doing exactly as Muhammed did! For example...when a certain poetress mocked/criticized Muhammed....look what happened to her...
Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. Perhaps in March 624, when the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
You can read more about how the prophet muhammed dealt with anyone that criticised or satirized him HERE and HERE
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 02:48 AM
Liquid - thanks for the link.
They understand it all right, they just vehemently and categorically demand such immunity for their religion alone as it is THE religion, the one and only religion.
Pointing out this all too common misperception may appear petty, but I can assure you it is not. It is the root cause for our romantic notion that we need only educate our Muslim brethren about the workings of our secular 'free' societies and the idea that as a result there is some kind of Aha-effect forthcoming.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 12:53 AM
Stefan - "..the battle was over something a bit more". I know what you mean. The problem is, that we have grown 'accustomed' to reports of atrocities committed in their homelands which directly attack our treasured values and beliefs (beheaded girls, slain priests etc.); we have been desensitized by the sheer volume of incidents when we could and should have taken up the cause there and then. So, in a way, it is an indictment that we are now rebelling only against something so trivial as these cartoons; something in which even the MSM can not find anything politically incorrect. The Islamofascists are giving us ample ammunition on a daily basis to really get active about, but, precisely because it is on a daily basis, tragically we don't (which btw is of course not the only reason). It doesn't stand out anymore, like these silly cartoons do.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 12:30 AM
I whole heartedly agree that the response to the cartoon from the Islamic world is outrageous. Not that they are pissed off, that is acceptable and expected, but it is when there are threats of violence that we must draw the line. Alexandra is correct that there are ways of showing your outrage through boycott, protest, letters, and other forms of public pressure as we would do if there were blasphemous cartoons of Christ in newspapers. The violent outcry is especially unacceptable when you look at the vile and hateful screeds that are commonplace in the Middle East in regards to Jews and Christians; such as the “literature” that Guest was describing. The one thing that bothers me though is that while I support the newspapers in sticking to their guns and not backing down in the face of threats of violence I wish that I could stand behind something other than a silly, offensive cartoon. I know that it is the principle that is being defended (and I agree with that) but I simply wish the battle was over something a bit more.
Posted by: Stefan | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 09:54 PM
This dominating mentality is nothing new and for too long people in the west have looked the other way thinking they are immune to it or that it will go away. It won't! Islam plans to conquer via using our democracy and our own laws against us. Trying to pass racial hatred laws, blasphemy laws, or anything that will duct tape our mouths so there will be no scrutiny to "their political movement disguised as a religion" is just part of that plan.
I hope some of you take a look at THIS and see what has been going on in Egypt.
"People in America are just not aware of what Muslim Arabs are planning to bring to our shores and what they have in store for all of us. This story is but one example."
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 05:37 PM
Right on Antimedia - reminds me of the Pigs in Animal Farm: All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 05:09 PM
As if on cue, here's an official Muslim response to the question, What is freedom of speech in the Muslim culture?
And who gets to decide what affects social harmony, dear sir? Why the leaders do, of course!Take it from someone born in a country where freedom of speech is woven into the very fabric of our governmental system. That is not freedom of speech.
Posted by: antimedia | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Wolfie,
Judging by what you say, assuming there is an empirical basis of some kind to any of your observations (somewhat dubious, in light of your obvious proclivities), you must have run into the rabid secularists of Jewish ethnicity only. Your error is in thinking that such people "hated all things non-Jewish," probably because of their antipathy to Christian religious displays. Believe me, that kind of person hates Jewish religious displays, and the religion he was born into, at least as much as he hates everyone else's- and sometimes more.
As for your extraordinary statement about the Jews you have known being "manipulated, brain-washed, and controlled by their political and spiritual masters," you have obviously been immersing yourself in the fever-swamps of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
You should try talking to some of your Muslim neighbors: you would probably enjoy their literature even more- it is far more creative than the William Guy Carr variety; e.g. the Jews are actually non-human space aliens beamed down to earth by the the Dajjal (anti-Christ) to destroy humanity; or- my favorite- the Arabic book whose title reads "Children are Bloody Meals on the Tables of Jews."
I think you must have wandered onto Alexandra's website by accident, though; you would probably feel much more at home at stormfront.org
Posted by: Guest at the Feast | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 01:36 PM
Thank you kindly for the link to my post.
Consider a reciprocal on the way.
Pierre Legrand
Posted by: Pierre Legrand | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 01:14 PM
I was glad to read in your post 'It Is About Time We Were Politically Incorrect Part II' that you enjoyed good relations with your American Jewish neighbours. Alas I did not with mine, as they hated all things non-Jewish with a voracity which seemed almost Satanic; all is not well with the children of Shem, they are battling among themselves and with us as they are manipulated, brain-washed and controlled by their spiritual and political masters who serve only themselves and their hatred.
This is not a war between cultures or religions. This is a war against reason.
Its so easy to confuse reason with culture because our new age of reason was born of a cultural renaissance as was the Muslim age of reason, but the lessons of that age were forgotten in the embers of the dying Ottoman Empire. If we are not careful our bad leaders will make us forget ours.
P.S. Don't confuse Mr Blair's attempt at anti-hate law as altruism, he is just playing out the next move in "The Great Game". He's a bad man.
Posted by: Wolfie | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 12:55 PM
This simply reinforces the reality that there is no freedom in Muslin lands. They may say they have freedom, but at the slightest indication that their precious beliefs are being challenged, they bring out the nuclear weapons and demand retractions and trials and hangings.
Free speech in Islam? Don't make me laugh.
Posted by: antimedia | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Someone needs to answer the question "How many Christian churches are there in Saudi Arabia?" before responding to Muslim indignation and protestations of victimization. It appears that offense is a one way street.
Posted by: tankerboy | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 10:11 AM
By the way...I didn't make this up! Look up France Soir newspaper on Wikipedia.com and see for yourself!
Posted by: Karl Lies | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 08:57 AM
The truly bizzare twist(s) to this story are that...
1. The French newspaper, France Soir, whose owner sacked the editor fro printing the cartoons, was founded as an underground newspaper in 1944 (presumably opposing Nazi fascism). To bad that it, today, caves in to Islamo Fascism!
2. It turns ouw that the owner of the paper is a Raymond (Ramy) Lakah....an Egyptian multimillionaire! I guess that explains it!
Posted by: Karl Lies | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 08:55 AM