by Geov Parrish
Geov Parrish is a weekly columnist for the Seattle Weekly and for the national site, WorkingForChange. He posts regularly at Eat the State! blog. Geov is now a regular contributor to BoomanTribune.com, and looks forward to your comments so he can respond to you. His full, fascinating bio is below.
________________________
I’ve been astonished at how little commentary there’s been on left-leaning blogs and web sites in recent days concerning the worldwide protests, riots, and fires stemming from the printing of (originally) a handful of European newspaper cartoons that some Muslims find spiritually offensive.
Sorry, but I find riots and violence to be spiritually offensive. Am I the only progressive alive who thinks this?
I’m all for cultural sensitivity, and as a child of desegregation in the South Carolina of the late ‘60s, I’m fully aware of the power of words and images to wound.
But I’ve never been a fan of so-called “hate crimes” legislation, in which charges and sentences are increased when a defendant is allegedly motivated by racial, ethnic, religious, gender-based, sexual-orientation-based, or whatever-based hatred.
The problem with these laws is that it is inevitably the state — people in power — who are increasing penalties based on their interpretation of what someone else is thinking. Eventually, and usually sooner rather than later, the state (or the D.A.) realizes that this is a very handy tool for suppression of all sorts of untidy thought. Criticizing the state, magically, becomes a “hate crime,” like when the guy in San Jose who defaced a statue of Christopher Columbus for being a genocidal bastard was charged with a “hate crime” for his purported unreasoning hatred of Italian-Americans.
It’s a very, very slippery slope.
And now we are faced with one of the more fascistic tenets of Islamic fundamentalism, and … continued below …
one of its most terrifying – their complete lack of interest in freedom of speech, and their complete lack of a sense of humor, respectively. Salman Rushdie knows what this is about. He had to live in hiding for years after some Muslim yahoo issued a fatwah against his life for having had the temerity to write a satirical novel about the prophet Muhammed. Rushdie’s mistake, of course, was in thinking that because he lived in liberal, free-speech-loving England, he was safe from the Islamic censors.
Wrong.
And now a few European cartoonists and their publishers have discovered the same thing. They are being vilified by people whose own media frequently runs depictions of Jews and Christians that are as racist and offensive as anything imaginable. The Muslims’ problem isn’t with disrespect to religion; it’s with disrespect to their religion. And in particular, pro-Western Arab dictatorships like Egypt and Pakistan don’t dare let their populations demonstrate against the U.S. or Israel, but Denmark and Norway are nice, safe targets for the outrage of the masses. So cops normally inclined to crack open protester heads are encouraged instead to join the fun.
Regular readers of mine are well aware that I think George Bush’s foreign policies are full of shit. But when he and his fellow neo-cons warn that fundamentalist Muslims are fascists, they are right. They don’t believe in freedom of speech, and they reserve the right to enforce their moral interpretation of the universe anywhere in the universe — just like Christian fundamentalists. The difference is that while their religion is probably responsible for the spilling of more blood than any other religion in the history of the world, very few Christians issue death warrants or riot if someone draws Jesus or God. Even when it’s not a very flattering drawing.
Muslim fundies are big on the being judge, jury, and executioner. And they’re big believers in what they call “education” — kids’ memorizing of the Koran, or what we might refer to more quaintly as “brainwashing.” I suppose that crack could land me on some fatwah list, too.
This isn’t about “respecting cultural diversity,” folks. If someone wants to pray five times daily in the direction of a city in Saudi Arabia, that’s cultural diversity. Fine by me. If someone wants to impose their religious beliefs on me, whether it’s James Dobson or Mullah Omar, that’s theocratic fascism. And it must be defended against.
That doesn’t mean I want the U.S. to wage war, economic or military, in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, or any other Muslim enclave. It does mean I don’t want them waging war on me, either, whether it’s a bomb, an exploding jet liner, or someone’s banned book list. The riots against these profane cartoons ought to inspire every newspaper in the Western world to print them, just to demonstrate that while we might have all the respect in the world for Islam (and some of our political leaders have a ways to go on that score), we won’t be dictated to by any religion’s lunatic fringe. Religion is the opiate of the masses — and never more so than when it bans all those competing opiates.
_________________________
Geov Parrish has been a local and national political activist and grass roots organizer since the mid-’70s, in Oregon, Houston, Washington D.C., and, since 1990, in Seattle. He is a former broadcaster, punk rock singer, convenience store clerk, strawberry picker, and successful small business owner whose first regular political writing (other than songs and poetry) came with co-editing the national pro-feminist Activist Men’s Journal (1991-96) and co-founding the Native American community newspaper On Indian Land in 1991. In 1996, he founded, and has since continued to co-edit, the community newspaper Eat the State!.
ETS! led to an unexpected career as a political commentator, beginning with offers to write regular weekly columns in The Stranger (1997-98) and both column and feature writing in Seattle Weekly (since 1998). Since 2001 he has written from two to five columns weekly for Working Assets’ national web site, Workingforchange.com. His work has also regularly appeared in AlterNet, ZNet, Common Dreams, In These Times, Mother Jones, and on web sites and in newspapers, magazines, and anthologies across the country. Since 1996 he has also appeared each Saturday morning on Seattle’s KEXP-90.3 public affairs program Mind Over Matters, and also records short political commentaries each week which air on KBCS-91.3 and on other community radio stations around the country. He contributes regularly to the Eat the State! blog.
A lengthy, terminal illness led to an experimental (and successful) double-organ transplant in 1994. Assorted serious health complications, including a stroke, have continued. Geov lives in Seattle with his long-time partner, Gavin Greene, and the dog Kit, who actually runs the house.
= = =
Sorry. That has to be one of the most ridiculus suggestions I have ever heard: lets have all newspapers print these cartoons, and throw gasoline on a fire.
I’m afraid it is not free speech we are concerned with. It is a kind of arrogance coupled with ethnocentricity.
We are an insensitive lot, aren’t we? The western world is waging a real war, and a form of genocide on an entire country, and threatening to attack another in the Middle East, and these people don’t have the right to get angry over our depiction of their religious leader.
Whether you agree with their anger or not, don’t fan the flames. Step back a moment and think about it folks.
They’re killing people and burning down their homes over a fucking cartoon. These maniacs have a great deal in common with our Commander-in-Chief.
I would be careful about lumping an entire people into a category. Go after the policies of their leaders if you must attack something.
We have been waging genocidal war against those people for some time now. Are you really surprised at the level of their anger?
any category. I said “these maniacs”. Are they an entire people?
Well in your first comment you seem to fall into the generalization-trap yourself; The western world is waging a real war(…..)
Europe and the Bush administration seemed to be pretty much at odds with each other after many European countries refused to join the “Coalition of the Willing” in a war against Iraq back in 2003.
Opposition to this war could have been stronger; much stronger. Even the Danes have given some support. But they all have baggage of their own, don’t they?
NATO is involved in Afghanistan, and now all eyes are upon Iran.
Perhaps this is the moment of truth. We solve our problems peacefully, or engage in endless wars.
Listening to Rev. Lowrey at Coretta Scott King’s funeral today, gave me hope.
Reading some of this tonight has been infinitely depressing.
Which world are we?
And we are killing people and burning down their homes for what noble cause?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, we’re oil junkies and you know damn well a junkie will go to any lengths to get his fix, so while “these maniacs” are going apeshit over a fucking cartoon and that by god is utterly inexcusable, we on the other hand at least have a legitimate excuse: we are junkies, we are not responsible for our actions. We can’t help ourselves. We need ‘treatment’ and rehabilitation–they should be punished.
pandemic, it has just not reached the level of manic frothiness in Europe, which is a necessary development in order to control the cost of crusade expansion.
While a recent Zogby poll found that two thirds of Americans are enthusiastic about expanding the crusade to Iran, for instance, the percentage of Europeans who favor selling expendables to US for that purpose is not so large.
Interestingly, the current operation appears to be having more effect in the US, raising hatred of Arabs and Muslims to an even more feverish pitch than most would have believed possible, while we are just not seeing that same phenomenon in Europe, at least not yet. It is as if one wished to carry coals to Chicago but they ended up in Newcastle.
That is always a risk with this kind of program, once it is launched, it can not always be completely controlled, or counted on to produce the desired result.
Certainly the warlords can use more ardent support domestically, but with even some defense companies now complaining that crusade projects are less profitable than R & D, getting Europe on board at a reasonable price has slithered up the priority ladder a bit, and of course, the client states’ native overseers cannot be expected to miss an opportunity to point out that their own costs of maintaining population under crackdown are, like everything else, rising…
Here’s one view to ponder, from an ally.
in the west, “Hostility against Muslims is replacing anti-Semitism.”
– Abdullah Gul, Foreign Minister of Turkey (AP 02/06/06)
Islamophobia. Can you not disagree with me and still respect my beliefs?
by me, easily accessibly by clicking the following link:
Free Speech vs. Responsibility
This blatant diary pimp has been brought to you by the Taybeh Brewing Company
Well, then, you haven’t been reading very carefully:
I mean, this just barely scratches the surface. What the hell are you talking about?
I mean, this just barely scratches the surface. What the hell are you talking about?
Good question. And I found Susan Hu’s post yesterday (where we were told to join with the ‘good’ conservative Andrew Sullivan to celebrate our cultural legacy of ‘free speech’ which, what with one thing and another I found fairly ironic) so disturbing that I thought about for several hours last night and logged on this morning before work for a quick read of two blogs and a short reply about TNR editors, Crusades and culture shock. What I found on just two blogs were several diaries with the message, conservatives are ‘right’, ‘we’ liberals/progressives are wrong. Being mildly cynical about the blog ‘leadership’, when that sort of uniformity of message discipline occurs I always wonder if somebody is trying to herd cats or if enough folks have fallen for some New Republicish plea for cultural unity based on hating and despising some Other, in this case a bizarre view and uninformed view of the entirety of the Muslim world as violent, woman hating, fundie fanatics.
And no, I’m not about to join Andrew Sullivan or George Bush in their Crusade.
I refuse to participate in this farce. It is not a true debate. Salman Rushdie was a legitimate debate that genuinely split the left. In that case I took the side of free speech over cultural sensitivity. In this case I think, although is has all the same elements, that this is being whipped up by Sunni allies of the United States to assist us in our drive to get the UN Security Council to take tough action against the Shi’a dominated Iran.
I will not let my love of free speech be co-opted into a campaign to marginalize Muslims and scare Europeans. Sorry. I’m sitting this one out.
I refuse to participate in this farce. It is not a true debate
I thank you & I quite agree. And, to me, it feels highly manipulative in much the same way that, say, the introduction of Wesley Clark to the blogs did.
I refuse to participate in the Crusades at all. I’m no fan of Wahabbi Islam for precisely the same reason that I’m no fan of the Catholic, Mormon or SBC heirarchy but I refuse to engage in this sort of pervasive bigotry.
Also, I’ve lived on Cap Hill (and Seattle’s International District, for that matter) and assure everyone that all sorts of posters expressing a vast range of viewpoints go up on the phone poles in that area.
Not your finest moment Martin, I’m sad to say.
If it’s Soj’s Saudi theory you have in mind, that’s pretty weak-founded, as Juan Cole showed. And if this global outrage is a ploy to isolate Iran, how come the latter has allowed firebombing of the Danish embassy two days in a row?
What distinguishes this from the Rushdie case is really just the quality of the offending expressions: a complex and artistic novel versus third-rate cartoons. But the drawings had their points to make, however misguidedly and distastefully, and their quality is not of relevance.
True, they shouldn’t have been printed, but as a matter of editorial restraint, not government censorship, let alone fear of violence from religious thugs.
I’ve been disappointed by a lot of US bloggers on this; for instance, Gilliard has lost what respect for him I had left. But then I guess, it’s not these people’s freedom of speech that is at risk. Their right to ridicule religion is protected by the 1st amendment, which has the full force of the US empire to shield it from extortion.
Fortunately, Scandinavians are a stubborn bunch and I don’t think the constitutional protections here are going anywhere either. The Sharia does not and will not apply in our countries, myths to the contrary among US wingnuts and militant Islamists notwithstanding.
I say the whole thing is a con-job and it’s working on too many nonconservatives to rally against a different religion. When the progressives/dems sound just like Bush and his neocons, I think something is wrong on a deep level.
It’s a risk one takes, that one will find pictures of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban on the front page, and the expression of prevailing American cultural values.
Would there ever be a Nazi poster on the front page? Of course not. That would not be culturally acceptable, no matter what the context. It is unlikely that many Americans would wish to show their solidarity with free speech by putting one of those on their site.
But Mohammed with a bomb on his head is just different. Apples and oranges.
Just as the prosecutor in Denmark decided not to prosecute the newspaper over the cartoons, though you can be sure that if those had been anti-Semitic cartoons, the decision would have been different, because it would be considered to be a completely different issue. Apples and oranges.
I will say that there is less anti-Muslim sentiment on this site than on any others I have visited, which speaks very highly of the vast majority of participants.
I will say that there is less anti-Muslim sentiment on this site than on any others I have visited, which speaks very highly of the vast majority of participants.
Yes, I was genuinely distressed by that FP post yesterday and went to sleep and woke up thinking about it and it’s implications. Part of this is just personal survival because if this country turns into one in which any group is subjected to the sort of treatment we applied to, say, the Japanese during WW2 and after, I’ve an obligation and responsibility to confront that sort of bigotry and racism and condemn it and we all know what happens then.
I’m very pleased to log on this AM and discover that so many people see this as the psy-ops it clearly is.
It’s clear that the GOP intends to fuel their foreign policy and electoral prospects with xenophobia and equally clear that the massive cultural ignorance of the American populace makes them (us) fair game for such a ploy. I am not going to be part of their Crusade.
My view on the current cartoon insanity is pretty elemental, so elemental that it barely rewquires words to describe.
Basically, I simply don’t recognize the legitimacy of any arbitrary autocratic religious authority over the affairs of anyone in a secular, nontheocratic society.
I fully respect the right of people to believe what they want to believe as long as they don’t get it into their heads that they have a right to demand others agree with or respect those beliefs.
I don’t see the current mess as representative of Islam any more than I see the small-minded and hateful speech and behavior of creatures like Robertson and Falwell and Dobson as representative of Christianity. I see it as the result of power crazed individuasls weaponizing the ignorance their “followers” in the pursuit of more power for themselves. Instilling fear, exploiting the vast reservoir of anger that exists in many communities throughout the world; acts that exploit these vulnerabilities have nothing to do with religious teaching, nothing to do with any truly spiritual understanding at all. Dobson, Robertson, et al. I’m sure are delighted by all this violence because they want war just like their opportunistic Islamic counterparts want war.
These are the peoplepropagating the violence and the ignorance. these are the people perverting the faiths they purport to be the representatives of. and for me, they have no authority.
I feel immensely sorry for anyone who’s own faith and beliefs have been so thorough;y weakend and corrupted by these spiritually bankrupt charlatans. I view the vast majority of evangelical fascist followers in this country as victims, like victims of a cult, made to doubt the strength of their own simple beliefs, and then urged to act against their brothers and sisters in the most abominable and unforgiving judgmental ways,; asked to violate every basic tenent of the spiritual doctrine that sustained them until these ambitious and powermad interlopers arrived on the scene to weapo0nize them, to deploy them in war.
If we took every prominent religious figure on the planet who advocated for aggression against fellow human beings and locked them all away forever, 90% of the worlds problems would cease to exist almost immediately.
It may take a complete collapse of civilization (again) to clear the earth of these vile creatures, or maybe an alien spaceship will arrive and just render them all inoperative. Either way, the problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Remember we as a nation have been commiting real violence against the muslim world for “phantom” issues as well. I’m surprised its taken this long for some sort of spark to set off riots.
Yes! I’m well aware of that, and it’s why I made sure I included the pseudo Christian cabal of megalomaniacs in my comment. With the Imbecile in Chief Bush in power, these lunatics are able to incite much more violence in the name of their supposed God. thery’ve been wanting the war of Armageddon for a very long time and now they think it’s within reach, so their own insanity is running at a fever pitch. cheney and his neocons are only too happy to oblige because they warnt war in order to secure control of the energy reserves beneath the sands of the Middle East, and so their own delusional agenda has some degree of synchronicity weith the evangelical fascist armageddon enthusiasts.
I stil regard most of the followers of these movements as victims in the same way I regard cult members as victims, but it doesn’t mean they don’t represent real danger on a massive scale.
Cheney and his neocons have set the pattern for war and craziness for the next 50 years. This cartoon thing is only an early example of what’s been set in motion. The worst is yet to come.
.
Extreme right to serve the masses.
In the land of Hans Christian Andersen — Ms Pia Kjaersgaard of Denmark.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
It’s what fosters them.
These are the conditions that breed superstition, fundamentalism and, given time, violence.
If fundamentalism is strengthening, civilization is crumbling.
collapse of repressive and dominant power structures frequently opens the door for new voices and new opportunities and new information and new more exercizable control over one’s life.
Revolution is the framework within which such renewal is often pursued. Overthrowing tyrannies is a continual, recurring aspect of humankinds trajectory.
You are just too good to bury your light in comments.
See I can quote the Christian Bible too. Embracing diversity and all. 😀
…”fundamentalist” as code for “extremist”? ALL Muslims are fundamentalists in the sense that they believe the Q’ran to be the unerring word of Allah. All Muslims are not extremists. Many Christians who vote Democratic consider themselves to be fundamentalist as well.
I may be wrong about this but as far as I’m aware not all muslims do regard the quran as the direct word of Allah anymore than all Christians regard the bible as the explicit dorect word of God. I think these “ideas” of the “revealed word” of God/ Allah came later, instituted by men who wanted to infuse their own authority within those religions with more power.
Also, separately, the word “fundamentalist” is seriously misused inb a myriad of ways that give a false impression as to what the “fundamentals” or the religions they’re applied to actually are. As an example, the typical self-described Christian fundamentalist in the Falwell mode demonstrates virtually nothing in the way of the core teachings of compassion, love and respect for ones neighbor. yet these sanctimonious hypocrites claim the mantle of “fundamentalism” to bolster the impression of legitimacy for their own self-serving and judgmental agenda.
Please correct me if I’m wrong about the “word of god/Allah thing above. It’s been a long time since I studied these things closely.
It looks like I was wrong about the Q’ran not necessarily being seen as the revealed word of God by Muslims.
I’m always happy to be able to correct mistaken beliefs by learning accurate information.
Whether people believe that a sacred text is literally, word for word, the word of God, or divinely imspired is a complicated and especially as regards the Abrahamic trifecta, not possible to answer with one answer.
Nor is it really relevant to the cartoons. Muslims consider Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, among others, to all be Prophets of God, and therefore disrespectful depictions of any of them would be offensive.
The cartoons depicting Mohammed are especially so because he is considered to be the last Prophet, and it was to him that the Koran was told, by the Angel Gabriel.
That, in light of western activities in lands with mostly Muslim populations, and the increasing climate of anti-Muslim sentiment, makes the cartoons publication in a western newspaper an act of questionable responsibility.
Yes! I don’t disagree with your points, but I wanted to be precise in that I personally misremembered what
I understood to be the basic understanding within Islam as to the nature of the text of the Koran.
I know that whether or not the koran is regarded as the word of god or not is not rlevant to the cartoon thing, and I appreciate that the brutality and careless disregard for the Islamic world by the “West” is a millenium long antagonism and that it’s getting progressively worse instead of better.
Personally, while I regard as irresponsible and deliberately destructive many acts and many points of view, I do not, under any circumstances, accord legitimacy, to the authority of any religion or any presumptive religious figure to tell me what I can or cannot do or say. This is just as true about aggressive creatures like Dobson and Falwell as it is for anyone purporting to represent any other “faith”.
I have no quarrel with any religion or any of those who adhere toany religion unless and until they get it in their head that they can impose that religion on others and have the right to enforce the dictates of that religion on others who haven’t voluntarily submitted to that authority.
While I understand the concepts of sensitivity and I fully recognize the value of respect for others’ beliefs, I do not regard the question of “responsibility” to those sensitivities as necesaarily of sufficient gravity to necesarily refrain from publishing something that might be considered offensive by some. If such publication was done with the intent of deliberate provocation that’s another story, but if a faith is so fragile that it’s adherents behavior can be so easily weaponized, this is surely evidence that there is something very different than spiritual sensitivity at issue driving the conflict, and we’d all be well served to drop the religious facade and posturing of sanctimony and get at the core problems of anger and disposession and genocidal fears and all of that, rather than seeking to make of this a religious issue.
IMHO.
with you. If there had never been western colonialism in the Middle East, if there were not western (including Danish) gunmen committing atrocities in Iraq right now, if all the various crimes against humanity were not happening, had not happened, if plans for more were not being gleefully announced in newspapers from New York to Tel Aviv, then it is probable that if this Danish newspaper published these cartoons, even if someone printed copies and went down to the desert and started handing them out, the response would be, well what can you expect from barbarians? Now get that trash out of my face.
But the situation being what it is, it is the larger context in which the cartoons were published, and regardless of why they were distributed, the reaction is not to the cartoons themselves, but what they represent.
The message is not that you (meaning westerners or non-Muslims) must comply with a religious prohibition against depicting the Prophet at all, or even against blasphemy or offensiveness, but that you (meaning westerners) must accept the reality that the ancient lands do not agree that they, their people, their oil, are the property of the US, to be bombed, maimed, tortured, raped, or flesh melted from their children, and no matter how much you pay the puppet overseers, there comes a moment when no amount is enough.
In fact, one of the reasons for the crusade’s current form is that the traditional client state module is no longer sustainable.
I agree with you. The issue is about the disrespect, and the standing up and saying we are not going to allow you to get away with your aggression against us and your exploitation of us anymore. To me, that’s as clear as a bell.
My point is that rather than posturing behind a religious facade, rahter than letting the faux spiritualists define the battleground, people should be articulating the real problems they are struggling against. As long as the powermad religious extremists are defining the shape of the battle, everyone’s ignorance is weaponized and all out catastrophic war just gets closer.
I’ve never been able to discover a single meaningful human value that requires a religious context to have meaning. With that in mind, I say that everywhere there are people suffering at the hands of others, the sooner we remove the religion-based provocateurs from the equation, the better the chances are for minimizing the damage as we stagger forward.
Is any of this stuff spiritual in character. The suppressions, the genocide, the hatreds and resentments and constant conflicts and jealousies and murderous crusading jihading aggressions? No. It’s all about power; the power of a few ambitious and unscrupulous ruthless men over others. God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha; they have nothing to do with it, and the sooner we get that, the better off we’ll be.
In a way, you can easily make the argument and be correct, that it is not at all Islamic to set fire to embassies. Stand out in front of them and burn flags and wave signs and chant slogans, sure, but setting fire to buildings could harm innocent people, which is directly in conflict with the Koran.
Also you have to take into consideration that religion is, as another poster put it, “all they’ve got,” in these countries, and that is not just cultural tradiion, although that plays a part. It is by design.
The most wacko, illiterate mullahs are Amrika’s best friend. They helo keep the protests confined to the mosque steps on Friday afternoon and away from the puppet palace on Monday morning.
Remember US was just tickled pink with the Taliban until they turned down the business deal. From one day to the next, they went from wined and dined darlings who were going to help rich men get more money to the most brutal and terrible regime in the history of mankind.
The Taliban didn’t change. They just said no. And instead of a carpet of gold, they got the carpet of bombs. At least the Afghan people did. Most of the actual Taliban high command, as it were, were helped to make arrangements, just to keep options open for future negotiations. 🙂
Any loudmouthed blowhard who keeps the violence oriented around a religious theme is playing into the hands of the warmongers. Dobson,Falwell, Robertson, Zawahiri, and the vario0us incendiarty Mullahs who insist on casting the confrontations in religious terms are all operating on the same wavelength; they’re symbiotically attached to one another in pursuit of the same goal, religious war and the acquisition of ultimate power to themselves. And because of this they play right into the hands of Cheney and his insidious cabal of ruthless imperialists. Cheney & Co. are laughing their asses off at how easy it is to mobilize loonies like Falwell and Robertson to whip their followers into an outrage frenzy against all those nasty Muslims; and at the same time they’re laughing at the Muslim counterparts to Falwell v& co for the same reason. they’re letting these shithead bastards do much of their dirtyweork for them, whle they themselves can claim they have respect for Islam, blah blah blah.
This is the biggest swindle of all, the one that betrays everyone everytime. and it’s why I say, throw these religious provocateurs into the river. Stop giving them the power to frighten, to deceive, and to exploit. Refuse to let them frame the problems in religious terms. Refuse to yield the podium to them. They only make the damage worse.
for instance, would at the least have had a hard time gaining the kind of holy grail third rail status it has today with the American voting class if it were not for the large numbers of extremist Christians who believe in their owm interpretation of one translation of one text selected by the Nicene Council to mean Armageddon and Rapture and hurling recalcitrant Jews into the sea.
But in most of the Middle East, there is not even the rudimentary education, especially for women, that US public schools offer. Yet paradoxically, even the poorest people there in some ways have a more sophisticated world view than their American counterparts.
The benefit of strong religious influence without education has long been used by empires and kingdoms in order to gain and maintain power and social control. And frequently, the religious aspect can be completely twisted from the actual doctrine of the religion, as with Islam and women. All the mysogyny in Saudi-Occupied Arabia, for instance, or Pashtunistan, is rooted in pre-Islamic customs that the Prophet opposed, and are, like killing innocent people, directly in conflict with the Koran itself, in a word, un-Islamic.
Yet it would hardly serve the interests of the princes to implement actual Koranic teachings regarding women, nor would it serve the interests of the US!
So, anyway, you can see that it is a huge and gnarled tangle of a subject, far beyond the scope of this thread, this blog, or even this millennium. 😉
There’s nothing more sophisticated culturally than being thoroughly involved in and proficient with the life you’re actually living.
and, as youpoint out, where religious influence supplants education, I think it’s fair to say that the religious aspect is pretty much always twisted from the actual spiritual doctrine to serve other, more power-centric ends. As far as I can tell, religious rule, wherever and whenever it has been sustained, has inflicted enormous poverty and cruelty and ignorance upon those it dominated.
“Religious rule, wherever and whenever it has been sustained, has inflicted enormous poverty and cruelty and ignorance upon those it dominated.”
And that is going on my own personal stone tablet!
Yes! History so clearly reveals this uncomfortable fact about the effects of religious authoritarianism on life, and yet even now in many regions of the world religious aggression and power is growing again at an alarming rate.
and at least regarding Abrahamic OS versions 1 and 3, true adherence to the teachings would not be compatible with supplanting education.
Both Judaism and Islam encourage it, in fact, it is considered a religious duty, to educate oneself as much as possible. Christianity is somewhat less firm on this point, but they read the Torah too, so they could get it from there, or maybe I am confusing it with Talmud. I am heavily medicated, so make allowances.
Christianity rose to power on the fostering of ignorance too, and only lost their iron grip on Western civilization upon the advent of Gutenberg’s press, Luther’s violent reformation, and finally, the Enlightenment. (Of course we’ve been following a retrograde trajectory recently here in the US, with Christian based dogma rising to prominence again in all it’s destructive and divisive glory).
I’m signing off for the night. I’ve enjoyed our “talk”, as usual.
Speaking of the bible, I can tell you, you can’t take it literally and come away with any type of a coherent theology. There are many contradictions within that text itself and anyone who actually looks into it knows that fundamentalist christians pick and choose which portions of the bible to espouse. And there is that stubborn fact that the bible authorizes slavery . . . .
to support diametrically opposing points of view. 😉
.
Interfaith group slams caricatures
A group of religious Zionist rabbis has said that Israeli media reprinting of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad oversteps the bounds of journalistic freedom.
Reprinting the caricatures hurts Israeli Arabs’ feelings, said Rabbi David Stav, one of the heads of the Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva and a Tzohar rabbi.
“Freedom of speech does not include the right to hurt the feelings of another,” said Stav, who represents a group of 14 Orthodox rabbis who belong to Kedem, an interfaith group that includes Muslim and Christian clerics. Other members are Baruch Gigi, one of the heads of Har Etzion Yeshiva in Alon Shvut, and Rabbi Shmuel Reiner of the Religious Kibbutz Movement.
Xenophobia and Racism in Europe or Freedom of Speech?
Is it just by accident the Danish cartoons happened in Copenhagen, or is the RW government and Danish support of U.S. in Iraq War a concern for Islamists in the Middle East? The US and UK coalition have killed journalists and bombed TV stations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the name of democracy and freedom of speech.
translation of the Ekstra Bladet article:
Showed Pedophile Mohammed
Imams toured the Middle East with far more provoking images than Jyllands-Posten‘s drawings.
See the documentation here …
By Allan Larsen and Kåre Quist – 9:55 – 12. jan, 2006
When a group of Danish imams recently toured all around the Middle East to gather support for their criticism of the much debated Mohamed-illustrations in Jyllands-Posten and of prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the drawings was apparently not provoking enough for the purpose.
Ekstra Bladet can now document, that the delegation also brought pictures and drawings, that among other things show the prophet Mohamed depicted as both pedophile and equipped with a pigs snout – and there is also one controversial picture of a praying Muslim, who is being raped analy by a dog …
by BobFunk (bobfunk@clanwhiskey.net)
on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:15:36 AM PDT
The date of publication, January 12, is most important, as this is also the impulse for protest by ME governments, by chance the date of the Hajj in Saudi Arabia.
Muslim pilgrims walk across the Jamarat bridge in Mina.
● Muslim Group Asks Los Angeles Radio Host to Apologize
The group quoted Handel as saying: “This is Mahmoud Nolan. Hajj in the Sky. There is an accident. … Ali lost his sandal on the on-ramp to the Martin Luther King Jr. freeway.”
In March 2004, KFI issued an on-air apology after the group filed a complaint with the FCC following a skit that claimed Muslims have sex with animals, don’t bathe and hate Jews.
≈ Cross-posted from Soj’s diary —
Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn’t Telling You ≈
Caricatures Roil Muslim World Beirut Embassy Torched
Iraq Demonstrations, Threats against Danish Troops
● Dutch F-16’s Used To Disperse Angry Crowds in Afghanistan
Afghan protesters hold banners and chant slogans during a protest in Herat against cartoons published in Denmark. Protests were also staged in Kabul, Peshawar, Tehran and Kut in Iraq (5,000 men), the stronghold of Al Sadr. Ahmad Fahim/Reuters
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
You mean screaming in the street for blood revenge, beheadings and other murders is not religious?
The World Socialist Web Site News, Kofi Annan, the US State Department and little old me condemn the publication of these 12 cartoons. They were commissioned by a Danish managing editor who “wanted to test the self-censoring” of his cartoonist. Baloney. This type of testing is appropriate to university sociology and psychology departments.
They were first published in September of last year, and have now surfaced to inflame the Muslim world once again. In a similar case, desecration of the Qu’ran was published by Human Rights First and others months before Newsweek glommed on to it.
Editors have been fired over publishing these cartoons. Editorials and articles have been written about the issue without publication of the images.
When the subject came up, I went looking for the type of images that inflamed the anti-Semitism of the 30’s and the racist rage during the time of Abolition. Hate images are hateful. And plentiful.
After years of exposure to images of torture the US people have become inured to what is tolerable and what is intolerable in the treatment of human beings.
But they still haven’t caught on that their value system is not universal. It has been said clearly and repeatedly that offense to the Qu’ran is actionable, and publication of any image of Muhammed is deeply offensive. The Danish editor knew well what he was doing. 63% of Danish people supported him in one poll I read. 87% condemned the publication in a British newspaper poll I read.
Jesus said, “Do not throw pearls before swine. Do not give to the pigs what is holy.” He was a good editor.
Where are the editors?????
I’d be interested in learning if you think the publishers of Salmon Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses” should have refrained from doing so and if so on what grounds?
No. They should not have refrained. I do not agree with the fatwa against Rushdie. In fact, Midnight’s Children is one of my favorite books. I do not always agree with him about everything, but he is a great word writer.
The Danish newspaper did not publish an illustrated story with a character who hated Muslims and drew offensive cartoons.
So it is more than a subjective difference between what is literature or art and what is not.
The cartoons were published as a stand-alone slap in the face, they were not in the context of a work of a fictional character.
I don’t have the certainty of knowledge in my mind to assert that the cartoons were published as a stand-alone slap in the face (against Muslims or Islam, I assume you mean).
I remember here in the US when there was a big flap about a second rate photographer’s work where he did a picture of Christ on a cross being pissed on, and I think another one depicting Mary the mother formed out of dung, and there was a great outrage by religious nuts and I thought, how pathetic that these people have been tricked into believing thier faith and their
God is so weak that it can’t withstand such petty insults. I remember when Scorseses’s tortured film version of the great novel by Nikos Kazantzakis “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out and the psycho Christian establishment went apeshit again. This is how I feel about the cartoons. Are these stupid cartoons that important, or does the outrage arise from other causes?
I agree with you about Rushdie’s skill and, like you I don’t necessarily agree with his perspectives.
to a Danish author’s difficulty in finding an illustrator for a children’s book about the Prophet. Apparently she wanted the illustrations to depict the Prophet, and was unaware of the custom of not depicting him, until the illustrators made her aware of it.
Somehow the newspaper got wind of this, and chose to hold a contest for the best cartoon depicting Mohammed, and chose to print the entries they received, which included some that were blatantly and deliberately offensive.
Muhammad enroute to Paradise for a visit, circa, 1550; Persia
Muhammad in Mecca at the Kaaba stone; 16th century Ottoman (Sunni)
Evidently the depicting of the prophet is not unprecedented, and the idea of looking for an illustrator for a children’s book about the prophet; well such motivation hardly seems intended to deliver a “slap in the face”.
that has sort of morphed into a sort of pseudo-doctrine in modern times, but as the Arabian fellow soj cited in her diary points out, you can buy reproductions of old classic Persian illustrations that include the Prophet on the streets in Teheran today. Some westerners buy them just because they are beautiful and have no idea that they include Mohammed!
He is even on the Supreme Court building in bas relief, and to my knowledge there have been no demonstrations about that, even despite the crusades.
And as for the lady writing the book, it is not necessary to actually depict the Prophet. Hollywood back in the 1950s made a whole movie (The Messenger, starring Anthony Quinn, a Mexican 😀 ) that did not show him at all.
So yes, it calls into question the author’s motive and judgment that she would be so insistent, even after illustrators explained to her the cultural tradition, and certainly there was no reason for the newspaper to have a contest and publish what it did. They could have just as easily written an editorial saying they thought the custom was silly and didn’t make sense.
And of course one can only wonder what the reaction might have been if ther publishers had instead written they “thought the custom was silly”.
I think there are fine lines, delicate balances between when it’s prudent to refrain from certain actions that might offend, and when it’s important to not give in to undue pressure (emotional blackmail)from extremists whose own agenda seeks to usurp authority over the existing law of the land. It’s like the question about when you give in to the demands of extortionists and when do you tell them to go fuck themselves.
I’m an ardent free speech advocate, though this doesn’t mean I am predisposed to insult people just to prove a point. But sometimes it is necessary to stand up against those who would seek to assert their own illegitimate authority over one’s right to say or print something, and in the case of these particular cartoon images, I too might have found a compelling reason for publishing them, not to offend, but to defend the right of free speech in a secular society uncontaminated with the dictatorial imprint of relgious-based tyranny. If the dobson/Falwell gang were staging such reaction as this I’d be opposing that as well by defending the legitimacy of free specch in the face of violent religion-based intimidation. This doesn’t mean it was smart or prudent to publish these photos. It doesn’t even automatically imply the motive for doing so was benign, (though I happen to suspect the motive forthe originalpublishing of these 12 cartoons was basically benign). But, once the flap is flapping, one can’t yield the athority ofone’s own laws and capitulate to arbitrary religious extortion.
to the effect of how dare you call this custom silly when you eat that awful lutfisk, or something similar, but an editorial expressing the opinion that the custom is silly would have not been very useful to anyone who wished to conduct, as BooMan calls it, a “psy op.”
It would just not have the same effect as a cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.
But still offensive nevertheless. Which brings me around again to a key problem in all of this. What criteria do we use to judge the severity of offensiveness; how do we determine where we draw the line between (for lack better descriptors) “permissable” and “non-permissable” degrees of offensiveness? and who among us do we designate to make the call?
Last time I checked, in democratically organized democracies there are systems of laws that are endowed with authority in such matters. Also, in societies where individual liberties like free speech are recognized as primary liberties that surpass the authority of the state to suppress them, there is recognition that such liberties are accompanied with the less than enjoyable understanding that the necessary price required for such liberties is that we must also tolerate the free, often offensive and ugly speech of others; that we can’t enjoy one freedom for ourselves and deny it to another.
a diary that tells the applicable laws, but the decision was made in the case of the cartoons not to prosecute.
Now to answer your question, I think it would be a matter of common sense, or should be. For instance, to return to the example of the Satanic Verses, a fictional work which contains material that might be offensive to some group or group is not the same as a gratutitous display of such material, and that would, in my opinion, be the case whether the country in question had laws like Denmark’s or not.
What can be expected to add to the offensiveness, however, is when it is considered acceptable to offend certain groups and not others. In other words, if anti-Semitic cartoons would be considered a violation of the Danish law, and I have no doubt that this would be the case, then these cartoons that depict the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban should also be considered a violation.
And in my opinion, the same standard should be applied by the newspaper editor himself, when deciding which material to publish, and it would be nice if everyone would choose to apply such standards evenly, whether required by law to do so or not.
As another example, I do not think that you will ever see an anti-Semitic cartoon on the front page of this site, for any reason or in any context whatsoever.
I agree completely with your view about the illegitimate apect of the argument that free speech restraint in the case of sensitivity to one group or issue iscalled for while in relation to other issues and groups it is not.
And I sincerely hope you don’t think I’m proferring such an argument, as I am most emphatically not.
As for applying standards by which to assess and assert some control over the flow of offensive material, in principle it’s a great idea, but the question is always who determines the standards both as to the selectivity and severity with which particular “speech” might offend.
As I remarked elsewhere, part of the price to be paid for enjoying the liberty of free speech is that it requires us to accord the same right to others if the freedom is to mean anything. It’s a trade off, in a way. My sense is that education and philosophy are important in a society in large part to help the citizenry learn about such things, to learn about each other, and to learn that mutual respect andthe desire to work together for the common good is a better way to live than by fighting against each other and seeking to demonize each other in order to elevate our own self-image and feel good about ourselves.
I’ve often said before that it’s a real tragedy that therole of the philosophers in our modern society has been completle overrun and replaced by the moralists and their pathological religious, belief-based, authoritarian judgmentalism By eliminating a public dialog dealing with the basics of “cause and effect”, and suplanting it with arbitrary definitions of “right and wrong”, or “good and evil”, we have seriously damaged the capacity for the family of man on earth to move forward as a species and as a civilization.
Give me a discussion of cause and effect, action and consequence, any day. The arbitrary judgementalism of the theocrats only serves to restrict the ability of man to embrace his brother.
How about the miracle of the 40 barrels of oil…or posed as a private miltary contractor ‘interrogating’ the nonChristian and an array of tortures with WWJD? Have to be born again one way or another.
The original 12 cartoons that were published and which started this conflagration did not include the images you refer too. (Unless I’m misinterpreting something.)
It was a fucking joke, just like this whole cartoon propaganda to build support for nuking Iran.
Got it!
Food for thought, brought to you courtesy of Der Spiegel
I fully support the idea that “free speech” embraces the concept of “freedom to not speak”, and that voluntary self-censorship, (aka judgment), is generally a good thing, (except when it is practised by those who have a duty to the public interest and violate that duty by witholding or distorting or engaging in provocation [demagouging) with that speech).
I also agree whole heartedly about the desirability of “voluntary understanding” as it relates to the instances where short term journalistic impact might ultimately stimulate more harm than good.
But, there’s plenty of this sort of “voluntary understanding” going on all the time; it’s just that said understanding is not absolute. It doesn’t kick in everytime acording to the requirements of various people concerned with various issues. And the sort of freedom associated with speech in many societies allows for that. It’s recognized that the liberty of individual rights for speech is often a trade off; that offensive remarks will be made and this is part of the price one pays for that kind of liberty because it’s impossible to legislate good taste and mutual respect in a way that will satisfy everyone.
And as far as the “voluntary understanding” thing goes, if we want to chastize our own publishers and journalists and cartoonists for not practising this according to our own personal sensitivities, then we must also be criticizing those who’s violent attempts to assert their own arbitrary and intimidation-based authority over the law of the land are in themselves creating unecessary havoc based on their own intolerance, not based, (as they would have us believe), on “our” intolerance. Those who advocate for a non-violent response to offensive material or behavior, (like Ghandi, like Martin Luther King), get my support on all levels, ethical, moral, spiritually attuned, secularly pragmatic, and just plain smart.
And finally, as to the question of playing into the hands of the extremists who take advantage of this to advance their own insane agenda. If we always make the choice to yield our positions based on the fact that the extremists will take advantage if we don’t, aren’t we then providing them with exactly what they crave; aren’t we then kowtowing to the power of their own intimidation to get us to perform according to their wishes.
It seems to me that there are times when one has to stand up,regardless of the maniacs and nuts who might take advantage. I oppose Dobson and the Falwell/Robertson crowd and the Cheney/Bush/Neocon crowd and their terrible aggression against our democracy and against humanity with as much vigor and enthusiasm as I can muster. I feel the same way about other aspiring religious and political tyrants using those religions and governments as instruments through which to pursue their own ambition.
In principle, I agree with everything you say; where we disagree is here:
“It seems to me that there are times when one has to stand up,regardless of the maniacs and nuts who might take advantage.”
I don’t see that this is one of those times.
In fact, it would seem that this might be one of those times when, we, the people (of the western world) might demonstrate an “act of good faith,” retract our tentacles and the tenets of absolute free speech, concede, be conciliatory and say….you know guys, you’re right, it wasn’t such a good idea…it wasn’t.
If “we the people of the Western world” were a monolithic entity, I’d agree with your perspective on that more thoroughly.
But, we are not.
If I were a publisher, I can’t imagine I would have allowed the image of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban to reach print, not because I have any regard for religious authority, but because I don’t sek to offend peopl just to make a point. If I were to publish such an image, I’d predicate it with a blurb of some sort about how distasteful and ugly and embarrassingly stupid are the attempts by religious bogots and extremists to ridicule and demonize each other’s beliefs. I might have included such an image in a montage of similarly provocative images depicting Jesus or Jews or various Hindu gods doing nasty things. I would have sought, in any case to repudiate the offensiveness and pettiness of such “art”, and ridiculed the motives and the ideology of those who support such material as provocations designed to advance their own aggressive and angry pursuit of violence and destruction.
But I would not have felt the need to “…retract the tenets of absolute free speech”. If anything, I would have sought to make the case that “while I regarded the right of free speech as functionally absolute, that this in no way meant that all free speech was meanngful, productive, advisable, or wise.
In other words, I’d seek to make the distinction between the absolute necessity of the right of free speech and the content of that speech, in much the same way someone might argue powerfully in favor of “abortion rights”, while at the same time expressing certain qualms about whether abortion itself was necessarily a beneficial thing in all circumstances.
As to acknowledging that publishing these things wasn’t such a good idea, I think, (I’m not sure), the Danish PM did that, but of course now it’s too late for such a statement to have effect/. the extremists and the media vultures are in complete control of the whole thing now.
Most countries in Europe do not have freedom of speech. There are things relating to other religions that cannot be said. However, how many newspapers in these countries use the “freedom of speech” to justify insulting Muslims? How does this double standard look to Muslims?
The expression involving straw and camels back also springs to mind when looking at Muslim (over)reaction around the world. We cannot just view this cartoon incident as an isolated one. We need to remember the context. Let’s take a few seconds to see how things look away from the “West”. Iraq has been invaded illegally and for no reason. How many innocent Muslims have been slaughtered in the crusade there? Apart from the US and UK, troops from Denmark and several other European countries have been used in this debacle. Then we get to Afghanistan where things are not quite as bad as Iraq but seem to be hotting up. NATO is heavily involved there. Unless my memory fails me most European countries are either members of NATO or desperate to join. Then we look at Iran. The whole crusade against them is being led by the EU three. Do we even need to get into the how the US and EU (to a lesser extent) favor Israel over Palestine. Do we even need to get into how the killing of one Israeli child is heavily reported by western media while the killing of yet another Palestinian child goes unreported.
I seriously doubt the rioting we see over the cartoons is purely abou that one issue as some politicians would have us believe. It is far more likely that anger and hatred have built up over the years due to a number of issues and this one finally caused the pent up rage to come out even if some was stoked by local politics.
Should every newspaper in the western world print these images? What an absurd idea. Let’s fan the flames even more and see how many deaths we can cause. Oh of course these deaths will just be “ragheads” and so not count . Oh and if we want to make statements about free speech in Europe and not being dictated to lets start by campaigning for the restrictive state laws that in many countries that ban certain speech about certain religions.
it would be beyond the issue of free speech to publish anti-Semitic cartoons. As you pointed out the other day, it is in fact prohibited by law in some European countries, and while not outlawed in the US, I think that regardless of one’s opinion of the Danish incident, everyone can agree that any American newspaper that published anti-Semitic material would find itself out of business in short order.
It is simply taken for granted that of course one can say things about Islam or Muslims that would be unthinkable if the subject were Jews.
A few years ago, someone anonymously left an antisemtic message on my office door – apparently the individual took offense to one of my signs (basically a yellow sticker with the star of David w/ the # 6,000,000 and the statement “Never forget”) that commemorates the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide (and yes, I am aware that that particular sign is rather incomplete). Let’s just say that in my classes the next day there I let out quite a tirade. It’s a small community, so I’m sure the word spread pretty quickly that there was a really pissed off prof who has a real chip on his shoulder when it comes to neo-Nazism. Hasn’t happened since.
It doesn’t take much imagination to try to place myself in the shoes of one of my Muslim brothers or sisters on another corner of the planet, and have some grasp of how offensiveness of the cartoons in question.
I suppose it goes without saying that the flipside to freedom is responsibility.
Unfortunately the responsibility part seems to have been forgotten in certain parts of Europe.
“Freedom without Responsibility is Chaos!
“Wisdom without Love is Brutality!”
religious extremists who oppress women. I don’t care about the context. I don’t care about what shitty things my own country has done. I don’t care about colonialism. My understanding and empathy stops at the place where women are treated like chattel.
Extremist religions are based on the oppression of women. That goes for the whole “Abrahamic triad” or whatever somebody called it. Islamist regimes reduce women to property.
Ductape, I agree with what you said up-thread – these mullahs who fan religious hatred are our own Corporatist Imperium’s best friends. Look at the Saudi princes…
I will only say this:
Mussolini on fascism:
As I understand it, referring to a fundamentalist form of a religion as fascism is mistaken if we accept Mussolini’s definition.
I wonder if rather than rush to judgment, we would be better served by trying to listen, to understand what’s going on, to accept that most of us (myself included) are relatively ignorant regarding the cultures comprising the Middle East and regarding the various forms of Islam.
My (at best) semi-educated guess is that the anger we’re witness to has less to do with angry mobs of “Muslim savages” who hate freedom of speech or who lack a sense of humor when it comes to dissing the Prophet and more to do with a long-simmering hostility towards a set of nations whose governments have caused their populations generations of misery. Just sayin’.
Does anyone have any links to the story that’s around concerning the foreign government that’s covertly started this to provoke a legitimate war with Iran?
The author bought right into the propaganda. I thought progressives were a little bit smarter. C-Span callers supporting a tactical nuclear against Iran are ignorant and scary. What the hell is wrong with people?
The counter with the holocaust cartoon threat was an effective move.
Especially since your bio states that you are the co-founder of a paper called “On Indian Land” (certainly my all-time favorite saying in the whole wide world!), I wonder how this statement can be reconciled witht the fact that it wasn’t until 1978, with the passage of the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act, that the US gov explicitly stated that, after centuries of imposing Christian religious beliefs on the non-Christian indigenous populations of this country, Indians (the few who remained) were indeed afforded the legal right to pray on Indian land.