::
It is only taunting because we accept their definition of what "taunting" is. This is not about crying "fire" in a building. There is no "objective" danger, only a very subjective one, and I deny to them the right to define what the danger (in terms of what is offensive or not, and whether anything offensive is 'dangerous' or not) is in my country.
The monotheist religions are totalitarian ideologies. They have more blood on their collective hands, more savagery and more hypocrisy than anybody else in the history of man. They feel insulted? Boo fucking hoo. I feel insulted by their very existence. Do they really think man is so stupid? That I cannot have values outside of religion? That I need the crutch of an imaginary being to live? That I am bad or evil or worthless for not following them? They are a permanent insult to the rest of the world. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I really and truly believe that governhments of the West need to take a stand here. This is critical -- to our economic success, to our scholarship, and to our very existence as liberal democracies. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
in actuality as a lifelong nonbeliever, I share your mistrust of, and alienation from, the whole monotheism trip. the world would be better off, perhaps, without it -- though the Soviet flavour of thug managed to do some pretty awful deeds in the name of an allegedly rationalist and atheist ideology, which imho just goes to show that you can have a murderous cult without a god. true confession: I spent much of my high school lunch breaks baiting evangelicals (in order to do this effectively I had to read quite a lot of their Bible!)... that said (i.e. we are on the same side of the net ideologically here)...
I note that Christian demagogues adduce the Soviet government's crimes against the people as evidence that atheism itself is brutish, cruel, stupid, wicked and whatnot -- much as we who dislike/distrust religion adduce the crimes done in the name of various gods as evidence that religion itself is brutish, cruel, stupid and wicked. I am not sure either argument stands up better than the other, though one is of course more congenial to my own belief system :-) maybe what we should say is that sociopaths are an enduring reality, that power corrupts, and that even the most idealistic ideology can be used as a stalking horse by sadists and bullies. name me one, just one, major ideology -- religious or not -- that hasn't been used as a flag to wrap cruelty in...? is "religion" really the problem, or is it human beings? the latest neuroscience disturbingly suggests that even when we think we're being rational, we're not... so how much high cranial ground can we nonbelievers really lay claim to?
I think when we picture ourselves (or the taunting cartoonists) as Davids of rationality contending with lumbering, brutish Goliaths of monotheism, we leave out the other side of the picture that I was trying to paint in -- ourselves (the West) as gloating conquerors dragging the toppled idols of their colonised victims through the mud. every imperial power has done this -- the literal or figurative pissing on the losers' gods, the profanation of the temple, whatever. and as a gesture of colonial contempt I do dislike it and feel that, as with repeated Israeli provocations, vandalism, crop destruction in the OT, it only deepens the wound and postpones any possibility of making peace.
and let us face it, the feelings that are being stirred up in the proletariat by this type of cartoon are not about a lofty Voltairian disdain for doctrinal religion per se, they are about making fun of Arab-looking people with a "weird foreign religion". they are playing to xenophobia, ignorance, BNP-like tendencies all over Euroland. in that sense a present danger does exist, since Muslims are a small minority embedded in a large population during a time of economic instability (which is about like being committed to a land war in Asia, in the catalogue of unenviable strategic situations).
on momentary reflection I think it's indefensible to suggest that the person doing the taunting is the one who gets to define what taunting is! that would be like... well, like a white person getting to decide there's nothing wrong with the word "n*gger", or a chain smoker getting to decide whether cig smoke is legimately annoying to a nonsmoker. if someone is offended or insulted by a behaviour and we deliberately flaunt it in their face -- puffing smoke at them after they have asked us not to smoke, for example? -- I don't think it gets us off the hook to say "well, no reasonable person [as defined by me] would object to that behaviour, therefore my behaviour is not annoying and I am not taunting." what is indisputable is that the intent is to provoke and offend.
is there really no "objective" danger in the public expression of contempt and scorn for an entire race and religion, when Anglo/Euro/US troops are in Iraq right now shooting "sand n*ggers" on sight, and when half the US public believes that the Koran is a bomb-making manual? when persons whose only offence is having an Arab-sounding name are put on watch lists, when Muslim men are "disappeared" and held without trial for years, flown secretly to black gulags in Eastern Europe, tortured -- and when the majority of the AngloChristian world appears to accept these abuses tamely or even with approval -- Muslims are unreasonable in feeling endangered?
all cultural products must be seen in context, and the current context is a resurgence of the Anglo/Euro drive to control and expropriate the Arab/Muslim world, and a focussing of the xenophobic/racist tendencies in the US and Euroland on the new "enemy du jour," the Arab/Muslim stereotype (as it was on the "Japs" in WWII, and so forth). I think we have to view this incident within that context, as part of a pattern of historical events and not an ahistorical textbook case of absolute free speech principles.
one of the basic principles of a civil society, it seems to me, is to extend courtesy even to the habits of mind which one cannot understand or genuinely respect, i.e. for me to refrain from shouting "what utter nonsense!" when my Jewish friends keep kosher and attend Temple, and to keep a straight face and not mock or hoot when a Christian friend tells me she has asked God for advice on a difficult matter. do we want to be Right, Right, Right, or do we want to stay friends? must everyone think exactly as you and I do, before we will extend them respect or courtesy?
it is a thorny problem -- absolute principles vs good manners and practical peacemaking. I have not solved it. but I continue to assert that the motives behind this propagation of a set of banal racist cartoons are not as disinterested or principled as they are made out to be. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Satire has a very long history (from the court jester onwards). It is not a democratic tool that I would be prepared to give up. Despots are IMHO consistently humourless, and I am always suspicious of anyone who betrays a lack of humour. But maybe that is beside the point in this case. You can't be me, I'm taken
;)
The question about who has the right to define what a "taunt" is is an interesting one - indeed the central one here. The article I quoted in the Breakfast thread from Arab News
The Power of the Muslim and Arab Worlds Ray Hanania, Arab News This week, we witnessed the power of the Islamic and Arab worlds to bring a Western nation virtually to its knees. I was amazed at that power. This is over an issue that the nation's government had nothing to do with. All I can wonder is why the Islamic and Arab world doesn't harness that power more effectively and change policies that directly impact our causes and our beliefs?
This week, we witnessed the power of the Islamic and Arab worlds to bring a Western nation virtually to its knees. I was amazed at that power. This is over an issue that the nation's government had nothing to do with. All I can wonder is why the Islamic and Arab world doesn't harness that power more effectively and change policies that directly impact our causes and our beliefs?
suggests that the "victims" don't really see themselves as victims nor as helpless, and that it is purely an ideological struggle, where precisely what is a taunt is at stake. Thus the need to take a stand there and to say, "I have a right to say this even if it makes you unhappy".
That it is not courteous is true but, in this instance, irrelevant, because that's not what's at stake. You should not say it, but you have to have the right to do so, however distateful it may be. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Calculated Reaction
However, the harsh reactions to the cartoon overstep the boundaries of acceptable protests. Even though the Mohammed caricature provokes, it by no means justifies an incitement to murder or a call for boycotts. It is also not reason enough for the Arab world to instrumentalize the protests for political purposes.
... Islamist groups are attempting to channel the hatred against the West to bolster their own political influence. Through their apparent solidarity with the wave of protest Arab governments can detract from domestic failure and discredit western calls for reform. Most likely they will also take advantage of the situation to cut back on freedom of the press in their countries.
The escalation of events in the Palestinian territories on Thursday is a good example of how political groups have instrumentalized the raging sentiments. It wasn't Hamas or jihad that fueled the violent protests, but rather the militant arm of the secular Fatah party, which lost last week's parliamentary election. For them, the protests offered the perfect opportunity to express frustration over the lost ballot.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1890725,00.html
Let us keep the argument simple. Is it lawful or not?
Other countries may have other laws, even religious laws - but they do not apply here in Europe. Neither do our laws apply in those other countries. You can't be me, I'm taken
Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
It's the EXACT same debate.
They are using their unlimited capacity to take offense as a political weapon. This has to stop at some point, and we are way beyond that point today. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Private citizens are free to scream "treason" all they want. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I am saying that some Muslims are using their "ofenseability" (and the fact that it is something they have the sole right to define) to extract from us behavior which deviates significantly from what our values would suggest.
Bush is stifling free speech in the name of patriotism by branding people that criticise him as traitors and objective allies to enemies. These Muslims are doing the same - stifling free speech in the name of their religious practise by branding people that criticise them as intolerant and insulting.
Maybe you think that the criticism is unwarranted, in poor taste, or maybe you even disagree with it, but do you deny the right for it to be made? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Defining what is patriotic... well, that's probably up to the fatherland or the nation, and then we get into the discussion of who, if anyone, speaks for the fatherland or the nation.
Once I say something has offended me, it's up to other people to decide if they want to accomodate me or not. Maybe we don't want to accommodate muslims. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/archiv/03.02.2006/2328985.asp (in German I´m afraid)
While we Muslims are constantly demanding equality of rights and accusing the West of applying double standards, we ourselves are turning into fascists who want special rights here, there and everywhere. If caricatures of the Christian prophet Jesus are possible in Europe, then they should also be allowed for the prophet Mohammed. Why should we we granted special treatment: is our blood redder than the others'?
The author (a 29 year old German citizen of Iranian origin) asked his full name not to be published in the internet. I wonder why?
Meanwhile, the Islamists not only "label" these cartoonists as blasphemers, but follow it up with rifle attacks and physical injury.
Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them.
In that case we have to offer the same to everyone who might feel offended by something. Leaving us, as the lef-leaning "TAZ" in Germany wrote in an opinion piece with:
It is a demand that cannot be fulfilled, unless we all agree that priests, rabbis or imams should decide what we are allowed to read, hear or see. In the end, these religious authorities have for a long time proven to be formidable repressors when it comes to freedom of expression.
