The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The point appears to be that making representations of Mohamed is a profanation of the holy.
So maybe the problem is that people who believe in the holy are a threat, because they are liable to get unreasonably worked up over actions which they perceive to be a profanation of the holy.
Since the definition of what's holy and what behaviours are profanations of the holy seem to be completely conventional (given the very large numbers of religions disagreeing over what's holy and what's profanation), maybe the problem is the very concept of the holy. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
And at no point was there the question to Muslims in Europe which protection of their interests they want, and a debate if the majority wanted to grant this protection.
And then, oh surprise, there was violence.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Nor were the several political assassinations of high-profile anti-Islamists. Now, some of those assassinated arguably did the European culture a favor by shrugging off this mortal coil, but that does not make assassination somehow OK or non-threatening to legitimate anti-clerical activism.
It would be an interesting debate if Danish Muslims would tell us what illustrations they would find proper in a children's book about the prophet Mohammed. Instead there was a campaign to teach the primitives how civilised people behave.
First there was the cartoon campaign, then there was the related violence. Not the other way round.
It would be an interesting debate if Danish Muslims would tell us what illustrations they would find proper in a children's book about the prophet Mohammed.
They may have wished to convey that those who claim special privileges for Islam are a menace. This is abundantly verifiable.
You may be interested to know how the controversy played in France, which offers relatively little in the way of protection for religious feelings.
The Danish cartoons were published by France Soir, a paper with a right-wing editorial line, and by Charlie Hebdo, a scurrilous scatological lefto-greeno-republican weekly. This provoked "lively debate", and a couple of attempts of prosecution by a confederation of Moslem organisations under a law forbidding insults to a group of people based on their religious beliefs.
They lost : it was judged that the drawings satirized Moslem extremists, not Moslems as a group.
Last year, they were preparing a special issue (named Sharia Hebdo) to commemorate the electoral victory of the Islamist party in Tunisia, when the premises of the paper were destroyed by arson (never fear, the paper is still alive and well).
My perception is that the paper demonstrated that it is indeed OK to caricature religions and religious beliefs in France, with no exceptions. This ought to be obvious to everyone, and it's a shame that they had to demonstrate it by putting themselves and their paper at risk.
I'm very glad they did it, and I believe that they have improved the integration and insertion of Moslems into French society, which was their intention. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
In my view the French version of the relation between state and religion only works if minorities are very small. French secularity keeps the Catholic church in their place, and all other religions don't count. 5% Muslims is too strong a minority for that.
The issue in France (and to a lesser extent, elsewhere in Europe) is that a society which has been secularized, i.e. is no longer intimidated by vested religious interests and therefore has no religious taboos in the debate of ideas, is effectively being asked (by a Muslim minority) to take a step backwards into the obscurantist past.
And is saying no. Quite rightly, and fairly successfully overall, in my view. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Funny turn the discussion is taking now. So the real enemy is Muslims?
You told Jake recently Take your barbarian free speech back to the US where it belongs.
I feel compelled to ask you to take your religious society to the US where it belongs.
Now seriously, this is the time to point out that secularism, separation of church and state, and freedom of conscience are three separate concepts.
I was of the opinion that, by and large, the US had freedom of conscience and separation of church and state, but it wasn't a secular society; on the other hand, Europe tends to have freedom of conscience and a secular society but no separation of church and state.
Is this one of those cases where you can pick two out of three? If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
I deplore any regression in this respect, beit in France, Russia, or the Maghreb, for example. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
So it's not even a case of picking two out of three.
I don't know what is secular in that.
What temporal power do the churches have? If the answer is none, then the society is secular. It's not about how many people profess or practice religion. It's about whether the churches get to dictate behaviour, education, dress codes, sexual morals, etc... or not. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
That's a good system, which has worked perfectly well since the 16th century. My only complaint is that it isn't open to all the other religions who might wish to enjoy similar state support place their budgetary decisions in the hands of treasury officials...
Then there is the funding: if you owe your church money every month, because you are a member, the state will collect it for them with the income tax. There are hidden funds too.
Big yikes! If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
What are the "hidden funds"? Sounds exciting. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I interpret 'secularity' mostly in the sense that religiosity is a private matter. In stark contrast with the situation in the US where public shows of piety are almost required of politicians and public figures, in most of Europe they are frowned upon, discouraged, or they are simply not done. Even Christian Democrats keep a low profile, by and large. I may be mistaken, but even in the case of German President Gauck, the fact that he's a pastor is secondary to his reputation as a dissident against the DDR regime. Merkel doesn't make a big production out of being the daughter of a pastor either.
Maybe the fact of appointing Gauck President is a turning point, just like Sarkozy appears to have tried to inject just a bit too much of Catholicism in his political rhetoric. If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
No, the enemy is not brown people, no, the enemy is not immigrants. No, the enemy is not Muslims. Your introduction of this strawman is repugnant.
If you imagine that there is a balance of powers between state and religion in France, then you are ignorant of French society. (It's true that the clergy are on the state payroll in Alsace, that's a historical vestige similar to the fact that the motorways are toll-free in Brittany.)
It's possible that such a balance of powers truly exists in Germany -- after all, the major government party has the word "Christian" in its name -- but this too is a historical vestige, destined to disappear as (if?) society progresses.
The Catholic church in France no longer attempts to challenge the secular state in power games, it merely struggles to maintain its declining cultural influence. It happens that the only challenges to the secular state of affairs tends to come, these days, from Muslims.
Acceding to such demands would be a civilizational regression. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
We mostly respect religious taboos (we only notice them when they change)
In practice, this means that Christianity enjoys a measure of privilege that Islam does not, due to simple institutional inertia. The solution to that is to remove Christianity's unfounded and unmerited privileges, not to introduce medieval barbarism in favor of Islam.
and we have some kind of balance of powers between state and religion.
The Catholic Church, of course, works incessantly to inject itself into European politics. But by and large it is losing.
Which is as it should be.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 310 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 21 comment
by Oui - Feb 235 comments
by Oui - Feb 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments