Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Eurogreen, I am sorry (I really am!) but I have no idea what has happened. And I meant my words exactly as I have explained, not as you obviously read them.
by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, when you wrote

A few years ago Islamophobes invented the slogan that there was a right to hurt someone's religious feelings.

... who were you talking about? Salman Rushdie, perhaps?

You see, I object strongly to the notion of such a right having been "invented", a few years ago, by islamophobes. One might ascribe this to ignorance and parochialism on your part (perhaps it's against the law to hurt someone's religious feelings in Germany?)... But no, because we have discussed this very issue before, more than once.

So I don't see any alternative to reading it as a deliberate attempt to inflame the debate.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
... who were you talking about? Salman Rushdie, perhaps?

As I said, Broder and his ilk. And more important than the question by whom it was invented or introduced or whatever: debating along the line whether such a right exists or not deflects from the question what it should be good for.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:51:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the reference to Rushdie was ironic, but he came before your friend Broder. And as you may recall, he nearly died at the hands of those who considered there is no such right.

And where ideas come from is very important indeed. The idea that the right to criticize religions might have been invented by the islamophobic right is just grotesque.

As for what a right is good for : what are human rights for, after all? They are to be used as the human sees fit.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The idea that the right to criticize religions might have been invented by the islamophobic right is just grotesque.
Yeah, all those proto-Nazi 18th century philosophers...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"your friend Broder": I find that worse than "ally oneself with". And if for a native speaker it is not, I can't know.

"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

eurogreen:

what are human rights for, after all?

A foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. That's the underlying goal, as quoted from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All laws and rules have such goals, and these should be open and transparent. Their debate is directly related to the ethical concepts in a society, and these latter are often (but not always) informed by religious values.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

But my dear, you have demonstrated over and over again that the two are inseparable!

If I criticize religion (ANY religion), your feelings get hurt. I have no control, nor any responsibility, over how you receive my exercise of the right to criticize religion. If you wish to censor my right to speak about religion in such a way as to avoid any offense, then my freedom to criticise religion no longer exists.

Here's a thought experiment for you : Salman Rushdie, who is of Islamic heritage, used that heritage in a novel. It appeared in a pirate edition in Iran, where it apparently hurt some people's religious feelings. This resulted in a death sentence, etc...

Should Rushdie have been subjected to censorship? Should novels be read before publication by jury of a priest, a pastor, a rabbi and an imam? If not, what mechanism do you propose to prevent people's religious feelings from getting hurt?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:45:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
If I criticize religion (ANY religion), your feelings get hurt.

Nope. That's probably the reason why we haven't understood each other's messages. I don't know how criticism of religion can make sense--it is there and you believe or not, but such criticism doesn't hurt. What Rushdie did, was criticising behaviour and social attitudes, by the way. Not because he wants to parade the backward natives, but in order to take part in a discourse he has a place in. Perfectly legitimate. That is different from the anti-immigrant discourse of European Islamophobes.

Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?

Huge differences.

Exercising power, rules and mores, behaviour are open for criticism, and here public debate is necessary. Beliefs in my opinion cannot be discussed, but attempts don't hurt, they are just boring. The feelings of persons are to be respected.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 12:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?

Huge differences.


The obligation to maintain that distinction cuts both ways. When religious adherents conflate criticism of religious power structures and authority figures with criticism of their religious community, their religion, or religion in general, then such distinctions get really blurry, really fast.

My very clear impression is that secularists are not the greater offenders against clarity in this distinction.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Katrin:
Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?

OK... for a few days I was under the false impression that you wanted laws or regulations against hurting people's religious feelings. If we're talking about rules of discussion, I'll try to clarify mine.

Criticising a religion, or religion as such, is out of bounds for me : something I hope I don't do. Religious communities and organisations : I reserve the right to criticise their practices and influence, the way they are organised or funded etc, to the same degree as I would criticize any other constituted body, no more, no less. Religious mores, I reserve the right to criticise, insofar as they impinge on others. Religious feelings of persons are none of my business, and not very interesting to me.

Behaviour of believers, or as I would prefer to call it, religious praxis, is of interest to me, and not exempt from criticism. When religiously-motivated or -justified behaviours are strongly at variance with societal norms, then this will inevitably be a subject for debate. Is it is a legitimate subject for debate? If it has negative effects on people -- outside the religious group, or within it -- then yes.

Random example : in my home country, I remember a controversy concerning Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions for their children.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Criticising a religion, or religion as such, is out of bounds for me
Wait, we can criticise (say) Austrian Economics on logical or epistemological grounds as a system of thought, but "a religion" is out of bounds?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 05:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with a lot of this.

"When religiously-motivated or -justified behaviours are strongly at variance with societal norms, then this will inevitably be a subject for debate. Is it is a legitimate subject for debate?"

Of course it is. If you criticise the behaviour of a persecuted minority, you must tread carefully though.  And you cannot violate their human rights (I know that you don't see bans on headscarves as such, but you will at least concede that your view is controversial, right?) and start a nice unprejudiced talk about their religious praxis at the same time. You will have to decide which you want. With strong Islamophobian movements around you can't have a discourse with Muslims without rejecting the Islamophobian attempts and actively defending the Muslims' rights.

"Random example : in my home country, I remember a controversy concerning Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions for their children"

Which is a matter of weighing different, conflicting rights against each other, not a matter of making a minority rightless.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 08:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With strong Islamophobian movements around you can't have a discourse with Muslims without rejecting the Islamophobian attempts and actively defending the Muslims' rights.

That cuts both ways: With strong fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around, you cannot have a discourse with secularists without rejecting fundamentalism and defending secular society.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 14th, 2014 at 09:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
That cuts both ways: With strong fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around, you cannot have a discourse with secularists without rejecting fundamentalism and defending secular society

You don't happen to claim that there are any fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around whose strength can in any way be compared with the Islamophobian movements all over Europe, do you? Muslims are assaulted, their Mosques are vandalised, and there are wide-spread campaigns for various legislation taking away more of their rights. The latter item gets support from people who should know better, which is my point.  

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't happen to claim that there are any fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around whose strength can in any way be compared with the Islamophobian movements all over Europe, do you?

I abso-fucking-lutely do.

When the Pope no longer has preaching rights in parliament; when the Russian patriarch no longer peddles partisan propaganda from the pulpit; when the League of Polish Families is no longer represented in parliament; when the Opus Dei no longer runs banks representing a gross asset portfolio comparable to the annual outlays of a small sovereign, then I might begin to take the notion seriously that anti-secularists should be given a free pass in the interest of making common cause against racists pretending to be anti-Islamists.

But until then, I'm taking the view that having a discriminated-against skin color is not a valid excuse for supporting religious privilege.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 01:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that fundamentalism for you or unwholesome influence of large organisations?

And I want no fucking violence and harassment, and we are only at the beginning of that. You and Eurogreen are playing with matches and there are explosives all around you.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 03:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Says the lady who is on record defending the Russian Orthodox patriarch from having his religious feelings hurt by the people he's busy directing his followers to throw broken bottles at...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 05:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Salman Rushdie, who is of Islamic heritage, used that heritage in a novel. It appeared in a pirate edition in Iran, where it apparently hurt some people's religious feelings.

The way I know it, it was more personal: while the campaign against Rushdie was based on the parts of the book that re-told Mohammed's life according to the Quran within the nightmares of an apostate, Khomeini could find something much closer to home in another nightmare about an exiled Muslim high priest re-taking his country (which was much more unflattering than Muhammed's portrayal).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 07:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

Not in any practical realpolitik sense.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series