While the New York Times and most other papers in the United States refuse to run the cartoons that have inflamed radical Muslims–and I say “radical” because I’d like to think that the majority of Muslims would actually, y’know, follow the Prophet’s teaching and react to criticism with patience rather than violence–the University of Illinois student newspaper, “The Daily Illini,” ran an assortment of them.
And why not? A dozen pictures that would have been here today, gone tomorrow if radicals hadn’t made them a cause celebre have become a major news item. So the newspaper ran some of them.
The result? Angry protests from students and the newspaper editor has been relieved of duty. World reaction in microcosm.
The most laughable reaction is the Iranian newspaper that wants to run cartoons lampooning the Holocaust. This despite the fact that the cartoons ran in Denmark and had nothing to do with Jews, Israel, or the Holocaust. Perhaps it’s because a contest for cartoons lampooning Danish pastries doesn’t seem ripe for humor. Or perhaps Muslims have yet to encounter a problem that they can’t blame on the Jews. Most likely they consider cartoons attacking Jews to be “payback.” As far as Jews are concerned, Muslims lambasting Jews isn’t called “payback.” It’s called “SOP.”
There is nothing–I repeat, nothing–that some Iranian newspaper can run that’s going to get the average Jew to do anything other than roll his eyes and say, “Yeah, whatever.” We’re sure not going to start burning down Iranian restaurants or embassies over it.
This entire business has been revelatory. It underscores the complete Muslim disconnect between their own actions and others. Anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, insults and lambasting of others based upon race, color and creed is completely ingrained into their culture. But at the same time they demand complete respect for their beliefs from others who DO NOT SHARE THEM. They demand from others what they would not even remotely consider dispensing themselves.
And it underscores the complete chickenshit nature of governments here and abroad who seem far more eager to condemn the publishers of the cartoons than the overreactions to them. “How can someone provoke the Muslims?” people wonder. I wonder how people can NOT provoke them, or at least provoke their extremist factions who are determined to sell the idea that the world is out to get them. (Then again, if Christians can try to claim that they’re under attack in the ninety-percent Christian United States, I suppose anything is possible.)
Governments are trying to sell the notion that we must all be careful to be sensitive to the religious beliefs of others. Which is nonsense. Cartoons trashing Jews are standard in newspapers throughout the Arab world and I don’t see the U.N. making a stink about it. No, the truth is that various governments want to show respect for Muslim beliefs in the same way that one shows respect for a test tube of nitro glycerin: You don’t REALLY give a dámņ about its preachings. You just want to make sure not to shake it up so it doesn’t go off.
If the answer to free speech is more free speech, then apparently the answer to intolerance is more intolerance. Don’t say to the Arab world, “It’s a dámņëd cartoon, get a grip. And if you don’t like it, then how about cleaning up your own house by eliminating the practices that cause the world to see you as a bunch of dangerous, violent psychos, drowning out the teachings of peace and tolerance that your Prophet puts forward.” Say instead to everyone else, “Don’t get the Muslims upset because they’ll blow you up.”
What the hëll is it with extremists anyway that they use historical figures who preached the ways of peace to justify the ways of war?
PAD
• 
Micha asks if I am the Inquisition? In a sense, I am if you recognize the root of the term Inquisition – to inquire. I am a person who is almost compelled to try to understand why things are as they are and how things work, often to my own detriment. In my youth, I taught Sunday school and sometimes filled in for the local minister when needed – mighty unusual and sometimes uncomfortable sermons, I tell you. What do I remember of this? Pillars of society essentially patting me on the head and chuckling at my naiveté in thinking that these people who purported to be Christian should actually practice what their God expected them to (By the way another pet peeve of mine and general source of irritation for others – the guy’s name was Yeshua bar Miriam not Jesus Christ – why not call him that? Too Jewish?) What struck me most back then and still does today is the fact that people never think about their beliefs, where they come from, what they mean or, most importantly, consider the fact that they may be wrong about something. I recognize that one could go nuts if one were to spend all one’s time questioning things (analysis paralysis) but surely when one comes across a new relevant datum or unfamiliar Weltanschaung, the very least one should do is stop and contemplate the implicationsw.
I don’t know. Perhaps I’m just an old fart rambling but surely, we can do and be better than this. I am reminded of a meeting we were having at the office about a major government project that had gone wrong and the boss was trying to figure out what had happened. After a half-hour of listening to project members (highly educated and trained people all) delegating blame, pointing fingers, rationalizing, etc., with no one saying, “Hey, I screwed up here”, my boss turned to me (the resident problem solver) and said “The frightening thing is that we are the crême de la crême”. It seems to me that until humanity in general becomes capable of saying “Hey, I screwed up here”, not all the purported beliefs in wonderful religious principles is going to save us. Or to put it more bluntly, WE’RE ALL DOOMED.
End of rant. and remember the original Golden Rule : Do NOT unto others what you would NOT have them do onto you. I.E. no proselytising, he says proselytisingly.
In an unfortunate bit of timing, the Austrians just sentanced some Holocaust denying nutjob to 3 years in prison.
Obviously this man is a loathsome human being and unfit for decent company, but 3 years for having a political opinion? Even if it’s wrong? It certainly weakens the Austrian government’s ability to condemn people rioting over cartoons they find offensive.
You can’t have it both ways. Given that, it’s far better to err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little.
What are you the inquisition?
Well, I certainly wasn’t expecting that!
(Come on, you know you were thinking it too…)
Obviously this man is a loathsome human being and unfit for decent company, but 3 years for having a political opinion?
I agree.
It’s pretty simple: you’re a historian, and you deny the Holocaust.
Well, that pretty much kills any credibility you’ll ever have (same goes for the president of Iran, and Mel Gibson’s father).
You should be kissing any job goodbye relating to history, but jail time? No, I don’t think so.
The guy should just be reminded of his stupidity at every job interview he goes to for the rest of his life, and let him live with the humiliation. 🙂
“At every point in your life when you got offended at something someone said, you had the oppertunity(even if you didn’t realize it at the time)to refuse to accept the gift. You always have a choice. Whether you accept the gift of slander, or emotional injury is ALWAYS up to you. That’s a right that I’m happy to have, because it means that in any moment, I can choose peace.”
Or, as we said when we were kids, “I’m rubber, you’re glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you.”
Boy…it’s true. We really DID learn everything we needed to know back in kindergarten…
Can you imagine if the radical Muslim response had been, “Sticks and stones. You’re trying to get a rise out of us; it won’t work.”
PAD
“All hail your hero:
http://www.gortreport.com“
Okay, I’m not sure what crawled up your backside and died about this matter, but I read over the blog you referenced. You obviously feel it’s some sort of dámņìņg thing; it told me nothing I didn’t already know. I’d already read the letter he posted. Personally, if I were editor-in-chief and were going to run those cartoons–and were thinking there might be backlash–I would very likely not tell my subordinates as well. Why? Plausible deniability. If I suspect a shitstorm might fall upon me, I’ll want to provide an umbrella so the others don’t get hit with it. He published them because he wanted to get attention? I fully believe that. The question is, intention for himself or for the issue. He claims the latter, others claim the former. Either way…so what? It’s an issue that needed addressing, so the motives aren’t that material to me.
PAD
I apologize for the inquisition reference. But the point is this: Christianity , Islam and Judaism (to a lesser extent I think, it is a little more complicated with Judaism) have been arguing since their beginning about what is really christianity/Islam/Judaism, and who is really christian/muslim/jewish, and why people who are christian/muslim/jewish are not really following the teachings of the religion as it should be. As much as I find it interesting from a historical perspective, I think for the sociological purposes of indentifying peoples’ affilations etc. it is useful to refer to people who call themselves Christian as christian.
Similarly, it doesn’t really matter if Islam is or is not really a religion of peace (probably both), as much as that people considering themselves Muslim promote ideas which are palatable to Muslims, that terrorism is a god idea.
One unique aspect of modern time is that secularity is accepted as a legitimate choice: there are some people who identify themselves as having no religion, although this is much more common in Europe than the US.
In my hebrew translation of the New Testament the name of Jesus is translated (from the Greek original) as Yeshua instead of Yehoshua (Joshua). Maybe the translators are playing on the hebrew word yeshuah, which means salvation. I don’t know if Yashua was a different name back then. Jews call Jesus Yeshu, I’m not certain why. Presumably you use the name Jesus because that is how the name passed from the Greek of the NT to the Latin. Western Christianity is originally Latin speaking. Also, wouldn’t Jesus be refered to as the son (Bar in arameic) of Joseph or god, instead of refering to his mother’s name?
I read somewhere that all stories in christian society are a play on the story of Jesus (I hope I’m not misrepresenting what was said). I also read that all American movies are abot protecting the family unit. In any case, Christian themes are interlaced in western culture. For example, the movie Pass it Forward (is that the correct name?).
At this moment I am watching an argument in Israeli TV about whether it is right to have laws against holocaust denial. I favor freedom of speech. But it should be noted that Germany and Audtria have reasons to be more careul about these issues.
The idea that the Germans and Austrians have to somehow be protected from even contemplating anti-semitism is, to me, as illogical as the blood-libels against Jews. While it is amusing to joke about the stereotypes of the people of various nations, it is ludicrous to think that German’s are inherently nationalistic, Italians are born good cooks and the first words out of every French baby’s mouth is Je me rends!
If anything it will build resentment and make such speech more attractive. Also, it gives the Islamic hatemongers a point they can use to whip up their people–“Look, they can insult the prophet in the name of free speech but if it offends Jews! Well, THEN it’s illegal!”
I have absolutely no reason to believe that if they were free to speak their minds, a sizeable number of Germans or Austrians would be longing for the good old days of 1939-1945.
Yeshua is the Aramaic form of the name. As it passed through Greek to the Latin to English, it has become Jesus in us. There’s no big deal to that, anymore then Yakov became Jacob became Jacques became James as it passed through various languages.
It really only matters if you believe the path to salvation rests in knowing the correct pronunciation of Jesus’ name as he would have heard it spoken in 25 A.D.
As for whether he would have been called “bar Miriam” or “bar Yosef”, since Christianity preaches that he was the son of God born through a virgin, he was not the son of Joseph, so among Christians, “bar Miriam” would be a correct address. Or maybe “bar Yaweh”.
However, the Israelis practiced partrilineal descent and most people in his community likely assumed he was the son of Joseph, not God. Therefore, among his community in Nazareth, he would have likely have been addressed as “Yeshua bar Yosef.”
Oh, and “Christ” is derived from the Greek word “Christos” which means “annointed.” So, it’s a title, not a name.
Bill, you’re are correct in the Austrian example and Craig is right that anyone who is a holocaust denier should not have any credibility in the field of history. But it doesn’t deserve jail time.
Many European countries have definitely gone too far in trying to stamp out Nazism. It does blunt their freedom of speech position when it’s permissable to denigrate an Islamic figure but not okay to deny the Holocaust.
And of course, this is all our fault, since according to many of the Muslim clerics instigating the riots, the US runs Europe.
While it is amusing to joke about the stereotypes of the people of various nations, it is ludicrous to think that German’s are inherently nationalistic, Italians are born good cooks and the first words out of every French baby’s mouth is Je me rends!
Don’t tell my wife’s family they aren’t born good cooks!
I just wanted to agree with you PAD. Thanks for saying it.
Den, I am willing to entertain the possibility that your wife’s family actually HAS some kind of good cooking gene since I’ve never met an Italian who wasn’t a good cook.
I could also mention the liklihood of the Asian Bad Driving Gene but I may have said too much already.
I wasn’t tryin to say that Germans are inherently antisemitic. The reason they are extra-careful is because theirs is a country in which antisemitism came to power by democratic means. This is also another major difference between the Danish cartoons and antisemitism. The problem with antisemitism is not that it offends Jews, but that it is an ideology that views Jews in a way that has often justified violence against Jews. Nevertheless, I believe that in most cases the consideration of freedom of speech should prevail. But that does not mean that antisemitism and a cartoon of Muhammad are on the same level. I think most westerners would have considered a cartoon depicting racism towards muslims as much more offensive than one making fun of its religious leader.
The word Christos means annoyted, as does the hebrew word Massiah (Mashiach). So Christos=Massiah.
I didn’t know that Yehoshua in arameic is Yeshua. That explains why in my copy of the NT they translate the name Peter into the aramaic word for rock instead of the hebrew.
Den, I am willing to entertain the possibility that your wife’s family actually HAS some kind of good cooking gene since I’ve never met an Italian who wasn’t a good cook.
You’d better, because the other gene they claim to have is the “I-can-have-you-whacked” gene.
You’d better, because the other gene they claim to have is the “I-can-have-you-whacked” gene.
Luckily we Irishmen have a high tolerance for pain, though that may just be the effects of all that alcohol.
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t agree with Peter more on this issue.
In fact, I’ve already been all over this subject in my columns. (Cartoon Knocks ’em Dead and CNN Religious Hypocrisy.)
It isn’t about the cartoons. (Cartoons, it turns out, that were originally posted in October 2005!) It never was. All the cartoons do is serve as an excuse for the extremists to blow things up and kill people.
RLR
It’s interesting to see the freedoms that Germany elevates. I was unaware that they had laws that could get you jail-time simply for voicing anti-semitic or Holocaust-denial beliefs, but I wouldn’t be surprised. On the other hand, they also have laws that permit German soldiers to refuse orders/assignments on the grounds of conscience, thus eliminating the concept of soldiers committing atrocities against their will simply because they “were obeying orders.” Interestingly, there are some who assert that it’s a well-meaning attitude that nevertheless is becoming a disciplinary problem because soldiers are citing matters of conscience over assignments they simply consider onerous and don’t want to carry out.
PAD
What are you the inquisition?
And yet somehow I suspect everyone expected that comment eventually.
I wasn’t aware of Germany’s laws against “voicing anti-semitic or Holocaust-denial beliefs.”
I was, however, aware of their laws against the display of the swastika and other nazi symbolism.
RLR
“it is useful to refer to people who call themselves Christian as christian.”
That really seems fine and all but it is really really really in principle not useful at all. If you apply it to things that are not religion or affiliation and in some cases applying it to affiliation you get a bunch of accepted falsehoods and liars.
Or to actually apply what I am saying… there are lots of men with pëņìšëš right now calling themselves women and a lot of newspapers going along with it. There women who had breast-removal operations who call themselves men.
Self-identification is not always proper identification.
“Den:It always amazes me how many conservatives will argue that the magic of the invisible hand of the market will give us an excellent educational system, clean air and water, and affordable healthcare, yet shriek in horror at the suggestion that the market should decide what sorts of entertainment is available to the great unwashed.
Wow. That may be the most cutting, succinct and intelligent way to sum up my problems with the uber-right.
Thanks, Den!”
Unless of course, the “uber-right” is Libertarian in which case this argument is full of shite.
And as a right-winger, whoever said that the invisible hand market will provide good healthcare?
“‘One can also claim that 90% of the United State is Christian but if that is really true why does so little of the contemporary popular media and popular culture reflect the teachings of the Christian Bible?’
Because the modern world is growing away from the parables of the Bible…that is good and bad…while the lessons it teaches us are great and more people should follow them…the actual stories of burning bushes and parting seas become harder to accept…”
I pull this one out only as an example that a lot of people (here and elsewhere I may have or may someday raise this argument) have totally missed the point of my bìŧçh session. I don’t know what “the modern world growing away from… parables” has to do with anything. The Enlightenment period of our history had this particular feature and that was partially undone by the leading thinkers and artisans in the Romantic Period. The point is that the Gospels alone feature many different behavioral ethos that are directly contradicted or utterly ignored by the most popular programming in our culture. Seinfeld is full of fornification and even has some adultery; MASH had adultery; Will and Grace has homosexuality; little white lies probably abound on many programs I do and don’t watch; hëll, ER once had a Christmas Euthanasia Special. All I am saying is…. that the hypocrisy level has to be freakng jumping jumping jumping for the country to be 90% Christian and the market demanding and/or supporting programming that is most certainly not.
I mean… there’s program whose merits one could debate as Christians… there are programs I watch and probably shouldn’t…. and there are programs that offer value systems that are just plain not syncing up with Christian tenets. Let’s put it simply this: “Popular media, like any other business, produces what the market wants to buy.” How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn’t? If so much of my country is Christian why isn’t there a larger stigma against pornography?
“The real problem stems from the self-righteous bunch who buy into the nonsense that Bill O’Reilly and others spew out about there being an organized assault on Christmas.”
That statement shows a lack of perspective. Those people you describe may be deluded to a certain extent but it is certainly less of a problem than a millionaire with his own TV show saying that Ariel Sharon is being struck down by God among other wacko things.
All I am saying is that we’re confusing a lot of secular humanists with Christians… and I’m not going to go into discussions between churches on whether Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mary Baker Eddy’s followers are actually Christians but that controvery exists and in the minds of many Congregations it’s a settled issue.
These posts almost always end up longer than I plan.
Spider, if we take a quick definition of “Christian” as “one who follows the teachings of Christ Jesus” (which seems a reasonable working definition to me), then tell me, please, what did Christ have to say on the subject of homosexuality? Not Paul, who wrote some years later; not Leviticus (because if we’re using the Mosaic laws, there’s a lot of Christians who are going to Hëll for our cheeseburgers and lobster enchiladas); Christ Jesus, as reported in the four widely-accepted Gospels.
For that matter, what did Christ have to say on the subject of pornography? Or euthanasia?
I do recall he had quite a bit to say about those who would pass moral judgments on their fellow human beings, however…
Robert and Den, I can say that my wife’s family seems possessed of some sort of genetic cooing excellence – and they’re primarily of African, Scottish, and Flemish descent. (Come to think of it, maybe we should expect good cooking from an ethnic group that can take a sheep’s intestines and a fistful of oats, and turn it into something edible, if not really all that tasty…)
Look, about the inquisition. I am a medieval history student. I also studied the 16th and 17th centuries. So I am vaguely familiar with the many different kind of heresies that fill Christian history, in which one side was calling the other not really christian. What was the inquisition for if not to route out these people. That is why the inquisition came to my mind.
Staying in the same era, if we were to use spider’s definition of who is christian, we would probably have to assume that only 1% of people calling themselves Christian in medieval Europe were actually Christian. That would be absurd. For the intended purposes of understanding what is going on in the middle east it is more useful to assume that the terrorists who are calling themselves Muslim are muslim, although some Muslims may argue among themselves that terrorism is not true Islam. Good for them. But I am interested in giving a historical description of a time and place, not getting into internal theological discussions. Secular-humanists is a different reference than Christians who do not practice their religion diligently.
About popular culture: popular culture is different than sermons. The reason you find adultary etc. in them is because they deal with the human experience. Adultary, fornication and jokes about sex have been part of human entertainment even in more religious times than now. Look at Lancelot and Guenevere. In one of Chaucer’s tales you have two students sleeping with a mother and a daughter of a corrupt miller, it is relatively graphic. In any case, there is no denying that our time period is more secular than previous ones, so it is no surprise that popular culture is more irreverant toward religious morality. In the past stories about fornication, adultary and homosexulaity were effective because they were against the accepted morality. But even now the effectiveness of these stories has something to do with the emotional conflict, which is why Lancelot and Guenevere still make a good story.
It is also interesting that PAD writes a comic called Fallen Angel — that is a Christian theme, but the comic would not be endorsed as a Christian sermon by most I think.
Germany has laws whose purpose is to prevent somebody from using democratic means to topple democracy for obvious reasons.
“they also have laws that permit German soldiers to refuse orders/assignments on the grounds of conscience”
Israel has a similar princile in the army of commands that are “evidently illegal” on moral grounds. I also think there are laws against offending religions to a degree. But the only case I know of is when some right wing nut was distributing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as a pig. Many years ago there was an attempt to censor Scorscese’s “the Last Temptation of Jesus Christ”.
Any chance anyone could put a link to those cartoons? I’d like to read them, if possible.
Unless of course, the “uber-right” is Libertarian in which case this argument is full of shite.
I consider libertarianism to be a separate school of thought from the brand of conservatism that is practices by the GOP today.
And as a right-winger, whoever said that the invisible hand market will provide good healthcare?
Umm, George W. Bush, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich . . .
That statement shows a lack of perspective. Those people you describe may be deluded to a certain extent but it is certainly less of a problem than a millionaire with his own TV show saying that Ariel Sharon is being struck down by God among other wacko things.
I would disagree and a comparison of the ratings that O’Reilly gets vs. Robertson would probably support my position. Robertson’s statement about Sharon being smited by an angry God was universally ridiculed and eventually, he was forced to apologize for it. O’Reilly’s monthly fabrication of a “War on Christmas” was repeated ad infinitum in the blogosphere and among others in the punditry class, who took it as gospel.
All I am saying is that we’re confusing a lot of secular humanists with Christians
Well again, a lot of who is what depends on your POV. Many people who consider themselves to be Christians would be considered secular humanists by others because they disagree on doctrine.
How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn’t? If so much of my country is Christian why isn’t there a larger stigma against pornography?
Because as I said, people don’t always practice what they preach. During the Middle Ages, when the Christian Church was an all-pervasive force on people’s lives, a lot of what was considered popular entertainment was considered bawdy and vulgar, even by today’s standards. Pick up just about any Medieval Romance story and you’ll find adultery a very common theme. Since most marriages were arranged, people didn’t expect to find true love in the context of marriage, so the popular literature featured stories of illicit love affairs.
Actual church marriage among the lower class was somewhat rare because few of them could afford, so common law marriage or “living in sin” was the norm. But if were able to poll the populace of Europe, you’d probably get a response of well into the upper 90th percentile identifying themselves as Christians.
Now, if you define being a Christian as “following the teachings of Christ 100% of the time,” then you eliminate a lot of people. In fact, I would say that in the whole of human history, the number of people who achieved that was exactly one. But, if you allow for the broadening of the definition to include those that are at least trying to follow those teachings or follow them as best as they can, but are still entertained by stories of people breaking those rules, then the number gets a lot higher.
Self-identification is not always proper identification.
Perhaps, but if you apply the rule that other people get to define whether or not you’re a Christian, then no one is, because there’s always somebody out there who will disagree with what your definition of what a “true” Christian is.
In other words, if the only criteria for going to hëll is that someone else thinks you belong there, then heaven is a ghost town.
I see Micha beat me to making similar points about the Middle Ages. I should have read his first before responding. Oh well.
“O’Reilly’s monthly fabrication of a ‘War on Christmas’ was repeated ad infinitum in the blogosphere and among others in the punditry class, who took it as gospel.”
and ultimately did little in the way of negative action as a result. How was it a problem?
—–
Most simply put a lot of people identify all Godists /godists as Christians… and I think using that terminology for general statistics is stupid. That really is a lot simpler explanation than “we have a lot of Christians who don’t live up to their own standards”. While that sentence is true it can’t accurately be used for people who don’t have the specific standards to live up to.
“hëll, ER once had a Christmas Euthanasia Special.”
EXCUSE ME! That’s “Holiday Permasleep Special” buddy. DON’T MISS THE LAST FIVE MINUTES!
Most simply put a lot of people identify all Godists /godists as Christians…
Okay, now this is simply a ridiculous redefinition of terms. I don’t know anyone who counts any deist whatsoever, of any stripe, as Christian – remember, even if we keep it to monotheists, we’re still looking at Christians, Jews, Muslims, and maybe the odd Zoroastrian or Mithraist.
No, the statistic involves between 80% and 90% of Americans identifying themselves as Christians, not just as monotheists – which is why the whole idea of Christianity being under attack in this country is as laughable as the idea that a few silly cartoons published in a newspaper in freaking Denmark of all places will somehow damage Islam.
and ultimately did little in the way of negative action as a result. How was it a problem?
It served it’s purpose to temporarily distract the public’s mind from the real wars going on in the Middle East. Not to mention pushig the bungling of Katrina off the front page.
It is reasonable to break down the total of Christians in the US into subgroups and levels of commitment (church attendance etc.). Although even then I doubt if you can break them down into levels of hypocracy. That’s pretty hard to do. Anyway, for hypocracy to exist you have to assume that these people are being hypocritical about the religion they are affiliated to, or else there is no hypocracy. However, lets not cofuse not committed Christians with secular humanists or deists. These are different ideologies, with dfferent followes and probably hypocrites too.
I had thought that the cartoon controversy was being forgotten. I’m beginning to wish it had, when you see stuff like this:
http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/pakistan/h06021701.html
Remarks By Former President Clinton On Cartoon Issue During Press Availability With Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz
“Let me say first of all, when this story first broke in the United States, I believe that I was maybe the first Western leader to speak against the cartoons.
I happened to be in the Persian Gulf area at the time. I was in Bahrain and Qatar. I will repeat what I said then. I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet.
…”But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims.
Ok. Clinton is either a liar or an idiot. And yes, he could be both.
First off, he’s against the creation of the cartoons? Hello? Has it come to that now? I can see where Bill might have a grudge against cartoonists. Thanks in part to their efforts, he will be forever a punchline, but that’s no reason to give the rabid hordes any reason to think they have the right to issue death threats and fatwas.
Secondly, if Clinton really believes that the creators and publishers did not know that the pictures were considered blaspheme by Muslims it means that Bill Clinton has no idea what he is talking about. That was the whole point, moron. Even the newspapers that would not print the cartooons mentioned WHY they were made in the first place. How could he be so clueless? And, if he has spent so little time reading about the issue, why does he keep on talking about it?
Ok. Clinton is either a liar or an idiot. And yes, he could be both.
A third possibility is that he was just trying to be polite to the largely Muslim audiance that he was speaking.
But, um, yeah. His statements are very incongruous with each other. It’s typical politician doublespeak of which Clinton remains the master.
Ridiculous.
It’s typical politician doublespeak of which Clinton remains the master.
I agree.
It’s just Clinton getting on his knees himself for a change.
It’s still pathetic, but it’s no surprise.
First off, he’s against the creation of the cartoons? Hello? Has it come to that now?
In fairness, I think that’s probably just poorly chosen words. I suspect he meant “I think creating them probably wasn’t a good idea,” which isn’t outrageous to say given all the subsequent events.
However, the second part is clearly wrong, and even the first part is pretty weaselly wording. I’m with you to that extent.
TWL
It’s just Clinton getting on his knees himself for a change.
And Craig gets the “made coffee shoot out my nose” comment of the week.
And Craig gets the “made coffee shoot out my nose” comment of the week.
Well, it’s only Monday, so I guess the rest of the week will be completely downhill from here. 😉
I don’t understand what’s wrong with what Clinton said.
1) It is reasonable to disagree with the way someone was using his freedom of speech without denying him the freedom. In this case, since according to many (but not all) versions of Islam you are not supposed to draw any picture of the prophet, doing so could be considered an unnecessary insensitivity on the part of the Danish newspaper.
2) I would like to believe that the Danish cartoonists were not actually trying to brake an Islamic taboo or insult or offend (as opposed to the Iranians who are trying to offend western sensibilities), but just trying to make a point. Of course, they are entitled to offend if they want. But I don’t think offending for the sake of offending, especially when the target is the members of a minority religion (in Denmark) is very admireable. I expect more from cartoons.
I think Larry Gonick did the right thing in Cartoon History III when he didn’t draw Muhammad. It wasn’t as if he compromised his integrity by not going out of his way to offend muslims. The muslims going out of their way to take offence would have found it in his book too, but the more normal muslims could be satisfied that he was sensitive as well as funny.
It’s a dangerous thing for a Western leader to say that we should not be creating certain kinds of art, especially when the critics of that art are killing people!It sends the message that the crime was the art not the killing.
I’ve seen plenty of offensive art, that is, art that offended me. If some nut were to kill people or threaten to kill the artist I would feel obligated to defend the artist, with nothing but contempt for the killer. Muslims are not children and should not be treated as such.
Here’s the thing–they began by insisting on harsh Islamic based laws in their own countries. Ok, fine, as long as their people are willing to put up with that, it’s ok by me. It’s one reason they are still backward backwaters. You can’t get ahead when one half of your population isn’t even given the freedom to drive–Saudi Arabia, sitting on an ocean of wealth, will never amount to anything so long as half of its potential scientists and leaders are denied opportunity by virtue of their sex.
But that’s their problem.
But then, not happy with brutally repressing their own people, they started issuing fatwas against the citizens of other countries. Should’ve nipped it right then. Iran should have been cast off from the company of all decent nations until the death sentence on Rushdie was renounced.
And the message got out loud and clear. Artists routinely mock Christianity, Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, occasionally Jews (generally in the guize of anti-Israeli commentary, and yes, one can be anti-Israel without being an anti-semite, though many are both) but very very few would dare touch Islam. Not out of respect. Out of fear.
And having been appeased did they stop. Nope. Now it has become necessary for the governments of free nations to apologize for the actions of their free people. If the Danish government had only done so it would have made it ok, I’ve heard Muslims say, not understanding how incredibly wrong it would seem to the average Westerner to have their governments apologizing to dictatorships. And for what? The governments of free men must apologize to slaveholders because freedom offends the slave? Did I just fall through a looking glass?
We don’t need Bill Clinton or George Bush or the editors of the New York Times making excuses and apologizing for us. It’s real simple. The government of Iran is free to say that their religion does not allow the portrayal of Mohammed. If one wishes to live in or visit Iran one should accept this as part of the price one pays for the privilage. The price you pay for living in America is that you will be exposed to people and beliefs that are contrary to your and which you will be unable to suppress through the law or with a club. That’s OUR price and if you don’t like it you can feel free to live somewhere else.
I was reading this to collegue and he told me to look up something an Australian politicain said. It’s great.
“Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks, don’t enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don’t come to Australia,” – Peter Costello
I like that quote from Australia, Bill.
What’s telling about the cartoon flare-up vs. the Rushdie controversy from years ago, is the response from the West. When fatwa was issued to Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, most western politicians gave a firm response, “We’re sorry the book is offensive to you, but that’s the price a free society has to pay.” Now, everyone is following over themselves to apologize for the offense part, but forgetting the second part about reinforcing freedom of speech.
The result is now many radical Islamic leaders have gotten the message that all they have to do is threaten loud enough and they will get what they want.
Bill, that post of yours may qualify as the best one I’ve seen on the subject to date. 🙂
“How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn’t? If so much of my country is Christian why isn’t there a larger stigma against pornography?”
There is. There’s a huge stigma against pornography. There’s stigmas against lots of things. However stigmas don’t necessarily have a thing to do with what people actually do, say, or support. It’s called “hypocrisy” by some, and “the American way” by others and “being human” by most.
PAD
// “How is that the United States is 90% Christian but the market isn’t? If so much of my country is Christian why isn’t there a larger stigma against pornography?”
There is. There’s a huge stigma against pornography. There’s stigmas against lots of things. However stigmas don’t necessarily have a thing to do with what people actually do, say, or support. It’s called “hypocrisy” by some, and “the American way” by others and “being human” by most. //
In my lifetime, Playboy went from being sold just about everywhere, (I can remember being a kid sneaking peaks at copies in the supermarket checkstand while my mom would do her food shopping, (Very quick looks as I was always terrified my mom would catch me)), and out in the open, (I had no problem reaching and opening a copy off that checkstand when I was 11), to being sold only in select places, (It’s still on newstands but I haven’t seen a Playboy in a supermarket or drug store since I was a kid), and out of site, (most places I know sell it behind the counter or have it on the stands but wrapped in plastic, some places even have a peice of paper covering the covers. I feel sorry for the 11 year olds of today).
So not only is there a stigma against viewing pørņ, (which there always has been) but there seems to be a bigger stigma against selling it then there was when I was kid.
Thanks, Craig. 🙂
Bill, I really don’t get it.
When you defended the freedom of speech of a holocaust denyer, you had no problem saying in the same breath that holocaust denying is wrong. In fact, the whole point of freedom of speech is defending it when the opinion expressed is one you dislike. But I think that stating at the same time that you disagree with the opinion expressed not only does not weaken your position, but strengthens it. I don’t believe in apologizing to the Muslims, nor should leaders apologized for their actions of individuals. But I see no problem in saying that drawing a cartoon deliberatly or not, that goes against such a basic part of Islam is tasteless. Its like the cartoon of the British-Jewish prime-ministerial candidate as a pig, they had a while ago. Tasteless.
The Australian comment you quoted goes into the very difficult issues of immigration, multiculturalism, national culture etc. that is becoming a problem for the western world.
Arre muslims emigrating into a western country becoming part of a multicultural society? Or are they guests in a western? European? Danish? Christian society? If multiculturalism is the ideal, does that mean that there is no national culture at all, just a mixture of different cultures? How much should immigrants be required to assimilate? Are the locals correct in fearing that there own culture is being eroded? If they fear that, wouldn’t it be right to reduce immigration, or are countries morally required to allow immigration, and according to what principles?
I have little sympathy for Europeans. They invited immigrants to their countries because they needed laborers, looked down on them while talking high and mighty about how enlightened they are. And now they are afraid.
Pornography is another interesting freedom of speech issue. On the one hand you have the ideal of freedom of speech, which I very much support. At the other there is feminism, which I also ordinarily support. I the middle there is also the question of whether society is better off when sexuality is more or less repressed? My impression of the attitude in the US towards pornography, based on what I see on TV half a world away, is one of greater tolerance to it. It’s a kind of attitude that says: boys will be boys, watching pørņ is something silly but not bad that they do, like having strippers at bachelor parties. I don’t know if my impression is correct, or how I feel about it. The issue has more than one layer to it.
Micha, part of the problem is that the Muslim countries latch on to any hint of appeasement–in fact, Clinton’s remarks were reported initially as supporting criminalization of cartoon representations of Mohamed.
right now, Clinton’s words will bring comfort to those who are threatening lives. To me, it would be like someone responding to a wave of gay bashing by focusing on how gross it is to see two guys kissing…and oh, by the way, beating them up is wrong. Whatever “wrong” the cartoonists did–and I’m not convinced they did anything wrong–is eclipsed by what has followed. there is no moral equivalence, not even close, but the constant focus on the “wrong” done to Muslims makes it seem as though there is.
I know Christians who will be offended by THE DAVINCI CODE. Should the movie studio have forgone making the film? If not, why not? (Other than the fact that nobody expects them to riot).
Muslims have every right to live their lives as they wish but they can’t dictate to others that they do the same and enforce this wish through violence. What next, forced prayers 5 times a day?
Bill, if you and other conservatives subjected the current president’s statements to a fraction of the scrutiny you hold the former president’s to–and held him accountable to a fraction of the things that you hold Clinton to blame for–you’d all become Democratic liberals.
PAD