I've read a few posts over the last few days, written by bloggers I usually enjoy reading, on the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad issue. Wilkins comes closest to my own views, but none of the posts really manages to capture what I think is the essence of the issue.
This is both a simple issue and a complex one, all at the same time.
PZ is right about some of the complexities involved. There are some parallels between this situation and various ugly forms of discrimination and prejudice. There are also issues of perception and of national and ethnic identity. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that some of the anger these cartoons have inspired stems from the glaring economic disparity between the parts of the world doing the mocking and the parts being mocked. I think that those are real problems, but I think that the simpler issue is also the more important - at least at the moment.
That issue is freedom, and whether cultures based on the freedoms that provide the stable core for liberal democracies can coexist peacefully in the same world with cultures that demand that their values be given special treatment.
This case may have been started by a low-circulation Danish newspaper trying to piss off a religious group that is a distinct minority in their country, but it has rapidly turned into an international dispute involving the whole world. It has also brought to light an extremely alarming school of thought on freedom of expression.
The armed takeover or burning of embassies is bad, as are death threats. They're also nothing new in the stormy world of modern politics, particularly when we're talking about the Mideast. To put it another way, the violence is appalling but hardly surprising.
What's more alarming, at least in my opinion, are some of the views that various nations have expressed about what freedom of expression should mean. Newspaper editorials from Nepal and Bangadesh, demand that the freedom of expression be limited to exclude criticism of religion. Pakistan issued a statement declaring that freedom of expression does not extend to the freedom to insult someones religion, and the president of Afghanistan said that the publication of those comics was an act that, "must never be allowed to be repeated." Other Islamic nations have made similar statements.
The Muslim world wasn't the only place where governments have objected to the publication of the cartoons. A South African court has issued a ruling barring the publication of those images there. Our own State Department has been at best lukewarm in their support for press freedom in this case. And the Vatican informs us that, "the right to freedom of thought and expression...cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
Of course, it should not come as a surprise that the Vatican is not in favor of the right to blaspheme. However, the right to blaspheme is absolutely critical in a secular society - and while people may bash secularism, the secular society has proven to be the single best way of creating an environment where everyone is free to worship (or not) as they see fit.
Without the freedom to blaspheme, there can be no true freedom of speech and there can be no true freedom of religion. These civil liberties are at the core of western democracy, and cannot be set aside just because religious people have had their feelings hurt.
The Commissar suggests that a good way to show support for the freedom of expression in this case is to reprint the cartoons in question. I am not going to do that. I fully support his right, and the rights of others, to piss off whoever they want. Personally, I think that the cartoons represent a gratuitous insult to Muslims, and I decline to personally participate in spreading them. Similarly, I fully support the right of the KKK to peacefully march through a community, but I refuse to put on a sheet and march with them.
The situation with these cartoons looks more and more like a clash of values with every day. I, for one, am not willing to have my freedom of religion and expression restricted to satisfy anyone's sensibilities. Many Muslims, on the other hand, appear unwilling to tolerate a society that allows people to insult Mohammad. I am optimistic enough to hope that we will be able to find a way to resolve this cultural divide to everyone's satisfaction, but I am realistic enough to realize that the hope appears faint.
8 comments:
I think there's a minor, but signifcant, misunderstanding being spread in non-Danish media regarding the cartoon matter: The newspaper that published the drawings (Jyllands-Posten) isn't "low-circulation" - it's the largest newspaper in Denmark, and the one most supportive of the current government. While it is quite right-leaning, it isn't exactly extremist, and I'm afraid that the coupling of Islam and terror alluded to in one of the drawings has become somwehat mainstream i Denmark.
Rasmus, Denmark
"However, the right to blaspheme is absolutely critical in a secular society - and while people may bash secularism, the secular society has proven to be the single best way of creating an environment where everyone is free to worship (or not) as they see fit."
--Yet this is the crux of the problem in modern Western thinking. We can't actually conceive that someone would actually violently oppose the "right to blasphemy" as a core principle of Western secularism.
So how do we uphold religious freedoms OR ANY FREEDOMS when one religion seeks to oppress all others unders its own doctrines?
Easy...
We must violate ANOTHER key Western principle, namely, anti-discrimination.
Why is this so tough to see and swallow?
It's amazing how this debate has many parallels to the science vs ID debate.
Most of the nations who you list as wanting to limit the freedom to insult religion are Asian or middle-Eastern. But there are clear examples closer to home: until this time last week, the UK government was attempting to introduce a new law that would make it illegal to "insult" religious beliefs; and this was only defeated by an extremely narrow margin. As part of the legislative debate, the UK government freely admitted that if the law had been passed unamended, the Danish cartoons would have been illegal to publish.
anonymous,
You only illustrate the real threat to our freedoms from foreign influence.
"We must violate ANOTHER key Western principle, namely, anti-discrimination."
It's more complicated that that, I think.
Does publishing 'blasphemy' constitute discrimination?
Context is important to this whole thingy. Racist cartoons targeted at historically oppressed groups, for example, are not just offensive - they arguably support that structure of oppression.
Perhaps that's why liberal bloggers (at least) tend to focus on "they drew a cartoon implying that Muslims were violent" (and go onpoint out the stupid irony that burning embassies is not the most useful response) as opposed to "they drew a picture of Mohammad."
You're thinking more of the tolerance paradox.
and I have to admit, I don't see the parallels to the ID/Science debate. I just hope Dembski isn't going to start burning anything . .
I dunno - I would tend to think that very little of this is what is seems, or about the issues it says it is.
I also think it's alway useful to have someone in the crowd who's hired to light that first match or start storming the building (or etc.) especially if you're a nondemocratic repressive gov't whose people could end upfocusing all that on you . . .
But I don't know.
Dan S,
I don't find a lot to disagree with here, but I do think your KKK analogy is rather objectionable. By saying that you refuse to join those of us who have reprinted the cartoons just as you refuse to join the KKK in marching, you are comparing me and many others to the KKK (I'm sure that isn't really what you intended to do, but that's the way it reads). I would suggest that the only ones who come close to being analogous with the KKK in this situation are those Islamic radicals who are terrorizing communities. I really don't think there is anything about those caricatures that is even in the same ballpark as racist ideology. They offer entirely fair criticism of something that absolutely deserves criticism, particularly when you understand the context in which they were commissioned.
boo,
The first victims of a totalitarian ideology are always those closest to home.
But the larger point stands and it is the absolute paralysis of the Western elite to properly deal with this situation. This paralysis stems from their allegiance to non-discrimination/tolerance. It's the liberalism, stupid!
Those who believe wholeheartedly in non-discrimation and tolerance can have no response to the violent action of radical Islam lest they become what the don't believe in, namely, discriminatory and intolerant.
Liberals must become non-liberal or the violence will go without comment at the minimum and outright tolerated in the extreme.
This is the price to be paid for one's allegiance to his ideology.
The really depressing thing about this is that it lets both sides justify their actions - it destroys dialogue.
The root of the problem is economic inequality and injustice. Most Muslims live in poor, overpopulated third world dictatorships. Of course they are not going to write a letter to the editor or spout off on their blog. They're gonna hit the streets!
Why can't we stand strongly in favor of all speech, and work to destroy oppression and ignorance? Makes a lot more sense than condemning Muslims or limiting Westerner's freedom of expression.
Post a Comment