Brian — You make some very interesting and very important points. The fact that I disagree with you almost entirely, is exactly why I’ve chosen to debate this question here. The truth is that we are both probably partly right and partly wrong; what the exact proportion of right to wrong is, is hard to know for sure… but we do get closer to finding out by arguing about it. (Which is another way of saying, I am about to employ arguments that may not be very good-tasting in your worldview. I hope you won’t assume I’m crazy or evil. You don’t have to take my word for it, but odds are good I’m neither. But I *could* be wrong. If I am, I’ll only know if you convince me.)

First of all I should say that the main reason I find this particular crisis so interesting, is that it exists almost solely on the metaphysical plane. It is a contest of ideas, of wills, and of conceptions of civilization, almost pure in this respect. We have none of the ‘human’ problems, and none of the ‘human’ uncertainty of motives and individuals, that make it hard to interpret the French riots, the Muslim gang-rapes, the violence in Cronulla Beach. All of these things are subject to multiple interpretations, depending on whether your frame of mind is sociological, legal, statistical, ethnographic.

But here now we have millions of people marching around in fury, making threats, burning flags, storming embassies, THREATENING TO BEHEAD PEOPLE IN BRITAIN (have you seen the photos?), because somebody made a drawing. Suddenly it’s a matter not of people, but of principle — I would say (and I think this is critical, but you may have another view of it) that it’s really a matter of definition of terms.

You say “there is an obligation of the 98% Christians to act in a way that is not injurious to [Muslim] beliefs.” I say, and I say it loud, THERE IS NO SUCH OBLIGATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. There is an obligation to obey the law. There is a moral obligation not to harm the property or persons of individuals (something, I note in passing, that many Muslims seem to have a hard time reconciling with their views.) As far as I can tell in the broad sense of Western liberal tradition, there isn’t really such a thing as a ‘right’ never to be offended by anyone.

Insofar as someone claims such a right… if it were to exist, it would (since we live in a physical world, not an abstract one) have to take its place in line, within a hierarchy of other such rights. Since the Muslims in question have come, as it were, as supplicants to Denmark (which after all was under NO OBLIGATION to take them), and since the rights of Danes prior to Muslim immigration are ancient and pre-existing, I cannot see how someone can assert the right not to be offended by the norms of their host country, with a straight face.

This gets into the issue of what we now call ‘tolerance,’ and which we understand broadly, but have no good working definitions of. Me, I’ve never been to Denmark; I don’t know much about the Danes, or the legal and civil position of the Muslims in Denmark. I can see a forest, but not trees.

But in the part of the world I hail from originally, we have a pretty good working framework for religious tolerance, realistically defined (that is, as practiced in real-time, in actual society). Not everybody has to accept it (don’t know if the Danes would), but it’s based on Western, and Enlightenment, principles, it’s thoughtful and generous, and it’s been shown to work. It takes this form:

Article 1. Congress shall make no laws respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof.

There is an important corollary to it, one of the most important principles of constitutional jurisprudence:

“The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

You probably know that in Western democratic theory as it’s practiced in most of the English-speaking world, “rights” are conceived as negative capabilities, not positive ones. A Scottish friend of mine once put it like this: “One of the reasons I love the [American] Bill of Rights is that it’s just a list of things the government is not allowed to do to you.”

In practice: one has a negative ‘right’ not to be told by the government which religion one must practice. You do not have a positive ‘right’ to enforce your own practices on others. If I am a Catholic, I may not claim I am ‘offended’ that others eat meat on Fridays, instead of fish. BUT THIS IS DISRESPECTFUL TO MY RELIGION!, I cry. Tough shit. BUT IT ROCKS MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTION OF RELIGIOUS REALITY! I AND MY VIEWS MUST BE RESPECTED! Again, tough shit. It’s steak at the Outback on Fridays for the Prots. If I don’t like it, perhaps I should choose to live in Vatican City.

When religions, as they often do, embrace political and social practices as well as ritual and metaphysical ones (and Islam is practically DEFINED by this; recall “Islam is politics or it is nothing at all.” — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini), it will often happen that social and political behavior, as defined by different religious practices, will invariably clash. This is where the whole “this is not a suicide pact” premise comes into play. I think you can see where I’m leading with this.

Of course, Europe is not obliged to adopt American principles; but I would point out that historically, these principles are more European than they are American. They aren’t really ‘our’ principles; they’re *theirs*. We just happened to grow up in a static-free environment where they could be implemented. My broader point is, I hope I’m not sounding like a cultural imperialist here. I’m trying not to. I think that in broad historical terms, the West agrees to these principles. The ’suicide pact’ corollary of course is that the West is not obliged to destroy itself in deference to principles that are not only foreign to, but can be shown to be historically opposed to, the West itself. (And yes, I think there IS such a thing as ‘the West’ in real, physical terms, as sure as there is a place metaphysically called ‘the Mahgreb,’ in a location that in strict geographical terms is simply North Africa.)

I have more to say, but sadly I’m running out of steam, and quite afraid I’ve bored you all to death.

One last thing…

Nabakov — you say cultural imperialism only works “if you have the real power on the ground to enforce [your] demands.” That is exactly what the Islamists think they are gaining in Europe. Whether they are right is the topic for another day entirely.

Cheers!

Good point, Brian, but it doesn’t resolve the issue - indeed, it potentially makes it more intractable. What if, for the example, that 2% were to insist on living according to Sharia law?

These people, about 100,000 of them, are not ‘other’, they are Danes.

That may be what their passport says, but in everyday discourse, they’re often referred to as ‘immigrants’ or, less generously, ‘Pakis’ - even if they’ve been in Denmark for 40 years, when the first real immigration took place outside the guest worker programs they had throughout the 20thC (and before). Danes don’t play dog-whistle politics like in liberal societies. They tend to just come straight out with prejudicial statements based on the supposed presence of discrete, observable ethnic groups (cf. Dansk Folkepartiet). I found this hard to comprehend when I was there, and is one reason I wouldn’t want to live there permanently.

There’s also a different context for religious satire in continental Europe - anti-clericalism certainly started a tradition of lampooning religion (Christianity in this case) - not just of the Enlightenment type - but earlier in Northern Europe where some of the most powerful weapons of the Reformation were satire and biting humour (at which the great polemicist Luther was a master).

Interesting. I didn’t know that. I was, however, aware of Luther’s abilities in polemics.

I saw comment where the Danes said that they particularly valued satire and sarcasm. It figures.

john_peter_zenger, you said that “Islamic tradition forbids the depiction of Muhammad in any circumstance” and that “the pictures were made in Denmark; by Danes, for Danes, and so on.”

As I understand it in Islam any depiction of persons is considered idolatory. It is not just a trivial and wilful decision but something that challenges their reality. I can’t think of a good analogy to it in our culture.

Also the CIA Factbook tells us that there are 2% Muslims in Denmark’s polulation of 5.4 million. These people are presumably either Danish citizens or long-term residents. So there is an obligation on the 98% Christians to act in a way that is sensitive and not injurious to the 2% with different beliefs. These people, about 100,000 of them, are not ‘other’, they are Danes.

Presumably the children’s book about the life of Muhammad was intended to lead to greater dialogue and understanding. If so it was always going to have to be sans depictions of Muhammad.

How do we know john_peter_zenger is not really Graeme Bird in disguise?

He’s a lot more polite and articulate and he actually argues a point!

I’m with flutey here. Any religion is fair game for satire. After all many of them have no hesitation in condemning us non-believers to eternal pain and suffering so jeering at them is the least we can do in return.

And in return, those jeered at have every right to respond in turn by jeering back, boycotts and complaining loudly through official and other channels. But demanding at gunpoint that a cherished belief (secular or non-secular, and in this case free speech) be renounced on its home soil is rarely productive for all concerned.

Unless of course like the Brits in India you have the real power on the ground to enforce those demands.
“A Brahmin told Sir Charles Napier that suttee was the custom in India. “In my country, too, we have a custom,” Napier replied. “We hang men who burn women. Let each of us act according to his custom.”

As a matter of disclosure: personally I am neither “left” nor “right” wing — not because of “centrism,” but because increasingly I think these terms, and their respective baggages, compass approaches to distinctly ‘20th-century’ political problems. I think most of the great themes and issues of the 20th century have either been solved, made irrelevant, or have morphed into new questions which our old framework no longer addresses with precision. I find my own opinions constantly improved and corrected by the range of information and perspective available on both left and right. Broadly speaking, I admire the ‘left’ for its hopeful and generous, imaginative vision for a shared human future; but I tend to value the ‘right’ more for its cranky grasp of facts as they currently stand, and its sense of what is good about the present and the past that is worth preserving.

The particular issue on this thread –censorship and Islam, as put to the test by the current fracas– strikes me as crucial to our shared future, because in one simple issue it exposes so many complex fault-lines that have vital bearing on the coming century. So I have a LOT to say about it… tho’ it’s unlikely I shall be ruffling feathers in other threads on this blog, God bless ‘em. But as I say, if anyone here with a proprietary interest feels that my input is unwelcome, I will surely abide by your wishes. It IS your community, after all.

And now I am hogging the mic, which is bad manners. More to come, if you feel like hearing it. Cheers….

Muslims are in effect demanding that non-Muslims abandon their own traditions and submit to Islamic religious norms, and are making violent threats to enforce their will. Last time I checked, that was known in our Western culture as tyranny.

Or a kind of cultural blackmail.

Welcome, jpz, to ‘the fray’. Good comment.

(This is a left-wing blog, by the way. Sometimes you wouldn’t know it, as it plays host to a increasing swarm of irritating RWDBs. Play your cards right, and you could join them.)

I have rather a mouthful to say on this, but since I’m new here I’ll limit myself to a few points and come back if you indicate I’m welcome. (also, am rather new to this blogging thing, so if I trip over any rules of courtesy, please let me know. Nothing said is meant in an unpleasant spirit.)

A bit of background: the Danish cartoons were originally commissioned by Jyllends-Posten not in a blind rage of insensitivity, but in response to the fact that no illustrators would come forward to illustrate a projected children’s book about the life of Muhammad, all being fearful of Islamic threats. The fact that a climate of fear and intimidation has been developing of late in a free Western society, and that this intimidation comes from Islamic sources, recently arrived in an ancient culture with its own pre-existing norms and standards, ought to be noted seriously and without prejudice.

Another important point: have you all seen the cartoons? While some are what might be termed ‘insensitive,’ many are simple, banal (and frankly, not even very good) depictions of Muhammad. This is important. I’m sure you all know that Islamic tradition forbids the depiction of Muhammad in any circumstance. Well and good for censorious Islam; but of course, the pictures were made in Denmark; by Danes, for Danes, and so on. Muslims are in effect demanding that non-Muslims abandon their own traditions and submit to Islamic religious norms, and are making violent threats to enforce their will. Last time I checked, that was known in our Western culture as tyranny.

If the Muslims are offended, can they boycott Jyllends-Posten and its advertisers? Of course; fair play to them. Can they boycott Arla, and the entire nation of Denmark and its government? This strikes me as tenuous, but let’s say yes. Can they make violent threats, storm embassies, riot, kidnap (yep, it’s true), and demand that the Government of Denmark officially punish the publishers? ABSOLUTELY FREAKIN’ NOT.

Well, of course, they “can” and in fact do, do such things. But should we ‘respect’ them for this? Should we ‘tolerate’ this? Come on.

And now I see I have gone on longer than I intended. Sorry.

Hope I’m welcome to the fray. Cheers!

Apparently no English paper has published the cartoons even to illustrate stories about them.

A point that hasn’t gone unnoticed on theBritish blogosphere, Brian.

One newspaper guy said the cartoons were poor quality and reflected a past era of orientalism.

Another said the issue was blck and white, as it were. Publishing images of the Prophet were verboten in Islam, so publishing them per se was bound to give deep offense.

The quality of the images, the intentions etc were simply irrelevant. Certainly that is how Muslims in general seem to see it.

A couple of observations - this brings out some of the limitations and aporias of liberalism when confronted by speech which sits uneasily within the frame either of tolerance or civil debate. It’s the sort of thing that leaves liberals impaled on the horns of a dilemma, not knowing which principle to uphold - respect for religious figures or freedom of speech. Because in this instance they clash and are very hard to reconcile.

There’s also a different context for religious satire in continental Europe - anti-clericalism certainly started a tradition of lampooning religion (Christianity in this case) - not just of the Enlightenment type - but earlier in Northern Europe where some of the most powerful weapons of the Reformation were satire and biting humour (at which the great polemicist Luther was a master).

Der Spiegel has an interesting article in which key editorial staff of the Jyllands-Posten said the whole exercise was worthwhile, as they stood on the street after evacuating their building because of a bomb threat. It showed how relevant the issue was to contemporay society, they said. Their intent was to show the extent of self-censorship.

Ironically, their action has probably increased self-censorship.

Ibn Warraq says that the west should not cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset. He says:

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

Deutsche Welle carries an opinion piece by Peter Phillip. He puts the issue in terms of opposing freedoms:

Western secular society needs to give new thought to the relationship between religion and the state. Like the discussions that followed the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, we need to think about whether certain rights should really remain unrestricted, or whether they should be limited to the point at which they breach someone else’s freedom.

In this case, that would pit the freedom of press and expression against the freedom of religion, and the right of minorities to protection from persecution, oppression and denigration. A religious minority — which is what Muslims are, in our western democracy — has a right to be protected from such hostility. And the majority has the obligation to vouchsafe that protection. Otherwise, the noble basic rights of democracy aren’t worth much.

Deutsche Welle’s main story today is in an opinion (analysis) piece. They say that in 25 countries enraged Muslims have taken to the streets. They see the issue as a problem of having no separation between church and state:

The majority of Arab governments only made matters worse by adding fuel to the fire of angry protestors rather than seeking to calm them. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya, for instance, recalled their ambassadors to Denmark and demanded a severe punishment for those responsible as well as an official apology from the Danish government.

Such demands show that Arab governments are incapable of understanding the relationship between the state and freedom of expression as it is practiced in Europe. While the right to free speech is anchored in European constitutions and a clear separation between church and state defines daily life, Islam dominates daily life in the Arab world. As a result many Muslims cannot comprehend the differentiation in Europe. They feel personally offended as soon as their religion is presented in a hurtful manner. They also do not understand that politicians in the western world have no direct influence over the media, as is commonly the case in the Arab world.

But more chillingly, Deutsche Welle sees radical Islamic elements as taking political advantage of the issue to radicalise Muslim opinion and whip up general anti-west feelings.

They say that the great efforts by Europe and Germany in particular to establish dialogue with the Arab and Islamic worlds are in danger of being undone.

It’s hard to see where all this is going to end.

he fails to appreciate that the poor are not doing do well in the US these days either, the jobs having migrated to Mexico and now China. 45.8 million have no medical cover. 75% of all jobs are not ‘good’ jobs according to a recent study, with one or more of low pay, no health care and no pensions.

Most of the US poor immigrants come from the south and most are not Muslims. Not sure what the latter means, but they are less likely to get drawn into this sort of issue.

But most of the world’s poor are still in India, Indonesia, China and Pakistan (Africa included) where they seem more passive, although there have been protests in Pakistan about the Danish cartoons too.

All this is beyond me.

I’ve just heard via the BBC that armed and masked Palestinians are threatening direct actions against ‘European’ (specifically Danish, French and Spanish) churches, other facilities and personnel in Palestine if apologies are not forthcoming. Their latest story is here.

It seems papers in Italy also reprinted the cartoons.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So are you saying that the Netherlands, famous for its tolerance, is not a melting pot for immigrants?

De Winter: No, that’s the United States. A social welfare state like the Netherlands can never be a country of integration. Only a country like the US, with its weak social net, can integrate large groups of immigrants without problems. Immigrants there are forced to take two or three badly paid jobs just to survive. That would be incompatible with European moral values. But after one or two generations in the US, these people are integrated in society.

To what extent is ubiquitous welfare part of the problem? I’ve no answer, just asking the question (which I know is not original). It’s been advanced in the wake of both the French and Australian ‘race’ riots.