Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Cartoons Continue to Rock the World
The recent outrage over the political cartoons in Europe has been a mixed bag of strange and unusual alliances. It was just another symbol of the present tension between the Islamic world and the western world. Four unique observations follow with some clear conclusions of the right response.
1. The cartoons were in poor taste.
The images of Islam were clearly in poor taste for several reasons. They were in poor taste because of insensitive mockery.They were intended to mock terrorists and the general Islamic world from the start. The problem is that the insensitive mockery hurts too many people unnecessarily. There are better ways to get one's message across. They were in poor taste because of the ideas of Muslims regarding pictures. Examples of traditions of Islam with pictures have been found in history, but the clear opposition to any form of idolatry has resulted in the overwhelming idea that pictures of sacred people are off limits. It is insensitive and ignorant to think that in addition to that, a mocking picture will reach Muslims. I think it is clear from this that the newspapers always intended a level of offense. The level of condescension in rhetoric has been in poor taste. The journalists from around the world who have supported the newspapers have ridiculed the Muslim world as backward and incompetent for decades anyway. It is with no surprise that they continue to insult and lambaste Muslims with quite partisan rhetoric.
2. The response of the Islamic world has been in poor taste.
The response of the Islamic world has been in very poor taste. It has been marked by making the problem worse. The response was in poor taste because violent mobs are always in poor taste. The mob is fickle, and unpredictable. People get together and work themselves into a frenzy and do very foolish things. There was no reason for gunmen to surround embassies or for rocks to be thrown or fires started. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any society. Second, The response was in poor taste because linking one newspaper with all western people is in poor taste. Why should one man from Denmark be marked when he had nothing to do with the publication of another man from Denmark? That is just a racist and hateful way to view people. Finally, the idea that the press should not be free is in poor taste. If these people would just take a step back and hear what they are saying, it would be much clearer. They are saying that all of a people, economy, culture, and society should suffer until the government steps in and does something about insensitive people. That is just a tacky, at best, overreaction to a tacky cartoon.
3. A unique paradox
Strange companions. This world is now officially filled with them. President Bush condemns the articles, appearing to side with the Iranian government. His wife sides with the press, something she would never do. More than this, some very strange things have come out of Europe and the Middle East. More hatred of the West has been spawned by these articles than the war in Iraq. While French papers critique Bush for enraging the Arab street, they keep fomenting more anger by ridiculing Muslims. Furthermore, there is more xenophobia in Europe than they would have you believe. The violence in France back in December coupled with a discussion of its causes has revealed that there is little to no respect for legal, let alone illegal, immigration. Add that to an institutionalized secularism, and any religion finds itself in disregard, but especially Islam.
4. The arguments on both sides have been deeply troubling.
This entire debate has been characterized by ideological frameworks that are troubling. How can I say that a newspaper has made a moral error, without compromising my own right to freedom of speech? How can I critique protesters without doing the same? However, some arguments on both sides have been particularly troubling.
On the Islamic side, any attempt to claim moral integrity for violent protest is bad enough, but here are some really bad examples overheard last week. First, the desire is for the state to stop tasteless journalism. Where does that restriction end? The same power could be used to ban theism, atheism, and any other "ism," by citing exclusive language. Second, I actually heard people saying that people should be considerate of Muslims, because of the danger of terrorist responses. This argument is only coercive, and it bears no logical persuasive power. Third, there is the fallacy of linking of all westerners with secularists, or with hateful secularists. Secularism, like all religious systems has its crazy people. But the fact is that in the western world, there are many people. Some are Christian, others Jewish, Buddhist, secular, and a multitude hold to yet other ideas. But the fact is that we should judge each person individually and not hastily group them all together and sentence them to our wrath. Finally, there seems to be the idea on the Muslim side that they have a right to protest, but that the other side does not. This is clearly a double standard that wishes to silence by regulation all opposing viewpoints.
On the newspaper side, I have no more need to explain of what poor taste consisted their decision to publish the caricatures, but they have their own share of poor, defensive arguments. First, and very troubling is the advancement of the secular society as an ideal. These people argue that a "nonreligion," if that exists, should have authority over all other religions. This only results in a gathering hostility against religious communities and an eventual restriction of religions. Secondly, many have stated concerns over "self censorship." To be fair, I still do not know what that is; but if I understand it correctly, it is the moral imperative to always publicize even the most anti-aesthetic of ideas, whether or not they are well reasoned. I would rather hear one word of reason than a thousand obscenities from a tongue that feels rather than thinks. At any rate and thirdly, the enduring mockery with continued publishing and the argument that the Muslims are just intolerant fools, is just ignorant and intolerant itself. Do not forget that the great sciences, philosophy, arts, and academic schools were kept alive through the Middle Ages by the Byzantine (Muslim) Empire. These people are not idiots as a whole, and nothing is accomplished by such predications. The fourth foolish idea is the linking of all religion with terrorists. This is a foolish generalization because it is just not true. Compelling are the arguments that all men are faith oriented, and yet the overwhelming majority do not become terrorists. It is just this that the shrillest voices and the most violent are always the most easily heard. We just do not hear the people who quietly do their own business and live peacefully because they are not shouting in our faces. Finally, it is an equally double standard to claim a right to publish, but deny others a right to speak to the contrary, which has been set forth by some.
Conclusions:
1. Protect freedom of the press, even if it means allowing idiocy. I don't incarcerate my dog for chasing his tail, no matter how stupid he looks. I fear giving the state power to restrict the speech of others, because they will turn and use that same power to restrict my speech in turn.
2. Only provoke hostility if you are ready to face that hostility. Only jerks beat their dogs and keep them in cages to prevent response. Talk of dialogue is only useful if dialogue actually happens.
3. Society cannot answer these problems through government action. Men, like dogs, can only stand so much regulation. We are ignorant to think that government can keep us safe from offence from whatever source.
1. The cartoons were in poor taste.
The images of Islam were clearly in poor taste for several reasons. They were in poor taste because of insensitive mockery.They were intended to mock terrorists and the general Islamic world from the start. The problem is that the insensitive mockery hurts too many people unnecessarily. There are better ways to get one's message across. They were in poor taste because of the ideas of Muslims regarding pictures. Examples of traditions of Islam with pictures have been found in history, but the clear opposition to any form of idolatry has resulted in the overwhelming idea that pictures of sacred people are off limits. It is insensitive and ignorant to think that in addition to that, a mocking picture will reach Muslims. I think it is clear from this that the newspapers always intended a level of offense. The level of condescension in rhetoric has been in poor taste. The journalists from around the world who have supported the newspapers have ridiculed the Muslim world as backward and incompetent for decades anyway. It is with no surprise that they continue to insult and lambaste Muslims with quite partisan rhetoric.
2. The response of the Islamic world has been in poor taste.
The response of the Islamic world has been in very poor taste. It has been marked by making the problem worse. The response was in poor taste because violent mobs are always in poor taste. The mob is fickle, and unpredictable. People get together and work themselves into a frenzy and do very foolish things. There was no reason for gunmen to surround embassies or for rocks to be thrown or fires started. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any society. Second, The response was in poor taste because linking one newspaper with all western people is in poor taste. Why should one man from Denmark be marked when he had nothing to do with the publication of another man from Denmark? That is just a racist and hateful way to view people. Finally, the idea that the press should not be free is in poor taste. If these people would just take a step back and hear what they are saying, it would be much clearer. They are saying that all of a people, economy, culture, and society should suffer until the government steps in and does something about insensitive people. That is just a tacky, at best, overreaction to a tacky cartoon.
3. A unique paradox
Strange companions. This world is now officially filled with them. President Bush condemns the articles, appearing to side with the Iranian government. His wife sides with the press, something she would never do. More than this, some very strange things have come out of Europe and the Middle East. More hatred of the West has been spawned by these articles than the war in Iraq. While French papers critique Bush for enraging the Arab street, they keep fomenting more anger by ridiculing Muslims. Furthermore, there is more xenophobia in Europe than they would have you believe. The violence in France back in December coupled with a discussion of its causes has revealed that there is little to no respect for legal, let alone illegal, immigration. Add that to an institutionalized secularism, and any religion finds itself in disregard, but especially Islam.
4. The arguments on both sides have been deeply troubling.
This entire debate has been characterized by ideological frameworks that are troubling. How can I say that a newspaper has made a moral error, without compromising my own right to freedom of speech? How can I critique protesters without doing the same? However, some arguments on both sides have been particularly troubling.
On the Islamic side, any attempt to claim moral integrity for violent protest is bad enough, but here are some really bad examples overheard last week. First, the desire is for the state to stop tasteless journalism. Where does that restriction end? The same power could be used to ban theism, atheism, and any other "ism," by citing exclusive language. Second, I actually heard people saying that people should be considerate of Muslims, because of the danger of terrorist responses. This argument is only coercive, and it bears no logical persuasive power. Third, there is the fallacy of linking of all westerners with secularists, or with hateful secularists. Secularism, like all religious systems has its crazy people. But the fact is that in the western world, there are many people. Some are Christian, others Jewish, Buddhist, secular, and a multitude hold to yet other ideas. But the fact is that we should judge each person individually and not hastily group them all together and sentence them to our wrath. Finally, there seems to be the idea on the Muslim side that they have a right to protest, but that the other side does not. This is clearly a double standard that wishes to silence by regulation all opposing viewpoints.
On the newspaper side, I have no more need to explain of what poor taste consisted their decision to publish the caricatures, but they have their own share of poor, defensive arguments. First, and very troubling is the advancement of the secular society as an ideal. These people argue that a "nonreligion," if that exists, should have authority over all other religions. This only results in a gathering hostility against religious communities and an eventual restriction of religions. Secondly, many have stated concerns over "self censorship." To be fair, I still do not know what that is; but if I understand it correctly, it is the moral imperative to always publicize even the most anti-aesthetic of ideas, whether or not they are well reasoned. I would rather hear one word of reason than a thousand obscenities from a tongue that feels rather than thinks. At any rate and thirdly, the enduring mockery with continued publishing and the argument that the Muslims are just intolerant fools, is just ignorant and intolerant itself. Do not forget that the great sciences, philosophy, arts, and academic schools were kept alive through the Middle Ages by the Byzantine (Muslim) Empire. These people are not idiots as a whole, and nothing is accomplished by such predications. The fourth foolish idea is the linking of all religion with terrorists. This is a foolish generalization because it is just not true. Compelling are the arguments that all men are faith oriented, and yet the overwhelming majority do not become terrorists. It is just this that the shrillest voices and the most violent are always the most easily heard. We just do not hear the people who quietly do their own business and live peacefully because they are not shouting in our faces. Finally, it is an equally double standard to claim a right to publish, but deny others a right to speak to the contrary, which has been set forth by some.
Conclusions:
1. Protect freedom of the press, even if it means allowing idiocy. I don't incarcerate my dog for chasing his tail, no matter how stupid he looks. I fear giving the state power to restrict the speech of others, because they will turn and use that same power to restrict my speech in turn.
2. Only provoke hostility if you are ready to face that hostility. Only jerks beat their dogs and keep them in cages to prevent response. Talk of dialogue is only useful if dialogue actually happens.
3. Society cannot answer these problems through government action. Men, like dogs, can only stand so much regulation. We are ignorant to think that government can keep us safe from offence from whatever source.
