I've been putting off talking about this, out of respect for the dead and out of opposition to terrorism and murder. But if I were to talk about it, I would say something similar to what I said about "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day. I wrote 2 posts, back in 2010:
1. "'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' is not a good idea."
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).2. "'Our reflexive response to "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day".. was sympathetic. But Althouse prompted us to reconsider.'"
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.
At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit. Shock is an old artist's move. Epater la bourgeoisie. Shock will get a reaction, and it will make some people mad. They are allowed to get mad. That was the point. Of course, they'll have to control their violent impulses.
People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
"Us" = Best of the Web (James Taranto):
"Piss Christ" is not an entirely apposite example, for it prompted no threats of violence or calls for suppression. It was an issue not of free speech but of subsidized speech; people objected to their tax dollars' bankrolling Serrano via the National Endowment for the Arts. But it isn't hard to think of other examples in which speech that is offensive to large numbers of people has occasioned censorship or violence or the threats thereof.I'm glad to see Taranto do what I was challenging my commenters to do. (I said: "If you don't think the 'Piss Christ' or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo. That's my challenge. Make a hypo that is the same but without the Muslim element, and seriously test your thinking on the subject.") Taranto:
Until 1989, it was a crime in some states to burn the American flag as a political statement. In Texas v. Johnson the U.S. Supreme Court held that this is protected symbolic speech. In ensuing years members of Congress repeatedly tried to propose a constitutional amendment permitting the criminalization of flag burning. It is the view of this column that flag burning is and should remain protected speech. We deplore it nonetheless, and we think holding an "Everybody Burn the Flag Day" would be stupid, obnoxious and counterproductive if one seeks to persuade others that flag burning should be tolerated.In my comments, Jason (the commenter) had posed the flag hypo — sarcastically: "If burning an American flag were illegal and there was a 'Burning an American Flag' Day, you can bet I'd be out there burning an American flag, because I believe the right to burn an American flag is what America is all about." Back to Taranto:
"Hate speech"--for example, shouting racial slurs, positing theories of racial supremacy or denying the Holocaust--is illegal in Canada and many European countries. In the U.S. it is protected by the First Amendment--but it has been known to provoke a violent reaction...."Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" seems different to people, Taranto says:
This column is also of the opinion that hate-speech laws are pernicious and that the First Amendment does and should protect the expression of even ugly and false ideas. But we would not endorse or participate in an "Everybody Shout a Racial Slur Day" or an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day" to make the point.
Because the taboo against depictions of Muhammad is not a part of America's common culture. The taboos against flag burning, racial slurs and Holocaust denial are. The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others — Muslims — as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.Okay, all you readers who drove the comments up over 400 trying to push me back. I have Taranto! What say you now?!
Posts
109 comments:
I say everybody knows its about a tiny kernel of fear for doing it, and that is perfectly acceptable.
Nobody wants to die for writing a daily blogger blog about dogs, politics, culture, and the law.
"You hurt a lot of people..."
It's a shame that so many people in this world prtend to be so easily hurt over a trifle. Their beliefs, rooted in a primitive, medieval superstition, are what hurts them. That they allow this nonsense to control their lives is sad, but that's their business.
"... and I don't want to get my head cut off."
And when the Muslim taxi drivers insist that we not carry alcohol in our baggage because they find it offensive? Or insist we stop any of our other cultural customs because they find them offensive?
And when they become a large enough fraction of the population that they can truly frighten easily-cowed Westerners into giving up everything about our culture that is not Muslim-compatible and is thus offensive to them?
Our culture includes satirizing sacred things. To be intimidated by violence into giving that up must be resisted, or else you are appeasing them and the demands for appeasement never stop.
Muslims didn't care about cartoons until fairly recently. They started making a stink about them once they figured out that the Europeans could be intimidated into behaving in the ways the Muslims wanted them to behave. Give people an inch and they will take a mile.
It would be one thing to purposely offend people for no other reason than to offend them. It is another thing to make a statement that we will not be intimidated into giving up our culture by their violence.
Any Muslim who really valued our culture and wanted to truly integrate with it would understand that. They might even publish a cartoon themselves just to show that they support our right not to be intimidated into giving up our culture.
It is not the norm to change one's opinion of an activity that provokes murder.
For example, if I hear that a man has killed his wife because he found out she committed adultery, I do not act like I think adultery is great or go out and commit adultery to express my outrage at the murder.
I loved the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist who said "Nobody is outraged who doesn't want to be outraged".
That is so true about our outrage culture, and the daily outrage machine on Twitter. People want their outrage feed. I suspect the people who firebomb and kill over Mohammed cartoons are really looking to firebomb someone for something.
And this is why pretending (as the NYTs does) you are not doing something for some noble reason, rather than admitting you are afraid to do it is dangerous. It just lowers the bar and allows those who want to rule with fear to do so.
People burn American flags a lot, except from a few it warrants a "meh," seems to me the theory works.
For example, if I hear that a man has killed his wife because he found out she committed adultery, I do not act like I think adultery is great or go out and commit adultery to express my outrage at the murder.
Would you seek to make adultery illegal because it provokes men to murder?
Should the NYTs refuse to write about adultery because it might lead to murder?
I think the truth is that Althouse is just afraid of the possible consequences of publishing the images, and that is legitimate. One must weigh the costs and benefits, and what real benefit is there that outweighs the possible risks?
Of course that's why intimidation like this works. No one wants to be the sacrificial lamb. And that's why everyone needs to stand up and do it together.
Of course what we REALLY need to do is cease all immigration for at least a couple generations to assimilate the millions who have arrived in the last 50 years. We need to make it clear that fundamentalist Islam has no place in the West. But we won't do that because we're progressive universalists whose moral beliefs forbid us to notice differences between us and Muslims.
So instead we'll impose more and more invasive and draconian government surveillance on the whole population to try to police the Muslim fundamentalists while they live among us, rather than just insisting they go back to their Muslim countries to practice their beliefs. Utterly stupid, but that's progressivism for you.
I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship.
There wasn't any censorship to protest.
The taboos against flag burning, racial slurs and Holocaust denial are [part of America's common culture].
No they're not.
The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others — Muslims — as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders.
Well, they are "outside our culture" - one reason is violence in the face of cartoons - and they're merely being subjected to the same inconsideration that people "inside the culture" are subjected to.
They'd be even more "outside our culture" if we respected their violence, as Taranto does.
It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.
They started it: the "unwise message to send" is sent by muslims in the form of "pictures - or anything else - we don't like will be met with violence".
I have Taranto! What say you now?!
"So what?"
"my taboos are more important than yours"
Prof. Althouse: "It is not the norm to change one's opinion of an activity that provokes murder."
I'm not sure about that. Martyrs have been venerated for thousands of years because they refused to recant their beliefs in the face of murderous threats.
However unsatisfying, the distinction is probably in the violent actors' motivations, and defending freedom of speech against violent threats is far more worthy than allowing cuckolds to murder adulterous wives (or vice versa)!
I agree in general that needlessly giving offense need not be glorified, but nor should we glorify the offended.
Well if your cultural sensibility supports killing people for "insulting" Islam then I have no problem alienating you.
Do you think this will be the end of it?
That if we just accommodate them on this particular issue the Muslims will be reasonable and we can all go back to living in harmony, koom-bay-yah.
In the usual course of blogging Althouse would not post a picture or cartoon of Mohammed f*****g a .... anything. So it's fine if she continues to do what she does.
Others, like South Park, should similarly continue to do what they do.
We should not let the crazy killer Muslims manipulate us in either direction.
"But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything . . ."
Depicting images, flattering or not, of someone dead for some 1400 years hurts no one. Repeat, hurts no one.
That they might consider such and such an offense is simply a learned response. It can be unlearned. Nothing in this world is beyond criticism. Nothing.
I am not subject to the Shariah.
I agree with Ferdinande - if Muslims aren't "outside our culture", who is?
And if everyone is "inside" our culture, do we really have a culture?
It's ok if some people feel "outside" the culture. That's what gives them an incentive to assimilate.
Are there any conservative publications running CH cartoons?
"I'm not sure about that. Martyrs have been venerated for thousands of years because they refused to recant their beliefs in the face of murderous threats."
That's not disagreeing with me. That's agreeing with me!
I'm saying that if you believe X is bad, but X provoked murder, you don't change your belief that X is bad. You stick to your beliefs.
In your example, what provokes murder is the martyr's belief. I would say that a person having religious beliefs (the thing that provokes murder, and is therefore X) is not something that is bad.
Get some parallelism here or this discussion will be a mess.
I say that when the heckler's veto is being enforced by fear and thuggery then an act of defiance should trump your normal reticence.
Burning a flag in 1988 would have been an act of civil disobedience. It would have dared the authorities to enforce the unjust law. That is not a comparable situation to where other people are being threatened by lawless thugs. I expect that if France passed a law against Jews you'd show a Jewish symbol. Why not if gangs of thugs in Paris started killing Jews? I bet you would then too.
If you know the speaker's game is to antagonize you, then it is possible to condition yourself to ignore it.
That's the point of "everybody draw mohammed day." Get used to it, this is us.
"I agree with Ferdinande - if Muslims aren't "outside our culture", who is?"
Our culture is freedom and pluralism and the tolerance (if not the celebration) of religious (and other) diversity.
Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims.
As for religion-motivated censorship... we've had a fair amount of that over the years. Read about this Supreme Court case — censorship in 1952 of a film that offended Catholics.
What's outside of our culture is resorting to violence and threats of violence to push your religious beliefs.
The subset of any religion that does that is outside of the culture.
I think context matters here. When people are murdered for being insulting, even if I think the insults were in fact insulting, I am happy to see people adding to the insult with a few more. Not because I favor it in general, but because I think it absolutely time long overdue in this one case for the Muslim world to realize it is not going to force its favored status on us all at the point of a gun.
Beyond that, I also have this message for not only Muslims but all those whose feelings get hurt if the deity is insulted. I stand amazed at your concept of this deity. Here is an entity that 13 billion years ago brought the entire universe into existence. This deity waited around all that time for us imperfect little beings to emerge who could gain some minimal, barely intelligible understanding of both the deity and its creation (that is, if he or she or it even did create it). And I am supposed to believe that deity is bothered by an insulting cartoon? That the deity senses and is outraged by this act of disrespect or dishonor? It is beyond me how narrow and narcissistic our concept of this entity is that we think it would care, or even better, not be mildly amused at the efforts of these tiny little worms down on that one little planet. In my view, this concern with the deity's sense of "honor" is itself a terrible dishonoring of its awesome majesty. Can't the Muslim world in particular get farther along than this?
Heh. Must've misread you! Apologies.
Oddly, you have articulated no such compunction about the mainstreaming of homosexuality which is assuredly offensive to millions. Including the Muslims!
I think one of the reasons the issue of drawing a cartoon of Muhammad resonates with so many people is because people are willing to kill over something that to are Western sensibilities is trivial.
However, the point of it to the radicals is to stifle all criticism of Islam.
Thus you have Theo van Gogh murdered for creating a 15 minute film about the abuse of women in Islam.
You have Salmon Rushdie placed under a death sentence for writing a book.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali having to have a permanent security detail so she won't be murdered.
Continual attempts to pass blasphemy laws in western countries.
The cartoon issue cannot be viewed in isolation.
Also,bringing up the Piss Christ and similar incidents shows a shocking lack of perspective by those that do so.
Christians were offended, so they marched and worked to revoke public funding, which to some people is exactly the same as bursting into a magazine's offices and gunning down its staff.
Well, no it isn't the same at all you see. That people try to conflate the two tells me that they are possibly not arguing in the best of faith.
Althouse and Taranto's positions on this are pretty sound in my opinion. However, there are some pretty fundamental differences between Western traditions and sensibilities, and how many Muslims practice Islam that render not giving offence problematic.
If you insist not only that the host society's norms do not apply to you, but that the host society itself should be bound by your laws and customs, it's pretty difficult to not give offence. Indeed, objecting to submitting is itself offensive. Couple that with violence being the first resort to being offended and we have an impossible situation.
Under those circumstances, periodic gratuitous offence giving, unequivocally couched in terms of upholding Western values, seems appropriate.
HONORING MOHAMMED: Who was a retail murderer, genocidal maniac, bandit, liar and treaty-breaker and the perverted sexual abuser of a
nine-year-young girl-child.
Hate slurs are tremendously less apposite than "Piss Christ" because slurs are understood to deprecate people who are present, and their use represents an effort to make the targets seem less than human. Sacrilege against a religious figure, at the most, makes them seem merely human.
I agree with not deliberately offending Muslims who have done nothing wrong just to "stick it" to the violent offenders (as if those violent offenders are reading anything I write, anyway) much as I wouldn't use racially offensive words to deliberately offend blacks just because I know it would also piss off Al Sharpton.
However, would peaceful Muslims actually be offended by just an image of Muhammad? I'm not sure that it's a settled fact that all depictions of Muhammad are blasphemous, or that this is something Muslim moderates take seriously.
MayBee nails it in his/her first comment. There's no need to dance and BS around a simple truth. No shame (for you, not for the Muzzie scum) in that truth, either.
Article of faith:
"Our culture is freedom and pluralism and the tolerance (if not the celebration) of religious (and other) diversity."
Dumb statement:
"Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims."
Shocking the squares is so bourgeois.
Recursive irony!
My Avatar.
"Our culture is freedom and pluralism and the tolerance (if not the celebration) of religious (and other) diversity."
Unless you try to violate, subvert and suppress the 1st Amendment rights, as well as other rights of US citizens using your religion. Then it's on.
"Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims."
No, it is to acknowledge the reality that Islam as practiced does not respect American culture to the point that many Muslims are willing to subvert and suppress Constitutional Rights via unconstitutional laws, threats and violence.
Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to deal with Muslims that killed Americans. Now we are supposed to be sensitive to what offends them?
Some cultures are incompatible with Western style liberties. Islamic cultures are not compatible. Don't believe me? Go live in one for a year or two.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room, Althouse, to preach an unearned "tolerance" for violent religious bigots and their passive aggressive co-religionists that lend silent support as well as the leftists that tacitly supports them, with their cowardly suppositions that Charlie H brought it on himself for offending Muslims.
Re: Flag Burning/Draw Momhammed parallels:
The part that is annoying to me is that we won't do things that offend others, but they will try to kill people that offend them. It is very asymmetrical.
I couldn't care less if a bunch of ignorant morons in Iran/Iraq/Cuba/China/Viet Nam/San Francisco burn a US flag. I am certainly not going to go postal and try to kill them. I probably wouldn't even try to stop them if they were standing in front of me. It is an inanimate object, with only as much power over my well being as I give it.
I think the natural inclination is make the response to provocation more equitable. We aren't going to go over killing everyone that offends us, so we need to desensitize them to offense. Sounds good in theory, but it is hard.
See, the ugly truth of the Piss guy and the Flag Burners is they aren't doing the for a larger truth. They WANT to offend Christians / Jews / Conservatives. Those groups aren't so easily provoked, so the provocations so the provocations need to be more extreme. Let me know when Serrano has a Piss Koran or Piss Mohammed. Then I will take him seriously.
We should show the same tolerance towards Islamists that we showed pro-Crown Tories.
“a person having religious beliefs (the thing that provokes murder, and is therefore X) is not something that is bad”
Depends on the beliefs. If the beliefs include justifications for murdering infidels, that is “bad.”
“Our culture is freedom and pluralism and the tolerance (if not the celebration) of religious (and other) diversity.
Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims. . . .
What's outside of our culture is resorting to violence and threats of violence to push your religious beliefs.
The subset of any religion that does that is outside of the culture.”
While individual Muslims may want to join the culture of “freedom and pluralism and the tolerance of religious diversity,” nothing in Islamic teachings, history, or governmental practice provides support for that culture.
While individual Muslims may reject the use of violence in promoting their faith, Islamic teachings, history, and governmental practice provide lots of precedent for such violence.
How large should the “subset” be before we shield “our culture” by declaring the religion outside it and preventing (a “subset” of) its adherents from immigrating?
It is reasonable not to aim to give offense. But saying that Muslims uniquely deserve protection from offense, in the manner of the NYT, places them more outside our culture than anyone else and undermines that culture in the process.
I have Taranto! What say you now?!
I say you're both cowards.
Remember when Obama had his generals call Matt Stone and Trey Parker and begged them not to put Jesus in The Book of Mormon? Because it would inflame the Christian world.
The future must not belong to those who burn the American flag.
Really, you can't pretend this is happening in a vacuum, and that the examples are very parallel.
This isn't so nuanced, Althouse.
Offending the devoutly religious IS part of our 1st Amendment culture.
Killing those who offend your religion is OUTSIDE of our culture.
That's not so hard to grasp, is it?
It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world
We are already their enemy, merely by existing as a non-Muslim.
You cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you.
We've agreed as a culture to tolerate even offensive speech, and further agreed that nobody gets to say an offensive (whatever) can't be published.
We've further agreed that we don't recognize a supercategory of religion-based offensiveness that's exempt from this freedom.
You can't let that camel get its nose under the tent. You must shoo it away, even as you lament the fact that it will then inevitably get fucked by some towelheads.
Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims.
Really?
I bet 99% of Muslims around the world would reject our culture.
And their culture demands the eradication of our culture.
You cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you.
As for religion-motivated censorship... we've had a fair amount of that over the years. Read about this Supreme Court case — censorship in 1952 of a film that offended Catholics.
Did the Catholics shoot up anyone over it?
Islam needs to get over itself.
Tolerance of blasphemy is a core American value, enshrined in our Bill of Rights. I submit that "I am Spartacus" is a core value of all right thinking Americans. (Personally. I despise the term "right thinking," but I know Althouse uses it, so I'm being snarky.) The question is: Will you buy today's issue of Charlie Hebdo?
In the context of a decades-long campaign of murder, attempted murder, firebombing and intimidation, I say that "offending people's sensibilities" comes second to standing in solidarity with those still willing to stand up to the murderers. If you won't do that, you're leaving them isolated. Whether your reason is cowardice or concern for the feelings of others, that's what you are doing.
Althouse,
I'll give it a go:
It might be important to keep in mind that the Salman Rushdie affair was used by the mile-takers, political opportunists, shady imams and all the way up to the Ayatollah for any and all gain.
In other words, there was a strong element of phoniness about the whole thing, a convenient rallying cry for other ends and maximum self and political interest for many in the Muslim world, just as there was a lot of phoniness and political opportunism and maudlin solidarity in the Charlie Hebdo affair from many in the West.
In other words, the speechists and Islamists are both courageous enough to follow beliefs and principles out to their logical conclusions, and act upon them. But only one side acted as judge, jury and executioner, and only one side would kill you too. Speech may hurt, but death is forever.
I'm guessing you believe this, too, just as you depend upon organized and institutional violence through police, courts and the military not violent, lone wolves and Al Qaeda cells.
This highlights the truth that both civilizations have chasms between how they approach truth, commerce, men and women, freedom, war, knowledge, God, politics, law, etc. (Not to mention the immigration issue: Europe wanted a lot of cheap labor and can't properly integrate their arrivals, and many Muslim economies are so currently shitty, poor and backwards that many want out, often bringing their more tribal and kin based customs and beliefs with them)
This leads me to believe you're taking the 'moderate' Western position, partially out of fear, in hopes that your claim is universal.
One example: Do you know any Muslims personally you be would be ashamed to face after publishing the cartoons, or is it more abstract than that?
exhibit B: You seem to be arguing that there is some speech that crosses the line, and reprinting the cartoons crosses it. You needn't go to extremes to republish them here, personally, because of all the people you'd alienate.
So, who do you trust to regulate your speech?
A reasonable person standard? The moderate Muslim on the street who so often stays silent about such violence? A council of lawyers cum judges? A group of like-minded commenters? The U.N?
The Yale law faculty, The NY Times? Your commenters?
No man/woman is an island Althouse, and I submit that you're partially afraid the only response you'd get to your eminent reasonableness or potential nreasonableness is not from the moderate Muslim you claim, but rather the nut with the Kalashnikov.
Best to admit that part.
"Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims."
This is the wrongest thing that Althouse has ever said.
Think about living in a town, a county, a state or a country where the Muslims have grown to a majority and "voted" to place their way of life into law. No, you don't want that. Islam is not something that can co-exist peacefully with what most of think of as America.
When people are murdered for being insulting, even if I think the insults were in fact insulting, I am happy to see people adding to the insult with a few more.
The point is to have everybody do it, so the anger is diffused across the entire western world. To say, 'hey, try and kill us all'.
If one paper prints cartoons, it paints a target. If they all do, it makes a statement.
And that statement is more important than the potential that someone might be offended.
I am Spartacus
Yes.
Islamic culture that manifests in executing people for blaspheming is not a part of our modern American culture.
People who support something like that are anathema.
Back around the time of the DMCA passage, there was a movement to have everyone rip a DVD they owned and then show up on the steps of the courthouse demanding to be charged with circumventing a copy protection measure. The theory was that it would cripple the justice system and force a change in the law.
I have no doubt that in reality, as with drawing Mohammed, certain high profile individuals would have been singled out and made an example of, with disastrous results for them.
Embrace the culture of white supremacy Americans. E pluribus unum!
More white supremacists teaching at the university! Diversity yay!
It would be very interesting to discuss the cartoons vis-à-vis the laws that require private businesses to cater to gay marriages.
In this light, shouldn't reprinting of cartoons be not only encouraged, but compulsory?
Taranto and Althouse are right in the personal context. Althouse provided a link to the cartoons for those so inclined, but did not actually post the offending images out of respect for others. That's fine to me. And one certainly doesn't have to "burn the flag" to prove a point if it is distasteful to you. I agree wholeheartedly.
There is a newsworthy context too, however. And in these recent cases of self-censorship, there are tribal issues in play and that's where the dissonance becomes maddening for many of us who have been on the receiving end of offensive speech. The NYT cares so much for it's Muslim readership that it dare not provoke outrage, but we all know that same consideration is not given to other religious groups that don't have a violent wing. The NYT should have printed, at the very least, the latest cover of Charlie Hebdo. That is newsworthy, even as it could be offensive. It is akin to printing a picture of a flag burning or the Abu Ghraib photos or a review of The Book of Mormon that contains plot points with sacred ideas rendered absurd. But the NYT, in the benevolent paternalism, has deigned that their Muslim readership is incapable of turning their eyes away. Shame on them.
Ann,
I support posting the Mohammed cartoons right now but I don't support deliberately insulting cultural or religious individuals. How do I justify these two things?
It's simple: Fanatical Muslims have begun declaring that offending Islam or the prophet Muhammed to be worthy of execution. The irony is that Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet and so insulting Jesus should yield a similar outcome, but that's a story for another time.
When a religious group or any set of individuals seeks to constrain speech by threat of violence, and then begins conducting an effort of intimidiation through murder/massacre, there is only one acceptable response: You must do more of it.
Any other change in behavior is a validation or encouragement to kill more.
Ann Althouse said...For example, if I hear that a man has killed his wife because he found out she committed adultery, I do not act like I think adultery is great or go out and commit adultery to express my outrage at the murder.
Isn't that at least in part the logic behind Slutwalks and the like, though? Slutwalk organizers say the culture has a "she was asking for it" idea about women who dress skimpily/provocatively. They strongly disagree with that idea and fight it by parading publicly in extraordinarily provocative clothing/states of undress, knowing that some people find such displays distasteful.
Do you disapprove of Slutwalks, or find them counterproductive?
The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others — Muslims — as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders.
This is the kind of "creamy hippie-chick center" thinking that causes you to do dumb things sometimes like vote for Obama.
You had no problem saying shitty things when it was just traditional marriage advocates you were offending, because you knew that Catholics wouldn't behead you over it.
Yes, they're backsliding. Ain't like the old days.
Listen: All muzzies who go ape-shit when someone else creates an image of Mohammed is "outside our culture."
Every single one.
Full stop.
There is nothing wrong with a Muslim American or anyone else saying "I will not create an image of the Prophet with my own hand," anymore than there is anything wrong with a Jew choosing to write "G-d" or "YWH" or whatever. I think it's a fine tradition.
But a Jew who goes apeshit when someone else writes "God" the way 99 percent of Americans do, or even takes personal offense at it if a stranger does it, is outside our culture, as well.
Full stop.
You've been in academia too long. You're trying to slice the boloney so thin you can read the paper through it.
America's not for pussies.
The problem ... is that it defines those others — Muslims — as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders.
Uh huh. That's true. They (*) are either outside our culture, or we don't have a culture. Those are the only two options: A and B. Pick one.
(*"They" being, those Muslims who in the last decade or so became so radicalized as to react violently to other people depicting Mohammed. That's never been part of Islamic tradition. The idea was, no veneration of the Prophet. The rule became, don't depict the prophet, so as to avoid iconography. All of this is very logical and clear throughout the hadith.
Under this philosophy, there's the OPPOSITE of any reason to be concerned about someone else depicting Mohammed. Who cares? He's not to be venerated - he's not God, he's His Messenger. Only very recently have the bulk of imams come to cynically seize upon Mohammed images along with other invented slights to keep the rage levels of their congregations at inhuman supercharged levels.)
You know what one of the most American sentiments ever expressed in American popular culture is?
"You cannot win, Darth. If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
When you move to America, you should leave the excess baggage at the boarding gate. The children of the English are nowhere near as class conscious as their ancestors. The Irish-Americans are part of the Anglosphere without the reservations and resentments of those still on the auld sod. And I think it's fair to say that German Americans in the 20th century have led more enlightened lives than their kinsmen overseas. What's wrong with asking the Muslims to lighten up?
I think one of the primary reasons to publish the photos -- as Drudge and Instapundit do -- is not so much to offend but to say "I'm Spartacus" to the asshole terrorists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q
Also, the whole idea that publishing a depiction of Mohammed is sacrilegious is just stupid. Stupid religious beliefs do not deserve respect. Would you refuse to make fun of Scientology just because you don't want to upset Tom Cruise?
I vaguely remember that in Italy one of Salman Rushdie's translators got murdered by a Muslim fanatic. It never made the front pages and passed without too much notice. Salman got the cachet and glamour of being a marked man. It helped his book sales tremendously. His translator got killed, and there were no crowds at his funeral......There's some kind of moral to this story.
Althouse: Our culture is freedom and pluralism and the tolerance (if not the celebration) of religious (and other) diversity.
Vacuous blather. What you are claiming here is that there is no such thing as a cultural tradition that can be at odds with our own.
But there is no such thing as a culture that "is" freedom and pluralism and nothing else A culture can place high value on those things, but those values arise and are embedded in a concrete, historically-specific, tradition. If you have a political entity that is nothing but abstractions like "freedom" and "tolerance" and "diversity", you don't have a culture.
But we do have a culture. And cultures which have significantly different orderings of values are not going to be compatible with it.
Saying that Muslims are outside our culture is more outside our culture than Muslims.
Allah defend us from such inanity.
Of course Muslims are "outside" the Western-European derived culture of the U.S. What are you pushing, some kind of creepy Borg vision of America, that no culture exists outside our own and all your culture are belong to us? Damned cheek.
To the extent that any particular Muslim wishes to and can assimilate to that particular tradition (that is, "westernize" those parts of his religion that are incompatible with Western cultural traditions), he can become part of "our" culture. But there is a considerable cultural distance that has to be traveled.
I suspect you succumb to the above inanities because you're unwilling to think about the the point where diversity is so great no common culture can be sustained. Too much "diversity" means "no society" and no common culture.
As for religion-motivated censorship... we've had a fair amount of that over the years. Read about this Supreme Court case — censorship in 1952 of a film that offended Catholics.
Yes, of course. 63 years ago would-be religious censors were told to stuff it. Therefore, no cultural traditions are incompatible with ours.
Anglelyne
Is peppering your comment with things like "Vacuous blather," "defend us from such inanity," etc., a part of what you see as our "concrete, historically-specific, tradition"? Or are these colorful phrases just inane "abstractions" we are entitled to ignore?
Anyway, your notion that Muslims are unlikely to be assimilable given the "considerable cultural distance" they must travel is interesting. It reminds me of the very same attitude my Russian Jewish forebears encountered about one hundred years ago, though it was stated a good deal more forcefully and pejoratively than you do. Of course, they were from Russia, and so I suppose that is to be expected given that, like Muslims, they were also outside "the Western-European derived culture of the U.S.," as you put it. (I mean I do hope you realize the Russian pale was NOT what the arbiters of American identity back then considered "The West."
I think people are forgetting how strong an incentive or disincentive the threat of violence is...
The Government uses the threat of violence and threat of forcible incarceration as the backbone of taxation and law. It's pretty much the basis for order, as several thousand years of governmental models has demonstrated. (See several African countries for an example of what happens when the government cannot tackle social order through reasonable laws and enforcement). Whether we think about it or not because we grew up with certain social norms, that is the basis for governmental dictate.
Now here we are faced with a group of individuals who are saying "You shall not put forth any images we find offensive on penalty of death." And they've backed it up.
That's a pretty powerful statement. Some people rationalize away why they will/will not share the image. Some people don't want to get involved.
Nonetheless, it's important to acknowledge that a group of individuals is saying that nowhere on the planet are you allowed to publish such an image or else they will hunt you down and kill you.
Do you accept such a premise? If so, ok, this topic is done.
If you do not accept or want to push back against such a premise, how do you do so?
Do you offer pro-active violence? Do you reject the idea but not share such images? Do you try to ostracize these individuals?
My response is simple: You do the very thing they are trying to suppress. Demonstrate that their violence only serves to promote such imagery.
The idea is that you need to get the violent few to SWITCH TACTICS themselves.
but that it defines those others — Muslims — as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders.
When you begin to act like an adult you will be treated like an adult.
John Burack: your notion that Muslims are unlikely to be assimilable given the "considerable cultural distance" they must travel is interesting.
Show us where Anglelyne said that Muslims are "unlikely to be assimilable."
Show your work.
I'm waiting for the day someone attempts to force a Muslim baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
Jon, as a Russian Jew I can tell you that Russian culture (in terms of art, and ideas) is European. And the idea of killing someone who leaves Russian Judaism or Russian Christianity is a foreign concept to us, let alone killing for adultery, cutting off hands for thievery, etc.
First they came for the X, but I was not an X...
Jason, her complete statement is:
"To the extent that any particular Muslim wishes to and can assimilate to that particular tradition (that is, "westernize" those parts of his religion that are incompatible with Western cultural traditions), he can become part of "our" culture. But there is a considerable cultural distance that has to be traveled."
As far as I can see summing that up as "UNLIKELY to be assimilable" seems perfectly accurate to me. I can't see what your problem is with it. The entire thrust of her comment is that Ann is all wet for not recognizing how huge a problem of assimilation Muslims pose.
Hyphenated American,
My point is that Russian Jews were once seen as utterly unassimilable, not that they are not European, for whatever that is supposed to be worth. As for "killing someone who leaves Russian Judaism or Russian Christianity," "killing for adultery, cutting off hands for thievery, etc." I hope you do realize ALL of those were once practiced by some or many in Western society.
What is odd about the flak I am getting is that I started out in this section DEFENDING the publishing of the insulting cartoons and absolutely do want the West to get over its hand-wringing apologetics for Islamist extremism. What I do not like and feel is in fact at odds with my stance, is the readiness to lump all of Islam into this. All of Islam has a lot of work to do, I believe. And they are more likely to if the West stands up to them fully. But standing up to them does not mean writing them off.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, for whatever reason or no reason at all. The question: why don't you say X?, is an effort to compel speech, using social pressure rather than gov't compulsion. "Because I don't feel like it" is a perfectly good answer. If you don't like it, well, get your own blog and say X yourself.
A great percentage of this Islamic "outrage" is phony as hell. They're looking to see how far they can push it, see how weak we are.
Just as when in Avignon young Arabs would drive around at 3am with tapes of angry shouting blasting, trying to wake people just to intimidate, or when the "youths" walking around in packs would call women in skirts whores. They would be drinking alcohol, getting stoned, listening to loud jihadi rap -- as my (French) wife would say, "They aren't even good Muslims, they're just gangsters."
After this comes trying to fuck with (and rape) women in bikinis on the beach, or wearing miniskirts, or who don't cover their hair.
The notion that these young Johnny Piss-offs have any holy thoughts lurking in their vicinity or floating in their minds is just ridiculous.
Anybody recall Piss Christ?
"Before the new edition was even released, one of Egypt's top Islamic authorities had warned Charlie Hebdo against publishing more cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Dar al-Ifta, which is in charge of issuing religious edicts, called the planned cover an "unjustified provocation" for millions of Muslims who respect and love their prophet and warned the cartoon would likely spark a new wave of hatred... Indeed, criticism and threats immediately appeared on militant websites, with calls for more strikes against the newspaper and anonymous threats..."
I think this deserves its own post:
From presidential spokesman Josh Earnest:
"The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said."
It's apparently the duty (not just the policy, but the duty) of the President of the United States to lobby against the free exercise of the First Amendment. Reporters apparently shouldn't publish information opposing self-declared American enemies.
That statement was a follow-on to this one:
"Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters."
Notice he doesn't say disliked by Muslims. He specifically says "jihadis". So what he's saying is that he has a duty to get the press to knuckle under to people sworn to kill us. How is that possible for an American president? Doesn't he understand his job?
He makes the lame excuse that it's to keep soldiers safe. While that's a laudable goal you don't keep anyone safe by capitulating to your sworn enemies. That's how you invite more pressure to cave in the future.
PARODY ALERT (old, new to me, US Gov upset over a parody t-shirt poking fun at NSA)
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/01/sauk-rapids-graphic-artist-challenges-national-security-agency/?hpt=ju_bn5
Prof. Althouse, hiding behind politeness does nothing to further the integration of moderate Muslims into Western society, or to help marginalize the fanatic wing that reacts with violence. The point of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day is to meet violent bullying with non-violent resistance, to stand with those on the front lines of free speech, and to demonstrate to all Muslims that part of living in this society is learning to tolerate things that you find offensive. It would be a variation on the soft bigotry of low expectations to say that Muslims are too sensitive to learn that lesson.
To put this in perspective, my wife is Muslim, and grew up in a Muslim country. She chooses not to take offense at my posting of the Hebdo cartoons because she values freedom of expression over religious dogma. Her family, and our Muslim friends, for the most part, also choose not to take offense, and indeed support the reproduction of the Hebdo cartoons. Some may have been offended, but most were not, and some even participated, if only with a "like". Insignificant though they may be in isolation, those likes demonstrate a healthy exercise of free expression and even self-mockery (that's what I call integration!) and the marginalization of fanatic members of their religion.
Also, what Seb said at 9:45 is exactly right. Hurting the feelings of Muslims should be a secondary concern to defending the most basic of human rights. While I respect both you and James Taranto, I think you are dead wrong on this issue. If right-wing fanatics were killing people for burning the flag, I would be the first to call for an Everybody-Burn-the-Flag day, offense to my patriotic sensibilities be damned.
Jon Burack: Is peppering your comment with things like "Vacuous blather," "defend us from such inanity," etc., a part of what you see as our "concrete, historically-specific, tradition"?
No, it's just me, personally, recognizing vacuous blather and inanities when I see them.
I can see right off the bat that, for some reason, you've had an immediate emotional, knee-jerk reaction to my pointing out that American culture and political traditions don't come from nowhere, a reaction unrelated to anything I've actually said.
Or are these colorful phrases just inane "abstractions" we are entitled to ignore?
You're entitled to ignore anything I write. In fact, I suggest you do so until you've calmed down enough to examine why you're winding up to call me a IgnorantBigotNativistHater for pointing out quite unexceptionable matters of fact.
Anyway, your notion that Muslims are unlikely to be assimilable given the "considerable cultural distance" they must travel is interesting.
Oh, fascinating, especially since I didn't write "unlikely", you did. Some Muslims in Western countries can and do assimilate just fine, and some won't and don't even want to. But there is a cultural distance to travel for the former. Why you deny this as if it's some sinister assertion about...something, I do not know.
It reminds me of the very same attitude my Russian Jewish forebears encountered about one hundred years ago, though it was stated a good deal more forcefully and pejoratively than you do.
Ah yes, here we go, saw it coming from a hundred miles off. Hey, they didn't like my ancestors either, toots. Why should they? Cry me a river.
To your point, there's nothing "perjorative" in noting that all cultures aren't equidistant from all other cultures. Hey, guess what, your Russian Jewish forebears were more culturally distant from the established American culture than my Western European Christian ones, just as mine were more culturally distant than the British Protestant getting off the boat.
Nor, unlike you, do I think the people who formed the original British stock of this country (not my ancestors, btw) were just a bunch of evil irrational bigots for suspecting that some of these aliens were culturally incompatible. The great waves of immigrants did affect their culture, and not necessarily always for the better.
Of course, they were from Russia, and so I suppose that is to be expected given that, like Muslims, they were also outside "the Western-European derived culture of the U.S.," as you put it.
Not as I put it, as history puts it.
(I mean I do hope you realize the Russian pale was NOT what the arbiters of American identity back then considered "The West."
No, from their perspective, it was on the farthest fringes of their own civilization, and hence getting quite exotic and alien.
And oh my goodness gracious, those dreadful "arbiters of American identity"! Why, how evil of them, to think they had a national identity, and that immigrants ought to conform to it.
Funny, if your ancestors and mine had a problem with it, they could have gone somewhere else, but they didn't, did they? Why is that? Because those horrible WASPY nativists had, as a matter of fact, put together a country that your ancestors and mine wanted to live in. Derived from their own, British traditions, which had in turn been derived from centuries of European political development. Which is not, as a matter of fact, compatible with every other cultural tradition.
Pure cowardice.
anglelyne
Excellent posts. Nicely written.
Terst
I say everybody knows its about a tiny kernel of fear for doing it, and that is perfectly acceptable.
Nobody wants to die for writing a daily blogger blog about dogs, politics, culture, and the law.
This is the best way to explain it, after all the words written that fail in their attempted justification.
If, on the other hand, Althouse didn't take quite so much pleasure in tweaking Christians on her blog on a regular basis with homosexual conduct and redefining marriage out of existence, then I'd think she were serious.
But anyone who has read her blog for a month or more will know she takes great pleasure in insulting those Christians who find homosexual behavior to be insulting and repugnant and have a strong desire not to see it codified in our laws.
The good news is, she won't be killed for her insults to Christians who disagree with her.
Therefore, don't insult Muslims, but feel free to insult Christians all you like.
Kristian,
"I couldn't care less if a bunch of ignorant morons in Iran/Iraq/Cuba/China/Viet Nam/San Francisco burn a US flag"
Me neither. I am, however, going to be immensely amused by wondering just where you go in Teheran/Baghdad/Havana/Ho Chi Minh City/San Fran to buy an American flag to burn????
Sharia is the whole package:
On the Ben Shapiro Show Thursday, Imam Anjem Choudary said the President Obama is “inventing” his own version of Islam to forward his foreign policy agenda and that the “radical” form Choudary espouses simply aligns with the principles of the Koran and Sharia Law.
Shapiro led into the segment by quoting from Choudary’s USA Today Jan. 8 opinion piece titled “People Know the Consequences,” which blamed the French government for allowing publications to “provoke Muslims” and argued that Muslims do not in fact believe in the freedom of expression:
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.
Shapiro then asked Choudary to discuss the Muslim view on the freedom of expression, specifically with regard to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Choudary explained that Muslim scripture made clear that those who insult the Prophet, like journalists at Charlie Hebdo, must be punished: “Those who would insult the Prophet, kill them.” Sharia Law he said, clearly requires any who would insult those Muslims deem “prophets,” including Moses and Jesus, be tried in court and punished. This a system, he added, that Muslims are willing to “fight for and even die for.”
When Shapiro asked him if he believed that Western governments should ban the blasphemy of Mohammed, Choudary said he wanted Sharia Law in its entirety to be imposed on Western governments because it was a “better” system. However, if that were not possible, laws should be put in place against “provoking Muslims.” As he stressed in his article, Choudary said that killings like those Wednesday are “the consequence of insulting the Prophet.” […]
Pointing to the incompatibility of the Western and Sharia systems, Shapiro asked Choudary why the West should allow people like him to live in their boundaries. Choudary said he was born in England so he had the right to live there, and that “people always change” and “change is good,” so he believed that it was time for the West to change.
- See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/#sthash.KPOK8ey4.dpuf
Michael @1/13/15, 4:14 PM - thanks.
If right-wing fanatics were killing people for burning the flag, I would be the first to call for an Everybody-Burn-the-Flag day, offense to my patriotic sensibilities be damned.
Good point. I agree.
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred.
I don't care about what other people hold sacred. And I think encouraging that attitude makes the world a better place.
Jon Burack: My point is that Russian Jews were once seen as utterly unassimilable...
Nonsense. If they were, they would never have been let in. What they were seen as, not unreasonably, was less assimilable, relative to some groups. (And more assimilable, relative to others.)
But "assimilate" implies that a newcomer has to change in the direction of the new culture. So at least we agree, I think, that newcomers have to change to some degree. If so, why are you defending Althouse's (entirely vacuous, in my view) assertion that Muslims don't have to change, because Islam is already "inside" American culture. (Because American culture is, like, everything, man. Pass the bong.)
We were not let in. We were born in Russia. Our families preceded the Bolshevik revolution. We did assimilate communism, but only so far as necessary for political, social, and economic integration. Assimilation does not imply divestment of heritage, including faith, religion, culture, and history. It does mean that we were not disruptive of the established atheist faith and communist religion. Its excesses varied but were often tolerable. The communists were mostly concerned with presumptive competitors and active disrupters.
"I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion)."
They're not protecting their interests by leaving the extremists alone, they're harming them. Because having people murder cartoonists in the name of your religion, with no pushback, marks your religion as utterly contemptible.
So I fundamentally disagree with you:
1: A relevant hypo would include the situation that nutbags have repeatedly murdered people for engaging in the free speech of interest, and that those the nutbags claim to speak for do not stand up and say "not in our name".
Got another example of that?
Until you do, you have no valid hypothetical.
2: Until the murders and attacks stop, Mohammed should be mocked and "defiled". Anyone who's more offended by the mocking than by the murders is not worthy of our concern.
Blogger Smilin' Jack said...
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred.
When what other people hold sacred is in violent opposition to my natural rights..............fuck em if they can't take a joke.
Rusty, if you get to pick one guy to speak for Islam, can they claim that the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for Christians and just run with it like you do?
Wow this is over analysis by the blogger to justify what can be summed up in one sentence: "I'm scared shitless, they already beheaded a woman in Oklahoma with no one except her family caring, C.S. Lewis and the men with no chests thing is stunningly accurate, the guy in the White House is an enabler of this shit, and did I mention I'm scared shitless?"
Mark: "Rusty, if you get to pick one guy to speak for Islam, can they claim that the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for Christians and just run with it like you do?"
The left does this every single day.
But only every single day.
Mark said...
Rusty, if you get to pick one guy to speak for Islam, can they claim that the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for Christians and just run with it like you do?
Well hell. If I get to pick outrageous imaginary shit I'd choose to be 30 years younger and have a nine inch dick.
As far as speaking for christians? You have to ask a liberal since all christians look alike to them.
President Obama and his brave FBI made sure that Molly Norris --the cartoonist at a Seattle weekly that called for "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" -- will NOT be rendering a cartoon "je suis Charlie" like Mr. crumb was able to do. As Mr. Taranto titled his column back then in 2010, when this administration traded her identity and freedom for her (forever secret, silent) life, "there is no more Molly".
"Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?"
This is all so sick and sad.
Kennedy explained on MSNBC that those French Muslims with whom she has spoken believe that the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists was all part of an elaborate scheme by Jews to “make Muslims look bad.”
But not just any Jews.
No, Kennedy cites “magical, shape-shifting Jews” as those whom French Muslims are pointing the finger at in this conspiracy. Nothing odd about that at all.
we're not dealing with rational people.
"Because American culture is, like, everything, man. Pass the bong." Anglelyne, you are the greatest.
As Richard Dolan pointed out (1/13, 1:57 p.m.), Prof. Althouse is free to not speak; however, she has invited us to discuss her decision not to post images of Muhammad, so I don't think it is presumptuous for her audience to push back on that choice.
Another observation: Prof. Althouse, you seem to want to leave the millions of peaceful Muslims out of this, because they did nothing wrong. True enough, but they are in this now, not because of a handful of offensive cartoons, but because of the heinous acts carried out in the name of their religion. If they are unwilling to confront their religion's lack of a sense of humor, they enable and empower the extremists.
You ask "how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the process of [Muslims'] learning how to deal with free expression?" The answer is certainly NOT to shelter them from offensive speech.
As I mentioned earlier, my sharing of the Hebdo cartoons prompted intelligent and productive conversation with my Muslim in-laws and friends, here and abroad. You, as a constitutional scholar with a much louder microphone, have the opportunity to make an even bigger impact. However, I believe that as long as you are unwilling to boldly stand with the Hebdo writers, you are squandering that opportunity.
The idea is to demonstrate to the 1 billion plus non-terrorist muslims that the reaction of terrorists to images of their prophet is not going to win against the freedom of the press and freedom of thought.
Who knows, maybe some woman in an Afghan village will be emboldened to kill her asshole Muslim husband the next time he rapes her, if she sees enough publicity about Islam not being the sole way to live.
The men who carried out these assassinations had a very specific goal: to ensure that no one on the entire planet ever satirized Mohammad again. They're compelled to do this because they believe in establishing the supremacy of Islamic law - and they intend to police the "new writ" through murder. There is no other way to combat this than to disobey the law frequently and publically - because if you obey it, even out of courtesy, then the law becomes a reality.
Post a Comment