Part of Charlie Hebdo's point was that respecting these taboos strengthens their censorial power. Worse, allowing extremists to set the limits of conversation validates and entrenches the extremists' premises: that free speech and religion are inherently at odds (they are not), and that there is some civilizational conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't).Here's the "Love Is Stronger Than Hate" cover, which is funny because it's selling love while still making a lot of people mad (and grossed out):
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2912100/charliehebdotoonlamourcover.0.0.png)
I'm grossed out, and I'm very pro-gay (as you know). Here's how Fisher interprets the cover (which ran after Charlie Hebdo had published some cartoons depicting Muhammad):
Yes, the slobbery kiss between two men is surely meant to get under the skin of any conservative Muslims who are also homophobic...Oh, good Lord, you don't have to be conservative Muslim and homophobic or even conservative or Muslim or homophobic for that cover to bother you. In fact, the cover would be worse — by comic standards — if it only disturbed the conservative Muslims who are also homophobic. The graphic depiction of slobber makes the intent to unsettle everybody quite clear.
For comparison purposes, here's the great New Yorker cover by Art Spiegelman to which I assume the Charlie Hebdo cover deliberately alludes:
That cover — which relates to discord between black people and Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights in 1993 — came in for criticism at the time, though Spiegelman had presented it as the dream that "beyond the tragic complexities of modern life... it might really be true that 'All you need is love.'" Now, imagine the image with wide open mouths in a clench and outpourings of saliva. That would radically change the message, from one that gives benevolent, modern people a thrill of warmth and sparkles of inspiration to one that challenges just about everyone — swamping some with disbelief or outrage and reducing others to a puddle of hilarity.
Comics are complex! I don't think Ezra Klein and Max Fisher see that (or maybe they just don't want to admit it). "Complex" is a word that Ezra Klein uses in his last paragraph, which is a call to simplicity:
These murders can't be explained by a close read of an editorial product, and they needn't be condemned on free speech grounds. They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators, who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do, and the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong.So... murder is evil and murderers are crazy. Why should we not look any more closely at what happened? What is the basis for saying that only madness can explain the murders? I don't even understand the sense of saying that if only madness explains something, our response "doesn't need to be any more complex" than saying what was done was wrong. If it's only madness, where's the compassion for the mentally ill? Where are the plans for identifying and treating mental illness?
Ironically, Klein's recommendation that we only say murder is wrong reveals that he doesn't think it's only madness. It's something he feels compelled to repress.
What dishonor to the dead of Charlie Hebdo, a journal devoted to the opposite of repression!
पोस्ट्स
१४१ टिप्पण्या:
Ezra is smart enough to know what the real problem is, but he is also a card-carrying liberal which makes it impossible for him to state it. Because crimethink.
"It's something he feels compelled to repress."
There has been a similar message in numerous outlets of the left leaning press. I think its related to the recent murders of two cops in NYC and backlash against the Black Lives Matter movement, Sharpton and DeBlasio.
Althouse said ...
I'm grossed out, and I'm very pro-gay
Why?
It's absolutely useful to try and understand depraved killers and mass murderers, though by "understand" I don't mean "go easy on" but literally "understand" them so we can figure them out. It's much harder to defeat something you don't understand. And if things like this can be prevented, all the better.
A lot of explanations have been offered up as to why these fanatics become this way. Poverty is one--except often the killers are from relatively well-to-do families (many of the 9/11 killers were). Ignorance is another--but again, we often see the killers were well-read and exposed to many cultures. Mental imbalance is another--but studies have shown that even suicide bombers tended to not display other signs of mental illness. And while a number of people insist it's the religion itself, that alone doesn't wash--many Western religions feature horrifying rules that no one takes seriously (otherwise American Jews would constantly be charged with stoning adulterers, etc.--and besides, American Muslims, whose numbers equal American Jews, haven't proven any more violent than the general population--some exceptions notwithstanding like that Army Doctor in TX). There is something, perhaps embedded in mid-eastern culture, that is driving these particular killers, and it would be useful to know what it is.
ARM, the slobber.
Maybe a better handle for you would be "An Obtuse Man."
The slobber makes them not look like lovers, but madmen or zombies. It does not look like a lovers' kiss.
I understand what he is saying about murder in general, but this isn't just murder. These guys and the Danish cartoonists have been specifically threatened, in an organized fashion, by organized people *because* of the cartoons. Cartoon Network was threatened not to run the Mohammed cartoon (and I sure hope Matt and Trey have great security).
So while most people who kill are depraved or angry from passion, some people are organized and trying to make a statement. That's what these guys are doing.
It would be almost like saying, the KKK lynched people out of depravity. They had no specific motivation. I'd like to see Ezra write that column.
Far from being "mad" the killers were quite sane and direct. The Islamists do not want images of Muhammed shown or Islam presented in a negative light. This murderous message was directed at journalists world wide and based on the majority response of big media was received loud and clear. CNN, NYDailynews and many other outlets went so far as to blur out the cartoon image of Muhammed when showing photos of the dead journalists. A shameful refusal to support the freedom of speech for which their fellow journalist gave their lives.
@MayBee
Or that the IRA killed people just cause they liked to.
If Klein has read Sun Tzu it's pretty clear he didn't understand him.
Islam, at the base of it, is about privilege. Male privilege, Arab privilege. It is not that hard to convince people that their ethnic group should be the one with maximum privilege in any society, especially young men.
Anyone who believes that satire and comic relief will melt the hearts of ISIS/AL QAEDA prime into puddles of "Aw shucks, we will give you a pas" is delusional. KNOW YOUR ENEMY and prepare for deadly repercussions when exercising your rights. The long view is that liberties worth exercising require that they be defended to the death, preferably the death of those who would take our liberties away. I thought (hoped) that after the ban lieu riots in Paris not too long ago taught the French, Swedes, and Germans something. A hard lesson that should not fall on deaf ears. Hebdo is now a martyr to the cause of freedom. Things will get worse.
"I'm very pro-gay"
Pro gay rights? I get it.
Pro gay marraige" Sure.
Pro gay? WTF? You are for homosexualty?
Satire is weak sauce in my book, the kind of over the top, absurd "satire" that the French seem so fond of. However, it is no coincidence that we had the whole kerfuffle over The Interview and this atrocity motivated by protecting symbols, in one case a Communist, and in the other, a sacred figure in Islam.
I thought of this.http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kiss+painted+on+berlin+wall&qpvt=kiss+painted+on+Berlin+wall&FORM=IGRE
I first started reading Klein in 2007 and didn't get what the fuss was. Seemed like standard undergrad blogging. When the Journolist became a minor news story a couple years later, I was absolutely stunned to see that real journalists that I respected apparently considered Klein a peer.I truly cannot believe that he has a platform that even makes him worthy of discussion from Althouse. Clearly I am missing something.
"Pro gay? WTF? You are for homosexualty?"
I am for homosexuality for homosexuals.
Also, I like gay people and celebrate the visibility and the contributions of gay people. It's worth being "pro" gay people — and not just pro everybody — because in the not-distant past (and also, in some places, in the present), gay people have been pressured to hide what they are. Affirmative welcome and support is therefore justified and good.
"Don't make us come up there and kill you."
That is the voice of authority speaking to the slaves they rule. But then along comes a savior and says let my people go. that starts a war every time.
Free speech is the test. Do you submit to authority or not? that is the same question of whether you fear the authority or not.
Most religion is a tool of authority. Done Fear the religious or not. that is the question.
That was "do we fear the religious or not", but auto correct was afraid to say that.
Still no intelligent response to my question.
Comics are complex! I don't think Ezra Klein and Max Fisher see that (or maybe they just don't want to admit it). "Complex" is a word that Ezra Klein uses in his last paragraph, which is a call to simplicity...
...It's something he feels compelled to repress.
Klein and people like him use up a good deal of the limited intelligence they possess to not think clearly and "simply". It's exhausting, constantly having to avert one's eyes from the obvious, and keeping one's train of thought from breaking out of the prescribed narrow limits.
That's why these people just keep sounding crazier and crazier.
If one or a group are depraved killers or mass murders we understand them perfectly well and we need to kill them.
The problem is not knowing who is a depraved killer and/or mass murderer before the gore, despite trillions and trillions spent by Top Men who, frankly, ought to know by now. *^%+£€€£+ Hassan in Fort Hood is an example, and sure sure hindsight is 20/20 but anyone defending that "workplace violence" as unpredictable
doesn't have the decency or common sense to survive long it seems to me.
I doubt there is much knowledge out there that would help prevent future assassinations compared to the political will to discard illusions and eliminate potential threats, which carries as much or more risk in many cases than the threats themselves, at least to civilians wanting peace, but not in cases like above or even 9/11 and the Boston Marathon terrorists, which the TOP MEN in Boston should have stopped long before the resulting murders and mailings.
But look at Reagan and the escalation of the War on Drugs. On the one hand you have people getting shot with military grade weapons on the streets of Miami, later L.A., with cops shooting pea shooters like Barney Fife.
Now we have no-knock raids and babies shot and dogs killed and no apologies in the form of change-of-incentives (including jail time for anyone doing things that would get civilians thrown in jail, a radical concept), which is about the only change that matters more than temporary.
If these murders were just committed by some madmen the NYT would not have pixelated the Mohammed cartoons. The NYT wants to pose as a brave champion of freedom but in reality it doesn't challenge any power that sets out to destroy freedom from North Korea to Cuba to these Islamic terrorists to Obama. It just comes in like a hyena and chews on the bones left by the atrocities of others by saying that the victims asked for it or shouldn't have spoken up or had guilty grandparents or were (gasp) young men in college, i.e., as-yet-unconvicted rapists.
"American Muslims, whose numbers equal American Jews, haven't proven any more violent than the general population--some exceptions notwithstanding like that Army Doctor in TX)."
And about 20 other examples of "lone wolf" and "Sudden jihad" cases.
There is a large majority of Muslims who passively approve of this but don't have the guts or the fanaticism to do it. Its the religion.
MayBee: It would be almost like saying, the KKK lynched people out of depravity. They had no specific motivation. I'd like to see Ezra write that column.
Hahaha. Good one.
I am not grossed out by the cartoon, but then I am not 'very pro gay'. Maybe being 'very pro gay' conceals deeper, unresolved feelings.
John Christopher said...
I first started reading Klein in 2007 and didn't get what the fuss was.
That's my reaction to Klein as well. A run-of-the-mill cookie cutter liberal with zero insights. And yet...
It's not enough to say that he has all the right opinions. Most liberals do, that's what makes him so boring, his writing so unenlightening. And yet...
"Ann Althouse said...
I am for homosexuality for homosexuals."
This is even dumber than your first line. And doesn't really explain it. Which I makes this tap dance predictable.
Also, I like gay people and celebrate the visibility and the contributions of gay people. It's worth being "pro" gay people — and not just pro everybody — because in the not-distant past (and also, in some places, in the present), gay people have been pressured to hide what they are. Affirmative welcome and support is therefore justified and good.
"Gay" is not "gay people." Gay is no what they contribute. Unless homosexual acts have some redeeming societal value.
This is the Obama doctrine and Klein is just following that.. Don't call it a 'problem' lest we the incompetents may be forced to look for a 'solution.'
So it is not an assault on free speech and if it is acknowledged as such, we may have to do something about it. It is not a terror attack, and we acknowledged it as such, we may be required to do something. It is not Muslim religion, and if we say it is, we may have to do something about that.
Read this op-ed by a Pakistani Muslim These fucking lefties are enabling all of those perpetrators.
Brando (1/8/15, 7:06 AM), was this:
"There is something, perhaps embedded in mid-eastern culture, that is driving these particular killers, and it would be useful to know what it is."
intentionally ironic? Because the answer, of course, is Islam.
Still no intelligent response to my question. - ARM
Look up obtuse, ponder it a while, then come back to us.
According to Chris Cuomo on CNN it appears these guys are just madmen. To paraphrase him: It is hard to ask other Muslims about this behavior because it may somehow reflect on their religion. Hey Chris, you fool, these MUSLIMS yelled the "the prophet has been avenged" and "Allah hu Akbar"! What the hell religion you think they represent? Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Unitarians?
Calling it madness is a way of saying "don't bother trying to do anything about it." It's a washing of hands. No "civilizational conflict" here.
Well, actually, there is. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that Islam isn't a monolithic thing that is out to destroy the West. That doesn't mean I believe the fairy tale that radical Islam is just a handful of madmen who no one can control anyway.
Anyone who can read a book or watch a television knows there's something in humans that thrives on destruction and barbarity. It doesn't need to be nurtured by something like radical religion; it's just there, and those most susceptible to its allure will find a way to express it. Civilizations that do no collapse in bloodshed and ruin find ways to marginalize those who submit to it.
"Good" Islam needs to do more than just "condemn" the radicals in its midst. The enablers need to be treated with the same civilizational contempt as the actual perpetrators. Or there really will be a conflict between the Ummah and the rest of the world, and the whole world will then burn.
Likewise "Good" liberals need to give up on Rousseau's "noble savage" myth. The temptation to invert the idea "the savage is noble" is just another way to enable the drive to destruction. You either believe the Enlightenment was a good thing, or you're just another barbarian at the gate. Choose.
"the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong."
For the killers it was decidedly not "unprovoked": it is for the West to decide if those who take such things as provocations worthy of murder are to be whitewashed and the honor of dead men to be taken away with words of false wisdom.
I am Laslo.
Oh good lord! If you grew up reading Mad magazine, the slobber belongs there. I'm not grossed out by the cover and I'm nowhere near as pro gay as our host. If a Mad magazine (or Charlie Hebdo) cover weren't in bad taste, it wouldn't be a Mad magazine cover. Most of their editors never progressed beyond the fifth grade level of bathroom humor. So be it.
The latest from Europe says that the two brothers who did most of the shooting trained in Yemen for a number of years. I'm waiting for Obama to describe these trained soldiers as "lone wolves" who don't represent Islam. They sure as heck do represent the terrorist branch of Islam.
Is it just my biased perception, based on selective reading, or do the usual suspects seem a good deal more alacritous in defending the sacred right to free speech this time 'round, when the victims are the right (that is, left) sort of journalists?
Not that there weren't enough coming right out of the gate with the "Islamophobia" boilerplate.
They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators...
If this were true, that could be the whole column. There is nothing else to say. Simple answer. They are mad.
Except, of course, it's not true, so many, many words are need to obscure the truth (even though all but the truly obtuse know the truth).
American Muslims, whose numbers equal American Jews, haven't proven any more violent than the general population--some exceptions notwithstanding like that Army Doctor in TX). There is something, perhaps embedded in mid-eastern culture, that is driving these particular killers, and it would be useful to know what it is.
wrong, just wrong.
If it were mid east culture, rather than Islam, wouldn't we get Israeli (e.g. Jewish) suicide bombers?
The difference between Torah reading Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Radical Imams is the difference between night and day. Jews believe in the faith, but they believe tat it's core, the faith is about interpretation and spend their lives seeking the meaning as it applies in the modern world.
Radical Imams, and the bulk of a Billion adherents, not some small minority believe that the Koran is the direct, last and perfect word of Allah. No deviations are allowed. Doubters or modernists deserve death. It says so in the book. case closed.
Islam forecloses change...
"Complex" is incompatible with "Voxsplaining". It's why competent fact-checkers have so much fun fisking their articles.
MayBee:
It would be almost like saying, the KKK lynched people out of depravity. They had no specific motivation. I'd like to see Ezra write that column.
Yep.
Klein was an early adopter on the internet and seems to have been given the bright, rising star tag at that time. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to something he's written that doesn't scream middle of the class UCLA poly sci major.
John Podhoretz dubbed this article the dumbest thing written yesterday, but I think that's over the top.
For those insisting that "Islam" is itself violent and therefore the reason for the violence in Islamic-dominated societies and among Islamists living in some Western countries--ok, then what is it about Islam that is causing the violence? If you say "the tenets of the faith itself" then explain why the violence condoned and encouraged in the Old Testament hasn't resulted in widespread Jewish violence. If you say "radical Islamist leaders connecting their religion to the violence they want their adherents to accomplish" then where does that come from--why are those particular adherents acting out the violence in their religion's tenets while you rarely see that these days among Christians and Jews (at least from a religious perspective)?
This is what I mean by culture--there are those in the Islamic community who condone or practice violence to a greater degree than you see among the other Western religions, and there's no obvious answer as to why it's occurring there. The idea that the religion itself is rotten to the core--distinct from other religions' treatment of violence--doesn't hold up.
As for the idea that American Muslims are particularly violent, considering their numbers they really aren't--if there was a rash of American Muslim violence it would show in the numbers. American Muslims also happen to have far lower incidents of religious violence than in other Western and non-Western countries, which suggests other factors.
If the only expression of "madness" is committing murder, the simplest explanation is that the guy is a murderer, not a madman.
Off topic, I know but why didn't this place have a bad-ass "contractor" at the door with the passcode to enter the building? They had been threatened, fire-bombed and warned by Obama. Unarmed bicycle cops on the streets is bad, but no security in the building? I need some Voxsplaining on dat shit!
Neither Communism nor Fascism, nor Islam will brook mockery of their leaders. But they are all as different as night and day.
Think Menendez brothers.
Ezra went down the lefty check-list and came up empty handed with political fodder he could use against his ideological opponents in the west, so never mind.
"Radical Imams, and the bulk of a Billion adherents, not some small minority believe that the Koran is the direct, last and perfect word of Allah. No deviations are allowed. Doubters or modernists deserve death. It says so in the book. case closed."
The Old Testament encourages genocide--yet Jews don't practice that. Why are more Muslims willing to adhere to the uglier tenets of their religions while most Christians and Jews have been willing to ignore the uglier tenets of their own?
And Israeli culture is vastly different from the culture of her neighbors. Likewise, Turkish culture is vastly different from Saudi culture, and while they practice the same religion (though different sects within it) you don't see as much radicalization in Turkey as you do in Saudi Arabia.
Blaming the religion itself--as if the adherents have no responsibility as to how to practice it--is an easy way to write it off.
"They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators, who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do."
Dhimmi rhetoric.
Muslim terrorists are mad alright -- mad at anything that disparages Islam.
Vindicating the Prophet by punishing infidels is not "horrible" or "evil" -- it is required.
"Almost no human beings" commit terrorist acts -- except quite a few Muslim human beings, from Nigeria to Iraq to Pakistan to Paris.
Liberals like Klein are Islam's useful idiots.
"They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators, who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do, and the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong."
Thus, Klein explains Auschwitz.
I am Laslo.
who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do,
Assuming he his sincere and not providing political cover how sheltered/privleged a life do you need to have lived to make this starement?
It's not murder so much as it's "politics by other means."
Klein and Fisher are talking out their ass. In Islam, virtually all art, including music, literature, and portraits, are haram. Forbidden.
jacksonjay said...
Off topic, I know but why didn't this place have a bad-ass "contractor" at the door with the passcode to enter the building?
As I understand it, they killed one cop near the door and ran the other one off (killed later), then they put a gun to the head of a woman and a child who were about to enter the building and had her punch the code...
As for private security, I think the French don't allow it. The 2 cops were the official answer
Even Ezra doesn't believe it. He tweeted this:
Ezra Klein @ezraklein · 13h 13 hours ago
“we’re all not Charlie—few of us are that good, and none of us are that brave” http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you …
If these were just random murders, there was no bravery.
Brando,
Are you looking for an answer, or are you just looking for debate?
You quote what is at least a partial answer to your question as your first paragraph, and then you ask the question again in the second. If you don't find the quote persuasive address the quote. Don't just keep asking the question.
Jacksonjay,
here is the story I read:
Masked terrorists entered the office building in Paris where they murdered 12 people Wednesday by threatening a young mother and her daughter, she said.
Corinne Rey, a cartoonist for the weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, says she was forced to enter the security code after returning from picking up her child at daycare, according to a local report.
“I just went to get my daughter from daycare. As I got to the front door of the building, two masked, armed gunmen brutally threatened us,” she told L'Humanité. “They wanted to enter, go up. I typed the code.”
Ezra Klein is a sniveling little Journolist pussy! Why is he the go-to post on these savages? Hell, I'd rather know what Smarter Lil Lena thinks!
The 2 cops were the official answer
And I read that the cops were unarmed!
Why are more Muslims willing to adhere to the uglier tenets of their religions while most Christians and Jews have been willing to ignore the uglier tenets of their own?
Jews were dispossessed multiple times from their homeland and birthplaces of their faith. Muslims have always been in possession of Mecca and Medina. "Jerusalem" is never mentioned in the Koran. Diasporas tend to temper expectations.
Christians had a Reformation to shatter Rome's monopoly (and claims thereto) and have a New Testament Christ to temper the Old Testament's Yahweh. Muslims have had neither, so they're still at war with one another over the Prophet's (Peace be upon Him) true successor.
Brando,
Religion is not the only factor in radical jihadists but it is an integral part of it. Making it into the entire explanation is false, as you point out. However the prevailing falsehood being sold to the West is in denying the very large role the teachings of Islam have in creating and sustaining terrorism.
Tim,
Islam for males is also about honor, duty, and obligation to God, kin, other Muslims, and everyone else. You are responsible for your house, but it isn't up to you if you're going to to whore, rob, drink, steal, have lustful thoughts etc. There are harsh and strict penalties.
These are forbidden by God and and a submission of will in faith to God creates the only kind of life and society for man to have. So, the sexes are segregated pretty much from birth in public and civic life and ritual prayer, communal life etc. are pretty narrowly defined.
Mosque and State? No, not really.
New knowledge (much of it coming from the West the last few centuries) must be made to fit into the Quran, and the words of the Quran are as exactly as written, from God to the prophet to you. They exist in a kind of semi-transcendent state, and that's pretty much that. Same with depictions of the Prophet. Not only forbidden but sacrilegious. Like heresy, it's very, very serious business, perhaps deadly.
Most Muslims are probably offended, a few are willing to kill.
As for Islamist franchises like Al Qaeda, cells in Europe, crazy imams funneling fighters into Syria etc. they are often roided out, crazy grafts of sometimes Western fascism and Islamic teaching.
France wanted cheap labor, some new blood, but more ethnically homogenous, bureaucratically run, smaller, slower growth ecomies in Europe haven't handled their arrivals terribly well.
***Notice the people willing to challenge the above are often the reformed socialists, anti-religious, materialist ex-socialists like Hitchens ( who joined the New Atheists), 'true' French, more radical semi anarchic (screw the church AND state, let's make love, drink wine and mock everything) types.
Charlie Hebdo were French Left and left-libertarian, as I understand it.
***A lot of American liberals look to the time of the French Revolution, the Jacobins, those heady days and righteous radical times. More exciting than the Roosevelts and such, and not quite so heady as the Russian revolutuion
The American Constitution is so passé.
Imagine a cartoon of a three-way between Jesus, Mohammed and Moses. Jesus is rimming Muhammad, who is engaged in water sports with Moses.
There is no slobber, maybe a little anal leakage, but no slobber. Is that gross?
This was discussed on Greta last night -- they were having an editorial mtg of sorts for the new year with everybody there, including all the cartoonists who don't necessarily work there. So Klein's 'just mad men' in fact seemed to have planned it to perfection.
Yeah, I heard the story about the woman and her child. The woman and her baby apparently stood between the barbarians and their victims? That's it? What are the odds that the French rethink the private security thing?
"Are you looking for an answer, or are you just looking for debate?"
I'm actually looking for an answer, because I don't find the theory that the religion itself causes the violence persuasive. My own theory is that religion only provides killers with a justification for violence, rather than a cause for it--Christians in the middle ages murdered one another as well as non-Christians, over religion--but I think it was more about controlling people and territory and trade routes (Thirty Years War, Crusades) and religion was just the cover to make their aims seem more noble. I think it's similar to what's happening today in the Islamic world.
I don't expect to convince anyone who truly believes Islam is an exceptionally evil religion, though. Like most comment boards, this wont' resolve anything--I was just curious if anyone had a theory beyond "the religion tells them to kill" and can explain why it seems to work more on Muslims than Jews or Christians.
This is of a piece with "workplace violence" as a description of the Ft Hood attack.
The idea, apparently, is to not "give the terrorists what they want" by refusing to politicize their acts, see Juan Cole here for a more detailed explanation. The concern is that polarization will drive more Muslims to the Islamists' side. This begs the question of why all of those millions of peaceful, moderate Muslims would be susceptible to such a calling, but whatever.
Even if that premise is correct the problem is that the Islamists are playing a game of "heads we win, tails you lose." If we treat these acts as deliberate acts of terrorism, yes, to some extent they win by getting recruitment propaganda. But if we chose tails (treating this as random crime) we lose because we are accepting that these barbarous radical fundamentalists can put limits on freedom of expression in the entire (formerly free) world.
It's a French kiss.
I'd like to hear from R Crumb on this for a number of reasons:
1) He's a cartoonist
2) He lives in France
3) He drew "gross" cartoons
4) He had a brother named Charlie (Charles) who inspired him.
But perhaps it's asking too much.
Apparently, the crime for Althouse wasn't making the art good enough. Don't make art subservient to ideas and ideology!
If you want to give Charlie Hebdo that New Yorker/Spiegelman gloss, Althouse, they might have an opening!
"However the prevailing falsehood being sold to the West is in denying the very large role the teachings of Islam have in creating and sustaining terrorism."
Those teachings have certainly been used in that way, I agree. But there must be a reason why this has had this effect in the Islamic community but not really in say the Jewish community.
Consider how the Old Testament is rife with stories of God encouraging the slaughter of non-Jews--and considering the Jews were historically an oppressed minority in many places, often poorer than their neighbors, and so by the theories of those who think oppression and poverty are the motivating factors behind terrorism, as well as those who think a religion that condones killing is the cause, you'd think the Jews would have a long history of terrorism against their neighbors and with notable exceptions this isn't the case.
I don't find the theory that the religion itself causes the violence persuasive.
It's not the religion itself. It can never be the religion itself. It's the way it's practiced, the way it is taught, the emphasis those preaching use, the culture it creates.
The old testament and its violence isn't the focus of modern day Judaism or Christianity. Occasionally you'll find a church that puts a lot of focus on punishment. But if the Pope decided to start focusing more on violence, over time that's what we'd see Christians start to focus on more.
The nations that have Islam as their national religion are run very differently- much less liberally- than the nations that have Christianity/Catholicism or Judaism as their national religions.
tim in vermont said...
Satire is weak sauce in my book, the kind of over the top, absurd "satire" that the French seem so fond of. However, it is no coincidence that we had the whole kerfuffle over The Interview and this atrocity motivated by protecting symbols, in one case a Communist, and in the other, a sacred figure in Islam.
I can fully understand their affection for over the top satire. It's their obsession with Jerry Lewis I don't understand.
I think you miss the point ARM. It isn't about what we find acceptable. It's about no matter if we find it acceptable we will still tolerate it.
Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. It doesn't make the act free from criticism. It does mean, though, I won't storm your offices and murder your staff.
Brando, There is such a thing as "path dependence" Jews and Muslims have long traditions of discussion of their sacred texts. They went in different directions. History is chaotic no matter what Marx thinks. It runs in often random directions.
Brando,
Find a mosque, visit, get to know people. Make your own judgments accordingly. Read a book.
You're taking a contrarian position without even knowing the position you're taking
MayBee said...
The nations that have Islam as their national religion are run very differently- much less liberally- than the nations that have Christianity/Catholicism or Judaism as their national religions.
'No one expects the Spanish inquisition.'
Brando, there are answers to the questions you are asking if you care to study the theology. I can't speak to the evolution of Jewish thought, but for a comparison of Christianity and Islam start with Pope Benedict's Regensberg lecture and seek out writings that explain some concepts like Logos (the Christian belief that God is completely rational and cannot contradict His own nature, which is love) and transcendence (Islam teaches that God completely transcends our world and can contradict himself if he wants to.) These core beliefs make a difference as to whether or not a religion promotes forced conversion.
Pope Benedict was trying to explain that Christianity came to these beliefs because it crossed paths with Greek concepts of Logos, and Islam has not had a similar development. He was asking the provocative question, "Why not?" We all know how that questioning turned out.
But Brando, if you are really looking for the answer, I suggest you find one of the many websites that recruit young Muslims into extremism to see what they use to convince them.
Or reach out to Anjem Choudary @AnjemChoudary who believes blasphemy of Allah should be illegal.
They should be able to explain their thinking to you.
AReaonableMan,
You sound like some of the folks at Charlie Hebdo, but without the balls.
"this effect in the Islamic community but not really in say the Jewish community"
How big a role do concepts like 'blasphemy' and 'heresy' play in modern Judaism or Christianity?
"It's not the religion itself. It can never be the religion itself. It's the way it's practiced, the way it is taught, the emphasis those preaching use, the culture it creates."
That's my point about culture, and what I think is the main cause of what is going on here.
That's my point about culture, and what I think is the main cause of what is going on here.
What is the main cause?
Here is an idea to put an end to this scourge.
All cartoonists, all newspapers, all publishers everywhere all around the world publish cartoons that are funny and provocative about all religions all at the same time. Do you think these mfers will go after all of them? Strength in numbers and let us put an end to this nonsense.
@Althouse, I think you're overthinking the whole thing.
When Christians behave badly, there is a natural corrective: the teaching and example of Christ who told his followers to love enemies, not kill them. When Buddhists behave badly, there is a similar corrective. The Buddha taught compassion and nonviolence.
When Muslims behave badly, there is not a similar corrective. Muhammad was a warrior who used violence and the threat of violence to achieve his goals. He was also a mystic and a gifted poet. But when another poet mocked him in verse, Muhammad had the man killed by his agents. He would not allow himself to be ridiculed.
When Muslim extremists today kill to avenge the honor of the Prophet Muhammad, they can justify their actions in the life and example of Muhammad himself. This is the basic problem.
Consider how the Old Testament is rife with stories of God encouraging the slaughter of non-Jews
The Jews entered the promised land as invaders, and God instructed them to kill the inhabitants as they conquered the land.
Once the land was conquered and Jewish judges and kings ruled, God commanded the Jews to treat strangers with kindness and hospitality. The Mosaic Law contains many rules regarding behavior towards others, and none require killing unbelievers.
The Koran, on the other hand, contains many commands to slay the foreigner who refuses to convert. For example:
Sura 9:5: Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free.
or
Sura 9:29: Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
In other words, the Bible does not teach slaying of non-believers for all time, but Islam does. Cultures may ameliorate the effects of those Koranic commands, certainly, but the commands to wage mortal violence upon those who do not believe are in the text which is the basis of Islam.
"So Klein's 'just mad men' in fact seemed to have planned it to perfection."
It makes me wonder if they had inside information from the magazine. It seems hard to believe that they got that lucky as to the time they chose to attack.
"I was just curious if anyone had a theory beyond "the religion tells them to kill" and can explain why it seems to work more on Muslims than Jews or Christians."
About the only real skill that Arabs have is killing. The religion of Islam gives them permission. The Turks were not much better and took Christian boys as slaves to serve as soldiers. The "Golden Age" of Islam was mostly Christian "converts" doing the work. There is a great deal of bullshit about how the Arabs were such great scientists.
Most of what they produced was stolen, paper from the Chinese, "arabic numbers " from India, Medicine from the Jews.
They are very good at killing, infidels and each other. Have you seen the movie" Lawrence of Arabia ?" The scene in Damascus was true. They captured the city but had no idea how to run the services.
How many inventions have come from Arabs this century ? The Iranians are different and, if the people ever throw off the mullahs, they will probably drop Islam. The Arabs who come here don't.
CStanley: The concern is that polarization will drive more Muslims to the Islamists' side. This begs the question of why all of those millions of peaceful, moderate Muslims would be susceptible to such a calling, but whatever.
What's interesting is how this sort of logic is reversed when The Concerned are concerning themselves with the reactions of, say, native Europeans. The default assumption, fearlessly explicit, is that Europeans are "susceptible" by nature and history to racism, xenophobia, extremism, violence, etc. These things may be brought out, never caused by unemployment, rising crime, etc., and their surfacing is absolutely, never ever ever ever, no way no how, the predictable result of ruling-class stupidity and imprudent policies - e.g., uncontrolled immigration of the culturally incompatible and the concomitant imposition of the inhuman dogma of "multiculturalism". No, these are always merely "scapegoats" upon which the irrational Europeans project their own evil natures, never the true proximate or ultimate cause of action. (Action, not reaction. Muslims "react", everybody else just acts. Badly.)
But to the same people Muslims in general are naturally good people who are driven to illiberal views or bad behavior by the bigotry and xenophobia of Europeans. The inherent goodness of Muslims requires that in their case we always look to see what is being done to them to cause them to behave badly, whereas with the other guys, the PTB must always be on the alert to control and, if necessary, stamp down their natural badness.
Brando,
It is hard to take your arguments seriously when you seem to have such poor comprehension of the Jewish Scriptures. While God did command genocide, it was in very specific circumstances against very specific groups. It was not a general command against "all non-Isrealites". It is quite easy to understand why modern Jews and even ancient Jews, for that matter, did not conquer vast territories and kill all non-Jews.
God did not even command the Isrealites to kill all groups in the promised land, just certain groups, often surmised to be very barbaric groups that regularly practiced child sacrifice. In other words, there was evil and there was Evil, and God seemed to distinguish between the two and did not want His people to adopt the detestable practice of some groups in the land He promised them.
Thus, if you cannot understand the specifics of the examples in the Old Testament, you are hardly in a position to compare and contrast the two religions' interpretation of the commands of their gods on a more universal scale.
"... and that there is some civilizational conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't)."
Are Fischer and Klein both nuts? No, of course, there is no conflict between Islam and the West, not any more than between light and dark or between good and evil. They are both evidently completely blind to the world around them.
How did the police ID the terrorists? Can't seem to find answer on the news.
Anglelyne and Wa St Blogger: excellent posts.
Its not difficult to understand at all. This is just gang or tribal conflict as usual. Any Crip or Blood would understand this better than any effete US media fool.
Hebdo was in the business of dissing enemies of the French in-group, being as it appealed to the mildly lefty, educated owners of France. Very much like the elite US media, such as the New Yorker, though less restrained. It provided comfort and glee to its tribal audience by putting down the out-groups.
The Muslims are an opposing tribe, many of whom are not inclined to let such disses pass. Like similar arguments between Bloods and Crops, or among competing rappers, disses (dominance behavior) can lead to gunshots.
Very human, very ancient, conflicts of symbols are just plain old conflicts on another level.
Look around, much US political controversy is just similar displays of symbols used as dominance behavior. Keystone pipeline and gay marriage are two.
I don't see the kiss as any more offensive than the shenanigans at a San Francisco Gay Pride parade.
The Jews entered the promised land as invaders, and God instructed them to kill the inhabitants as they conquered the land.
Without getting into a lot of Biblical history and Judaism, it is clear that the "inhabitants" were as vile as you can get with child sacrifice, rampant carnage and idolatry.
If it were "promised", the Jews were not "invaders."
God also instructed Jews to kill Jews for their idolotry and sin. It goes both ways.
Busway a putti,
Of course humans are tribal, and the examples you cite are representative of such.
However all of them, save those from one tribe, are examples of the tribalism channelled into civilized nonviolent disputes. One of these things is not like the others.
I'm actually looking for an answer, because I don't find the theory that the religion itself causes the violence persuasive.
Allahu Akbar!
I do.
"Busway a putti"?
I'll never understand why autocorrect changes a word or phrase that it does not recognize into some other unrecognizable words.
One of the killers said that he was motivated to join AQ by the abuse Muslims suffered at Abu Ghraib. Shouldn't news organizations have pixelated those pictures so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities?
Many fear giving Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria back to Israel willbe a precedent
for giving America back to the American Indians, who are Magog, Magogoli, Mongols. The Canaanites were Hun Ugaritic offshoots of the Magog Turanian Khitai Hittites as Major Conder showed in 1890. The Hittites were the offspring of Heth, the second son of Canaan. Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad were puppets of their Turk praetorians, as warrior slave condoterri took over, leading to Mamluk, Seljuq, Safavid, Khalaj, Mughal and Osmanli domination of Islam as a Magog instrument. Marco Polo did not meet with a Chinese ruler but with the Magog Kublai Khan. Churchill considered Hitler to be a Hun. Sun Yat Sen sought to cancel the influence of the Manchurian Magog, but Mao embraced them. General Custer was killed by the Magog. The Magog Rising Sun bombed Pearl Harbor. Therefore American and Israeli Manifest Destiny must overcome the Magog.
They are a particularly violence prone tribe, and one particularly concerned with symbolic behavior. If you invite incompatible tribes into your lands conflicts will happen. Maybe, also, your tribe will lose.
Tribal conflict also intensifies if the challenger feels the dominant group is weak.
Men kissing in public in gay pride parades is also symbolic dominance behavior BTW. As are gay pride parades.
An Irish Catholic childhood is not a predictor of a hideous sex life, but it's a definite risk factor. Thus so with Muslims and muss murder.
Cavalli-Sforza may disagree with your genetic analysis.
"What is the main cause?"
Culture--where you exist in a culture where you believe you're a constant victim, and that "oppressors" are evil, and killing them is justified because of this, then you're going to be steered towards killing and condoning others who do. Likewise, I don't believe that the black population in America has disproportionate rates of violence because of their race, but because of cultural factors.
My father served with the 8th Air Corps in WWII. He was instrumental in the bombing of Dresden. I'm very proud of my father's military service. So far as I know, my father never slobber kissed another man. Had he done so I would have felt ashamed.....One's visceral response to life as it happens is not necessarily consistent with ethical behavior.
Brando,
You've repeatedly cited the more bloodthirsty elements of the old testament. It is not just what is written, but how those words are interpreted and preached that make the difference.
I ask you to reflect upon the difference between a folk history of a people couched in terms of their ongoing and changing relationship with their God, and a book presented as God's perfect and final words to the people not open to revision.
Brandon,
I missed the many replies you've already received as I'd not refreshed the comment stream before replying myself.
I'd only add. Good luck separating religion and culture into independent components.
My auto correct keeps changing Brando to Brandon. Sorry I missed it this time.
"It's not the religion itself. It can never be the religion itself."
Perhaps not, yet is it so unexpected that a religion founded by a warlord, and initially spread (very successfully) by that warlord's armies, might have an essence, a core, that is more warlike than other religions?
steve uhr: "How did the police ID the terrorists? Can't seem to find answer on the news."
The cops know who to "ask", and how to "ask" and who wants $$$ (francs) to spill the beans.
When they are motivated, the French authorities can be as "persuasive" as they need to be.
But it's cool
'cuz they're French. Not like that "ick-ies" Bush and Cheney.
Rusty: "I'm actually looking for an answer, because I don't find the theory that the religion itself causes the violence persuasive"
The muslim/arab "culture" is a "failure" in terms of educational, philosophical and technical progress.
This failure is manifestly obvious and so entire peoples need a fall guy to stand in to take the blame. The muslims see the West doing what we do and then they look around and then they..get..pissed. But only at others.
This mentality ties directly into marxist theory and helps the western leftists who tell/teach everyone that everything is a zero-sum game, so all the progress made in the west is not because of some sort of superior cultural habits (rule of law, private property rights, education, freedoms of the press, etc) but only results 'cuz the west enslaves and rips off the rest of the world.
On top of it all, our leftists validate the idea that the muslims are correct by continually trashing western civilization itself and proclaiming all societies "equal" (actually, western society is always, always, portrayed as worse).
As has been pointed out above, you layer on top of that the fact that islamic "religion" is not so much a religion but a how to political governance guide which calls explicitly for the physical destruction/enslavement of any "outsiders" and it gets explosive.
On top of that layer, you add another layer of supreme ignorance which is basically enforced on the vast majority of the followers of this religion.
And then you're off and running.
Or you could go with AReasonableMeltdowns position which is "colonialism!!!eleventy1!!!" which is not surprising since, you know, he is a marxist.
A "moderate" marxist, of course.
Sort of like the "moderate" muslims who, unlike their less moderate pals, might offer you a bit of pain killer prior to cutting your head off.
Brando- I said the culture it (the religion) creates. As CWJ says, they aren't separate.
Obviously, it doesn't have to be that way and usually is not. But walking around London, I saw so many women in burquas - nothing showing but their eyes- in the middle of this glorious, modern, inclusive city. A people separating themselves from all of that, hiding their women, creating rules for life in the name of their religion that asks them to reject individuality.
The religion is creating a culture for a great many people that can be too susceptible to violence in its name.
CWJ: "My auto correct keeps changing Brando to Brandon."
Auto-correct is never wrong.
Brando, change your name forthwith.
‘No one expects the Spanish inquisition.’
The Spanish Inquisition was actually a creature of the Spanish Monarchy and not an institution of the Church.
Michael McNeil: " (ARMeltdown:‘No one expects the Spanish inquisition.’)
The Spanish Inquisition was actually a creature of the Spanish Monarchy and not an institution of the Church."
ARMeltdown was lurching about and he dove for the first rhetorical "port" he could find in his usual, inevitable, predictable "storm" of gibberish.
A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents. Islam today includes a substantial minority of believers who countenance, if they don’t actually carry out, a degree of violence in the application of their convictions that is currently unique. Charlie Hebdo had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too—but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism. [emphasis added]
Wow. The New Yorker wakes up.
The Spanish Inquisition was an institution of the Spanish church. The Spanish church was a very independent minded, very powerful, very "national" organization within the Catholic church. As were other national churches of the day, some of which also had active inquisitions.
The Roman Catholic church was not terribly good at maintaining central control of all its bits and pieces at the time. It had French Cardinals, serving as the French power behind the throne, making deals with Protestant states against Catholic states.
In the late stages of the 30 years war, ostensibly a religious war, Catholic also fought Catholic. See the battle of Rocroi.
Drago's man-crush continues.
The Spanish Inquisition was an institution of the Spanish church.
No it wasn't. The Spanish Inquisition was founded by the Spanish monarchy, for the Spanish monarchy, specifically so it would be under their control and not that of the Pope.
If you want to argue further on this, I suggest checking Wikipedia, but if you'd like more scholarly authoritative references, such as e.g. the Cambridge Medieval History, I'll be glad to go to that too, it's just not at hand right now. Later.
from Twitter today.
"Don't you think a comic book about Auschwitz is in bad taste?"
"No, I thought Auschwitz was in bad taste"
The Spanish Inquistion. Always a timely reference.
Strange, Klein is pro-choice, right? Perhaps with some semantic games, emotional diarrhea, and a not-so-creative fairy tale, a murder will no longer repulse his delicate and hypocritical sensibilities.
Murder is wrong. Yeah, right. Although, for him to say it with a straight face requires remarkable acting ability. Bravo!
That said, send in the natural born killers (NBK), and let them confront the Islamic terrorists on their own terms. Klein can carry their water, or something; while contemplating the unprecedented collateral damage caused by pro-abortionists including himself.
The Islamic terrorists are envious of the NBK's formidable ability, and right, and rite, to process mass murder of human life in the comfort and privacy of a clinic! All while earning the plaudits, and even a Nobel Peace Prize, from ostensibly sensible and sophisticated men and women.
The Islamic terrorists demand equal rights. They don't enjoy China's global economy, and therefore leverage, so they are securing their rights, and rites, through global force.
It's unfortunate that the French had to bear the brunt of the NBK rights movement. While French will contracept, I don't think they normalized mass murder. The message will be lost in their society. It had an exceedingly short half-life in America following 9/11.
According to the logic of many of today's journalist writers reacting to the massacre, then feel...
...that Nazi's were right to massacre others who they felt didn't live up to their code...
...the KKK would be justified by perceived wrongness of an attacking an interracial couple walking down the street...
...Violence against a gay man because he was openly gay is ok (which is what is practiced in many Arab countries under the same logic that led to this massacre, FYI)...
Really, the number of people who don't understand the importance of free speech as a human right is mindblowing. I guess this comes from recent decades of people categorizing hate and offensive speech as needing to be very restricted and restricted only among certain groups.
The ability to speak freely, with extremely limited exceptions, is a cornerstone of what a free society is - and good for France that Charlie Hebdo was a long-standing independent business.
"While I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Hebdo is surprisingly conservative. Not American. Not European. Predating Western civilization. Perhaps a pagan tribe.
I wonder what restrains him from following generational liberalism to depicts its logical conclusion. Is it cover space? Perhaps patronage. But not political. The French are tolerant of homosexual behavior, but rejected its normalization.
AReasonableMeltdown: "AReasonableMan said...
Drago's man-crush continues"
If telling yourself that individuals who happen to notice you are an idiot represents a "man-crush" and it helps you get through your day without another (another!) meltdown, then by all means, feel free.
AReasonableMan said...
MayBee said...
The nations that have Islam as their national religion are run very differently- much less liberally- than the nations that have Christianity/Catholicism or Judaism as their national religions.
"'No one expects the Spanish inquisition.'"
One of these examples happened several centuries ago. This is a reach even for you.
When they come, they will not come for me because I will stand up to them. I will hunt them down. I will bury them in pigskin. My friends and I will take joy in destroying the barbarians and they know it.
When they come for you we will read stories about how it wasn't their religion that was at fault. Your beheading video will be recruiting porn for young Muslims who live in repressive shit holes. People will gather with candles.
I already spent time protecting your dumb ass and you make excuses for them. You made excuses for them trying to kill us. We wont cry when they take you.
the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong.
Does Klein really not realize that the murderers here consider themselves to have been provoked?
Instituted at the request of powerful members of the the Spanish church, such as Torquemada and Cisneros, who used their influence with Isabella, especially, to pressure the Pope into permitting it.
It's hard to know what to make of Klein. He seems to be intelligent, too intelligent to believe this crap he's writing. The only theory that makes any sense to me is that he's writing what he thinks is necessary to protect Obama. That doesn't make any sense either, but there you have it.
What exactly is "pro gay"? As opposed to say "pro gay marriage", which makes sense. Saying I am pro gay doesn't.
Ann reads Ezra Klein (and any other Vox articles) so we don't have to. And I (we?) thank her for it.
Sure, the people who did this are murderers. But they aren't *just* murderers, are they? Killing cartoonists is supposed to send a message to people who aren't cartoonists, and to people who aren't directly threatened with violence.
Murder only affects one person. Terror is aimed at many more people than are actually targeted.
Ezra Klein is a fool of stunning proportions, but that has been clear for some time.
"The only theory that makes any sense to me is that he's writing what he thinks is necessary to protect Obama. That doesn't make any sense either."
It makes perfect sense. In fact it explains 90% of the output of the MFM for the past 7 years. Occam's razor.
Klein doesn't do his own thinking. He's instead a reliable stenographer for his deep background sources in Washington. As long as he is, his sources will make sure there's money flowing to him and his publication.
A bit late to the game, but the Charlie that you posted was sort of cripped from an earlier edition.
https://litinerantcitoyen.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/shoah-hebdo2-724x1024.jpg
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा