------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Please remove me from your improve the world distribution. I have no idea
where you are going???
On 2/5/06, James Mickens wrote:
>
> The Muslim outrage at the cartoons is completely unsurprising, but
> this anger is extremely hypocritical. In many regards, the Arabic
> media is quite outrageous by Western standards, but it shows no
> interest in kowtowing towards our cultural sensitivities. For
> example, the Arabic media is unflinching in displaying graphic
> pictures of wounded or dead bodies; this policy has caused anger in
> Washington when those bodies belong to American soldiers. The Arabic
> media is also exceptionally disrespectful to Jewish people,
> frequently describing them using crude racial stereotypes and
> arbitrarily blaming them for the various ills of Arabic society (see
> http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html for more details). The blood
> libel, already mentioned, is commonly depicted as truth in mainstream
> Arabic papers. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious
> anti-Semitic tract describing a fictional Jewish plan for world
> domination, was the basis of a multi-part Egyptian TV show which
> presented the Protocols as real (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion for some
> details). The list goes on and on. So it's a bit ironic that some
> Muslims are incensed by a few cartoons, when the amount of offensive
> material that comes out of their local press is much worse and much
> more voluminous.
>
> Of course, the hypocrisy factor provides no ipso facto justification
> for the publication of the cartoons; just because the Islamic press
> is indecent by our standards doesn't mean that we should be obscene
> by Islamic standards. But we should remember the original motivation
> for publishing the cartoons. Most media coverage of the issue has
> glossed over the context for the pictures, but the context is very
> important. The cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper article that
> discussed the relationship between free speech and Islam. Consider
> some text from that article:
>
> "The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand
> a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own
> religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy
> and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with
> insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally
> attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious
> feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less
> important in this context . . . we are on our way to a slippery slope
> where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why
> Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish
> editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him."
>
> Fundamentally, the newspaper article dealt with the relationship
> between religion and government. In an open, secular society, one is
> free to be religious and to consider things blasphemous, but one must
> tolerate plurality of opinion, even if one finds those opinions
> distasteful. Personal rights derive from the agnostic pronouncements
> of the government. In contrast, in a theocracy, and more
> specifically, an Islamist society, the rights of citizens are
> strictly derived from religious doctrines. Thus, that which is
> religiously offensive is illegal. Being blasphemous becomes a state
> crime, as it is in Saudi Arabia and everywhere else that some form of
> sharia is enforced.
>
> The Danish newspaper was trying to explore the tension between the
> Islamist vision and the secular European one. This is an important
> and relevant issue to discuss, since the Islamist vision is utterly
> incompatible with Western notions of personal liberty. This is just
> the truth and we shouldn't shy away from it. If we are able to
> criticize and satirize America's fundamentalist Christian right, then
> we must be able to criticize and satirize Islamism without fear of
> sounding politically incorrect.
>
> Note well that "Islamist" refers to the belief in Islam as a "total
> system," i.e., as the ultimate and singular foundation of every
> aspect of life. This is different than simply being Muslim---all
> Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. The religion
> of Islam is not intrinsically anti-democratic. For example, America's
> Muslim population is well-assimilated and respectful of our secular
> form of government. However, Europe's Muslim population is poorly
> assimilated and, for various reasons, very suspicious of the secular
> form of government. Incidents like the riots in France, the murder of
> filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the insistence of
> some European Muslim enclaves to prohibit the rights of women have
> led European governments to restrict immigration and question what it
> means to have a society that is both free and partially Islamic.
> Europe has the right to be concerned about these issues and to
> discuss them in an open manner; the fact that some Muslims disapprove
> is proof that this conversation is far overdue. As stated in the
> OpinionJournal article about Islam and demography, 60% of British
> Muslims want to live under Islamic law in Britain itself! This is not
> a good statistic, since the British government espouses
> multiculturalism and is generally considered to be one of the best
> European countries at assimilating immigrants.
>
> There is no reason why the West should allow all religions except
> Islam to be satirized. Islamic sensitivities are no more and no less
> important than any other, and Islamic sensitivities are not the
> foundation of Western ideals of personal freedom. For example, some
> interpretations of Islam circumscribe the role of women, but the
> Western world shouldn't stifle the creative energy of females to
> placate misogynists. Some Koranic interpretations prohibit one from
> charging interest on loans, but we shouldn't change our financial
> system for fear of offending Muslim financiers. If Western societies
> want to engage in free debate, then this is our prerogative.
> Discussing the relationship between Islam and free speech is
> important, both to help Muslim immigrants in Western countries to
> assimilate, and to learn how to nurture open societies in the Muslim
> world. The cartoons of Mohammed were published in the context of this
> dialogue. One might disagree with their publishing for practical
> reasons, since some amount of outrage was to be expected. However, I
> don't disagree with the spirit of the cartoons.
>
> ~j
>
>
--
Regards,
John J. Kapusky
------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Please remove me from your improve the world distribution. I have no idea
where you are going???
On 2/5/06, James Mickens < jmickens Æ eecs .umich.edu > wrote:
The Muslim outrage at the cartoons is completely unsurprising, but this anger
is extremely hypocritical. In many regards, the Arabic
media is quite outrageous by Western standards, but it shows no interest in
kowtowing towards our cultural sensitivities. For example, the Arabic media is
unflinching in displaying graphic pictures of wounded or dead bodies; this
policy has caused anger in
Washington when those bodies belong to American soldiers. The Arabic media is
also exceptionally disrespectful to Jewish people, frequently describing them
using crude racial stereotypes and arbitrarily blaming them for the various
ills of Arabic society (see
http://www.memri.org /antisemitism.html for more details). The blood libel,
already mentioned , is commonly depicted as truth in mainstream Arabic papers.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious
anti-Semitic tract describing a fictional Jewish plan for world domination ,
was the basis of a multi-part Egyptian TV show which presented the Protocols
as real (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews and http://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion for some details). The list goes on
and on. So it's a bit ironic that some
Muslims are incensed by a few cartoons, when the amount of offensive material
that comes out of their local press is much worse and much more voluminous.
Of course, the hypocrisy factor provides no ipso facto justification
for the publication of the cartoons; just because the Islamic press is
indecent by our standards doesn't mean that we should be obscene by Islamic
standards. But we should remember the original motivation for publishing the
cartoons. Most media coverage of the issue has
glossed over the context for the pictures, but the context is very important .
The cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper article that discussed the
relationship between free speech and Islam. Consider some text from that
article:
"The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a
special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious
feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy
and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults ,
mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice
to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of
at any price, but that is less
important in this context . . . we are on our way to a slippery slope where
no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen
Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union
to draw Muhammad as they see him."
Fundamentally, the newspaper article dealt with the relationship between
religion and government. In an open, secular society, one is free to be
religious and to consider things blasphemous, but one must
tolerate plurality of opinion, even if one finds those opinions distasteful .
Personal rights derive from the agnostic pronouncements of the government . In
contrast, in a theocracy, and more specifically, an Islamist society , the
rights of citizens are
strictly derived from religious doctrines. Thus, that which is religiously
offensive is illegal. Being blasphemous becomes a state crime, as it is in
Saudi Arabia and everywhere else that some form of sharia is enforced .
The Danish newspaper was trying to explore the tension between the Islamist
vision and the secular European one. This is an important and relevant issue
to discuss, since the Islamist vision is utterly incompatible with Western
notions of personal liberty. This is just
the truth and we shouldn't shy away from it. If we are able to criticize and
satirize America's fundamentalist Christian right, then we must be able to
criticize and satirize Islamism without fear of sounding politically
incorrect.
Note well that "Islamist" refers to the belief in Islam as a "total system,"
i.e., as the ultimate and singular foundation of every aspect of life. This is
different than simply being Muslim- --all
Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. The religion of Islam
is not intrinsically anti-democratic. For example, America's Muslim population
is well-assimilated and respectful of our secular
form of government. However, Europe's Muslim population is poorly assimilated
and, for various reasons, very suspicious of the secular form of government .
Incidents like the riots in France, the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in
the Netherlands, and the insistence of
some European Muslim enclaves to prohibit the rights of women have led
European governments to restrict immigration and question what it means to
have a society that is both free and partially Islamic. Europe has the right
to be concerned about these issues and to
discuss them in an open manner; the fact that some Muslims disapprove is proof
that this conversation is far overdue. As stated in the OpinionJournal article
about Islam and demography, 60% of British Muslims want to live under Islamic
law in Britain itself! This is not
a good statistic, since the British government espouses multiculturalism and
is generally considered to be one of the best European countries at
assimilating immigrants. There is no reason why the West should allow all
religions except
Islam to be satirized. Islamic sensitivities are no more and no less important
than any other, and Islamic sensitivities are not the foundation of Western
ideals of personal freedom. For example, some interpretations of Islam
circumscribe the role of women, but the
Western world shouldn't stifle the creative energy of females to placate
misogynists. Some Koranic interpretations prohibit one from charging interest
on loans, but we shouldn't change our financial system for fear of offending
Muslim financiers. If Western societies
want to engage in free debate, then this is our prerogative. Discussing the
relationship between Islam and free speech is important, both to help Muslim
immigrants in Western countries to assimilate, and to learn how to nurture
open societies in the Muslim
world. The cartoons of Mohammed were published in the context of this
dialogue. One might disagree with their publishing for practical reasons ,
since some amount of outrage was to be expected. However, I don't disagree
with the spirit of the cartoons.
~j -- Regards , John J. Kapusky
------=_Part_22171_29274040.1139140766278--
|
