Excellent points regarding the problems of assimilation in Europe. The US has so long been accused of xenophobia, and we seem so willing to accept rather than dispute the moniker, but in my experience, it is Europe that is far more encumbered by xenophobia. I've worked closely with Europeans for over 15 years and have listened to endless stories of and have observed systemic discrimination, a pervasive paternalistic attitude toward non-European immigrants, frank discriminatory practices toward European immigrants, certain rights being reserved for the "true" Europeans as opposed to the immigrant Europeans (even to the 3rd generation), a lack of a meritocracy. Attitudes that are considered completely unacceptable in the US today are commonplace among many Europeans I have interacted with. A suspicion of those "not like us" is quite common. Every time I go to Europe for work, I find myself thinking that they need a good influx of tort lawyers. Europe has a long history of nationalism that will take generations to overcome, and it easily reasserts itself in times of conflict or stress, as with the current economic situation. Huge bureaucracies, a rigid rule orientation, and a greatly diminished sense of individual responsibility work in

Not to steal Reza's thunder, but here is an offering that sits astride his:
What do you get when you combine Hitchens and Dawkins? "Ditchkins" of course.

Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, Eagleton insists, are playing to the high-minded liberal-humanist prejudices of their elite audience and, in the process, are displaying a shocking ignorance of their supposed subject, one that would be deemed unacceptable in almost any other intellectual forum. Would anyone be permitted to write a book about courtly love in the Middle Ages based on several visits to a Renaissance Faire, or a book about Nazism based on episodes of "Hogan's Heroes"?

Aslan's response to the burning of Danish embassies in the wake of the publishing of cartoons in an independent Copenhagen newspaper was to express his "outrage" at the fact that the cartoons were published, and to argue that "freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes" and that "in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response, but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who think blasphemy anywhere ought to be punishable by death. As long as these are the priorities of moderate Muslim intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatability of Islam and liberal democracy.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: As long as these are the priorities of moderate Muslim intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatability of Islam and liberal democracy.

Amen!

Quoting Me&theboys: Excellent points regarding the problems of assimilation in Europe. The US has so long been accused of xenophobia, and we seem so willing to accept rather than dispute the moniker, but in my experience, it is Europe that is far more encumbered by xenophobia. I've worked closely with Europeans for over 15 years and have listened to endless stories of and have observed systemic discrimination, a pervasive paternalistic attitude toward non-European immigrants, frank discriminatory practices toward European immigrants, certain rights being reserved for the "true" Europeans as opposed to the immigrant Europeans (even to the 3rd generation), a lack of a meritocracy. Attitudes that are considered completely unacceptable in the US today are commonplace among many Europeans I have interacted with. A suspicion of those "not like us" is quite common. Every time I go to Europe for work, I find myself thinking that they need a good influx of tort lawyers. Europe has a long history of nationalism that will take generations to overcome, and it easily reasserts itself in times of conflict or stress, as with the current economic situation. Huge bureaucracies, a rigid rule orientation, and a greatly diminished sense of individual responsibility work in

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Aslan's response to the burning of Danish embassies in the wake of the publishing of cartoons in an independent Copenhagen newspaper was to express his "outrage" at the fact that the cartoons were published, and to argue that "freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes" and that "in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response (just as I don't endorse all of the cartoons), but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who think blasphemy

Wow, I hadn't seen that: thanks for the link. As a fervent supporter of Denmark in the face of those absolutely insane riots, I'm more than a little perturbed by Aslan's perspective.

Good points. My experiences are with a slightly older generation - mid 30's and up. But that generation has a great deal of control over the future of younger generations. And a multicultural classroom does not necessarily translate into a multicultural workplace - it is one thing to share seats in a classroom with minorities - quite another to share jobs and authority with them. Multiculturalism is not really the issue - there are plenty of immigrants in Europe. The issue is one of being able to achieve the same things if one has the requisite skill and talent. I know a very talented and acclaimed surgeon who originates from north Africa who has been told that he has no chance of ever becoming chief of a department or a division at his academic medical institution because he is not "french". He is moving to the US.

Quoting nikkibong: Wow, I hadn't seen that: thanks for the link. As a fervent supporter of Denmark in the face of those absolutely insane riots, I'm more than a little perturbed by Aslan's perspective.

Another link in the ongoing anti-Danish silliness: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/d...6242.asp?scr=1

Hitchens on Turkey's proposed EU membership: "Turkey wants all the privileges of NATO and EU membership but also wishes to continue occupying Cyprus, denying Kurdish rights, and lying about the Armenian genocide. On top of this, it now desires to act as a proxy for Islamization and dares to waste the time of a defensive alliance in trying to censor the press of another member state! Kouchner was quite right to speak out as he did [in withdrawing French support for Turkish accession as a full member of the EU], and the Turkish authorities will now be able to blame the failure of their membership scheme not on the unsleeping plots of their enemies, but on the belated awakening of their former friends." http://www.slate.com/id/2216518/

Great diavlog. Nice to see Reza back on BHTV. Also nice work by a more sober than usual Reiham.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Aslan's response to the burning of Danish embassies in the wake of the publishing of cartoons in an independent Copenhagen newspaper was to express his "outrage" at the fact that the cartoons were published, and to argue that "freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes" and that "in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response (just as I don't endorse all of the cartoons), but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who think blasphemy anywhere ought to be punishable by death.

As long as these are the priorities of moderate Muslim intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatability of Islam and liberal democracy.

You are absolutely right. Aslan spews more politically correct platitudes than I have ever heard on BHTV. His understanding of European attitudes towards the backward Muslim populations in their midst is pure balderdash. Does he really think that Europeans should adapt themselves to religious bigots in

Does he really think that Europeans should adapt themselves to religious bigots in the name of multicultural toleration? Why?

Seems the French have adapted to your bigotry, so why not - viva la difference.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Seems the French have adapted to your bigotry, so why not - viva la difference.

The correct French, Crumbs, is Vive la différence. But then what would a an illiterate yokel like you know about that?

Quoting Francoamerican: The correct French, Crumbs, is Vive la différence. But then what would a an illiterate yokel like you know about that?

Touché, or maybe that should be touchy?

Actually I think your post brilliantly illustrates the double standards applied to Muslims that Reza described earlier in the diavlog.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Actually I think your post brilliantly illustrates the double standards applied to Muslims that Reza described earlier in the diavlog.

I'd appreciate if you could explain which "double standards" my post illustrates.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Actually I think your post brilliantly illustrates the double standards applied to Muslims that Reza described earlier in the diavlog.

You mean the double standard whereby certain Muslims threaten or commit violence in response to acts of speech? In which they trample the rights of others in response to slights, real or perceived, but utterly beyond the jurisdiction of Sharia?

Firstly, you mis-characterised the article written by Reza, which was essentially about the publication of the cartoons rather than than the riots themselves. On this basis I think it unfair to judge the author's level of distress on the related events (how you presume to know this is an entirely seperate question). I can express my outrage at Colin Powell's deception, without diminishing my ire for the Iraq war, believe me. The entirety of Azlan's piece could have been written by Jew or Gentile, indeed the arguments featured in the article have been, yet it is the author's faith which seems to pique your suspicions and indeed pigeon hole his arguments. Christain conservatives have objected to this week's publication of the torture memos. I would imagine they see their publication as damaging and counterproductive and are therefore upset. Do you now see Christianity or Conservatism as incompatabilite with liberal democracy?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Christain conservatives have objected to this week's publication of the torture memos. I would imagine they see their publication as damaging and counterproductive and are therefore upset. Do you now see Christianity or Conservatism as incompatabilite with liberal democracy?

"Objection" is not analogous to threats and riots. The problem isn't "upset" - there's no guarantee you get what you want in this world, and reason o expect you happy about that. The issue is when upset manifests itself as attempts at coercion, and threats and violence.

Quoting Francoamerican: You are absolutely right. Aslan spews more politically correct platitudes than I have ever heard on BHTV. His understanding of European attitudes towards the backward Muslim populations in their midst is pure balderdash. Does he really think that Europeans should adapt themselves to religious bigots in the name of multicultural toleration? Why?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Nicely put, Franco . . .

Quoting AemJeff: "Objection" is not analogous to threats and riots. The problem isn't "upset" - there's no guarantee you get what you want in this world, and reason o expect you happy about that. The issue is when upset manifests itself as attempts at coercion, and threats and violence.

What you say is true but in this instance it is misplaced. Reza says he was upset by the publication because they were counterproductive, the same reason given by those objecting to the publication of the torture memos.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: What you say is true but in this instance it is misplaced. Reza says he was upset by the publication because they were counterproductive, the same reason given by those objecting to the publication of the torture memos.

Granted, but the point of reference is this post:

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Aslan's response to the burning of Danish embassies in the wake of the publishing of cartoons in an independent Copenhagen newspaper was to express his "outrage" at the fact that the cartoons were published, and to argue that "freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes" and that "in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response, but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who think blasphemy anywhere ought to be punishable by death.

As long as these are the priorities of moderate Muslim intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatability of Islam and liberal democracy.

What's at stake here is Reza's arguably unbalanced reaction to an act of speech, on the one hand, and actual violence in response, on the other.

You are not comparing like with like. Reza's views in the article are hardly radical and have probably been voiced by most members of congress depending on the circumstances.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: You are not comparing like with like. Reza's views in the article are hardly radical and have probably been voiced by most members of congress depending on the circumstances.

I don't understand what you think I'm comparing, but here is part of Reza's article in Slate:

Not so, of course, in the case of the now infamous Danish cartoons. The fact is that Muslim anger over the caricatures derives not merely from their depiction of Mohammed. That may have upset more conservative Muslims, but it alone would not have engendered such a violent and widespread response. Rather, most Muslims have objected so strongly because these cartoons promote stereotypes of Muslims that are prevalent throughout Europe: Mohammed dressed as a terrorist, his turban a bomb with a lit fuse; Mohammed standing menacingly in front of two cowering, veiled women, unsheathing a long, curved sword; Mohammed on a cloud in heaven complaining that Paradise has run out of virgins. It is difficult to see how these drawings could have any purpose other than to offend. One cartoon goes so far as to brazenly call the prophet "daft and dumb."

Shorter Reza: I believe in freedom in

The oddest thing about the Danish cartoons controversy is that it made the Mapplethorpe-Piss Christ-NEA controversy look civil. Say what you will about the right's homophobia, the actions taken against the NEA took place, so far as I remember, entirely within the rule of law. I found myself making this point to Muslim acquaintances, and, boy, did that ever feel weird.

Shorter Reza: I believe in freedom in speech unless feelings get hurt.

Well I disagree with your synposis of the article. In fact I don't think Reza even touches on the issue of free speech. Anyway, I'm sure we both have more productive ways to spend our time, rather than going round in circles. Me, I'm off to burn some books.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Firstly, you mis-characterised the article written by Reza, which was essentially about the publication of the cartoons rather than than the riots themselves. On this basis I think it unfair to judge the author's level of distress on the related events (how you presume to know this is an entirely seperate question). ... The entirety of Azlan's piece could have been written by Jew or Gentile, indeed the arguments featured in the article have been, yet it is the author's faith which seems to pique your suspicions and indeed pigeon hole his arguments.

You're certainly correct that Aslan's article wasn't about the riots. That's my point. As Muslim fanatics were burning down the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, the Danish embassy in Beirut, and the Danish embassy in Tehran; as a boycott of Danish products was being initiated (keep in mind: the Danish government did not produce the cartoons and many Danes undoubtedly disapproved of their message); and as serious threats on the lives of the cartoonists were being reported, Aslan wrote an article in Slate in which he mentioned the violence only obliquely (in the

record for longest post? anyone know?

Should I try to get it published?!?!

Quoting Wm. Blaxton:
If I were to hear that crazy imam in London or Rotterdam had been ranting about the Koranic requirement murder anyone who insults the Prophet, this alone would not necessarily make me doubt that Islam is inconsistent with liberal democracy. The world is full of crazies. What disturbs me is that moderate Muslim intellectuals like Aslan often seem to be more outraged by political speech that's critical of Islam than by religiously-motivated overreactions to that speech, even when those overreactions are violent. In the U.K. there is now a law that bars "incitement to religious hatred" (whatever that means) -- the enactment of which was heartily supported by, inter alia, the Muslim Council of Britain, which is not some wild-eyed Islamist group. If it becomes illegal to aggressively and cuttingly satirize and criticize religion in a manner that may be deeply offensive to religious believers, then "freedom of speech" has effectively ceased to exist. What is freedom of speech if not the freedom to say things that are unpopular or offensive?

The problem is that many smart, moderate and thoughtful Muslims -- not just Islamist wackos -- don't seem to warmly

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/192...7:58&out=08:28 The first thing that I heard that resulted in me thinking "No, that is not a legitimate complaint" was when Aslan said that America's cultural dominance is a legitimate complaint. First, its not like Hollywood and all our evil American corporations are forcing the overseas consumption of our goods. The only reason we export these goods is because there is a market for them. If a foreign population chooses American cultural goods instead of their native cultural goods, well, they should be free to make their own damn minds up about what they consume without interference from the minority of people that choose otherwise. This is a two way street, Bollywood and Hollywood should each be just as free as the other to compete in the global market. If a population chooses America's cultural goods, well I am sorry your own damn population thinks we are more entertaining. Secondly, I am not even sure if there is an American hegemony, I have noticed quite a few number of ethnic restaurants and foreign films here stateside lately. The second thing I thought that was not a legitimate complaint was when Aslan remarked

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: You're certainly correct that Aslan's article wasn't about the riots. That's my point......
At any rate, I think it's fair to conclude from the emphasis of the Slate piece that Aslan's priorities are seriously out of whack.

Actually I don't think that's fair for the reasons I outlined earlier. You, nor I, know the brief Reza was given, and he has every right to concentrate on one aspect of the story. In this instance, when I'm sure reams had been written about the riots themselves, omission is not condonment and you should have the decency to recognise that. If I was to complain about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, should I be berated for not mentioning the Roma?

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Of course, a Christian or a Jew could have made the same argument that Aslan did. (Indeed, many non-Muslim religious leaders identified blasphemy as the real problem during the cartoon controversy -- just as they did during the Rusdie Affair.)

The original quotes you objected to in Reza's piece have nothing to do with blasphemy or religion, but with the responsibility of the press. A point echoed by many a Congressmen and Senator over the years ("freedom of the

Hmm...all good points. You have swayed me! Damn my weak will! :/

Quoting Starwatcher162536: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/192...7:58&out=08:28

The first thing that I heard that resulted in me thinking "No, that is not a legitimate complaint" was when Aslan said that America's cultural dominance is a legitimate complaint.

First, its not like Hollywood and all our evil American corporations are forcing the overseas consumption of our goods. The only reason we export these goods is because there is a market for them. If a foreign population chooses American cultural goods instead of their native cultural goods, well, they should be free to make their own damn minds up about what they consume without interference from the minority of people that choose otherwise. This is a two way street, Bollywood and Hollywood should each be just as free as the other to compete in the global market. If a population chooses America's cultural goods, well I am sorry your own damn population thinks we are more entertaining. Secondly, I am not even sure if there is an American hegemony, I have noticed quite a few number of ethnic restaurants and foreign films here stateside lately.

The second thing I thought that was not a legitimate complaint was when Aslan remarked

you should get an award or something out of it! good lord, that must've taken a while to write....or you're a really fast typer.

It's an interesting point. If the grievance is directed at their own goverment rather than the American's it could be consider legitimate, think of the auto workers for example. Now if that goverment is considerd a puppet of the Americans, then it gets a bit messy.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Again Reza wasn't upset based on his own faith, but on the consequences between faith communities. I can't say it more plainly than that.

No you can't. And aligning yourself with anonymous politicians, christians and conservatives by attributing tendencies to them without quotes or specifics doesn't make your case less of an apology for Islam, rather than a defense of Aslan.

Here's the problem in a nutshell:
Reza's arguments where all secular, but his name is muslim.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Here's the problem in a nutshell:
Reza's arguments where all secular, but his name is muslim.

No the problem is Islam is not secular.

Quoting graz: No the problem is Islam is not secular.

Have you actually read the Slate piece?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Have you actually read the Slate piece?

Yes and it underscores the underlying problem we are debating: Your claim that Aslan was responding to "consequences between faith communities." You can call religious intolerance whatever you like, but its effect is still a threat to secular society.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: You, nor I, know the brief Reza was given, and he has every right to concentrate on one aspect of the story. In this instance, when I'm sure reams had been written about the riots themselves, omission is not condonment and you should have the decency to recognise that.

For one thing, I objected to things Aslan did say as well as things he didn't. Second, the whole piece is about why he's "offended" and "enraged" by the publishing of the cartoons (reason: they made Muslims feel bad, and were thus counterproductive). Given that Danish embassies were probably burning as he wrote the piece, the omission of an angry and direct condemnation of the violence and an aggressive defense of the legal right of the cartoonists to say absolutely anything that they want about Islam and Muslims is, to my mind, significant. And if he doesn't believe cartoonists or writers ought to be able to say anything they want about Islam, then that's significant, too.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: The original quotes you objected to in Reza's piece have nothing to do with blasphemy or religion, but with the responsibility of the press. A point echoed by many a Congressmen

Quoting graz: Yes and it underscores the underlying problem we are debating: Your claim that Aslan was responding to "consequences between faith communities." You can call religious intolerance whatever you like, but its effect is still a threat to secular society.

That maybe true, but is entirely seperate from the argument I was having.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: That maybe true, but is entirely seperate from the argument I was having.

It's not entirely clear to many of us what that argument might actually be, then.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: That maybe true, but is entirely seperate from the argument I was having.

To be fair, I understand that you are suggesting that Aslan is being held to an unfair standard. His column should not be taken as a stand in for the failure for Muslims to condemn the actions of the rioters. I'm sympathetic to that small point. But it pales in comparison to the larger truth about what he did and didn't say.

Quoting Francoamerican: Does he really think that Europeans should adapt themselves to religious bigots in the name of multicultural toleration? Why?

Pim Fortuyn: "In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that's possible [in the Netherlands]. That's something that one can be proud of. And I'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much."

Quoting graz: To be fair, I understand that you are suggesting that Aslan is being held to an unfair standard. His column should not be taken as a stand in for the failure for Muslims to condemn the actions of the rioters. I'm sympathetic to that small point. But it pales in comparison to the larger truth about what he did and didn't say.

It's hardly a small point. The entirety of Reza's article could have been written by David Corn, or even Bob Wright himself, and they would have escaped the barbs directed at Reza. Politically muslims in the west seem to have two choices, shake off any muslim identity and tow the party line, or abstain completly.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: It's hardly a small point. The entirety of Reza's article could have been written by David Corn, or even Bob Wright himself, and they would have escaped the barbs directed at Reza.

Politically muslims in the west seem to have two choices, shake off any muslim identity and tow the party line, or abstain completly.

Instead of victimhood, try responsibility on for size. It's very enlightening. Can you point to an equally irresponsible column by Wright or Corn? If so they would deserve the same criticism that has been leveled at Aslan. That's the beauty of free speech... let's promote it.

Quoting graz: Instead of victimhood, try responsibility on for size. It's very enlightening.

Can you point to an equally irresponsible column by Wright or Corn? If so they would deserve the same criticism that has been leveled at Aslan. That's the beauty of free speech... let's promote it.

Actually most of the critism about Reza, as oppose to muslims in general, seem to be about what he didn't write. Please can you point out what is so irresponsible about his column.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Actually most of the critism about Reza, as oppose to muslims in general, seem to be about what he didn't write. Please can you point out what is so irresponsible about his column.

More mealy-mouthed expression of offense from Reza (no friend of the first amendment). Funny how he was able to assume the motives for the cartoons without evidence:
Reza provides the context for NPR But hey, at least he didn't feel pressure abstain or to tow the line. Bully for him.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: For one thing, I objected to things Aslan did say as well as things he didn't. Second, the whole piece is about why he's "offended" and "enraged" by the publishing of the cartoons (reason: they made Muslims feel bad, and were thus counterproductive). Given that Danish embassies were probably burning as he wrote the piece, the omission of an angry and direct condemnation of the violence and an aggressive defense of the legal right of the cartoonists to say absolutely anything that they want about Islam and Muslims is, to my mind, significant. And if he doesn't believe cartoonists or writers ought to be able to say anything they want about Islam, then that's significant, too.

I don't subscribe to this 'guilt by ommission' argument, so I guess we will just have to disagree on this point.

This comment is either vapid or creepy: "Freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." In this context -- where thousands of people all around the world were at that moment calling for the murder of the cartoonists and no major American news outlet would even show the cartoons -- what, exactly, does that mean? It's not at

Crumb's gyrations to defend an indefensible position sure are interesting. How curious that he defends the person who warns others not to offend Muslims instead of using his platform to urge Muslims to abstain from violent overreaction resulting in death, injury and millions in propertty damage. Priorities I guess (or else maybe he himself feared violence). One of the best response threads I've read in a while, especially instructive (in the comparison to the Andres Serrano - not Mapplethorpe, as I recall - award-winning 'art' piece) to liberals who love to equate violent Muslims with conservative Christians. This makes me recall the South Park episode where Jesus runs around with violent diarrhea but Muhammed could not even be shown standing in a doorway out of Comedy Central's fear of homicidal vengeance. Reza says: "........in the case of the now infamous Danish cartoons. The fact is that Muslim anger over the caricatures derives not merely from their depiction of Mohammed. That may have upset more conservative Muslims, but it alone would not have engendered such a violent and widespread response. Rather, most Muslims have objected so strongly because these cartoons promote

Quoting harkin: Crumb's gyrations to defend an indefensible position sure are interesting. How curious that he defends the person who warns others not to offend Muslims instead of using his platform to urge Muslims to abstain from violent overreaction resulting in death, injury and millions in propertty damage. Priorities I guess (or else maybe he himself feared violence).

Is it still an echo chamber if no-one is listening?

They both view jihadism as a problem to be solved by the US. Bush wanted to force American-style freedom and democracy on the Middle East, and Aslan wants to "address and co opt the grievances that fuel the jihadist movement." They're both fools. Americans have as much ability to influence the Islamic Resurgence as foreign Muslims have to influence the gay marriage debate in the States. I agree with much of Aslan's criticism of Bush, but that's happenstance. As I said the last time he was on BHTV (I'm sure all of you remember), Aslan is so stupid and polemical about American culture that he causes me to doubt anything he has to say about other cultures.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I don't subscribe to this 'guilt by ommission' argument, so I guess we will just have to disagree on this point.

My problem with the piece isn't just the omission of a vigorous defense of the legal right of the cartoonists to say whatever they want or a vigorous attack on the burning of embassies (both of which should have been included alongside any earnest professions of outrage regarding the substance of the cartoons and the decision to publish them). The whole thesis of the piece was flawed.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'd wager that about 95% of elected officials would agree with the comment which you find so troubling, "freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility."

I don't care if every sitting member of the House of Representatives would endorse that statement. Taken in isolation, it's vapid and vague; taken in context, it's creepy and authoritarian. I prefer the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has no such wishy-washy equivocation: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added). That's more like it.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: If something is designed in order to offend, and thus create victims, I see nothing

I've lived in Europe and I totally agree. It's a canard, set up by the intelligentsia in Europe, that Americans are more racist than Europeans. The things the average European say about immigrants would get them in to a load of trouble in the U.S. They still have people calling black athletes monkeys in their sports stadia for example. In some places it is worse than others. Your point about the lack of meritocracy in Europe, with regards to immigrants, is spot on as well, I think. This is true of even European Europeans. Their class issues are deeper than in America, I think.

I loved Pim Fortuyn. Deeply misunderstood man. Often labeled a bigot, when in fact he just wanted people to tolerate his homosexuality.

Aslan is a real lion! Sorry, somebody had to say it.

My point was that anyone who saw the Danish embassies burning and then wrote a long, preachy, self-pitying editorial excoriating the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons and omitting any real defense of speech rights or criticism of the rioters has -- from a liberal-democratic perspective -- warped priorities.

You've made a good case for this. I tend to agree.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: My problem with the piece isn't just the omission of a vigorous defense of the legal right of the cartoonists to say whatever they want or a vigorous attack on the burning of embassies (both of which should have been included alongside any earnest professions of outrage regarding the substance of the cartoons and the decision to publish them). The whole thesis of the piece was flawed.

I don't care if every sitting member of the House of Representatives would endorse that statement. Taken in isolation, it's vapid and vague; taken in context, it's creepy and authoritarian. I prefer the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has no such wishy-washy equivocation: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added). That's more like it.

If the fact that you're "offended" turns you into a "victim," that's your own damn problem. That kind of victimhood is entirely self-imposed. And obviously I didn't object to anyone "watching the television." My point was that anyone who saw the Danish embassies burning and then wrote a long, preachy, self-pitying editorial excoriating the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons and omitting

Reza explicitly said two things in the Slate article: one, that the cartoons perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims that contribute to "clash-of-civilizations" type rhetoric; and two, that he blames Jyllands-Posten ultimately for beginning a kerfuffle that was ultimately wildly unproductive for relations between Muslims and Europeans. He did not say that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't have printed these cartoons because they offend Muslim religious sensibilities. He said that they shouldn't have printed them because they contribute to a dynamic between Muslims and the West that's destructive. He didn't say that Jyllands-Posten should have been censored by the Danish government, either; he said that they should have shown civic responsibility and not printed something that really contributes nothing fruitful to Muslims' understanding of the West or vice versa. He thinks, simply, that the editors of Jyllands-Posten were being bad journalists. It's fair to say that Aslan should have spent more time in his Slate article criticizing the Muslim fanatics who burned down Danish embassies. But that's not what his article was about. It wasn't titled "What I think about the cartoon controversy". It was "Why I'm offended by the Mohammad cartoons". It seems to

Quoting kezboard: ...

It's fair to say that Aslan should have spent more time in his Slate article criticizing the Muslim fanatics who burned down Danish embassies. But that's not what his article was about. It wasn't titled "What I think about the cartoon controversy". It was "Why I'm offended by the Mohammad cartoons". It seems to me that you can be offended by the Mohammad cartoons and condemn Jyllands-Posten the way Aslan did and also condemn the rioters and crazy imams.
...

The point is that his stated reactions were completely disproportionate. Whatever one might think about the content of the cartoons, it's still simply speech. Burning embassies require a distinctly different reaction from things that are said or drawn. It seems to me that it's fine to be offended by the cartoons. But if you're attempting to speak on this topic from the perspective of Westernized Muslims, it's pretty important to indicate that you understand the distinction between speech and mayhem.

Reza explicitly said two things in the Slate article: one, that the cartoons perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims that contribute to "clash-of-civilizations" type rhetoric; and two, that he blames Jyllands-Posten ultimately for beginning a kerfuffle that was ultimately wildly unproductive for relations between Muslims and Europeans. He did not say that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't have printed these cartoons because they offend Muslim religious sensibilities. He said that they shouldn't have printed them because they contribute to a dynamic between Muslims and the West that's destructive. He didn't say that Jyllands-Posten should have been censored by the Danish government, either; he said that they should have shown civic responsibility and not printed something that really contributes nothing fruitful to Muslims' understanding of the West or vice versa. He thinks, simply, that the editors of Jyllands-Posten were being bad journalists.

Even if all observers would concede that the likely result of publishing would be negative, wouldn't Reza, a journalist/writer need to contend with the actual results? Or otherwise state clearly that his personal understanding and application of free speech is conditional. And it isn't a stretch for anyone to surmise that the overriding

I did not agree with every last thing that Reza said, but I found what he had to say hugely instructive. Reihan conducted a superb interview. I can't applaud this one highly enough. Many thanks, R&R.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: record for longest post? anyone know?

I'm sure I've got that one beat -- I've had to break several posts into multiple parts to get around the 10K character limit. NB: I do not say this out of pride. Just sayin'. Kudos to Wm. for making the effort. I applaud someone troubling to elaborate nuances when discussing sensitive topics. Maybe you were just busting chops, Td, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

And that's why the article is drawing such criticism.

I don't have a problem with the Slate article drawing criticism. It's totally understandable to me that someone could say "Well, I don't really care about why Reza Aslan is offended by some cartoon, I'd rather talk about what it means that the rioters reacted so violently". But that's a criticism of Aslan (or of Slate), and it has nothing to do with the compatibility of Islam and democracy.

The rioters couldn't deal with the free expression, as ill-conceived as it might have been, and though there was a terrible cost, the original expression was still free .

But again, that's not what Aslan's article was about. Slate posted articles around that time that *were* about this subject, and Aslan was probably chosen to write a column because Slate figured some people would be interested in the reactions of a real live Muslim to the cartoons. Maybe he shouldn't have been. Maybe he should have spent more time criticizing the rioters. But again, that just means that he wrote a pointless column or that he, or Slate, isn't focusing on what you think is

Quoting kezboard: Reza explicitly said two things in the Slate article: one, that the cartoons perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims that contribute to "clash-of-civilizations" type rhetoric; and two, that he blames Jyllands-Posten ultimately for beginning a kerfuffle that was ultimately wildly unproductive for relations between Muslims and Europeans. He did not say that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't have printed these cartoons because they offend Muslim religious sensibilities. He said that they shouldn't have printed them because they contribute to a dynamic between Muslims and the West that's destructive.

(1) Radical Muslims did exponentially more to perpetuate those negative stereotypes in responding to the printing of the cartoons than the cartoons themselves ever could have done. And how many people would have even seen the cartoons if not for the paroxysm of violence that followed? (2) You're correct that Aslan didn't say that the cartoons shouldn't have been published because they offend Muslim religious sensibilities. He said that they shouldn't have been published because they're divisive. And why are they divisive? Because they offend Muslim religious sensibilities.

Quoting kezboard: He didn't say that Jyllands-Posten should have been censored by the Danish government, either; he said that

no, that's cool, i was being serious.....i didn't read the thing but i thought somebody should say something after all that hard work...and 10k limit wasn't enough!?? holy crap that's a lot!

Quoting kezboard: I don't have a problem with the Slate article drawing criticism. It's totally understandable to me that someone could say "Well, I don't really care about why Reza Aslan is offended by some cartoon, I'd rather talk about what it means that the rioters reacted so violently". But that's a criticism of Aslan (or of Slate), and it has nothing to do with the compatibility of Islam and democracy.

The connection, fair or not is that Aslan is Muslim and as a representative of Islam -which is apparently why they solicited his rather narrow complaint- failed to reference or explain the inherent contradiction of his faith with secular ideals. Just because the Jews and Christians get a relative free pass on explaining away their potential contradictions, doesn't imply favoritism. They have to answer to the same complaints when they cross the line and destroy abortion clinics or any comparable example.

I don't understand why it's unacceptable and antisemitic for Pat Oliphant to draw a "headless jackbooted muscle-man with a sword pushing a Star of David-shaped shark unicycle" but free speech that should be defended when a

Yes, I would suggest that perturbed muslims exercise the free speech rights that the ADL employs to effect change in the public (secular) sphere.

Well, I certainly agree with you there. This is, by the way, exactly what Aslan is doing in his article. I wasn't asking what makes the two reactions different. I'm asking what makes one cartoon (the Oliphant) one indefensible, and the other ones (the Jyllands-Posten) defensible on grounds of free speech.

Quoting graz: Just because the Jews and Christians get a relative free pass on explaining away their potential contradictions, doesn't imply favoritism. They have to answer to the same complaints when they cross the line and destroy abortion clinics or any comparable example.

Presumably if a change in the arbortion bill prompted Christain groups to blow up clinics. You would berate any author who discussed the abortion bill, but failed to condem the bombings to a satisfactory level, regardless of their journalistic remit?

Yes, I would suggest that perturbed muslims exercise the free speech rights that the ADL employs to effect change in the public (secular) sphere. Until they succeed at suppressing free speech rights legally, if regrettably, they ought to refrain from blowing-up, burning or threatening with violence those that offend their sensibilities.

Finally, if the Washington Post knew a terror cell was about to strike, should they publish the story and risk alerting the terrorists, or take note of their civil responsibilty as well as the protests of the FBI and sit on the story until the cell is captured?

Quoting kezboard: Well, I certainly agree with you there. This is, by the way, exactly what Aslan is doing in his article. I wasn't asking what makes the two reactions different. I'm asking what makes one cartoon (the Oliphant) one indefensible, and the other ones (the Jyllands-Posten) defensible on grounds of free speech.

Indefensible to whom? The ADL? Aren't they exercising free speech?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Presumably if a change in the arbortion bill prompted Christain groups to blow up clinics. You would berate any author who discussed the abortion bill, but failed to condem the bombings to a satisfactory level, regardless of their journalistic remit?

You shouldn't presume, but I guarantee that I would find myself asking further questions about the editorial value of such an article. I would further question the motives of said author if I knew that having been solicited for a reply based on his faith affiliation he failed to address the implications. And let's not lose sight of the fact that they did burn the embassy. I'm tired of the hypotheticals. Good night.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: So your second objection is that the whole thesis of the piece is flawed. You point to this statement to support your claim, "freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." A statement I think deep-down even you agree with.

My problems with the piece are more basic than that: As the Danish embassies in three Middle Eastern cities were burning, and a boycott was being organized against Danish goods, Aslan was apparently more upset about the publication of the cartoons than the violent response. It's that simple. If he was just as outraged about the violence, I maintain that he would have written a very different editorial. There were actually several excellent editorials in Slate about the cartoons, but those were written by Christopher Hitchens.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'm sorry to say, but I'm growning tired of this exchange (ordinarily I would worry about offending you with such statements, but then again that would be your fault not mine), so may I ask you one quick question?

If the Washington Post knew a terror cell was about to strike, should they publish the story and risk alerting the terrorists, or take note of

The largest thing that went through my mind as I read that: It would only take like 65 twitter posts to say that.....
Perhaps trying to explain the world via bumpersticker like tweets is not an optimal choice.

If I hear one more reference to "Christianism"--as if the pathetic attempts of the Falwells and Robertsons and Colsons to build a "Christian America" were any sort of analog to people like Hasan Nasrallah in Lebanon or the leaders of Hamas--I may put my head through the screen. There is indeed a strain of religious nationalism within Evangelical circles. It makes me queasy as an Evangelical Christian myself, precisely because wrapping the Bible in Old Glory badly distorts the transcendent, universal truths of the Gospel as I understand them. (I suppose in Mr. Aslan's taxonomy that makes me some sort of Christian Jihadist--albeit a nonviolent one.) But even the most rabid Christian nationalists in the U.S. are not trying to effect a takeover of the state by force of arms, as Hezbollah is in Lebanon, or sending its adherents off to blow up themselves and their adversaries a la Hamas at, say, Americans for the Separation of Church and State. And please, anyone who wants to take issue with this post, don't cite Timothy McVeigh or a few nameless abortion clinic bombers as "proof" that I'm full of it. A few homicidal nutcakes

Quoting rfrobison: [...] But for those that employ the tools of indiscriminate slaughter to achieve their political goals and who advocate the erasure of states not to their liking, I can see little room for negotiation or compromise, at least as long as they insist on clinging to those violent and anti-democratic methods.

I don't think you listened closely enough. I heard Reza say at least twice that there was no hope of dealing with such people except by hunting them down and capturing them or killing them. [Added] Maybe you're not saying he was saying we could negotiate, but just reaffirming?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Is it still an echo chamber if no-one is listening?

Twenty posts saying the same thing and without being able to concede the obvious is a much better example.

If the Washington Post knew a terror cell was about to strike, should they publish the story and risk alerting the terrorists, or take note of their civil responsibilty as well as the protests of the FBI and sit on the story until the cell is captured?

This perfectly captures the warped mindset mentioned earlier. You are comparing drawing cartoons that may offend someone's religious or cultural sensibilities to mass murder. I thank you for unintentionally showing that the violent reactions are just a matter of degrees between the terrorists and the offended.

Quoting harkin: This perfectly captures the warped mindset mentioned earlier. You are comparing drawing cartoons that may offend someone's religious or cultural sensibilities to mass murder. I thank you for unintentionally showing that the violent reactions are just a matter of degrees between the terrorists and the offended.

Indeed.

Quoting harkin: Twenty posts saying the same thing and without being able to concede the obvious is a much better example.

This perfectly captures the warped mindset mentioned earlier. You are comparing drawing cartoons that may offend someone's religious or cultural sensibilities to mass murder. I thank you for unintentionally showing that the violent reactions are just a matter of degrees between the terrorists and the offended.

I'm afraid you have mis-charaterised my argument. In both instances the publication of material would have consequences as acted out by another party. I'm dissapointed you didn't anwer the question, I would of thought you embraced hypothetical arguments involving ticking timebombs. Anyway, I thankyou for your time, if not your attention.

Quoting harkin: Still the best discussion I've heard on the balance of freedom of speech in regards to offending religion and I recommend it to everyone.

Thanks for the link. It was illuminating and civil. No embassies were harmed in it's production. Too bad Aslan hasn't participated in the forum. His defender here has failed to turn the criticisms against him into an attack of religious persecution or on bad journalism. Although he did try to claim victimization, in the end he feigned deafness and plead ignorance:

I'm afraid you have mis-charaterised my argument. In both instances the publication of material would have consequences as acted out by another party.

I'm dissapointed you didn't anwer the question, I would of thought you embraced hypothetical arguments involving ticking timebombs.

Anyway, I thankyou for your time, if not your attention.

CSPAN debate between Reza Aslan and Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5og-hyD3A7A Not as entertaining as the Hitchens-Tharoor discussion that someone posted, but you can see how Aslan responds to some points raised in this forum.

Quoting graz: Thanks for the link. It was illuminating and civil. No embassies were harmed in it's production. Too bad Aslan hasn't participated in the forum. His defender here has failed to turn the criticisms against him into an attack of religious persecution or on bad journalism. Although he did try to claim victimization, in the end he feigned deafness and plead ignorance:

Graz I'm sorry you have misunderstood my intentions. I was not trying to defend Reza's article but to point out the idiocy of this statement and those that praise it.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Aslan's response to the burning of Danish embassies in the wake of the publishing of cartoons in an independent Copenhagen newspaper was to express his "outrage" at the fact that the cartoons were published, and to argue that "freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes" and that "in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility." Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response, but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who

good link. Reza was getting owned most of the time but he could easily win if he just listed all the muslim grievances: palestine, chechnya, gulf war, iraq II, kasmir, uyugr, propping up dictatorships, economic domination, etc.

Brendan, apparently you didn't get the memo that this comments thread was reserved exclusively for discussion of a more than three year old piece Reza Aslan did for Slate on a topic that was not mentioned in the diavlog.

Quoting bjkeefe: I did not agree with every last thing that Reza said, but I found what he had to say hugely instructive. Reihan conducted a superb interview. I can't applaud this one highly enough.

Many thanks, R&R.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: It's hardly a small point. The entirety of Reza's article could have been written by David Corn, or even Bob Wright himself, and they would have escaped the barbs directed at Reza.

Politically muslims in the west seem to have two choices, shake off any muslim identity and tow the party line, or abstain completly.

I would have had a huge problem with that essay no matter who wrote it. The right to publish without government interference is far more important than how any community of people gets along with any other community. Religious people can become friends without demanding that satellite stations (or newspapers) in sovereign countries be shut down. There's nothing stopping them but their own faiths.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I would have had a huge problem with that essay no matter who wrote it. The right to publish without government interference is far more important than how any community of people gets along with any other community.

on the money, doctor money!

The Slate article doesn't mention goverment interference.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Graz I'm sorry you have misunderstood my intentions. I was not trying to defend Reza's article but to point out the idiocy of this statement and those that praise it.

I have to concede that I think I do get your point. And if I am correct I think it is an attempt to protect religion from being unjustly linked to negative consequences. I empathize with your effort, but would wish that you recognize that you needn't prove that prejudice and pigeonholing exists. That is resolved and agreed. What is disappointing is that you and Aslan work so hard to protect religion from just criticism that you are unwilling to accept the intersection of faith with real world violence and suppression of free speech. All faiths included. Religion may or may not be the root cause. But there is more room for skepticism than celebration.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: The article doesn't mention goverment interference.

It's true; the article is vague on this point. Does Aslan think the cartoonists ought to have a legal right to publish anything they want or doesn't he? Is he saying that governments ought to balance speech rights against the need to protect the feelings of Muslims, or is that just an injunction for private citizens? These are important questions, but you wouldn't know how Aslan feels after reading that Slate article. All that's clear from the piece is that as religious fanatics were burning Danish embassies and organizing boycotts of Danish products, Aslan felt like his time and energy was best employed expressing his bitter and righteous indignation about the fact that the cartoons were published in the first place (with no simultaneous condemnation of the insane response), and blaming the violence and vandalism on the cartoonists and the newspaper. Whether Aslan thought cartoonists in Denmark (or anywhere else) ought to have an inviolable legal right to poke fun at Islam without threat of imprisonment or censorship is unclear. Under the circumstances, that's unforgiveable.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan, apparently you didn't get the memo that this comments thread was reserved exclusively for discussion of a more than three year old piece Reza Aslan did for Slate on a topic that was not mentioned in the diavlog.

Fair point. But consider the direction of the comments a good indicator of genuine concern about attendant realities and fair questioning of the value of Aslan's perspective. He is an ambassador for understanding the riches and complexities and challenges of muslim faith. If only it were so easy to have it explained, without requiring some push back or accountability.

Excellent point opposable_crumbs. Mr. Wright has made the same point numerous times and while I'm certain many disagree with him, they don't launch into statements about Islam or democracy or bring up his statements in diavlogs where the cartoons are not even discussed. The choices for Muslims are clear: shut your mouth or don't claim any identification with Islam (Mr. Aslan is by no means a religious Muslim or one who speaks from a religious perspective, in fact while not disowning the fact that he is a Muslim, he explicitly tries to not speak from that perspective). If you choose to speak, you should focus on violent Muslims, because how could anything be more important than violence? (You see how this distorts the discussion about the Muslim world and Muslims? You see how this creates incentives for people to engage in violence or violent rhetoric because this is the only thing to which attention is paid?) When you speak you must speak primarily to condemn the Muslims. Mentioning any other perspective will be read to be embracing a victim mentality or somehow condoning the violence. This

Graz, Why is he an "ambassador"? In the article, he (or at least the headline) draw on his Muslim identity as a reason to listen to his perspective, but then he quickly disavows that his perspective has anything to do with being Muslims. In general, Mr. Aslan does not speak based on a Muslim identity and certainly not on any religious beliefs of his own. He speaks much more as a "scholar of religions" and as an American than as a Muslim. The perspective of many Muslims may overlap with Mr. Aslan on certain points but he does not present himself as a Muslim spokesperson nor as someone whose views are driven by his faith and I'm not really sure why you choose to interact with his statements as such.

Quoting graz: Fair point. But consider the direction of the comments a good indicator of genuine concern about attendant realities and fair questioning of the value of Aslan's perspective. He is an ambassador for understanding the riches and complexities and challenges of muslim faith. If only it were so easy to have it explained, without requiring some push back or accountability.

The choices for Muslims are clear: shut your mouth or don't claim any identification with Islam (Mr. Aslan is by no means a religious Muslim or one who speaks from a religious perspective, in fact while not disowning the fact that he is a Muslim, he explicitly tries to not speak from that perspective). If you choose to speak, you should focus on violent Muslims, because how could anything be more important than violence? (You see how this distorts the discussion about the Muslim world and Muslims? You see how this creates incentives for people to engage in violence or violent rhetoric because this is the only thing to which attention is paid?)

Good point, but it's also quite legitimate to discuss the limits of free speech. People have dredged up Reza's Slate article because it lends itself to debating the issue. This case is even more interesting because there is NO dispute that a political cartoon is political speech, which is the sacrosanct and definitional form of free expression. So I find it hardly surprising that this Slate article will haunt Reza for a long time. As

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee:
The choices for Muslims are clear: shut your mouth or don't claim any identification with Islam (Mr. Aslan is by no means a religious Muslim or one who speaks from a religious perspective, in fact while not disowning the fact that he is a Muslim, he explicitly tries to not speak from that perspective). If you choose to speak, you should focus on violent Muslims, because how could anything be more important than violence? (You see how this distorts the discussion about the Muslim world and Muslims? You see how this creates incentives for people to engage in violence or violent rhetoric because this is the only thing to which attention is paid?) When you speak you must speak primarily to condemn the Muslims. Mentioning any other perspective will be read to be embracing a victim mentality or somehow condoning the violence. This will be brought up even in unrelated discussion years later where you will be attacked not for condoning violence, not even for failing to condemn violence, but for failing to condemn it as vociferously as people like Graz would like.

..Peace.

Unfortunately we

"in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility."

Okay, talking about those cartoons is not a good example to bring up when discussing the limits of free speech, as it is such a clear cut case of when free speech should be given priority. Islam has to be able stand people mocking their sacred cows without resorting to violence if it is going to be compatible with Democracy. I think Islam IS currently compatible with democracy, this is more about Fundamentalism vs X then Islam vs X. There were plenty of Muslims in the US that did NOT go around burning down buildings. I also think alot of you have worked yourselves into abit of a frenzy. I just do not see how any of you can stand against the assertion that Aslan does not have to write about condemning extremism everytime he picks up a pen, him not condemning extremism in one article does not in any way prove that he is for extremism. Moving on, to see something that pushes the boundary of free speech way further then those cartoons

Quoting graz: Thanks for the link. It was illuminating and civil. No embassies were harmed in it's production. Too bad Aslan hasn't participated in the forum. His defender here has failed to turn the criticisms against him into an attack of religious persecution or on bad journalism. Although he did try to claim victimization, in the end he feigned deafness and plead ignorance:

It really was one of the best discussions ever from the Hay Festival. It was avail only by subscription for awhile but it's really something that should be linked to as often as possible. It's also worth noting that Shashi Tharoor is a very elegant and eloquent speaker but his organization is still being extremely hypocritical in not practicing what they preach, evidenced by the recent 'celebration of tolerance and dignity for all'.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'm dissapointed you didn't anwer the question

What answer could there be to a question by a person who has already made twenty-plus responses (while adding almost nothing of substance) invoking the term 'echo chamber'? It answers itself.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: The choices for Muslims are clear: shut your mouth or don't claim any identification

Wonderment and Graz, Thanks for your most recent posts and part of me would really love to respond, but I just made a promise to myself as I watched this thread unfold for some time without commenting that I would not allow myself to get dragged into a discussion of the Danish cartoon controversy...it's just not productive or helpful. Harkin, Your most recent post proves my points exactly.

Quoting Wonderment: Good point, but it's also quite legitimate to discuss the limits of free speech. People have dredged up Reza's Slate article because it lends itself to debating the issue. This case is even more interesting because there is NO dispute that a political cartoon is political speech, which is the sacrosanct and definitional form of free expression.

So I find it hardly surprising that this Slate article will haunt Reza for a long time. As I said in another post, I'd find his point of view more interesting if he WERE religious. His outrage would be more credible. As a secularist, however, he strikes people as a sellout.

Were the Danish caricatures offensive? Of course. Did the authors have ulterior anti-Islam motives? I'll stipulate to that. Did the whole thing happen in a context of intense Islamophobia and racist stereotyping of Muslims? Yes.

But even given all that, when you start to question free political speech in a democratic society, you're going to come up against a lot of legitimate pushback.

Well said, and precisely on point, in my view.

Quoting harkin: It really was one of the best discussions ever from the Hay Festival. It was avail only by subscription for awhile but it's really something that should be linked to as often as possible. It's also worth noting that Shashi Tharoor is a very elegant and eloquent speaker but his organization is still being extremely hypocritical in not practicing what they preach, evidenced by the recent 'celebration of tolerance and dignity for all'.

What answer could there be to a question by a person who has already made twenty-plus responses (while adding almost nothing of substance) invoking the term 'echo chamber'? It answers itself.

This is misdirection that would make a three card monte dealer proud.

No one is telling Muslims to shut up [on the contrary, a more vocal moderate face of Islam is the only true solution to the more radical alternative]
No one is telling Muslims that they can't identify with a religion
No one is telling Muslims that if they speak they must focus on violence.

I also hope you recognize that in the United States citizens of all religions (and athiests) can speak, demonstrate and worship freely, something that is not so common in the Arab world.

What is happening

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I personally think it [Jim Carrey's anti-vaccination post] should not have been censored, but that there should have been a huge backlash against the Huffington Post for running something that bad, that article did more harm then those cartoons.

For what it's worth, I did throw in my two cents on this, last week. I tweeted the HuffPo about it, too. Shortly after, one of the HuffPo accounts began following me on Twitter, and though it's probably the case that this was an automatic process, I would like to imagine my complaints were noticed by at least one human at the HuffPo. So, I'd say you should register a direct complaint with them, through whatever channel you prefer. We all have to do our bit, and also, you never know which tiny voice might be the tipping point. Even if they never apologize for the Carrey piece, it might help weight future editorial decisions.

Wonderment, as I stated I'm not interested in discussing the Danish cartoons controversy. Your argument here is extremely strange. What do you mean by "question free political speech"? Certainly you don't mean that one can't criticize other speech or say they are offended by it, because that's exactly what you claim to be promoting. But this is exactly what Mr. Aslan does in his Slate article. Nowhere does he call for any kind of government censorship, and your implication that he does is either extremely sloppy or or actually I have to admit I don't understand at all why you so completely mischaracterizing Mr. Aslan since I feel like I know you to well to impute any ill intent. Brendan right above this advocates that people complain to Huffington Post about publishing an anti-immunization piece by Jim Carrey. If Mr. Aslan can't say he's offended by the Danish cartoons (for whatever reason he wants to be offended) or can't say he blames the publisher for the ill effects, then I'm sure Brendan's call for complaints to Huffington Post should equally "haunt him" forever.

when you start to question free political speech in

The Christian might would say, "you might be right, but at least we aren't killing people simply because they're non-Christians".

Good post Harkin. I agree with you.

Quoting Lyle: The Christian might would say, "you might be right, but at least we aren't killing people simply because they're non-Christians".

Why are you killing them?

I will not consider it a violation of my personal pledge not to discuss the cartoon controversy if I post a link to Mr. Wright's NYT op-ed on the subject, in which he makes quite similar points in a similar vein to Mr. Aslan. Here is the post, which I am sure Wonderment, should haunt Mr. Wright forever.

Wonderment, as I stated I'm not interested in discussing the Danish cartoons controversy. Your argument here is extremely strange. What do you mean by "question free political speech"? Certainly you don't mean that one can't criticize other speech or say they are offended by it, because that's exactly what you claim to be promoting.

Here's the part that bothered me (emphasis added):

And that is why as a Muslim American I am enraged by the publication of these cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my religion, but because they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leaders—both Muslim and non-Muslim—to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord; because they play into the hands of those who preach extremism; because they are fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten. [Denmark's largest newspaper] We in the West want Muslim leaders to condemn the racial and religious prejudices that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example.

One thing is to be offended. I'm offended by newspaper editorials every day. I'm

You know what I mean. My grammar is atrocious.

Quoting harkin: No one is telling Muslims that if they speak they must focus on violence.

What is happening is people are wondering aloud why there is not a more visible Muslim presence denouncing violence in the name of Islam.

There is an obvious contradiction contained in your post. All I can say is that I prefer the former statement to the later, which I find highly problematic. Plenty of groups, both religious and secular, have been successful in inacting acts of censorship, I look foward to comdemnation of them, as well as the constituency they claim to serve, as and when they 're-offend'.

Wonderment, So, it is wrong to say to a newspaper I don't like what you published and I don't think you should have published it? So, anyone who criticizes an anti-semitic or racist cartoon and says the newspaper should not have published it is unacceptable to you as well? Read Mr. Wright's post I linked to, this is exactly the point he makes...self censorship by newspapers to avoid offending people occurs all the time. And again, Brendan on this very thread not only links to his own complaints to HuffPo about Jim Carrey's article, but encourages others to complain and says explicitly he hopes to affect future editorial decisions (meaning he hopes that there will be pieces that would have been published that will now not be due to his efforts.) Newspapers do not publish anything anyone wants published. They choose to publish certain things and not others. There is nothing contrary to the principle of free speech about speaking about what you think should and should not be published. I understand that people are bothered by the violence and threats of violence that emerged in reaction to

Here is Tariq Ramadan on the Cartoons: You got a problem with this Wonderment?

Free speech and civic responsibility

Monday 6 February 2006, by Tariq Ramadan
Enregistrer l'article en PDF Imprimer l'article Envoyer l'article à un ami

There are three things we have to bear in mind about the controversy over the cartoons published in the European media depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Muhammad, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition.

Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at religion, our own or anybody else’s. This is far from our understanding. For that reason, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just radicals, as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.

Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a part of the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going back to Voltaire. Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.

When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so emotionally. You need to hold to

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Wonderment,

So, it is wrong to say to a newspaper I don't like what you published and I don't think you should have published it? So, anyone who criticizes an anti-semitic or racist cartoon and says the newspaper should not have published it is unacceptable to you as well?

Read Mr. Wright's post I linked to, this is exactly the point he makes...self censorship by newspapers to avoid offending people occurs all the time.

And again, Brendan on this very thread not only links to his own complaints to HuffPo about Jim Carrey's article, but encourages others to complain and says explicitly he hopes to affect future editorial decisions (meaning he hopes that there will be pieces that would have been published that will now not be due to his efforts.)

Newspapers do not publish anything anyone wants published. They choose to publish certain things and not others. There is nothing contrary to the principle of free speech about speaking about what you think should and should not be published.

I understand that people are bothered by the violence and threats of violence that emerged in reaction to

Aem Jeff, I don't think there's any question about Mr. Aslan's position on freedom of speech. He says in his article that "no one doubts the right to satirize" There is nothing in his article remotely advocating government censorship. He does not blame the Danish government but blames the speaker. Again, I think your falling into the same trap I mentioned in my last post, holding Mr. Aslan to some higher standard of having to constantly trumpet his belief in free speech or freedom of the press if he wants to make an argument against publishing something, demanding more from him than you would from Mr. Wright or Mr. Keefe. And really, in Mr. Aslan's case, there's no reason to think it's warranted....now in my case I understand why people would be a little concerned By the way, I'm not sure if you guys understand how your reaction to Mr. Aslan looks from the perspective of a Muslim observer, but perhaps you do, which is why as people looking to make an alliance with liberal Muslims you focus on him with some scrutiny. Mr. Aslan is basically a poster boy for as much of a "progressive" "liberal" "Americanized" as

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Aem Jeff,

I don't think there's any question about Mr. Aslan's position on freedom of speech. He says in his article that "no one doubts the right to satirize"

There is nothing in his article remotely advocating government censorship. He does not blame the Danish government but blames the speaker.

Again, I think your falling into the same trap I mentioned in my last post, holding Mr. Aslan to some higher standard of having to constantly trumpet his belief in free speech or freedom of the press if he wants to make an argument against publishing something, demanding more from him than you would from Mr. Wright or Mr. Keefe. And really, in Mr. Aslan's case, there's no reason to think it's warranted....now in my case I understand why people would be a little concerned

By the way, I'm not sure if you guys understand how your reaction to Mr. Aslan looks from the perspective of a Muslim observer, but perhaps you do, which is why as people looking to make an alliance with liberal Muslims you focus on him with some scrutiny. Mr. Aslan is basically a poster boy for as much of a "progressive" "liberal" "Americanized" as

You got a problem with this Wonderment?

I will give you my short teacher's answer (thirty years in the trenches): Reza: C- Bob: B- Tariq: B+ The reason Tariq gets a better grade is that he makes abundantly clear that the secular, democratic culture he embraces is replete with irony, offense and blasphemy and that such expression must be tolerated (I think "tolerance" is a good word to use here) by good citizens of a democracy. Bob drew an interesting analogy to African American civil disorder, which does help Americans understand the reaction of irate Muslims to the Danish cartoons. But however much we understand the gut response of the offended party, we abdicate our civic responsibility to be tolerant when we shift the blame to the newspaper (as Reza and Bob did). All three writers ultimately come down on the side of self-censorship (as opposed to state censorship). Fine. Don't cuss in public. Don't make fun of people's religion. Don't draw dirty pictures. We all learn that early in life. What we learn as sophisticated citizens of a democracy, however, is to defend freedom of the press vigorously even when we are offended. Example: I supported the Nazis in

Yesterday 11:55 PM

All three writers ultimately come down on the side of self-censorship (as opposed to state censorship). Fine. Don't cuss in public. Don't make fun of people's religion. Don't draw dirty pictures. We all learn that early in life. What we learn as sophisticated citizens of a democracy, however, is to defend freedom of the press vigorously even when we are offended.

Yesterday 11:54 PM

That's not an expression of the principle of speech that I support, it's a rhetorical attempt to shift its definition. We support the rights of neo-Nazis and religious crazies and anti-Semites, as well as Methodists, atheists, and stamp collectors to say any damn thing they want to, with limits imposed only in strictly defined ways. The notion that there are civic limits belongs in the realm of manners, not civic responsibility.

Quoting graz: I have to concede that I think I do get your point. And if I am correct I think it is an attempt to protect religion from being unjustly linked to negative consequences. I empathize with your effort, but would wish that you recognize that you needn't prove that prejudice and pigeonholing exists. That is resolved and agreed.

What is disappointing is that you and Aslan work so hard to protect religion from just criticism that you are unwilling to accept the intersection of faith with real world violence and suppression of free speech. All faiths included.

Religion may or may not be the root cause. But there is more room for skepticism than celebration.

If truth be told, my original argument was that if you subscribe to this line of thought:

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Aslan didn't endorse the extreme response, but he was plainly more upset by the exercise of free speech by Danish cartoonists than the violence wreaked by those who think blasphemy anywhere ought to be punishable by death.

As long as these are the priorities of moderate Muslim intellectuals (let alone fanatics), I will remain skeptical about the compatability of

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I don't think there's any question about Mr. Aslan's position on freedom of speech. He says in his article that "no one doubts the right to satirize"

There is nothing in his article remotely advocating government censorship. He does not blame the Danish government but blames the speaker.

Again, I think your falling into the same trap I mentioned in my last post, holding Mr. Aslan to some higher standard of having to constantly trumpet his belief in free speech or freedom of the press if he wants to make an argument against publishing something, demanding more from him than you would from Mr. Wright or Mr. Keefe. And really, in Mr. Aslan's case, there's no reason to think it's warranted ... now in my case I understand why people would be a little concerned.

I remember that the line you emphasize stuck out when I first read the Slate piece. "No one doubts the right to satirize"? Who is he kidding? As far as I can tell, millions and millions of people apparently doubt the right to satirize. Leaving aside the boycotts and embassy burnings (and people like the infamous London protesters), here are a few formal responses to

Quoting opposable_crumbs: If truth be told, my original argument was that if you subscribe to this line of thought:

Then regardless of how valid your claims may or may not be, you risk alienating the muslim population.

In hindsight I should have focused on this simpler argument, rather than try and illustrate, when challenged, why I found the first paragraph of this statement little validation of the second, but that is my failing.

I alluded to this in the post to Abu, that rhetorical shortcuts can mislead or provoke. Or what you just clarified gets lost in the back and forth. So I am sympathetic.

Then regardless of how valid your claims may or may not be, you risk alienating the muslim population.

That is the risk of living in a pluralistic society and honoring free speech. Focusing on the muslim population as a monolith is also problematic. All groups are subject to equal opportunity offense. As long as they are afforded the full protection of law, feel free to complain, but don't expect special privledge. As the most ardent defenders here in the forum or Hitchens in the Hay debate contend: It is not their goal to

Wonderment and AemJeff, Thanks for your responses. To make my own point more clear, I don't necessarily adopt any of the responses completely (Ramadan, Aslan, Wright). And my point was not to defend Mr. Aslan's piece, which I find problematic for different reasons than any of you might. But I think as fuzzy as his writing may have been, both of you seem to be blurring what should be a clear distinction. (a distinction drawn more clearly by Wright and Ramadan, but one with which I am sure Aslan agrees as well).

What we learn as sophisticated citizens of a democracy, however, is to defend freedom of the press vigorously even when we are offended. Example: I supported the Nazis in the famous Skokie, Illinois case. This was a march in Jewish neighborhoods inhabited by Holocaust survivors.

Again, no one in this discussion has called for government censorship. That is what freedom of the press or freedom of speech are about, Wonderment. Your continued blurring of that in your arguments belie your claim to sophistication (a sophistication which is usually evident in your thought but is missing from your posts on this thread, in my obviously biased and unsophisticated opinion). What

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: "Western values" is not a good term. These values are not limited to the West. (The most notable victim of the Rushdie incident was a scholar named Hitoshi Igarashi, who was exercising his Japanese right to free speech when he translated The Satanic Verses.) There are brave dissidents in Saudi Arabia and Iran who are just as enamored of "Western values" as I am -- and know even better than I do why those values are so important. "Enlightenment values" is preferable.

Excellent defense of the principle of free speech, Wm. I have just one teensy weensy nit to pick: "Enlightenment values" are indeed Western values in the sense that they are Western in origin, which is not to say that those from other parts of the world cannot derive similar values from their own cultural milieu, nor does it mean that all or even most Westerners subscribe to them... To Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, I would say as a (Christian) believer I sympathize with your plight. In a world that has largely lost any sense of the divine and makes human wisdom "the measure of all things," ours can be a lonely place--certainly on this site, anyway. But

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: .......I just made a promise to myself as I watched this thread unfold for some time without commenting that I would not allow myself to get dragged into a discussion of the Danish cartoon controversy...it's just not productive or helpful.

I applaud you on your self-censorship.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Your most recent post proves my points exactly.

I also applaud your adding a proof of your earlier statement.

Quoting rfroberson: But the way to answer objectionable speech is not to suppress it; it is to answer with better speech, purer speech, with words that reflect, however imperfectly, the higher wisdom and peace that only God can give.

While I don't agree that only God can provide wisdom and peace, I do agree with the sentiment that supression is not the answer.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: There is an obvious contradiction contained in your post. All I can say is that I prefer the former statement to the later, which I find highly problematic.

I knew when I posted that that the wording could be problematic for you. But maybe we can find common ground here (or at least you can attempt to see my point). Look at the two statements you seized on again:

No one is telling Muslims

Quoting harkin: Look at the two statements you seized on again:

No one is telling Muslims that if they speak they must focus on violence.

What is happening is people are wondering aloud why there is not a more visible Muslim presence denouncing violence in the name of Islam.

You appear not to be able to see the distinction between 'must focus on', which is a demand and echoes what yourself and Abu Noor are claiming, and 'why there is not a more visible', which is (IMO) a very valid question.

I can only ask you look at those two sentences again, try and see the distinction, and appreciate my point of view.

I agree that there is a distinct difference between the two statements. But ironically enough, critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling Muslims, or at least Reza, that if they speak they must focus (at least in part) on violence or risk suspicion. You may think that's a legitimate poisition to take, if so is it not also a double standards of sorts?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I agree that there is a distinct difference between the two statements. But ironically enough, critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling Muslims, or at least Reza, that if they speak they must focus (at least in part) on violence or risk suspicion.

You may think that's a legitimate poisition to take, if so is it not also a double standards of sorts?

If those two statements are being used in the context of judging one person, it clearly is a double standard (Which is why I largely agree with you about Aslan). However, if those two statements are being used to instead judge an entire population, there is no double standard. If X percent of non Muslim writers meet or exceed WM. Blaxton's standards for defending free speech, but only X/2 percent of Muslims meet or exceed his standards for defending free speech, then there is no double standard, and his statements are justified.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling Muslims, or at least Reza, that if they speak they must focus (at least in part) on violence or risk suspicion.

I'm not "telling Muslims" that they "must" say anything. Aslan can say whatever he wants. But I thought his op-ed -- in which he explained why, "as a Muslim American," he was offended by the cartoons -- suggested that his political priorities are wrong. "As a liberal democrat," I think he should have been far more offended by the response to the cartoons than the cartoons themselves, since the response was, from a liberal-democratic perspective, scarier and more "offensive" (not my favorite word). My criticism doesn't just extend to liberal Muslims. I didn't like Bob Wright's editorial, either. The question I've been asking here is: What does it say about Islam when even its theologically liberal adherants seemed to be more offended by the cartoons than by the response? But the controversy raised other questions, too: Why are some self-described liberals so timid in the face of theocratic bullying? Why did the Vatican side with those calling for censorship rather than defend the right to offend? The appropriate first response to the whole

What in the world do you mean when you say you "supported" the Nazis? If you mean that the government shouldn't have prevented them from marching, I don't disagree with you. If you mean that if they needed funds to carry off the march you would have contributed or if you would argue that the world is a better place because the Nazis marched and they made a valuable contribution to Skokie than I think that is ridiculous and this is precisely the point made by those criticizing the Danish newspapers.

No, their point was that the images should NOT have appeared in the newspaper. They didn't call for the state to intervene, but Bob and Reza blamed the paper. What I mean about the Nazis is that -- even though I was deeply offended by white supremacist ideology and worried about Holocaust victims who would be re-traumatized by the march --- I thought it was my civic responsibility to ensure racist speech a place in the public sphere (they would have been imprisoned in West Germany and perhaps in today's Denmark -- it would be interesting to

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: I'm not "telling Muslims" that they "must" say anything. Aslan can say whatever he wants. But I thought his op-ed -- in which he explained why, "as a Muslim American," he was offended by the cartoons -- suggested that his political priorities are wrong. "As a liberal democrat," I think he should have been far more offended by the response to the cartoons than the cartoons themselves, since the response was, from a liberal-democratic perspective, scarier and more "offensive" (not my favorite word).

My criticism doesn't just extend to liberal Muslims. I didn't like Bob Wright's editorial, either. The question I've been asking here is: What does it say about Islam when even its theologically liberal adherants seemed to be more offended by the cartoons than by the response? But the controversy raised other questions, too: Why are some self-described liberals so timid in the face of theocratic bullying? Why did the Vatican side with those calling for censorship rather than defend the right to offend?

The appropriate first response to the whole controversy was to be disgusted at the behavior of the people who attacked Denmark's embassies, withdrew their ambassadors, and organized a boycott of Danish goods. These were

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling Muslims, or at least Reza, that if they speak on the cartoon issue they must focus (at least in part) on violence or be morally irresponsible.

Not just Reza, not just Muslims. Anyone opining about the issue should have been primarily critical of the response rather than the cartoons.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: As for your analogy, I've read plenty of editorials which focus on the mind or circumstances of a criminal rather than on his criminal acts themselves, and the piece has felt richer for it.

If you really think it's an accurate summary of Aslan's Slate piece to say that Aslan "focus[ed] on the mind or circumstances" of a group of people that Aslan himself clearly considered to be criminals, then I'm not sure it's possible for us to have an intelligent exchange on this subject. I would describe Aslan's article as an opinion piece -- rather than an probing expository essay or a piece of reporting -- in which Aslan expressed personal outrage that the cartoons were published (due to their divisive character), and in which the "criminals" (to use your term; Aslan

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: That's because the badness of murdering random people is not controversial.

I'll assume that the badness of riots is not controversial either, but yet you chose to complain that Reza had not complained about the riots in suffiently strong terms. Does this fix things?
Critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling everyone, or at least Reza, that if they speak on the cartoon issue they must focus (at least in part) on violence or be morally irresponsible.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'll assume that the badness of riots is not controversial either, but yet you chose to complain that Reza had not complained about the riots in suffiently strong terms.

Does this fix things?
Critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling everyone, or at least Reza, that if they speak on the cartoon issue they must focus (at least in part) on violence or be morally irresponsible.

You're utterly disingenuous.

My critizisms: 1. Reza Aslan claims to have spoken to many muslims across the european continent. I would estimate that only 5% of native europeans have sufficient english skills to even discuss the issue of immigration intelligibly. Since european muslims in most countries are on average the group with the least amount of education, there is only a very small section that Reza Aslan could have drawn from as a sample. The Muslims in my neighbourhood are struggling with german as it is. English skills are basically non-existend in the vast muslim underclass.
Lots of american journalists, who claim to have spoken to "the europeans", don't notice this bias. They are mostly conversing with like-minded, higly educated, cultured cosmopolitans, rather than blue collar types or european rednecks, it seems. 2. While Reza Aslan demands that the muslim community be seen in generous and extremely nuanced detail and rejects any kind of generaliziation, he himself is using broad generalizatins to characterize "the europeans" or "the germans" quite liberaly and without second thoughts. 3. The claim that "the germans" won't accept any non-germans based on ethnic grounds is demonstrably false. Many western european countries have seen waves of

Quoting AemJeff: You're utterly disingenuous.

How exactly?

Quoting dieter: [...]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, dieter. Very helpful. Hope to hear from you again.

Wonderment, again thanks for your posts.

My point is not that the Danish newspaper is beyond reproach, only that in issues this vital to democracy, I choose to stand FIRMLY for the principle of freedom of expression.

That's the point where I lose you, Bob and Reza. They both chose to discuss the shocking content of the images and they both called for self-censorship. With some narrow exceptions we're all familiar with (shouting fire in the theater, etc.) I don't care a whit about the content.

I will close by saying I do understand all sides in this debate. My first post here mentioned that this was a very difficult issue. Words matter. Words and images hurt people. Many issues on free speech remain very dicey.

I would just say this...you obviously know that newspapers decide not to publish hundreds/thousands of things on a daily basis. Free speech or freedom of the press does not mean that a newspaper has to publish whatever anyone wants it to publish. The larger issue here is one drawn out by Ramadan. Just because one has the legal right to say something is not a reason to say it. People like

Dieter, Thanks for your post. I think there is a point somewhere in your 5th item, but it is unfortunately mixed in with some right wing scare memes. Your other four items all sound like reasonable challenges to Mr. Aslan's points, and I'm glad you raised them. I know I ended up after trying to resist contributing to this problem, but this is why I wish some of the points Mr. Aslan actually made in the diavlog could have been discussed more in detail instead of spending so much time yet again rehashing the cartoons.

rfrobison, All excellent points. Wa 'alaykum salaam.

Quoting rfrobison: Excellent defense of the principle of free speech, Wm. I have just one teensy weensy nit to pick: "Enlightenment values" are indeed Western values in the sense that they are Western in origin, which is not to say that those from other parts of the world cannot derive similar values from their own cultural milieu, nor does it mean that all or even most Westerners subscribe to them...

To Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, I would say as a (Christian) believer I sympathize with your plight. In a world that has largely lost any sense of the divine and makes human wisdom "the measure of all things," ours can be a lonely place--certainly on this site, anyway.

But the way to answer objectionable speech is not to suppress it; it is to answer with better speech, purer speech, with words that reflect, however imperfectly, the higher wisdom and peace that only God can give.

Salaam.

Nice to hear someone who's actually knowledgeble about "Europe." Don't count your chickens...

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'll assume that the badness of riots is not controversial either, but yet you chose to complain that Reza had not complained about the riots in suffiently strong terms.

"Sufficiently strong terms" doesn't begin to capture my objection. He didn't "complain" about them at all, let alone condemn them. 100% of the ire in that piece was aimed at the newspaper. The only thing that he says "in defense" of free speech is the following: "No one doubts that the press should be free to satirize." This is both vague and obviously false. The democratically-elected government of the most prosperous, modern and liberal of the major Muslim-majority countries doesn't even support this view, let alone the boycott organizers and embassy attackers and angry imams and the many governments that withdrew their ambassadors or demanded that the Danish government censor the cartoons or arrest the cartoonists. A belief that "the press should be free to satirize" may or may not be a majority belief among Muslims, but it certainly isn't one held unanimously. Aslan knows this as well as I do -- so when he assures me that "no one" opposes the "freedom of

Quoting rfrobison: Excellent defense of the principle of free speech, Wm. I have just one teensy weensy nit to pick: "Enlightenment values" are indeed Western values in the sense that they are Western in origin, which is not to say that those from other parts of the world cannot derive similar values from their own cultural milieu, nor does it mean that all or even most Westerners subscribe to them.

Fair enough. My point was simply that these values can be drawn upon by people anywhere. As long as Enlightenment values are superior to the local alternatives, their geographical and cultural origins aren't really relevant. They're as applicable in Beijing, Tokyo or Tehran as in London, Paris or New York. To a school girl in Kabul who wants to study math and vote in elections and choose her own husband and religious faith, it doesn't matter whether "women's rights" and "liberal democracy" and "freedom of religion" are Western imports.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: ...Just because one has the legal right to say something is not a reason to say it. People like to lose sight of this and throw around freedom of speech as a reason to say something or a defense to saying something stupid or offensive...it's not.

In fact, that is exactly what it is. And not being able to agree to that is the fundamental problem with your excuse.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Fair enough. My point was simply that these values can be drawn upon by people anywhere. As long as Enlightenment values are superior to the local alternatives, their geographical and cultural origins aren't really relevant. They're as applicable in Beijing, Tokyo or Tehran as in London, Paris or New York. To a school girl in Kabul who wants to study math and vote in elections and choose her own husband and religious faith, it doesn't matter whether "women's rights" and "liberal democracy" and "freedom of religion" are Western imports.

Careful, Wm., you're sounding perilously close to the "neocon cabal"! :-)

Quoting opposable_crumbs: How exactly?

There has been a long exchange here, involving you as much as anybody, about how non-generically this issue is viewed by a number of us. The point has been made multiple times in various ways by several people. It's certainly not required that you agree with this point of view; but by this point in the conversation your arguments ought to betray at least a hint that you've understood what's been said to you. Instead, you seem to rely on cardboard representations of that argument:

I'll assume that the badness of riots is not controversial either, but yet you chose to complain that Reza had not complained about the riots in suffiently strong terms.

Does this fix things?
Critics on this thread, such as Wm. Blaxton, are telling everyone, or at least Reza, that if they speak on the cartoon issue they must focus (at least in part) on violence or be morally irresponsible.

Again - the problem is not Reza as Reza, it's Reza seen as a representative token from a group of people from whom it is hard to get a sense that they understand the proper

Quoting AemJeff: There has been a long exchange here, involving you as much as anybody, about how non-generically this issue is viewed by a number of us. The point has been made multiple times in various ways by several people. It's certainly not required that you agree with this point of view; but by this point in the conversation your arguments ought to betray at least a hint that you've understood what's been said to you. Instead, you seem to rely on cardboard representations of that argument:

Again - the problem is not Reza as Reza, it's Reza seen as a representative token from a group of people from whom it is hard to get a sense that they understand the proper relative value of different classes of action.

To put it in the most graphic terms I can think of, you don't complain about what a woman was wearing when she was raped. The violent followup means that the offense presented by the cartoons is much less relevant, in a relative sense. It would have been much better had Reza openly acknowledged that instead of the tepid

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I believe I understand your argument, I just don't buy it.

Nor is a sale to be made by that undefended retreat.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: In defense of my 'cardboard representations', they were both statements that in their original form were directed at me, so in that regard blame should at least be partly shared.

I believe I understand your argument, I just don't buy it. I've said a number of times throughout this thread that on this issue we should agree to disagree, and now more than ever, I'm willing to live-up to my end of the bargain.

Fair enough.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Fair enough. My point was simply that these values can be drawn upon by people anywhere. As long as Enlightenment values are superior to the local alternatives, their geographical and cultural origins aren't really relevant. They're as applicable in Beijing, Tokyo or Tehran as in London, Paris or New York. To a school girl in Kabul who wants to study math and vote in elections and choose her own husband and religious faith, it doesn't matter whether "women's rights" and "liberal democracy" and "freedom of religion" are Western imports.

It seems to me that the provenance of ideas matters a great deal more than you say. Your example of freedom of expression in Japan earlier is an interesting case in point. Freedom of speech is indeed protected by the Japanese constitution. But that constitution was drafted by the (mostly American) Occupation authorities in an era when Americans took the superiority of their political ideals and institutions as indisputable. They were going to keep Japan from ever again launching a war of aggression by remaking Japan in America's image and anyone who didn't like it could go and

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/192...0:59&out=22:04 Reza makes a good point about globalization and nation states.
And a community based around heavy metal music. That would be so awesome.

Quoting rfrobison: The main argument made by Japan's comically ineffectual extreme rightists for radically amending or scrapping the "Peace Constitution" is that it is foreign to Japanese soil and not in keeping with the country's traditional values. It's easy to dismiss that claim as self-serving, and the truth is the Japanese have embraced those democratic ideals and institutions. Still, the fact remains that they were imposed upon a vanquished people.

Agreed, sort of. I certainly didn't mean that the provenance of the values is unimportant from a historical perspective, or that it has nothing to do with how those values are received, debated and interpreted. All I mean is that they're universalizeable -- unlike, e.g., an ideology that emphasizes the virtue of a particular volk or a line of monarchs alleged to be divine -- and also, in my opinion, universally valid. (If you think this makes me some kind of "neocon," then so be it.) Regarding Japan: You may be right that that's the main argument against Article 9, though I'm not sure if that's true. I assume you're talking about people like Shintaro "What Rape of Nanking?" Ishihara and the goofballs with Rising Sun flags and megaphones. But

Quoting graz: Nor is a sale to be made by that undefended retreat.

Mission accomplished?

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: [...]

Another great post, Wm.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Agreed, sort of. I certainly didn't mean that the provenance of the values is unimportant from a historical perspective, or that it has nothing to do with how those values are received, debated and interpreted. All I mean is that they're universalizeable -- unlike, e.g., an ideology that emphasizes the virtue of a particular volk or a line of monarchs alleged to be divine -- and also, in my opinion, universally valid. (If you think this makes me some kind of "neocon," then so be it.)

Couldn't agree more (And the neocon thing was totally tongue in cheek. I just like calling people who would never dream of being associated with neocons, neocons.That word, it seems to me, has taken on the tone of an epithet devoid of any meaningful content. And just as some Black hip-hop artists embrace the "n-word," some of us righties are learning to love "neocon," though speaking just for myself I couldn't really tell you if I am one. [BJ, care to help me out?])

Regarding Japan: You may be right that that's the main argument against Article 9, though I'm not sure if that's true. I assume you're talking about people like Shintaro "What Rape of Nanking?" Ishihara and the goofballs with

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Mission accomplished?

No, because you stubbornly refused to address the details and concerns of a half dozen posters with legitimate issues. You used rhetorical tricks to avoid confronting the complaints and failed to make your own case, which was ostensibly a defense of Reza. Or an attempt to point out the possibility of a double standard. You failed. He is pedaling a book. His credibility was questioned. You are entitled to ignore anything you want. But the point of the forum is to engage not obfuscate.

From the seemingly moderate essay: "In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities" This is an unbelievably problematic sentence, and it's deeply anti free speech. Let me fix it to meet 21st century realities: In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech is actively happening all around you, and your sensitivities are not going to matter much outside of your friends, family, and faith community.
Free speech should be used wisely, just like money should be invested wisely. But we all have to acknowledge that it frequently won't be, and prepare ourselves for all the relevant eventualities.

Yes, sounds like we're basically on the same page. Just differences in emphasis.

Quoting rfrobison:

And again, I don't disagree. I stand with you in your uncompromising defense of free speech. I was really aiming at the larger question of how one might engage with Muslims in a way that both respects their religious perspective AND holds fast to our cherished freedoms. That's a tall order. And of course any "reformation" in the Islamic world won't be directed by people like you and me.

That is a good first principle. But as no answer to your question is forthcoming from the unreformed or otherwise muslims, a stand on principle is required.

Abu, are you listening?

Listening yes, commenting no. This is almost always the point at which he takes the fifth. Which is his right. But it also makes it quite difficult to respect his call for acceptance and respect of his professed faith. Especially in light of:

Graz, I have a totally different perspective than Mr. Aslan on the world and America although we might agree on some things, believe me in no way do I see him as a spokesperson for my faith or my viewpoint. This is not to criticize him, its just we have very different sensibilities. So I don't speak for

Graz,

Listening yes, commenting no. This is almost always the point at which he takes the fifth. Which is his right. But it also makes it quite difficult to respect his call for acceptance and respect of his professed faith. Especially in light of:

I really do not have time to comment all the time...I'm sure you understand that...It doesn't mean I'm not interested or that I'm somehow afraid to discuss my views. I come to the forums because I enjoy engaging with people and discussing my views. And really when I don't comment more, the main consideration is time. Sometimes, as reflected in the quote of mine you referred to there also comes a time when a certain discussion is not going anywhere for whatever reason and it seems counterproductive to continue it. For whatever reason, I continue to be often taken aback by what I sense to be a real hostility and deep suspicion of motives in comments you make directed toward myself. And the reason I continue to be surprised is that for whatever reason I still see you as basically a decent guy with whom I share a mutual respect

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Graz,

I really do not have time to comment all the time...I'm sure you understand that...It doesn't mean I'm not interested or that I'm somehow afraid to discuss my views. I come to the forums because I enjoy engaging with people and discussing my views. And really when I don't comment more, the main consideration is time.

Sometimes, as reflected in the quote of mine you referred to there also comes a time when a certain discussion is not going anywhere for whatever reason and it seems counterproductive to continue it. For whatever reason, I continue to be often taken aback by what I sense to be a real hostility and deep suspicion of motives in comments you make directed toward myself. And the reason I continue to be surprised is that for whatever reason I still see you as basically a decent guy with whom I share a mutual respect and so I tend to think that either I'm misunderstanding you or you misunderstanding me. I certainly don't think that I'm being dishonest or hiding anything in these discussions so it's unfortunate if I come across that way.

But, at the end of

No, because you stubbornly refused to address the details and concerns of a half dozen posters with legitimate issues. You used rhetorical tricks to avoid confronting the complaints and failed to make your own case, which was ostensibly a defense of Reza. Or an attempt to point out the possibility of a double standard. You failed.

He is pedaling a book. His credibility was questioned. You are entitled to ignore anything you want. But the point of the forum is to engage not obfuscate.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My intention was very much to engage. Maybe my fondess for brievity serves neither me or my interlocutors particularly well. I've read many 'reader's letters' pages where the ommission of either Israeli or Palestinian crimes in an editorial is used to berate the publication as immoral or worse, complict. One on the reasons I like BHTV is that it is usually absent such posturing. I hope we can agree that any 'guilt by ommision' argument is worth scrutiny due to it's malleable nature. As for 'double standards', surely anytime you view someone as representative of a wider group and parse their views in

But the way to answer objectionable speech is not to suppress it; it is to answer with better speech, purer speech, with words that reflect, however imperfectly, the higher wisdom and peace that only God can give.

I completely agree, but I have to tell you that the following comment has been bothering me since you posted it a couple of days ago:

To Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, I would say as a (Christian) believer I sympathize with your plight. In a world that has largely lost any sense of the divine and makes human wisdom "the measure of all things," ours can be a lonely place--certainly on this site, anyway.

What exactly is the "plight" that Christians and Muslims share? You sound as though you were living out in the pagan wilderness rather than in a Christiancentric environment in which you are surely surrounded by dozens of churches (as I am), awash in dozens of radio stations devoted to Jesus and represented by elected officials at every level who almost unanimously profess your faith? I grant you the last five words of the paragraph, but I don't understand the rest of it.

self-censorship is rather important. Abu, i think, is asking that people that don't run around calling black people N***ers consider having a similar sense of restraint in attacking arabs and muslims. I suspect that if the NYT ran a headline like "stinking N***er elected president" - there is a good chance that there would be marches, possibly riots, and probably some level of violence.

Quoting popcorn_karate: self-censorship is rather important.

Abu, i think, is asking that people that don't run around calling black people N***ers consider having a similar sense of restraint in attacking arabs and muslims.

Racism of any kind, including anti-Arab racism, is immoral. Human beings are all part of the same race and should be judged as individuals. Criticism of Islam, however, is morally required. The religion tells people to believe things that are untrue and immoral. The world would be a better place if fewer people believed in this stuff, so self-censorship on the part of its most trenchant and effective critics would be a bad thing. (Idiots should ideally keep their mouths shut.)

Criticism of Islam, however, is morally required. The religion tells people to believe things that are untrue and immoral.

Hmmm, so what if one religion -- -say, Judaism, is singled out for criticism for believing untrue and immoral things? Does the Danish newspaper need to be careful to also include demeaning and insulting cartoons about Christians, Hindus and Jews?

Graz, No doubt we are all linked and I don't mean any undue harshness with my comments about not seeking or needing your approval. I am just making a similar point to you and others who continously say things along the lines of, we have no problem trying to engage with Muslims but at the end of the day regardless of what they think, this is what we stand upon and we don't really care if they like it or not....in a similar vein as someone who has lived my whole life in this country, respects many things about its law and culture, and feels like I have a better understanding of it than most, I try to engage in dialogue and communication between Muslims and non-Muslims and find common ground where its available. But at the end of the day, if there are areas of conflict that cannot be resolved, I don't hesitate in the least to say that my primary loyalty is to my Creator. I'm also, as silly as it may seems, still trying to resist actually going into a full fledged discussion of the

rfrobison, What you are mentioning is an interesting topic, but here and now's probably not the place to go off on that tangent. Sometime, inshAllaah. Let me just say that you don't really want a "Luther" or a "Reformation." Analogous movements in Islam would either be irrelevant or counterproductive to the concerns you have, and that's if there even could be an analogous movement in Islam. What you really want is something analogous to Reform Judaism to come to Islam. I can't say that that is what I want but I think the topic is interesting.

But the way to answer objectionable speech is not to suppress it; it is to answer with better speech, purer speech, with words that reflect, however imperfectly, the higher wisdom and peace that only God can give.

Quoting Wonderment: I completely agree, but I have to tell you that the following comment has been bothering me since you posted it a couple of days ago:

Quote:
To Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, I would say as a (Christian) believer I sympathize with your plight. In a world that has largely lost any sense of the divine and makes human wisdom "the measure of all things," ours can be a lonely place--certainly on this site, anyway.

What exactly is the "plight" that Christians and Muslims share? You sound as though you were living out in the pagan wilderness rather than in a Christiancentric environment in which you are surely surrounded by dozens of churches (as I am), awash in dozens of radio stations devoted to Jesus and represented by elected officials at every level who almost unanimously profess your faith?

I grant you the last five words of the paragraph, but I don't understand the rest of it.

Wonderment: I guess, in my case, it has to

Graz,

No doubt we are all linked and I don't mean any undue harshness with my comments about not seeking or needing your approval.

I love you to.

I am just making a similar point to you and others who continously say things along the lines of, we have no problem trying to engage with Muslims but at the end of the day regardless of what they think, this is what we stand upon and we don't really care if they like it or not

No one in this thread has done this. In fact, free speech proponents are as beleaguered as you in this fight, if on opposing ends.

But at the end of the day, if there are areas of conflict that cannot be resolved, I don't hesitate in the least to say that my primary loyalty is to my Creator.

To that, with respect, you might understand why some view your acquiescence to self censorship as a threat. That is not a burden you deserve. But it is one you suggest that you contend with. It is viewed as a threat to democratic values, if as a muslim your allegiance

Thanks for clarifying. I have nothing but respect for your position.

Quoting Wonderment: Hmmm, so what if one religion -- say, Judaism, is singled out for criticism for believing untrue and immoral things? Does the Danish newspaper need to be careful to also include demeaning and insulting cartoons about Christians, Hindus and Jews?

Every religion ought to be criticized to the extent that such criticism is warranted, and no more or less.

Abu says his primary loyalty is to his creator. you reply

Quoting graz: it's still viewed as a threat to democratic values nonetheless. If as a non muslim I understand that where your allegiance to God may supercede in conflicts that you will not name. Again, you might understand the implied threat.

so, you view all religious people as a threat to democracy? because every christian i know would probably say the same thing as abu regarding their "creator". and personally, my highest loyalties would never be to government, am i a threat also?

Quoting graz: I don't have a vested interest in indicting religion. But I recognize it as a threat to civilization.

where has civilization arisen without religion?

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Every religion ought to be criticized to the extent that such criticism is warranted, and no more or less.

or maybe people should be criticized. maybe its not a good idea to say "jews killed blah blah blah" or "Muslims hate blah blah blah" etc. because it is intellectually indefensible to criticize millions or billions of people based on an incredibly small subset of people that fall into that category.

Every religion ought to be criticized to the extent that such criticism is warranted, and no more or less.

Are you suggesting that Islam is more immoral and false than other religions? A simple yes or no will do.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Abu says his primary loyalty is to his creator.

you reply

so, you view all religious people as a threat to democracy? because every christian i know would probably say the same thing as abu regarding their "creator". and personally, my highest loyalties would never be to government, am i a threat also?

where has civilization arisen without religion?

Read Hitchens...call me in the morning.

Quoting graz: I don't have a vested interest in indicting religion. But I recognize it as a threat to civilization. It's on a long list of items, not first or foremost, but critical. Your faith is not the exclusive member on that list - small comfort I'm sure.

And here we have the crux of your conflict with Abu, and, to a lesser degree, with me. Your beef in the case of the cartoon controversy is with those who would abridge free speech in the name of respect for others' religious beliefs, social harmony, what have you. That's a position I fully share. But on a deeper level you regard ANY religious belief as "a threat to civilization." And to that I say: Hooey! Yes, faith can be source of conflict; yes, faith has been and in some places still is an instrument of oppression; yes, yes, yes: Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, Taliban. On behalf of all believers of every creed everywhere, let me say, once again, "Mea culpa!" But faith has also been and is a source of inspiration for mankind's finest impulses--art, literature, music, education, and even, dare I say it, science and human rights--in short, all of the things that make life worth living. So if you want to say that the bad outweighs the good and cut

Quoting rfrobison: And here we have the crux of your conflict with Abu, and, to a lesser degree, with me. Your beef in the case of the cartoon controversy is with those who would abridge free speech in the name of respect for others' religious beliefs, social harmony, what have you. That's a position I fully share.

But on a deeper level you regard ANY religious belief as "a threat to civilization." And to that I say: Hooey!

Yes, faith can be source of conflict; yes, faith has been and in some places still is an instrument of oppression; yes, yes, yes: Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, Taliban. On behalf of all believers of every creed everywhere, let me say, once again, "Mea culpa!"

But faith has also been and is a source of inspiration for mankind's finest impulses--art, literature, music, education, and even, dare I say it, science and human rights--in short, all of the things that make life worth living.

So if you want to say that the bad outweighs the good and cut yourself off from whatever truth or beauty may be found in the religious impulse, well, that's your business. But don't expect people like Abu and me to just roll over and play dead while you try to chip away at

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Wm. Blaxton, you are destroying your own argument with your last post. Yes, of course, racism is immoral. But how can that have anything to do with free speech? That's the point I'm making, I think the cartoons are immoral and therefore while I don't call for government censorship I don't have any problem with people calling on newspapers not to publish them. Just as I don't think the newspapers should run racist cartoons or anti-semitic cartoons although I don't think the government should ban them.

Of course you may think Islam or any other religion is worthless, horrible and evil but that can't be the basis upon which you are arguing either. One could try to argue that religion is an idea while race is something one can't control, but this in itself is simply a moral conclusion it cannot form the legal basis for differentiating the level of freedom of speech concerning such topics.

My last post was merely a response to the post above it. I was rejecting the conflation of anti-Arab racism (which I think is morally bad) and criticism of Islam (which can be, and is often, morally good). My characterization

Graz, I still don't get what you're arguing, if you're just saying violence is out of bounds then I don't know who you're disagreeing with (on these boards). No one has advocated violence, nor did Mr. Aslan. Even if your point is, people 'should' just accept the chance or even likelihood that they will often be offended as part of the 'price' of free speech which has many benefits, I don't disagree with you. Really and truly the only point I've been trying to make is that it does not contradict any principle of free speech or free press to speak and organize in an attempt to prevent certain forms of offensive speech from being published or broadcast by trying to bring public pressure and social stigma to bear. I'm not even by any means arguing that it is always useful to do so, I'm just arguing that it does not contradict the first amendment (which only means no government censorship) let alone call to mind questions of civilizational compatibility. Now it is certainly true that beyond the purely legal implications of the first amendment, there are certain cultural

Quoting Wonderment: Are you suggesting that Islam is more immoral and false than other religions?

A simple yes or no will do.

No. (By which I mean: No, Islam is not both more immoral and more false than "other religions." It may be more immoral or more false than at least one other religion, but I don't think it's both "more immoral and [more] false than other religions" -- which seems to be the question you're asking.)

Quoting popcorn_karate: or maybe people should be criticized. maybe its not a good idea to say "jews killed blah blah blah" or "Muslims hate blah blah blah" etc. because it is intellectually indefensible to criticize millions or billions of people based on an incredibly small subset of people that fall into that category.

So if I say, "the world wasn't created in seven days" (a criticism of a religion) is that a criticism of "millions and billions of people"?

Islam is not more immoral and more false than other religions. It may be more immoral or more false, but it isn't both.

You've danced around this in three posts now. Want to try for a fourth?

You asked for a one-word answer to a compound question, and then complained that I was "dancing around" when I tried to answer. My one-word answer to the question I think you were asking was: "No." Your question was poorly worded, since it contained two questions, and I tried to make clear what exactly I was saying in the parentheses. On the falsity of Islam: I know of no religion that I consider to be truer than Islam. So I don't think Islam is any more false than any other religion I've ever encountered. On the morality of Islam: The central teachings of Islam strike me as worse than the teachings of some religions (e.g., Unitarian Universalism or Reform Judaism or Zen Buddhism) and better than the teachings of others (e.g., sun-god worship fueled by human sacrifice). It's not the worst religion in the history of the world, nor is it the best. Don't ask for a one-word answer and then accuse me of dodging. And I'm still here if this answer doesn't do it for you.

On the morality of Islam: The teachings of Islam strike me as worse than the teachings of some religions and better than the teachings of others.

Could you give some examples of what you find objectionable in the teachings of Islam?

Quote:

And here we have the crux of your conflict with Abu, and, to a lesser degree, with me. Your beef in the case of the cartoon controversy is with those who would abridge free speech in the name of respect for others' religious beliefs, social harmony, what have you. That's a position I fully share.

But on a deeper level you regard ANY religious belief as "a threat to civilization." And to that I say: Hooey!

Yes, faith can be source of conflict; yes, faith has been and in some places still is an instrument of oppression; yes, yes, yes: Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, Taliban. On behalf of all believers of every creed everywhere, let me say, once again, "Mea culpa!"

But faith has also been and is a source of inspiration for mankind's finest impulses--art, literature, music, education, and even, dare I say it, science and human rights--in short, all of the things that make life worth living.

So if you want to say that the bad outweighs the good and cut yourself off from whatever truth or beauty may be found in the religious impulse, well, that's your business. But don't expect people like Abu and me to just roll over and play dead while you try to chip away at

Sorry, I edited slightly to refine my answer above right after you replied. The treatment of apostasy and blasphemy (both in the Koran, and by leading scholars, and in societies that purport to apply Islamic law) bothers me. The treatment of women and homosexuals (both in the Koran, and by leading scholars, and in the societies that purport to apply Islamic law) bothers me. The idea that the Koran is the best book ever written on any subject bothers me. The idea that Mohammed is the greatest human in history bothers me. Do you want citations to specific passages from the Koran? Do you want opinions from scholars? I can get them, but you can just as easily find them yourself.

Quoting rfrobison: Fair enough. You may not see all religious belief everywhere as a virus to be eradicated, but there are influential people such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and myriad Hichens/Dawkins wannabe university profs who do. Again, that's fine and dandy.

OK, it's not, at least not to me. But I'm not gonna launch a jihad to try and stop them. I'm just gonna continue arguing my case as best I can. And my case is much more specific than the general claim that religious belief is a Good Thing.

But that will have to wait for a more opportune time and place.

I look forward to you making that case. I think that Ditchkins are not as absolute as you suggest. Let's leave that for another time as well. Have you seen this:
What do you get when you combine Hitchens and Dawkins? "Ditchkins" of course.

I feel compelled to jump in here and try to bridge a few gaps/clarify a few things with another very long post. 1. On the guilt-by-omission question. Wm. says even if Reza does think the riots are bad, the fact that he chose, or his editors chose, to write an article about another aspect of the cartoon kerfuffle is not okay. Wm. believes that during the cartoon crisis, condemnation of the riots should have trumped all other (even if legitimate) complaints. In other words, he is concerned with an external logic of the piece--how does this artifact of journalism fit into its context. Crumbs does not say that condemning the riots is unimportant, but simply suggests that A. we don't know if Reza, in his heart of hearts, did condemn them and just chose not to write about it and B. he can choose to focus on what he wishes. In other words, Crumbs believes we should judge him on the internal epistemological merit of the piece. This debate comes up all the time in newsrooms, well beyond the cartoon crisis, and reflects two very different views to the role of the press. This is a

We Won’t Win The War Against Jihadi Terror Until We Stop Making It Just Our War We have to recognize Islamism for what it is at its core – a medieval ideology that rejects the very notion of any form of modern civilization, Western, Arab, Chinese or otherwise. It may manifest itself outwardly as jihad against the West, but it is in fact waging a brutal battle for supremacy in the Muslim world. And to understand it as anything less is to miss the point. So even as the West must continue the fight against jihad, which began in Afghanistan but will not end there, we must recognize that lasting victory will only come when Islamism as an ideology is discredited within the Muslim world. To do that, we must demand that our friends in the vast Muslim majority – and we do still have many friends there, even if some are disillusioned with our policies – recognize that this is their war too, and that we are both in it together. Until they stand up, loudly and openly, for the hearts and minds of their own societies, this conflict cannot end. http://dailyexception.com/2009/03/23...-just-our-war/

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: In summary, I think the heart of this debate between Crumbs, Wm. and others is about what journalists are supposed to do during controversial debates. I tried to frame the cartoon conflict in those terms when I wrote about it at the time:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2.12...rama-1.1678305

That may be what the debate devolved into. That it did to an extent was not the intention (according to Wm.). But the concerns raised were prompted by and aspired to speak to larger practical forces.

On the inherent (according to Wm.) incompatibility of Islam and liberalism: does it not violate our constitutional freedom of religion to say that some religions are more compatible with our society than others? I'd say, Wm., that your own critiques of free speech revisionists would bar you from making this argument about Islam.

Boy that sounds dandy. Yet he did make the argument and all agreed that the right to make it is sacrosanct - even its opponents.

In summary, I think the heart of this debate between Crumbs, Wm. and others is about what journalists are supposed to do during controversial debates.

Look, I realize that your profession or avocation is also under threat. You may be an

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: On the guilt-by-omission question. Wm. says even if Reza does think the riots are bad, the fact that he chose, or his editors chose, to write an article about another aspect of the cartoon kerfuffle is not okay. Wm. believes that during the cartoon crisis, condemnation of the riots should have trumped all other (even if legitimate) complaints. In other words, he is concerned with an external logic of the piece -- how does this artifact of journalism fit into its context. ... Crumbs believes we should judge him on the internal epistemological merit of the piece.

My objection is not just that Aslan failed to condemn the incredible outpouring of theocratic thuggery that was taking place as he wrote the piece (although that omission was significant, given that the violent and coercive response to the cartoons was the most remarkable, salient and frightening aspect of the affair). I also objected to a number of things that he did say. On this, see below.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: On the related question of whether Reza's perceived guilt-by-omission (GBO) is contingent upon, or at least increased by, his being a Muslim, Crumbs and Wm. appear to agree, sort of. Crumbs doesn't buy the existence

Quoting Wonderment: Hmmm, so what if one religion -- -say, Judaism, is singled out for criticism for believing untrue and immoral things?

Does the Danish newspaper need to be careful to also include demeaning and insulting cartoons about Christians, Hindus and Jews?

If I insult astrologers, am I somehow required to mock con men and grifters as well? The Danish cartoons were as much a critique on religious extremism in general as they were about Islam in specific. They just picked the target most likely to prove their point in grand style.

If I insult astrologers, am I somehow required to mock con men and grifters as well? The Danish cartoons were as much a critique on religious extremism in general as they were about Islam in specific. They just picked the target most likely to prove their point in grand style.

That's not what the protesting Muslims thought. Surely you can imagine a Jim Crow newspaper printing a series of cartoons and editorials suggesting that blacks are violent, stupid and lazy. Would you defend those expressions of free speech by saying, "Well, are they somehow required to mock Hindus and Chinese as well?"

Aslan is being 100% dishonest when he says that European Muslims (esp. British) are forever saying to him that since they speak, act, behave, and dress like the non-Muslim populations, why aren't they being fully accepted? No honest person in Britain, even the most partisan Muslim, could claim such a thing with a straight face and a clear conscience. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK, well over 90%, are actively self-segregating. They do not, as an empirical fact dress, behave and mix socially with the rest of us, as he dishonestly claimed. The overwhelming majority of British Muslims are of pakistani extraction, and they were self-segregating on arrival and this has only increased since Rushdie and 9/11. The overwhelming majority, as every opinion poll has shown, are against genuine free speech, against gender equality of oppurtunity, and are homophobic. He can dance around these verifiable facts all he likes, but ignoring the truth won't make it go away, and neither will it make the rest of us blind.

Quoting gary smith: Aslan is being 100% dishonest when he says that European Muslims (esp. British) are forever saying to him that since they speak, act, behave, and dress like the non-Muslim populations, why aren't they being fully accepted?

You risk a lot of justified push back by choosing to call him dishonest. It may just be the case that he doesn't travel much outside of his academic circles, or is just not very observant, or wishes to will an alternate reality into being. This is where the original criticism sprung from. It questions his credibility and motives. Maybe he just wants to sell books? Perhaps he wants to be the ''go to" Muslim for Westerners who want to hear that religion is not the issue? The further issue that he fails to address as a result of this omission is what is the result of the self-segregation? As there is no question as to the right for any community to isolate themselves. Isn't it counterproductive to democracy for a group to actively separate from the process?

Quoting graz: The further issue that [Aslan] fails to address as a result of this omission is what is the result of the self-segregation? As there is no question as to the right for any community to isolate themselves. Isn't it counterproductive to democracy for a group to actively separate from the process?

Depends on how that group views the surrounding society, what the group's political views are, and, if they are motivated to take violent action against that society, their capacity to carry it through. We now have proof that there is a (small) subset of Muslims who view the "infidel" West as the enemy. And they have both the will and the means to strike out at it. Nobody would say a self-segregating group such as the Amish, though, is any threat to democracy.

Quoting Wonderment: That's not what the protesting Muslims thought.

Surely you can imagine a Jim Crow newspaper printing a series of cartoons and editorials suggesting that blacks are violent, stupid and lazy.

Would you defend those expressions of free speech by saying, "Well, are they somehow required to mock Hindus and Chinese as well?"

Wonderment, I find your analogy a little offensive. Or just totally wacky, since I want to be friendly here. Do you really think that modern day Islamic extremists are being oppressed a la Jim Crow era blacks? By Danish newspapers?

Quoting rfrobison: Depends on how that group views the surrounding society, what the group's political views are, and, if they are motivated to take violent action against that society, their capacity to carry it through. We now have proof that there is a (small) subset of Muslims who view the "infidel" West as the enemy. And they have both the will and the means to strike out at it.

Nobody would say a self-segregating group such as the Amish, though, is any threat to democracy.

Good points. Didn't you also make the point that the vast expanse of land in the U.S. enables the Amish as an example to live apart in relative cooperation? This doesn't deny the counter force of the breaking away from the greater society. Are they a potential threat? Hardly, but neither are they an integral part of the evolving polity.
The dynamic changes dramatically in urban settings. Putting aside any real threats, religious or otherwise (anarchists, punk rockers), how do you measure the effect of self-segregation? Is it unimportant?

pathetic

Quoting popcorn_karate: so, you view all religious people as a threat to democracy? because every christian i know would probably say the same thing as abu regarding their "creator". and personally, my highest loyalties would never be to government, am i a threat also?

O.K. That would be no and definitely not.

where has civilization arisen without religion?

Everywhere in spite of or alongside religion.

Quoting rfrobison: Nobody would say a self-segregating group such as the Amish, though, is any threat to democracy.

I certainly wouldn't say that the Amish are a threat to democracy -- since there aren't many of them, and they don't seek to silence critics through intimidation or import their religious laws into the general code -- but their self-segregation isn't harmless. Legal Affairs, now sadly defunct, ran a disturbing story in 2005 on the "plague of incest" in Amish communities, and the reluctance of the Amish to surrender repeat offenders to secular authorities. As the author observed, "courts have permitted the Amish to live outside the law" because prosecutors and judges are impressed by their reputation as a gentle and pious people. As a result, all manner of grotesqueries regularly go unpunished. Check this out before you dismiss Amish isolation as quirky and harmless.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: I certainly wouldn't say that the Amish are a threat to democracy -- since there aren't many of them, and they don't seek to silence critics through intimidation or import their religious laws into the general code -- but their self-segregation isn't harmless.

Legal Affairs, now sadly defunct, ran a disturbing story in 2005 on the "plague of incest" in Amish communities, and the reluctance of the Amish to surrender repeat offenders to secular authorities. As the author observed, "courts have permitted the Amish to live outside the law" because prosecutors and judges are impressed by their reputation as a gentle and pious people. As a result, all manner of grotesqueries regularly go unpunished. Check this out before you dismiss Amish isolation as quirky and harmless.

Re: Amish isolation: Quirky, yes. Harmless? Uh, dunno. I suppose it depends on the leaders of individual communities. In any case, I wasn't really arguing that groups that isolate themselves, even ones that pose no threat to wider society, have no problems. No doubt closed communities are more prone to certain pathologies by their very nature. I'm no sociologist, but my gut instinct tells me that such self-segregation is not a good thing. But as Graz pointed out, some

Quoting rfrobison: In any case, I wasn't really arguing that groups that isolate themselves, even ones that pose no threat to wider society, have no problems. No doubt closed communities are more prone to certain pathologies by their very nature. I'm no sociologist, but my gut instinct tells me that such self-segregation is not a good thing.

But as Graz pointed out, some will opt for the cloistered life. They should be free to do so, so long as they aren't doing anything illegal. (Last time I checked incest fell into that category, though maybe that will be the final sexual taboo to fall in our society?)

Anything beyond that makes the cure worse than the disease, in my view.

Agreed (though I'm not worried about the incest taboo disappearing, since there are obvious secular moral reasons to disapprove of sexual predators and since our revulsion at incest probably has deeply-ingrained biological origins). My thesis is just that self-segregation and self-policing by ultra-conservative religious minority groups is probably likely to result in widespread pathology -- even when those groups aren't violent or irredentist and have no interest in politics and evangelizing (like