Finally: A Heated, but Civilized, Debate

Before starting, I would like any newcomers to this entry to first read the entry called Looking Back at the Past, then read the elaborate and well-documented comment posted by Maria. And then read this entry as a response to the comment. Maria and I present varying points of view, both with our strengths and weaknesses, and the very existence of this blog, in its entirety, is to spur dialogue. Thank you Maria.

First of all, Secularism isn't a disguised form of religion. Atheism is; not secularism. Secularism is the concept that a person, community, or entire nation's spiritual beliefs should have nothing to do with the manner in which that nation is governed.

I would like to comment on the time period during European history when Europeans were passionate about religion, the period which Maria calls the "sad period of [European] history, a retarded and fanatic one." I do not agree, because the terms sad and retarded are full of judgement. To judge a past period based on present values is unobjective. In no place is it written in stone by an unfallible and ever-correct source that the values we humans have today (in the beginning of the 21st century) are better or more evolved than the values humans had a millenium ago. It is simply because we live in the present that we assume today's values are better. But our judgement is flawed, and biased, towards ourselves. We want to think, almost subconsciously, that the values by which we live with today are the best possible values. But, answer this: if every present civilization believes its values were the best, and some of these values were contradictory, then who would be correct? There is a basic logical discrepancy. If everyone claims to be correct, and everybody claims that no one else can be correct, then no one can be correct. Which is why, in everything that pertains to human judgement, there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, but (as Shakespeare so wisely put it in Hamlet) thinking makes it so. The human brain or society as a collective decides which values are good or bad at any given specific moment, and thus denigrates all other values to the rank of, as Maria says, 'sad and retarded.'

With regards to the Muslim reaction, I had the regret of discovering this morning upon awakening that 10 Libyans died while setting fire to an Italian Embassy. But why did they? Because the Italian Minister of Interior said he would wear a T-Shirt with the 12 cartoons. This well after the Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut had been burnt. Who is this Interior Minister? A prominent member of the Northern League, a far-right anti-immigration party in Italy. This is called provocation. He knew perfectly well, because of the previous weeks' protests, that Muslims did not appreciate the cartoons. Yet he still announced he would wear them. It is nothing but deliberate populism, with the hope of stirring turmoil.

What kind of constructive debate do you want to hold with people like that? Of course violence is a solution. Perhaps not the most politically correct, probably not the first I would choose, but definitely a working solution. Do not forget that most of the progress in this male-dominated world always came as a result of the sword. Feudalism, colonialism, occupation, injustice, they have more often than not been halted by the sword. Even the ultra-reformatist country of UK had to go through some violence (the Sans-Culottes, 17th century) in order to impose real restrictions on the King. Unfortunately we live in a dream world where we deny the violence around us, and really believe that EVERYTHING can be solved through constructive debate. The UN was created, among other things, to stop conflict; and now people are wondering why it is failing? It would be naive, truly naive, to think that in this world everything can be solved through discussion and debate. Imagine what the world would be like today if Chamberlain had had his way and continued to debate with Hitler? No, and the writer Maria knows this pertinently well, force is an imperative condition to have debate. And the demonstration of force is sometimes necessary to convince the other that debate is ultimately better.

With that said, do I agree with the burnings? Absolutely not. If only for the fact that the higher moral ground is to default on violence when you might judge yourself entitled to it. And do not forget what some Western analysts have been pondering in the last few weeks: in most Muslim countries there were no demonstrations, and it seems rather convenient that in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran demonstrations benefitted the current governments, who happen to be disliked by their populations. What I mean to say is, many analysts wonder if the demonstrations were not encouraged by the government, in order to make itself look better. Anyways, that is pure conjecture...

What I do sympathise with is the feeling of outrage. Allow me to explain: "Freedom of Speech" is an ideal, but this is not an ideal world. It is an ideal which should guide us, but reality is different and sometimes requires us to make deviations in order to pass a larger message. So let us look at reality: in this world, Muslims are effectively looked down at. They are pointed at, they are humiliated, and in Muslim eyes, they are (physically and philosophically) being invaded. And the fact of the matter is, they are angry. They are poor, hurt, and angry. Now, when a man has NOTHING, he also has nothing to lose from violence, and everything to gain from it. And for that reason, he will use it. So when faced with the decision of printing the cartoons, you can make two choices: 1) act ideally, print the cartoons, but be in full knowledge of the consequences that might ensue. Or 2) act realistically, convey your message in a non-graphic way, and avoid what may be painful consequences. Maria, you call this coercion? Perhaps, but as long as you have not suffered through what the Muslims have suffered through, you are not in a position to give them lessons. Besides, I am not the first to hold this view: it is called Realpolitik, championned by the likes of Chancellor Otton von Bismarck. You may not agree with something, but you need to decide on the basis of the current reality. Do you choose to press on with the cartoons (and uphold your freedom of speech) or do you choose your safety, and that of diplomats around the globe? If you choose safety, then you choose not to print drawings of the prophet, calling him a terrorist and a bloke.

And finally, Maria seems to have misunderstood one of my claims, and thus attacked a misunderstanding. I do not want the government of Denmark to apologize to Muslims. I do not want to Mr. Rasmussen to censor his newspapers. That would be a travesti against freedom. I agree with you completely. But as you say, "It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But [the decision of what to print] is and should be their own decision [...]" That is EXACTLY what I am saying. True enlightenment doesn't require the government to punish its press; true enlightenment requires the press to know how to pass a message (and indeed pass it, not ignore it out of fear or pressure), but pass it tactfully. I am not saying it should censor itself. I am saying it should communicate its issues in a respectful and courteous manner.

Tell me, what is more important: publishing 12 cartoons depicting the prophet in a manner which can easily be insulting simply to defy a convention? Or respecting a distressed and truly hurt people's dignity? It is asking afundamental question: does journalism exist to inform people and mediate between conflicts to better the human situation, or does journalism exist solely for the purpose of its freedom of press? I was under the impression that journalism existed to protect and advance people.

This is the question Jyllands-Posten should have asked before it printed the article. You say so yourself, it should be their own decision. And you also say it is not a good idea to insult people's religious beliefs. So in fact, my dear Maria, you and I agree on this point. I am not asking a cleric or a Prime Minister to order the newspaper around. But as I said in the concluding sentence of my entry, they need to have the maturity to use their given freedom wisely. And in this case, they didn't.

Now don't get me wrong: I agree with the media when they fight for their existence because their position as spokespeople is threatened by extremists. Moreover, I have no problems looking at pictures of the prophet. I am sorry Danish cartoonists have been threatened. I am sorry buildings have been burnt. I am even sorry for the insurance companies insuring them. I condemn this violence, completely and unilaterally. But this isn't about you or me: this is about respecting a truly huge (I repeat, one billion) community who believe very fervently in their religion.

And for this reason I insist that the newspapers demonstrated either great naivety or great arrogance when publishing the cartoons.They should have known a response would come. To shield oneself, meekly, behind the shield of "Freedom of Press" is rubbish. Freedom of press, sure, but if you're going to print something, be prepared to assume its consequences. They didn't.

Finally, I'd like to say one more thing to my dear Maria. You write: "Disrespect is legal in Denmark - so it's ok." Is that really what humans have become?

I believe that we are different and we disagree with one another, but we are here trying evolve into a world of humans who can coexist respectfully as best we can. Is this not the point of governments, agencies, debates, wars even? I do not agree with a world where you can blatantly be disrespectful towards a community just because you have the right to do so. Freedom of press is not an end to itself, it is a means towards development.

If this is the world of today, then I disagree with the values of today. We are not evolved, our values are not evolved, compared to those of before. Historic values, those which you call sad and retarded, were probably better. There was a time, which you call retarded and sad, when Crusaders and Mujahideens fought over the Middle East. Yet when a Crusading King fell from his horse in battle, he was sent a horse by his enemy. If today I live in a world which still debates the legal and technical definition of torture, while yesterday a king could give a horse to his enemy, then that is not evolution. That is sad and retarded.

Looking Back at the Past

Around the 700's AD, when Islam was still a very young religion, just about to light its 100th candle, the Roman Empire was divided in two: the Holy Roman Empire (under the direct authority of the Pope and the Imperator) and the Eastern Roman Empire (which called itself the Roman Empire, despite the fact that its capital was in Constantinople). The latter Empire was given many names (Greek Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc...) but names are merely details. Suffice it to know that there were two Roman Empires, both Christian, but different.

One of the largest problems that dominated the HRE vs. ERE diplomacy was the issue of icons. Icons, you see, were drawn all over the Eastern Empire. What's so special about these icons, you ask? Well, you see, they had pictures of God, Jesus Christ, and other holy figures. And they were worshipped. Which seems to go in direct contradiction of Commandment number two, depending on your interpretation: "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#The_ten_statements).

Indeed, icons went against the second commandment. And so, rather understandably, whilst they were adored by the uneducated poor who could not read the Bible in the Eastern Roman Empire, the Pope in Rome didn't really like these icons. This issue caused some bloodshed, notably in Greece and in Constantinople whenever the leaders of the ERE tried to take away the icons. And though it is true there wasn't much bloodshed, there certainly was a divergence in opinions between the Pope in Rome and the Emperor in Constantinople about the existence of these icons.

So what do we have here: Christians against Christians, because some Christians worshipped icons.

FAST-FORWARD to the 21st Century: On September 30 2006, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Mohamed. One of which has the comment (according to a translator I cannot verify): "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke."

Now any of you who know me know I am 100% for the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. Your presence on this blog, unless you fell on it by complete hap-hazard, testifies to this.

Yet I must agree with the Muslims who are outraged. I myself barely consider myself Muslim, but I still feel sympathy for the outraged, the hurt, and the insulted. Islam simply does not want to graphically represent God or his prophet Mohamed. It is a religion which has existed for over fourteen centuries, and with all its faults, no single Muslim has openly defied or challenged this idea. Each Muslim is perfectly content practicing her/his religion without ever needing to see a picture of the prophet or Allah (Arabic word for God). And I will make the assertion that each religion belongs to its adherents. Therefore, Islam belongs to Muslims, and the way it is practiced is up to the Muslims.

Now, as my previous anecdote illustrates, if two members of the same faith can get in a fight about icons, how do you think two members of opposing faiths will react? Yes ladies and gentlemen, today, right now, Christianity and Islam are opposed. I hate to say it, but Muslims feel, and with understandable evidence, that they are being targeted and pointed at by Christians. If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bitter sentiment that Palestinians are let down, and the colonial past are not enough, now the West is making drawings of the Muslim prophet! Are you really surprised that they are reacting the way they are? I'm not.

Western Europe doesn't understand that Muslims feel much closer to their religion than Europeans do. The Economist, Newsweek, and Time have all had headlines during the 90's about the "Death of God" in Europe. Europeans have alienated, since the beginning of the 20th century, the Church from the State. Europeans simply do not care about religion, and about their religion more specifically, like Muslims do. They do not understand that Muslims value religion more importantly than freedom of the press. First of all, that concept does not even exist in Muslim countries, so it cannot be cherished. Second of all, almost every facet of life in Muslim societies is characterized by Islam, down to the prayer five times a day. The error, the grave error, is that Europeans are assuming Muslims give as much importance to Islam as Europeans are giving to Christianity. And that is a grave and terribly flawed assumption. Muslims are much more fervent, and react much more personally to a criticism about a facet of Islam. So when a Christian cartoonist prints twelve pictures of the prophet, one with a bomb on his head, another calling him a bloke (!), of course they'll take it personally, of course they'll get mad! Who wouldn't?

Now yes, that cartoonist has every right to make his drawings. He has every right to communicate whatever he wants. It is a right I agree with, and a right I would die for upholding. But, when dealing with the world's second largest and fastest growing religion, who is in a state of grave and widespread social stress, be respectful. Be tactful. Be courteous. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to make fun of others' beliefs. To engage in constructive and founded criticism is one thing, and should be encouraged; but to call the Prophet a "bloke" is simply downright insulting. I mean, what's the point? Just to get a good kick out of a few drawings? A couple laughs, while sipping a beer or on the bus-trip to work? Does that really justify making fun of one of the greatest religions to have existed on the surface of this planet?

I mean, fuck, look back at your own past, and you'll see that at one point in time you were also equally passionate about your own religion, and you also attacked (verbally or physically) your own fellow Christians for the way they worshipped the same Christ and the same God. Sure you're allowed to draw and say whatever you want. But don't make the mistake of speaking freely simply because you have the right to do so; that is not an exercise of your freedom of speech, but merely an abuse of it, and the eventual murder of it. If you have the courage to fight for freedom, then have the maturity to use it wisely.