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.
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.
posted by Ze Boss at 00:48
2 Comments:
Maria and I disagree on a number of fundamental things. Our original values and definitions are not the same, and so our view of the situation is not the same.
Perhaps the most important difference between she and I is that by her own admission she believes you start with zero respect and then gain it. I believe everyone should be initially treated with respect, and then it should be revoked if the person is not worthy of it.
I love you Fahd!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home