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.
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.
posted by Ze Boss at 02:31
4 Comments:
I am a European. I am not Muslim, I am not Christian. I am not secular either. Secularism is itself a disguised form of religion. I am thus responding to the article as such. First of
all, I would like to apologize to the authors of the texts I am about to quote extensively,
but quite often others say it better than I do, and I want to say as well as it can be said.
Yes, during an extended period in history Western European Christians were pretty
"passionate" about their religious ideas. There's an entire century of religious wars well
after the middle ages that testifies to that. Und dann? It was a sad period of our history,
a retarded and fanatic one. That's why you evolve. Rome itself has publicly apologized for its extremism in many moments in history. Basically, that's not a very good example of why current Europeans should approve of Muslim "outrage". On a second note, icons were not THE issue. Just like sunnis and shi'ias. THE issues were disputes over papal authority in the eastern empire (which had been divided politically before it was religiously), as well as over how many parts (divine and human) composed the son of God (Christ) - also known as the filioque problem. And the Great Schism of Chalcedonian Christianity occurred in 1054, not in the 700s.
That historical clarification aside (which is not our focal point here), I understand that some Muslims may feel insulted by having their faith attacked by the cartoons. I understand it. Tell you more: they are in full right to protest if they wish. But responding to a publication with fire is counter-productive. Seriously, even from a Muslim perspective, you won't get anyone to respect you or feel for you if everytime someone publishes something that deeply outrages you the form of response is physical violence. You don't respond to an
insult with a stone: you'll only get more stones back if you do.
Now to the roots of the hysteria: the publication. I would like to make it clear that what I am about to say has nothing to do with my approval of freedom of speech. In fact, in a modernized version of my dearest Bentham, my view is that all natural rights are bs on
stilts. I don't think freedom of speech or the lack of it has anything intrinsically necessarily good about it. Said. Now, we are dealing with societies here where by and large liberalism is a religion. God is not dead in Europe; it's a travesti. One of the main designers of this travesti, Voltaire, is often quoted has having said "je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je défendrai jusqu'à la mort votre droit à le dire".
The republication of the cartoons is fulfilling this commandment of the new god. Yet, haven't heard of the Syrian embassy burnt in Copenhagen. Different methods? Let me quote extensively the front page article of the Economist this week: "'I disagree with what you
say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to
say it.' (...) There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims. They
offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. AND they
offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics, or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free
to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.
No country permits completely free speech. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler didi not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy
law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. (...) In this newspaper's view, the fewer
constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Mohammed cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence - be they so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful - western governments should think carefully before denouncing them.
Freedom of expression, INCLUDING THE FREEDOM TO POKE FUN AT RELIGION, is not just a hard-won
human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation.
Shouldn't the right of free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most
people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have the right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Mohammed cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers tha published the cartoons said they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press.
It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come
from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, Bush and Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against
Islam. (...) In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilizations?
No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbors any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Mohammed is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves."
OK, so this is the part I thought unnecessary, as you don't have to want or appreciate freedom of speech to look at the issue with a cool-head. But overall, this guy made many important points. I don't care what people's principles are, if they uphold Islam, Hinduism, Liberalism, Fascism or Communism. It doesn't matter how largely upheld these principles are either. All narrows down to a very basic concept: ideas. Mental representations,
conceptualizations, theories, doctrines that are entrenched in people's brains and lives. That's fine. Now, whatever you believe in, you can't force others to believe it as well or even merely to respect it. Disrespect is legal in Denmark, so it's ok. People make unethical, uncourteous decisions about everything and everyone all the time, and no fuss is raised about it. Plus, a question of methods of counter-attack is focal here. The use of
violence or the threat of it to make your enemy stop doing something is called coercion in
military strategy. Since when is coercion "corteous"?
If it's all about religion and respect, then the other side of the herd has to understand that in Europe the new religion embodies often extreme freedom of speech. You don't fancy it; that's OK. No one has ever or ever will hear me advocating the expansion of democratic/liberal values or freedom of speech to the part of the world that doesn't have them. I couldn't be less concerned - in fact, there have been and currently are pretty respectable dictatorships and censorship regimes in the world. But you can't stop others from painting their yellow walls blue just because you're the yellow nation. Live and let live, and you shall flourish.
I won't comment about the whole cartoon issue, but I will however point out the historical inaccuracies of your entry. I'm actually taking a class right now on the Early Middle Ages, so I feel compelled to correct you. =)
First of all, the Roman Empire did not become divided into the Holy Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire in the 700s AD. The Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire) split off in the 4th century AD. Different historians place the exact date at different point in the 4th century, but nowhere as late as the 8th century. It is true that the climax of the Eastern-Western opposition came in 1054, during the East-West Great Schism, when both popes excommunicated each other, but little blood if any was shed. You may have been confused though by the fact that the Holy Roman Empire only started in 800 under the reign of Charlemagne.
You also claim that the 8th century AD was a mess, but to say that is nonsense. The 8th century saw the rise of Charlemagne, who initiated the Carolingian Renaissance, to which we owe the survival of many of the classics today. Besides that, Have a nice day!
I have taken the previous comments about chronology into considerations and made the necessary revisions. Thanks.
Danish people....tsk tsk tsk
Post a Comment
<< Home