Comments on: The Devil Cannot Abide Mockery http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-323 BlackWizardMagus Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:14:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-323 Yup...though, the far left and right wing political ideologies now are adhered to as dogmatically as religion, so is yet another threat. What we really need, at least in the US, is to go back to teaching the Constitution as the first lesson of government. I graduated without ever having read it as a class assignment, only occasionally hearing parts from teachers, while they prattled on about completely UNconstitutional Congressional acts. Honestly, this is what is lacking in schools, and I think that is not entirely by accident. Yup...though, the far left and right wing political ideologies now are adhered to as dogmatically as religion, so is yet another threat. What we really need, at least in the US, is to go back to teaching the Constitution as the first lesson of government. I graduated without ever having read it as a class assignment, only occasionally hearing parts from teachers, while they prattled on about completely UNconstitutional Congressional acts. Honestly, this is what is lacking in schools, and I think that is not entirely by accident.

]]> By: Jim Sabiston http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-322 Jim Sabiston Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:04:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-322 One must bear in mind that througout human history free speech has been actively surpressed by the ruling and/or religious leadership. Freedom of speech as it exists in the US is a unique development in human history. Political leaders traditionally are criticized for their active and sometimes brutal suppression of free speech. But political actions are always transient,being an external event, typically passing with the offending leader. Religious suppression of freedoms is more sinister and potentially permanent as it plays upon the internal subconcious cognizant systems within the population. It becomes integrated into the societal/religious doctrine and 'a way of life'. Recovery from this colsed societal structure can be a slow and painful process, if it occurs at all. The religious leaders know this fully well and the fundamentalist leaders use it to great effect. This is the real crime behind the Danish cartoons. It would have remained a local event except that it was grabbed by a Muslim group and distributed more widely throughout the Islamic countries expressly for the purpose of sowing dissent and offense. The Islamic clerics are simply using the age old tool of fear of an external enemy to buttress their own power base. As regards effects in Western world, we must be forever vigilant against the supporters of the 'avoid offense at any cost' school of thought. This path leads unavoidably to censorship and the death of freedom of speech as we have known it. Our own leaders, political, religious and corporate are working at accomplishing this every day. Gratuitous insults should be avoided out of simple respect, but I do not consider the Danish cartoons to be in this class. Archi pointed out that the real message of the cartoons was lost in the controversy over how 'offensive' they were. Too true, and it is an important message, if only the majority of the Muslim population would 'own up' to it. As for the media (liberal or otherwise-both arguements can be supported these days), do not look to them for the truth. All major media outlets are currently owned by major corporations and the news that gets printed/telecast tends towards a sensationalist bent because it sells. Truth is the first casualty in this environment. Unbiased reporting and analysis is the second. One must bear in mind that througout human history free speech has been actively surpressed by the ruling and/or religious leadership. Freedom of speech as it exists in the US is a unique development in human history. Political leaders traditionally are criticized for their active and sometimes brutal suppression of free speech. But political actions are always transient,being an external event, typically passing with the offending leader. Religious suppression of freedoms is more sinister and potentially permanent as it plays upon the internal subconcious cognizant systems within the population. It becomes integrated into the societal/religious doctrine and 'a way of life'. Recovery from this colsed societal structure can be a slow and painful process, if it occurs at all. The religious leaders know this fully well and the fundamentalist leaders use it to great effect. This is the real crime behind the Danish cartoons. It would have remained a local event except that it was grabbed by a Muslim group and distributed more widely throughout the Islamic countries expressly for the purpose of sowing dissent and offense. The Islamic clerics are simply using the age old tool of fear of an external enemy to buttress their own power base.

As regards effects in Western world, we must be forever vigilant against the supporters of the 'avoid offense at any cost' school of thought. This path leads unavoidably to censorship and the death of freedom of speech as we have known it. Our own leaders, political, religious and corporate are working at accomplishing this every day. Gratuitous insults should be avoided out of simple respect, but I do not consider the Danish cartoons to be in this class. Archi pointed out that the real message of the cartoons was lost in the controversy over how 'offensive' they were. Too true, and it is an important message, if only the majority of the Muslim population would 'own up' to it.

As for the media (liberal or otherwise-both arguements can be supported these days), do not look to them for the truth. All major media outlets are currently owned by major corporations and the news that gets printed/telecast tends towards a sensationalist bent because it sells. Truth is the first casualty in this environment. Unbiased reporting and analysis is the second.

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-319 BlackWizardMagus Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:15:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-319 Yup, that's how I look at it. I think if they want to protest the paper itself, fine, let the paper deal with it. There is certainly a capitalistic aspect to where if a paper pisses people off too badly, they lose, and that's their own damn fault. But legal infringements on them, violence against them, etc is BS. And the liberal media (I don't care what anyone says, it's liberal) didn't stand up for itself. Indeed, media went out of it's way to hurt another media outlet; it's pretty bad when the news cares more about being nice than the actual news. Oh, and Archi, I just read your essays at Ebon, very informative. I too somewhat believed the moderate Muslims when they said that Islam was not a violent, domineering, imperialistic religion/political system. I'm glad to heve learned more. Yup, that's how I look at it. I think if they want to protest the paper itself, fine, let the paper deal with it. There is certainly a capitalistic aspect to where if a paper pisses people off too badly, they lose, and that's their own damn fault. But legal infringements on them, violence against them, etc is BS. And the liberal media (I don't care what anyone says, it's liberal) didn't stand up for itself. Indeed, media went out of it's way to hurt another media outlet; it's pretty bad when the news cares more about being nice than the actual news.

Oh, and Archi, I just read your essays at Ebon, very informative. I too somewhat believed the moderate Muslims when they said that Islam was not a violent, domineering, imperialistic religion/political system. I'm glad to heve learned more.

]]> By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-318 Archi Medez Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:14:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-318 BlackWizard, Re religious sensitivity: I agree. I don't think gratuitous insult of people's religious beliefs is helpful. At the same time, as you say, there should not be laws protecting religious sensitivity. I think one of the key problems with the way this controversy was handled in the media is that the actual content, the intended meaning, of the cartoons got downplayed. There were important issues addressed, such as women's subjugation, terrorism and jihadists' beliefs, and freedom of expression (one cartoon showed an illustrator at his desk shaking with fear, hunched over his desk, drawing a picture of Mohammad). But these issues got buried in the media frenzy. Something similar happened with the film _Submission_, in that media attention became focussed on the issue of offensiveness and also on the ensuing threats and the assassination of Van Gogh. The actual subject matter of that film--domestic abuse (i.e., wife-beating) under traditional or fundamentalist Islam--got overshadowed in the controversy. The substantive issues got trivialized as the spotlight was put on the issue offensiveness. (This of course happens routinely whenever Islam is substantively criticized publicly). The publishers of the cartoons were put on the defensive, being called upon to explain themselves. That's fine, but generally the media did not put the more important questions to the Islamic leaders, clerics, and scholars: What about the issues (women's subjugation, terrorism, free expression), and how they relate to Islam's teachings and contemporary practice throughout the world and in Europe particularly (esp. Denmark where the cartoons were originally published)? The media could have better served their public duty by investigating these issues. BlackWizard,

Re religious sensitivity: I agree. I don't think gratuitous insult of people's religious beliefs is helpful. At the same time, as you say, there should not be laws protecting religious sensitivity. I think one of the key problems with the way this controversy was handled in the media is that the actual content, the intended meaning, of the cartoons got downplayed. There were important issues addressed, such as women's subjugation, terrorism and jihadists' beliefs, and freedom of expression (one cartoon showed an illustrator at his desk shaking with fear, hunched over his desk, drawing a picture of Mohammad). But these issues got buried in the media frenzy.

Something similar happened with the film _Submission_, in that media attention became focussed on the issue of offensiveness and also on the ensuing threats and the assassination of Van Gogh. The actual subject matter of that film--domestic abuse (i.e., wife-beating) under traditional or fundamentalist Islam--got overshadowed in the controversy.

The substantive issues got trivialized as the spotlight was put on the issue offensiveness. (This of course happens routinely whenever Islam is substantively criticized publicly). The publishers of the cartoons were put on the defensive, being called upon to explain themselves. That's fine, but generally the media did not put the more important questions to the Islamic leaders, clerics, and scholars: What about the issues (women's subjugation, terrorism, free expression), and how they relate to Islam's teachings and contemporary practice throughout the world and in Europe particularly (esp. Denmark where the cartoons were originally published)? The media could have better served their public duty by investigating these issues.

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-316 BlackWizardMagus Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:30:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-316 I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of religious sensitivity. Really. Just as long as it's not a LAW, I don't think it's unfair to protest something if you see it as a total insult. Political correctness isn't necessarily a bad thing, just as long as you don't try to coerce others into following you. If you can convince them, though, by all means do so. I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of religious sensitivity. Really. Just as long as it's not a LAW, I don't think it's unfair to protest something if you see it as a total insult. Political correctness isn't necessarily a bad thing, just as long as you don't try to coerce others into following you. If you can convince them, though, by all means do so.

]]> By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-315 Archi Medez Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:30:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-315 Adam, Very well presented. The context in the U.S. is interesting. The U.S. probably protects free speech better than any other country, to my knowledge. At the same time, the would-be theocrats are very active there. I was disappointed with the support that the Islamist clerics and leaders obtained internationally, in their attempts to thwart and punish practically everyone associated with the publication, from some of the politicians and religious leaders from other faiths. I was also disappointed with the response of seemingly well-meaning non-Muslims who opted for the politically-correct route in saying we need to respect religious senstivities, etc. This again gives religion a special status that other areas of , and so those who use the religion can maintain their power. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the key players in this event were the Islamic political leaders and clerics. (Of course, in countries like Pakistan, the ordinary citizens will mass-protest examples of blasphemy without any prompting from government). I'm a bit tired so I hope to try and post a bit more tomorrow. For now, here's a few links on the controversy. Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism (By Rushdie et al). http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/ Flemming Rose explains why Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html Editor unrepentant over cartoons: “When asked whether he regretted his decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons, in light of the firestorm they unleashed in the Islamic world and threats against him, Flemming said it was like asking a rape victim whether she regretted wearing a short skirt.” "What I did did not transcend normal practice," he said. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18165591%5E1702,00.html (I've followed the controversy fairly closely and this gives a good overview of the cartoon controversy and is well-referenced with lots of links to sources). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy Hirsi Ali: 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam' http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html Democracy in a Cartoon By Ibn Warraq http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html Adam,

Very well presented. The context in the U.S. is interesting. The U.S. probably protects free speech better than any other country, to my knowledge. At the same time, the would-be theocrats are very active there. I was disappointed with the support that the Islamist clerics and leaders obtained internationally, in their attempts to thwart and punish practically everyone associated with the publication, from some of the politicians and religious leaders from other faiths. I was also disappointed with the response of seemingly well-meaning non-Muslims who opted for the politically-correct route in saying we need to respect religious senstivities, etc. This again gives religion a special status that other areas of , and so those who use the religion can maintain their power. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the key players in this event were the Islamic political leaders and clerics. (Of course, in countries like Pakistan, the ordinary citizens will mass-protest examples of blasphemy without any prompting from government). I'm a bit tired so I hope to try and post a bit more tomorrow. For now, here's a few links on the controversy.

Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism (By Rushdie et al).
http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/

Flemming Rose explains why Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Editor unrepentant over cartoons: “When asked whether he regretted his decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons, in light of the firestorm they unleashed in the Islamic world and threats against him, Flemming said it was like asking a rape victim whether she regretted wearing a short skirt.”
"What I did did not transcend normal practice," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18165591%5E1702,00.html

(I've followed the controversy fairly closely and this gives a good overview of the cartoon controversy and is well-referenced with lots of links to sources).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Hirsi Ali: 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html

Democracy in a Cartoon By Ibn Warraq
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-311 BlackWizardMagus Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:46:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-311 I thought they were funny, honestly. At least some of them. And, they are not racial insults OR religious/islamic criticisms; they were insults to TERRORISTS. I mean, seriously, the prophet with the bomb turban was making fun of the followers of the prophet who use bombs, not anyone else. If you don't see Mohhamed as a violent revolutionary or his teachings as such, then the comic quite simply didn't apply to you. Just like a comic making fun of abortion clinic bombers do just that; they make fun only of those who bomb abortion clinics. But yeah, the free press/speech trampling is getting pretty bad. Add in the whole WOT and all free speech is being endangered because it's either "offensive" or "dangerous to national security". I thought they were funny, honestly. At least some of them. And, they are not racial insults OR religious/islamic criticisms; they were insults to TERRORISTS. I mean, seriously, the prophet with the bomb turban was making fun of the followers of the prophet who use bombs, not anyone else. If you don't see Mohhamed as a violent revolutionary or his teachings as such, then the comic quite simply didn't apply to you. Just like a comic making fun of abortion clinic bombers do just that; they make fun only of those who bomb abortion clinics.

But yeah, the free press/speech trampling is getting pretty bad. Add in the whole WOT and all free speech is being endangered because it's either "offensive" or "dangerous to national security".

]]> By: Dominic Self http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-310 Dominic Self Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:09:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/03/devil-cannot-abide.html#comment-310 The cartoons were probably an unfortunate example to become the prime example of 'free speech' as it forced people like me to start defending what was, on its own merits, fairly weak as 'art' or 'satire' or any other worthy expression. From a European point of view, I suspect they were intended as really more of a racial insult rather than a logical criticism of Islam or religion in general. And besides which, they weren't even that *funny* (unlike Jerry Springer - The Opera of course!) None of this changes the point that the violent demonstrations against the freedom to mock and ridicule were obnoxious. The cartoons were probably an unfortunate example to become the prime example of 'free speech' as it forced people like me to start defending what was, on its own merits, fairly weak as 'art' or 'satire' or any other worthy expression. From a European point of view, I suspect they were intended as really more of a racial insult rather than a logical criticism of Islam or religion in general. And besides which, they weren't even that *funny* (unlike Jerry Springer - The Opera of course!)

None of this changes the point that the violent demonstrations against the freedom to mock and ridicule were obnoxious.

]]>