Offensensitivity

[elfs]

One of the common themes out of the Dhimmi Watch crowd is the hostility that Islam has toward criticism. In the West, they argue (and with strong evidence), the Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament are "the word inspired by God," meaning that human beings wrote the words down and human beings can get things confusing or wrong, even when inspired by God; whereas The Quran is the word of God, written by Him, by His Hand, and to criticize it is to commit heresy, to insult God. Dhimmi watch keeps a long list of atrocities committed by Muslims whenever their religion is "insulted". The list is long and heartbreaking, and it's not worth the effort for me to repeat much of it.

But one example is illustrative. It is possible in the West to lampoon and cartoon Jesus and Jehovah; we do it all the time. Nobody has threatened Reuben Boll's life for his recurring character "God Man," and no comic book stores have been bombed for carrying bobblehead "Your Buddy Christ" dolls. In Denmark, however, Theo Van Gogh was murdered after he made a short film about women's oppression under traditional Islam. In the same country more recently, the artists who penned an editorial cartoon which depicted Mohammed in an unflattering light have had to go into hiding; a reward for their deaths has been issued by a group in Pakistan.

So, let me ask: when faced with this cartoon, does the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights defend the right of all people to speak their mind, to be critical of what they believe criticism-worthy in others, and to state unequivocally that neither vigilantism nor state-sanctioned force are acceptable responses to mere expression? Here's her response when asked about it by a representative from the Organization of Islamic Conferences:

I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper. I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable.

The scary thing is that our tax dollars actually pay part of her salary.

Lest you think I'm only coming down on Islam in this post, think again. Because I actually want to bring this around and point out that it's not just Islam that is so defensive of its tribal rights that it seeks to squash dissent. Paul Mirecki, a professer of religious studies at Kansas University, recently tried to put on a class called "Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Mythologies." He might have gotten away with it too if he hadn't had the bad political savvy to also write in a Yahoo group that he really hoped to "rub the fundies nose in their nonsense." The post got repeated up the chain of command and the Kansas State Legislature got into the act. The class has been canceled, Mirecki was roughed up by two goons (although there's some question about that) and was unquietly made to resign his seat as a chairman of the religious studies college.

What inspired me to write this post, however, were comments by members of the Kansas state legislature. Senator Kay O'Connor threatened to withhold state money from the school unless Mirecki stepped down. She also for a hearing so that the senators could grill the Kansas University Academics Committee about what they would do to make sure that the school had "a balance of ideological viewpoints" and answer the question, "What benefit did the school expect to derive from teaching Intelligent Design as a 'mythology'?"

But she also said, during her speech, the following: "Mirecki's intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate. We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America."

Comments

[jenkitty.livejournal.com]

We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America

Boy, I'm glad that's cleared up. I think I'll go watch Dogma and South Park.

Re: Denmark? Nope...

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Among those of us who believe in free speech and civility, there is a phrase that ruins discourse on topics such as this. You've just said it.

"I'm not condoning, or even pretending tolerance toward or understanding of, murder, but..."

I understand what you said. I cannot accept it.

A natural progression...

[(Anonymous)]

Our society has moved away from personal responsibility and to entitlement. I believe this feeds into the "I mustn't be offended or upset" culture that is now prevalent, since my feelings become the other person's fault. It's amazing how insidious this programming is too. For example my son's best friend is Korean. They recently gave speeches in class, which scared both of them, and his friend was upset to be chosen almost first, while Stone was chosen almost last. As he told me the story, Stone said "Well, it's only fair that the Korean students go first because...." and my well trained PC Eugene brain started to kick into alarm; What bigotry would he reveal? He finished "...because they go to ESL classes during the last part of that period."

Doh!! Thank goodness I bit my tongue and waited to hear the whole story!

I think this culture has been propagated by the victim classes pretty thoroughly, and it's eminently sensible that it's now been taken up by the majority classes as well. If you're lectured/trained not to do something, you will eventually expect that priviledge for yourself too. And how is it different to state that mocking Christians must be culturally unacceptable than to say that ridiculing homosexuals must be? (note : I see some differences, but they are primarily to do with power-issues that folks in the dominant paradigm are likely unable to perceive. In other words, it's subtle enough that you'd have to grok personal responsibility in the *first* place to accept the distinction.)

Solution? Dunno. It's a culture. I'm still not convinced that any culture is bad. I'm not reconciled on cultural aspects that *require* transgress against those outside the culture. I'm not arguing for moral-relatavism here, btw, but basing this on a belief that in practice, one cannot get outside one's own culture enough to see another culture clearly.

Perhaps I'm suggesting "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Which is not to say that cultures that do *not* condone the transgression shouldn't pursue 'justice' if their culture calls for it. At which point, of course, they are transgressing the culture of the original transgressor...

Perhaps Yamarashi-Chan can help me figure it out...

[tagryn]

I don't put Van Gogh's murder and the harassment of Mirecki as described in quite the same realm. A closer analogy might be to Eric Rudolph's bombings of abortion clinics, I think, but I don't think there's many "Christians" going around murdering & issuing death fatwas (Rushdie) against critics of Christianity per se. Statistically % wise there aren't many Muslims doing that to offenders of Islam, either, but in terms of base numbers it's more of a problem.

Given Prof. Mirecki's stated intent to teach the course with a personal agenda guiding it, I found rather rich his statement about his critics in the article that “They’re not for education, they’re for indoctrination.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Not many Christians issuing fatwas, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Let's see, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly...

There many not be many of them, but they've got loud voices and lots of listeners.

-Malthus

Re: Not many Christians issuing fatwas, eh?

[tagryn]

I'll grant you Robertson, though I don't recall a case where he specifically pointed to someone and said "he must die for offending the faith" as was done with Rushdie by Khomeini. He's made no secret that he wouldn't be broken up if certain segments of the population dropped dead, though.

Coulter and O'Reilly, and Limbaugh, are political pundits rather than religious figures. Their god is ratings and sales more than anything else. Their parallel in the Muslim world would be popular anchors on Al-Jazerra, rather than grand ayatollahs like Khomeini or Sistani.

Re: Not many Christians issuing fatwas, eh?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

One could legitimately argue, of course, that Robertson is in the same category: he lives and dies by ratings and sales as well. His empire is completely predicated on selling something: fear of God, and relief from that fear, and if he doesn't make it in that ratings game, he's as doomed as Coulter or Limbaugh.

[threnodym.livejournal.com]

Pardon the comment by a complete stranger, but...

As a Christian who counts Dogma as one of her favourite films, this sort of comment ("not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America") puts me in pretty sticky situation. I find it as healthy -- and necessary -- to occasionally take the mickey out of my religion, as I do my country and my sexuality; well, and heck, it's just damn fun. *g* And for what it's worth, over the years I've found that this is something I have in common with a fair number of other Christians. The O'Connors of the world might have the louder voices, but they're not necessarily an apt representation of the majority.

On a bad day, I find that they make more of a mockery of my beliefs than any bobblehead doll could have.