Wherein I respond to a Taiwanese commenter, who categorizes my posting of the Danish cartoons that sparked Muslim anger as an act of childishness and insensitivity, which furthermore undermines freedom of speech:
Dear Falen,
The more that I read about the subject, the more I realize that the "cartoon controversy" is nothing more than manufactured outrage. Muslims themselves have drawn Mohammed over the ages, and PLENTY of images of him have appeared in the West previously. If Muslims were truly upset about the depiction of Mohammed, then shouldn't they direct their attention first at the books within their own libraries? But I'll talk more about the staged aspect of the situation in a later post.
As a matter of free speech I think it's entirely valid to show the petty nonsense that Muslims are going ape over. You do understand that they're rioting over something that they've never actually seen, don't you? OVER CARTOONS FOR CRISSAKES! It's entirely valid to show the Danish cartoons and allow people to make up their own minds about whether the rioters' actions are justified, or maybe they're just a wee bit out of proportion.
(One additional point - Muslims are rioting due to written descriptions about the cartoons. Is there not a possibility that the descriptions THEMSELVES might be needlessly inflammatory?)
These cartoons offensive? They're child's play. In The Divine Comedy, Dante didn't pussyfoot around, putting some staff in Mohammed's hand and pointlessly standing him in the desert with a donkey behind him. No, he placed the founder of Islam in the 8th Circle of HELL. And EVERY library in the West has a copy of that, probably with illustrations like this one by Gustav Dore':
That would be Mohammed in the center. We know, because the poet wrote: "Look how Mohammed claws and mangles himself, torn open down the breast!”
Maybe we could have a good old-fashioned book-burning just to make the mobs happy. But that wouldn't be enough to appease them. We'd also have to blow up a few churches with offensive frescoes. Frescoes like this one:
(By the way, I'm not being melodramatic here. In 2002, Islamofascists actually DID try to blow up the Italian church containing this artwork.)
Don't think for a minute that this only concerns the the West, either. China's a big place, with a lot of history. Probably a few Chinese depictions of Mohammed floating around. The Bamiyan statue incident in Afghanistan should be a sobering reminder to us all on the value that Islamofascists place on relics of the past.
(I won't even mention the hypocrisy involved when Muslims demand that their ever-so delicate sensibilities be catered to, while their own press spews the most vile anti-Semitic cartoons imaginable. My time in Taiwan has taught me that Chinese have a pretty good handle on the concept that respect is a two-way street.)
Beyond these considerations however, is the question of national sovereignty. It's a fact that blasphemy restrictions exist in countries of the Arab world. I'll explain later why I think they'd be better off without them, but the reality on the ground is that their blasphemy laws are on the books, or that their societal taboos are in place. If I visit Saudi Arabia, I promise not to corrupt anybody and set them on the path to hell by showing them any of these images. Having said that though, by what theory of national sovereignty do Saudi blasphemy laws somehow migrate to countries within the birthplace of the Enlightenment?
European intellectuals have busied themselves for years worrying about the effects of American "cultural imperialism". They would do better to be a little less concerned about Big Macs and Euro-Disney than about the women in their midst being raped for not wearing veils or the theocratic goons murdering their countrymen and attempting to impose their mores upon them.
Finally, and most importantly, is the question of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means the right to believe in God, to not believe, and yes, to think that belief itself is a crock. Islamofascist intimidation represents nothing less than a deliberate attempt to rob a free people of their religious freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God." That applies to religious tyrants as well.
Surrender is the easy and cowardly way out - whether the the enemies are Islamofascists or dictatorial butchers casting their hungry gaze on an small island of free men with a population of only 23 million.
If there is a benevolent God, then it is MY belief that He wants us, His creations, to be free. To accept Him of our own free will. Which means that we are free to make mistakes, and to sin. It also means that we are free to love, as well as to mock Him.
Which of course leads to an interesting question. Islamofascists CLAIM their religious beliefs do not allow ME (a third-party, a non-believer, and someone living on foreign soil!) to mock Mohammed. But MY beliefs inform ME that I have the FREEDOM to reject God. Why exactly, should their theology take precedence over mine?
To my knowledge, China never had religious wars. I could be wrong. Please then, allow me to explain that the consequences of the Thirty Years War were catastrophic. Germany's population before the war was 21 million - by the end it was 13.5 million*. And it was all because Catholics and Protestants claimed the right to force each other to conform to their own theologies.
NEVER AGAIN.
Moreover, to my knowledge, pre-communist China never had a Dark Age (at least in a religious sense). Again, I could be wrong. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that there was a time when Europeans were broken on the wheel for heresy. This punishment consisted of tying the victim to the wheel of a cart, and breaking all of his limbs one at a time with a metal bar.
I believe the bar was made of lead.
NEVER AGAIN.
These two reasons are why I think you are so uncomprehending of the importance of religious liberty to Westerners. (Pre-communist) Chinese history may simply not have the abundance of examples that lead to the conclusion that religious freedom is an absolute necessity for a peaceful society. Consider: if Muslims get their (admittedly minor) blasphemy prohibitions enacted now, they will be inevitably be tempted to demand more later on. Other religions will follow suit.
What will the result be? Eventually, religious inquiry itself will be stifled, as theologians discover that new interpretations violate theocratic taboos.
The followers of religion may complain about freedom of religion when their religion is insulted. Quite frankly, I don't blame them. But they should reflect on the fact that the freedom that allows others to mock their most cherished beliefs is also the very same freedom that allows themselves and their theologians to argue and debate the nature of God, and man's relationship with Him. It gives them the right to change their minds. It gives them the right to belong to a religion that continues to grow and innovate, so that it doesn't lose relevance for its practitioners. Such change and progress cannot happen without thought preceding the deed. And that thought cannot happen without freedom.
You're free to think that I'm some kind of gleeful provocateur who enjoys making fun of other people's faith. Maybe my reasons for showing the cartoons mean nothing to you. They happen to mean a lot to me. And I'm sorry if you find that childish.
Sincerely,
The Foreigner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I originally was mistaken in placing these figures at 30 and 3 million, respectively. I believe that the numbers given now are the correct ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: No Pasaran! slyly wonders when the Muslim world will begin burning Egyptian flags and boycotting Egyptian goods. After all, they printed the cartoons of evil too!
UPDATE (Feb 18): The Brussels Journal makes the observation that Muslim complaints are more than a little rich considering their past behavior:
For centuries and until today, Islam has ordered the destruction of everything that is sacred to other religions, starting with the 360 idols in the Kaaba (including Jesus and Mary) smashed to pieces by Muhammad himself, down to the Bamian Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, the weekly vandalising of Hindu temples in Bangladesh, or the destruction of Christian churches in Iraq during the last couple of months. In many cases, moreover, not only the places of worship but the worshippers too have been assaulted. What an arrogance for Muslims, with their heritage of iconoclastic insensitivity, to put up this show of indignation for a handful of harmless cartoons. And now we are being expected to feel pity for those poor touch-me-nots?
Moreover, if lack of respect for other religions is to the basis for banning speech, then the KORAN should be one of the first publications to be so censored:
The Quran contains dozens of verses that preach hostility to Pagans (polytheists, Zoroastrian ‘fire-worshippers’ and atheists), Jews and Christians. It denounces their teachings as false and evil and a sure passport to hell.
The Quran also expressly forbids conversion from Islam to other religions, while allowing and encouraging the reverse... It is also in contravention of the European Convention on Human Right's article 9...for this article defines “freedom of religion” as including “the right to change one’s religion.”
In addition the Quran rejects the principle of “equal rights and duties for everyone,”...Apart from the candidly affirmed inequality in rights and duties between the sexes (which admittedly exists in all religions), it explicitly ordains inequality between the different religious communities. To the non-monotheists Muhammad denied freedom of religion completely, and as for Jews and Christians, the Quran only allows them to retain their faith if they accept the status of third-class citizens and pay a ‘toleration tax.’
There is even grimmer reading, however, in dozens of Quran verses that go further than mere doctrinal disputation and actually enjoin the Muslims to go out and fight the ‘infidels.’ The core text of Islam is not merely disrespectful towards other religions, it extols killing and glorifies dying in the war against the non-Muslims.
UPDATE (Mar 10/06): Islamofascists in the birthplace of the Enlightenment recently demanded another surrender, calling for one of Voltaire's plays to be cancelled. After some initial waffling, the local French authorities grew a spine and provided police protection to the theater presenting the play from a small mob of Muslim thugs outside. The mayor speculated as to why Muslims think the West is gutless, saying, "For a long time we have not confirmed our convictions, so lots of people think they can contest them."
(Hat tip to Sandmonkey.)
UPDATE (Apr 9/06): A Chinese model wearing a bikini with the word "Allah" on it. No rioting over this, but then, Muslims don't have any particular axe to grind against the Chinese.
Yet.
