At 08:57 AM 2/18/2008, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't dispute your basic premise, however I think it's unfair to label
those who are offended by the public display of these images as
"extremists". Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental
objection to "graven images" and depictions of the Prophet seem to be the
most egregious form of this.
This observation, even if true, misses the point. Whether or not
someone, anyone, is "offended" by the images of Mohammed, simply isn't what
is at issue. What IS at issue is the "demand" by some Moslems, which demand
is made in the name of, and for the sake of, ALL of Islam, that the entire
world behave as if it, too, were ALSO similarly offended. Simply put, this
"demand" is those Moslems asking the rest of the world to practice THEIR
religion. Other interpretations of this "demand" characterize it as those
Moslems claiming that the entire world has some duty to be as "offended" by
the images as are the demanding Moslems.
I disagree with you in at least this narrow respect: You can't
believe the entire cosmos "should" practice your religion (in even so
narrow a way as being offended by images of Mohammed) unless you are
"extreme." Moderate Moslems, hell, moderate ANYBODY, practically by
definition, understand that other opinions and philosophies abound, and
that those other opinions and philosophies are entitled to exactly the same
"respect" that Moslems want for Islam. Only someone "extreme" would or
could adopt that attitude that, in all of creation (Oops! Sorry!), his and
only his view is entitled to "respect."
I realize that by characterizing things in this way, it opens up the
entirely new subject of the extent to which "extremity" is (or should be)
tolerated, or, even worse, understood as "acceptable," in this culture or
that. Quaere: To what extent, in a polity that has made itself a democracy
(particularly one with an establishment clause in its constitution), is it
"extreme" to put references to a deity in the polity's Pledge of Allegiance
and on that polity's currency? In a democracy, is a polity being "only a
little bit" theocratic, just like a woman being "only a little bit"
pregnant, or are there differences of substance?
I need to warn, ahead of time, those of you who might want to answer
this with "majority rules" arguments: That way lies (1) madness, (2)
publicly manifest error, and (3) demonstrations to the list of your
ignorance of democracy. I'm beggin' ya, I'm PLEADIN' with ya, think of
something else. In fact, think of how much damage Rosa Parks will do to
your majoritarian position.
I would say that the vast majority of those asking for the removal of
those pictures are devout adherents to their faith, and are overall decent
people.
I think the evidence clearly indicates that this isn't true, as some
of us small "d" democrats see things, although I'm not really sure what to
make of your adjective "decent." I wish I knew, with more specificity, what
you mean by using that word, and how you know, empirically, that it's even
applicable, or upon what empirical sources, or objective criteria, did you
draw to come to your opinion?
Some members of this list (as well as most adult citizens of the US) are
also devout adherents to their faith,
How would you know what "most adult citizens of the US" think,
believe, or practice? How would anyone know? Polls? All polls do is report
what people say, rather than what they believe.
however their faith may not have an issue with graven images. But they are
no less devout for all that.
Which, as I mentioned above, really isn't the issue.
Would you consider them extremists?
Yes, possibly, and I said why, above.
I also think there comes a time when exercise of one's freedom of
expression goes beyond a reasonable limit, if enough people are genuinely
offended.
Why is it your call to make? Why is it ANYBODY'S call to make? What,
exactly, is meant by "reasonable limit?" Who decides how many is "enough,"
and why should it even matter? That is: Why should I be silenced or
censored simply because whatever I say pisses everybody off? Should my
father have stopped being Jewish "if enough [Christians had been] genuinely
offended?"
Like I suggested above, when you are talking about small "d"
democracy, it isn't particularly safe to hang your hat on majoritarian
arguments.
Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on its
home page.
There are ALREADY some 5,878,499,814,186.5 websites with "graphic
images of sex acts on [their respective] home page[s]." Where have YOU
been? Oh. I almost forgot: You need to be over 18, and I'll need a valid
credit card before we can proceed.
Extra credit to anybody who knows the significance of the number I used.
This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a graphic depiction of the
Prophet is equally offensive.
Ludicrous, indeed, even if THAT were the issue, which it isn't. Why
should the offense taken by that Moslem be more important than my desire to
learn what artists and theologians, 1,000+ years ago, thought Mohammed
looked like? More significantly, why is the Moslem's decision to be
offended more important than my right to use peaceful and nonviolent means
to offend him? The constitution gives me the unreviewable right to dislike
Moslems, Richard Nixon, Flemish masters, chestnut trees, Bulwer-Lytton
prose, fluffy bunnies, and spumoni ice cream, and say so, publicly. I'm
ALLOWED to dislike him. I'm ALLOWED to say and do things that offend him,
WITH IMPUNITY, as long as I avoid violence, and as long I don't violate any
other laws (like copyright on the images, or defamation, for example).
As I see it: It is HIS job to get used to the fact that HE is in the
21st Century, with the rest of us, and NOT our place to conform to a set of
Dark Ages philosophies and practices, as HE interprets them. Extremist
Moslem theologians (although "theocrats" would be a far more accurate term,
except that it's pleonastic) are every bit as arrogant, self-righteous, and
sanctimonious as the best (Ha!) of any Christian televangelist you can
name. The religions may be different, but the closed-mindedness is exactly
and precisely the same. [Anybody remember the madrassa scene in the movie
"Syriana?" Except for the language spoken, the dress code, and the culture
being trashed in the sermon, it coulda been Jerry Falwell or Jim Bakker. "I
am right, because God says I am right, and everything I don't believe in is
wrong."]
Bob
Hey, yo, hepty-doop!
OK
End
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1286 - Release Date: 2/18/2008 6:49 PM
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
