Cartoons: What lessons can we learn?

[miseshayek]

I know that this sounds paradoxical, but I think that this cartoon incident should be viewed as a great opportunity for learning and understanding by thoughtful people in the Islamic and nonIslamic ["Western"] worlds. Let me give some examples of what I think might be learned:

Westerners might learn the following:

(a) What is or is not a "free speech" issue. Hint: This isn't one. Free speech is about whether a government should be allowed to utilize "prior restraint." It isn't about whether what you say has consequences. Free speech is not always free, and there is no basis in the Western tradition for believing that it should be. If you set out to be offensive, don't whine over people getting offended.

(b) If people, in some sense, "have a right" to be offensive, then other people equally have a right to be offended. Sorry, it doesn't work just one way because you agree or don't agree with one side or the other, at least in the sort of "free societies" that Westerners say they favor.

(d) The Western model of large scale secular societies isn't the only model of a "good society." In fact, it is rather usually historically.

(e) There is a point buried in this controversy about the proper extent and centralization of government power based on the scale of the society under the sovereignity of a particular government that I hope we'll get back to in more detail as this thread progresses.

Those who are more familiar primarily with more strict Islamic nations might learn the following:

(a) Westerners really are serious about their rights-based secular societies. Such societies simply don't allow governments to exercise prior restraint regarding "mere speech," even if it is intentionally offensive speech. To protest about this or that individual or group or business firm insulting Islam or insulting the Prophet will probably be well received. To call for censorship is simply going to seriously cut against your cause.

(b) Westerners usually distinguish between offense and force. People who are offensive are viewed as rightly subject to social [nongovernmental] sanctions. Other people can and often do shun them, boycott them and generally dislike them. An appeal to engage in such social sanctions is often viewed with sympathy and favor. On the other hand, putting offensive people in jail for being offensive or lynching them or burning their press or house is considered "over the line," and what would otherwise be sympathy for the offended person then turns into defense of the offender.

(c) Most Westerners either aren't very involved with religion as acentral part of their lives or they, at least, are very thick skinned about "insults" to their religion. Even the most religious Westerner will simply tell the insulter that "G_d will get you." but generally wouldn't think of any direct action to put the offender in his place [see (b)] This is the result of hundreds of years of living in secular or pluralist societies. Just as the Western should "get use to" the fact that there are societies that are rightfully not secular or pluralist, those who live in those societies should understand that their way of life is not the only path.

I am sorry if anyone is offended by the above on either side, but these appear to me to be the facts of the matter. Resort to conspiracy theories about, for instance, how much this incident is a manifestation of an attempt to demonize Islam in preparation for a holocaust of Muslims, on the other hand, or how the "Jiahadists" have fabricated this incident to stir up hatred of the West, on the other hand, appear to me to miss the point. The point is that different people in different societies have different fundamental values. You can either live that fact or move to war.

 

[Trumble]

Excellent post. That sets out the position very well, I think.

 

[Muezzin]

I know that this sounds paradoxical, but I think that this cartoon incident should be viewed as a great opportunity for learning and understanding by thoughtful people in the Islamic and nonIslamic ["Western"] worlds. Let me give some examples of what I think might be learned:

Westerners might learn the following:

(a) What is or is not a "free speech" issue. Hint: This isn't one. Free speech is about whether a government should be allowed to utilize "prior restraint." It isn't about whether what you say has consequences. Free speech is not always free, and there is no basis in the Western tradition for believing that it should be. If you set out to be offensive, don't whine over people getting offended.

Agreed.

(b) If people, in some sense, "have a right" to be offensive, then other people equally have a right to be offended. Sorry, it doesn't work just one way because you agree or don't agree with one side or the other, at least in the sort of "free societies" that Westerners say they favor.

Very true.

(d) The Western model of large scale secular societies isn't the only model of a "good society." In fact, it is rather usually historically.

I agree with the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean in the second sentence. Perhaps you made a typing error? Alternatively, I'm just being a bozo. Again.

(e) There is a point buried in this controversy about the proper extent and centralization of government power based on the scale of the society under the sovereignity of a particular government that I hope we'll get back to in more detail as this thread progresses.

Those who are more familiar primarily with more strict Islamic nations might learn the following:

(a) Westerners really are serious about their rights-based secular societies. Such societies simply don't allow governments to exercise prior restraint regarding "mere speech," even if it is intentionally offensive speech. To protest about this or that individual or group or business firm insulting Islam or insulting the Prophet will probably be well received. To call for censorship is simply going to seriously cut against your cause.

This is true. Censorship? No. Courtesy? Yes.

Heh, if I continue quoting your entire post, it's just going to be a lot of 'agreeds', so I'll just say: Very well said.

I am sorry if anyone is offended by the above on either side, but these appear to me to be the facts of the matter. Resort to conspiracy theories about, for instance, how much this incident is a manifestation of an attempt to demonize Islam in preparation for a holocaust of Muslims, on the other hand, or how the "Jiahadists" have fabricated this incident to stir up hatred of the West, on the other hand, appear to me to miss the point. The point is that different people in different societies have different fundamental values. You can either live that fact or move to war.

Hit the nail on the head. Very good post.

 

[miseshayek]

Muezzin, lets see if I can further explain the one part of my initial post that was unclear. [I apologize for not having mastered the "quote" function of the software in this Forum as yet, but I'll get there eventually.]

========================
I said:

d) The Western model of large scale secular societies isn't the only model of a "good society." In fact, it is rather usually historically.

===========================
You responded:


I agree with the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean in the second sentence. Perhaps you made a typing error? Alternatively, I'm just being a bozo. Again.

==================================

I reply:

I don't think that you're being a bozo at all. My point was much too terse and was rather obscure. What I meant was something like the following:

(1) All societies [except for the very few like the U.S. that are purely artificial constructions] probably started out as a small "compact group" like a tribe. In such compact societies everyone shared many of their values and views including religious beliefs, customs about what is polite, a common language, and many more minutia of life. This was what was meant by "being a member of the tribe" as much if not more than "blood relationship."

(2) Today, there are fewer such societies. Many peoples live in mass scale nation states where there is mutual anonymity between most persons and there is often great diversity in values.

(3) There is clearly a difference in beliefs about how much of the original structure of common values, common religious beliefs, common views of politeness, etc. must be preserved in the mass nation state in order for such a nation state to be stable and persist over time.

(4) Most nations, both historically and today, have chosen a balance that is different and more "traditional" than the balance chosen in the West, particularly in the English speaking West. Indeed, before the Enlightenment of the late 18th Century, most of the West, including the English speaking West, was much more traditional than it has been since that time.

Off topic comment: My personal belief is that the "choices" described above are false choices. One "innovation" that Western thought has come up with [or maybe we just borrowed it from the Iriquoi Federation and earlier societies] is the notion of decentralized "federalism." According to this idea, localities should adopt whatever laws are agreeable to their inhabitants, including very restrictive and traditional laws on dress, religion, etc. but that "secularism" [that is, a growing absence of any such particulars] should increase as one moves up to the regional government and then to the national government. As examples: It could be illegal to defame the Prophet in a Muslim locality or to drive your automobile on Shabbat in a Jewish locality, but both Muslim and Jewish localities could interact with one another regarding common economic enterprises [at the regional or national level] and common defense [at the national level]. I thus see no contradiction between religious people being able to strictly adhere to their faiths and having a mass nation where very different such people interact with one another in matters not involving their homes or communities.

 

[bobby13579]

I noticed these cartoons are very hard to find online. I posted them on my website, --- I think there is a lot that can be learned by the whole incident.

 

[Jeness18]

Excellent post. That sets out the position very well, I think.

AGREED.

 

[wysiwyg]

Hi miseshayek, very good post. To do a quote, just click on quote at the bottom of the reply you want to quote, and the delete the bits you don't want, but make sure you keep all the "QUOTE" bits in the brackets.

Off topic comment: My personal belief is that the "choices" described above are false choices. One "innovation" that Western thought has come up with [or maybe we just borrowed it from the Iriquoi Federation and earlier societies] is the notion of decentralized "federalism." According to this idea, localities should adopt whatever laws are agreeable to their inhabitants, including very restrictive and traditional laws on dress, religion, etc. but that "secularism" [that is, a growing absence of any such particulars] should increase as one moves up to the regional government and then to the national government. As examples: It could be illegal to defame the Prophet in a Muslim locality or to drive your automobile on Shabbat in a Jewish locality, but both Muslim and Jewish localities could interact with one another regarding common economic enterprises [at the regional or national level] and common defense [at the national level]. I thus see no contradiction between religious people being able to strictly adhere to their faiths and having a mass nation where very different such people interact with one another in matters not involving their homes or communities.

I think this is a very good observation and is why western governments attempt to be as secular as possible. Only under such government can all religions thrive. The problem that many Westerners have with Islam is that many Muslims want governments to follow Islamic Law and Islamic Law only. Then you get conflict happening. However, the idea that different 'tribes' or cultures can settle into particular geographic locations is not feasible in western industrial nations where they are easily torn apart by different work opportunities, interests and other factors. Beliefs then become personal rather than social attributes, a characteristic I think, that Muslims have difficulty dealing with.

 

[miseshayek]

I noticed these cartoons are very hard to find online. I posted them on my website, --- I think there is a lot that can be learned by the whole incident.

I believe that the cartoons that are being circulated are not the ones that initiated this incident, or at least the ones that many Muslims have in mind when they express extreme anger over this matter.

The author of one of the truly offensive cartoons was incarcerated by the Israeli government, first as a psychotic and later for inciting racial hatred. From the articles I've seen, she is apparently being made out as some sort of persecuted hero by the Kahanists and the more extreme elements in the settler movement.

According to what is an established policy with me, I will not post a link, but her name is Tatiana Soskin. You might look up her cartoon, I think that you will be shocked. [If you aren't, you should be.]

 

[miseshayek]

I think this is a very good observation and is why western governments attempt to be as secular as possible. Only under such government can all religions thrive. The problem that many Westerners have with Islam is that many Muslims want governments to follow Islamic Law and Islamic Law only. Then you get conflict happening. However, the idea that different 'tribes' or cultures can settle into particular geographic locations is not feasible in western industrial nations where they are easily torn apart by different work opportunities, interests and other factors. Beliefs then become personal rather than social attributes, a characteristic I think, that Muslims have difficulty dealing with.

I am not certain I agree with your comment on why this idea will not work. Certainly, there is a "tension" in every "modern" society between maximizing ones income or wealth and living in an environment where ones other values are accomidated. But Orthodox Jews, for instance, somehow manage to live within walking distance of their Shuls, so that they will not have to "light a fire" on the Sabbath by starting up their automobiles.

Such matters are a choice. If one is a fundamentalist Christian or a devout Muslim or an Orthodox Jew then I suppose one will choose to associate with those who are like minded and school one's children accordingly.

I think that the real "problem" in many "modern" societies [with France being the most extreme example I can think of] is that what should be a convenience for mutual benefit [national citizenship] becomes a fetish and a replacement for more traditional values and affiliations. The historical U.S., however, was just the opposite, with all sorts of enclaves of ethnic and religious groups living their lives with their fellows but carrying on economic relationships with those outside their group.