-
Recently Written
- Move Over Health Care, Pass the Election Reform!
- Back from Hiatus
- Ingmar Bergman is Dead!
- The End of the Anti-Manichaeist
- Falwell, and the Religious Right, as seen by the World
- Religious and Political Themes in Spiderman 3
- A British Reporter Recounts the Pressures Faced While Reporting on Scientology!
- Romney has No Comment on Upcoming Film on Historic Massacre by Mormons!
- My Question for the Presidential Candidates
- Servant Leadership Must Be Willing to Step Down!
-
Categories
-
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2008
- August 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
-
Blogroll
- 42 dreams of Arizona Bay
- A Pilgrim’s Digression
- Bart Campolo
- Christian Persecution
- dhalgren
- Donlan News Wire
- escape_velocity
- Faith and Theology
- Foreign Notes-Ukraine
- from vigo to vega
- Global Voices
- God’s Politics by Jim Wallis
- Imitatio Christi
- jam on bread
- Jesus Manifesto
- Jesus Politics
- Kruse Kronicle
- Levellers
- lunablue
- Nukraya
- Poser or Prophet
- shnooks
- Solly Gratia
- stormfront
- t. l. blumberments
- Talking Points Memo
- The Evangelical Ecologist
- Touchy Subjects
- Ukrainiana
- Vanguard Church
- without a map
- XPatriated Texan
-
Admin
-
Search
Feb
6
just kidding.
Joshua Marshall writes a more reflective post today that takes seriously the notion that we would get similarly upset if someone derided Martin Luther King Jr or Jesus. Josh continues to rightly say that the mob violence is wrong, but is empathetic to the point and I think that’s commendable of him.
He also asks for reader feedback and so I emailed him my own letter.
The muslim violence over the cartoons is inexcusable.
There was the case of when in England there was a play that mocked Jerry Springer and portrayed Jesus in a very irreverent way. Many UK Evangelical Christians and Muslims peacefully protested the play, even though one could easily argue that it wasn’t the best use of their political capital to give witness to others in a post-Christian neo-pagan society.
I doubt such a play would get a showing in the US, even in NY, though I understand it’s satirical nature.
I characterized your previous post at TPM at my blog, in a negative light. I think both the Danish Cartoonist and European media and you come across as cultural elitists from the fundy-perspective and, as a result, tend to heap more kerosene on the fires rather than work towards improving intercultural communication. It is this improved communication that is necessary if we’re going to be able to learn from each other. Wishful thinking like that of Howie Dean is not going to make the problems/conflicts go away. If we truly cannot interface then the future is going to be dim.
In the US, I don’t see religious/social conservatives returning to their political quietism that let Progressives tend to dominate the US gov’t from the thirties to the early seventies. As such, the best hope for democracy in the US is for us to encourage them to develop deeper habits of political deliberation so they won’t give their votes for less than tortas to the economic-conservative dominated Republican party.
dlw
Comments
8 Responses to “
Leave a Reply
I wrote about this issue today as well. I take the opposite point of view, so I feel a little at odds with liberals today. The truth is, Jesus is caricatured all the time for political purposes, and I point out some examples on my blog. On the one hand, I agree that it is our Christian duty to not give offense to our neighbor, I don’t believe we are responsible when someone uses a perceived offense as an excuse to riot. I have little sympathy for the offended when their first reaction is to seek revenge.
I wouldn’t turn a blind eye to the offense if I were responsible for maintaining order.
My main point I made before is that from an ethical consequentialist standpoint, there’s no point to using our freedoms to violate the taboos of muslims. It doesn’t do anything to help extend more freedoms deprived of many things we take for granted.
If you want to be an effective agent for change, you gotta take into account how your intended audience will likely react to your message.
dlw
I think we need to distinguish here between a private entity’s right to free speech and a government’s responsibility to be considerate of the consequences of its actions. I would not advocate that the Danish government propagandize against Islam by soliciting caricatures of Mohammad. We can both agree, that crosses a line. However, in a free society, a newspaper or magazine or even an individual person is not really required to consider consequences too much. A person might be stupid not to consider the consequences, but I would defend a person’s right to say stupid things as vigorously as I would defend a person’s right to say intelligent, thoughtful things. Not so long ago, there were riots in (I think) Dayton, Ohio, when a neo-Nazi group staged a march there. I dislike admitting it, but the neo-Nazis had a right to express their stupidity without fear of the kind of physical intimidation to which they were subject. The same is true of this whole cartoon war going on. I don’t think the western media should surrender its right to free speech due to intimidation and the threat of violence.
I agree that neo-Nazis have a right to march. The point is not whether he had the right to write the comics, but whether we shd criticize or applaud his free speech. As I understand it, classical liberalism holds not just that we shd get freedoms, but that everyone shd get certain freedoms.
As such, the consequence that shd guide the cartoonists activism/speech shd be whether or not he helps more muslims get more freedoms and to do that, he shd have respected their taboos.
I think the muslims in Europe had the right to use nonviolent civil protests to say that the cartoon is an offense, but they shd target it towards the cartoonist, not the state and theer shd be no hint of the use of
violence…
dlw
I can’t criticize the cartoonists. They were doing exactly what artists, writers, and poets have been doing for centuries. Their speech may have been dangerous, but then that is always the risk of speaking one’s mind. And fortunately, we live in a society that is not completely craven to the idea that “offending” someone is the most awful sin one can committ. Well, we’re not quite there, yet, but we’re getting there.
I disagree with Josh Marshall on this one; I agree with another writer at TPMCafe, Pascal Riche. Gee, I always find myself siding with the French for some reason.
I agree that one can take avoiding offending people to an extreme, but what matters at the end of the day is changing the world we live in and that can and does require respecting some the existing frames of others.
dlw
I don’t believe it is a Christian’s duty to change the world we live in, at least not in any muscular, evangelistic way. That is just repackaged, Bushian interventionism. Change begins locally, internally, and spreads through example: “…first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
I am not an isolationist. Seriously. But I am skeptical of attempts to intervene forcefully in history. No matter whether it is a Conservative or Liberal advocating the “redemptive power of violence,” as I’ve heard it called, it sounds Utopian, to me not to mention unduly optimistic on the subject of human nature. People are sinful, and their works almost inevitably lead only to sin and degradation.
However, after sleeping on it, I am willing to concede that those newspapers exercised poor judgement in publishing those cartoons. Christians do have a duty to get along with others. Christ tells us not to let the sun go down on a dispute we may have with someone; and even if we are sitting in a worship service, we are supposed to leave the House of God and go ask forgiveness of our brother, even if the fault lies with him. As difficult as it is, I am going to abase myself right now and admit that it was wrong to publish those cartoons, and wrong to stubbornly maintain a stand of unrepentance after it became clear that the cartoons were giving offense to our Muslim brothers and sisters. I am sorry for my attitude. I was wrong. I still believe that free speech is an inviolable right, but when we speak wrongly we ought to admit it and ask forgiveness. Those cartoonists should resolve this conflict by asking forgiveness and withdrawing their cartoons from publication, if possible.
I’m glad you’re willing to change your mind.
I think evangelization doesn’t involve the use of the sword of the state.
Although, it may require more political vigilance to restrain the sword of the state in the hand of our gov’t. I’m thinking particularly of how the US supported the rise of the shah in Iran.
We really need to apologize for that and scale back our plans for the military use of nuclear weapons and balance out some of policies towards Israel and Palestine and then hjoin the rest of the world in calling for a clear moral condemnation of the further use and development of nuclear weapons.
dlw