Don't respect religious sensibilities

I suspect a lot of people are missing the point about the cartoon row. The principle we should be defending here is not just free speech, but rationality itself. A defence of rationality - or Enlightenment principles if you like - requires that irrational views be mocked.
What I object to is Straw's claim that "There are taboos in every religion. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation" or Simon Jenkins' claim that "there's a "balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others."
No. We shouldn't respect irrational views. And Islam is irrational.
I don't just mean it's irrational to believe in God, or to believe that one's morality should be lifted en masse from the ambiguous beliefs of a 7th century warlord.
Sure, these are damnfool ideas. But we all have damnfool ideas, including me. Islam - at least in the form manifested in the streets at the weekend - goes beyond this foolery, in three ways.
First, there's -  apparently - a lack of self-reflection here. How many of the weekend's protestors have come to Islam after a considered contemplation of competing moralities?
Second, Muslims identify themselves with their irrational beliefs in a way that we inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition don't. There is a gap between (say) me and my left-libertarian-atheist opinions in a way that probably isn't for many devout Muslims. In this sense, we should disrepect precisely those people who are most likely to take offense. It's not (merely) the content of Islam that's deserving of mockery - it's the fanaticism of its adherents, their belief that their beliefs are constitutive of their identities.
Third, most of us don't impose our damn fool ideas onto others. We don't hurt others by imposing our beliefs onto them. We should mock, ridicule and disrespect a religion that produced this, this, this, this, and this. And that's not to mention the obvious.
I want to be clear here. Contrary to Lenin, this is not intended to be racist; my beef is more against white or British fanatics than it is against non-fanatical Arabs. Fanaticism, superstition and taking their beliefs from bigoted old men are ways in which Muslims oppress themselves. Reminding them of the superiority of Enlightment values might just help them shake off their shackles. After all, look at how much better western society is for having shaken off Christian fanaticism and superstition.

Comments

[Katherine]

I couldn't disagree with you more when you say "A defence of rationality - or Enlightenment principles if you like - requires that irrational views be mocked". You really think that the way to defend your point of view is to mock the other side? That that will persuade people of your point of view? Really?

Anyway, the assumption that religion and rationality are even in the same ball park is incorrect. Religion and science should not even be in competition with each other.

[Matt]

Religion is no more a "race" issue than political belief is. Trying to paint it as such is just a way of shutting down the debate and shifting the focus away from the idiots burning down embassies and onto those worried about the intrusion of religious values into secular society.

Lenin and others persist in seeing religious extremists as victims of the big bad "west". Which requires some pretty impression logical contortions.

[Recusant]

I like and admire your blog, but you just lost me on this post. Not forever, but about this. You are displaying a large measure of the fundamentalism – Pavlovian response, exaggeration, Aunt Sally’s, etc. that you deplore in other, religious, fundamentalists.

What by the way is so all fired perfect about rationality? The love I bear towards my children, lovers, friends and others has no basis in rationality whatsoever. It cannot be scientifically proven, empirically or otherwise, but it would be irrational to deny that it is a powerful force with immense effects and consequences for human behaviour. How rational is it to love someone one day and hate them the next?

I agree with you on free speech. If it doesn’t apply to extreme examples then it isn’t worth having – pace JS Mill. But you are allowing too much emotion – not the friend of rationalism - to infect your argument. You’re beginning to rant, and that is what ‘they’ do. It then ceases to be a debate about anything but reverts to the school playground.

I’m a Catholic. But since my definition of a Catholic is that the only good ones were Saints, and we all no they what a pain in the arse they are to live with, maybe I might not be classified as a proper one, although I think the Big Boss in Rome would agree with me. Suffice it to say that I can take abuse and am well used to it. What gets my goat is that in such a fundamentally non-Christian society people act as if it as an act of real daring and rebelliousness to have a pop at those who are Christian: frequently the same types who wouldn’t dream of having a pop at our friends of the Mecca persuasion, step forward every ‘student radical’ and right on non-thinker etc.

Otherwise I like your work. Really. Keep it up

[Mr. Econotarian]

Regarding "The love I bear towards my children, lovers, friends and others has no basis in rationality whatsoever. It cannot be scientifically proven..."

Through functional MRI, you will be able to see which areas of your brain are associated with love. There has also been a significant amount of research into the chemical messengers (such as oxytocin) in brain regarding love and attraction.

There have been some early results regarding the neurophysiology of spirituality and religion, I would not be surprised if this investigation determines that religion is an evolved trait of brain self-deception to provide greater social cohesiveness.

[Recusant]

If you hooked MP's Oaten and Milligan up to an MRI scanner you would find that areas of their brain associated with sexual arousal would 'light up' when shown black plastic bags and oranges, and 'chocolate fudge brownies'. Mine wouldn't. What is that proving now?

[Unity]

>>> Religion is no more a "race" issue than political belief is. Trying to paint it as such is just a way of shutting down the debate and shifting the focus away from the idiots burning down embassies and onto those worried about the intrusion of religious values into secular society.

Wrong on both counts.

Religion is very much a 'race' issue in certain societies - including both Islam and Judaism - because religious beliefs are inextricably bound up in the social and cultural values of that society and the perception amongst individuals that they belong to that society. To try and separate the two is to fall into the old 'I'm not racist, but...' trap.

Likewise focussing on 'idiots burning embassies' is shifting the focus away from far more important debates, ranging from the legitimate use and boundaries of free expression to the nature of the relationship between the West and Islam and how we come to accomodation that permits peaceful co-existance between the two.

Lenin may be over the top with some of his analysis - his attack on Jarndyce in particular is uncalled far - but he's not wrong in pointing to an underlying thread of racism in this issue, just wrong in applying it so globally to his analysis of things.

[Matt]

Unity,

You can't regard Muslims as a "race", as Islam is just too diverse. According to Wikipedia:

"Only 18% of Muslims live in the Arab world; 20% are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, about 30% in the South Asian region of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and the world's largest single Muslim community (within the bounds of one nation) is in Indonesia. There are also significant Muslim populations in China, Europe, Central Asia, and Russia."

The cartoons were attacking Islam.

[The Pedant-General]

Well said Matt:
"You can't regard Muslims as a "race", as Islam is just too diverse. "

And you also have to ignore the pretty violent conflagrations between sects of Islam (shi-ite, sunni, wahhabi-type sunni etc).

Recusant:

"What by the way is so all fired perfect about rationality? The love I bear towards my children, lovers, friends and others has no basis in rationality whatsoever. It cannot be scientifically proven, empirically or otherwise, but it would be irrational to deny that it is a powerful force with immense effects and consequences for human behaviour. How rational is it to love someone one day and hate them the next?"

And your point is? As regards disagreements between people, post-Enlightenment people use reason. We do not use violence.

The blanket ban on the initiation of violence between individuals is one of the founding blocks of civilisation. Where violence is not proscribed, society VERY quickly descends to the anarchy of "might is right", with HUGE negative impact on everyone.

Prosperity depends on reason.
Reason depends on Freedom of Expression.
Freedom of Expression is nothing if it does not mean that we have the freedom to challenge ideas you hold very strongly, such that the challenge is perceived as offensive.

Unity,

"... to the nature of the relationship between the West and Islam and how we come to accomodation that permits peaceful co-existance between the two."

Exclusive use of reason. Which means the freedom to challenge ideas.

Very simple. We sussed this out 250 years ago and you can see the benefits of it all around you.

We can accommodate Islam (because we give Muslims the freedom to be true citizens and to practise their religion). It is Islam that cannnot (currently, or at least some parts of it) accommodate us.

Any time they want to call, we're just here.

[Unity]

Matt:

So Muslims cannot be a 'race' because they're 'too diverse'.

Ok, lets take your logic and apply it to a different group that also define themselves in relation to their religious beliefs - Jews.

Well, less than a third of Jews actually live in Israel - the largest Jewish population in the world is in the US, which accounts for just over another third, then there's about another seventh of their total number dotted around Europe, plus a smaller number in Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Central America and dotted around Asia, including Iran.

Jews are certainly also as physioligically heterogeneous as Muslims - you've got ethnic European Jews, the main grouping being the Ashkenazi, the Sephardi and Mizrahi of Spain, Portugal who are generally Arab in appearance, the Teimanim (Yemenite and Omani Jews),the Gruzim and Juhurim from the Caucasus, the Bene Israel, Bnei Menashe, Cochin and Telugu Jews of India, the Romaniotes of Greece, the Italkim (Bené Roma) of Italy, various African Jews (most notably the Beta Israel or Ethiopian Jews), the Bukharan Jews of Central Asia, and the Persian Jews of Iran.

Wow that all looks pretty diverse to me - and guess what, they may not fight amongst themselves with quite the ferocity of some of the Islamic sects, but with each 'ethnic' grouping there are differences in religious practices and interpretations which mark them out as being different from the other groups.

Equally, as with Muslims, one doesn't have to born a Jew or possess any real ethnic Jewish heritage to become a Jew - they take converts much the same as any other religion.

No indeed do they have, outside of Judaism itself, either a common language - many, if not a majority of Jews don't speak Hebrew fluently just as the majority of Muslims don't speak Arabic - they speak primarily the language of their country of origin or domicile.

In fact the only thing that really binds all these diverse ethnic and religious groups together into the Jewish 'Race' is their religion.

So, by that token, there is no more justification for considering Jews to be a distinct 'race' in their own right than there is Muslims... in which shouldn't we be stripping Jews of the legal protections they have under race relations law, protections we don't afford to Muslims.

Or maybe I just consider the term 'race' to imprecise and unhelpful and use it only in the absence of a better term while taking a much broader view of the nature of 'race' much as Orwell took similarly broad view of 'nationalism' in his essay, 'Notes on Nationalism'.

P-G:

I certainly don't disagree with you on the importance of reason or of free expression.

However in this case I do take the view that much of what's gone on, on both sides, this last week has nothing whatsoever to do with either.

Far from defending free speech, many of those running off at mouth about it a present, including those in the European press who reprinted the photos, are merely using this whole issue as an excuse to - figuratively speaking - wave their dicks in Islam's face.

If were applying reason here we'd be making us of our right to free expression to point out the extent to which this whole issue is being manipulated to suit various political ends both here in Europe but, more importantly, to a much greater extent in the Islamic world.

This isn't about idiots burning embassies, its about the various religious and politic leaders that are deliberately stirring up the idiots who're currently burning embassies to bolster their own positions and their support amongst their own people.

Why is it, for example, that no one seems to be making the obvious observation that the whole business of emabassy burning started off in Syria, and then asking the question about what the Syrian government might have to gain from all this?

[Matt]

"Or maybe I just consider the term 'race' to imprecise and unhelpful and use it only in the absence of a better term while taking a much broader view of the nature of 'race' much as Orwell took similarly broad view of 'nationalism' in his essay, 'Notes on Nationalism'."

I find the term 'race' so imprecise that I'd hesitate to apply it to anything (other than people running in competition with each other, of course). The cartoons were obviously aimed at denigrating Islam, and some of the depictions of Mohammed verge on Arab stereotypes. Having pointed this out, I don't feel the need to condemn them as "racist" or "Islamophobic", or any other blanket term. On issues such as this it might be best to deal with specifics, rather than generalisations, in order to advance the debate.

[Matt]

"This isn't about idiots burning embassies, its about the various religious and politic leaders that are deliberately stirring up the idiots who're currently burning embassies to bolster their own positions and their support amongst their own people."

An interesting take on the protests can be found here:
http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/02/why_do_the_syri.php

[Austin]

Coming in late (and drunk, but...)

I'm almost 100% behind you. Of course, everyone should hold any belief open to ridicule. And that's definitely a good thing. And, quite frankly, if individuals (yep, individuals, not commmunities) are unable to uphold that, than they're silly, incapable of argument, and guilty of holding that silly belief in a rather, well, silly manner.

So, yep, mock it.

Yet, one thing struck me - the Enlightenment. Now, I love the Enlightenment as much as the next blogger - in fact, if you're bored one day read this: http://tothetootingstation.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/the_enlightenme.html

But, to play devils advocate for one sec, the Enlightenment should also critically reflect on its own existence - the fact of its contingency, historicity, etc... rather than its disembodied rationality. This isn't to give any ground to any form of fundamentalisms. But we need to focus on why that historical formation is better than any other. And insisting on the primacy of the Enlightenment (although something I, admittedly, do myself) without the precise whys and wherefores of the enlightenment project, may not necessarily be the best way of defeating the rival ideologies out there.