Kudos to The Stranger

[EWolfe]

Maybe it has to do with the fact that, unless you're Norwegian, what you cook never qualifies in the realm of "Chefdom"

[foraker]

Only if you like using the words 'chef', 'herring', and 'white sauce' repeatedly, ad nauseum (pun intended).

[Dechristo]

...so Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah go into a kosher strip club...

[olyclimber]

JESUS!

[Dechristo]

H

Edited February 16, 2006 by Dechristo

[JayB]

Which is it Jay? On the one hand, you bemoan people for having sensitivity to other people's religions. On the other, you seem to think we should be sensitive to your (putative?) feelings about Christianity and Christian leaders? If you think people should be sensitive to how Christianity is portrayed, then you shouldn't be upset by how other people think we should approach the issue. If not, are you just using Christianity for your own purposes in order to advance your point? That seems pretty base. Which is it?

 

I'm actually agnostic, and have been for about 20 years. The only reason I brought up Christianity, rather than say Zoroastrianism - is that it's the prevailing faith in the West at the moment, and they seemed to have learned to handle affronts to their religion in a manner that doesn't involved detonating themselves at amongst civilians or other such atrocities. Took an eon or two, but we're there.

 

My point was that most people that purport to care about freedom of expression, separation of Church and State, would be outraged if a Televangelist's flock engaged in murder and mayhem over a few relatively mild cartoons poking fun at the manner in which they misused their religion to inspire - murder and mayhem, and created a climate of fear where anyone who dared publish them was literally risking his life. Yet for some reason, when a band of religious fanatics does this very thing in Europe, all of a sudden religious sensitivity trumps all other values. Very odd.

[mattp]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your disaffection with what you often derisively term as politically correctness, Jay, but the indignation and your suggestion that Christians have “gotten beyond that” is a little bit much. Yes, suicide bombers do appear to be almost exclusively Islamic, but Christian fanatics including our President have undertaken plenty of violence with “god’s blessing.” There are lots of reasons people do and don't do what they do and don't do besides the idea that "we've grown up over the years" and are somehow superior.

 

Question: how do you think our politicians’ discussion of a flag burning amendment compares with this Norwegian blasphemy law? Isn’t that TWICE the joke?

[JayB]

I'm against any law that attempts to regulate which beliefs are acceptable and which are not. This goes for flag-burning, people hoisting Nazi flags in their yards, laws against hate-speech, and even hate-crimes. I don't find many people outside of the libertarian fringe who agree with me on the last one, but I don't think that there should be broad statutes that impose extra-penalties for the impulses that motivate a crime, be they racism, greed, revenge, etc - but that's a different discussion.

 

Once one particular set of beliefs is criminalized, ever other set is at risk - and I'm much more comfortable with the "Give Them Enough Rope to Hang Themselves," approach.

[JayB]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your disaffection with what you often derisively term as politically correctness, Jay, but the indignation and your suggestion that Christians have “gotten beyond that” is a little bit much. Yes, suicide bombers do appear to be almost exclusively Islamic, but Christian fanatics including our President have undertaken plenty of violence with “god’s blessing.” There are lots of reasons people do and don't do what they do and don't do besides the idea that "we've grown up over the years" and are somehow superior.

 

Question: how do you think our politicians’ discussion of a flag burning amendment compares with this Norwegian blasphemy law? Isn’t that TWICE the joke?

 

I think one of the main reasons for this is that religious violence is futile and self-defeating in a population that has a plurality of religious beliefs. I think that Jay, Madison, and Hamilton covered the reasons this pretty well in the Federalist Papers. The relative quiescence of Christians for the past 100 years or so, at least in the West, is more a credit to the political systems of the countries that they inhabit than any superior virtue on their part IMO.

[cj001f]

I'm actually agnostic, and have been for about 20 years. The only reason I brought up Christianity, rather than say Zoroastrianism - is that it's the prevailing faith in the West at the moment, and they seemed to have learned to handle affronts to their religion in a manner that doesn't involved detonating themselves at amongst civilians or other such atrocities. Took an eon or two, but we're there.

 

We are?

[mattp]

... even hate-crimes. I don't find many people outside of the libertarian fringe who agree with me on the last one, but I don't think that there should be broad statutes that impose extra-penalties for the impulses that motivate a crime, be they racism, greed, revenge, etc - but that's a different discussion.

 

Maybe I'm one of those libertarian freaks. I'm with you on the argument that assault is assault and should be taken seriously whether the victim is a staight male or a gay man and I'd add that, in my view, it may even weaken the cause of equal rights to make special categories or rules protecting sub-segments of society from the crime of assault because it by definition seems to suggest that gays or immigrants or whoever are not regular people deserving exactly the same protection as anybody else.

 

However, I would not rule out or eliminate consideration of the circumstances of a crime when it comes time for sentencing. We have specific laws that suggest extra penalties for an assault of someone who may be vulnerable somehow, or where the victim may be a member of a certain group of people like for example a school employee or law enforcement officer, or where the actor has a prior history of violence, or based on their motivation to intimidate a class of persons or to gain some secondary personal benefit, or whether the assault was undertaken in the course of perpetrating some other crime. I'd say a random attack against a gay person just because they are gay certainly is a valid factor to weigh along with such considerations.

[JayB]

Yeah I'd be fine with leaving some room for judicial discretion here with regards to sentencing, as the nuances are important. If someone randomly attacks someone because they don't like the color of their skin, this strikes me as different than an attack that it carried out as a part of an orchestrated effort by a group to terrorize a community and deny them constitutionally protected liberties. It seems to me that existing statutes give them the leeway that they need to do this without anyone drafting hate-crime legislation, or granting judges blanket authority to outlaw bigotry. I'm definitely against blanket statutes that give anyone with a badge discretion to make this kind of determination on their own. I think the last speeding ticket I got had a pre-printed box that a policeman could check for "Hate Crime," which makes me a bit afraid that we're already a ways down this road, at least in certain states.

 

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight here Matt, but didn't you say that you thought that Bush's refusal to push hate-crimes legislation through the Texas legislature was on of the things that made you think that he was, or at least his policies were, racist?

[JayB]

I'm actually agnostic, and have been for about 20 years. The only reason I brought up Christianity, rather than say Zoroastrianism - is that it's the prevailing faith in the West at the moment, and they seemed to have learned to handle affronts to their religion in a manner that doesn't involved detonating themselves at amongst civilians or other such atrocities. Took an eon or two, but we're there.

 

We are?

 

So you'd just as soon stand outside the Vatican and slag on Jesus as stand outside a Mecca and shout obscenities about Muhammad?

[mattp]

I have a hard time understanding how a check-box for “hate crime” would appear on a traffic-ticket form, but who knows.

 

I definitely think you’re a little paranoid about this “outlawing bigotry” thing, though, Jay. I fully agree that dogmatic or fanatic individuals on the left can be every bit as disrespectful or dismissive toward civil rights as the worst bigots on the right -- and even at a more moderate level I think that many people go too far to react as they do to casual use of certain words referring to a female body part or a racial or ethnic group when there is in many cases no ill will attached, or that specific hate crimes statutes may not be the best way to go -- but I don’t think you need to fear that the politically correct gestapo are going to beat down your door. Bush and his pals represent a much greater threat to your freedom and mine.

 

Good one, calling me on my listing Bush’s opposition to hate crimes. As I clarified in a subsequent post to the one you refer to, I don’t think he is necessarily a racist in the KKK sense, but he is certainly a facist who really doesn’t care about civil rights or equality or whatever and I think he’s used his opposition to hate crimes to appeal to right wingers who in fact are in the KKK mold and then he'd lied about it when somebody asks questions. But you are right to think that was probably the weakest of my examples from that list and somewhat at odds with my statement here -- though not entirely: in my list that you refer to I noted it was his lying about his role in the matter that made me think it was an example of his racism. I also think that, when taken as whole, the combination of his statements on hate crimes laws, such programs as head start or public education, and things like affirmative action or border security, there is a consistent pattern that is racist.

[cj001f]

So you'd just as soon stand outside the Vatican and slag on Jesus as stand outside a Mecca and shout obscenities about Muhammad?

 

Carryon lumping all of Islam into one boat as the opposition - you're giving the radical fringe of Islam exactly what they want, a Holy War. Perhaps you'll argue that because good portions of the Islamic world are sympathetic to the radical cause that is acceptable - why then is not acceptable to lump the radical Christian fringe with the Republicans sympathetic to them (as W is)?

[mattp]

Not only the radical Islamists, but the U.S. neocons are also looking for a holy war or at least a de-stabilized middle east and a moslem boogeyman.

[JayB]

So you'd just as soon stand outside the Vatican and slag on Jesus as stand outside a Mecca and shout obscenities about Muhammad?

 

Carryon lumping all of Islam into one boat as the opposition - you're giving the radical fringe of Islam exactly what they want, a Holy War. Perhaps you'll argue that because good portions of the Islamic world are sympathetic to the radical cause that is acceptable - why then is not acceptable to lump the radical Christian fringe with the Republicans sympathetic to them (as W is)?

 

So which one would you choose? The Vatican or Mecca?

 

There's a wide spectrum of fanaticism present in most major religions, and the degree of fanaticism present tends to vary with the percieved grievances of the underlying population. However, even when we take that into account, I can guarantee you that if Christians millitants started snatching Arabs of the street and sawing their heads off with swords, there wouldn't be too many congregations where the footage was viewed as an appropriate manifestation of divine justice. I actually think that you could pretty much get just the opposite of what we've seen in the Islamic world recently - the political equivalent of a "What are you gonna do?" shrug when confronted with cartoons that weren't terribly flattering to Christianity, and widespread revulsion and outrage at the head-severings.

[mattp]

...I can guarantee you that if Christians millitants started snatching Arabs of the street and sawing their heads off with swords, there wouldn't be too many congregations where the footage was viewed as an appropriate manifestation of divine justice.

 

Careful there, cowboy. We DID, afterall, just invade two countries and kill tens of thousands of innocents in response to what twenty lunatics without state sponsorship or involvemlent did to us.

 

Further, I think even Al Jezeera lunatics have decided that it is bad press to show beheadings.

 

 

[cj001f]

So which one would you choose? The Vatican or Mecca?

In case you didn't notice most radical Christians (Rudolph, Koresh, Lord's Resistance Army, etc.) are protestant evangelicals. They'd probably cheer at me insulting the Pope!

 

Keep up the strawman champ.

[foraker]

What's the difference between cheering them as we saw off their heads versus cheering them as we indiscriminately bomb their cities? You think your clever little bits of college rhetoric makes a damn bit of difference to them? I also think you're being hugely magnanimous as to what you think people in this country are capable of.

[JayB]

The question wasn't who would cheer for you, but which of the two you'd choose. The fact that you won't answer is answer enough.

[willstrickland]

JayB, question:

 

Since you are very concerned about the euro-weenies and others buckling and surrendering their right to a free press/free speech.....

 

Shouldn't newspapers (euro-weenie or otherwise) publish the new Abu Ghraib photos?

 

Remember the Newsweek/koran down the toilet story? The mighty righties had their tighty whities in a wad, screaming how it shouldn't have been published because it would incite violence against US servicemen and women.

 

Further, the same group of blind bush loyalist raged against publishing, or even releasing the first round of Abu Ghraib pics. And lets not forget the ban on pics of the caskets of our returning deceased soldiers, marines,and airmen.

 

I'm sensing a double standard. But I'm just a simple country boy, what do I know.

[Peter_Puget]

Let the riots begin......

[JayB]

JayB, question:

 

Since you are very concerned about the euro-weenies and others buckling and surrendering their right to a free press/free speech.....

 

Shouldn't newspapers (euro-weenie or otherwise) publish the new Abu Ghraib photos?

 

Remember the Newsweek/koran down the toilet story? The mighty righties had their tighty whities in a wad, screaming how it shouldn't have been published because it would incite violence against US servicemen and women.

 

Further, the same group of blind bush loyalist raged against publishing, or even releasing the first round of Abu Ghraib pics. And lets not forget the ban on pics of the caskets of our returning deceased soldiers, marines,and airmen.

 

I'm sensing a double standard. But I'm just a simple country boy, what do I know.

 

I don't think that the two are entirely analogous to one another, as limiting reportage during an armed conflict is a complex problem. I think most of us want to get an accurate picture of what's going on, but most of us would agree that disclosing the identity of Iraqi's who are infiltrating insurgent groups on our behalf, or disclosing plans for troop movements in Bagdad woiuld be a bad idea. Sometimes there's a fine line to be toed, and the perogatives of minimizing the threats to troops in the field and the kind of disclosure that most people think is important in a democracy conflict with one another. I don't think the photos of the coverage qualify under this category. The publication Abu Ghraib photos probably made things quite a bit harder for the troops on the ground, but one could potentially argue that by curtailing the abuses early on, the coverage prevented a further crisis later.

 

I think the case of the cartoons differs from the situations that you mentioned because the decisions are largely in the hands of elected officials acting within a framework erected by Congress, and are subject to revision and modification by people who are ultimately answerable to the public - and so far as I know no editor has been forced into hiding in perpetuity for making the decision to publish them. In the case of the cartoons, the principle difference, other than the death-threats - is that there's no such mechanism in place to regulate the proclamations of the mullahs or their followers. To paraphrase Kissinger, "When I want to talk to Islam - who do I call?" Who do people in non-Islamic countries go to if they wish to determine what is and what is not permissible behavior, where does it end, and who makes that call?

[mattp]

Good argument, there JayB. If I understand you correctly, what it all boils down to is this:

 

if the White House wants it published to embarass their enemies, whether it is a leak that may endanger our national security or not, go for it

 

If somebody else wants to publish something that might rile an enemy of ours, go for it.

 

If somebody wants to publish something that might make our government look bad? Lets look very carefully for a reason why it might be "unAmerican."