International Day of Solidarity with Denmark!!!

elenova · Feb 21, 2006

And where u will reach?

My parents thought me to love and respect everyone and also told me that there is a place for everyone in this World.

Firing back will not help.

And this is a Nursing Forum. What does this issue has to do with the nurses?

elkpark · Feb 21, 2006

"It will inform the public and restore our self-respect"? Sounds more like pouring gasoline on a fire to me ... (Also, I was unaware that I had lost my self-respect. Thanks, AEI, for pointing that out to me ... :rolleyes: )What on earth would that accomplish beside convincing the few remaining Muslims in the world who don't hate us yet that we are just as evil and dangerous, and bent on destroying the Muslim world, as their more extremist brethren tell them we are?

While it is a wonderful and inspiring story, I don't see how the comparison to the Danes wearing the yellow stars during WWII fits in this instance. The Danish newspaper that started all this is not an "innocent victim" in the sense of the Jews in WWII. It chose to run the cartoons. The cartoons are deeply offensive to Muslims. Some (not all, or even most) of them are taking their protests beyond what we approve of. How would continuing to flaunt the insult in their faces improve the situation? While not condoning the violence at all, I would think that more people (more religious conservatives) in the US would be sympathetic to, at least, their feelings about this -- I remember having to run a pretty angry gauntlet of protesters to see "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Dogma" when they came out ... And you can't pick up a newspaper any more without reading a letter to the editor from some Religious Right crackpot who is outraged that the larger society is trampling on and insulting her/his religious beliefs. Heck, they just killed off "The Book of Daniel" on TV, through a protest campaign that started well before any of them even saw it -- they just knew they weren't going to like it. And it's not enough for them to just not watch it -- they have to make sure no one else can watch it either, because they found it insulting to Christianity ... (Again, without condoning the violence,) is it only American right-wing Christians who are allowed to feel that way?? Is it really that far a leap from pressuring NBC to cancel a television show, and yelling and carrying picket signs outside a movie theatre, to burning flags outside embassies and trashing buildings??

I don't see any point, or virtue, in continuing to fan this fire.

1Tulip · Feb 21, 2006

I remember having to run a pretty angry gauntlet of protesters to see "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Dogma" when they came out ... And you can't pick up a newspaper any more without reading a letter to the editor from some Religious Right crackpot who is outraged that the larger society is trampling on and insulting her/his religious beliefs. Heck, they just killed off "The Book of Daniel" on TV, through a protest campaign that started well before any of them even saw it -- they just knew they weren't going to like it. And it's not enough for them to just not watch it -- they have to make sure no one else can watch it either, because they found it insulting to Christianity ... (Again, without condoning the violence,) is it only American right-wing Christians who are allowed to feel that way?? Is it really that far a leap from pressuring NBC to cancel a television show, and yelling and carrying picket signs outside a movie theatre, to burning flags outside embassies and trashing buildings?

I don't see any point, or virtue, in continuing to fan this fire.

Whoa, Elkpark. Walk through your post one more time and find how many times you came out FOR freedom of speech and expression. Don't you realize that you and I AGREE about that?

Now the nice thing about the protests you mentioned, is that you are still alive. No tv production facilities were burned down, and as far as I have heard the actors, directors, produces etc. have not gone into hiding because they are being threatened with decapitation. As far as I know, the Last Temptation of Christ is still available in print and on video and as you rightly point out, it offended some parties, but not one issue of the book was burned, nor did the author have to go into hiding. (a la Salmon Rushdi). And I don't know about Dogma. Heard it was cute. Where I live it came and went in the theaters and that's about it.

You'll also remember the Feces on Mary artwork, the Jesus in a unine jar, the Life of Bryon, just about every program the Monty Python Group did, all the highly forgetable dramas about gay priests... NO ONE WAS KILLED. People got upset. FINE. If speech isn't free to be edgy, then we don't really have art, literature, satire, theater, comedy or anything else. We only have a tool for communicating base data.

I'm not going to be able to convince you of this, clearly. Muslims are victims and Christians are crabby and that's how you see the world.

I am concerned that Denmark is taking abuse they don't deserve and I for one will do everything I can to support them.

And this was posted in a general forum because nurses can think about and care about things beyond the bedside.

fergus51 · Feb 21, 2006

I also think Denmark is taking unecessary and uncalled for abuse. It was a PAPER. Am I supposed to be responsible for everything printed in the American press?

1Tulip · Feb 21, 2006

I was hoping to encourage any Danish nurses who might find their way to this site. Perhaps the discussion would actually be seen by more Danes if it were in Current Events, but I s'pose we can let the moderators call that one.

Thanks for your support fergus. Being pro-free-speech does not require anyone to be anti-anything... except anti-fascist, or anti-totalitarian.

I have to go now. I'm calling up our local paper to ask them to run the cartoons.

elkpark · Feb 21, 2006

Muslims are victims and Christians are crabby and that's how you see the world.

Actually, that isn't how I see the world, and that wasn't my point ... My point was that there are v. large numbers of people in this country who feel they are entitled to have everyone else respect their religious beliefs, and, probably, most of us would agree that showing basic respect for/sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others is a good thing. So why would we be surprised that people in other parts of the world, people who are, shall we say, more likely than us to regard violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, feel the same way? Does that concept only apply to people and religions we approve of?

I guarantee you that, if the Denmark paper had run a similar series of cartoons that was just as vulgar and insulting about Jesus and Christianity, there would be a great hue and cry of protest here in the US. Granted, I will happily concede that no one would get killed. :) But why would we be surprised (or bother being outraged) that many Muslims around the world would react to this in just the way that one could predict they would react (given the standards of the societies in which they live, v. different from ours)??

Believe it or not, I am as big a fan of free speech and controversial/political art as anyone (one of those notorious "card-carrying members" of the ACLU). But what is the AEI hoping to accomplish? Do they think that, if we rub the Muslim world's collective nose in the insult enough times that they'll change the way they feel about it?? How likely do you think that is? Is that how any of us would react if the situation were reversed?

I have heard several American newspaper editors comment, in the coverage over this flap, that this is not a freedom of speech vs. censorship issue, it's a community standards issue. They make the point that every newspaper in the world makes decisions every day about items they are not going to run -- not because of "intimidation" or "censorship," but because the items violate community standards of taste/decency and would be highly offensive to large numbers of their readers. The Denmark paper chose to run a series of cartoons that it could easily predict would be extremely offensive to Muslim readers, at a time when relations between the Muslim and Western worlds are particularly bad .. I, too, deeply regret and reject the (pretty predictable) violence that has occurred as a result. But I think it was unfortunate enough that the cartoons were run in the first place -- I fail to see how making a big, ongoing show of refusing to show any empathy for Muslim feelings is going to help the situation. It's just going to keep the brouhaha alive longer. I think the best thing the rest of us can do is hunker down and wait for this to blow over, not go out of our way to make the situation worse.

1Tulip · Feb 22, 2006

Thanks for your reply, Elkpark. I feel so strongly about this free speech issue and may I say, God bless the ACLU and anyone else that comes to freedom's defense.

Let me try to give some serious responses to the points you made.

First... you're right when you say that the anger the local bunch of Evangelicals feel vis. Last Temptation, arises from the same human nature as the hatred imams express in calling for murder. There is no difference between Christian hurt and passion and Muslim hurt and passion. Identical.

But... why do you give anyone a free pass for expressing their feelings with mayhem? I wonder, if an American Muslim reading this page wouldn't be deeply offended (or at least chagrined) by your suggestion that Muslims cannot be held to the same standards of human decency, mercy, compassion, temperance, strength of character and will... to which we hold Christians and Jews.

You asked what the AEI was trying to accomplish and noted that they were probably making a bad thing worse by calling for pro-Danish support. You might be right, but how would we be able to tell? The reaction (murder, church and embassy bombings, rewards being offered for the heads... literal heads... of the cartoonists) is so over the top, it has nowhere to go. They (radical Islamists) are not going to like us no matter what we do or don't do. No, you know what... nothing I can do can make irrational, hate-soaked people care for my values. BUT my show of support to some people who are suffering for doing NOTHING wrong, may help them. And it will help me too. Because I'm reminding myself that I will never, in any way, be anyone's dhimmi.

And finally, you mentioned that editors of newspapers that won't run the cartoons say it is a matter of good taste. Utter, complete, unadulterated horse pocky and you know it. These are the same papers that did the Jesus in the Urine Jar in full color. (We can agree, yes? that Jesus in Urine or Our Lady of the Elephant Dung is at least as offensive as a sketch of the Prophet with a bomb turban...) No, the editors of most of America's papers gon't give a rip about good taste and mannered sensitivity. They are just protecting their rear-ends. And hey, that's OK! But to lie about your motives... especially to yourself... that's really vile.

Finally, let me urge you to go to Slate.com and read Christopher Hitchin's latest column. You probably know his work since he's an ACLU kinda guy. But he has written a scathing critique of radical Islam and an eloquent apeal for courage in the face of tyranny.

Elkpark. I think at the end of the day you and I are in the same pew (so to speak) and neither of us would do well under Sharia Law. So, here's to liberty!

elkpark · Feb 22, 2006

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Of course, I have some responses to your comments --

why do you give anyone a free pass for expressing their feelings with mayhem? I wonder, if an American Muslim reading this page wouldn't be deeply offended (or at least chagrined) by your suggestion that Muslims cannot be held to the same standards of human decency, mercy, compassion, temperance, strength of character and will... to which we hold Christians and Jews.

I am not giving anyone "a free pass" for mayhem. I do not condone any of the violence associated with the protests (I believe I've mentioned that ...) However, I recognize that many other cultures operate under different standards and expectations than we do, and, therefore, was not terribly surprised that the protests became violent (as you pointed out yourself, these are the same people who issued a fatwa calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie when he wrote a book they didn't like). I'm sure that American Muslims also recognize (probably better than you or I) the very significant differences between our culture and that of the Middle East countries. As for holding Middle East Muslims to the same standards of "human decency, mercy, compassion, temperance, strength of character and will ... to which we hold Christians and Jews," I don't know if you've been paying a lot of attention to how the Israeli government has been treating the Palestinian people over the last, oh ..., several generations, but it hasn't involved much human decency, mercy, compassion, temperance, or strength of character and will. The actions of many Middle East Jews (targeted assassinations, random shootings and shellings, destruction of homes, stealing territory, etc., etc.) would certainly not fly here in the US, either, but not too many people here are condemning them for it -- they do get a "free pass" for mayhem (but not from me!). Another double standard? It's okay if our "friends" do it, but not if it's our "enemies"?

The reaction (murder, church and embassy bombings, rewards being offered for the heads... literal heads... of the cartoonists) is so over the top, it has nowhere to go. They (radical Islamists) are not going to like us no matter what we do or don't do.

It may not have anywhere to go, but it can either go ahead and burn itself out or be prolonged beyond its original, "natural" lifespan. And I think it's too "easy" to say that they're not going to like us no matter what we do -- that may be true of a (relatively) small group of extremists, but it's no excuse for continuing to intentionally offend and provoke the entire Muslim community. How many moderate, pro-Western (or, at least, not anti-Western) Muslims are going to become convinced by this that what the extremists are telling them about the West is true, after all? What do we have to gain by helping the extremists prove their point??

And finally, you mentioned that editors of newspapers that won't run the cartoons say it is a matter of good taste. Utter, complete, unadulterated horse pocky and you know it. These are the same papers that did the Jesus in the Urine Jar in full color. (We can agree, yes? that Jesus in Urine or Our Lady of the Elephant Dung is at least as offensive as a sketch of the Prophet with a bomb turban...) No, the editors of most of America's papers gon't give a rip about good taste and mannered sensitivity. They are just protecting their rear-ends. And hey, that's OK! But to lie about your motives... especially to yourself... that's really vile.

Well, perhaps there's some good reason that you have much more insight into what goes on in the minds of American newspaper editors than I do (although I doubt it, since I used to work for the newspaper in a mid-sized Southern city before I went into nursing, and have remained good friends with one of the editors of that same paper all these years), but I certainly do not know that "community standards" objections to the Danish cartoons are "utter, complete, unadulterated horse pocky." As for Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" (I assume those are the pieces you're referring to), plenty of papers and magazines did NOT run illustrations of those artworks -- in reporting on the controversy surrounding them, plenty of publications described them verbally but did not actually run photos of them (as many publications have done with the Danish cartoons). If you choose to regard that as simple, crass CYA rather than a regard and respect for their reader's sensibilities, that's fine with me (but "vile" seems a little strong ...)

And I'm not sure that I can agree that "Piss Christ" and "Holy Virgin Mary" are "at least" as offensive as the cartoons (I, for one, have been an active, practicing Christian all my life, and I don't find either of them offensive at all -- but that's neither here nor there). One of the points Muslim commentators have been making in the coverage of this is that, in Muslim tradition, ANY visual depiction of the Prophet, even a positive, respectful one, is forbidden and sacrilegious. That is certainly v. different from the Christian tradition, where there is a long, established history of religious art. Some Christians may be offended by a particular piece of religious art, but the basic concept of art with a religious theme is not considered offensive or sacrilegious. So, we're really comparing apples and oranges here. I wonder if it isn't somewhat ethnocentric to say that, oh well, they shouldn't mind so much, they're only cartoons.

Additionally, there is the issue of intent/purpose. The Serrano and Ofili works are sincere efforts by Christian artists to explore their own feelings and questions about their faith. If the Danish cartoons had any intent or purpose other than to insult and offend Muslims, I would be happy to hear about it.

Also, I am familiar with Christopher Hitchins' work, and I have no interest in anything he has to say. Sorry to disappoint, but I just don't see this as a "courage in the face of tyranny" issue -- I see it as (repeatedly and needlessly) poking our fingers in the eyes of a large number of our fellow passengers here on Spaceship Earth. Feel free to stock up on Gouda, Havarti, Tuborg, and Carlsberg and fly a Danish flag in your yard if you wish, but I truly can't see what anyone in the West has to gain from prolonging this imbroglio -- any "victory" will be Pyrrhic, at best.

1Tulip · Feb 22, 2006

Hi again Elkpark,

Thank you for your reply. There used to be a time when the words rhetoric and polemic had good connotations, i.e., thoughtful, articulate, persuation or dialogue. This is what the internet in general and this site in particular can help foster. So I think this is useful and good.

Vis. "giving a pass on violence"

Yes, you did specify that mayhem and murder were bad things. But then you seem to explain it away...

(However, I recognize that many other cultures operate under different standards and expectations than we do, and, therefore, was not terribly surprised that the protests became violent)

I don't know, and shouldn't speculate, what you meant the reader(s) to take from this or what conslusion it was leading to. (You went on to make another point, sort of not following through with this one.) I'm pressing you a bit on this one because I really think this is the rub between your position and mine (since I sincerely do believe we are both free speech advocates.)

Maybe the statement just stands on its own. Yes, these are people who have shown little progress since the 8th century and at their core remain barbarians who cannot, and never have, viewed "the other" as fully human. So when they murder... it's nothing new. And when they murder people who had nothing to do with their original protest, what more can you expect. Irrational violence. There you go.

But it's what we do with these observations that matters. I believe your view of these events (and correct me if I'm wrong) are consistent with a multi-cultural apologetic. For all the good multi-culturalism can do... in my community, on our campuses... it almost requires paralysis in the face of cultural conflict and confrontation. As a habit of the mind, a world view, it is losing its value altogether. And I'm not happy about that. I really wish we could continue to offer every cultural norm our full respect. But we can't.

Multi-culturalism is a sociological/anthropological outworking of post-modernism. Within the discipline of Philosophy, post-modernism is fully legitimate. As a guiding principle for civic and international relations, however, it doesn't work. And I think I have to leave it there, for now because we could take up philosophy at another time. I will just leave it by saying that it is self-evident that some cultures are inferior in as much as they threaten other progressive and pacific cultures. And it logically follows that if these inferior cultures can't be ignored because their threat is real and immediate, they have to be changed or destroyed. (How to do that, is another dicussion for another time. But history is full of examples.)

Vis: the Jews.

I don't excuse everything Israel has done. (I was thinking about Judaism, not Israel, but I should have been more specific.) Again, this would be a useful discussion about cultural survival and whether the ends justify the means. Unfortunately with what is happening in Iran, this is an increasingly urgent discussion the world needs to have. But not here, I think.

Journalistic principles, courage:

If, indeed, particular journalists, editors, and publications have been consistent in their refusal to trash religious beliefs with profane images, they are absolutely justified in not running the cartoons, and should not have their motives questioned. But you know and I know, there is some striking, undeniable, outrageous hypocracy going on in some of our leading papers and news outlets. I used the word "vile" not to describe the act of printing the crucifix in the urinal or the Our Mother of the elephant loo. I applied it to the pitiful spectacle of educated men and women believing their own lies about their motives. (Can I read minds? No. Can I draw strong, almost blindingly obvious inferences? Yes.)

You raised a really interesting issue about the motives underlying profane art. (And here again, the discussion of Art and the zietgiest of the age is a fascinating topic... but one we can't have here.) I believe, there is value in the production and display of the two works we've discussed and others like them. (Do you remember the nude female on the cross... it was called "Christa" I believe.) But your err when you imply that the cartoon scribbles of the prophet are without social value. I think they do have value, and it's proving to be more profound than anyone would have imagined. And this sort of brings us full circle. What is the value of free speech? I think editorial speech, religious speech, satire, drama, poetry, political advertisements, academic publications, comedy clubs, shock jockery... it has value. And I would put the cartoons right up there with the profane works that are classed as art.

Oh, and Christopher Hitchins. As you could probably tell, I'm a Christian. And he has said some awful and terrible things about Christians. I've often thought, reading them, that I should be offended. But he says stuff so damn well, I have a hard time condemning him. But in this past column, he and I are joined at the hip.

So there you are.

I work Thursday and Friday so if I don't respond, please don't think I am uninterested in any reply you make.

Respectfully yours,

Tulip