Muslim fanatics, not Muslims
I want to make some conciliatory mumblings over the Mohammed caricature affair that I've been commenting on. I understand how frustrating it must be for Muslim moderates trying to correct injustices and give Muslims a voice when violent lunatics keep barging in, trying to identify themselves with your group. I am profoundly against much of the Western foreign policy that has led to this situation, including the "protect our own interests" bias, and the Israeli policy on...well, pretty much everything (except withdrawal, of course!).
It's very hard for me to empathise in this situation. To me, not only is the idea of holding any idea 'sacred' a nonsense, but adhering to a code simply because it is written in some book is profoundly anti-intellectual - verging on the despicable, in my view. But I do understand that we're human, and if I'd been brought up in such a tradition I'd probably believe the same nonsense, such is the strength of indoctrination. So I suppose I can accept that almost any profoundly ridiculous idea might well be considered crucial to a person's identity, if strongly enough imbued (just look at the beliefs of the Scientologists if you want to hear silly).
To an atheist, this whole affair is viewed from a completely different angle to the way it is being discussed in the press. This isn't just about whether the right to be offensive is more important than the right not to be offended. Since religious belief is, to us, just plain wrong, any religious group asking for any kind of favours is basically saying: I want to be allowed to invent any nonsensical view of reality, life, and behaviour I like, and as long as I can convince you I hold those beliefs strongly enough, for those views to be given special respect. This, to me, is asking for trouble, since people can have strongly held profoundly conflicting views.
What kind of a world do we live in where mockery can be a sin? What kind of God are we talking about here, who can't handle being mocked? A petulant, childish one, it seems to me. But I suppose I'm never going to understand, not really.
The other issue is whether a newspaper should be prevented (by law or by guidelines of decency) from perpetuating a prejudiced viewpoint. But one man's prejudice is another's valid assessment! The Daily Mail contains article after article of views that represent poor people as scroungers, immigrants as damaging British culture, liberalism as ill-educated, ill-thought-out, wishy-washy optimism. But they really believe that shit. The battleground is a democratic one: who has the most persuasive argument. The law must stay away, just as violence must.
I'm not denying there are border areas where persuasive prejudice leads to illegal action, and it makes sense to tackle the cause rather than the symptom. But the form that the response takes must surely be a positive one: education and argument, not a negative one of censorship. Why did the July 7th bomber, after being educated in Britain, even want to go to Pakistan to be indoctrinated in a madras?
It's very hard for me to empathise in this situation. To me, not only is the idea of holding any idea 'sacred' a nonsense, but adhering to a code simply because it is written in some book is profoundly anti-intellectual - verging on the despicable, in my view. But I do understand that we're human, and if I'd been brought up in such a tradition I'd probably believe the same nonsense, such is the strength of indoctrination. So I suppose I can accept that almost any profoundly ridiculous idea might well be considered crucial to a person's identity, if strongly enough imbued (just look at the beliefs of the Scientologists if you want to hear silly).
To an atheist, this whole affair is viewed from a completely different angle to the way it is being discussed in the press. This isn't just about whether the right to be offensive is more important than the right not to be offended. Since religious belief is, to us, just plain wrong, any religious group asking for any kind of favours is basically saying: I want to be allowed to invent any nonsensical view of reality, life, and behaviour I like, and as long as I can convince you I hold those beliefs strongly enough, for those views to be given special respect. This, to me, is asking for trouble, since people can have strongly held profoundly conflicting views.
What kind of a world do we live in where mockery can be a sin? What kind of God are we talking about here, who can't handle being mocked? A petulant, childish one, it seems to me. But I suppose I'm never going to understand, not really.
The other issue is whether a newspaper should be prevented (by law or by guidelines of decency) from perpetuating a prejudiced viewpoint. But one man's prejudice is another's valid assessment! The Daily Mail contains article after article of views that represent poor people as scroungers, immigrants as damaging British culture, liberalism as ill-educated, ill-thought-out, wishy-washy optimism. But they really believe that shit. The battleground is a democratic one: who has the most persuasive argument. The law must stay away, just as violence must.
I'm not denying there are border areas where persuasive prejudice leads to illegal action, and it makes sense to tackle the cause rather than the symptom. But the form that the response takes must surely be a positive one: education and argument, not a negative one of censorship. Why did the July 7th bomber, after being educated in Britain, even want to go to Pakistan to be indoctrinated in a madras?
posted by extabgrad at 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home