more on Which is the bigger threat?]

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        RE: [IP] Which is the bigger threat?
Date:   Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:13:59 -0500
From:   Marc Kletke <marc.kletke () rogers com>
To:     dave () farber net



That's easy. The answer is Google. Islamic rioting over racist cartoons is
an understandable reaction by relatively powerless people to the intolerance
that's clearly current in Europe. While it might be argued that it's
widespread it's not deep enough or organized enough to do much harm to the
West's liberal democratic traditions. Here's my understanding of the Muslim
reaction:

It's true that the Prophet (and God) should never be depicted. This
tradition probably has it's roots in iconoclasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm and a literal and fundamentalist
interpretation of the 10 Commandments. Arguments over this issue in the
Eastern Med weakened Christianity during the 7th through 14th Centuries and
contributed to the rise of Islam. Islam by contrast seemed simple and pure
compared to the wars fought between partisans of one image or icon vs those
of another at a time when many Christians invested the actual objects or
icons with real spiritual power. There was holiness in these images those
old time Christians felt. Remember the same people believed in the power of
holy relics. Some modern Christians still feel this way. Islam doesn't have
any holy relics; unless you count that rock behind the curtain in Mecca...

> From that ancient perspective, the Muslim argument that ALL images of God
and/or the Prophet sowed confusion, discord, division etc. was practical and
relatively modern compared to the iconic Christian practice of venerating
Jesus' back molar or some fragments of the True Cross. Someone once said
that if you added up all the parts of the True Cross, you could build a
whole bunch of wooden Churches... or Mosques I suppose as it turned out.

Zealots, both Christian and Muslim get hot about this stuff. I'm trying to
stay cool and objective. It seems to me to be at least 'impolite' to depict
the Prophet with a bomb in his turban and the rest of it. The reference is
also to Islam itself and by extension to all Muslims. The implication is
that Muslims are bomb throwing maniacs and so many Muslims are offended. I
understand their position while defending the cartoonists right to be a jack
ass.

Does Free Speech give someone the right to call a black person a nigger?
Probably. Does it mean I have to jump to his defence if some black dude
bangs the guy in the ear? Probably not. I always say, being a jack ass is
its own punishment. Someone is bound to sort the guy out eventually.

Muslims are prickly about 'insults' like this because they're weak vis the
All Conquering Secular West. Salman Rushdie is another matter to my mind.
The Satanic Verses is High Art and worth defending (like the best of the
Icons and the true bits of the True Cross I suppose). These cartoons on the
other hand are just lame. If Muslims feel they need to abstain from eating
Havarti, oh well. If there is a God I'm sure he's shaking his invisible, and
not to be depicted, head at both sides.

On the otherhand, Google's compliance with China's rules is a mercenary act,
made in an organized way by a centralized body (Google itself) with
tremendous cultural power. Because this threat is credible, organized,
mercenary and powerful it trumps a bunch of irritated Muslims hands down.




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/