"The Innocence of Muslims"

[Prospero]

I also fail to see how this is "the flip side' of the issue and it is rather a flip thing to suggest it is.

As bronco suggests, there is a complex issue to be looked and dicussed here and, yes, it has a connection to the West's relationship with the Muslim world. For sure the Arab resentment at what they perceive to be uncritical (note i say perceive) support for Israel fuels anger towards the West and, especially the USA..

We've seen however so well illustrated what deep seated hatred of Jews can lead to. That feeling is still abroad today - not least among some sections of islam. It is a hatred of Jews - and not simply antipathy to Zionism. There have been centuries of anti-semitism and it festers in the Government of Iran, in the views of neo-Nazi parties across the West and elsewhere. Let us not develop a similar view of Moslems.

These are complex questions. Let us not speak lightly of them.

[loveboof]

Quite an interesting speech:

[Stavros]

Quite an interesting speech:

I sympathise with a lot of what he says, but I don't think he truly grasps the difference between religion and culture, or the way in which organised religion can manipulate laws or emotions in some countries -India, for example- to create an event that actually has nothing to do with the religion -the 'truth' about Islam in Egypt or anywhere else is that it has no opinion of the USA, but obviously Muslims do -there is a difference. He refers to the problem of girls being bon in Bangladesh, yet he may know -probably should know- that female infanticide in China has been a problem for centuries and has nothing to do with religion -so why is it an Islamic issue in Bangladesh but not in China? He refers to Turkey's recent turn toward Islam and the harassment of the musician Say in spite of the country's secular origins, but there have been many instances of the law being used to crush free speech and protect the state in Turkey which had nothing to do with religion -telling the 'truth' about the massacres of Armenians has got numerous people in trouble with the law.
Yes, he does acknowledge that fundamentalism in the USA has been a lucrative export; but for all his crusading zeal for humanism, he doesn't really face up the fact that an American seeking election to the White House would not get very far if he said from the outset -I have no religion, I do not believe in God. And while claiming the founding fathers were secular or protective of secular beliefs, can the same be said of the earliest English and Dutch settlers? Surely they were fanatical in their beliefs and left Europe precisely in order to live religious lives in the New World free from persecution by the Church; we have been told there are witches in present day Africa and for that matter London and Birmingham and some have been cruelly murdered before they were ten years old; but there were also witches in Massachusetts when religion governed the way Americans there lived their lives. Its not his argument in favour of free speech that I disagree with, but his reasoning, and the lack of context for his specific examples.

[loveboof]

I sympathise with a lot of what he says, but I don't think he truly grasps the difference between religion and culture, or the way in which organised religion can manipulate laws or emotions in some countries -India, for example- to create an event that actually has nothing to do with the religion -the 'truth' about Islam in Egypt or anywhere else is that it has no opinion of the USA, but obviously Muslims do -there is a difference. He refers to the problem of girls being bon in Bangladesh, yet he may know -probably should know- that female infanticide in China has been a problem for centuries and has nothing to do with religion -so why is it an Islamic issue in Bangladesh but not in China? He refers to Turkey's recent turn toward Islam and the harassment of the musician Say in spite of the country's secular origins, but there have been many instances of the law being used to crush free speech and protect the state in Turkey which had nothing to do with religion -telling the 'truth' about the massacres of Armenians has got numerous people in trouble with the law.
Yes, he does acknowledge that fundamentalism in the USA has been a lucrative export; but for all his crusading zeal for humanism, he doesn't really face up the fact that an American seeking election to the White House would not get very far if he said from the outset -I have no religion, I do not believe in God. And while claiming the founding fathers were secular or protective of secular beliefs, can the same be said of the earliest English and Dutch settlers? Surely they were fanatical in their beliefs and left Europe precisely in order to live religious lives in the New World free from persecution by the Church; we have been told there are witches in present day Africa and for that matter London and Birmingham and some have been cruelly murdered before they were ten years old; but there were also witches in Massachusetts when religion governed the way Americans there lived their lives. Its not his argument in favour of free speech that I disagree with, but his reasoning, and the lack of context for his specific examples.

Yes you're right. He doesn't really provide a truly open context for a lot of his examples.

However, the fact there are other examples of the same or similar events devoid of religion does not negate religion as a factor (or even whole reason) behind the ones he does raise. Seeing as everyone will agree that these are terrible things, shouldn't we be attempting to limit the affect of factors which can lead to those kind of situations? Of which religion is certainly one.

[Sorry if this response is a little scrappy; I'm in a bit of a rush ]

[Stavros]

Yes you're right. He doesn't really provide a truly open context for a lot of his examples.

However, the fact there are other examples of the same or similar events devoid of religion does not negate religion as a factor (or even whole reason) behind the ones he does raise. Seeing as everyone will agree that these are terrible things, shouldn't we be attempting to limit the affect of factors which can lead to those kind of situations? Of which religion is certainly one.

[Sorry if this response is a little scrappy; I'm in a bit of a rush ]

If by the religion you mean its meaning, its texts, its 'message' then I am not sure, if only because most religious systems of belief contain enough 'messages' to be contradictory. If you were to define Christianity as a pacifist system of belief, for example, it would be impossible to justify war, or indeed any kind of violence against another person; if you define Christianity in different terms, a 'Just War' allows individual and mass murder. Can they both be right or wrong? In some cases the arguments of the religion no longer hold -I don't believe that Jews for centuries have stoned to death adulterers, for example. Some of the feebler critics of Islam claim that it is by definition a violent system of belief, but claim that by looking at the Qu'ran, as indeed they could the Old Testament, and relate it to what might be happening in, say, Pakistan. I am not trying to excuse Islam, and arguments about the meaning of the Qu'ran and the Hadith have after all occupied Islamic scholars since the death of Muhammad. I just think that a lot of what is being claimed in the name of religion, is politics in religious dress. If you want to create a stir in Pakistan, claiming your human rights have been assaulted won't do it; manipulate devotion to the 'Prophet' and the result will be different. Which raises the question why? Could it be that for so long now the discourse of politics there has been wrapped up in Islam and the competition to prove that X is more devout than y? Most Pakistanis are actually interested in more basic things, like the crops that aren't growing, the tangle of family relations, jobs and money. Anatol Lieven's Pakistan, A Hard Country, is worth reading for a more nuanced perspective on the place.

But consider how dialogue goes, and how difficult it can be. I used to work with a Roman Catholic, and we would freely discuss the arts, politics, and so on -he wasn't dogmatic about sex before marriage, contraception or homosexuality. But mention abortion and it was like hitting a brick wall: no argument, no agreement, an absolute refusal to believe that abortion is anything other than murder. There was no dialogue. Which is why it is mostly pointless for an atheist to 'speak the truth of religion' to a believer, not much different from a Muslim or a Christian trying to convert an atheist.

[loveboof]

If by the religion you mean its meaning, its texts, its 'message' then I am not sure, if only because most religious systems of belief contain enough 'messages' to be contradictory.

I just think that a lot of what is being claimed in the name of religion, is politics in religious dress. If you want to create a stir in Pakistan, claiming your human rights have been assaulted won't do it; manipulate devotion to the 'Prophet' and the result will be different. Which raises the question why? Could it be that for so long now the discourse of politics there has been wrapped up in Islam and the competition to prove that X is more devout than y? Most Pakistanis are actually interested in more basic things, like the crops that aren't growing, the tangle of family relations, jobs and money. Anatol Lieven's Pakistan, A Hard Country, is worth reading for a more nuanced perspective on the place.

I believe it is inevitable that those inherent contradictions will lead to conflict.

I also believe that it is dangerous to foster ignorance and irrationality en masse.

For many hundreds of years religion & religious leaders have manipulated people and capitalised on their most primal fears. Nothing has changed today. If the Roman Catholic church could still throw it's weight around like it used to, it would.

I agree that much of what we say of religion is really about politics. However, for me that just raises the issue of how important it is to keep our politics and religion separate. The two are not compatible!

Politics needs to be everything which religion is incapable of being: Modern, forward thinking, non-exclusivist, peaceful? (among many other things)

Your example in Pakistan about human rights is actually yet another example of the manipulation of religiosity. It is a perfect example to highlight how an agenda can creep into this all controlling sphere of religion...

Should it be at all surprising that religion leads to violence when you consider the primitive & brutal world that it was borne out of. It is not a valid argument in favour of religion to suggest that secular violence occurs too. Nobody has been killed in the name of atheism...

[Prospero]

Loveboof - you postulate an ideal which has always been wrecked on the reef of reality. Poliitics and religion are intertwined, much as you might dislike that fact. And to a pious and ultra-orthodox Muslim, there is no higher ideal than faith in Allah and his prophet. All the lecturing and hectoring about they should be modern really won't make a difference. The notion of independence from that is implausible to the ultra religious mind set. Faith informs political decisions in the US among the radical Christian Right and in Israel and among the UltraOrthodox Jewish communities around the world (the Hassidim for instance) key decisions in politics are shaped by the priorities of faith. The challenge for the West and for those where politics is defined by the values you define is to seek a workable arrangement and find a way of co-existing with those whose lives are shaped and defined by faith. The only other path is an atheist crusade!


Sometimes religion can have a great and positive role to play - particularly in the developing world. But also in places like Lebanon where Hizb'allah often helped create social order where the state was wholly unable to in the wake of the civil war and Israel's invasion. It is also worth remembering Roman Catholic liberation theology and the role it played in South America in challenging the military dictatorships there (regimes all too often supported by the US.)


Incidentally millions were killed in the name of atheism - under Stalin, in China, in Albania under Enver Hoxha, in Hitler's germany to name just a few 20th century examples. Much as that triumvirate of faith baiters Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Chris Hitchens might argue otherwise.

[loveboof]

No Prospero. That is actually quite disingenuous of you. Do you believe that those millions who were killed under Stalin & Hitler (et al) were killed to further the message of atheism? Do you honestly believe it is accurate (and not at all misleading) to suggest those atrocities were committed in 'the name of atheism'?

You know better!

[edit: And as for the positive role religion plays in the developing world, again, that is questionable. Do you think the Roman Catholic position on condoms has helped the AIDS pandemic for example? Is there a single beneficial thing religion has done which could not have been otherwise committed by secular society?]

[Prospero]

Second point first. i was not arguing FOR religion. I was saying that some good has come from it. Almost certainly outweighed in the modern world. But two examples - the good priests who stood up to the dictators were a rallying point for opposition in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador where Archbishop Oscar Romero was gunned down on the steps of his Cathedral by Government forces for his opposition to their US backed regime.

in Cyprus Archbishop Makarios was a key figure in the struggle against British occupation in the post world war two period and for union with Greece.
Just two examples plucked from my memory. Could secular society have done it as well? Don't know - but the Church has often been a rallying point against imperialism, against dictators, against oppression. My earlier example of Hizbollah also holds - using the Mosques to provide social services when order ha broken down (And I am not an apologist for the politics of this group)

In the name of atheism is a tricky one. No Stalin did not wave a flag proclaiming atheism. But the Soviet Union was an atheiest state. Churches and icons were destroyed by the million and religion scarcely tolerated. In Mao's great leap forward and during the cultural revolution priests and others were murdered. Many were killed (more than Hitler) in Stalin's Russia including many who clung to faith . In both the case of Nazism and Bolshevism killied in the name of flawed or poisoned political ideals which saw faith as it's enemy.

[trish]

In my version of utopia there are no religions; but that's utopia. In this world I'm afraid we have to learn to live with religion and religions have to learn to live with each other.

I read once that early in the history of North America native Americans, reacting against European expansion, would sometimes ransack Churches and defile Christian artifacts, defecating on crosses etc. Insensed to violence the settlers would wreak violent revenge.

Fast forward a few centuries to the art piece Piss Christ by Andres Sorrano. It certainly inspired a lot of angry discussion but (fortunately) no violence (of which I'm aware). But not because Christians are difficult to provoke, or non-violent, or peaceful...but because the political situation centuries back between settlers and native Americans was violent and unstable. The political situation between modern artists, atheists and Christians cannot be described as violent and unstable.

In my mind that pretty much explain modern Islam's reaction to Western depictions of Mohammad, especially satirical depictions. You cannot separate the reaction from the unstable politics between the Middle East and the West.