Well said.

The whole controversy has been framed in terms of "freedom of speech," but that is only part of the issue. It's one thing to say everyone should have the right to express his/her opinions in the public arena. It is quite another to equate "freedom of speech" with "freedom from critizism."

The main problem I have with publishing the drawings is that the newspaper seemed to have no other purpose in mind besides showing they could do it. And that is the newspaper's choice. But the fact that you can do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it. After all, you wouldn't walk up to a person and call them a slur to his/her face just because you can.

Also keep in mind that believers - to broaden the scope beyond muslims - have every right to express themselves in every LEGITIMATE way available, be it by demonstrations, public condemnation, boycotts, or any other way possible.

It was a perfectly legal and perfectly stupid thing to do. And there's no contradiction in acknowledging both things.

The analogy is a poor one. The cartoons whether they were done as you say just because they could be or not, made legitimate political statements about Islam and its violent history. The term slur I think exposes the way you're thinking about the subject. Namely, that it is taboo to criticize religion. Would you consider a cartoon with a nuke on Dubya's head as a slur. The point is in a secular society religion gets no pass when it comes to criticism. You did read the entire article didn't you?

"The religious can't have it both ways"

maybe they shouldn't but certainly can, and will, as long as Media and politicians are at the same time both enslaved and addicted to profiting of religious demagoguery. How many times a year Does Time, News-week have to put Jesus or the virgin Mary on the cover of their rags? At least 2 times for each of the them.

They know they are going to do that every easter and and time they want a circulation boost, regardless of news worthiness.

Norm, I used the term "slur" in comparison with the cartoon controversy because that's how muslims perceive it. The key difference is that when a person uses a slur, more often than not he/she is aware of how it will be taken. That insight was completely missing in the whole cartoon incident.

My point isn't whether religions or religious groups should or shouldn't be beyond critizism. In an open society, nothing should be taboo. My point is that with that freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely and to be accountable for your speech. It's not a matter of whether it's "taboo" to critizise religion. It's a matter of recongizing that certain topics - like religion - are difficult subjects to approach if you want to engage others in a debate or discussion.

Speech regarding religion and religious beliefs doesn't deserve special status or treatment. It's not like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But you'd be foolish to approach religion the same way you approach other topics because it is not.

"But you'd be foolish to approach religion the same way you approach other topics because it is not."

Don't you see how contradictory that is? You are affording religion a special status simply by making that statement. If I say, I'm offended, that I consider it a slur when a person says that I can't be moral without religion, and I am, should that make it off limits for them. Are they being foolish to approach atheism in the same way they approach other topics. In a secular society it is incumbent on everyone to just suck it up and understand that 'what is one man's god' is another man's belly-laugh' There are all sorts of political issues in the public forum that have emotional content, so isn't what you're really saying is don't hurt others feelings even if they are wrong. If there beliefs are strongly held be careful. In my opinion, the stakes are simply too high. If I say a person who believes that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and rose from the grave is delusional, how exactly is it you think I should be held accountable?

But is mocking Hilary Clinton productive? I can't help thinking of those zero-sum Fox News-style opinion programs (Hannity and What's-his-face, O'Reilly, etc.) where people just mock each other and make gross generalisations and nothing of import gets said.

While there is nothing wrong with mocking religions, I don't think it's particularly useful. It would be good to have a decent debate about the place of religion in the modern world: however a combatative approach is likely to meet an equally combatative response.

If you want to have a decent debate about an issue you should be civil with your opponent, to give them no excuse to be incivil with you. Freedom of speech is all very well, but there's no point to it if you just want to shout names. The whole idea of it is that people can debate issues in an air of mutual respect, and without taking or giving personal offense, so that with any luck some decent progress can be made.

Respect: a lot of people would say they can't respect religion. That's BS: people have spent thousands of years developing a system of faith, ethics and organisation. Whether or not you agree with the result, you should respect the effort and consideration that went into its creation.

And as for the Danish cartoons: I've seen them and they were all pretty mild; in fact some were genuinely funny. The reaction was based on misleading statements made by radical clerics based in Denmark and even then was overblown and hypocritical - far worse anti-semitic cartoons appear in Middle-Eastern papers on a regular basis.

Norm, it's not contradictory. There is a difference between rights, and civility and common courtesy. We all have the right to say whatever we want - short of things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and I think we can agree on that.

You say that I am "affording religion a special status simply by making that statement" the statement being that you'd be foolish to approach religion the same way you approach other topics. You're right. I believe that when one talks about religion, one has to be mindful of other's sensitivities because religion is such a touchy subject. That, however, is my personal choice: to watch how I say things when others talk about religion.

There is where I draw the line: it doesn't have to be your choice or anyone else's. But whether it is your choice or not is a matter completely separate from recognizing that religion - or the lack of it, in your case - is a sensitive subject that should be approached carefully.

After all, there are three basic things you want from free speech: (a)speak your mind; (b)engage others in dialogue; or (c) both. If you only want to speak your mind, then it really doesn't matter how you say things. Say it, it's out in the world, end of story. But if you want to engage others in dialogue, you have to say what you think in a way that makes it possible - and desirable - for others to do so.

"If I say, I'm offended, that I consider it a slur when a person says that I can't be moral without religion, and I am, should that make it off limits for them. Are they being foolish to approach atheism in the same way they approach other topics."

First, Norm, I'm not saying religion or any topic is off limits. But if you want to discuss things, you'll get distinctly different responses in terms of openness to dialogue if you tell someone

"a person who believes that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and rose from the grave is delusional"

instead of telling them

"Why do you believe that?"

"[I]sn't what you're really saying is don't hurt others feelings even if they are wrong."

Not quite. Sometimes huting others' feelings is unavoidable. Feelings are what they are and you can't reason with them. But you can choose to be mindful of others' feelings when you say or do things. Besides, it always has the wonderful side effect that people think you care about them even if you don't.

I just spent four days in the mountains with a couple of hip spiritual types. I still don't know exactly what their religious beliefs are, but they were clearly not atheists. One guy was teasing me about "The God Who Wasn't There" dvd. Notwithstanding our differences, a good time was had by all and we understood each other. There is something about blogging that is not that conducive to really understanding where another person is coming from.

Saying that showing sensitivity is just a personal choice on your part is not true you argue that others should do the same. You and thousands of others with the same view and suddenly it makes it more difficult for anyone not to conform and the result is less criticism even when justified. When you don't unequivocally support the right of cartoonist to draw Muhammad with a bomb for a turban, without a, but you really shouldn't, you help create an environment where any political satire is open to criticism. I think the appeal to civility is a false one. Who determines what is civil? The person or institution who is the object of the criticism? Is all I have to do to silence your speech is to claim you aren't being civil. When I point out that a person's belief that the earth is 6000 years old is as silly as a child's belief in Santa Claus am I being uncivil. If I laugh when someone says they really believe in astrology and I should too, am I being uncivil. If I show respect for a belief am I not giving it a stature it doesn't deserve. If I'm careful and criticize not the person but the idea and they take offense anyway because they are emotionally bound to the idea am I being insensitive, not civil. If I say nothing am I not adding through my silence or respect to supporting ideas that lack any credible evidence at all. On a personal level I understand the advantages of being civil, but in public discourse where failing to say the emperor has no clothes it has dire consequences it's not the same thing. Engaging in dialogue presupposes that those we are talking to use reason, not superstition or other irrational ways of thinking. There are parts of the issue where rational discussion is possible but much of it boils down to god says so. No condoms, abstinence only, petri dishes and such reason takes a vacation. Then there is the case of the use of satire whether in the form of a political cartoon or in a set piece it uses exaggeration, scorn, and ridicule as its stock in trade. Are you suggesting we ban satire because it isn't civil that it pokes fun at the 'sacred' . We are not talking about pointing and shouting slurs at someone on their way to church. We're talking about when they bring their religion into the public square and use it as a reason to enact public policy. To understand what a bankrupt policy affording such respect one need only look at our evolving world. Everyone is so afraid of offending that discussion has stopped. Criticism has been stifled and it gets worse daily. Hurt feelings, and taking offense are a small price to pay for a functioning democracy.

Relevant exerpt from: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/05/virtuetrumpsf.html

The Christian tradition is a particularly good illustration of intolerance. In the Christian tradition, sin is defined as unbelief. Jesus set the stage. He identified righteousness with believing in him and considered wickedness to be the reverse: "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). The assumption is that there is only one way to be righteous and only one route to salvation: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Not surprisingly, Christians followed Jesus in defining wickedness as not believing what Christians believed. Aquinas was true to Jesus when he said that "unbelief is the greatest of sins." This assumption has been the source of untold wickedness in the history of the Church. It explains the profound intolerance that has led Christians to persecute others, not for doing harm, but simply for being unbelievers or for harboring what Christian authorities thought were false beliefs. The Inquisition and the burning of witches, heretics, and Jews are some examples of what happened when the Church had political power. It is not a question of bad people perverting a good religion. Far from being an aberration that is not representative of Christianity, the persecution of heretics follows logically from the connection of faith and salvation as presented by Jesus in the Gospels. When virtue becomes the supreme value in a society, the result is the criminalization of "sin" as defined by the sacred texts-and as these texts are interpreted by the powerful. You end up with a society that resembles the reign of the English Puritans in seventeenth-century England-they abolished Christmas because it was too much fun and there was too much pleasure and indulgence associated with it. Or you end up with a society that resembles the reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan of recent memory: no music; no dancing; no kite flying; no films; no female voices singing on the radio; no female voices broadcasting the news; and no female arms, ankles, or faces seen in public. All these harmless freedoms and pleasures are supposedly too obscene-unlike public executions, stoning, burning witches, or tormenting Jews.

unethical nature of conversions:

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2004/08/22/fea33.html

Tolerance is not a one way street March 10, 2006:

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1141970656

Relevant exerpt from: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002113.html

The Christian tradition is a particularly good illustration of intolerance. In the Christian tradition, sin is defined as unbelief. Jesus set the stage. He identified righteousness with believing in him and considered wickedness to be the reverse: "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

The assumption is that there is only one way to be righteous and only one route to salvation: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

Not surprisingly, Christians followed Jesus in defining wickedness as not believing what Christians believed. Aquinas was true to Jesus when he said that "unbelief is the greatest of sins." This assumption has been the source of untold wickedness in the history of the Church.

It explains the profound intolerance that has led Christians to persecute others, not for doing harm, but simply for being unbelievers or for harboring what Christian authorities thought were false beliefs. The Inquisition and the burning of witches, heretics, and Jews are some examples of what happened when the Church had political power.

It is not a question of bad people perverting a good religion. Far from being an aberration that is not representative of Christianity, the persecution of heretics follows logically from the connection of faith and salvation as presented by Jesus in the Gospels.

When virtue becomes the supreme value in a society, the result is the criminalization of "sin" as defined by the sacred texts-and as these texts are interpreted by the powerful.

You end up with a society that resembles the reign of the English Puritans in seventeenth-century England-they abolished Christmas because it was too much fun and there was too much pleasure and indulgence associated with it.

Or you end up with a society that resembles the reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan of recent memory: no music; no dancing; no kite flying; no films; no female voices singing on the radio; no female voices broadcasting the news; and no female arms, ankles, or faces seen in public.

All these harmless freedoms and pleasures are supposedly too obscene-unlike public executions, stoning, burning witches, or tormenting Jews.

On a lighter vein, I really think there's a problem to the myth of having an open debate because it clearly stumbles like a drunk, who careens from the wall of self-censorship to the one about freedom of speech. Repeatedly.

It is an exercise of futility, where a person of faith has a clear advantage as compared to an atheist.

If an atheist criticises or makes comments unfavourable to his religion, he calls it blasphemy.

When a person of faith criticise an atheist for his lack of beliefs and how his faith can make things better for an atheist, he claims this is his right to free speech to talk about his faith. And he’s doing God’s work

Funny why it hasn’t dawn on these devotees that a one-sided debate is just as fulfilling as an individual act of masturbation?

To have true intercourse, you need to understand AND empathise with the other party. Sad to say that even if they are face to face, people may refuse to put each other in each other shoes, as they only want the other to accept his side and he had not interest in understanding the other side.

Thus this idea of self-censorship is just as important as an alternative to the right of having free and open speech. But to make that happen, we may need to clarify the ground rules.

While you are in the private domain or spaces of the heart, the home and the house of worship, it is your right and freedom to have your religious views in full control of what you say and do.

But wouldn't it make sense not to practise this in an open and public domain where people do not necessarily share your view?

How much would it cause a religious person to show some respect and understanding for non-believers simply be resisting the desire to glorify his or her religion? He is doing a good deed by showing tolerance and sensitivity to others.

And what’s best, it doesn’t cost a freaking dime. When one wears one's religious views lightly with diffidence and circumspection, one can obviously have and express one’s faith without imposing them as the laws of the land or urging upon them on others in ways that make them uncomfortable.

Likewise, atheists may need to press home the point that although it may seem that they lack a faith, they by no means lack morals and while they may seem to permit everything, not everything is taken seriously while emphasis is put on universal immutable values of humanity.

I really think that atheists need to explore having such an attitude. Though they see that people are perfectly free to believe or not to believe, they are hardly apathetic or indifferent to moral, political and economic issues while eschewing a religious approach to solving them.

To have a meaningful debate between a devotee and an atheist, let’s agree to disagree on the religious or secular means to solve certain pressing issues but that we should consider agreeing on certain overarching objectives or values to keep the discussion.

If we can’t, let just raise a finger to our lips and go our merry way.

"to keep the discussion civil, meaningful and hopefulling going somewhere."

It's so much more relaxing to be on Norm's side on this one. :-)

If you ask me, there's not enough blasphemy in the world.

Oh no, common ground with Zak, it's blasphemy. :)

As noted by AJMilne in the comments here the best thing about blasphemy is that it's a victimless crime.

"Saying that showing sensitivity is just a personal choice on your part is not true you argue that others should do the same. You and thousands of others with the same view and suddenly it makes it more difficult for anyone not to conform and the result is less criticism even when justified."

Norm, where have I said that you should not critizise? In the case of the cartoons you could have conveyed the same exact point in a way that was less offensive and likely to result in a dialogue and not in the hardened pro-religion and pro-free-speech positions that resulted from it.

See, I don't speak just to express my opinion because (a) I PERSONALLY believe in treating others as I'd like to be treated and (b) because if I engage others in dialogue I may learn something I don't know or I may help someone else to learn something they don't know. Civility aside, it's about persuation.

"If I show respect for a belief am I not giving it a stature it doesn't deserve."

No. Showing respect for a belief or an idea you don't share is called tolerance. With few exceptions, it's not a bad thing.

It surprises me that you have such a polar view of this issue. It's either "I should say whatever I want regardless" without considering other possibilities. You still fail to see the point I'm trying to make that if you have any other purpose beyond speaking your mind, if you want to communicate and discuss ideas with others, you have to take into consideration what makes them tick.

And with that, I'm going home!

Cheers!

Roberto,

I think you conflate tolerance and respect. They are not the same thing. I tolerate all kinds of views without showing respect for them. I may even respect the people who hold the views for many of the views they hold, but I certainly don't respect bullshit. Please don't confuse the idea with the people. It's their ideas that I hold up to ridicule not them personally. Did you read the Rushdie quote I put up. I agree with him.

I agree with Norm. Tolerance means you can bear or live with the other party althought you might hate him or her. Respect means you can empathise with the person and his point of view. And respect will faciliate tolerance over the long run.

One more point on this issue is that we must not confuse blasphemy with irrelavance, homour or simles as Colbert tried to explain with his segment on Danish cartoons under the Word segment titled "Just kidding"

I really think humour, deprecative or otherwise, helps lubricates discussions which border on blasphemy.

Hug an Evangelical 24 April 2004 By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/opinion/24KRIS.html?th

I've argued often that gay marriage should be legal and that conservative Christians should show a tad more divine love for homosexuals. But there's a corollary. If liberals demand that the Christian right show more tolerance for gays and lesbians, then liberals need to be more respectful of conservative Christians. One of the most ferocious divides today is that between evangelical and secular America. Some conservative Christians are all too quick to sentence outsiders to hell. And liberals denounce stereotypes of Muslims but not of "Christian nuts." It's encouraging that the right is less hostile to gays and lesbians than it used to be. President Bush argued in his 1994 run for governor that gay sex should be illegal, while now he feels comfortable hitting up gays for campaign contributions. On the other hand, the left seems more contemptuous than ever of evangelicals. Sensitive liberals who avoid expressions like "ghetto blaster," because that might be racially offensive, blithely dismiss conservative Christians as "Jesus freaks" or "fanatics." Take Ted Turner. He has called Christianity a "religion for losers" and once ridiculed CNN employees observing Ash Wednesday as "Jesus freaks." Later, he apologized. Then there are the T-shirts: "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." Of course, it's fair to criticize the Christian right's policies. Regular readers know I do so all the time, for religion is much too important an influence on policy to be a taboo. For example, while we're on the subject of gay marriage, one question for fundamentalist Christians is this: What's your basis for opposing lesbianism? Granted, the Bible denounces male homosexuality, although it strikes me as inconsistent not to execute people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and not to crack down on those who get haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or wear clothes with more than one kind of thread (Leviticus 19:19). But there's no clear objection in the Bible to lesbianism at all. And since some fundamentalists have argued that AIDS is God's punishment for gay men, it's worth noting that lesbians are at less risk of AIDS than straight women. So if God is smiting gay men for their sin, is he rewarding lesbians for their holiness? Those kinds of pointed questions are fair, but sneering is not. And in polite society, conservative Christians — especially Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses — are among the last groups it's still acceptable to mock. That scorn is deeply resented. A poll this month found that three-quarters of evangelicals believe "the mass media is hostile," and nearly half agreed that "evangelical Christians are looked down upon by most Americans." This resentment is global. In a Tyndale Lecture in England last year, Cristina Odone complained: "The chattering classes . . . pride themselves on being tolerant. . . . Yet they share one prejudice that turns them into rabid persecutors: Christians." There's also an odd lack of intellectual curiosity within the secular left about the Christian right. After 9/11, intellectuals rushed out to buy books about Islam. But on many campuses, it's easier to find people who can discuss the Upanishads than the "Left Behind" books about Jesus' Second Coming — which, with more than 40 million copies, are the best-selling American novels of our age. To be worldly, one should understand not only Tibetan Buddhism but also red-state Pentecostalism. Liberals often protest that they would have nothing against conservative Christians if they were not led by hypocritical blowhards who try to impose their Ten Commandments plaques, sexual mores and creationism on society. But that's a crude stereotype, and it ignores the Christian right's accomplishments. Polls show that evangelical Christians are more likely to contribute to charities that help the needy, and in horror spots in Africa Catholics and other Christians are the bulwark of the health care system. Moreover, saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize — well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate. It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. What's harder is to practice inclusiveness oneself. And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality