We are all blasphemers now, Part 1
Feb. 4th, 2006 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisYou know, I don't think that there has ever been a time where the verses of my "politics" icon above have been more relevant (I really need to thank ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
homasse again for creating it for me -- thanks a bunch, j-chan!)
For that matter I don't think that there has ever been a time, where *blasphemy* has been more of a moral obligation than it is right now. If I had artistic skills enough to draw a cartoon where Mohammed, Jesus, Moses are all, I dunno, having a drunken orgy or something, I'd be drawing it right now. I'd be inclusive in my blasphemy: After all Greek *Christian* fascists have several times attempted to ban books (or indeed even *cartoons*) that they considered insulting to Jesus - Μν, the "Life of Jesus", so forth, so forth.
Anyway my only concern about it is that I've let enough time pass before commenting here over it that my first rage over the situation has passed, having mostly gotten expressed in a friend's journal instead of here. So now follows a much calmer post.
The core of the issue
In Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (set in medieval times, for those of you that haven't seen or read it) the villain of the piece hates humour and the art of comedy over all, because in it he sees the greatest possible threat to the authority of the church, more so than the threat of heretics.
Mockery is the one thing that any oppressive regime can't stand. Which is why mockery has probably caused more intense protests and reactions by Islamofascist clerics and oppressive governments than the ones caused over the invasion of Iraq or the bombing of Afghanistan, than the ones caused over Abu Ghraib. Did Saudi Arabia or Libya break off relations with America over Muslims tortured by ACTUAL EMPLOYEES OF THE US GOVERNMENT (rather than as with the Danish row, the actions of private individuals working for privately owned newspapers)? Did American embassies in Syria get burned to the ground over such events?
Ofcourse not -- or if they did, I don't remember it. Using torture, bombing people, invading countries -- all these things don't go *fundamentally* against the core of religious fascism. They aren't in themselves threatening to religious fascism as an ideology. The core of Islamofascism (and any other religious fascism) is this: "Thou shalt not criticize my religion, and even more so thou shalt not mock it". These crowds and governments -- they aren't being silly or ridiculous in protesting so strongly. They're being WISE: If they don't stop the mockery, they'll have lost a major battle. Once disrespect for their religion is freely allowed in the west, how soon before disrespect for their own dominating clerics becomes allowed in their own?
Once I remember commenting in Rantburg, that liberalism is more fundamentally opposed to Islamofascism than conservatism can ever be. I've been proven correct. Make no mistake, we are living monumental events: *This* (not Afghanistan, and definitely not the obscene travesty that was and remains the war in Iraq) is the first *ideological* battle in the war between secularism and islamofascism. It's the first time where the core ideological issue is being fought over, and undisputably *nakedly* so.
The line is being drawn -- and the European press is leading the way. And the line is this question: "Should I be allowed to criticize or even insult your religion without fear for my life and/or freedom?" It's the *fundamental* question, the fundamental dividing line. Yes or no?
Allowed? Hah. The last few days have bloody well turned blasphemy into a moral obligation, where I am concerned: Screw all your gods, and all your prophets, and all your holy books, ye religious tyrants everywhere! Yer gods are fictions, yer prophets were either delusional or liars, and yer holy books are only good for a laugh.
With all due apologies to my religious friends - I have several, of various religions, whom I all greatly respect.
---
In order not to delay posting even more, I'll be breaking this up in sections. Two more sections remain to this analysis that I have already thought over. In section II I'll offer a more calm and full rebuttal to the points thatbellatrys raised in her own posts. In section III I'll comment on the various international reactions, and their various seeming paradoxes.
homasse again for creating it for me -- thanks a bunch, j-chan!)For that matter I don't think that there has ever been a time, where *blasphemy* has been more of a moral obligation than it is right now. If I had artistic skills enough to draw a cartoon where Mohammed, Jesus, Moses are all, I dunno, having a drunken orgy or something, I'd be drawing it right now. I'd be inclusive in my blasphemy: After all Greek *Christian* fascists have several times attempted to ban books (or indeed even *cartoons*) that they considered insulting to Jesus - Μν, the "Life of Jesus", so forth, so forth.
Anyway my only concern about it is that I've let enough time pass before commenting here over it that my first rage over the situation has passed, having mostly gotten expressed in a friend's journal instead of here. So now follows a much calmer post.
The core of the issue
In Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (set in medieval times, for those of you that haven't seen or read it) the villain of the piece hates humour and the art of comedy over all, because in it he sees the greatest possible threat to the authority of the church, more so than the threat of heretics.
Mockery is the one thing that any oppressive regime can't stand. Which is why mockery has probably caused more intense protests and reactions by Islamofascist clerics and oppressive governments than the ones caused over the invasion of Iraq or the bombing of Afghanistan, than the ones caused over Abu Ghraib. Did Saudi Arabia or Libya break off relations with America over Muslims tortured by ACTUAL EMPLOYEES OF THE US GOVERNMENT (rather than as with the Danish row, the actions of private individuals working for privately owned newspapers)? Did American embassies in Syria get burned to the ground over such events?
Ofcourse not -- or if they did, I don't remember it. Using torture, bombing people, invading countries -- all these things don't go *fundamentally* against the core of religious fascism. They aren't in themselves threatening to religious fascism as an ideology. The core of Islamofascism (and any other religious fascism) is this: "Thou shalt not criticize my religion, and even more so thou shalt not mock it". These crowds and governments -- they aren't being silly or ridiculous in protesting so strongly. They're being WISE: If they don't stop the mockery, they'll have lost a major battle. Once disrespect for their religion is freely allowed in the west, how soon before disrespect for their own dominating clerics becomes allowed in their own?
Once I remember commenting in Rantburg, that liberalism is more fundamentally opposed to Islamofascism than conservatism can ever be. I've been proven correct. Make no mistake, we are living monumental events: *This* (not Afghanistan, and definitely not the obscene travesty that was and remains the war in Iraq) is the first *ideological* battle in the war between secularism and islamofascism. It's the first time where the core ideological issue is being fought over, and undisputably *nakedly* so.
The line is being drawn -- and the European press is leading the way. And the line is this question: "Should I be allowed to criticize or even insult your religion without fear for my life and/or freedom?" It's the *fundamental* question, the fundamental dividing line. Yes or no?
Allowed? Hah. The last few days have bloody well turned blasphemy into a moral obligation, where I am concerned: Screw all your gods, and all your prophets, and all your holy books, ye religious tyrants everywhere! Yer gods are fictions, yer prophets were either delusional or liars, and yer holy books are only good for a laugh.
With all due apologies to my religious friends - I have several, of various religions, whom I all greatly respect.
---
In order not to delay posting even more, I'll be breaking this up in sections. Two more sections remain to this analysis that I have already thought over. In section II I'll offer a more calm and full rebuttal to the points that
bellatrys raised in her own posts. In section III I'll comment on the various international reactions, and their various seeming paradoxes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-05 06:04 am (UTC)that liberalism is more fundamentally opposed to Islamofascism than conservatism can ever be. I've been proven correct.
You are correct, though it seems many left-wingers in the US are so concerned about being multicultural that they would not attack something reactionary and hateful coming from a non-Christian, especially from a third-worlder...many right-wingers have the same selective sense of outrage.
In Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (set in medieval times, for those of you that haven't seen or read it) the villain of the piece hates humour and the art of comedy over all, because in it he sees the greatest possible threat to the authority of the church, more so than the threat of heretics.
It is funny that I would have been blind to that evil of the church when I was a devout Catholic. Now, as a deist, I can see that more clearly.
As to drawing Mohammed, I have a certain respect for a man who is a merchant, warrior, and philosopher. I obviously do not believe in aniconism, though I admit it contributed to the artistic beauty of the Arabic alphabet, but I won't post any pics of the Prophet on my lj or blog. I will fully support the rights of others to post it as well as the right of others still to protest it.
I guess I am also selective in mockeries. I consider Jesus a long-haired hippy and like South Park mockeries of him, and putting Mickey Mouse ears on Che is fun, as well as any barbs against Karl Marx and Jean Jacques Rosseau. I also chuckle at some jokes about Ayn Rand, as long as they are done in good taste, but I may not be as amused by other barbs at folks I like, but I support their right to, and my right to dislike them for it.
It's the first time where the core ideological issue is being fought over, and undisputably *nakedly* so.
How about the murder of Theo VanGogh and the fatwahs against Salman Rushdie.
Some other interesting comments are by secular Egyptian blogger Big Pharoah (http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/) and Andrew Sullivan (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/).
If I had artistic skills enough to draw a cartoon where Mohammed, Jesus, Moses are all, I dunno, having a drunken orgy or something, I'd be drawing it right now.
Don't forget Krishna, Buddha, Joseph Smith, and Xenu :)
Of course, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and Scientologists are not calling for death, but Scientologists will sue anyone who mocks them. The Catholic League cries offense at lots of minor jokes and uses PR pressure, but I have neevr heard them call for a Holy Inquisition or Crusade. Granted, 700 years ago they would.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-11 11:00 am (UTC)Those were the Islamofascist attacks that *should* have caused Europe to go to battle, but it shamefully failed to do so IMO, on either the governmental, the journalistic, or the popular level.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-05 08:38 am (UTC)The reactions in the Netherlands so far are that several papers have reprinted the cartoons, one rightwing populist politician has them on his site. One paper has had some phoned-in threats, and a few (second/third generation Moroccan immigrant) delivery boys have refused to deliver that particular issue.
(and friended)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-05 12:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-06 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-07 06:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-13 08:44 pm (UTC)-------------------------------
A very good analysis indeed, Aris! I would certainly agree that "we're all blasphemers now" - we must all stand by Denmark and its people against the Islamic fanatics. You might be interested in an online petition which you can find at the following address:
http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark
This petition has already been signed by 30,000+ people from all over the world, including myself. If you would like to see my own signature, accompanied by a sharply-worded comment, look out for number 28917. I hope you will agree with my position that Afghanistan-type regime change is now the only way to go with countries like Iran and Syria. According to recent reports America is indeed preparing to launch a series of devastating military strikes against the Iranian regime, if diplomacy fails over the nuclear-weapons issue. It is, of course, needless to say that I would fully support such an action myself - I just hope the United States and its allies will have the political courage to do whatever it takes in order to get rid of Tehran's islamofascist regime once and for all.
George Katsaris, City of Coventry, England.