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.
(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.