What’s Wrong with the World

Virtually the entire Fourth Estate, including the American press, preferred to sit idly, or worse, when the fury of the Islamic world was aroused against a Dutch newspaper’s chosen manner of Free Speech.

If the appeal is to be made on the basis of free speech it will inevitably fail. Compelling people not to desecrate what a culture finds sacred isn't a violation of free speech. While it would most likely enjoy protections under the American courts, that is more a reflection of their own liberalization.

As to proscribing the elements of Islam you mention, some should be entertained such as murderous jihad. Much of Sharia shares beliefs common to Judaism and Christianity such as finding usury evil. Dhimma I would be willing to evaluate, but I would be more open to tolerating given our present hyper-feminist culture. Consider my fear there being a slippery slope argument.

"Compelling people not to desecrate what a culture finds sacred isn't a violation of free speech."

Please expand on this remark--it seems self-evidently false, is plainly counter-intuitive, and really ought to be defended rather than simply asserted. If I am not permitted to speak ill of Islam, then I have no freedom of speech in the matter, and how you could claim otherwise I simply have no idea.

And Forrest, I wonder if your remark extends to Christians and those who hold its tenets sacred. Would you have banned the sale and distribution of The Last Temptation? Somehow I doubt it very seriously, as I doubt very seriously you would have sought to jail the photographer for Piss Christ. Your vague reference to "a culture" probably, in my admittedly presumptuous view, veils something more concrete, such as specifically foreign or minority cultures.

SM,

Criticism and mockery are two different things. If one isn't willing to discern the difference between the two, others will happily do so instead. There is also a difference between slander and criticizing a political oppenent's position. In most other countries, they attempt to make this distinction, but we do not here.

Official suppression of The Last Temptation or Piss Christ would have been well warranted, particularly the latter since I'm not as familiar with the former.

Paul,
There is something quaintly endearing about your quixotic plea; "I beg you to consider, on your own principles, the damage that could be done..."
Surely you know our sybaritic elites employ "free speech" as a lofty sounding dodge that frees them from reaching spiritual adulthood and shouldering the often painful obligations that come with it. They prefer to suppress a dialogue that features the unpleasant aspects threatening their trivial pursuits, than stand on some principle they never really embraced. Many in the West are like the pied noirs of Algeria of the mid-1950's, who ignored the surly looks of their cabana boys, rather than face the storm clouds gathering above their idyllic beaches. You know this, and still issue a warning. Good on you, mate.

Compelling people not to desecrate what a culture finds sacred isn't a violation of free speech.

Please expand on this remark--it seems self-evidently false, is plainly counter-intuitive, and really ought to be defended rather than simply asserted. If I am not permitted to speak ill of Islam, then I have no freedom of speech in the matter, and how you could claim otherwise I simply have no idea.

I don't think anyone is necessarily seeking to speak ill of Islam in the sense of "Piss Christ". What is being PC'ed out of discussion isn't desecration or speaking ill, it is speaking the simple truth of Islam's OWN PROFESSED DOCTRINES which are incompatible with Western values.

"Criticism and mockery are two different things."

Well, so say you, but ridicule, mockery, and satire are themselves long-accustomed forms of social criticism in the West, as elsewhere. And you don't seem to offer any serious limiting principle, or any assurance that the liberal order under which we live could possibly apply such standards of discourse fairly. The point is precisely that Piss Christ does not recieve official censure (or, for that matter censor), and few causes have ever attracted so much grand-standing on the merits of free speech by liberals of every order.

You advance a concept that is not just ripe for abuse, but is actually abused, daily, and for the exact same justifications as you offer. Precisely what qualifies as "slander" is determined by such august bodies as the Canadian Commission on Human Rights, and we are already seeing that the substance of dhimmitude is descending on the West for fear of avoiding the mere accusation of slander. Your exhortations seems designed for a world in which we don't actually live, and I wonder whether you would place calls to violence in the hadiths and the Koran--which, unlike the Mohammed cartoons, actually do inspire their readers to bloodshed--under the censor's knife.

The problem with attempting to have a substantive discussion with a libertarian on state enforcement of cultural norms is that the Libertarian rejects the ability of the State to do so prudently a priori. Whether it is the degeneracy of our own culture or possibly just my opaqueness, the desire for public order is clearly the social foundation for prohibiting blasphemy, slander, and other evils. When the Vatican says tolerance for the cartoon garbage is a perversion of free speech, I'm inclined to understand why rather than attempt to deconstruct every attempt to address evil behavior into a human rights case.

M.Z., what cultural norm do you propose to enforce? That's the entire problem. In a liberal order such as the one in which we live, the basis for prohibiting "offensive" speech is not that it transgresses the norms of a specific, concrete culture and common public understanding of decency--it is, rather, the fact having given offense. I happen to believe that in a self-consciously Christian, Western society, the enforcement of such norms is possible. It always has been. But you object to the maligning of the sacred beliefs of A culture, ANY culyure, not the sacred beliefs of our culture. In traditional societies, the logic of such prohibitions could be instantly grasped and judiciously applied, because there exists some common cultural understanding of what is actually sacred, and what is evil nonsense. I find it impossible to believe that seven hundred years ago, when prhobition of indecency of every kind was much more rigidly and effective enforced, that anyone would have made the argument that the point of such prohibition was to prevent slandering alien cultures religions. Your characterization of the Mohammed cartoons as "evil behavior" steals a base, as well, and as a traditionalist Catholic (not a libertarian) myself, I'm not interested in deconstructing "any attempt to address evil behavior."

Against a backdrop of liberal official indifference to viewpoints, the suppression of speech which offends Islam can only be motivated by a desire to supress expressions of the indigenous majority culture. It seems not to faze you that, in fact, the state is not prudently enforcing cultural norms, and you seem to have slid between arguing for the defense of cultural norms as such on the one hand, and the defense of alien cultural sensitivites on the other. These things are not neatly intertwined, and by definition must be in tremendous tension with one another. If the cartoons themselves violated sensible Christian standards of decency, that would be one thing--but all they actually violated was the Muslims' proscription against 1) depicting Mohammed in pictures, and 2) suggesting that Islamic violence is a serious and systemic problem for the rest of us.

So my point, once again, is that your argument doesn't apply to the existing order at all, which is liberal, secular, and post-Christian, and that any attempt to suppress speech offensive to Muslims' notoriously delicate sensitivities in such a context must necessarily come at the expense of our own assertion of Western cultural normativity.

I needn't propose a cultural norm. The author and the reader understood the depiction to be offensive to Islamic culture. Having you understand it to be offensive by your own unique standards informed by God knows what isn't an object of my persuassion.

The author and the reader understood the depiction to be offensive to Islamic culture.

I am not sure why I should care whether or not something is offensive to Islamic culture. Saying that Mohammad was no prophet is insulting to Islamic culture. But I am not going to say he was a prophet just so as not to offend.

There is nothing objectively evil about creating a cartoon depiction of a person. Even if I believed that Mohammad was some kind of holy person--rather than believing him to be either a lunatic or a liar--there would be nothing wrong with drawing a cartoon of him. The fact that many Muslims believe otherwise does not change the fact that they are wrong. And this ignores that there are a number of pictures and icons of Muhammad created by Muslims, even up to the present day. The Islamic prohibition of images of Muhammad has not been and is not as absolute as it is often made out to be.

Specifically on the topic of the Danish "cartoon garbage," the actual content of the twelve cartoons varies. Some were simply depictions of Mohammad. These were only insulting if you believe that he can never be depicted in images. But this, as previously mentioned, is far from being an unchanging and permanent Islamic doctrine. Some depicted Muhammad and Muslims as violent. But this is a valid critique of Muhammad and parts Islamic culture, to which history can attest. Some of the cartoons mocked the very paper that published them for being unnecessarily provocative. Which, to be honest, is probably the truth of the matter. Circumstances can make an action imprudent and a bad idea, and I think that this was probably the case in Denmark. There were probably better ways of going about arguing for the dangers of Islam to Western civilization than a few relatively uninspired cartoons.

But the fact that it may have been foolish to publish those cartoons at that time does not make it wrong to do such a thing at all times and everywhere. Speech should be about truth, and sometimes the truth offends. The truth of the matter is that there is a difference between what people believe to be sacred and what is really sacred. That is why Piss Christ is infinitely worse than any insulting depiction of Muhammad. Muhammad was a man some falsely believe spoke for God. Christ is God. I am not so sure it is wrong to believe that the law should reflect this truth by granting broad freedom to the Christian religion while at the same time imposing strict restriction of the preaching of certain Islamic doctrines.

I'm inclined to agree largely with Brendon. I know I disagree with Forrest if he really means to tell us that we have to worry about doing things that are insulting to "Islamic culture" as such. Absolutely not. I do not submit. No way, Jose. If it offends them to publish pictures of their so-called prophet (who consummated a marriage with a child of 9), that's their problem. I'll insult their culture all I like. Their culture has many, many horrible and evil aspects that must be "insulted" roundly and with no wussy hesitation if we are to remain men and to defend our own culture. If the Vatican says otherwise, that's just another reason for me to be happy I don't have to listen to the Vatican. Harrumph.

I would even say that the prudential argument Brendon makes is far overused. We are all slouching towards dhimmitude if we sit around saying, "Oh, oh, don't say anything that might make the Muslims mad. It's imprudent." If we knew what we were doing, we would find ways to remove as many of them as possible, particularly Muslim non-citizens, from our country, and then we wouldn't have to worry so much about making them mad, would we? And Denmark should do the same, though of course they won't.

Paul does a very good job noting the ridiculous double-standard of liberals on this whole matter of free speech about Islam.

An act maliciously intended cannot be redeemed. It is not enough to argue that the act could be done without malicious intent. If the author's intent had been to bring attention to Muslim iconography, the objection from Muslims would have been materially different.

Just because spiritually exhausted liberals operate from a contemptuous double-standard, and Islam, and it's founder possess unsavory aspects, does not mean we should resort to insulting cartoons as a form of cultural engagement. Such practices confirm us as decadents, indistinguishable from the well-heeled vulgarians that debase and degrade the human being for mass entertainment. Let us speak openly, honestly and intelligently about Islam, while never cowering before the Thought Police, or catering to the lowest common denominator. This historical moment calls for evangelizists, not nihilists, or, cowards.

Are we all talking about the same cartoon? The picture of a bomb coming out of Mohammed's head? _That_ confirms us as decadent? _That's_ malicious? I think you guys have rather odd ideas of what counts as decadent and malicious, if so.

An act maliciously intended cannot be redeemed.

If by this, M.Z., you mean that a particular act can be objectively moral and then be rendered immoral by an evil intended end, then I agree. But this is about more than some particular event with malicious intent. This is about holding it as a principle that it is wrong to say things that will offend others. This is what I read you to be saying. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Just because spiritually exhausted liberals operate from a contemptuous double-standard, and Islam, and it's founder possess unsavory aspects, does not mean we should resort to insulting cartoons as a form of cultural engagement.

I generally agree with with this, Kevin. This is why I believe that publishing the cartoons was imprudent, even if there was no malicious intent. If an organ of the Fourth Estate believes Islam and Islamic culture to be barbaric and a danger to their society and western civilization as a whole, then their energy would be better spent in writing intelligent and coherent articles and editorials exposing this fact, exhorting the citizens to put pressure on their government to do something about it, and adding their own voices to that pressure. If Islam and Islamic culture is such a great potential danger--and I believe it is--then the cartoons were a foolish idea because they were an insignificant and counterproductive way to go about arguing for this fact.

It would have been better to write well reasoned editorials calling for restrictions on immigration from Islamic countries, the use of the full force of the law on those who commit honor killings and other barbarities that Islamic culture deems acceptable, the use of international pressure on Islamic countries for reciprocity in legal freedoms and religious worship, and the passing of sedition laws that sharply curb an imam's ability to preach in favor of violent jihad, dhimmitude, the implementation of sharia law &c. If your going to fight the fight then go all in. Don't simply draw of some silly pictures and believe that you are some kind of conquering hero.

"Silly" is hardly the same as "decadent" or even "malicious." Many, perhaps most, cartoons are silly. It's a genre thing. Political cartoonists have made silly-looking caricatures of political and cultural figures for, gee, over a hundred years in the Western world. They make points that way. And strongly worded articles, perhaps even including references in unminced words to Mohammed's true character, perhaps including _humor_, for goodness' sake, are in one obvious sense just as "insulting" as a silly cartoon. I think we should absolutely reject any principle that it's morally wrong to insult Islamic culture.

Brendon; well said. I'm in complete agreement with the steps you advocate. I'll only add, that we should always take care to draw a sharp distinction between the Christian world-view and the secularist mind-set. We are waging a two-front campaign.

How do we reconcile giving ourselves license to scorn and deliberately provoke Muslims by insult with this:

Luke 6:27 “But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you.

Should not our course of action rather be this?:

Romans 12:19 Don’t seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.”* 12:20 Therefore
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him.
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.”*

I don't think any of those are relevant to the point at issue. Islam is a problem. It is worthy of scorn. I hope that individual Muslims come to be Christians. That is, I wish them well. But at that point they will no longer be Muslims. As for "provoking," telling the truth can be provoking. But we should speak the truth boldly. Also a biblical concept.

There are truths that are better unspoken. There are truths that are spoken only with the intent to injure, or to provoke. A truth spoken that foreseeably becomes the occasion of another's sin is a truth that should have been withheld.
Should I walk up to another person are say, "My goodness, you are both fat AND ugly!" simply because it's true and because I can?
Should I walk up to somebody and say, "I can kick your ass, and since I don't like your face, maybe I will" simply because I believe that to be true?
If I single out the Muslim to tell him that everything he believes is false, but let the Hindu and the Buddhist go about his business in peace, can it be for any reason other than that I WANT the Muslim to hate me?
Truth, like anything else that is used with discretion, can be misused.
Why do we not believe that Jesus and St. Paul actually MEANT what they said?

A truth spoken that foreseeably becomes the occasion of another's sin is a truth that should have been withheld.

False. To take just one of innumerable counterexamples, the apostles preached the gospel loudly and boldly even when it was a foreseeable occasion of their being persecuted and even (in the case of St. Stephen) killed. Stephen's sermon is highly offensive and provocative, not to mention insulting. ("Which of the prophets have your fathers not killed?") They ran upon him, provoked, dragged him forth, and stoned him to death. Sin is the responsibility of the sinner.

"If I single out the Muslim to tell him that everything he believes is false, but let the Hindu and the Buddhist go about his business in peace, can it be for any reason other than that I WANT the Muslim to hate me?"

Yes, it can be for another reason. You are very uninformed if you don't know that.

the apostles preached the gospel loudly and boldly even when it was a foreseeable occasion of their being persecuted and even (in the case of St. Stephen) killed.

Yes, and believe that it's also an historical fact that deliberate martyrdom became so popular that it finally had to be suppressed by the Church.

You are very uninformed if you don't know that.

There is a difference between being uninformed and being informed from a different playbook.
Jesus was perfectly (literally) capable of making exceptions to his commandments, as he did, for instance, with divorce (wifely adultery providing the exception.) I know of no exception that he made to the commandment to love your enemies. I guess, however, that one can spin "love" until it comes out "hate." Orwell demonstrated that.

So Jesus said we can't single out Muslims and tell them that everything they believe is false, or make a distinction in talking about cultural evils between Muslims and Hindus or Buddhists, because that would be hateful? That's enough to make one's head spin.

And St. Stephen was bad, because he committed deliberate martyrdom, because he preached a "provocative" sermon that was an occasion of sin for all those poor Christian-stoners.

Now, if the Muslims could just convince all of the Christians that the only way to love their enemies is to be good dhimmis and not to be "hateful" by saying anything that might hurt their ever-so-sensitive feelings, they would have won. Oh, wait, I guess they've gone a long way toward doing that, haven't they?

I sure hope most Christians don't buy this nonsense. I've see a few columns by people speaking out against the evils of Islam and its dangers saying that the wimpiness of the West is the fault of Christianity. I've stoutly insisted it's the fault of liberalism. But Rob #2 has proven to us that the two can come together very well.

(You sure do sound, Rob #2, like a commentator we had on here a while ago who was banned--handle "Rodak"--but that could just be coincidence. I guess more than one person can come up with the same sorts of ridiculous ideas.)

Islam has a billion adherents and comes in a variety of intellectual and spiritual strains. We need to undertake some internal reforms and forget the twisted notion that a "clash of civilizations" can be won by military means. Comparing St. Stephen to a post-Christian cartoonist only reminds us of the profound cultural declension that has left the West so drained that Islam now poses a mortal threat. Please Lydia, I know you must have been kidding, but still...

I want to associate myself, in the bloggers parlance, with almost everything Lydia has said here. Some of it has been said quite brilliantly.

Now look here, Kevin: Lydia did not compare the Danish cartoonist to St. Stephen. She used him as a counterexample to this notion that mockery is inherently sinful. But, to avoid that biblical dispute, let us consider the literary patron of this very website: Chesterton himself. Shall it be supposed that Chesterton's exchanges with Anglican modernists, agnostic literati, freethinkers, and various other scoundrels, some of it conducted with a real edge of mockery, was evidence of malicious intent on his part?

The point is not that the Danish cartoonists are exemplars of artistic greatness or any such nonsense; it is only that mockery and scorn are legitimate instruments. As with all instruments, of course, they may be abused.

In short, it is not at all obvious to me that mocking the wickedness of much of the Islamic world is incompatible with love for our enemies.

Paul, there is none of Chesterton's wit or insight in the anti-Islamic coloring books that frequently pop-up in a variety of quarters.If we really think we're faced with an existential threat, we're going to have to do better than traipsing out morning-drive disc jockey humor. We should be so lucky to have someone with Chesterton's talent in this fight.

Winning hearts and minds is the goal here. Scoring cheap,inflammatory points is a lazy substitute for Christian apologetics. The initiative undertaken by Pope Benedict is likely to yield more meaningful and lasting results, and is far more consistent with our own vocation.

I really think that quite obvious at this point.

The initiative undertaken by Pope Benedict is likely to yield more meaningful and lasting results

Said initiative provoked much the same reaction, in smaller scale, as the cartoons, as (I suspect) was expected. The Pope could have read passages from Chesterton's The New Jerusalem, say, to much the same effect.

When people talk, for instance, as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilisation in these parts.

Now, if one were to depict that argument as a cartoon, I fancy that one might even chose to draw Mohammad, in exaggerated style, as a jihadist.

"Said initiative provoked much the same reaction..."

There will always be the choreographed street theater and violence when you have an audience as vast and varied as the 1 billion souls of Islam. My guess is the jihadists dread Benedict and relish Howard Stern. What about you?

B16 armed with the truth, is exploiting the theological and philosophical contradictions within Islam and doing so in a sincere and respectful manner. His approach will lead to conversions and help carve out a period of peaceful coexistence. Waving crude drawing around won't.

Winning hearts and minds is the goal here.

I disagree with this sentence and with this strategy, especially when it comes with the idea that we should not be "inflammatory" to "win hearts and minds." (Anybody seen the recent news that the State Dept. has banned the word "jihad" by their employees, btw?)

Islam has a billion adherents and comes in a variety of intellectual and spiritual strains. We need to undertake some internal reforms and forget the twisted notion that a "clash of civilizations" can be won by military means.

This is the old and confused idea that because Islam is so big and supposedly complicated we can't make generalizations about it. It is false. Spencer's Jihad Watch is a good source of information here, and from that info., though Spencer won't say it in so many words, one can easily get to the conclusion that Lawrence Auster talks about clearly that Islam is the problem. Even those who don't engage in jihad often either a) feel sympathy for it or b) support the spread of sharia by "democratic" means.

By the way, I never said anything about winning a clash of civilizations by military means. Not that I am opposed to it in principle, but there are other and more urgent things we need to do right away, like major immigration changes, that we are unlikely to do.

Now, I want to point out that in the main post, Paul was talking not about cartoons but about Fitna, which _should_ win approval from Kevin as the sort of non-cartoonish engagement he says we should be pursuing. But it was condemned all over the world, including by many-a dhimmi European, because it was so "insulting" and "inflammatory," etc., etc. In fact, and bizarrely, the cartoonist of cartoon fame threatened to sue Wilders if he didn't take the Islam cartoons out of the movie. Why? Because, golly, the cartoons weren't meant to be aimed at "all Muslims," but he was just sure the movie was. So the movie was deemed _more_ offensive than the cartoons, and the cartoonist himself implied that he had had less insulting and purer intentions than the person engaged in more prosaic discourse. Interesting, that.

It's really important for the "let's not be inflammatory" crowd to get a clue here. If we were talking about vulgar language or pornography, I'd be with you, but not because it would be inflammatory. But we need to recognize that any principle that we should not inflame Muslims, that we must be nice to them, that we must win their hearts and minds by refraining from "insulting their culture" is the road to dhimmitude. And a short road, too. Read about what's going on in the UK sometime--Muslim gangs terrorizing the infidels from the schools to the churches, and political correctness preventing either proper law enforcement or even speaking the truth about the nature of the problem. And the voice of the muezzin will soon (literally) be ringing out by loudspeaker over Oxford.

I do not submit.

I'm with B16 when he engages in the supposedly "inflammatory" activity of publically baptizing an outspoken and apparently rousingly illusionless convert to Christianity. I'm not with him if he has illusions himself about carving out an era of peaceful coexistence. I hope he knows better than that. And I wasn't with him when he apologized for his relatively mild remarks about Islam that provoked, from that oh-so-varied group of religious adherents, worldwide violence. ("Say we're peaceful or we'll kill you.")

By the way, the complete lack of humor in Islam, esp. the lack of any sense of irony or self-humor, makes humor at Islam's expense all the more appropriate.

Actually, Lydia, I was talking about the Cartoon Jihad in the OP, but with minor adjustment, I could have been talking about Fitna as well.

In any case, a couple further observations:

(1) The quotation Benedict chose to cite, from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor, was a particularly intransigent one. In the teachings of Mohammad, you "will find things only evil and inhuman." Only? I wouldn't even go that far. So that's pretty provocative.

(2) I wonder how the "let's not be inflammatory" folks feel about the imprecatory Psalms.

If Mr. Cella is willing to concede the Danish cartoons weren't exhibitions of "artistic greatness or any such nonsense", then why be compelled to defend them? What's the end game? Almost all the commentators have adopted this little game of defending vile garbage for fear that reasonable argument would be supressed.

Lydia's argument amounts to little more than I should be able to walk around dressed like tart and no one should treat me as if I'm dressed like a tart because that would be a condemnation of my culture. It is silly.

Fitna was aimed at sleep-walking Europeans and if it roused any, fine. I found it to be shallow and void of much insight.

"I never said anything about winning a clash of civilizations by military means. Not that I am opposed to it in principle, but there are other and more urgent things we need to do..."

Just as I feared. Lydia, this explains you're approval for some of the counter-productive tactics under discussion. You really think a shooting war is a viable option. I truly hope you come to your senses, otherwise, your contribution to a just and moral outcome, will be no greater than that rendered by those dessicated intellectuals who cower before the Crescent.

Thankfully, there is more to our side than liberals struggling with their death-wish, and neo-cons angling for World War 4.

Was the Harvard or wherever art student being provocative and edgy with her abortion art or were people just over reacting Mr. Cella?

"I'm not with him if he has illusions himself about carving out an era of peaceful coexistence."

Really? What are you proposing? Please come out and say it.

"What's the end game?"

Good question.

Let me disassociate myself from MZ Forrest's inane invocation of the Yalie art-student's abomination.

Still hoping Lydia will flesh out her geo-political strategy that rules our peaceful co-existence as an "illusion."

"vile garbage"

What are you calling "vile garbage," Forrest? I've already agreed that things that really are vile should be condemned because they are vile, but not because they are inflammatory. And being inflammatory or insulting to Islam doesn't make something vile in itself.

Lydia's argument amounts to little more than I should be able to walk around dressed like tart and no one should treat me as if I'm dressed like a tart because that would be a condemnation of my culture.

Say what? I'm not sure I even follow this. _I'm_ the one saying it's okay to condemn people's culture. What are _you_ talking about? I would never say that it's wrong to condemn the way someone is dressed because it's "condemning a culture." I gather, Forrest, you haven't been around on this blog or its predecessor when I got going on the modesty bandwagon. Dressed like a tart? Do you know my opinions on dressing at all? Evidently not.

But the comments of the rape sheikh (which your comment sounds uncomfortably like, if I'm understanding it at all) are despicable. Are you familiar with them? He's Australian. Women dressed improperly, he says, are "uncovered meat," and it's only to be expected that the "cats" will come and fight over it.

I'm far more concerned about modest dress than many of my Christian friends. I'm extremely careful about it, as the mother of daughters, and I spend a lot of time and a certain amount of extra money pursuing it for them and myself. But I absolutely refuse to make common cause with the Muslims on this subject. Their ideas of modesty are based on a bizarre and perverted approach to the entire male-female relationship. They aren't just like nice Christian fundamentalists and would call even my friends whose daughters never cut their hair and wear dressed all the time "immodest." We need to get a clue there, too.

I don't even know how the subject of dressing got into this conversation. Do you know _anything_ about the Islamic threat, M.Z.? If they confined themselves to "condemning my culture," we could have a discussion. It's the bombs, the sharia, the honor killings, the state-funded foot baths, the widespread scofflaw violence against the infidels, and on and on that I'm worried about. "Condemnation" isn't even on the radar here.

Kevin, I merely put that in about not being opposed in principle to military engagement because I'm, in fact, not opposed in principle to military engagement. There was much that was glorious in the many years of war in which the West defended itself militarily. Our logo is, after all, Charles Martel. It was a darned good thing he didn't just sit down and have a blog discussion with the Muslim invaders rather than "resorting to violence." I wasn't agitating for attacking anybody in particular. Please stop seeing neo-cons under every rock.

What am I proposing? I'm proposing blocking all Muslim immigration and beginning a phased revocation of the visas of all Muslims presently in the U.S. who are neither citizens nor legal permanent residents and subsequent enforcement, _by_ force if necessary, of their leaving the country. I'm proposing loud expressions from our country's leaders about the evils of Islam. I'm proposing firing all Muslim chaplains in the military and prisons. I'm proposing making sure no Muslim ever again gives the invocation to our Congress. I'm proposing stopping all aid of every sort to the PLO (aka Fatah) and calling it by its rightful title as a terrorist organization with whom no one should be pressured to negotiate. I'm proposing adoption of some version of Paul's jihad sedition laws. I"m proposing revocation of all sharia concessions already made--such as state-funded footbaths, the state-funded madrassah presently operating in Minnesota, and so forth. I'm proposing that all states and local communities make it loud and clear that they will not make any such concessions. I'm proposing that the National Labor Relations Board state as policy that it will not force employers to make accommodations for Muslim prayers. I'm proposing that the HSLDA (home school organization) make moves to exclude Muslims from membership or at least to make it clear that they won't defend anyone engaging in child-abusive practices typical of Muslim culture.

That's for starters. YOu can get back to me when you've done all of that.

I afraid I don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Forrest, on the "Harvard or wherever art student being provocative and edgy with her abortion art," so I can't comment on that.

As for this idea of playing "this little game of defending vile garbage" with respect to the Danish cartoons, I'm calling BS. Have you actually seen the cartoons? "Vile garbage" my foot. Some where pretty much worthless; some were pretty innocuous; some were too-clever-by-half; and some were, in my mind, perfectly legitimate satire or caricature.

All together now: We owe no deference to the doctrines of the Islamic religion. We owe no particular respect to that religion's prophet.

Now, the reason I feel "compelled to defend" the Danish cartoons is because the lunatic reaction of the Islamic world, abetted by Jihadist provocateurs, put at risk and under severe strain the people of Denmark, a small country which has long been our stalwart ally. I remember back during the controversy doing a bit of back-of-the-envelope math comparing the military contribution of the Danes to Iraq. It was considerable.

Which brings us to this:

You [Lydia] really think a shooting war is a viable option.

So do I. I did oppose the war in Iraq, but in no way would I foreclose the possibility of future (just) shooting wars against the Jihad. Would you, Kevin? And the argument that because we are sunk in Liberalism and decadence, we cannot do anything effective militarily against the Jihad, is one I just don't buy. Europe was sunk in religious strife, internal dissolution, rebellion, corruption, simony and imperialism when Pius V organized the Holy League to sail against the Turks in 1571. This League included the imperial Spaniards, then at the height of their capture of the Inquisition for statist, secular purposes; it included the worldly Capitalists of Venice.

In short, it seems to me that quietism in the face of the latest assaults from the Jihad -- quietism based on a despair for reformation in American morals -- is as much a problem among Christian as is truculence and militarism. Or at least it could be.

You missed the point Lydia. It was a rough substitution of: I should be able to insult Islam and Muslims shouldn't get offended if I insult Islam because that would be a condemnation of my culture.

I'll keep my eye out for foot bathers. Most of your other concerns are addressed by the law presently. Some that aren't I would be willing to support. In my various first comment I stated I would support proscribing some things if they served the social interest.

We owe no deference to the doctrines of the Islamic religion. We owe no particular respect to that religion's prophet.

You will not find support for that anywhere. You can argue the floor is too high, and I would tend to agree that it is in our PC culture. There is however a floor where decent men out of respect for their fellow man will not go below.

Lydia, Warfare has come a long way since the days of Charles Martel. The technological advances have out-stripped our moral development. Let's not pretend otherwise, or be so sanguine about the application of force. Civilization or barbarism. It's hard to obtain the former by resorting to the latter. Witness Europe since WWII. Hell, look at us!

I agree with your proposals with the exception
of the Palestinian issue. Far too complex to sign-out without greater knowledge. Now, peaceful co-existence - still an illusion? force.

Paul,
I am against a military resolution because it will be, as recent history graphically shows, a moral and humanitarian disaster. And because it will further erode our already creaky, listless foundation. Quietism is a red-herring in this thread. The greater danger is a position on Islam that further conforms Christianity to secular norms.

"Most of your other concerns are addressed by the law presently."

Really? I was under the impression that we were _increasing_ Muslim chaplains. We also are so far from encouraging clear and true speaking that we are proscribing the word 'jihad' in our State Dept. and fired a knowledgeable advisor from our security organizations who spoke clearly about the Islamic jihad. But perhaps you haven't read through my entire list of suggestions. Go down the comment to the paragraph in response to Kevin. I don't expect most of them to be followed until hell freezes over. But I make them in response to Kevin's demand for a plan.

And again, Muslims shouldn't get "offended" when I "insult Islam" if I am speaking important truths which they need to face. It has nothing to do with "condemning my culture." NOthing whatsoever.

the technological advances have out-stripped our moral development. Let's not pretend otherwise, or be so sanguine about the application of force.

Fair enough, Kevin. I'm sympathetic to this concern.

Paul,
We can all agree this is an act of cowardice perpetrated by geldings frantically working to postpone their own richly deserved demise. Note, the "artist's" penchant for porn is not the reason for his arrest. Says it all.

"...the cartoonist was arrested as a suspect for the criminal offense of “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3257