The New York Times' Muslim problem

[Jefferson23]

Monday, Apr 26, 2010 07:27 ET

By Glenn Greenwald


(updated below)

Ross Douthat, The New York Times, today:


In a way, the muzzling of "South Park" is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions' cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. . . . But there's still a sense in which the "South Park" case is particularly illuminating. . . . t's a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all. . . .Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place. Except where Islam is concerned.


The New York Times, March 28, 2010:


A Texas university class production of "Corpus Christi," by Terrence McNally, below, has been canceled by college officials citing "safety and security concerns for the students" as well as the need to maintain an orderly academic environment, The Austin Chronicle reported. "Corpus Christi," Mr. McNally’s 1998 play depicting a gay Jesus figure, was scheduled to be performed on Saturday as part of a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Tex. But early on Friday, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst condemned the performance, saying in a press release that "no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans." Although Tarleton's president, F. Dominic Dottavio, first defended the students' right to perform a play he considered "offensive, crude and irreverent," university officials changed course late Friday night, canceling the performance after receiving threatening calls and e-mail messages, according to The Star-Telegram.



Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 8, 2010 (h/t Queerty):


A Fort Worth theater that had agreed to show a student-directed play with a gay Jesus character has withdrawn its offer. The board of directors of Artes de la Rosa, which runs The Rose Marine Theater on North Main Street, decided Thursday against offering the venue for the production of Corpus Christi, just one day after saying it would. A March performance set for a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville was abruptly canceled after the school received threatening emails.


It looks like Ross Douthat picked the wrong month to try to pretend that threat-induced censorship is a uniquely Islamic practice. Corpus Christi is the same play that was scheduled and then canceled (and then re-scheduled) by the Manhattan Theater Club back in 1998 as a result of "anonymous telephone threats to burn down the theater, kill the staff, and 'exterminate' McNally." Both back then and now, leading the protests (though not the threats) was the Catholic League, denouncing the play as "blasphemous hate speech."


in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat/index.html

[KonaKane]

1. My question is....

of what possible virtue is there in purposely trying to incite the followers of ANY major world religion, just because?

Free speech? I love it. But just because I can say something, doesn't mean I should. There is such a thing as moral discretion.

[Fumesucker]

2. Why does it have to be a "major world religion" before they get immunity from mockery?

Moral discretion would seem to put making death threats and actually killing people beyond the pale also.

And besides, it's the religious people who claim that their religion makes them so much more moral than those who lack religion.

Edited for speling.

[KonaKane]

4. It was pertinent to the topic. But defamation for its own sake is stupid in any case.

It doesn't serve the nobility, and precious beauty, of free speech to use it simply to defame others just because you can do it. What are you trying to accomplish by striving to offend the world's Muslims? ALL of them, who will be offended when you slur their prophet? It doesn't matter that it's not your chosen religion. It's about some respect for others, who are showing the same to you. And yes, I have some Muslim neighbors who are great people and have never once made me feel like less of a person for not sharing their faith.

Just because I can smear my shit on the walls, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

[Fumesucker]

7. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did the death threats precede the deliberate offending of Muslims or did deliberate offending precede the death threats?

How long has Salman Rushdie been in hiding for fear of his life?

Any group that is making death threats deserves any amount of mockery they get, IMO.

What is being done here is to try and make the mockery so widespread that no one person or small group can be singled out for death or threats of death for saying something that happens to rile up some Muslims.

Greenwald is also making the point that Christians are also prone to making death threats.. And carrying out those threats sometimes also.

[KonaKane]

8. "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"

I hope you know who said that. And I also hope you know that two wrongs don't make a right, and that amping up the vitriol for ego's sake is not going to benefit anyone in the long run. You will not change one Muslim mind. You will not make yourself safer in numbers as their terror ranks grow because every new jab at their prophet proves to them that all stereotypes of the ugly American are true.

Who benefits? No one.

[Fumesucker]

9. Who benefits if we all tiptoe around in fear of upsetting religious fanatics?

The fanatics benefit in that case.

Look at the case of the "sorcerer" under a death sentence in Saudi Arabia, Islam is at about the point Christianity was when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for being a bit too forceful in putting forth scientific theories that conflicted with the Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture.

People are going to say intemperate things, that's human nature, let's try to make it so that other people don't kill them just for being a little mouthy.

[KonaKane]

10. Who benefits by inciting an entire group just to get at a few?

Who benefits as you drive more into the terror camp?

Who benefits as you multiply ignorance, fear and hatred just because you have "free speech"?

I don't see a benefit here anywhere.

[Fumesucker]

12. If you can drive someone into the "terror camp" by making fun of a religious figure..

They were nuts to start with.

The single most maligned and feared group in the USA these days is atheists, more Americans would vote for a Muslim or a gay for president than would vote for an avowed atheist.

And yet atheists don't go around threatening people with death who make fun of atheism.

[KonaKane]

14. It's easier than you think.

And I will repeat, if you actually think that it's a good idea to defame an entire religion....enveloping the good people in it along with the bad ones....if you think it's beneficial to the world to do so, then please go ahead.

I just disagree with you on a fundamental (no pun intended) level. I believe that good people should be shown respect, and bad people should be singled out for their actions, not their beliefs.

[Fumesucker]

17. No, it's not so easy when you don't have a lot of irrational beliefs..

It's not like Muslims don't have friction even within Islam, the Shia and Sunni have a conflicting beliefs and have even gone to war over those conflicts.

It wasn't all that long ago that Christians were battling each other over conflicting scriptural interpretations, why do you think the Mormons are so strong in Utah? And then we have Northern Ireland where the Protestants and Catholics are only just beginning to bring their squabbles to an end.

Human nature ensures that some people are going to say intemperate things, it's better when they are not slaughtered for saying those things. It's revealing that you did not respond to my point regarding the "sorcerer" who is under a death sentence in Saudi Arabia, that's the sort of thing that happens when religion takes itself far too damn seriously.

[KonaKane]

19. Islam is not on trial here. Bigotry and defamation are.

Trying to turn this thread into yet another DU attack on people of faith is a non-starter. The issue is about where does criticism of terrorists stop and the broad defamation of a religious people begin.

It is not pretty on people who consider themselves so advanced and "progressive", believe me.

[Fumesucker]

22. So executing someone due to their religious beliefs is not bigotry?

That's far, far more ugly than someone making fun of someone else's invisible sky daddy or His spokesman.

Sorry, but those of us who don't want to kill others due to their beliefs are indeed more "progressive" than those who do, even if we might say something less than entirely kind from time to time.

[KonaKane]

26. Thats what extremists do. You are advocating defaming the rest.

Which I remind you, is not a virtue.

[Fumesucker]

30. It's the Saudi government that's executing the man..

They are very tight with the US government.

I haven't heard a great outpouring of outrage from Muslims about this impending execution.

[KonaKane]

32. Muslims carry a wealth of diverse opinions.

Your inability to see that, or incuriousness about them, is not their fault.

[Fumesucker]

37. You don't need to get personal..

Or maybe you do, but that's not terribly progressive, is it?

[Jefferson23]

3. And this moral discretion should be used to make sure no one is threatened with death?

Who is breaking the law and going too far?

[riderinthestorm]

5. "Moral"??! Threatening people with death and you want to talk about free speech

in the context of "moral" discretion?

Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is a secular issue and I get that. But here we are talking about imaginary beings. What "major" world religion is included or excluded in your incitement provision? Those who believe in Zeus? Or those who believe in Hunab Ku? Perhaps it's just monotheistic religions in your opinion?

"Incite" is the trigger word here. It's axiomatic that simply questioning someone's religious beliefs can be interpreted as "incitement" even if there's no agenda.

Why does religion get a pass on debate and discussion? Why does religion get a pass on critique and mockery?

We critique, mock and debate those who believe blacks are inferior. We critique, debate and mock those who believe Christopher Columbus was the first to "discover" America etc. etc. It appears that everything else is fair game but religion. Sorry but there's no objective, logical or reasonable explanation to keep hands off this topic over and above any other topic.

[KonaKane]

6. I never said it was moral to threaten someone's life. Not sure where you got that.

But feel free to elaborate.

[riderinthestorm]

11. You are equating moral discretion with "free speech"

Free speech is secular. Morals, specifically "moral discretion", tends to be associated with religion.

You also appear to be endorsing a position that critiquing a religion is somehow akin to "shouting fire in a theatre". I disagree. They are two different animals.

I reiterate that your key word is "incite". You appear to believe that critiquing someone's religious views is incitement.

[KonaKane]

13. You couldn't be more wrong.

Morality is not confined to the world of the religious. In fact, it is the non religious who most chaffe at the idea that they cannot be moral people outside of the religious fold.

I'm not sure where you are getting these bizarre conflations from.

[riderinthestorm]

15. Uhm, you said that critique was somehow a lack of "moral discretion" nt

[KonaKane]

18. Uhm, I certainly did not. Please don't mischaracterize my posts.

Critique is fine. Defamation is not. I hope that you know the difference, and the intent of each.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Exactly the point of the OP and exactly what we are debating.

"Critique" vs "defamation".

You apparently have a thin skin in regards to religion bashing. There it is as I perceive your POV: Religion bashing.

Some of us don't think of it as such. We call it pointing out truth.

[KonaKane]

27. That's your opinion. You should be more discerning about your intent.

Critique carries a connotation of doing the good, of changing for a benefit. All you are doing is sniffing around for a way of slurring the religious because you don't like religion. No one is buying it.

[Fumesucker]

38. Apparently you do need to get personal..

He who first descends to the personal loses the argument.

[MadHound]

16. Well, actually we have gotten other major world religions that way

Those 95 theses that Luther put up:shrug:

Frankly I find people who are upset about somebody else mocking their faith to be, rather, well insecure in their faith.

This is about free speech after all, and in my mind that trumps anything else. Sure, it is rude and crude, but hey, people in this country have a right to be rude and crude, and often have been.

Oh, and why are we only trying not to offend one sect of Islam? Other sects have no problem with depictions of the prophet. Do we also cater to those sects of Christianity that don't want depictions of God or Christ?

See, the thing is, you keep going down this path and pretty soon nobody will be able to say anything about any religion.

[KonaKane]

20. Free speech is great. Defamation and slur for their own sakes, is not.

That is the distinction that is continually missed here.

[LeftyMom]

25. Drawing a picture of a man who died 1400 years ago is not a slur or defamation.

It's just a picture of a historical figure. That there's a superstition about drawing his picture in some quarters now (historically that wasn't always the case) shouldn't preclude those who choose to from doing so. Those who want to be offended can, but they're being superstitious gits.

[KonaKane]

28. It is if the believers say it is, What's so hard about understanding that?

You are simply poking around for a way to piss them off. I have survived for 50 years without drawing a picture of Mohammed with a fuse coming out of his head. I'll bet that you could do the same.

[LeftyMom]

40. No, it's not. Believers don't get to set behavior standards for non-believers.

Look, I couldn't draw a recognizable picture of anybody, but I believe in the importance of freedom of speech, and I'm certainly not about to tell anybody to curtail their speech because a bunch of fairy tale believers might be offended. I'm also not about to tell women to get back in the kitchen to avoid offending baptists or to stop taking the pill to keep catholics happy, because the cool thing about not being a believer in (insert religion here) is that you're under no obligation to follow their stupid rules.

[Snazzy]

31. another historical figure

President Obama visits, prays with ailing Rev. Billy Graham

BY Richard Sisk
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Monday, April 26th 2010, 4:00 AM


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/26/2010-04-26_president_obama_visits_ailing_rev_billy_graham_.html

In my religion no such visits or depictions are permissible and I intend to issue a fatwa.

(and no idea why I reply to you Leftymom, rock on!)

[KonaKane]

33. What Billy Graham has to do with the topic is anyone's guess

But there are those here who will go to any length to put a given religion on trial, instead of individuals who misuse it.

[Snazzy]

34. No doubt you're anybody, let's have a guess?! (n/t)

(crap screwed up a n/t again, friggin' keyboard got to go).

[KonaKane]

35. Not sure I get your meaning here.

Care to clarify?

[Snazzy]

36. well I was hoping to be somewhat subtle

and also not do much typing.

But what exactly are the dynamics of Obama having to see Graham and "praying with him"?

Is it something Obama was looking forward to doing? Was it important to him spiritually?

Wait, do not answer that, because if there's an affirmative, we'd be causing me to type more.

[MadHound]

42. Who gets to decide whether it is defamation and slur?

The group who is offended, even if they are in the minority? Again, you're taking us down the slippery slope of not being able to have any picture of any religious figure at all. Is that what you want?

The various Islamic sects, much like Christians, cannot even decide amongst themselves whether to allow drawings of Muhammad. Shiites think it is fine to have portraits of him, others don't.

And frankly, this ban on drawings is a rather recent one, historically Muhammad was liberally depicted throughout the world.

<http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/>

Again, this is a free speech issue. Free speech in this country is not controlled by any religious group. Do you think that US theaters should have caved to the demands of Christian fundamentalists who didn't want the Last Temptation of Christ shown?

Sorry, but everybody in this country, god, demigod and human, is open to a certain amount of defamation and slur. People can be depicted unfavorably in political cartoons and such, and frankly that is a good thing. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. If you can't deal with that, move. There is a wide world out there that doesn't censor's images of Muhammad.

But you don't have the right to force free citizens in this country to draw what you want, and abstain from drawing what you don't want. Doesn't matter if it offends you or not, that is the beauty of the US, we're all on a level playing field.

PS, did you know that there is a depiction of Muhammad on the frieze of the Supreme Court? I'll leave it to you to find it. Do you think that the Supreme Court should be torn down now?

[LeftyMom]

23. Failing to point out stupidity is immoral.

How is humankind to advance if nobody mentions that certain ideas are outdated, foolish or just plain wrong, for fear of offending those who hold them dear?

[Snazzy]

24. yea LeftyMom (nt)

:thumbsup:

(arg even have to edit my nt's... I had an nt typo)

[KonaKane]

29. You're trying to put Islam on trial again. A non starter, and outside of the OP

Stick to the point...that is, where does well intended critique stop and defamation begin.

[LeftyMom]

39. Defamation would involve falsehood deliberately intended to malign.

Just drawing a picture of somebody would not qualify by any rational definition. Sorry.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

41. does invading and occupying one of their holiest cities fall under the category of...

"trying to incite the followers of ANY major world religion?" Freedoms are like muscles, if you don't exercise them you'll lose them.