In light of the recent terror attacks on that Mosque, should we be allowed to criticize Islam?

sear

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen

Few if any would challenge a young citizens right to say: "I love you Mommy!" Our 1st Amendment free speech right wasn't enshrined in our Bill of Rights to protect popular speech. It's to protect those that offer unpopular speech, those that warn of anthropogenic climate change for example, a message many do not wish to hear.

As Professor Strossen (quoted above) explains, there's a variety of speech which is not protected. They include:

 - libel

 - slander

 - perjury

 - betraying State secrets

 - falsely declaring fire in a crowded theater

 - etc.

I condemn pan-Islam for its failure to address Islamic terrorism.

If every living Muslim showed some spine, and made it clear they were not going to allow their own sacred religion to be used as a platform for terrorism, ISIL might never have been started.

The Christ Church disaster is a lamentable tragedy, but perhaps atypical. Most bloodshed I read about victimizing Muslims is perpetrated by other Muslims.

To you it might seem like one group. To them is it not:

 - Wahabbi

 - Sunni

 - Shi'ah

And according to my sources:

"... slay the infidels wherever ye find them..." Holy Qur'an: Sura 9 Verse 5

is cited as excuse, legitimate Islamic justification to perpetrate mayhem against Muslims outside their own sect.

Plaffelvohfen

@YeshuaBought

"Should we be allowed to criticize Islam?"

What makes you think we aren't already?? 

MayCaesar

The day we are not "allowed" to criticise totalitarian ideologies is the day our civilisation becomes doomed.

Every day approximately 150,000 people die worldwide. In some corner of the world a few dozen Muslims were killed - orders of magnitude more Muslims died in that very day in their deathbeds around the world. If we are to use people's deaths as an excuse to silence ideas, then nobody should ever be allowed to say anything.

Our culture has a strange religious attitude to death, seeing it as something sacred, something that warrants "minutes of silence" and similar rituals. We should learn something from Taiwanese people, who see their relatives' deaths as a reason to dance the night out. Death is an inherent part of human life, and being so benevolent before it makes little sense.

sear

"The day we are not "allowed" to criticise totalitarian ideologies" MC

The topic title is:

In light of the recent terror attacks on that Mosque, should we be allowed to criticize Islam?

What has "Islam" to do with "totalitarian ideologies"?

It is both a Founding principle, and the current functioning standard of U.S. law and governance * to deem Islam a benevolent or benign force in the world.

BY LAW we cannot discriminate against Muslims with U.S. immigration law, or in domestic U.S. legal matters either.

So please explain to us all MC. What has a theology like Islam to do with "totalitarian ideologies"?

 * Islamophobic President Trump to the contrary notwithstanding.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

Are you saying that the act of criticizing is a form of discrimination? 

And yes,  Islam, like any other monotheistic religion is authoritarian ideologically... I don't see any "discrimination" here, it's just a fact...

Dee

Islam is a regressive and divisive belief system and should be criticised , I may even draw a cartoon or two just to get the ball rolling   

sear

"Are you saying that the act of criticizing is a form of discrimination?" Pv

I'm not sure which words I posted would prompt you to ask.

But "criticize" means to find fault with. So yes. Technically criticism requires discrimination.

"And yes,  Islam, like any other monotheistic religion is authoritarian ideologically..." Pv

Generally perhaps.

But the error I corrected was: "totalitarian ideologies" MC

I'm not sure even Torquemada qualifies as a totalitarian.

"I don't see any "discrimination" here, it's just a fact..." Pv

The following words appear in the topic title:

"recent"

"terror"

"attacks"

"Mosque"

"criticize"

"Islam"

"Recent" distinguishes from events in centuries past.

"terror" distinguishes from non-violent actors like Gandhi & MLK

"attacks" denotes aggression, as apart from pacifism

"Mosque" distinguishes from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, etc.

"criticize" denotes discrimination. In some applications they can be used as synonyms.

 "Islam" discriminates from non-Muslim.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

"Recent" distinguishes from events in centuries past.
"terror" distinguishes from non-violent actors like Gandhi & MLK
"attacks" denotes aggression, as apart from pacifism
"Mosque" distinguishes from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, etc.

Well, it's good to know that we have to know what we're talking about, I guess?
These just tell us the "what, when and where" needed to any discussion...

"criticize" denotes discrimination. In some applications they can be used as synonyms.

That is discriminating against another synonym "Evaluate", which is quite applicable here for "criticize"...

 "Islam" discriminates from non-Muslim

It's a categorical mistake to equate the 2... 

MayCaesar

@sear

I never advocated for legal discrimination against the followers of Islam. I merely characterised one property of Islam. There is no law in the US that prohibits me from expressing my opinion - and, in fact, there is a clause in the Constitution that prevents such laws from being implemented.

Islam is totalitarian by its very structure: it advocates for total submission to a supreme entity.  Either you bow your head before Allah, or you are purged as an infidel. These are fundamental postulates of Quran, and while there are Muslims who do not take these postulates literally, they still are what they are.

If a few Muslims die, facts do not suddenly change, and Islam does not suddenly start deserving a special benevolent treatment. Same goes for Christians and their totalitarian ideology, for Nazis and their totalitarian ideology, for Communists and their totalitarian ideology, and so on.
Being afraid to call things what they are is one of the most worrying things in the modern Western society in my eyes. People shift more and more towards replacing what is true with what sounds nice. Facts become secondary, after feelings.
It is not that it has ever been different, but it is surprising that in the 21st century we are still not done with these trends.

Gandhi in particular was a nice guy, but as a result of his actions India moved from being a relatively prosperous colony to returning to its cultist caste roots and becoming one of the most impoverished nations in the world. He is just one more example of the fact that simply being peaceful and nice does not lead to success. It is not about how nice you are, it is about how much substance there is in what you do.

Sugarcoating religions is not going to lead anywhere good. You have to be able to face harsh truths, no matter how they feel, if you really want the world to change for the better. And the best way to get people to get used to facing those truths is to unapologetically speak them.

There is a lot of people in the US who discriminate against Muslims. This is not good. This, however, does not mean that any criticism of Islam is discriminatory. I am aware of our dear president's ideas about Muslims, and I do not share them. But Islam is what it is, and nobody can change that. The problem of totalitarian Islam will be solved when Islam stops being taken seriously by any significant fraction of the population. Until then, we will have places like Saudi Arabia and Iran on the map, and abusive husbands in immigrant families on the West.

sear

" There is no law in the US that prohibits me from expressing my opinion - and, in fact, there is a clause in the Constitution that prevents such laws from being implemented. " MC

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen

You are simply factually incorrect.

There is absolutely NO valid "expressing my opinion" legal defense for libel or slander. So you are at least twice wrong.

"This, however, does not mean that any criticism of Islam is discriminatory." MC

It may not mean EVERY criticism is discriminatory. But according to AHD criticize means to discriminate.

criticize (krît´î-sìz´) verb
criticized, criticizing, criticizes verb, transitive
    To find fault with *

discriminate (dî-skrîm´e-nât´) verb
discriminated, discriminating, discriminates verb, intransitive
    To make a clear distinction; distinguish *

I do not deny these are separate words.

Neither do I deny that in some applications / meanings they can be used as synonyms.  If you continue to retain your above quoted position then your quarrel is not with me, it's with *.

If you'll stop posting so many falsehoods, I'll back off on correcting you.

 * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

sear

"It's a categorical mistake to equate the 2... " Pv

 - piffle -

You adding a 3rd synonym doesn't strengthen your case. It weakens it.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

It is a categorical mistake, whether you recognize it or not... 

sear

Pv,

There are a variety of words that can be substituted, depending on specific intended meaning. You've added "Evaluate",

Your quarrel (if any) is with The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, the source of the following potential synonyms:

Synonyms: estimate, appraise, assess, assay, evaluate, rate.

These verbs mean to form a judgment of worth or significance. Estimate usually implies a subjective and somewhat inexact judgment: difficult to estimate the possible results in advance; could only estimate the size of the crowd. Appraise stresses expert judgment: appraised the furniture and works of art before distributing them to the heirs. Assess implies authoritative judgment in setting a monetary value on something as a basis for taxation: assessing an apartment on the amount for which it is likely to be rented. Assay refers to careful examination, especially to chemical analysis of an ore to determine its quality, fineness, or purity: cut a minute piece off the ingot to assay it. In extended senses appraise, assess, and assay can refer to any critical analysis or appraisal: appraised his character and found him wanting; assessing the impact of higher taxes on lower-income households; has no method for assaying merit. Evaluate implies considered judgment in ascertaining value: evaluating a student's thesis for content and organization; used projective tests to evaluate her aptitudes. Rate involves determining the rank or grade of someone or something in relation to others: Will history rate Picasso above Renoir? *

 * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

MayCaesar

@sear

If you read the Constitution carefully, you will see that libel and slander are just as protected forms of free speech as any other. That the government has managed to persuade people that libel and slander threaten them more than ignoring the Constitution and infringing on basic freedoms - is another topic entirely, and a manifestation of the notion you made about no authority being absolute. No matter how fundamental the document is, it can always be thrown away when the majority agrees that it is the best thing to do.

Regardless, the topic is not about whether we are allowed to criticise Islam - what one is practically allowed to do depends on the environment. The topic is about whether we should be allowed to criticise Islam. And the answer is resounding "yes". Anyone who answers "no" or even "yes, but..." is pretty far gone from the realm of free individualism into the realm of social autocracy. 

In fact, the very idea that criticism should be "allowed", that there is some authority that should choose to allow it, is insulting to the concept freedom. Freedom must exist by default, and the question should be not whether to "allow" it, but how to protect it.

sear

"the notion you made about no authority being absolute." MC

Merciful Heavens NO !

It's not a notion I made. It's a quotation from one of the most impressive Constitutional scholars of her day.

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen

I quoted an authority.

You're welcome to your lay contradictory opinion. But Strossen's point extends beyond the first amendment.

U.S. citizens have a right to their religion. But not if it involves having violent injurious sex with human infants.

We have both first, and second amendment rights.

 BUT !!

We can't carry a loaded gun:

 - into a U.S. federal post office, or

 - aboard a commercial airliner in the U.S., or a

 - commercial U.S. airport, or

 - in a U.S. government ("public") school, or in a

 - U.S. law court, or

 - fire automatic weapons in crowded shopping malls,

Get it?

"If you read the Constitution carefully, you will see that libel and slander are just as protected forms of free speech as any other." MC

They're no more protected than perjury. And if perjury were permissible, why would we as citizens have to do so much oath-taking?

Public officials take an oath of office.

U.S. military members take an oath of service.

Jurors take the juror's oath. etc.

Get it?

"No matter how fundamental the document is, it can always be thrown away when the majority agrees that it is the best thing to do." MC

Not according to the Constitution. There is no "majority over-rule" clause.

"Regardless, the topic is not about whether we are allowed to criticise Islam - " MC

 ... should we be allowed to criticize Islam?

" The topic is about whether we should be allowed to criticise Islam. And the answer is resounding "yes"." MC

Within tasteful bounds, yes. I don't see much benefit in insulting a billion humans most of whom the insulter never met.

But I also acknowledge there's a difference between being prohibited by law, and being discouraged by good taste and social pressure.

"In fact, the very idea that criticism should be "allowed", that there is some authority that should choose to allow it, is insulting to the concept freedom." MC

As a libertarian I appreciate this.

The textbook example is I oppose Drug War. But that doesn't mean I'm strung out on drugs all the time.

I'm not sure the appropriate venue for courteous, respectful society is at the muzzle of government gunpoint.

But I don't think that means we should abandon civility either.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

Within tasteful bounds, yes. I don't see much benefit in insulting a billion humans most of whom the insulter never met.

Again, category mistake... Islam is an idea, Muslims are human... 

sear

You're making a legitimate, & perhaps even worthwhile distinction.

But it doesn't negate my point.

In Peoria a human can be a Protestant or a Baptist from 9:AM to 11:AM each Sunday, and be indistinguishable from an indistinct population for the other 166 hours per week.

In Pakistan religion isn't a commitment of 2 hours a week. It's a way of life; more to it than merely bowing to Mecca 5 times a day.

To your point:

ideas don't take the pain of being insulted. Humans can.

Insult the IDEA of Islam, and Muslims might feel insulted. Am I making a groundless technical point with no practical merit?

No.

Example,

A Danish cartoon depicted the holy prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, and pan Islam was so outraged that there were protests around the globe, and human life was reportedly lost. Over a cartoon.

 BUT !!

When the United States of America was attacked by an al Qaida team of 19 mostly Saudi terrorists killing ~3,000 innocent American pan Islam fell nearly silent.

Thus, but the Islamist standard as practiced at the turn of the millennium, a provocative cartoon is a greater outrage than the murder of thousands of innocent humans in the name of what is holy.

Capisce?

Insult the religION and the religIOUS may be offended.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

Insult the religION and the religIOUS may be offended.

It's "criticize", not insult, please... But anyhow, how is that even an argument? Are we supposed to be somehow responsible for someone else's emotional incontinence? If I criticize the idea of "poisoning water sources" and someone, somehow feels offended, how is that of any concern???

Religions are ideas, like Politics are ideas, and no idea deserves any special treatment, it would be discriminating...

Dee

We all know that followers of this vile religion are like spoilt children when their primitive religion is mocked especially if one draws a cartoon which has them seething at the mouths like rabid lunatics.
Islam is a belief system that’s regressive and divisive and fully deservering of criticism, if Islam is as great as itS followers claim how is it in any way progressive and inclusive?
Every day people suffer horrendous discrimination , torture and death under Shariah law which is to a Muslim the only just system of law as it’s inspired by the Quran.

Women are treated like dogs, genital mutilalation is still commonplace , Apostasy is punishable by death as is homosexuality and the tragic list goes on and on, Islam is a societal poison and it takes a certain kind of lunacy to think otherwise.

The term “islamphobe “ is thrown about by P C idiots which as Christopher Hitchens correctly pointed out is used to shut and scream down any opposition to this vile belief system.

Criticise away I say and I see it as a duty to do so even draw a cartoon or two Muslims love a good laugh don’t they?

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.”

― Christopher Hitchens

sear

"It's "criticize", not insult, please... But anyhow ..."  Pv

Please do not conflate conduct with consequence. I emphasize the CONSEQUENCE for deliberate reason, so my intended meaning will not go unrecognized.

"It's "criticize", not insult, please... But anyhow ..."  Pv

Thanks.

Not only have I read the topic title. I have quoted / posted it in whole and in part in this thread. You presume to subordinate me by pretending that by stating the obvious you're educating me.

We concur, you state the obvious.

But the proof that I already knew and understood, before you "explained" is evident in black and white on the display screen, in chronological order.

Now I will educate you.

You conflate the objective: "criticize", with subjective insult. It's not my job to teach you ethics. But read a book on it. There are a slew of them.

"how is that even an argument? Are we supposed to be somehow responsible for someone else's emotional incontinence?" Pv

 Reductio ad absurdum: If your argument were valid then all courtesy would be a ruse.

It isn't.

I never denied it's a two-edged sword. As D so wisely reminds: (thank you D)

“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.” Christopher Hitchens

That doesn't negate or nullify civility.

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; barbarism is being perpetrated around the world in massive scale in the holy name of Islam.

It is self-defeating / self-destructive to feed the narrative that the U.S. / West is an antagonist of Islam.

I'm not advocating repealing the First Amendment.

"If I criticize the idea of "poisoning water sources" and someone, somehow feels offended, how is that of any concern???" Pv

What relevance does that have to calling the holy prophet Mohammed a child molester?

Condemning mass murder in general is not irresponsible. But the more detail the comment provides, such as poisoning a municipal water supply, or which specific toxins to use to do so, the more needlessly risky such comment becomes.

"If I criticize the idea of "poisoning water sources" and someone, somehow feels offended, how is that of any concern???" Pv

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

Just because it's theoretically possible to take offense, or the pretense of offense groundlessly does not mean there's not such thing as actual offensive speech. Did you think I didn't know that?

"Religions are ideas, like Politics are ideas, and no idea deserves any special treatment, it would be discriminating..." Pv

I appreciate egalitarianism as much as the next guy. But closing our eyes to, or ignoring legitimate distinctions is self-deception. To quote Bill Maher:

"OF COURSE there's a double-standard! There are two sexes!" Maher

"Religions are ideas, like Politics are ideas, and no idea deserves any special treatment, it would be discriminating..." Pv

The contrast between science and religion is the obvious counter-example.

Science is logical, quantifiable. Science in our 3rd millennium Western culture is the criterion of truth.

Applying scientific criteria to religious principles might seem to some to demean religion.

"No discipline has all the answers." Physicist & Theologian Ian Barbour Ph.D & recipient of the Templeton Prize for Religion; on science & religion

MayCaesar

@sear

Your points on the legal matters exactly support what I was saying: no written law is absolute, no authority is absolute, and any law or norm can be changed given enough desire (internally or externally induced) to do so. The Constitution does not put the government above the people, yet there is a lot of actual rules that make the government far above the people - that technically violate the Constitution, but nobody talks about it, because they see it as justified violations.
We are talking about what should be the case. What is the case in actuality depends on more than just the law and the Constitution, but the Constitution still sets the general mood in this regard. The Second Amendment can be interpreted in many ways, but (for now, at least) it does offer pretty solid guarantees of my right to criticise Islam.



Regarding civility, it is a good thing, as long as it does not get in the way of honesty. Civility's aim is to facilitate constructive interaction between people, it is not to make people feel good at the expense of everything else. I am civil towards Muslims, I have had several friends who were Muslims, and I will be the first to speak against things like "Muslim immigration ban", "Muslim clothing ban" and so on. It is not the people or their freedoms my criticism targets.
My criticism targets the ideology, and the people following that ideology are criticised only from this standpoint. I do not know anything about them, and most of them are really good people, I would guess. Does not mean I cannot see faults in their views and speak about them.

If my criticism of their ideology insults someone, then they are not ready to live in a civilised society where one of the responsibilities of every individual is being able to handle opinions they dislike. People criticise my views all the time, and I have never been insulted by it; in fact, if nobody criticised my views, I would think that something must be off. Criticism is what holds a free society together, what makes its members accountable for their actions, what prevents the government from straying too far away from the course set by the people, and so on.



I have never understood all these rituals people resort to in order to demonstrate solidarity with the dead. Spending thousands dollars to build a grave for a corpse... Organising yearly events to talk about the deceased... Issuing minutes or days of silence in their memory... What is all this? The dead will stay the dead, what is the point?

I once told someone that if someone is foolish enough to spend their money on a grave for me after I die, then they should carve the writing on that grave saying, "May Caesar, who was so cunning, he received income from us fools even after death". I stand by that judgment to this day. Someone died and became a corpse. It happens. There is nothing to be done about it now, and wasting time and energy mourning them, let alone forcing others to mourn them through weird ethical arguments, is pointless.

sear

"any law or norm can be changed given enough desire" MC

Desire may. But Stare Decisis surely does as well. Some of our most famous "laws" are actually court rulings, Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, etc. So yes, our laws evolve whether we like it or not.

" The Constitution does not put the government above the people" MC

Perhaps not. But our legislatures have. In the 18th Century governments were our benevolent servants. In the 21st Century our governments are our punitive masters. Drug War is the obvious example. I'm aware the War on marijuana is winding down. But most of the rest of the Drug War is still on full-bore.

" The Constitution does not put the government above the people" MC

And thus Drug War is unConstitutional.

" they see it as justified violations." MC

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

" The Second Amendment can be interpreted in many ways, but (for now, at least) it does offer pretty solid guarantees of my right to criticise Islam." MC

You mean the First Amendment?

Not everything that is legal to do should be done. We don't need the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk. But I don't condemn my countrymen for exercising wholesome discretion.

"Regarding civility, it is a good thing, as long as it does not get in the way of honesty." MC

You raise this issue with excellent insight. Thanks.

Problem is it becomes not merely an issue of: - where do we draw the line? -

But what color? How wide? etc.

Example:

Sarah: "Honey. Does this dress make my butt look too big?"

Bruce: "Oh no sweetheart! Your butt looks ginormous no matter what you wear!"

We err in perceiving honesty as a binary: truth, or lie.

It isn't.

"Between honesty & duplicity is silence." psychologist Joy Browne

"Civility's aim is to facilitate constructive interaction between people" MC

"Make your words soft and sweet. You never know when you have to eat them." Prince Bandar bin Sultan / Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.

And we can be cutting without being crude:

"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play, bring a friend... if you have one." -- George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill

"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in reply
falsely attributed to Lady Astor speaking to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."the unattributed reply: "Madam, if I were your husband I would drink it."
John Wilkes (to John Montagu, the Earl of Sandwich): - Egad sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox. - Earl of Sandwich replied:  - That will depend, my lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress. -

Thank you MC for your thoughtful, constructive insight. I hope the others appreciate it as much as I do. Happy St. Pat's !