Let Me Point Something Out

Like it or not, there is a double standard going on here, an automatic, some might even say kneejerk, reaction in two entirely comparable situations where the response is completely different from some people. And try as they may to justify it, they've failed miserably.

well, obviously oppressed colored people (since most muslims are non-white) don't have to live up to the same standards as whites, who could potentially be liberals. another factor is the tendency of many liberals to tacitly acede to a muslim demand that their religion be treated as an identity group in a way that an ethnic group or race is, that is, you are born a muslim, rather than you professs muslim beliefs. this tendency is reflected among jews and to a lesser extent catholics, that is, if you attack the ludicrous religious beliefs of jews and catholics sometimes secular individuals from those backgrounds will feel insulted because of an ethnic attachment (far more justifiable in the case of judaism since it is an ethnicity as well, though you are mixing separate issues here).

and ed, i submit that you tacitly tell into this trap when you termed ib warraq a dissident muslim. this is a man who wrote a book titled why i am not a muslim. one can make a case that he is from a muslim background, but as i noted, richard dawkins grew up as an anglican as a child, and no one terms him an "anglican dissident." in other words the culture accepts that people from christian backgrounds have a choice to shape their own identities, while those from "non-western" backgrounds* are fixed into their identity, whether by perception from the outside or custom & tradition from within.

* the jewish and catholic example shows that this exists in the west as well.

and choice is the critical issue. attacking people who have a choice to change what they are seems far more "fair" than attacking those who have no choice. if islam is an essential property one is born with you attacking who they are as people. if islam is a set of beliefs which maybe discarded you are attacking their beliefs. when liberals like chris bertram agree that it is pragmatic to treat religious minorities as ethnic groups than you are conceding the long game of deprivileging religious ideas as somehow particularly sanctified. of course, this matters less for people like bertram who don't have to grow up with or interact with the muslim "community" in their day-to-day life. muslims can be treated as part of the coalition necessary to block those evil conservatives. for the war some must die in the battle!

I agree there is a disparity.

Perhaps part of it is familiarity with it. The jokes at christianity seem to play on a deeper understanding of the tenets of that religion by those making the jokes, whereas the cartoons were generally of the vein 'mohommad is a terrorist'.

I doubt any of 'us' could come up with something along the lines of 'water into whining' for islam.

But then again, can you really complain ("you"="people burning down a consulate") that peoples image of your relgion is one of violence when your ("you"="people burning down a consulate") reaction is burning down a consulate.

one thing, islam is not are overwhelmingly doctrinal as christianity. its theology is rather simple and centers around an uncompromising monotheism. but, it is highly practice based, so that is what you would probably make fun of.

razib wrote:

and ed, i submit that you tacitly tell into this trap when you termed ib warraq a dissident muslim. this is a man who wrote a book titled why i am not a muslim. one can make a case that he is from a muslim background, but as i noted, richard dawkins grew up as an anglican as a child, and no one terms him an "anglican dissident."

That's a perfectly fair criticism, and as I recall you said the same thing when I wrote that post. I could certainly have chosen my words more carefully in that case. I never gave it a thought at the time.

I think part of the problem is that moderate Christians realize the importance of free speech and won't suppress offensive images of Jesus no matter how blasphemous, while moderate Muslims still want to be the ones to decide who gets to say what about their prophet, making them look more like their extremist brethren in that matter. Thus, because moderates and extremists share a similar viewpoint, an attack against part becomes an attack against the whole.

This doesn't bother me all that much. Religious moderates trying to force me to submit to their doctrine is enough for me to put them all into the "opposition" camp on the free-speech issue. Women's rights, terrorism, and all those other nasty issues and a completely different issue, however.

well, i have to correct people all around the blogosphere when they cite my opinions as a "muslim" point of view, so it hits home :) i have been active in the freethought movement in the past so i take it kind of personally since i'm not a fan of theism in general, and find islam particularly offensive. in real life there are two types of people who tend not to want to remove the muslim label from me when i ask that they do: those who are very conservative and set in their ways, and for whom "muslim" is a nice way to say "sand nigger," and those who are counter-culture liberals who "respect" non-western traditions and simply can't concede that liberal indivudal free choice isn't a "western innovation." some people, like chris bertram at crooked timber, push the muslim-as-ethnic-group for pragmatic anti-racist reasons, but i think they take strength from the fact that many people on the "left" do hold to position #2.

I tried to answer your queston but it requires much more of a conversation but basically the conclusion is that this isn't a perfect world. Things happen when they happen and one day you will be able make comments about 'radical Muslims' and not offend all Muslims.

That time just isn't now.

this isn't a perfect world

no it isn't, and in my opinion the Left is rather selective in its pragmatism. "this isn't a perfect world" would come out without a bad odor if one was a burkean conservative, which in some contexts liberals have become.

I call people who have this bullshit different-treatment-for-different groups stuff Left. I do not call them liberal. I'm a liberal. I do not believe that respecting anything if it's called a 'culture' is a value. It is a cancer.

When I lived in florida, in I believe one county some misguided fools prohibited public school teachers from making any claim that one culture was in any way better than another. Can you imagine a more illiberal rule? What's a teacher supposed to say about the Abdul Rahman case? About honor killings in Pakistan?

Damnit! Are you saying the Bill Maher post was just a ruse? A test of your readers knee-jerk reactions to religious criticism? I feel so used!

What do you think this blog is, a place for you to just editorialize about whatever strikes you as interesting? For shame! ;-P

ps. I have no comment to add on the core topic of the thread because Ed says the stuff I would say better than I would say it, and cause I was busy all weekend, don't you people sleep!. Unfortunately, that probably leads to tired fingers for Ed. I'll try to help out later as the topic recurs again, and again, and again....

hmm, after reviewing the timestamps of the posts it is actually quite clear that I am the one who doesn't sleep. Nevermind.

For anyone's concience, I know a Christian (capital C) who reads the bible, raises his family in a moral structure, and is very, very much the image of the right proper Christian. Just not the one you find in Protestant churches or at Catholic mass. This is because he follows the principles that were argued by "Jesus" in the Bible (regardless of anyone's belief in his existence, the words are still of some gnostic, and sensible wisdom) and not trying to use the Bible as the legitimizing document for his actions, as sadly I note happens with people like Falwell, Santorum, etc. There is another passage in the non-included Book of Thomas that he also applies, that of God not being in a church, that should make people think a little harder. One doesn't need to be a churchman or a -goer to be devout, and in fact kowtowing to the "moral" screed of those who say you must bow your head to their ideas or interpretations. There is an argument in there that he would be known by his actions, not the image that he is performing those actions. In this principle, a good man is not a man who appears to be good, but one who simply does. He doesn't have to have a spotlight on him. How Buddhist of him!

Oh, and he's gay. And married to a fine woman and has kids. And yet also still has boyfriends. A right proper and loving family that occassionally includes a boyfriend in the mix. Unorthodox, but I have seen him content and happy and loving, so for my friend Brad, I say:

Anytime someone makes an all-inclusive situation, one should consider that even those whom would lump themselves into that all, the truth is deeper than flesh.