In the November 17th issue of The Christian Century, Miroslav Volf reveals that he was one of the experts consulted by Yale University Press in The Cartoons That Shook the World fiasco and explains why he recommended that the press not reprint the Danish images. Doing so, Volf writes,
. . . would likely have provoked violence on the part of some who felt offended. That violence would have been unjustified and indefensible, of course, but that would have been of small comfort to any victims. The concern is not a matter of wanting to spare Yale a bit of trouble that a few extra police could easily prevent, as Bolton suggested. In the aftermath of the publication of the caricatures, Denmark was a comparatively safe place; Nigeria was not.
And because “the caricatures need not be reprinted in a scholarly treatise on their effects,” such an act would have been gratuitous. Though “gratuitously offending others may be our right,” Volf continues, “the exercise of that right hardly counts as a mark of a well-lived life.”
I have a lot of respect for Professor Volf and am sympathetic to his concern for non-Muslims in Muslim countries, but his reasons here are problematic.
First, his claim that reprinting the images “would likely have provoked violence” against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is far from sure. It is worth remembering that the violence in response to the first printing of the images happened four months after they were originally published. This is because Muslim clerics, unsatisfied with the public response to the printing of the images in Denmark, took the images back to their respective home countries to stir up violence. (Of which far too little has been said.) However, I don’t think the reprinting of the images would have received that much press here in the States, providing little reason for radical Muslim clerics to incite violence elsewhere.
Second, even if Volf is right about possible violent protests, his utilitarian ethic is somewhat naïve and counterproductive. The decision not to reprint confirms the effectiveness of using force to achieve cultural accommodations, encouraging the use of force in future cultural conflicts. We don’t reprint the Danish cartoons today, which, admittedly, is a small accommodation; however, what accommodation will be made tomorrow under the perceived threat of force?
Third, it is a straw man to state that the original publication of the images was gratuitous and that reprinting them would be equally gratuitous. The original caricatures were printed for a specific reason–according to Flemming Rose, to challenge self-censorship with respect to Islam in Europe. We may disagree with the validity of Rose’s reason (I do), but it was not gratuitous. Furthermore, as Volf well knows, images rarely need to be printed in a scholarly book. Rather, they are often included for a number of secondary reasons, particularly when they help the reader grasp the argument of the book or when the images are of particular historical importance. Not including the images, as The New Criterion rightly put it, is like “publishing a study of the Mona Lisa without deigning to include an illustration of the painting.” While the images may be available online now, it is unknown if they will be available in the future, and one of the roles of a university press is to be a depository of cultural artifacts for future use. Again, while I think that the original publication of the images was more provocation than protest, ironically, the caricatures are of historical value largely because of the violence that followed, and, therefore, deserved to be reprinted.
Of course, Professor Volf is right that offense for offense’s sake is hardly the mark of a “well-lived life,” but neither is appeasement always the most honorable alternative.
December 15th, 2009 | 11:19 am
Like all other media outlets who declined to publish the cartoons, the motivation for Yale was cowardice, pure and simple. I am free to speculate that Volf wasn’t so much worried about the fate of Nigerians (as if the muslims in Nigeria are now going to stop killing Christians out of gratitude for Yale’s forbearance) as he was afraid of being on the wrong end of a fatwa. Islam means submission, I am told. Volf and Yale University don’t mind submitting, but I abhor the very idea of it.
December 15th, 2009 | 12:09 pm
Exactly correct Raymond. Here is a relevant Mark Steyn snippet that explains things:
The other day, George Jonas passed on to his readers a characteristically shrewd observation gleaned from the late poet George Faludy: “No one likes to think of himself as a coward,” wrote Jonas. “People prefer to think they end up yielding to what the terrorists demand, not because it’s safer or more convenient, but because it’s the right thing . . . Successful terrorism persuades the terrorized that if they do terror’s bidding, it’s not because they’re terrified but because they’re socially concerned.”
This is true. Resisting terror is exhausting. It’s easier to appease it, but, for the sake of your self-esteem, you have to tell yourself you’re appeasing it in the cause of some or other variant of “social justice.”
December 15th, 2009 | 12:51 pm
Reminds me of the dilemma in The Dark Knight, where the Joker threatens terrorism if Batman doesn’t reveal his identity. On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer. Give in. What’s the big deal? And it wouldn’t be a big deal, except that it’s just one part of a bigger scheme. The Joker wants more than Batman’s identity. He wants power over Gotham, and he wants chaos to destroy a civlization.
Likewise, the cartoon controversy isn’t just about a cartoon. It’s about Muslims seeking to dominate the world through force of arms. To give in to their threats, even on a relatively minor issue, is to enable and encourage a criminal to keep on making more threats.
December 16th, 2009 | 2:03 pm
And this is why Pacificism as a moral policy only works for people willing to be martyrs or to bluff one’s way with otherwise self-controlled, moral rulers. It does not work with savages.
And that’s why the crusades were launched. Christianity suffered several centuries of abuse at the hands of Moslems before fighting back, but even then the campaigns were more armed pilgrimages to the Holy Places than conquests aimed at seizing and colonizing territory.
When dealing with organized crime (Mafia) and organized, ideologically motivated terrorists, one can not purchase peace by piece-meal submission. Most terror attacks and most Mafia hits are done in regions run by Moslems and Mobsters respectively after all. When dealing with men who have no shame and no self control one has to go on the offense.
This means calling THEM cowards for their hit and run tactics, running what ever is offensive to their sensibilities and then challenging THEIR rulers to a duel or a man-to-man stand up fight. This is premised on the general fact that neither terror leaders nor mob bosses’ actually do their own ‘dirty work’. They’re ruthless….when some victim is tied up or ambushed. But confront them and they vanish.
The psychological profile of both terror master and thug is brittle. They score with bluster and PR, and generally by hitting ‘soft’ targets. Ever notice how both tend to need a lot of heavy armed body guards?
But let some good man or men come hunting them and what happens? They run. They hide. In the first weeks of our campaign in Afghanistan the Taliban and Al Qaeda taunted the US as cowards for staying aloof, at 30,000 feet and dropping bombs. But once our SOF arrived in person, boots on the ground…. what happened? The T and AQ fled to Pakistan.
In addition to a PR challenge and if need be a resolve to physical conflict “resolution” one must strike at the theological and philosophical justifications.
Theologically one absolutely needs to broach the topic: what is the basis for anyone’s faith in X claim of divine revelation? How about Mohammed’s claim? Is the message sane? Is it just? Does it make internal sense? Does it create holiness? Can miracles be produced? If not, and if this claim is based solely on power then how divine can it be? If Moslems have to threaten co-religionists with death for apostasy then how true or appealing is this belief system that can’t stand on its own?
Philosophically, one needs to measure a belief or ideological movement’s actual ‘results’: the fruits if you will. If this movement is of God or is ‘right’ then one would generally expect a great flourishing of humanity, a greatness of spirit, a nobility….women and children nurtured and loved. Honor, truth, etc. Is this what we find in the world of the Mob, the Moslem or indeed the “post-Christian” socialist states?
If one’s economic and political policies regularly produce poverty and tyranny how can one continue to claim intellectual or moral superiority for these beliefs? But apart from the Democratic party, this also applies to Islam, the Mob, and Socialist regimes the world over.
We achieve nothing by silencing our theological, philosophical, practical PR, or “kinetic” critiques of these destroyers of the High Western Christian civilization. Perhaps this sounds too “cow boyish” in the “bring it on” template. But then again, how many cow boys have been enslaved?
One needs to stand up against evil in many ways: taunt it, ridicule it, challenge it. Argue against its philosophical justications and argue against its theological underpinnings and presuppositions…. in short a whole spectrum response. If the evil doers show face in a violent way, they need to be violently crushed – and made a spectacle of in the most humilitating of fashion. Far from capital punishment, this ought to consist of regular shaming – stock and pillory. Confronting the families of their victims.
One hopes for their conversion and for those as yet uncaught to reconsider their tactics and strategic world view in light of what happened to their fellows.
December 16th, 2009 | 6:36 pm
Raymond:
I’m inclined to take Volf at his word, though I am sure Yale Press had its own reasons for not printing the images, as you suggest, and as has been discussed elsewhere.
December 16th, 2009 | 6:57 pm
John:
Not capitulating does not mean picking a fight.
And I don’t see any Christian ethic in this: “If the evil doers show face in a violent way, they need to be violently crushed – and made a spectacle of in the most humiliating of fashion”? We have the right to defend ourselves, not avenge.
December 17th, 2009 | 10:34 am
I wrote nothing of vengance. I just submit that the best self defense is to crush unjust aggressors when they unjustly aggress… And by crush, I submit there is a better, more effective way than the current policy of simply blowing them up with Hellfire missiles. And there’s a better deterant to other would-be suicide bombers than simple incarceration and civilian trials (oh the horror). Which is why I mentioned the stock and pillory and confrontations with their victims’ families to not only shame them, but above all to shame the clan, family, group they represent.
Did you know that in Saudi Arabia – in the culture many of these men come from – executions are public affairs and the victim family has the right to pardon the convict on the spot?
But think about it. Why pull punches in our own country out of fear of them being violent in their country? Why NOT challenge them to open and frank theological and philosophical debates on college campi?
The Jews believed in the Torah because of the great signs of God’s power on Sinai, and the early Christians believed the Gospel because of similar great miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles. What evidence do Muslims present us from Mohammed that he really was a prophet and thus worthy of our respect? The sign that if we don’t they’ll kill us or riot in their own streets?
All Religions preach that people are more valuable in God’s eyes than things. How then can they explain their willingness to kill or maim fellow human beings in protest of cartoons that these people didn’t even have a hand in producing?
One may effectively challenge bloodthirsty Muslim extremists to prove the veracity of their religion’s divine origin by refraining from irrational violence and by using every case of their lashing out at innocent bystanders as a means of proving a) the cowardice of such actions b) their impotence and c) the injustice of their cause.
Instead, up till now we wage a kinetic war relatively separate from a legal one, and avoid all theological and philosophical debate. We pull punches and act cowed by their bluster and threats while they push the envelope as to what they will not tolerate as we retreat from what we will defend.
I call for no indiscriminate slaughter of innocents and yet that’s precisely what virtually every terror attack consists of! I call for nor disproportionate response, while disproportionate rage is the point of most bullies, thugs, mobsters and Muslim extremists’ effective terror campaigns that cow untold millions. Rapes or murder of women who fail to wear Burkha or Hijab come to mind. If this isn’t disproportionate, what is?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact