President Obama’s generally pretty good speech at the U.N. contains this paragraph:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Is it slander, for example, to affirm that, since Jesus Christ is Lord, the prophet of Islam is a false prophet? Or are we just talking about gratuitous insults?
Does the toleration so eloquently celebrated by the President swallow (and marginalize) all truth claims, or does it leave room for my affirmation of the exclusive truth of my religion?
Just asking.
September 26th, 2012 | 11:17 am
When I read our President’s words, I am reminded of the wisdom of Wendell Berry: “That which does not cohere cannot endure.”
September 26th, 2012 | 11:29 am
Is it slander, for example, to affirm that, since Jesus Christ is Lord, the prophet of Islam is a false prophet? Or are we just talking about gratuitous insults?
I think we are talking about insults intended to provoke. I suppose one might ask if Christians would like Jews to refer to Jesus as a “false messiah,” though. There is no getting away from the fact that what is true in one religion is false in another. But if we want to live in harmony with one another, there are respectful ways of discussing religious differences.
From the Jewish viewpoint, Jesus was not the messiah. He was not born of a virgin. He did not rise from the dead. And the concept of the trinity borders on polytheism. But how often do you hear Jews saying those things?
Those of us who live in the United States have broad First Amendment rights to say pretty much anything we want about Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Christianity. But do we really have some kind of absolute right to say anything we feel like saying? People here might defend my legal right to say any vile thing I can think of about Jesus or Mohammed. But would they defend my moral right?
September 26th, 2012 | 12:00 pm
The problem is that one is often accused of slandering the prophet of Islam, if one takes information straight out of Islamic holy texts. I do agree that we should not be making false claims about him, but what about accurate claims?
September 26th, 2012 | 12:14 pm
By definition, we can only tolerate what we do not agree with. The tolerators are happy with the status quo but the tolerated cannot be happy because to be tolerated is to be disagreed with. This dynamic is what causes tolerance to ask for acceptance. But acceptance also has a dynamic, since acceptance is short of approval.
September 26th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
It is one thing to dispute a doctrine and it is quite another to use contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous language to do so.
Again, it is one thing to deny the truth of a doctrine; it is another to do so in a way calculated to bring those who profess it into hatred, ridicule or contempt.
September 26th, 2012 | 1:01 pm
“I think we are talking about insults intended to provoke.”
And if your mere existence or presence is considered provocation?
Can’t wait for the International Criminal Court to be deciding whether or not a particular piece of speech was uttered with invidious intent.
September 26th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
this post reminds me of that “coexist” bumper sticker, commonly stuck on toyota priuses in the pacific northwest…. among other places. here are a few further thoughts:
http://wisertime.cz/2009/11/04/coexist/
September 26th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Can’t wait for the International Criminal Court to be deciding whether or not a particular piece of speech was uttered with invidious intent.
Adam Baum,
I am not quite sure what your remark is supposed to mean. It will be a long wait, since the ICC is not empowered to decide such questions. However, legal decisions of this nature are made all the time. See the legal definition of malice as it pertains in matters of defamation, slander, and libel (among others).
September 26th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Channeling Philip Rieff, I’d argue that you can probably get away with a degree of exclusivity, as long as it is tacitly understood that this exclusivity is itself a pose that is contingent on the adoption of one’s chosen and theatrically acted out identity, which itself is subject to the winds of change, desire, etc….
September 26th, 2012 | 4:20 pm
It appears, strangely, that a number of people here are suspicious of tolerance. Is there something better to replace it?
September 26th, 2012 | 4:21 pm
“I am not quite sure what your remark is supposed to mean.”
Bluntly, it was sarcasm at the bureaucratic and judicial Pandora’s box you would open with your apparent openness to speech restrictions, so long as they are found to be “insults intended to provoke” and the parsing of a distinction between legal and moral.
Muslims are now openly agitating for global restrictions on speech they deem to be an offense against “the Prophet”. That is a legal case, not a moral one.
Now since we still have the First Amendment, that’s impossible-so such restrictions will have to be enacted by some transnational organization, with powers of extradition and some judicial process. What a nightmare.
While I believe the current “issue” was largely concocted to conceal the inate stupidity of this administration’s support of the so-called “Arab spring”, and the fact that the 9-11-12 attacks were preplanned terrorist plans, the fact is any insult seems sufficient to enrage Islamists.
Legal decisions such as this are NOT made all the time, because libel and slander cases to be mad-must show harm as well as malice.
Pardon me if I don’t want to live in the world envision where people’s speech is sufficient cause to justify violence and murder. On this, there can be no concession and Daniel Pipes is right that the answer must not to attempt to appease the insatiable, but to let them know we turn sacred cows into hamburger.
September 26th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
So… if making disparaging remarks is to be avoided, is it intolerant to quote Psalm 14:1?
September 26th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
David: It appears, strangely, that a number of people here are suspicious of tolerance. Is there something better to replace it?
To answer that question, one first needs to know: what is tolerance? I have a general idea, but it’s used in so many different ways.
September 26th, 2012 | 7:49 pm
_It appears, strangely, that a number of people here are suspicious of tolerance._
That depends on what is being tolerated and why.
September 26th, 2012 | 11:03 pm
Bluntly, it was sarcasm at the bureaucratic and judicial Pandora’s box you would open with your apparent openness to speech restrictions, so long as they are found to be “insults intended to provoke” and the parsing of a distinction between legal and moral.
Adam Baum,
I said nothing about speech restrictions. I was giving my opinion about what constituted “slander” in the sense Obama was talking about it. Remember that Obama was defending free speech, including “slander.” He wasn’t saying what speech should be restricted and what speech shouldn’t be restricted. He said:
I think there is an obvious difference between the legal and the moral. Are you implying that because hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment, it is moral? There’s an old cliche that with every right comes a responsibility. Americans may have a right to make a film that deliberately and intentionally offends and provokes Muslims, or Christians, or Buddhists, but to defend their First Amendment right to do so is not to defend their actions as responsible or moral.
September 26th, 2012 | 11:11 pm
If someone believes in A then -A is false. I have no problem with Jews saying that Christians are committing sin of idolatry for worshiping a mere man. the same with Islam for both religions see Jesus as merely a man and not God. Judaism sees Jesus as a false prophet while Islam sees him as an honored prophet. I pray that the Jews and Muslims find the truth of Christ and His Catholic Church. They pray that I realize my sin and reject Jesus. I respect them for that and they must respect me for what I believe is true. There is only one reason for believing anything…that it is true! I am not Catholic because I am Italian or because my parents formed in in the church, I am Catholic because I know it to be true. Therefore I know that the other major world religions, though possessing some truth are also a mixture of error. I admire them when they pray for me to convert, they should pray for me. I wouldn’t respect them at all if they didn’t because I would then question if they are sure of their beliefs. When fundamentalist Christians told me I was going to hell for following the pope I was not offended because that is a natural result of their rejection of the Catholic Church and the authority of the pope. All I ask is respect and manners when they tell me I am going to hell. I believe you can tell me that and still do so respectfully.
September 27th, 2012 | 7:33 am
Maximilian: To answer that question, one first needs to know: what is tolerance? I have a general idea, but it’s used in so many different ways.
Fred: That depends on what is being tolerated and why.
Isn’t this a bit like asking, “What is truth?”
Implicit in what Obama said about free speech and tolerance is a form of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would wish them to treat you. (Or, love your neighbor as yourself.) If you claim a right to freedom of expression, you should allow others that same right. And if you want to be treated with respect and civility, you should treat others with respect and civility. And you should object not just when you are not treated with respect and civility, but when others are not treated with respect and civility, too.
But importantly, Obama then said the following:
We all have a very good idea of what this means. It’s not necessary for Obama to give an extended list of scenarios and classify some as examples of tolerance and others as examples of intolerance. Of course there will be gray areas between professing one’s own beliefs and denigrating another’s. It’s not necessary, or even possible, to draw a bright line between saying what you believe, or what you believe to be true, and deliberately provoking those who disagree with you. But it is perfectly clear that announcing you are going to burn the Koran, or making a scurrilous film about Mohammed and distributing it in the Middle East, are not in the gray area. They are acts of bigotry and willful provocation intended to offend and inflame.
September 27th, 2012 | 9:44 am
David: Isn’t this a bit like asking, “What is truth?”
I am a Platonist, so yes, it is.
David: And if you want to be treated with respect and civility, you should treat others with respect and civility.
This glances over the fact that some ideas simply are not worthy of respect and civility. You yourself mention bigotry. You do not show respect for and civility toward people you regard as bigots. Does that violate your rule, which makes no exception for bigots?
I will also point out that respect and civility is rather lacking in the Islamic world. Following your reasoning, they cannot be expected to be treated with respect and civility.
David: It’s not necessary, or even possible, to draw a bright line between saying what you believe, or what you believe to be true, and deliberately provoking those who disagree with you.
It appears that speech becomes “deliberately provocative” whenever the speech concerns people who choose to respond violently. For example, Piss Christ was not “scurrilous” or “bigoted”, but this movie about Muhammad somehow is. This is odd. It really does appear that some people are more equal than others. Specifically, people who respond violently to a supposed “offense” should be privileged over people who respond peacefully.
September 27th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Everyone – to one degree or another – is looking to organize, define, and state what is True. Still, don’t some say that the only truth is that there is no all-encompassing Truth (with a big T)? Is not this alone “True”?
Let’s be honest: even persons who want to say things like this also ultimately find themselves saying that we can have enough real knowledge about the cosmos we live in to believe that some ways of living are preferable and more responsible than other ways of living. If they refuse to even admit this, it seems to me they are simply not being honest with themselves.
So what is the practical endgame here? This I think: even if we insist that others should be able to live the way they want to, what happens when push comes to shove, and reality seems to insist that different viewpoints actually can’t coexist? Or what happens if the consequences of allowing a view to exist seem too great – how “tolerant” and “accepting” will we really be at that point?
Here is where the word “tolerance” is defined by the character of the person.
September 27th, 2012 | 11:59 am
The problem as I see it, is that Obama’s main point seems to have been predicated on a false premise. A premise that he and his administration knew to be false within 24 hours, but which they continued to propagate for nearly two weeks.
The attack on 9/11 (note the date) was a coordinated terrorist assault. There is really no question about that, as even the administration now admits. So why go to the UN and give a major speech based around a plea for mutual toleration? Why continue to promote what is, essentially, a red herring? The “offensive” items in question were not a provocation, much less a motivating factor. They were a ruse. A convenient peg on which to hang preplanned terrorist action.
It should be obvious to all but the most obtuse that no amount of “tolerance” or speechifying would have changed the intent of the terrorists to commit murder and mayhem on 9/11/12. I agree with Mr. Knippenberg that this was a fairly good speech in terms of the content. But given the context and the timing, it also appears to be a continuation of the administration’s initial efforts to change the narrative from terrorism (which raises issues of preparedness, intelligence failures, etc.) to a broader (and less politically hazardous) discussion of “tolerance”.
September 27th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
I am a Platonist, so yes, it is.
Maximilian,
I was referring to Pontius Pilate, and I don’t think calling him a Platonist would get him off the hook.
This glances over the fact that some ideas simply are not worthy of respect and civility.
We don’t treat ideas with civility. We treat people with civility. I have had friends who believed in astrology. I was able to treat them with respect and civility without taking astrology at all seriously.
You do not show respect for and civility toward people you regard as bigots. Does that violate your rule, which makes no exception for bigots?
In those cases when I don’t, perhaps I should. I lived in close quarters in my college dorm with some people who were racists, or at least expressed racist opinions. I certainly let them know that I disagreed with them when that was the appropriate thing to do. I didn’t start a campaign to have them ousted from the dorm. I was able to get along with them as long as the subject under discussion was not race. Jesus (and Paul) spend a fair amount of time talking about loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, doing good to those who hate you, and so on. Even in my professional life one lesson I have learned is that it is almost never the best course to respond in kind when someone is disrespectful and uncivil.
I will also point out that respect and civility is rather lacking in the Islamic world.
How much time have you spent in the Islamic world? How many Muslims do you know? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all Islamic extremists, we’d be in a lot more serious trouble than we really are. And do you think that a lot of the opinion in the Muslim world about Americans has any more rational foundation than your sweeping generalizations about the “Muslim world”?
It appears that speech becomes “deliberately provocative” whenever the speech concerns people who choose to respond violently.
Are you seriously denying that Innocence of Muslims was not meant to be deliberately provocative??? It was so offensive that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had to fool the actors into thinking they were making a film about something else, and then dub in the anti-Muslim lines.
For example, Piss Christ was not “scurrilous” or “bigoted”, but this movie about Muhammad somehow is. This is odd.
It is not worth discussing it here, but that is actually correct. Serrano’s intent was misunderstood, and it was the people who misunderstood the art who guaranteed it a huge audience of others who would not understand it. The same was true of Chris Ofili and his painting of the Virgin Mary. But it is pointless to discuss that here. Catholics are still steaming about Serrano and Ofili, who did not set out to offend anyone, but the name of PZ Myers, who was deliberately provocative in publicly threatening to desecrate the (Catholic) Eucharist somehow has remained a much more obscure figure.
It really does appear that some people are more equal than others. Specifically, people who respond violently to a supposed “offense” should be privileged over people who respond peacefully.
This is just more fatwa envy. If Christians really want to be feared in the same way Muslim extremists are, then they should start taking out contracts on the people they find offensive. But is that really what Christians want?
September 27th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
The attack on 9/11 (note the date) was a coordinated terrorist assault.
david c.,
From what I have read, it looks as if the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an outright terrorist attack, or perhaps a terrorist attack that piggybacked on a demonstration. The attack on the Cairo embassy, however, was a protest against the film, and demonstrations since then in at least twenty cities, resulting in perhaps fifty deaths (according to one report I heard) have been reactions to the film.
Obama does not even imply that the attack in Benghazi was in response to the film. He says, “There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.” It was an embassy in Cairo that was attacked. The attack in Benghazi was on the consulate.
September 27th, 2012 | 5:06 pm
Maximilian,
An additional thought. Obama was articulating principles, kind of like this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, had you been there when that was drafted, you could have asked an endless series of questions. We are, after all, still struggling to determine exactly how these principles should be applied in practical situations even today, and no doubt we will continue to as long as the United States is a country. So you can raise a thousand questions about what tolerance means, who should be tolerated, when an individual or a group becomes so out of line that tolerance does not apply, and so on. But that doesn’t invalidate the principles Obama articulated, any more than thousands of court cases over First Amendment right invalidate the First Amendment itself.
September 28th, 2012 | 8:39 am
David: I was referring to Pontius Pilate, and I don’t think calling him a Platonist would get him off the hook.
Apparently, without him, everyone would go to hell, so I rather like Pontius Pilate. My reference was back to Meno – who asks whether virtue can be taught. Socrates asks: before answering that question, we first need to discover what it is.
David: We don’t treat ideas with civility. We treat people with civility. I have had friends who believed in astrology. I was able to treat them with respect and civility without taking astrology at all seriously.
Good. In that case, there is also nothing wrong with the movie Innocence of Muslims. It merely treats Islam without civility and respect, not Muslims – the same as you vis-a-vis believers in astrology.
David: In those cases when I don’t, perhaps I should.
Well, then you are exceptional, as far as progressives go. All too often, the mildest expressions of what they regard as ‘bigotry’ are treated as a license to treat the ‘bigot’ worse than the ‘bigot’ ever treated anyone.
David: There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all Islamic extremists, we’d be in a lot more serious trouble than we really are.
I did not say that they are “all” extremists, nor did I suggest that extremism is the same as terrorism. A lot of Muslims are fundamentalists, without being terrorists. For example, 80%+ of Muslims in Egypt believe that stoning, chopping off hands and killing for apostasy is good. They are fundamentalists, but not necessarily terrorists, hence, no trouble for anyone but the people living in their own country.
David: And do you think that a lot of the opinion in the Muslim world about Americans has any more rational foundation than your sweeping generalizations about the “Muslim world”?
I think you mean the question the other way around. Yes, my ‘generalization’ (which is not really a generalization, I did not say that respect and civility is non-existent in the Muslim world, but lacking) is based on empirical data, not on religious propaganda.
David: Are you seriously denying that Innocence of Muslims was not meant to be deliberately provocative??? It was so offensive that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had to fool the actors into thinking they were making a film about something else, and then dub in the anti-Muslim lines.
I doubt very much that the concern of the actors was the ‘offensiveness’ of the lines, but the fact that people are willing to chop their heads off for it. In any case, if one adopts your view, then basically anything is meant to be provocative.
David: Catholics are still steaming about Serrano and Ofili, who did not set out to offend anyone,
But did they intend to be provocative? What if they had done the same thing to Muhammad, with the very same intent?
David: This is just more fatwa envy. If Christians really want to be feared in the same way Muslim extremists are, then they should start taking out contracts on the people they find offensive. But is that really what Christians want?
I wouldn’t know. But it does seem that one’s beliefs are more respected, if one threatens to kill in response to anything that is the slightest bit “offensive”. This movie has garnered worldwide condemnation from craven politicians, including Obama and Romney. Would a similar, poorly made attacking Christianity win such esteem? Not unless the Lutherans in Denmark started going on a rampage.
David: So you can raise a thousand questions about what tolerance means, who should be tolerated, when an individual or a group becomes so out of line that tolerance does not apply, and so on.
That was not my intent, but I did want to know the basic meaning of ‘tolerance’, so I could state my agreement or disagreement beforehand.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact