From: Shanajonz
Subject: Muslim Reactions to the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad

I've been reading Austin's newsletter for years, so I was a bit perplexed at his condemnation of the reaction of Muslims to the Danish cartoons.

Though sometimes overwrought, the upshot of Muslims' anger was some images were very disrespectful or hateful, part of a long history of non-Christian intolerance (e.g. the Crusades, the Holocaust) in Europe hiding as free speech.

I condemned many Muslims’ reactions to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad because I believe in the importance of free speech and believe that supporting free speech is absolutely necessary for the preservation of liberty and democracy. When people are afraid to express their opinions, they will be afraid to tell the truth. When people are afraid to express themselves, whether on pain of legal punishment, social pressure, or religious terrorism, then all of society necessarily suffers.

I don’t for a minute dispute that, in some cases, Muslims had a legitimate reason to be upset at a couple of the cartoons. The proper reaction, though, is not to validate the worst possible interpretations of those cartoons by rioting, threatening to kill people, burning buildings, and generally acting in a manner contrary to all civilized standards of decency.

I will, however, dispute the idea that the Crusades and the Holocaust were “hiding as free speech” in Europe. Since when did the murder of millions of people qualify as “free speech”? That’s just absurd. The criticisms which the cartoons made about Muslims today, even if read in the worst possible light, cannot be categorized alongside the Crusades and the Holocaust by any stretch of the imagination.

 

The arguments made that all religions have been subject to similar ribbing is red herring bulls**t. Though white, christian nations have been the most violent/destructive ones this planet has seen, christianity has not nearly been given the same derogatory treatment in the modern press. I didn’t see photos of Jesus with an H-bomb on his head printed in the Danish press. They wouldn’t dare - if they did, you would have a hue-and-cry from the U.S., U.K. and the rest of Europe, not this cautious, lukewarm condemnation followed by “concerned” academic discussions. Christians would be asking to drop an H-bomb on Denmark, let’s see what those Danish think of Jesus now!

Actually, Shanajonz’s claims here are completely fact-free. Christianity and Christian religious figures (priests, popes, Jesus, etc.) have been subjected to harsh criticism for years. Popetown, for example, is a cartoon feature the pope on a pogo stick and it has attracted a tremendous amount of criticism. There hasn’t been the “hue and cry” which Shanajonz assumes there should be, and no one has threatened to drop a bomb on Denmark, but there have been intense responses. Moreover, Popetown exists purely for the sake of humor, not to make any political points.

Guess what? Free speech protects Popetown as well. I would criticize threats to bomb Denmark if they produced a cartoon like Popetown just like I criticize Muslims for their reactions to the political cartoons.

 

Austin’s newsletters often complain about how speech, culture and privilege are used as weapons in the marginalization of atheists in the U.S. and Europe. How we should hold leaders and news outlets accountable when they spread hateful or biased religious dogma at the expense of (non-)religious minorities.

Speech and privilege can be used to marginalize minorities like atheists. However, if atheists rioted, burned buildings, and threatened to kill cartoons for drawing cartoons critical of atheists philosophers from the past, I wouldn’t hesitate to condemn them in the strongest possible language. I would criticize errors and inaccuracies in the cartoons, of course, but in my opinion threats to kill and riots that destroy others’ property are ultimately worse than political cartoons that criticize a minority, even if that criticism should be mistaken in any fashion.

Of course, what if that criticism is legitimate? That’s one thing which Shanajonz fails to address — and one thing that couldn’t possibly be addressed if publication of the cartoons were suppressed. If the cartoons express legitimate criticisms of the behavior of Muslims today, is it still wrong to publish them because they offend people? Because Shanajonz doesn’t mention this as a factor in their evaluation, we have to assume “no” — and this means that Shanajonz’s position is that accuracy of a criticism is irrelevant; all that matters is whether it’s offensive.

I flatly and unequivocally reject such a position. There is no place in a liberal democracy for the suppression, whether formal or informal, of truthful statements which people don’t like. Once we start down that road, where do we stop? If Muslims can demand the suppression of cartoons critical of them, why not essays and books as well? Why can’t atheists demand that suppression of Christian literature critical of atheism? Why can’t conservatives demand the suppression of material critical of the Republican Party? Freedom, liberty, and democracy cannot be maintained in such an environment.

 

So I found it odd and disheartening his sharp rebuke against *Muslims* for their protests against these zenophobic and racists depictions of their religion. If he can rant against Hitler and Bush for using cultural propaganda, including the media, for nefarious purposes, why is he telling the Muslims to shut up and suck it up, it’s free speech? What about the right to protest? And before you say, “non-violent protest” remember the U.S. was founded on a violent overthrow of another country’s sovereignty, England. White, christian nations and their double-standards.

I never told Muslims to shut up about the cartoons. On the contrary, I have specifically said that it is perfectly legitimate for them to complain and lodge protests against the cartoons if they can make a case for their being inappropriate and/or inaccurate. What I have said, however, is that riots and threats are not only inappropriate, but even worse they only serve to validate some of the criticisms being made. Furthermore, raising objections to things like these cartoons cannot deny the legitimacy of making criticisms of Islam — there is nothing about Islam that should be treated as beyond reproach, comment, or even ridicule. Some actually try to argue that religion should be legally immune from ridicule, but this is merely a means by which religions seek to retain unjust social, cultural, and legal power.

Finally, it’s interesting that Shanajonz never makes an argument for the claim that the cartoons were xenophobic and racist. This is a common criticism of them, but I’ve seen the cartoons and I don’t think that’s accurate. Indeed, most of the negative commentary I’ve seen about the cartoons misrepresents them, misunderstands the standard conventions of political cartoons, and misconstrues some basic Danish visual images. Had Shanajonz tried to make an argument on behalf of their interpretation of the cartoons, then a productive discussion about them might have ensued — all we got, though, was name-calling. That’s no more substantive and intellectual than the riots.

 

I find this very hypocritcal and my opinion of him has decreased as a result.

Had Shanajonz actually written to me, I’d have been able to explain all of the above. Instead, they posted their comments in the forum, where others were able to respond. Curiously, that was the only message they ever posted and they didn’t even bother to stick around long enough to read those responses — not a single one. Isn’t that curious? Makes me wonder if the whole “I’ve been a long-time reader” was little more than a rhetorical ploy.

 

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...