I've been loosely following the reports of the Anders Breivik trial. What Breivik did was despicable; there's no justification for murder - let alone in that manner. What did those teenagers do? Yet according to the media, how Breivik justified his action was that of necessity. He saw himself as doing good.
It will come as no surprise that I'm not keen on the idea of living under any form of theocracy, it's an affront to human dignity and to freedom of conscience. I'm very lucky to be living in a country that not only has a strong focus on civil liberties, but will largely still work towards them. That we live in a country where there's a public debate over gay marriage is something to be proud of, not for the fact that homosexuals are still treated as inferior in the eyes of the government, but that we have a society that is focusing on a question like that. So it goes without saying that I'm against any incursion onto society that's going to limit individual rights, and especially rights of minorities. And on that, I am in opposition to fundamentalist Islam.
Yet Breivik doesn't speak for me. In that we might be (barely) bedfellows on opposing fundamentalist Islam, I don't think that Breivik in his words or actions embodied any of the liberal democratic values that are at the core of my opposition. I'm all for multiculturalism, and think it's a measure of a healthy society. And I don't care whether or not someone is a Muslim any more than a Christian or an atheist, provided that belief doesn't by necessity be forced on others.
So again it should be no surprise that I have no love for right-wing nationalist groups or those who wrap themselves in patriotism and try to place a barrier between our culture and others. Yet it's the right-wing nationalists who are trying their best to be the voices of opposition to particular aspects of culture that people should genuinely be afraid of. That people can live in multiple ways and bring different experiences and perspectives on life should be a good thing, there's nothing to fear in someone eating falafel instead of sausage, or being Buddhist instead of Christian. Yet the prejudices that can and do follow need to be vetted in the same introspective light we do our own society.
It shouldn't be those right-wing groups who are the voices of opposition to any fundamentalist Islamic incursion of values, it should be the domain of all those with conscience and a respect for human dignity. That there are problems with immigration policies shouldn't be a matter of being racist or xenophobic, nor conversely that it's hating one's own culture or wishing for a destruction of society. There's got to be some way to have the conversation in reasonable terms, so that unreasonable voices don't dominate it.
Breivik, apparently, is trying to put his views on trial, with desired witnesses including right wing bloggers and Muslim fanatics. And that is what should be a concern, that a man who felt "doing good" involved personally killing 69 people - most of whom were teenagers - and killed 8 more by setting off a bomb, is trying to be the frontlines against the problems that have arisen from Islamic migration in Europe. Some of his concerns are no doubt imagined, overblown, and taking extreme cases as being the norm. But that he's the voice speaking out, like the jingoist political parties, is what should be of real concern. They, by being the voices in opposition, are the ones owning the narrative by which the discussion is framed.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
So Much For Freedom Of Expression
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-25/rushdie-speech-cancelled-amid-death-threats/3791434
To celebrate this bigotry, here's a Jesus and Mo:
India's Jaipur Literature Festival has cancelled a televised speech by Salman Rushdie minutes before it was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, amid death threats to its organiser and fears of violent protests at the event by Muslim groups.It's amazing how powerful a tool blasphemy can be. If there is a God, his objection to it seems to take the form of fanaticism amongst his followers. It's almost as if it's an excuse from God's followers to not say anything they might not like to hear...
The issue of British-Indian author Rushdie, who cancelled his visit to the festival due to assassination threats, has overshadowed the event, which is the largest literature festival in Asia.
Muslim groups protested against his invitation and other authors accused the government of suppressing free speech.
"There are a large number of people averse to this video link inside this property. They have threatened violence," Ramtap Singh, owner of the hotel in which the festival is held, told the large crowd that had assembled to listen to the author.
"This is necessary to avoid harm to all of you."
A death threat was received against Jaipur Literature Festival director William Dalrymple ahead of Rushdie's speech.
Rushdie, whose 1988 novel The Satanic Verses is banned in India, cancelled his planned visit to speak at the festival in person after reported assassination threats against him.
"All of us feel hurt and disgraced. Artists have not been able to prevail," said Sanjoy Roy, the festival's producer, holding back tears.
Political parties are seen as unwilling to lend their support to the author for fear of offending Muslim voters ahead of an important state election in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, next month.
After organisers announced earlier on Tuesday that Rushdie's address would go ahead, leaders of local Muslim groups began to congregate at the main entrance to the festival, vowing to protest if the author was allowed to address the event.
"This is a big defeat. It's a triumph for bigotry," said Tarun Tejpal, editor of Indian news magazine Tehelka.
Five authors have been investigated by police in Jaipur for reading from The Satanic Verses at the festival, and English PEN, a writer's body, issued a statement late on Monday in their support.
"We felt that it was important to show support for Salman, who is often misrepresented... This situation has arisen in India at a time when free speech is under attack," wrote Hari Kunzru, one of the authors involved, in the Guardian newspaper.
To celebrate this bigotry, here's a Jesus and Mo:
Friday, 23 December 2011
How Religion Poisons Morality
I recently came across a tweet by Harun Yahya, proclaiming "Until the morality of Islam dominates the world we will not sleep a wink." The question I had was why anyone would actually wish for that. Harun responded with the good virtues of Islamic values and kindly asked me to learn more about Islam. To which I highlighted some of the problems I saw in the application of Islamic values, and asked of values that I consider to be universal - such as equality for women and freedom of expression.
The question of what Islamic morality holds to is, for a large part, a non sequitur. If it is good because it is holy, then it shouldn't matter whether or not that's appealing to me. But if it's good because it embodies basic human dignities (to which I am very sceptical of), then why not aspire to the basic human dignities instead?
With any of the religious attempts to own morality, the same thing happens. The good of the religion, it is touted, is an appeal to the goodness of the values in themselves. One could, with enough linguistic dexterity, that inself can be directly attributed to the goodness of the divine source, but we're still left with the problem of trying to see the goodness of the values of the divine source in values that we would normally consider good anyway.
Any aspiration to the imposition of religiously-defined morality has to face up to the question of just why it is we need religion for. It's not discarding the baby with the bathwater to deny religious value, but to see religious value for what it is: an attempt to codify the good.
If a value is worth having, it's worth having irrespective of the source. There would be no need to call it Christian values, or Islamic values, they would be just good values. Religious attribution is an unfair attempt to claim ownership of something it has no right to do. And to make matters worse, by codifying the good, it also carries along that which is not good; not least an absurdly false metaphysics and an undying desire to yield authority to those who conflate their own ego with the powers of the divine.
The question of what Islamic morality holds to is, for a large part, a non sequitur. If it is good because it is holy, then it shouldn't matter whether or not that's appealing to me. But if it's good because it embodies basic human dignities (to which I am very sceptical of), then why not aspire to the basic human dignities instead?
With any of the religious attempts to own morality, the same thing happens. The good of the religion, it is touted, is an appeal to the goodness of the values in themselves. One could, with enough linguistic dexterity, that inself can be directly attributed to the goodness of the divine source, but we're still left with the problem of trying to see the goodness of the values of the divine source in values that we would normally consider good anyway.
Any aspiration to the imposition of religiously-defined morality has to face up to the question of just why it is we need religion for. It's not discarding the baby with the bathwater to deny religious value, but to see religious value for what it is: an attempt to codify the good.
If a value is worth having, it's worth having irrespective of the source. There would be no need to call it Christian values, or Islamic values, they would be just good values. Religious attribution is an unfair attempt to claim ownership of something it has no right to do. And to make matters worse, by codifying the good, it also carries along that which is not good; not least an absurdly false metaphysics and an undying desire to yield authority to those who conflate their own ego with the powers of the divine.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Morning Scepticism: Blasphemy
Blasphemy is far from a victimless crime, for those who commit it put themselves in danger. For those who wish not to hear blasphemy, is it worth not having blasphemy if its achieved through fear of reprisal? A nod might be as good as a wink to a blind bat and not blaspheming out of respect and fear have the same functional outcome, but surely it taints the gesture. For those who are actually seeking respect, that reticence is achieved through fear must only give hollow comfort.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Monotheism
Earlier today I posted this on twitter:
This is not to say that radicalising is justified or that it shouldn't be opposed, but to put it in a wider context. Those who write Islam off as an inherently violent religion neglect this, partaking in the demonising of an entire group. That religion is a motivator doesn't mean that motivation itself is wrapped up in dogma. Searching for violent phrases in The Koran or pointing to the frequency of suicide attacks involving Muslims isn't sufficient unless it is put in a wider context.
From the rise of Christianity to the present there has been a struggle over the dominion of others mind. Destruction and censorship of antithetical works, wars, inquisitions, schisms, reinterpretations, etc. From the absolute rule of the Catholic Church to now arguing over what domain religion occupies, this is a huge shift; and even now there are those who wish for theocracy and even an implementation of Levitician law.
I don't think this is exclusively a problem of monotheism, but I do find it ironic when adherents to one monotheism are quick to label another as entailing some negative connotation. Is Islam is inherently violent because of violent verses and the actions of its followers, then so is Christianity. Both historically and scripturally the evidence is clear. The difference in the two cases is that the modern form of Christianity we see is one that has been shaped through conflict and cultural change.
I feel a lot of this problem would go away with the recognition that people aren't just the embodiment of ideas, that there is such thing as the human condition, and that those who hold different beliefs still share much of what we consider "good". By trying to define a group by a dogma it dehumanises them, and while people can and do act on dogma and for the protection thereof it doesn't make that a fair characterisation. To do so is to hijack what it means to be human.
Every time I see Christians complaining about Islam as a violent religion, I hear the sounds of heretics being tortured and witches burning!The rationale behind this was not to defend Islam or have a(nother) shot at Christianity, but to make a point about religious hypocrisy. It's easy in this modern day to forget about the horrors done in the name of Christianity in the context of a fight against the Enlightenment of the last 500 years, and that there should be anything other than a radicalising when an absolutist monotheism is being threatened culturally.
This is not to say that radicalising is justified or that it shouldn't be opposed, but to put it in a wider context. Those who write Islam off as an inherently violent religion neglect this, partaking in the demonising of an entire group. That religion is a motivator doesn't mean that motivation itself is wrapped up in dogma. Searching for violent phrases in The Koran or pointing to the frequency of suicide attacks involving Muslims isn't sufficient unless it is put in a wider context.
From the rise of Christianity to the present there has been a struggle over the dominion of others mind. Destruction and censorship of antithetical works, wars, inquisitions, schisms, reinterpretations, etc. From the absolute rule of the Catholic Church to now arguing over what domain religion occupies, this is a huge shift; and even now there are those who wish for theocracy and even an implementation of Levitician law.
I don't think this is exclusively a problem of monotheism, but I do find it ironic when adherents to one monotheism are quick to label another as entailing some negative connotation. Is Islam is inherently violent because of violent verses and the actions of its followers, then so is Christianity. Both historically and scripturally the evidence is clear. The difference in the two cases is that the modern form of Christianity we see is one that has been shaped through conflict and cultural change.
I feel a lot of this problem would go away with the recognition that people aren't just the embodiment of ideas, that there is such thing as the human condition, and that those who hold different beliefs still share much of what we consider "good". By trying to define a group by a dogma it dehumanises them, and while people can and do act on dogma and for the protection thereof it doesn't make that a fair characterisation. To do so is to hijack what it means to be human.
Friday, 8 January 2010
In Taking Lessons Of Outrage From Fundamentalist Islam
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/08/2787928.htm (further news here)
Firstly ALL Australians should boycott Indian goods. No more curries, no more companies that use Indian call centres, nothing. That we support such hatred and anti-Australian sentiment through consumption is only going to encourage this anti-Australian bigotry and the bigots who condemn us.
Secondly, ALL Australians living overseas should be protesting, with large signs that contain messages like "FUCK THE SPICKS WHO SAY AUSSIES ARE RACIST". Wear singlets, stubbies, thongs and the obligatory Australian flag as a cape. Make sure to carry a Fosters in one hand, sing the national anthem proudly and then Waltzing Matilda for good luck. And just for good measure, beat up any Lebs along the way, just in case they are thinking about coming down to Cronulla beach.
Thirdly, real Australians should be sending death threats to the cartoonist responsible, same for any news organisations that dare print such hateful and hurtful cartoons against our country. And not just empty threats either, make sure that those who have desecrated our country's honour will live the rest of their very short lives in hiding and under police protection.
Fourthly, any Indian embassy is a prime target to demonstrate one's outrage at the hurt that this cartoon has done for our national image. Bombs can be easily made, and sacrificing oneself for the country will be rewarded with 72 engraved letters on a national monument. Indian Embassies should tremble in fear at the outrage their country has caused Australia.
Finally, we Australians should take this opportunity to make cartoons of our own blaspheming the Jews. At a time of such outrage, it is only appropriate to call the Jews devils, deny the holocaust happened, and compare them to swine. We all know of the Jew-run media, so in a way it's their fault - just like 9/11 or the Bali Bombings.
And the greatest thing about taking such action is that Western liberal thinkers will give us intellectual apologetics justifying our extreme use of violence, blaming the bigoted Indians for bringing such hatred on themselves, and talking about how national identity is extremely important to Australians. Such actions are not the responsibility of those involved, But of the perpetrators to instigated the violence by their own bigotry, those who didn't understand the importance of nationality to Australians.
It's time we realised that free speech has its limitations. And that limitation can only be taken seriously under the threat of violence. When someone publishes something blasphemous or heretical, the only measured response is one where self-censorship will emerge through fear and potential repercussions. Until such drastic action is taken (and the immediate beheading of any of the Indian pigs who printed such filth), no-one will take the Australian right to be respected seriously. And by respected I mean to be free from any criticism whatsoever!
(Disclaimer: In case anyone is under any doubt by this stage, this piece is written sarcastically. The point was to highlight the disparity between the incident and response in the Muhammad cartoons controversy, and to condemn those liberal western thinkers who have acted as apologists for the extremist actions over a cartoon. The ability to criticise, to put forth one's expression, this should be as sacred a value as one has in society; an ideal for any western democracy to protect. To cower down to the threat of violence is giving into terrorism, and that there's even a single liberal thinker acting as an apologist for such actions is a tragedy. No matter how offended one is, violence isn't justified. No apologetics about the important to culture, the significance of beliefs, etc. It's not justified, period.)
On a serious note, how much must we murky the already murky of waters of culture by pushing forward with cultural relativism? That we are wrapping up identities of millions or sometimes even billions of people with a stringent set of values and cultural icons that serve for personal identity? There seems to be nothing more dehumanising that reducing individuals to a stringent product of their culture.
Victoria's Police Association has reacted angrily to a cartoon in an Indian newspaper depicting one of the state's officers as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.It's an outrage to our country and ALL Australians should take the protest to the streets. First there was the monkey comment against our beloved cricketer Andrew Symonds and now this?
The Delhi Mail Today newspaper published the cartoon in response to the murder of Indian student Nitin Garg in Melbourne last weekend.
The cartoon shows a person in a Ku Klux Klan hood wearing a Victoria Police badge, with a caption that reads: "We Are Yet To Ascertain The Nature Of The Crime."
Police Association secretary Greg Davies says it is highly offensive to suggest police are not properly investigating the murder.
"To say that our detectives are going slow on this, or for some reason trying to protect somebody, is incredibly offensive and wrong," he said.
"It's based on nothing but obviously a slow news day in Delhi.
"The identity of the offender from the homicide in Footscray isn't even known at this stage, so we don't even know what nationality the offender is.
"To say it's a race-based crime is not only premature, but stupid."
The Police Minister, Bob Cameron, has added his voice to the condemnation of the cartoon.
Mr Cameron has rejected suggestions detectives aren't working hard enough to catch Nitin Garg's killer.
"We've got a great police force and we've got the homicide squad out there and they do a fantastic job and it just doesn't help anyone at all to have people from the sidelines throwing bricks," he said.
"We've got a good police force and we should let our police force go about their policing business in a sensible and a calm way."
Firstly ALL Australians should boycott Indian goods. No more curries, no more companies that use Indian call centres, nothing. That we support such hatred and anti-Australian sentiment through consumption is only going to encourage this anti-Australian bigotry and the bigots who condemn us.
Secondly, ALL Australians living overseas should be protesting, with large signs that contain messages like "FUCK THE SPICKS WHO SAY AUSSIES ARE RACIST". Wear singlets, stubbies, thongs and the obligatory Australian flag as a cape. Make sure to carry a Fosters in one hand, sing the national anthem proudly and then Waltzing Matilda for good luck. And just for good measure, beat up any Lebs along the way, just in case they are thinking about coming down to Cronulla beach.
Thirdly, real Australians should be sending death threats to the cartoonist responsible, same for any news organisations that dare print such hateful and hurtful cartoons against our country. And not just empty threats either, make sure that those who have desecrated our country's honour will live the rest of their very short lives in hiding and under police protection.
Fourthly, any Indian embassy is a prime target to demonstrate one's outrage at the hurt that this cartoon has done for our national image. Bombs can be easily made, and sacrificing oneself for the country will be rewarded with 72 engraved letters on a national monument. Indian Embassies should tremble in fear at the outrage their country has caused Australia.
Finally, we Australians should take this opportunity to make cartoons of our own blaspheming the Jews. At a time of such outrage, it is only appropriate to call the Jews devils, deny the holocaust happened, and compare them to swine. We all know of the Jew-run media, so in a way it's their fault - just like 9/11 or the Bali Bombings.
And the greatest thing about taking such action is that Western liberal thinkers will give us intellectual apologetics justifying our extreme use of violence, blaming the bigoted Indians for bringing such hatred on themselves, and talking about how national identity is extremely important to Australians. Such actions are not the responsibility of those involved, But of the perpetrators to instigated the violence by their own bigotry, those who didn't understand the importance of nationality to Australians.
It's time we realised that free speech has its limitations. And that limitation can only be taken seriously under the threat of violence. When someone publishes something blasphemous or heretical, the only measured response is one where self-censorship will emerge through fear and potential repercussions. Until such drastic action is taken (and the immediate beheading of any of the Indian pigs who printed such filth), no-one will take the Australian right to be respected seriously. And by respected I mean to be free from any criticism whatsoever!
(Disclaimer: In case anyone is under any doubt by this stage, this piece is written sarcastically. The point was to highlight the disparity between the incident and response in the Muhammad cartoons controversy, and to condemn those liberal western thinkers who have acted as apologists for the extremist actions over a cartoon. The ability to criticise, to put forth one's expression, this should be as sacred a value as one has in society; an ideal for any western democracy to protect. To cower down to the threat of violence is giving into terrorism, and that there's even a single liberal thinker acting as an apologist for such actions is a tragedy. No matter how offended one is, violence isn't justified. No apologetics about the important to culture, the significance of beliefs, etc. It's not justified, period.)
On a serious note, how much must we murky the already murky of waters of culture by pushing forward with cultural relativism? That we are wrapping up identities of millions or sometimes even billions of people with a stringent set of values and cultural icons that serve for personal identity? There seems to be nothing more dehumanising that reducing individuals to a stringent product of their culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
