I’ve surprised myself by having two conflicting viewpoints on the issue of the Danish cartoons that have insulted Muslims.
On the one hand, I’m a first amendment fanatic, and clearly don’t think the Islamist response of burning embassies and consulates and threatening to kill Danes is appropriate.
On the other, I think we need to remember that with free speech and free press comes responsibility.
There are clearly limits to free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind. But in a larger sense, early philosophers of free speech, including Locke and the founding fathers, recognized that some speech is intolerable. Locke, for example, found atheistic free speech intolerable. Clearly, as a society we’ve moved beyond that. But the point remains that some free speech is not appropriate (whether or not it should be against the law is another issue).
A white guy who walks into a bar in Harlem and start praising the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi party and slavery at the top of his lungs is heading for a beating. Most juries would probably acquit the African-Americans who administered the beating. (I’m sure somebody who went to law school can amplify or correct me on this). But my point is that if we think about it we can find occasions where limits to free speech are appropriate.
Were the Danes who published the cartoons being deliberately provocative? Yes, they were, by their own admission. They wanted to raise the debate that is being raised. And it is an interesting debate. Clearly, the Muslim world needs to consider the issue of free speech, even if it involves intolerable speech. What are the appropriate limits for offensive speech for Islam?
But this debate should have been provoked in a different way by different people. Muslims need to push this debate themselves.
Do I think newspapers should not be allowed to publish cartoons like this? No. Do I think newspapers should refrain from publishing offensive cartoons? Yes, for the same reasons they should refrain from publishing nudity and profanity.
We Latter-day Saints have faced these issues from Joseph Smith’s time. He was immediately vilified and slandered from the beginning. He was surrounded by rogues who invented the most appalling falsehoods. And, finally, we had enough. Joseph Smith as the mayor of Nauvoo ordered the destruction of a deliberately provocative and libelous newspaper in that town right before his death. With historial hindsight, such a move seems wrong to us today — don’t we believe in free speech? Yes, we do. There were certainly other means that Joseph could have employed. But there is a long tradition of understanding that free speech brings with it responsibility if society is to be civilized. That is a lesson that bears some consideration.
(Note: this post is no way is intended to sympathize with people who use violence when they are offended. Basic rules of civilization make it clear that people should use other means. The purpose of this post is to explore the issue of whether we can agree that free speech also brings responsibility and that some limits to free speech are appropriate.)
Geoff, I agree in principle with almost everything you are saying in this post. There needs to be a healthy respect for freedom of the press, as well as freedom to express and practice religion. Sometimes there is an inherent conflict between these freedoms, both of which are protected in our First Amendment. There needs to be an acceptance of inherent responsibilities that accompany every exercisable right or freedom.
But, my concern with the reaction of Islamic fundamentalists to these cartoons is the fact that these extremists have a decades long track record, or murder, mayhem, and lawlessness. They are bent on this “religious jihad” of nothing less than the literal destruction of Western civilization and culture. This recent reaction is not an isolated event. Rather, it seems almost a further testing of the waters, or pushing the envelope just a bit further. How much more will the West tolerate? How far can we push the West? Are they too weak, decadent, and diseased to defend that which they hold most dear–freedom? I see these as very likely questions these extremists are asking as they practice their particular brand of Islam.
My fear is that if the West capitulates, or if they Islamic fundamentalists perceive we are weak, and not willing to defend that which at our core is most precious (freedom and liberty), then we can expect to see more of the same from radical Islam. I don’t know that there are any easy answers. Thanks for this post.
The problem is that Mohammed has been in pictures a long time. Here’s a partial list of pictures of Mohammed over the years. (Warning some political cartoons may be offensive to some – but most are from pretty regular sources) The one most of us will be familiar with is Mohammed as part of the “super best friends” episode from South Park. There Mohammed teamed up with Jesus, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Buddha, Moses and Seaman to defeat a cult.
I also think its suspicious how coordinated all this has been – especially the destruction of embassies in Lebanon and Syria. I think a lot of this is being manipulated for largely strategic reasons by various forces in Islam. The Syrian connection is especially suspicious as is the Iranian one.
Here is a great response to the entire thing by some Iranian newspaper…yea, real great, whatever!! This is all we need madder Islamic Fundamentalists with some sort of ‘Cause-de-jour’!
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5572
Fact of the matter is that the reason that this all happened is because people actually think that ‘Freedomof speech’ means that you can say and do whatever you want and you should be allowed to do so because they think that their opinions should also be respected and that if they are not respected then they have lost their freedoms! What would happen if my children ran up to me for some ‘Cause!’ and decided it was alright to disrespect me and do whatever they wanted to me? If I thought that ‘Freedom’ was allowing them to do whatever they wanted, then I should have no problem with this abuse, but if I truly understand that ‘Freedom’ comes with responsibility for actions, then I am most likely going to ‘teach’ them that in short order! Other side of the coin, when you use ‘free speech’ to denounce ‘free speech’, then you have also lost the entire meaning of the concept, and this is what has happened with the Islamic Fundamentalist view of Free Speech. The cartoonists and newsspapers should apologize and the fundamentalists should settle down!!
“And from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that with he hath.”
I think freedom of expression is something that must be used to be maintained. But I also think it is imperative that such freedom be used to say something worthwhile.
If all free speech is good for is saying worthless things, it will quickly be discredited and lost to society.
Take the arts for example. Artists often cry about lack of public funding in one breath, and then pride themselves in producing obscure artwork that is completely inaccessible to sane human beings in the next. My sister, in modern dance, once told me about a national competition where the winnning dance team’s performance consisted of standing on the stage and milking their breasts. She said, if that wasn’t bad enough, that they didn’t even have any real rythym, coordination, visual presentation, or anything remotely resembling talent.
But they said it was an allegory for some feminist issue or another, and the dance judges ate it right up.
Implicit in the right to speak is the obligation to say something that isn’t utter rubbish.
Geoff, I disagree with your position. There is a difference between free speech and violent actions purportedly caused by said free speech. The constitution protects the former and condemns the latter.
LDS do not throw stones and make bombs and have mass riots because their religion is insulted. So your comparison with our history and the current Muslim protests misses the mark as well as the key issue.
Notwithstanding the assaults the early members suffered, they never once abandoned the importance of the constitutional necessity of freedom of speech, even if lies and hatred and provocative statements were made againts them.
Instead, they vowed allegiance to the principles of free speech and would fight for all peoples rights therein.
I’ve enjoyed reading Dr. Pipes’s articles and websites for years. He is a scholar and expert on the Middle East and Islam.
As you click on the URLs you’ll find how incredibility ridiculous and hypocritical these protestors are.
Article Highlights:
* Will the West stand up for freedom of speech, or cower cower to Islamist p.c. bullies
* Will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims
* Are Muslims asking for respect or for submission
* We should not apologize
* “We are all Danes now.”
* Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples
* Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.
Danile Pipes’s Home Page
http://www.danielpipes.org/
The Middle East Forum
http://www.meforum.org/
—
Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
February 7, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
Germany’s Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos … they’re asking for my submission.”
Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.” Some governments get it:
Read the rest of the article here:http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360
“Notwithstanding the assaults the early members suffered, they never once abandoned the importance of the constitutional necessity of freedom of speech, even if lies and hatred and provocative statements were made againts them.”
Why exactly did they destroy that press then?
I feel that I’ll regret becoming involved in this discussion…..but Daniel Pipes is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate. At Campus Watch, he advocates silencing scholars that go beyond his anachronistic and malicious views of Islam and Muslims. Nobody here supports violence in reaction to speech, no matter how offensive. Pipes is sixty years behind the times in his scholarship and writes rubbish that isn’t in line with the evidence that scholars have discovered.
There are lots of reasons that reasonable people can cite to support a fairly negative view of political Islam. Please don’t stoop to rubbish such as that produced by Pipes and his ilk.
I want to make my position clear: I generally agree with Geoff B. There are obligations that come with freedom of speech. Violating these obligations does not justify violence.
That said, the failure to appreciate the context of these events is shocking. Before you make judgments about political Islam or advocate military action in the Middle East, please become informed about what’s really going on on the ground. Please understand that the vast majority of Islamist political movements do not advocate the total destruction of Western civilization or even domestic violence. Rather, most opposition movements that are credibly asking for democracy in the Middle East are either Islamist or heavily Islamic in their political views.
While that’s true D-Train, I think that there clearly are major power players who don’t want western democracy and do want conflict with the west. One can say they aren’t the majority but that is less of a concern than their power.
I’d add, with respect to the cartoons, that merely having Mohammed having a bomb on his head in a picture is hardly offensive enough so as to warrant self-censorship (IMO). I think it is purely the political situation that has kept most British and American papers from reprinting the cartoon. I think it inherently important in a western democracy to be able to criticize religion. This really isn’t sufficiently offensive to justify either censorship and certainly not events in the middle-east (which I’m fairly confident are all choreographed)
A further clarification….sorry for all the comments.
I don’t think Geoff B is ignoring the context. Honestly, his post isn’t mostly about this. I’m referring more to the comments that seek to use this as an example of “Muslim rage” or some other axe to grind.
Clark, you’re right. There are those that don’t want democracy and that do want conflict. It should be noted, though, that there are also Western political entities that want conflict with the Middle East and, yes, with Islam. People like Pipes, Bernard Lewis, and the Weekly Standard crowd have been carping for this for twenty years.
In the same vein as many other posts on M* I find it interesting to note that following 9/11 the president and almost all American’s, at least all those you seen on the news or talk radio make it abundantly clear that we are concerned with Islamic extremists. In contrast those who burn Danish flags or attack Denmark associate the actions of a few with an entire country.
What would happen if we acted in like manner and associated the actions of the most dangerous Arabs with everyone from the middle-eastern region? Beyond the hypocracy of defiling other religions while requiring deference to theirs, these extremists expect us to completely disassociate practices of their extremists while lumping all of Denmark, or even the entire EU and/or Christianity, with those few who were willing to promulgate sacrilege against Islam.
For the record, I think that Daniel Pipes does some good work with Campus Watch. There is nothing wrong with monitoring what professors say in classes. It is part and parcel with the same point I am making in this post: free speech brings responsibility. This also applies to professors, who are free to teach what they want but are in the end responsible for their statements and should be held accountable for, as an example, trying to teach hate-filled anti-American garbage. That is what Daniel Pipes is trying to do.
But I do think LDS Patriot has managed to miss the primary point of my post. Let me try to summarize: I don’t support or justify violent reactions to free speech. I am simply pointing out that free speech is not unlimited and that people who engage in provocative speech should be prepared for the consequences.
Heli, they have taken this thing to a further extreme by dropping Denmark in their ‘Western Culture’ definition and so we, North Americans, get lumped into the fight by default thus proving that I am again a
Maybe it’s just my Danish great-great grandmother speaking, but, if I have to choose between the Danes and the folks on the rampage from Africa to Indonesia, count me as one with the Danes.
Geoff, I think you overestimate the good intentions of Daniel Pipes. The point of Campus Watch isn’t to make professors more accountable, but to advance a neoconservative agenda with the intent of trying to delegitimize the scholarly consensus as “anti-Israeli” and “apologetic”. For example, this FAQ alone indicates that this guy just hasn’t a clue. For example, their discussion in the FAQ of John Esposito (one of the most respected scholars in the field) constantly conflates “Islamism” with “militant Islam”, even within the same paragraph. They’re just not the same thing.
The “dismissing [of] autocratic Arab regimes” simply is not a problem in present Middle Eastern studies. Indeed, the present trend in ME studies is to look toward the rather tenacious nature of Arab regimes. The claims that Palestinians have established a democracy are hotly debated in the field and misconstrued in any case.
I could go on, but this probably isn’t really the point of your thread. Let it suffice to say that Pipes is not just misinformed, but seeks to systematically place pressure on scholars that do not share his discredited conclusions. There are respected conservatives in the field of ME studies that interested readers of this thread can consult.
Daniel Pipes isn’t a neo-con is he? In this essay he seems rather dubious about it all. Although he does say, “as some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation.”
I think the problem is that the press has horribly abused the term neo-con basically making it a label for anyone in favor of the Iraq invasion.
Further from what I’ve seen most neo-cons find the whole monitoring of professors rather disturbing. A sort of “road to hell is paved with the best of intentions…”
Remember that neo-cons typically *aren’t* social conservatives.
EDIT: I just reread it and probably the tone I got from my initial read was off. I think I was just biased because while I’ve read editorials by Pipes I just never really considered him a neo-con of the William Kristol type.
Neocon, from what I can determine, is a nasty pejorative used by those on the left. I hardly ever hear conservatives use it, but liberals use it all the time as a put-down, or a quick way to dismiss an argument they don’t want to deal with.
Other than that, I really have no idea what a “neocon” is.
“The purpose of this post is to explore the issue of whether we can agree that free speech also brings responsibility and that some limits to free speech are appropriate”
To limit free speech involves force and/or punishment (duct tape, jail time, fine, death, etc.) by one or more people “in power”. These people in power are only supposed to act in your name – as your agent. What right do you have to prohibit others speech? (You must have this right to inhibit in order to grant this power to your agents – the government, correct?) If you or I don’t have a right to limit others speech then how can we allow those people that work for us (i.e. “the government employees”) the right to limit others speech? Do we have any scriptures (or latter-day prophets) that tell us to specifically deny others the right to speak? What limits (i.e., force and/or punishment) are appropriate?
Ivan,
When I use “neoconservative”, I mean someone whose intellectual roots can generally be found in the Kristol/Podhoretz/”Public Interest” crowd. The neoconservative agenda used to be pretty dynamic, but has now come to focus nearly exclusively on Middle East policy. Neoconservative isn’t necessarily a dirty word (indeed, I share many of the criticisms that the original neoconservatives embraced), but I do disagree strongly with their view of the Middle East and think that it’s too far removed from the evidence that we have to be of any use.
Clark,
I agree that Pipes and Kristol would differ in some areas. Thanks for pointing out a lot of the differences between neocons and traditional or social conservatives. I also agree that some (maybe most?) neocons would be very uncomfortable with what Pipes is doing.
My bottom line on Pipes is just that the guy either doesn’t know the scholarly literature, doesn’t understand it, or is lying about it. Maybe all three…..
Ivan:
Neo-con as a term of abuse is often used very badly (e.g. Mick Jagger doesn’t know what he’s talking about). But real conservatives (pro and con) have used it quite a lot. Will has used it disparagingly, Brooks somewhat approvingly, and people from Kristol to Wolfowitz to Fukuyama have proudly embraced it. Some smart liberals have also used it correctly.
Pipes gets called a neo-con because of his quite shrill pro-Israel stance. But one should not equate neo-con with a pro-Israel stance (even worse, a ‘Jewish’ position). Fukuyama (surely a kind of neo-con) has criticized Kristol and others for seeing foreign policy from a flawed Israeli perspective (i.e. the view that the war on terrorism is a fight for the very survival of the American regime).
D-Train, you are wrong about Pipes on many levels. What is more, your posts regarding Pipes is nothing but an ad hominem, therefore fallacious. You ignore the message and attack the messenger, that is an ad hominem through and through.
I would point out your language and tactics as expressed againts Pipes are exactly what Professional anti-Mormons (PAMs) do and say against Mormon orgs like LDS Church/FARMS/FAIR et el, e.g., “Please don’t stoop to rubbish such as that produced by LDS Church or FARMS or FAIR and their ilk.”
OK, you are anti-Pipes, fine, but at least address the points of his message and what you agree and disagree with.
Geoff, I got your point loud and clear the first time; nothing missed. We are not speaking in generalities, for if we were I’d be in agreement with you in princple. However, we are the specificity as it relates to this current Cartoon problem. Given that, allow me to restate so that you understand my position:
There is a difference between free speech and violent actions purportedly caused by said free speech. The constitution protects the former and condemns the latter.
In contrast to the current violent protests from members of another faith, LDS do not throw stones and make bombs and have mass riots because their religion is insulted.
The LDS faith from the beginning has been viewed as a radical religion by some, and its history is laced with verbal assaults, expulsion, even murder at the hands of its detractors.
Notwithstanding these varied assaults, the early members never once abandoned the importance of the constitutional necessity of freedom of speech, even if lies, provocative statements and venomously vitriolic hate speech were spewed against them.
Moreover, the LDS faith today is incessantly assaulted and insulted daily at the hands of Professional anti-Mormons (PAMs) and their sympathizers. These PAMs actually make their living attacking the LDS faith! What is the LDS response to such behavior? They vow allegiance to the principles of the constitution and free speech, support for and fighting for all peoples inalienable rights.
The LDS are adamant proponents of the principles of the US Constitution, like free speech, even when it does not work in their favor.
Lastly, the violent protestors are without justification and such behaviour ought to be condemned.
That is my point to a T…I fully concur.
#13 Heli…
Which is why the protestors behaviour is egregious. We have to call it like it is. We have to be clear that such behaviour is reprehensible, conspicuously and outrageously bad.
Ivan, the first thing you must know about the label is that it’s roots are anti-Semitic, and that sentiment still lives on today.
Second, take the Neocon quiz at http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
And here is some good history regarding the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
So, all,
I’m curious. How would this relate to Christ casting out the money changers with violence from the temple? Apparently they were within their rights according to the norm of the day. Jewish authorities never cast them out.
Of course they were highway robbers stealing from the poor in the House of the Lord, but Christ was exceeding zealous for the House of the Lord and cast them out, of course doing the right thing.
If Muslims who hold to their faith very zealously, see a blasphemy against a sacred part of their religion, is it not right for them to react with violent protest as Christ did?
Perhaps we ought to be a little more zealous about our religion as well.
LDS Patriot:
Among the substantive issues that I noted which you chose not to discuss are:
1) His conflation of Islamism and militant Islam, especially in evaluating the works of John Esposito.
2) His failure to acknowledge an extremely significant body of work studying the resilence of Arab autocracy. A good example of this work is the latest from Marsha Pripstein Posusney.
3) His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate over Palestinian democracy and his inability to understand that, indeed, the PLO represents one of the more democratic governing structures in the Middle East. It isn’t Western democracy, but NOBODY is claiming that it is. Both Pipes and yourself have chosen to argue against a straw man.
4) Pipes’ apparent willingness to single out those who disagree with his political beliefs for career punishment and stigmatization.
These are not mere footnotes in Middle Eastern scholarship. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the academic literature understands that these issues are on the table. LDS Patriot, I don’t doubt that you’re sincere. But, I must say, if you want someone watching over our professors, please choose someone that bothers to read what they write.
Curtis, are you serious? Wow. You honestly think the folks who burnt down embassies and have tried to kill people over a picture are right? Wow.
I think it makes them look as crazy as others have said they are. Heck, if somebody posted an insulting picture of the prophet, it would bother me about 5 seconds. I sure wouldn’t kill anybody.
Clark, now you know why I’m trying to get Curtis to read some other sources. He reminds me of myself 20 years ago. It will be fascinating to see if his views change over time.
Sorry LDS Patriot, but D-Train’s take on Pipes looks a lot more credible than yours at the moment. D-Train raised questions about his scholarship and his message that you have failed to answer so far.
Also, it isn’t fair for you to cry about “ad hominem attacks” when you were the one who brought up Pipes’ credibility in the first place. Here are your exact words:
“I’ve enjoyed reading Dr. Pipes’s articles and websites for years. He is a scholar and expert on the Middle East and Islam.”
Obviously, you were pointing to Pipes’ status as a “scholar and expert” in a way that was meant to try and convince us. You are the one making Pipes character and scholarship and issue. D-Train’s attack on both was quite appropriate.
So either defend the man, or stop citing to him as a persuasive authority.
How utterly condesending. I love it when people attack opinions this way, middle aged white men who have become the universal parrots of conservative talk radio and abandened their ideals for the sake of false security use it everytime someone says soemthing true – but which they don’t agree with – and with no logical reason other than their sensibilities have been corrupted by propaganda and capitalism (read love of money).
I hold free speech and expression the most valuable of freedoms a society has. But what this situation is making horribly clear is that the politicians love it when it suits thier purposes and are holding it up now as a reason why we are ‘so superior’ to Islam, yet, when a mother excercises her free speech to wear a tshirt to the State of the Union address she is escorted out by security or a reverand and former president use it to justifiably criticize a president these same people are telling us that such speech has no place in the United States (one talk show host even told such dissenters to leave the US if we don’t like the govt! How does that attitude fit into our political history??).
So, I’m sorry, when all these pundits and politicians (on both sides of the fence) start touting our free speech as what makes us ‘better than them’ when their policies and practices have been curtailing that very freedom – well, I’m sorry but it just doesn’t hold any water with me. As soon as someone in THIS country says something they don’t like or creates a video game they find offensive they will be the first ones to try and pass legislation to keep them from being able to excercise their freedom.
I find that I do sympathize with the Muslims reaction (please keep reading before you overreact). That in no way means I think the newspapers should not print the cartoon, far from it. But, their reaction is less to a cartoon then to an entire civilization with all the power and money and with troops occupying their countries and meddalling in their affairs. You cannot believe that people should not rise up and defend themselves against oppresive forces? I do not advocate violence (in some situations, because it is usually not effective unfortunatly) to create change and that is where I do belive they are going wrong in their methods, but I think the cartoons are more the straw the broke the camels back.
Another Julie, you have managed to find discord and contention where none was intended. If you re-read my original post, I am trying to find a peaceful middle ground where people try to realize that some speech is intolerable and offensive. So in a way I agree with your comment. Yes, my comment to Curtis may seem condescending, but I’m not sure it justifies the anger in your response. And some things are not what they seem. I may not be the typical “middle aged white men who have (has) become the universal parrots of conservative talk radio” you seem to think I am. Things may be nuanced than you think. And there’s a whole history of exchanges with Curtis that you may not be aware of. Peace, my sister in the gospel, peace.
Another Julie,
I can’t believe you equate violence with criticism. One of the main points of free speech is to subject thoughts to the marketplace of ideas. If you say something at a funeral everyone has complete freedom to say that was in bad taste. I don’t think you should politicize funerals and I think the Reverend and Pres. Carter showed their dedication to their agenda was greater than their reverence for the deceased. Notice I didn’t light anything on fire, I used free speech to criticize free speech. I wasn’t censoring Carter or breaking down his door, rather I was criticizing his actions.
Oh and there are Constitutionally appropriate time, place, manner restrictions on speech in Congress. While its important people have a venue for protesting, it is unworkable to allow protestors access to working spaces. Imagine if protestors could come in the oval office, there would be a thousand people there everyday.
Curtis,
My understanding based on a Jewish law course I took indicated that the moneychangers were violating Jewish law. Its just possible that the reason they were not removed by the authorities relates to bribes from their profits.
I do agree that zealotry is wonderful, so long as the energy is appropriately channeled. Yelling in the streets, editorials condemning the actions of the Danish paper, forming groups and protesting, and contributions to PACs and candidates are encouraged. I agree totally that LDS people should be more zealous, the scriptures require it, “love God with all your might, mind, and strength,” sounds kinda zealous. The problem is people think zealots are crazy, not people who are passionate and dedicated.
However, attacking Danish embassies shows ignorance and prejudice. Its not Denmark that is the culprit and like I said above how do we deal with a segment of a culture that does not show respect for other religions while demanding respect for their own? And at the same time ties segments of all other cultures together, attributing the actions of a fraction of a segment to the whole. How does love your enemy play into this quagmire?
I did not equate violence with criticism, read my post more carefully. What I am criticizing is that everyone is so quick to jump on the “see we love free speech – we are better than them” bandwagon when their actions are working to curtail free speech daily. Just another case of doublespeak by the countries finest…
Geoff, sorry for the personal attack but no matter you intention, what you said is completly condesending. And people say it ALL THE TIME. They mistake the fact that because they used to stand for something and changed their views later in life after making more money, gaining more power, or whatever it is that has made the baby boomer generation completly abandon everything it once stood for – for the fact that WE WILL DO THE SAME. TRUST ME, WE WONT. They think this is their wisdom and age speaking but I believe it complete folly. An entire generation failed. You gave up on justice and civil liberties and for what? Your own security? Your stock portfolio? It does justify anger. Your an entire generation that has fallen asleep at the wheel but refuse to acknowledge the rights, opnions, voices of the others who feel the country is going down the wrong path. Our opinions are only “temporary’ so our voices need not be heard…big brother will just keep making decisions for us giving no heed to our vote or our future needs, telling himself that its ok, cause “we’ll come around”
Julie, sometimes people simply learn new things and gain additional knowledge as they grow older. I’m not sure how old you are, but let’s say you’re 25. Do you have exactly the same beliefs about everything that you had when you were 15? Obviously not, you have learned new things and incorporated them into your paradigm. When I was in my early 20s I thought the best way to save the world and help people was one system of beliefs, and in my 40s I have learned that the best way to save the world and help people is another way. It is incredibly judgmental of you (and wrong, btw) to assume that is is all about selfishness on my part. Do you have any idea how many hours a week I personally spend helping the poor? You do not because I don’t post about that very much — Jesus told us to keep such things private because our Father in Heaven will reward us in his own way. So, be humble enough to admit that you don’t know about everybody’s motives and can’t judge their hearts and actions, especially by a few words written on a blog. Believe me, if you want to angry at big, bad hateful intolerant conservatives, there are a lot worse and mpre appropriate targets than I.
Julie,
I apologize if I was unclear, I believe you still opperate under the misapprehension that opposing the content of specific speech “curtails speech.” And yes, we are better than them; reacting to speech we don’t like by saying I disagree because of A, B, and C is much better than burning building A, B, and C. I don’t see how you can miss that. The whole reason people are critical of the Islamic reaction isn’t those who say “they should not have printed that.” Its those who are making bombs, vandalizing buildings and making threats. Yes threats are prohibited speech.
And as for your contention that this is part of Muslims defending themselves, thats very convenient. Their illegal activities aimed at censorship, their coercive actions aimed at specifically curtailing the free speech in the form of cartoons are more inappropriate than the thoughtless artists who disrespect the sacred figures of a world religion. Thats really the point that we disagree on, I unabashedly assert that we are more right for only attacking speech with speech. The cartoonists are in the wrong, but still less wrong than those espousing and executing violence.
Yes there are degrees of right and wrong.
Sorry, Seth R, you are incorrect in your premise. Dr. Pipes’s is an expert and a scholar on the Middle East and Islam, which is a fact. Therefore, D-Train can argue that fact forever and cannot make it stick in the slightest.
Yes, it is quite fair for to cry about “ad hominem attacks” because that is what his posts are, another fact that cannot be argued away. D-Train never speaks to the message I posted, for or against. Rather, he is very anti-Pipes, but has said nothing at all about his message as posted here.
It is a logically fallacy to shift the burden of proof to me to prove or disprove D-Train’s ad hominem attacks, which are merely an opinion he has and not a fact…”Daniel Pipes is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate…writes rubbish…His failure to acknowledge…His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate…please choose someone that bothers to read what they write…â€
Note that D-Train’s comments above are personal attacks against the man Dr. Pipes, and are not about Dr. Pipes’s message. Therefore, it is cleary an ad hominem attack that says nothing in the least about Dr. Pipes personally or hs message, but speaks volumes about what D-Train thinks about Dr. Pipes…not his message…him…Dr. Pipes.
Further, you say, “So either defend the man, or stop citing to him as a persuasive authority.” To that I say, “No!” Because you too are taking on “the man” and not his message. I’ve no interest defending the illogical, fallacious, flawed opinions of another. Defend the message, sure. Defend the man, no need, because I’m not the one attacking him and making the ad hominem attacks.
Let’s change the name so you can more clearly take an objective view..let’s use Gordon B Hinckley in place of Dr. Pipes’s and then honsetly tell me you are OK with D-Train’s personal attacks:
“Gordon B Hinckley is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate…writes rubbish…His failure to acknowledge…His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate…please choose someone that bothers to read what they write…â€
LDS Patriot,
When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ conceptual sloppiness in conflating Islamism and militant Islam?
When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ failure to perceive a huge body of literature concerning the resilience of Arab autocracy?
When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ inability to comprehend the diversity of the literature surrounding Palestinian democracy (or the lack thereof)?
When are you planning on showing that Pipes is something other than an incompetent boob that doesn’t know the literature?
These are not ad hominem attacks. These are reasons that Pipes is wrong in his evaluation of Middle Eastern studies. In fact, these are so obviously NOT ad hominem attacks that I am nearly to the point of being forced to conclude that you’re simply unwilling to evaluate any point of view that doesn’t correspond with what you already believe.
And I really appreciate you linking me to anti-Mormons. That’s nice of you and does a great deal to further Seth’s ability to “take a more objective view”.
I hope I’m not being too rude here, but if you want to advance arguments such as this, you should find someone that isn’t familiar with the literature.
And if you’re honestly suggesting that criticizing Daniel Pipes is the equivalent of criticizing Gordon B. Hinckley…..well…..I’ll let everyone else evaluate that one.
For some reason many of the comments today remind me of the Prophet cartoon with its LDS connotation.
LDS Patriot, I have to agree with D-Train. It’s not ad homen when one uses someone’s comments as an expert to critique whether they do in fact know what they are talking about. Now if Pipes gives clear arguments, then that’s an other matter. Yet his arguments in most of what I’ve read by him are fairly short and rest upon premises one must accept or reject based upon his ability as a scholar. Not all are, of course, and some of his arguments I’ve read have been persuasive. But I must admit that I do find him a little reactionary with respect to Israel. (And I say that as someone fairly pro-Israel)
Of course I also tend to think that some middle eastern scholars tend to ignore/overlook basic human psychology too much. Scholarship in any of these areas isn’t enough of a science as to offer tremendous predictive power.
Althought I have to say some of D-Trains “arguments” like failure of Pipes to perceive the body of Arab autocratic resiliancy literature is a bit vague and almost impossible to disprove without reading the “body” of literature. D-Train I would reccomend more specific arguments and assertions you believe Pipes is wrong about.
Seriously, if I said show me that Al Franken appreciates the literature about intelligence in the modern era you’d have to write a book to attempt to address that assertion.
Is the issue between you two whether Pipes is an expert? Or do you disagree with something specifically that LDSP asserts based on Pipes?
And LDS Patriot, you can’t go waving assertions that someone is an expert without evidence to back them up. Does Pipes have a degree, is he published? What makes him the expert you claim he is?
Specifics:
1) Pipes claims that nearly all scholars believe that Arab autocracies will magically go away. He cites an article from 1985 on his FAQ to prove the point. In fact, the resilience of Arab autocracy has been a trend in scholarly literature since the mid-1990s. Examples: Pripstein Posusney’s “Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance” (2005), Daniel Brumberg’s “The Trap of Liberalized Autocracy” (2004), and Nazih Ayubi’s “Over-stating the Arab State” (1995). My argument here is that Pipes is claiming that scholars think the autocracies will go away. Well, these are some of the best in the field, and they’re arguing that not only will they not go away, but that they will actually remain for a long period of time absent serious changes. In fact, Brumberg actually argues in the above article that American pressure is key to creating those reforms! Hardly a clan of leftists, huh? Yes, it’s tough to provide a comprehensive literature review on a blog, but these pieces alone (which postdate Pipes’ citation by ten to twenty years) demonstrate that this is a very significant concern in contemporary scholarship.
2) Pipes rakes John Esposito for arguing that Islam is not malicious and that Osama bin Laden is insignificant. In fact, in the book by Esposito that Pipes cites (“The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality” (1992)), Esposito argues that political Islam can be hostile, but does not necessarily have to be. Indeed, examples such as Egypt demonstrate quite clearly that it is often secular governments that are violent and oppressive and Islamic political organizations that are demanding democracy and open political institutions. In the 1998 Esposito piece that Pipes attacks, Esposito does not claim that Osama is not relevant, but that there are many contributing factors that create terrorism and that focusing solely on Osama will create a flawed policy that does not address all elements of the terrorist question. In attacking Iraq and in maintaining the offensive there, President Bush in fact accepts Esposito’s argument. Hardly a flaming lefty.
3) Pipes rakes predictions of democracy in Palestine, arguing that these people are hiding in the sand. He specifically criticizes Hisham Sharabi’s 1983 piece (“The Development of PLO Peace Policy”) for describing the PLO as one of the Middle East’s functioning democracies. Again, Pipes distorts the truth. Sharabi claims in that piece that Palestinian democracy is incomplete, but nevertheless present in a way that it is not elsewhere in the Middle East. He also criticizes Ibrahim Abu-Lughod’s 1988 prediction that Jews and Arabs could live peacefully side by side in a Palestinian state. Well, this has not happened yet. When a Palestinian state is established, one would expect that it will have been done through a successful peace process. If Abu-Lughod is guilty of anything, it’s a tautology: once peace is established, there will be peace. Certainly not a horrid falsehood that requires discrediting.
4) Pipes defines Hamid Dabashi as an extremist because of his statement that people near and dear to him are at the mercy of American foreign policies. The family of a National Guardsman in Kentucky could well say this. Rashid Khaladi is an extremist because he did not support the Persian Gulf War in 1990. By the way, neither did George Bush. Worth thinking about.
5) Pipes proves that Middle East scholars impose their power on others with the example of two students that claim to have been mistreated by faculty. Not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
I have to go to the gym. These are just drawn from Pipes’ FAQ, which is (presumably) his best public face to the world. If he has read the scholarly literature, he does not understand it.
Heli,
The issue between us seems to be whether Pipes’ familiarity with the Middle Eastern studies literature enables him to make the claims that he endorses at campuswatch.org. My point is that Pipes doesn’t know enough about Middle Eastern studies to make the claims there listed. I link to his FAQ above, which is representative of what he’s arguing.
Hey, we just got our Liahona and the cover story is titled (after inexpert translation) “The center of faith in Denmark” with a picture of what one would assume is a Danish family.
I don’t know why I thought that was pertinent, but there it is.
D-Train, why ask me for something you have failed to do yourself?
In which post have you actually addressed the points made in post #6 and Dr. Pipes message as found in http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360
Tell me, D-Train, which post do you actualy speak for or against the message/point/topic/opinion/subject/matter/issue?
Every post you refuse to address the message/point/topic/opinion/subject/matter/issue and instead continue your attacking “the man” Dr. Pipes, you only prove you are engaged in nothing more than an ad hominem trail.
D-Train, not interested in a conversation you have derailed. Get back on course, and then, and only then, do I plan to address you other issues.
Post 6…D-Train…the ball is in your court. Fail to respond to those points and this conversation is over. Can’t have a conversation with someone who keeps changing the topic.
Please read this link too, it may help you see your logical fallacy.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument to the man”) or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You have missed that point, D-Train. I am speak about how that criticizing is done, and the ad homs language you favor so much.
Using your very own words but only changing the names, you tell us, D-Train, the difference. If you can, you are right. If you cannot, I am right.
“Dr. Pipes is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate…writes rubbish…His failure to acknowledge…His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate…please choose someone that bothers to read what they write…â€
“Gordon B Hinckley is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate…writes rubbish…His failure to acknowledge…His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate…please choose someone that bothers to read what they write…â€
Surely you can see the difference? Gordon B. Hinkley doesn’t pretend to be a scholar. Further he is inherently an expert of LDS theology given his role in LDS theology. That’s a big strawman.
You also miss the relationship between authority and ad homen. The wiki you linked to links to this in an other entry. The point being it is not an ad homen to question someone’s academic authority.
A fair question indeed.
Read his bios and you tell us what you think. Check out these links and you decide, you be the judge between me and D-Train. Tell us if you think he is well qualified, an expert, well educated enough to pass muster.
For the sake of this board I will assent to your appraisal as to whehter Dr. Pipes is degreed enough, experienced enough, worthy enough to be considered a scholar and expert in the area of Militant Islam, Arab-Israel conflict, Syria, American Muslims. Are you game?
Daniel Pipes
Director
Middle East Forum
Bio: http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/
Areas of Expertise: Militant Islam, Arab-Israel conflict, Syria, American Muslims
Contact: pipes@meforum.org
http://www.meforum.org/experts.php
http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/
http://www.danielpipes.org/bio.pdf
http://www.meforum.org/
I see where you have missed the point. Let me be clear. 1) I never appealed to his authority to make my case, that was for those who may not have known who he is, 2) it is the message and only the message I was referring to of which I agree, 3) D-Train has failed to address even a single point made it post #6, 4) D-Train cannot question Dr. Pipes’s academic authority on the grounds he does not agree with his views, that is the only evidence D-Train has brought forth, 5) the links in post #52 prove Pipes is an academic authority, 6) on that point D-Train has no bases to agrue against “the man” Pipes, 7) I think I’m getting really tired of this conversation, this derailment of the message to attack “the man.”, 8) I wait Heli’s verdict before I will post again.
Are you linking (2) and (3)? i.e. are you only appealing to Pipes to argue that we shouldn’t give up our free speech? He doesn’t really make an argument in the argument in your message #6, just an assertion. If this is all you are claiming I guess I don’t have much problem. We’ve sort of gotten into one of those meta-debate tangents that I typically dislike.
With regard to your (4) I’m not sure I agree. D-Train isn’t questioning Pipes’ authority because he doesn’t agree but because of what D-Train claims are explicit and egregious errors within this field that Pipes makes. It would be akin to someone claiming to be an authoritative physicist but not understanding basic thermodynamics. At least that’s how I’ve read D-Train’s arguments and they seem fairly strong to me, although to be fair I’m not well enough read in the field to know.
With regards to (5) none of the “credentials” Pipes provides are academically relevant that I can see. The issue to be academically relevant is ones position within the academy, typically associated with academic praise, not the ability to be widely quoted in journalistic circles. (Indeed this is a problem I have with many “experts” in a wide variety of fields whose main claim to fame is to have written a lot in journalistic articles) The kind of credentials I’d look for are things like praise of his academic thesis. Papers in peer reviewed journals significant within his field. And so forth. Further the view of his peers within his academic field towards him are relevant. The people he quotes are by and large not people academically relevant.
The one place where he does appear to have credentials is from his PhD in history from Harvard. But he didn’t mention much about what his specialty was. He also says he taught at University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. But he doesn’t say what he taught or how he was hired. That might be very relevant or not at all. For instance I can claim I taught physics at BYU but I was never a professor in the least and that isn’t academically significant in the least in my case since I was an undergraduate at the time.
I’m not saying Pipes isn’t an expert. Just that what is up on his page doesn’t really establish it for me. I’d be most interested in his peer reviewed books. The most relevant publication I could find was a book from Oxford Press on Syria in 1990. Doing a brief google it seems that a lot of academics in the field don’t think much of him which would support D-Train’s point.
Re: LDS Patriot #40,
Basically all your post says is “I am right. Which is a fact that you cannot argue away.”
LDS Patriot: You’re a broken record. I’m tired of your unwillingness to address basic concerns regarding Daniel Pipes. Your failure to respond to my specific criticisms of Pipes is not due to your piety and refusal to respond to ad hominem attacks (that aren’t actually ad hominem attacks), but to your inability to deal with those criticisms. Nobody here but you thinks this is the case, and I’d wager that I’m the most liberal guy in the room by a country mile. Again, I repeat: if you want to convince people with the arguments of Daniel Pipes, make sure they don’t know the literature first. Clark is indeed rather charitable in saying that most scholars don’t think much of him. I can’t think of a respectable academic that sees this guy as a legitimate scholar.
Here’s a more specific response to #6, keeping in mind that my specific refutations of Daniel Pipes’ argument have not yet been challenged.
Let us be perfectly clear. I never defended the violent reaction to the cartoons. Ever.
What I did say is that Pipes’ determination to make this about “Islamic supremacism” instead of some extremist yahoos is ridiculous. Pipes’ determination to see this as representative of the problems of a culture instead of the problems of some violent, silly people that have chosen an inappropriate way to seek political change.
Are these groups significant in Middle Eastern politics? Sadly, they are. I don’t want to minimize them. They are a real issue. But are they the defining element of a religion, culture, or region? I should think not. There are other elements of Middle Eastern politics beyond violent protest (See Marc Lynch’s “Beyond the Arab Street: Iraq and the Arab Public Sphere” (2003) for an effective description of the multifacted political discourse, especially surrounding Iraq) and Islamic extremism. My problem with Pipes isn’t that he sees this as a problem. My problem with Pipes is that he sees Islam and the Middle East itself as a problem and that he comes to this conclusion with no significant knowledge of the field or the relevant literature.
I thought the cartoon about the virgins was funny.
The reaction in the Muslim world has made me lose respect for them. They come off crazy.
Remember Anne that the reaction in the press is of a small minority of Muslims. Most likely coordinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist organization you might recall from the French riots. The burning of the embassies is almost certainly orchestrated by Syria. And Iran has been using this to divert attention from its nuclear program.
As I think I mentioned, the cartoons were actually in an Egyptian paper back in October with no reaction. No, the reason there was a reaction at this time was part of various groups political strategies.
Good point, Clark. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this didn’t just happen for no reason.
The problem is that poverty and hardship are breeding grounds for extremism.
During the 1930s, economic disaster led to a national attitude that allowed the Nazis to seize power. The same poverty and discontent led to the tumultuous Russian Revolution and the disasterous Russian civil war which followed. Starvation and poverty birthed the problems in Somalia, and more recently in Sudan.
Palestinians and Jews will try and tell you that there is some sort of religious conflict going on in Israel-Palestine. But there isn’t really.
The problem is the feeling of economic and social hopelessness of Palestinians and the continuing feelings of insecurity among the Jews. All that stuff about history and religion doesn’t really mean much. What is important is who bombed who in the last couple years and who bulldozed who’s house last week.
History and religion are only invoked as justification by people who are ticked off RIGHT NOW.
Look at the Greeks and the Turks. Lots of hostile history. But now you’d hardly know it. Provided that there aren’t any fresh outbreaks of violence on Cypress, I’d wager that Greek and Turkish teenagers 10 years from now won’t even care what their parents were so upset about.
History only matters to most people when it is used to justify present wrongs. Religion is just another one of these excuses for justifying hatreds that are really due to present inequities. Once the inequities vanish, no one is going to argue that being a Shiite is a good reason to suicide bomb someone.
Take home message: the violence really has nothing to do with the religion. Whether it’s Protestant Irish, Catholic Columbian Guerrillas, Hindu Tamil rebels (or are they Buddhist? Anyway …), or aethistic Marxist revolutionaries, the problem is not the religion. It’s about being human in an unfair world.
If Mormons were a categorically impoverished and persecuted people, a similar cartoon about Joseph Smith would provoke the same violent reaction among elements of our membership. The reason we don’t burn embassies is that we don’t really feel that disadvantaged, on the whole.
LDS Patriot,
I you are going to insist that D-Train respond to comment #6, then I insist that you respond to comment #7. Until then, I shall have no further doings with you!!!
D-Train, after looking at his links I do have to say that Pipes has a doctorate in history from Harvard and has published a fair amount. I’m not saying he’s right but he appears to be an expert that disagrees with most experts.
As an attorney who has dealt with experts it is difficult to rely on expert testimony or assertions because you can almost always find an expert to support your position.
Anyway, I must admit on my mission I was given an anti book that made my blood boil because of the half-truths and bold faced lies that a non-member could not understand. Probably most members wouldn’t understand many of the assertions. The point is I would like to have punched the author in the nose, hopefully I wouldn’t have, but I can see how sacrilege can inspire so much anger.
Clark,
In your haste to wow over my comparison of radical islam in comparing their protest to Christ’s protest in the temple court, you failed to comment on the comparison, which was the jist of the comment. It seems you don’t realy want to talk to me, but rather show others how shocked you are that I would support burning embassies and trying to kill people (which I never actually stated support for).
Geoff,
You flatter yourself. You assume that I am at a stage of evolution that you have passed thru 20 years ago and will grow out of as my reading becomes broader and I gain more experience as you have.
I don’t think that your path is going to be the same as my path. In the first place, we are not that far apart in age. I am 38 years old and have been studying these topics since my college days. The more I have studied, the more I lean to the left. You assume I will have my views changed by some experience in my future, which possibility I cannot rule out.
You have experiences which have led you to the point you are at now. You have read things and have seen things that have influenced you and I respect that. However, others, who have lived in the same places and gone thru the same experiences see things totally differently. How can I take your experiences and assertions to be the absolute gospel truth when others speak of the same incidents in different terms?
For example, I know a physician who came to interview for the department head of the place I work. He works currently at Harvard and is a native Columbian. As we ate lunch I asked him what he thought of Chavez. He told me he thought he was a big mouth and not good for the region etc. I told him I thought highly of Chavez etc. He said he used to think like me, and fought for the rights of the poor in Columbia. He changed though. He thought he couldn’t live the life of relative comfort he was going to live with his education and still spend time trying to help the poor. He thought he would be guilty of hypocrisy as he milked the system and then fought against the system for those who couldn’t get at the teats.
He then told me how he was a part of the military in Columbia and used to have the job of going thru poor villages after the military had perfomed a massacre there, and deposit guns on the ground and break the bones of the dead etc. to make it appear as if there had been a significant fight between coca growers and the military or paramilitary, when in fact it was simply a massacre of unarmed peasants that had taken place. He said he often participated in this type of activity and is tortured by it to this day, but it appears he has sold his soul to the devil and cannot return.
As another Julie pointed out, I have not lost the fire of what I stood for back in my youth (I’m still young though) while many have and cease to stand up for the ideals they once held. I am not saying that this is the case with you. I believe you to be a sincere individual but I cannot agree with your viewpoints. You can look forward to my evolution but I think you will be disappointed.
Heli #36
Thank you for thoughtfully replying to the scenario I put out. I agree with you entirely. I wish that the love your enemy policy was embraced by all peoples. What a different world this would be.
However, love your enemy seems to be superceded at times by zealous defense of one’s god or sacred beliefs. Recall that Joseph F. Smith once met a man that was in Carthage when the prophet was assassinated. He was apparently about to murder the man right there until the man showed that he did not share the sentiments of the mob and enemies of the prophet. His hand was upon the knife in his pocket as I recall, ready to use it. Would this have been righteousness? I’ll leave that to God to decide, but it does seem that there was a strong sentiment of taking possible vengeance against the USA for allowing the death of the prophet early in the Utah era of the Church.
Curtis,
There is a big difference between the USA and a man in the mob, this man claimed not to be in the mob. But if he had been a party to murder, which was the intent of the mob the killed the prophet I think you would not be guilty of shedding innocent blood. I’m not saying it would be right.
I’m also not saying the USA and more particularly the state governments do not share responsibility for the death of Joseph Smith, but certainly not those in power today. I don’t believe we can or should bear the burdens of the past. That is one of the reasons statutes of limitations are so important. After enough time has passed we need to get on with life instead of trying to remedy wrongs that occurred too long ago. Though if someone stole from me the statute should be extended.
I am a big proponent of cooperation theory and I belive cooperation is the reason the West has excelled while the rest of the world did not move forward as quickly.
I think everyone should keep in mind that those on the bloggernacle live in relative ease and comfort compared to the rest of the world. Sensitivity, mercy, and measured reactions are a luxury we can afford because we live on the foundation laid by others whose actions were anything but merciful, sensitive, and measured.
Our “enlightened society” is possible because of past firebrands, radicals, and madmen. It’s not necessarily fair to act superior simply because other people haven’t acheived in the last twenty years, what the USA has acheived in over 200 years.
Hear, hear, Seth! (as always)
Seth,
All these other countries have been around for the same last 200 years and most of them for thousands of years. Who was acting superior? I was simply sharing my perspective on the success the West has enjoyed. The West didn’t have a monopoly on resources or knowledge or organization. I know its not over, we may self destruct as Rome did and every other empire, some argue the West can’t be classified as an empire because there are too many chiefs. The West is no longer the Napoleanic or British Empire or the German Reich or the Spanish territories but a conflation of European-American power centers.
And in this “age of enlightenment” where we no longer practice imperialism the West leads still in cooperation. Today China is growing faster than ever because to a large degree they have joined the cooperative economy. Earlier with closed borders and isolationism China was not doing relatively well.
Oh and Seth, I know it sounds naive, but I believe the West is successful inspite of firebrands, radicals, and madmen. These types are involved in every society, not just the reletively more successful ones.
I think that Jonathan Rauch put my sentiments best in his widely read article “In Defense of Prejudice.” I recommend that anybody of either side of this divide read it.
Curtis, if I misinterpreted you I apologize. However might I suggest that this might well be a problem with the analogy you raised? If you only meant to highlight commitment it certainly wasn’t communicated…
The problem is that the kind of commitment that would allow people to do what they did seems quite bad. It is, to me, an example of commitment “looking beyond the mark.”
The next two posts are my e-mail to Daniel C. Peterson, Ph.D., Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, Editor-in-Chief, Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, and his response.
Brother Peterson:
First, I want to personally thank you for all your efforts at FAIR. I think your posts would make an excellent book for all aspiring apologist. Again, ThankYouVeryMuch!
Because of your expertise in Islam and the Middle East, I would like your professional opinion of Dr. Daniel Pipes. Do you consider Dr. Pipes’s to be an expert and a scholar on the Middle East and Islam? In other words, is he someone I can trust and rely on to tell it like it is, or is he simply an anti-Muslim? I’ve been reading his websites for a few years now and find him to be level headed, scholarly, and well versed in the areas of Militant Islam, Arab-Israel conflict, Syria, and American Muslims.
I ask this because some LDS believe the following about Dr. Pipes: “Daniel Pipes is a demagogue with absolutely no interest in scholarly debate…writes rubbish…His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate…please choose someone that bothers to read what they write…â€
And because I know what it’s like to have my faith misrepresented, I do not wish to give credence to Dr. Pipes’s work if he is in fact the “Muslim Expert†equivalent of Decker/Tanner et al.
If, in your opinion, Dr. Pipes’s ought not to be taken seriously, then I’d certainly stop citing him as an expert. I sure would like to know whom you would recommend I can put my trust in as it relates to Islam, the Arab-Israel conflict, terrorism, etc.
Thread at Millennial Star where I am discussion concerning the Danish cartoons.
https://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/02/07/the_limits_of_free_speech_free_speech#comments
Daniel Pipes
Director
Middle East Forum
Bio: http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/
Areas of Expertise: Militant Islam, Arab-Israel conflict, Syria, American Muslims
Contact: pipes@meforum.org
http://www.meforum.org/experts.php
http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/
http://www.danielpipes.org/bio.pdf
http://www.meforum.org/
LDS Patriot
http://www.ldspatriot.com
[Note: Brother Peterson gave me permission to copy his e-mail here]
I think highly of him. His father, Richard Pipes, was a famous Sovietologist at Harvard whose writing I admired. He himself earned a Ph.D. At Harvard with a dissertation on the Mamluks of medieval Egypt that became a fine book entitled, as I recall, Slaves on Horseback. He’s a legitimate, well-trained scholar, and very bright.
I confess that I have a bias with regard to Dr. Pipes, since he’s had some nice things to say about me (on the basis, in my view, of insufficient evidence). But, even factoring that in, I think his is a voice that should not be shunned.
I have at least one colleague here at BYU who despises him, too, but then, that colleague and I disagree very, very much on politics, as well. I’ve never found Daniel Pipes to be a demagogue.
He is certainly not an Ed Decker or a Jerald/Sandra Tanner.
Keep reading Daniel Pipes. Another good writer—perhaps the greatest scholar of Islam writing in English—is Bernard Lewis, an Englishman now long retired from Princeton. All of his books are worth reading, but two short relatively recent ones are particularly and directly relevant to the current situation: What Went Wrong? and The Crisis of Islam.
Lewis also catches flak from some of my Islamicist colleagues, at least for his recent and more overtly political writing. But that’s to a large extent because most of my colleagues lean politically left, as do most academics generally. (I do not.) It doesn’t hurt to read some of the more liberal Islamicists too (such as John Esposito), to get various perspectives, but I am not very pleased with the campaign to blacken and marginalize Daniel Pipes. If he’s wrong, that should be demonstrated with evidence and analysis, not by name-calling.
Best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
Dan Peterson
—
Daniel C. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic
Editor-in-Chief, Middle Eastern Texts Initiative
3087 Joseph F. Smith Building
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
Curtis,
I think you have some splaining to do. -Ricky Riccardo
Apparently my read is supported by Dr. Petersen: Dr. Pipes is an expert in the field who simply disagrees with the liberal majority. Again I’m not saying he’s right.
One of my favorite examples of what I was trying to say before is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) where nine Justices decide some of the most important cases that can affect the rest of the country. More often than not the most important decisions come down 5-4 and yet people will then act like anyone who disagrees with SCOTUS is crazy when 4 of the best legal minds in the country disagreed with the decision. In your arguments above you sound like someone who thinks the only reason someone could disagree with you is because they are uninformed. Well Chavez has continued to stir the pot and while some of what he does may be good for his country, his comments about the USA are sure to cause him problems as well as his country.
No matter what you say, you don’t go around insulting the biggest guy on the street. Sooner or later it will come back on you. There also dosen’t seem to be any good reasons for Chavez to burn these bridges of good will. I learned long ago that you never burn bridges because you don’t know when you’ll need them. He could still stand up for his people without seeking this kind of negative attention.
Heli,
I don’t think I said that only the uninformed will disagree with me (although they most often do). I even said that those who have the same information often times turn to completely different directions and left open the possibility that I may change my views some day.
As far as Chavez goes, you don’t know the scenario where the little kid with more guts than he thought, stands up to the big bully and kicks his hind end? He is not the one burning bridges. Bush’s support of his overthrow is the main reason bridges are burning. Of course, it wouldn’t take much studying of the situation to figure that out…
I’ve found it interesting that the media, in covering this story, has chosen to frame the issue as one of:
“freedom of speech” vs. “racist xenophobia”
The idea being that arguments supporting free speech in this instance are countered by charges that Denmark is a rather xenophobic society and is picking on a racial group (Muslims).
The problem is: this isn’t just an issue of race. It’s an issue of religious intolerance. I think any LDS missionary who has served in Western Europe could tell you that those folks have some real issues with religious tolerance.
It might be argued that the objectionable cartoons came just as much from a culture of hatred for serious religious practice, as they did from objections Arabs.
It seems that LDS Patriot has come up with some very interesting evidence that Daniel Pipes is not the wacky demagogue some people are claiming he is. Good job, Patriot!
== For example, their discussion in the FAQ of John Esposito (one of the most respected scholars in the field) constantly conflates “Islamism” with “militant Islam”, even within the same paragraph. They’re just not the same thing.
This is so absurd. The word “Islamism†doesn’t even appear on that FAQ. What we find is “Islamist.†Daniel Pipes has long since made it clear that he uses the word “Islamist†in reference to radical Muslims, but that others often choose to use it differently. The fact is there is no consensus on how the word should be used in scholarship, so to assume a universal application and then to accuse Pipes of “conflation†as a means to attack his credibility, is pretty pathetic.
== His failure to acknowledge an extremely significant body of work studying the resilence of Arab autocracy. A good example of this work is the latest from Marsha Pripstein Posusney.
You have no demonstrated such a “failure†in the first place. You are relying on a snippet from a Mission Statement that cited Martin Kramer’s book. Campus Watch has been online for many years, and you’re going to attack its mission statement for failing to acknowledge a book that was published just last year! And it begs the question that Posusney’s analysis represents the majority of contemporary scholars anyway.
== His failure to acknowledge the diversity of the debate over Palestinian democracy and his inability to understand that, indeed, the PLO represents one of the more democratic governing structures in the Middle East. It isn’t Western democracy, but NOBODY is claiming that it is. Both Pipes and yourself have chosen to argue against a straw man.
Good Lord man, you’re all over the place, and making little or no sense. Pipes has denied there is a true democracy in Palestine? Where has he said this? The main debate about democracy and Islam is that they are incompatible with one another on the fundamental level. Sharia law does not permit a democracy as we know it, and idiot apologists like John Esposito and Voll have made argued that terrorist movements are prime examples of democratic reform!
Here is an excellent article refuting their nonsense written nearly 12 years ago on Pipe’s website: http://www.meforum.org/article/232
These morons are trying to change the definition of democracy in order to include Islamist movements.
== Pipes’ apparent willingness to single out those who disagree with his political beliefs for career punishment and stigmatization.
This is just gibberish. Pipes has provided dozens upon dozens of compelling examples as to what he is doing and why. The fact is MES is a corrupt field of study that is swamped with third-rate professors who are promoting a political agenda, and hold their students accountable when disagreeing. Their tenured status gives them immunity from being reprimanded, and that my friend, is a problem.
== But, I must say, if you want someone watching over our professors, please choose someone that bothers to read what they write.
More gibberish. Pipes is a scholar of high caliber, and it seems the only person failing to understand nuances is yourself. Here is an excellent article from Harvard Magazine, summarizing Pipes’ career: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2300
== When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ conceptual sloppiness in conflating Islamism and militant Islam?
When you demonstrate it is “sloppiness.â€
== When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ failure to perceive a huge body of literature concerning the resilience of Arab autocracy?
When you demonstrate that this was Pipes’ argument to begin with.
== When are you planning on addressing Pipes’ inability to comprehend the diversity of the literature surrounding Palestinian democracy (or the lack thereof)?
When you are willing to demonstrate this to be the case.
== When are you planning on showing that Pipes is something other than an incompetent boob that doesn’t know the literature?
This has been demonstrated over and over. Anyone who dismisses Pipes cannot do so for credibility reasons. They do so out of necessity; they cannot refute his arguments.
== Pipes rakes John Esposito for arguing that Islam is not malicious and that Osama bin Laden is insignificant. In fact, in the book by Esposito that Pipes cites (“The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality” (1992)), Esposito argues that political Islam can be hostile, but does not necessarily have to be.
Oh, but he says far more than that. Read the title of his book and read the last chapter and tell me what his conclusion was. The Islamic threat is a “myth.†That was the purpose of his book. That was the argument forwarded by his mentor Edward Said, and the vast majority of academics had been adopting it ever since. Pipes didn’t buy it, and in the end, was vindicated.
== Indeed, examples such as Egypt demonstrate quite clearly that it is often secular governments that are violent and oppressive and Islamic political organizations that are demanding democracy and open political institutions.
Governments cannot be blamed for Islamic extremism, and that is just another example where Pipes is right and the majority of apologetic professors are wrong.
== In the 1998 Esposito piece that Pipes attacks, Esposito does not claim that Osama is not relevant, but that there are many contributing factors that create terrorism and that focusing solely on Osama will create a flawed policy that does not address all elements of the terrorist question.
Here is what he said: “Focusing on Osama bin Laden, risk[s] catapulting one of the many sources of terrorism to center stage, distorting … the significance of a single individual.”
== In attacking Iraq and in maintaining the offensive there, President Bush in fact accepts Esposito’s argument. Hardly a flaming lefty.
And we all know that Bush is never politically correct, and is an expert in Militant Islam, right? Esposito was advising the Clinton Administration during the 90’s, and his cousel probably had much to do with Clinton’s blasé dismissal of bin Ladin when Pakistani officials called him up and said they could have arrested Osama bin Ladin that same day if Clinton gave them the go ahead. But since, as Esposito suggests, Osama bin Ladin should not be “focused†upon, he was ignored, and 3000 Americans paid for the ignorance of academia.
As far as democracy in Palestine is concerned, Pipes has published numerous articles online that he has written during over the past decade. http://www.danielpipes.org/art/year/all
I suggest reading them in order to understand his position clearly, instead of relying on a snippet from Martin Kramer’s book written many years ago.
== Pipes defines Hamid Dabashi as an extremist because of his statement that people near and dear to him are at the mercy of American foreign policies. The family of a National Guardsman in Kentucky could well say this. Rashid Khaladi is an extremist because he did not support the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
These are oversimplifications of Pipes’ arguments that won’t cut the mustard. Here are nine articles related to Dabashi:
http://www.danielpipes.org/search/?searchtext=Hamid+Dabashi+&submit=Search
Here is a mini-debate between Khalidi and Pipes, and notice the end where Pipes nails him for lying to the public!: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1234
== Pipes proves that Middle East scholars impose their power on others with the example of two students that claim to have been mistreated by faculty. Not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
Absurd. He’s provided dozens upon dozens of examples. Good grief, do you really think the David Horowitz’s campaign(studentsforacademicfreedom.org) and the Campus Watch website have been dangling its existence on two examples? Who do you think you’re kidding?
D-Train, all you’ve done is bad mouth and make bald assertions in a rather pedantic fashion. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction to Pipes, by those who can’t stand the fact that the man is singled out as the only authority from the 90’s who has been proved right by recent history. While the majority of academics were apologizing for Islamic terrorism, ad ridiculing anyone who said there was something to be afraid of, Pipes was sitting back watching as they all made complete fools of themselves.
As Martin Kramer notes (Kramer, Ph.D Princeton, was a student of Bernard Lewis ad is Pipes’ right hand man)
“In the 1990s, as in the 1980s, the academics refused to study those very Muslims whose radical interpretations of Islam put them on a collision course with America. Bin Laden was a case in point. The academics were so preoccupied with “Muslim Martin Luthers” that they never got around to producing a single serious analysis of bin Laden and his indictment of America [Bernard Lewis is the exception]. Bin Laden’s actions, statements, and videos were an embarrassment to academics who had assured Americans that “political Islam” was retreating from confrontation. If they mentioned bin Laden at all, it was to dismiss his influence.â€
Esposito’s embarrassing goof was merely pawned off from Edward Said, who before 9-11, ridiculed, “speculations about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial airliners and poison water supplies.” Such talk is based on “highly exaggerated stereotypes.”( Covering Islam p.11)
As recent history has proven, Esposito and Said essentially hamstringed America by providing erroneous information. One could even make the argument that the timing of Esposito’s book was too coincidental; meaning he may even be attempting to aid the jihad movements. Two months before the most destructive blow in history on the continental US, we’re told to look away from the culprit? What are the chances? But Esposito and Said weren’t the only academians taunting America in its concern about possible terrorism. In March of 2001, only six months before the attacks, Fawaz A. Gerges published an article which derided the genuine American concern for its well being:
“The threat of terrorism has spawned a big industry, and has struck fear and horror in the American psyche…Should not observers and academics keep skeptical about the U.S. government’s assessment of the terrorist threat? To what extent do terrorist “experts” indirectly perpetuate this irrational fear of terrorism by focusing too much on farfetched horrible scenarios? Does the terrorist industry, consciously or unconsciously, exaggerate the nature and degree of the terrorist threat to American citizens?†(Fawaz A. Gerges, “The Ultimate Terrorist: Myth or Reality?” Daily Star (Beirut), March 12, 2001. His book: America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
In answering the question “Why were we surprised by 9-11?”
Schanzer notes that,
“Many authors and scholars of Islam minimized the global threat or simply refused to face reality. Some asserted that the threat was an exaggeration. Others argued that militant Islam was a scapegoat, as America searched for new post-Cold War foes. Some claimed Islamism, the political outgrowth of the movement, was a stepping-stone to democracy. In other words, militant Islam has quietly spawned a new generation of apologists.â€
It seems to me that we would have been better served if we had listened to those who predicted “horrible scenarios” that Gerges considers “farfetched.” Or perhaps Gerges doesn’t consider 9-11 a horrible scenario. His nonsense about a “terrorist industry” and its dismissive implications is a shameful ornament to the monument Saidian literature.
In the aftermath of this disaster, one would probably think accountability has taken hold; that Esposito has been eating crow ever since the attacks, embarrassed as he must be. Recently he was called on his goof and everyone watched him spin his way out of his dilemma by essentially denying he said this: http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42
He should have been fired and perhaps even tried for treason. All of these idiots should have been fired. But only in America could we see the opposite become reality.
He has since been rewarded for having mastered the dogma of political correctness in a time when considerations for multicultural relativism come first. In this instance, being correct is not at all important in academia. The important thing is being politically correct. Esposito has since been lauded by academia as the authority on the Middle-East, having been promoted to sit at the head of Georgetown’s Islamic Dept. and given a generous publishing contract with Oxford University Press. Middle-East Studies in America is showing itself to be more of a political entity, than an organization devoted to providing truth and accurate information. Time after time we saw how Said and Esposito were surprised, “not only by America, where they lived, but by the Middle-East, which they studied. Still the expectations of their academic millieu remained very predictable, and as long as they met them, they remained safe and secure behind its impenetrable defenses.” (Kramer, 52)
One more thing, it seems D-Train is making much ado about nothing with the resilience of Arab autocracy. The point from the website was that MES has failed when it comes to predicting the future of the ME.
http://www.campus-watch.org/about.php
This was referred to by Pipes/Kramer as an “analytical error.” And it obviously was.
Now D-Train wails and moans because Pipes is allegedly unfamiliar with recent scholarship. Well, prove it. Mentioning recent scholarship is beside teh point, which is that academics in the field have an atrocious history of bad predictions.
But his notes that recent scholarship is different from what Pipes suggests,in that turns the former consensus on its head?
Well exactly! History has proved these theories to be false, so academians are compelled to run back to the drawing board and change their positions. How can this be anything but a knock against them and not Pipes who merely points it out?
Poker
Scratch And Win
Hotel
Lotto
Bingo
Red Dog
Dating
Pachinko
Slots
BlackJack
http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/
http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-10-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-12-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-19-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-7-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-3-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-5-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-18-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-9-1-A.html http://www.colonialmedicalsupply.com/CasinoPlayer-14-1-A.html