Nothing Sacred
Paul Goggins went on the Today programme on the day the religious hatred bill was passed in the Lords version not the government’s version, to explain why the bill (particularly, in the government’s version, with the language about ‘recklessness’, instead of the Lords’) was necessary and a good idea. After some pressing he articulated the basic (I take it) point.
Well I accept, Jim, and we always have accepted that there are fine balances to be drawn here, but religious belief is an important part of identity, and the expression of that religious belief is important to many people, and that others should set out intentionally to stir up hatred about those people because of those religious beliefs has no part in our society, so for all the difficulty in getting the balance right we think it’s right to press ahead with this legislation.
That’s it. Religious belief is an important part of identity, and expression of that belief is important to many people (no! really?!?). Therefore stirring up hatred about those people because of those religious beliefs should be made a crime – but stirring up hatred about people because of any other beliefs should not. Because…? The expression of other beliefs is not important to many people? No, that can’t be right, because it’s not true. Because other belief is not ‘an important part of identity’ (whatever that may mean)? No, because that’s not true either. To the extent that ‘identity’ means much of anything in that phrase other than cuddly feelings about oneself, other kinds of belief and other beliefs are also an important part of identity. Religion may be an important part of identity, but you’ll notice Goggins didn’t say it was the most important part of identity, much less the exclusive source of it. So – why are religious beliefs special? Why does their part of ‘identity’ have to be protected if other parts don’t?
Because they’re special? Because they’re sacred? Because they make people go all red in the face with rage and offendedness and outrage and hurt feelings if anyone makes fun of them? Maybe; probably; but there again: why? Why do they make people go all red in the face and self-righteous, and why do so many people think they have every right not only to feel that way, but to demand that the rest of the world join them in feeling that way? Well – because they’re sacred. Oh dear.
I saw a comment yesterday in this article, which Allen Esterson sent me a link to, which included a comment that apparently disappeared when the article was updated. Someone in what is generally (and I think rather patronizingly and communalistically) called ‘the Muslim world’ said that the right to freedom of speech ought to be balanced with – wait for it – the right to protect the sacred. Er – no. That is just exactly the one thing it must not be balanced with, because that is the one thing that would render it null and void. Refusal to ‘protect the sacred’ is the very essence of free speech. And the mindset that thinks great big holy circles need to be drawn around ‘the sacred’ and policed day and night by indignant men with large guns, is a mindset that if left unchecked will suck all our brains out and leave us like pod people.
Rowan Atkinson answered what Goggins said on the same ‘Today.’
You can’t draft a piece of legislation with the intention of just picking off a few nasty people, because the very nature of law is that it applies to us all. And there’s absolutely no doubt that this bill is seeking to provide immunity from criticism and ridicule to religious beliefs, and I’m a great believer that you should be able to say whatever you like about religious beliefs and practices, and if the practitioners and believers are caught in the crossfire, then they just have to accept that. If the exposure of hateful or ridiculous religious practices is there and is done, then the religion’s followers are just going to have to accept responsibility for those things.
That’s a big problem with this whole idea right there. What Goggins said would seem to imply that religion is the first thing that should be protected and given immunity, but in fact it’s the last thing that should. Religion is in need of constant vigilance and interrogation and steady unrelenting pressure, so that maybe someday in some other happier time, it will stop being a source of misery and deprivation and oppression for so damn many people, especially women. So bring on criticism, mockery, cartoons, robust discussion, and whatever else it takes.
OB, That stupid law would never fly here in the US, and not because of the pesky 1st Amendment, but because religionists in this country need their victim-hood for fundraising.
Yeah, but think how much pleasure they would get from locking all of us up.
I’ve just been watching Dawkins’s show, and I’m still feeling queasy from that Haggard guy. Man, he’s sickening. “But please, don’t be arrogant.” Urrrrgggghh.
Oh, wow, did we get ours simultaneously? Of course, yours is autographed, isn’t it? Well, I could have had mine on Sunday, if I’d specifically reminded the friend who got it to bring it along last time I saw him… (I was reminded of Alistair Cooke getting his recordings of “Anything Goes” from Wallis Simpson one dark night; the American recordings had been suppressed in England until the London production opened. I don’t think there’s going to be an American production of “Root of all Evil” – not even as a musical.)
Incredible how Haggard, who’s clearly younger than Dawkins, lectures him in that “you’ll see when you grow up” tone. My button-pusher moment was when Haggard wouldn’t let the crowd off the hook till it had repeated his words. The 66 miracles of Lourdes, including no re-grown limbs, among all the millions of visitors, was a nice touch.
1. Yeah, they would get a kick out of imprisoning their critics, but I still think their greatest asset is their proclaimed persecution. For the Chrisians, imaginary torment makes them more like Jesus. And, it’s more tv friendly than stigmata.
2. Lucky. I have not seen it yet.
Tonight on PBS’s NewsHour, an anti-cartoon (named Ahmed Unis) defended the violent reaction to the comic pretty much said Islam respects freedom of all faiths, but that the traditions of Islam
trump those of all other cultures. How about that for arrogant?
I absolutely loved the comment by the France Soir owner as he fired the managing editor: he did it “as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual.” Right — every individual except their own managing editor.
The cartoon publishing issue is really tearing this Western/Islamic culture difference issue wide open — the most serious case since the Rushdie fatwah. A tiny part of this Yank’s soul, to be frank, is feeling just a little Schadenfreude, since even though some U.S. papers have also reprinted the cartoons, there doesn’t seem to be much outrage from U.S. Muslims. (Though Wikipedia, unfortunately, seems to be taking it on the chin. But then, it seems that they are continually being kicked in their can, so I suppose they are used to it by now.)
There seems to be no end to at least some Muslims’ ability to become outraged at “disrespect” to their beliefs by unbelievers. But I don’t get much of a clear idea of how widespread this actually is in the Islamic world. Is it just a relatively few very thin-skinned and vocal individuals (as is the case with similar highly-offended Christians), or is it really a big issue for a large number of Muslims?
On the question of religion and identity, I’d like to make the following small point…
Religion is a major component of devotees identity, from the point of view of the devotees. People who hate some devotees for other reasons, in particular out of racism, can disguise a racist verbal attack by using words relating to the devotees’ religion. Racism has a long history now of using “code words” as a sort of disguise, as society has made overt racism unacceptable.
I think concern about this motivated the bill’s instigators, but it speaks eloquently about the difficulty of such an undertaking that one of the bill’s backers can say something as silly as “that others should set out intentionally to stir up hatred about those people because of those religious beliefs has no part in our society” while not noticing that the bill would have been used mostly to stop attacks on the beliefs themselves, not on the believers.
And if those were cartoons about Jews?
Do you mean if the Danish paper last September had published antisemitic cartoons, or in general? Because if you mean in general, there’s never been a shortage, in which case I don’t get your question. And there are always Jewish protests, but the Islamic reaction when sacred cows are touched is simply much more extreme than the way most other groups react when they are offended, or am I the only one who thinks so?
If you mean specifically the Danish paper, if I remember rightly, it happened the way it did because the author of a book for children about Islam kept getting rejections from illustrators who cited their fear of reprisals a la Theo van Gogh. Had a similar situation arisen in a Jewish context, the paper may very well have run cartoons mocking Jewish sacred cows. But that wasn’t the case.
The question raised is not just one about free speech in a free society, but also about the role of the press in such a society. If an editor learns that fear has grown to the point that it’s affecting the illustration of books for children, is it wrong of him to think there is something so wrong here that it has to be addressed? Should he have written an editorial everyone could politely ignore, or, by doing what he did and (I suspect) surprising many people with the disproportionate response, has he alerted the world to the size of the problem it faces? Is it inappropriate to ask which is the greater problem: one newspaper editor considered by some to be insufficiently sensitive or a religion prepared to encourage mortal violence in massive doses over the insensitivity of that one editor? If you compare this with “Satanic Verses,” it seems to me the situation is much worse. The targeting was then limited to those somehow involved in the work in question and was motivated by a single clear directive. This time around, it looks like a general “aleihum” (or “aleyhom” – your basic “fall upon them and destroy them utterly” cry in Arabic) directed at ever-widening swathes of the generic West. That’s not my idea of an improvement.
PM: can you describe the equivalent cartoons about Jews? Obviously one’s attitude to any cartoon depends on its contents. But one big thing being objected to by the protesting Muslims is the mere representation of Muhammed in ANY form, let alone in a derogatory manner. How can Westerners accept such a viewpoint? I doubt if cartoons of Muhammed are as offensive to Muslims as the Muslim demotion of Jesus from divinity to prophethood is to Christians. If Muslims can say to non-Muslims “hands off Muhammed” then surely Christians can retort “hands off Jesus” ?
I assume a similar Jewish- based cartoon would have a crack at Moses rather than Mohammed.
What I find disturbing is that this is the moment that the BNP has emerged with the court case against Nick Griffin and the other activist (whose name I can’t remember). Naturally he claimed that he was simply criticising Islam and so was acquitted. We all know that he was stirring up *racial* hatred but in this case there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
This is dangerous as it provides an excellent weapon against anyone who wants to criticise religion. They can imply that anyone who criticises ISlam must be associated with the BNP.
I am afraid that this will result in generally liberal minded people being tarred as nazis while the real fascists in HIzb ut Tahrir get off scot- free.
“Oh, wow, did we get ours simultaneously? Of course, yours is autographed, isn’t it?”
No, but it took me awhile to gain access to a DVD player. And no, alas, mine isn’t autographed. But that’s okay! Plenty complimentary enough that he sent it at all.
Exactly, about Haggard lecturing. That sneering bit about ‘oh if you’d met all the people I have and read all the books I have, you’d be wonderful like me’ – oh please! First he mouths off about the difficulty of believing the eye sort of designed itself somehow, and then when Dawkins points out he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, out comes that dishonest whining crap.
I suspect one of the less dishonest reasons people think they can argue for privilege for religious belief–and equate it thereby with presumably ‘innate’ characteristics which people do more generally frown upon insulting–is in fact that they do tend to think of it as innate. Which is a tacit admission of something: that for a lot of people, it very nearly is. They don’t choose it: they’re born to it. You can argue they choose it every day thereafter that they choose not to call it all codswallop, but in cultures in which doing so is made very difficult–either dangerous or illegal or just very unlikely because the prevailing intellectual atmosphere is such that they’re just never going to hear skeptical voices, I think it’s fair to say if it’s really a choice, it’s a choice they make under heavy duress
None of which, of course, argues against mockery. Ribald, if possible. Outrageous, if it can be managed. At every opportunity. At top volume. In cartoons. On editorial pages. On billboards. In skywriting. With leaflets. Wherever. As OB says: it’s exactly what the world needs.
“can you describe the equivalent cartoons about Jews? Obviously one’s attitude to any cartoon depends on its contents. But one big thing being objected to by the protesting Muslims is the mere representation of Muhammed in ANY form, let alone in a derogatory manner.”
But why was it these cartoons that got them riled up, rather than the myriad representations of Mohammed? Because the manner (in some, many were pretty innocuous) was so derogatory, and, some seem intended to make a statement about Muslims or Islam in general.
But to get on to the Jewish thing. I dunno, how about Moses leading his people into the promised land, and shelling a Palestinian refugee camp to clear the way? Or something involving a religious figure and pork, I don’t know, I’m not very good at this sort of thing. My point was much more that people here get particularly exercised about Islam, but I doubt they’d be so in favour of free speech if the situation involved cartoons obviously intended to have a go at Jews. And broadening it, I doubt the reception for anti-Christian things would be quite so enthusiastically embraced throughout Europe either. We don’t like Muslims in Europe at the moment, and Denmark is not the most enlightened country in this regard either.
But PM, for one thing, your question implies that the cartoons were “about Muslims”, which is highly dubious, and for another thing, as is well known, comparing “Jews” and “Muslims” is very tricky, because the first term combines ethnic and religious and the second doesn’t.
You mix terms yourself.
“My point was much more that people here get particularly exercised about Islam, but I doubt they’d be so in favour of free speech if the situation involved cartoons obviously intended to have a go at Jews.”
But getting exercised about Islam is not the same thing as getting exercised about Muslims, and by the same token, having ‘a go at Jews’ is not the same thing as having a go at Judaism. This is a pervasive confusion of terms, sometimes deliberate and sometimes just plain confused, that fuels a lot of pointless rage and muddle – the confusion between a religion or belief-system, and the people who subscribe to it. Criticizing Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam is not equivalent to attacking believers in any of those – and claiming it is is being used by a lot of people as a very strong and coercive silencing device. It’s really not a good idea to fall into that trap. People just don’t get to say ‘You may not dispute my beliefs because by disputing my beliefs you attack Me and My Identity.’ That would just put an end to all rational thought.
“how about Moses leading his people into the promised land, and shelling a Palestinian refugee camp to clear the way?”
Which demands some questions be asked: would Jews be as offended by such a cartoon as Muslims are in the present case? And would they react as violently? Of course not.
And: there are plenty of racist anti-Jewish cartoons floating around and you will find them in the Arab press, as a matter of routine. People so easily moved to violence when offended should not be so appallingly offensive themselves.
“And would they react as violently? Of course not.”
And therefore Jews are better than Muslims?
Seriously, what is your point? I was saying that people wouldn’t be so keen to back the free speech of people peddling ones about Jews. Obviously the reaction is barking, but it wasn’t my point.
“But PM, for one thing, your question implies that the cartoons were “about Muslims””
Well I think some of them were. Particularly the whole Mohammed and the bomb thing. They were certainly self-consciously aimed at Muslims specifically, rather than being about Islam in general.
“But getting exercised about Islam is not the same thing as getting exercised about Muslims, and by the same token, having ‘a go at Jews’ is not the same thing as having a go at Judaism.”
Well in this case it is the same – Europeans don’t like Muslims, in fact, I’d say they don’t like Islam -because- they don’t like Muslims, rather than the other way around.
As to the Jewish/Judaism distinction, it is actualy a lot harder than you’d think to get people to recognise that difference. I bet many readers of my hypothetical cartoon wouldn’t take it as a purely religious statement.
“They were certainly self-consciously aimed at Muslims specifically, rather than being about Islam in general.”
But there’s no certainly about it – that’s just it.
Well they explicitly did it to provoke Muslims – that was the point. But ones like mohammed and the women with the Burkhas, and arguably the bomb one, seem to be having a go at Muslims in general.
I can’t speak for any of the cartoonists, but so much violence has recently been committed by those claiming to act in the name of Islam that they have given their religion a very bad name indeed. It’s the responsibility of those claiming to represent a non-violent Islam to correct this impression, not of anyone in the West. And if someone thinks covering women up from head to toe whether they agree or not is a very bad idea and they want to express their criticism of this practice and their profession happens to be cartoonist? I don’t see how the “provocation” argument can be made without curtailing some freedom.
Is this a partial answer to points raised above? Two questions: a) So the Jews were behind the Danish cartoons, were they?; b) Where are the Jewish mobs killing people in response?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/679391.html
The Arab European League rather answered their own question, and in the negative.
But it isn’t a partial answer to the points above because, as yet, I haven’t see any Western newspapers running the cartoons to defend the right to free speech (although I did see the Anne Frank one on Newsnight). Nor are people here gleeful that it has upset the ‘Netherlands’ Center for Information and Documentation’
I’ve seen the Danish cartoons more, presumably because they’re the main story – the ones causing the violence – but I’ve also seen the antisemitic ones around. In the absence of a physically violent Jewish reaction to the antisemitic ones, I see no point in running them solely for the sake of free speech. That whole issue only arises when there’s an attempt to use violence to repress them, which is the case with the Danish cartoons. I hope this doesn’t seem one-sided to you (it isn’t intended to be; I’m not more pro-Jewish than pro-Muslim, or pro-Christian, for that matter – I’m “non of the above”), but to run antisemitic cartoons to make a point about free speech seems to me not singularly offensive, but singularly pointless. Mainly because there is such a rich tradition of it having been done. That it is no longer being done in non-Muslim countries to the extent that it used to be done in “Der Stuermer” is a bit of a relief, but there was plenty of it before Julius Streicher and there has been plenty since. Under the circumstances, there’s no need to run them as a counter test case just because the Muslims are now rioting; they’ve been running in various forms all the time and, as I said before, there haven’t been physically violent Jewish reactions. Not that there isn’t or has never been Jewish violence quite separate from any actions carried out by Israel and its military. But if you look at it you’ll find that what caused it was, putting it mildly, not a few antisemitic cartoons.
“they’ve been running in various forms all the time and, as I said before, there haven’t been physically violent Jewish reactions.”
Does the fact that they are probably illegal in many European countries not also contribute to the lack of Jewish violence/outrage?
Also, maybe I’m not following this too well, but exactly how much violence are we talking here?
“In the absence of a physically violent Jewish reaction to the antisemitic ones, I see no point in running them solely for the sake of free speech”
According to the Guardian’s roundup, apart from a few death threats to three of the artists, very little happened after the publication of these cartoons. You might think that is bad but it certainly parallels responses of christians to Jerry Springer the Opera, and is less than that confronting Behzti.
Then it was printed again by the Norwegian christian paper, pissing off Libya and Saudi. The Danish PM apoligised for the offence, as did Jyllands-Posten. In response to this the images were published across Europe by ‘rightwing’ papers to stand up for free speech.
So I think the whole situation is a bit more complex than it is sometimes painted. So, with our hypothetical Jewish example, we still need to publish it on front pages across Europe to see what effect that has (I’m sure it wouldn’t be as bad but I reckon we could get the Israelis to withdraw their ambassadors and get some marches going). The only point I was trying to make is that this is not just a question of free speech. The motives of many involved are more sinister than that. Which makes the Muslim response also difficult to untangle – we can’t just pretend they are only objecting to the depiction of Mohammed, they are also responding to the deliberate provocation.
“Well they explicitly did it to provoke Muslims “..
I thought originally it was done to fight the sort of self-censorship that threats of violence from extreme Muslims causes, for example against Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh. Where we have a situation that there is extreme provocation against Christian sensibilities by Western artists who would never offend Muslims.
“And would they react as violently? Of course not.”
And therefore Jews are better than Muslims?”
No, I do not judge one person against another. But I do judge the behaviour of these Muslims as being far worse than that of Jews faced with the sort of hateful cartoons printed routinely in the Arab press. Those cartoons are far far worse to Jews than the ones so exercising these Muslims. And yet the Jewish reaction is so much more reasonable. That’s my point: these nutters are complete hypocrites.
“we can’t just pretend they are only objecting to the depiction of Mohammed, they are also responding to the deliberate provocation.”
Who’s pretending? That’s what the protesters themselves say. Haven’t you listened to any of them? It is the depiction of Mohammed, the insult to Islam, the blasphemy, that they talk about. You are making a false analogy between anti-Semitism and mockery of Mohammed. The two are not the same, and not parallel; all you’re doing is muddying the waters. There’s something very irritating about that – I suppose because it seems evasive and dishonest. If you want to argue against the cartoons, do it in terms of what they really are, not what they aren’t.
In order:
I don’t know which countries outside Germany and Austria actually have it on the books, but I’m only familiar with the crime of denying the Holocaust and displaying the swastika (both, obviously, only in public). Also the party itself is banned, but everyone has always known which one is the closest legal equivalent. If you voted NPD in Germany last election, it’s understood you voted Nazi. Everyone also knows they’re antisemitic, even though the word “Jew” appears not even once on their entire website. It can easily be argued that showing Hitler in bed with Anne Frank is not a denial of anything and you could probably worm your way out of interpreting the Spielberg/Jackson cartoon that way, as well. I haven’t managed to see the Olmert one. It is understandably, in light of what happened, very not done to be openly antisemitic in the German-speaking countries, but I don’t think you get thrown in jail for not liking Jews. One thing I don’t get. You seem to be angling at the reason for less Jewish violence being less anti-Jewish sentiment being legal, rather than that Jewish response is not the same as what we’re seeing from the Muslims right now. Can you back that up in any way?
By violence, I was referring to the reported death toll of five so far.
With your hypothetical case, why limit it to Jews or Israelis (another knotty disentanglement problem in some cases)? I have a suggestion for a test that would be as fair as we can reasonably make it. Let us establish, numerically, what the largest religions in the world are. It’d probably get out of control if we went over the dozen mark, but I’m flexible if you are. Having done that, let us establish one most sacred and unassailable tenet of each and, having done that, lampoon it mercilessly in a cartoon or series of cartoons on the front pages of the highest-circulation newspapers in the, let’s say, hundred most populous countries on earth. I’m amenable to changes in this recipe, but wouldn’t you agree it’s way fairer than only Muslims, with Jews as the only alternative test case? Maybe this sounds to you too much like an “all or nothing” approach, but I don’t think we have the right to dictate “nothing” either worldwide or anywhere, so let’s do everyone.
Nearer to the knuckle, if selectivity of any kind is practiced, I’m interested in knowing the reasons for it. I know the reasons in the current case. Three illustrators turned down a job out of fear of a specifically Muslim reaction, so a test case was made. The reaction became extreme and a number of papers decided to express their solidarity by following suit (only, though, after the reactions had become extreme; not immediately, gratuitously and for fun back in September – it was a brave reaction to threat, not a chance to insult Muslims, which they could have done any time). Now the Muslim side has dragged the Jewish/Israeli side into it. I see no reason to believe Khameini’s assertion that the Jews were behind the Danish cartoons, therefore I also see no reason to drag the Jews or Israelis into it at all. And if anyone not under Khameini’s sway does, I ask myself why.
Maybe a much simpler answer to PM’s points, also to Jack Straw and the US State Dept., among others, is that there is no law telling anyone to be fair in their likes and dislikes. There are laws limiting how we may express our dislikes. End of story. You either have a certain right under the law or you don’t. Some of those you do may have legal limits placed on them. But where those legal limits are not in place, anyone may protest by legal means, but government is out of place saying you shouldn’t exercise your right. Why is it that when planes are flown into buildings and 3,000 people die, some urge the West to search its collective soul to understand what it did to bring this upon itself, but when Mohammed is drawn with a bomb for a turban, it isn’t the same people telling Islam to search its soul to understand why it should have brought such a cruel and unusual punishment upon itself? I’ll repeat a bit of that for clarity: not why the second question isn’t asked, but why it isn’t the same people asking it as ask the first question?
I think I’ll give up on this thread so I’ll just make a couple of points:
“Maybe a much simpler answer to PM’s points, also to Jack Straw and the US State Dept., among others, is that there is no law telling anyone to be fair in their likes and dislikes”
Have I ever said that I wanted to ban this? No. I was just somewhat unhappy with the strange glee that accompanied some of the comments, e.g. “My only hope is that more newspapres…publish the cartoons, and some extras…the pig-lovers…make such a good target.” And wondered how you’d all react if it was about a religion that tends not to be so villified here [an interesting corollary would be the converse amongst far-leftists]. Anything else is just projection.
“I also see no reason to drag the Jews or Israelis into it at all. And if anyone not under Khameini’s sway does, I ask myself why.”
Because Jews are a religious group that Europeans have an unsavoury history of killing off. We have snsitivities about anti-Semitism and perceived anti-Semitism. Therefore they provided a nice example of cartoons about another religion. That’s why I mentioned them.
“You are making a false analogy between anti-Semitism and mockery of Mohammed”
No I’m not. I was making an analogy between anti-Islamic talk motivated by a fear/hatred of Muslims as a quasi-ethnic group and anti-Judaic talk motivated by anti-Semitism. Surely the Judaism/refugee camp allusion is exactly comparable to the Islam/terrorism one. Then Stewart mentioned the Arab European League cartoon about Anne Frank and Hitler – which got us talking about that (anyone else noticed how Holocaust denial in the Muslim world appears to be premised on a tacit acceptance that it did happen to give the offensive effect?).
“Having done that, let us establish one most sacred and unassailable tenet of each and, having done that, lampoon it mercilessly in a cartoon or series of cartoons on the front pages”
Behzti and Jerry Springer made nice real world examples don’t you think?
“Pig lovers” – well that’s Tingey. He says things like that (and I wish he wouldn’t) and I often delete or edit them. But I don’t bother crafting whole long arguments based on them; it seems pointless. Is your argument basically aimed at Tingey? Because if so, it just seems a waste of typing. I took it to be aimed at what I’ve been saying.
“Because Jews are a religious group that Europeans have an unsavoury history of killing off.”
Religious but also ethnic – in the sense for instance that Jewish atheists and Jewish Christians were every bit as subject to Nazi genocide as observant Jews. That confuses the whole subject terribly, so that these analogies don’t work properly.
“I was making an analogy between anti-Islamic talk motivated by a fear/hatred of Muslims as a quasi-ethnic group and anti-Judaic talk motivated by anti-Semitism”
But Muslims aren’t an ethnic group, quasi or otherwise. And the first part of your post talks about Jews as a religious group, and the next part talks about them as an ethnic group. You can’t just flip back and forth between the two in that casual way while defending the validity of your analogy!
This whole thing is just a sloppy mess, frankly. For all I know you have a real point, but it’s so buried in the sloppiness that I can’t tell.
“But Muslims aren’t an ethnic group, quasi or otherwise. And the first part of your post talks about Jews as a religious group, and the next part talks about them as an ethnic group. You can’t just flip back and forth between the two in that casual way while defending the validity of your analogy!”
That post just then? That’s the whole point, that you can be ostensibly having a go at the religion when what you’re really after doing is being a racist. Which is a point Paul Power made right at the top of the thread, I was just trying to draw out the ramifications in relation to this situation. But as I say, I give up. I know not to go anywhere near ‘Islamophobia’ in debate here, or Jews anywhere.
PM,
I said I wouldn’t, but…
It’s a stupid complication of the world we’re saddled with, but it’s a fact that Islam is not the monopoly of any one race, nor does belonging to any race automatically make you a Muslim. It’s also a fact that complete atheists have been killed because they were determined to be “racially” Jewish, as have converts to the religion with no Jewish background in their families. I didn’t make these rules. The Nazis made some of them, but the point is these things happened and you can’t stop echoes from reverberating for quite a while after events take place on that scale.
It is undeniable that there are those who might use a religious descriptor as a cover for their racism. That doesn’t mean any of us have to go along with their perversions of terminology. We do have the option of sticking with the differentiation between characteristics one has from birth and ideas or beliefs that should be able to take care of themselves, if they are robust enough to do so.