What is this, High Noon?
I was going to ignore it, but no one else is, so I’ll just say…I too dissent. I disagree with most of Bloody Fools.
Especially items like
As to Myers, despite the development of a blasphemy fan club and admiration for the cowardly use of free expression rights in the safe haven of Morris, Minnesota, the only serious “threat” came from Catholic League president Bill Donahue.
The cowardly use of free expression rights? I can’t even begin to make sense of that. I must do the same thing myself every day, nearly every hour. I’m not likely to be murdered for saying what I think here in Seattle, so I’m cowardly for saying it?
No; I don’t understand, and what I do understand I don’t like. I don’t like the theme of atheist-bashing.
All cowards are they? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think we have to be under a death threat to earn the right to say what we think without being called cowards.
How can one become any more cowardly than acting as an apologist for murderers?
Let me open the floodgate: I have no idea how brave Myers, McDonald and Coyne are. What have done to deserve the label? I don’t know how much time they have spent in the Middle East or Pakistan, or how well they know the Islamic world. But judging by their rhetoric, not very well at all. That is why it’s so easy for them, I suspect, to respond with Pavlovian predictability everytime the word “Islam” is used.
What do you know? He does hold Karzai responsible. Somewhat. He says that in his comments. Marvelous!
I don’t get why the anti-defamation crowd doesn’t get that prosecuting people for indirectly causing something, even if they are warned, isn’t a road you want to go down. Once we start the tribunals, where do they stop?
Karzai arguably deserves just as much indirect blame as Pastor Jones. The media that reported on the story at all is also indirectly responsible for the deaths and so is the merchant that sold Pastor Jones a Koran in the first place. Even the simple act of not doing everything you can to stop the event makes you indirectly responsible. That’s right, you are indirectly responsible as well, random reader.
Surely if we start down this road, one of the first consequences will be a chilling effect in the media on reporting anything that might anger people.
@2 : None of them make any claims to being brave. Doesn’t make them cowards either.
BTW, I note that you “moderated” my comment out of existence on your post, Hoffmann. I hope you at least read it.
I can only assume Hoffmann deleted my comment because I called him a prick and explained my reasoning; Hoffmann publicly called for the prosecution of an innocent man for murder.
Weigh that if you will: name calling vs. a public call for stripping an individual of any and all freedom and stripping a nation of freedom of speech in the process.
I disagreed with the idea of PZ’s descration of a cracker, because it seemed not to be targetted at the Catholics who were causing trouble at the time. But when I saw the practice of it, I thought it a magnificent gesture, done with wit and style. It was not done in the face of threats of violence to others. It was a rather wonderful, I thought.
Is Hoffman serious here? Accusing Myers, Coyne and Eric of reflexive islamophobia? Because they haven’t spent any time hanging around Lahore or wasted it studying divinity?
The islamic world? Like the very soil and water in these lands are infused with the essence of allah and have always been so? Like there are no other peoples or ideas or monuments or objects other than muslim ones that exist there?
Looks like freedom of expression is going the way the right to privacy did during the early Bush years. I hope these people are proud of themselves.
Let me get this straight. Hoffman has big cojones, therefore he wins the internets? Or is it that PZ, et al don’t have big cojones and therefore their puny metaphorical endowments mean they loose the internets? Seems like an ad-hom. If PZ’s arguments work, they work. Hoffman can’t dismiss him because he didn’t go to Lahore and make them there.
I’m very confused by this… if one has not done enough to “deserve the label” of “brave” then one is by necessity “cowardly”? Are all people similarly divided into “tall” and “short” with nothing in between?
FWIW, I don’t think it was “brave” of PZ to stab the cracker. I think it was pretty awesome, and made a point very effectively, but you are right, it didn’t really take some great act of courage to do it. By your definition that makes it “cowardly”? Is that what I’m reading here?
I just pick up and played with the pen in front of me on my desk as I was considering what to type next. Certainly that did not require an act of bravery on my part. Would R.J, Hoffman then write of me, “As James cowardly twiddled the pen between his thumb and forefinger…” :p
By the way, I’m 5’9″. The median height for a man in the US of my age is 5′ 9 1/2″. Are you calling me short, Hoffman? I resent that…
You are a nasty piece of work, Hoffman. You’ve made ethically outrageous comparisons between actual bigots and those who stand up for secular rights you putatively support, and you’ve been dishonest and vicious about it. You’re also pompous, you’re on a hair-trigger for anyone you perceive to be treading on your academic turf, you disappear legitimate comments from people because you find them inconvenient, then you magic away errors in your own article without acknowledging them.
I don’t know what your problem is, but you’ve got your moral compass spun around so hard it looks beyond repair. Why anyone in the secular/atheist community would want any part of you is a mystery to me.
@#2 Hoffman
Again with the “standing” issue.
Seriously, you’re saying that unless someone is specifically and physically involved in an issue that they have no right to comment on it or have an opinion about it? Without being a “coward”?
Bullshit. That’s just as bad reasoning as someone saying that we can’t comment on atheism until we’ve studied the 17th century history of atheism (a short history, to be sure, because many professed atheists were summarily executed).
You’re saying, by implication, that because we haven’t been murdered, that we have no right to agree that murder is harmful.
Islamaphobia? Sure, I’m afraid of Islam. Islam is a religion of hate — one that brings adherents out of the mosques in droves to riot and burn and murder merely because someone burned pages of a book or drew a bad cartoon. What’s not to be afraid of? It’s a violent, repressive religion that should be opposed on every front. Would I say so in Lahore? Absolutely not. I have no death wish, no need to prove my bravery … to be crude about it, this isn’t a dick-measuring contest.
I’m also Christophobic. And Hinduphobic. And Taophobic. And Buddhaphobic. And $cientolophobic. And Mormonophobic…and on and on. Religion promotes irrationality and hatred. Its truth claims are lies. They would control you right down to your private behavior in your most private moments in the name of an invisible fairy. They claim standing in the halls of power based on nothing but imaginary friends and their interpretation of what that imaginary friend demands of us. What’s not to be phobic about?
The fact that Jones’ Christianity is only slightly less prone to violence and lunacy than Islam should not then be used as an excuse to deny him his right to call out Islam for what it clearly is. A boatload of misogyny, misanthropy, and irrational hatred wrapped in an invisible cloak of superstitious nonsense.
But let’s go further down your little rabbit hole. If we were to agree with your contention that this sort of protest is wrong per se, then where does that lead?
Do we offend Islam by being Christian? Well then, every Christian must convert!
Do we offend Islam by being atheists? Well then, every atheist must die!
Do we offend Islam if we leave Islam? More death.
Do we offend Islam if we educate our girls? If we don’t make them hide every inch of skin? Put on the burqua, stay at home or face the acid and the bombs.
Do we offend Islam if we drink alcohol, or enjoy a ham sandwich? Prohibition! An idea so mind-numbingly stupid, only Islam could bring it back!
Merely existing as a non-Muslim is offensive to Muslims. It says so right in the book (which I’ve read enough of to know it’s dangerous twaddle). We are not to be dealt with. We are to be converted or killed. It would be offensive to Islam for you to suggest otherwise.
You want to accommodate that merely because it’s dangerous? Where in the world is the evidence that such an approach does not lead straight down the path to more and more demands of stricter and stricter adherence to THEIR belief system? Someone elsewhere invoked the name Neville Chamberlain. I think it’s apt. “Peace in our time”?
Baloney. Capitulation merely leads to more and more demands, to a tighter and tighter straightjacket.
You, sir, are dangerously wrong.
Josh, exactly.
*applause*
But then why call Myers cowardly?!
I have no problem agreeing that atheism is pretty safe for me. I don’t agree that that makes my atheism cowardly.
That was missing the point (as I saw it) of Myers’ gesture. It wasn’t to show bravery, it was to show that religious symbols (and other symbols too) had no special meaning for him, and that he wasn’t going to be bullied or threatened into acting otherwise.
I’m with Josh Slocum as well. I actually got one comment through (I think my status as a licensed attorney rendered my comment calling out the legally illiterate ravings of Hoffman and one of his commenters more relevant than most), but he’s censored the rest I’ve submitted.
Hoffman’s dishonesty and mendacious misrepresentation of what his opponents are actually claiming are stunning.
I’d rather read Dustin Hoffman’s commentary on these issues, at this point.
Let’s talk about bravery. Let’s talk about doing the easy thing versus doing the hard thing. I shall never tire of pointing this out about gnubashers like our pal Joe: It’s easy to do what you’re doing, sir. Bashing new atheists, coddling religion, rationalizing murderous Islamic extremism—these things require zero moral courage. Zero. Espousing such “tolerant” views gets you nothing but applause from all the right people, doesn’t it? Gnus, on the other hand, at least know that by speaking out they invite all kinds of criticism, much of it profoundly unfair, and much of it from ostensibly “tolerant” people like Hoffman. Whatever small degree of bravery it takes for a gnu to speak out (and it certainly isn’t the equivalent of a Marine jumping on a grenade to save his buddies, but it is something), it dwarfs the “bravery” of religion-rationalizing, comment-disappearing (to use Josh’s term), pompous-ass gnubashers like Hoffman.
Once again the common theme emerges: the ones criticising outspoken atheists, the ones calling for Respect for Deeply Held Beliefs, are the ones who won’t allow free commenting on their own posts.
rjosephhoffman #2 wrote:
Every time the word “Islam” is used? I thought you were addressing their criticisms of the kind of mindset that sees fit to revenge “blasphemy” by committing acts of violence. Which, if I am not mistaken, you are also against. If you recall.
Before PZ desecrated the cracker — as a protest against making blasphemy a secular crime (context) — he got a few death threats from Catholics. However, he got many, many requests from Catholics that he please, please oh pretty please desecrate a Quran. Because otherwise he’s a coward. Muslims know how to treat those who defile the sacred: they are attack dogs who will do what meek and mild Christians won’t. And then, when Muslims act like the mad, immature brutes we know they are, we gentle Christians will laugh and smile in smug satisfaction: you got what you asked for. Death.
This sentiment was expressed so frequently, and with such fervor, that the folks at Pharyngula nicknamed it “Fatwah Envy.” And thus PZ tossed a Quran and a copy of The God Delusion in the trash to show that his broader point was not against Catholicism per se, but against making a fetish of the sacred, in any sense.
Muslims did nothing, though, and Christians were heartily disappointed. Atheists were not. PZ speculated that the lack of response could be because those Muslims who examined the situation understood the larger context of his protest — and were perhaps insulted at the idea of being used like the Mafia by people from another religion. Clearly, you should expect more from Muslims than unthinking, blind, knee-jerk violence done with Pavlovian predictability every time someone commits an act of blasphemy.
Giving more credit to Muslims, apparently, than you give to him.
Book burning is fundamentally an act of contempt for the ideas inside the book burnt. As well, it is a statement of fear: an effort to stop the spread of those ideas to the point where they have a majority behind them and acceptance of them becomes compulsory on pain of death.
That is what we might call the Islam Project: conversion of the world. All proselytising religions have a similar aim.
Rationalism got going in reaction against that sort of compulsion and tyranny. So the burning of a copy of say Newton’s Principia or Darwin’s Origin of Species would be regarded by most rational people as an unfortunate confession of myopia by a very limited self. Only if it were part of a larger project to stamp out rational enquiry entirely could it be seen as a threat.
Unfortunately, Islam’s logic takes its followers down just such a path. As does any religion.
“I can only assume Hoffmann deleted my comment because I called him a prick and explained my reasoning; Hoffmann publicly called for the prosecution of an innocent man for murder.
Weigh that if you will: name calling vs. a public call for stripping an individual of any and all freedom and stripping a nation of freedom of speech in the process”. Theater major?
Has the “Comments and Moderation” link at the top of the New Oxonian homepage always been there, or is it a new addition in response to readers comments about how, when and if Hoffmann posts comments?
Hoffmann seems to conflate everyone on the other side. People who like and people who despise Jones. People who think the action was moral vs. amoral vs. immoral, but agree that Jones shouldn’t be legally punished. People who have a knee-jerk reaction against Islam, vs. people who just don’t think it’s appropriate to focus on Jones as opposed to the people who actually murdered the UN staff.
Not to mention the sheer lack of recognition of what other people mean by “civil rights”. He seems to demonstrate almost a blank incomprehension of the principles being invoked (an amusing irony for someone who accuses other atheists of not comprehending the sensitivities and motivations of the religious). For example, from the more recent post:
“It seems plain tawdry to invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on behalf of a listless cracker who wants to see people killed seven thousand miles away from his sanctuary.”
If he has a problem with the UDHR itself, that is an understandable objection. If he thinks that the UDHR simply doesn’t have anything to say about Jones’ actions, that’s another. But to suggest that there is some class of people (however evil!) who you just shouldn’t bother trying to applying the UDHR too? It’s extraordinarily antithetical to the spirit of the document. It’s sheer obstinate unwillingness to seriously consider the mindset of the person raising the objection, based on nothing more than (if the use of the word “tawdry” is any indication) a particularly snooty sense of personal taste.
I don’t think Hoffmann is generally this stupid. But I think he’s operating under such a strong belief that his opposition makes no sense, that he’s no longer exerting any effort into actually seeing if his critics make sense. He can dismiss them, because he assumes they’ve already been dogmatic dismissive of him.
Call it EZ accommodationism, if you will.
The more I see of Hoffman, the less respect I have for him. When you’re taking the same stance as the people doing the murdering–the avowed purpose of which is to limit freedom of speech–you have a significant blind spot.
So PZ Myers is a coward for not doing this, but if he did do it he would no doubt be a murderer if doing so resulted in a riot which caused people to die. It seems Hoffman’s respect for freedom of speech is limited to those times and places when circumstances allow it to be taken away.
That’s not opening a floodgate Joesph, that’s simply ad hominem. What do I know about Islam? Well, I grew up in India — arrived there as a boy just after the horrible massacres of Hindus and Muslims in 1947, and departing in 1969 I’ve lived among both Hindus and Muslims, and had a chance in my growing up years at school to learn about both. I’ve read the Qu’ran, which I find one of the most violent “sacred” books ever written. I was just looking for a Kindle version of the Qu’ran, and one of them is very cute: Allah (author), Mohammed (Author), Hafiz Abdullay Yusuf Ali, CBE (Translator). That in itself tells me more than I want or need to know. As Ibn Warraq says, the Islamists are following canonical Islam almost to the letter. I’ve read books by Berman, Barbara Forrest, Bernard Lewis, Rober Spencer — you may think his The Truth about Mohammed a bit right-wing, but he quotes copiously from the Qu’ran, Hadith and Sunnah — Bat Y’or on The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, Efraim Karsh’s Islamic Imperialism, Tariq Ramadan’s Why I am not a Muslim and Defending the West, and a couple books by Malise Ruthven — and there may be some I’ve missed. Please tell me what I got wrong, and I’ll correct it, but don’t simply throw animadversions my way unless you are prepared to back them up. In fact, I have tried to show where you fall short. I ddin’t just play your nice safe game of agrumentum ad hominem. As for courage. No, I don’t think writing what I did took a lot of courage, but I think it needs to be said, and I also think you have your head so deep in the sand, you are mising the point about the criticism of religion. Hume criticise Christianity at a time when it was dangerous to do so, and if I had a large audience, perhaps I would put my life at risk, but I’m not sure what you think courage has to do with offering reasonable criticism. If you think mine isn’t, say so, and give me examples of what you mean. I think you’ve seriously lost your way, and don’t seem to realise that criticism of religion is the first task of Enlightenment, of which Islam has had none. Falsafa lasted only a short time, and was considered deeply suspect, and still is, by Muslim “clerics.|
For the sake of argument, assume Myers, Coyne, et. al. are cowards. So what? Slinging the word “cowardly” at bloggers gets attention, but it doesn’t tell us anything.
I believe I have just summarized the recent writings of RJ Hoffman: calculated to provoke attention but expressing nothing of interest. Provocation appears to be the point of it, if it has a point.
For any who care: if you want bravery, stop reading blogs and spend time with soldiers, cops, or firefighters.
Chem major actually. My apologies for not being as dry as you prefer. Still, may I take your objections to my style as implicit agreement with the substance of my posts, Mr. Hoffmann?
I certainly hope so, given the chilling effect on free speech that would be achieved by prosecuting anyone who says something that might not be liked by someone somewhere at some point in the future. Or should controversy only be outlawed if someone is incensed to murder, and if so doesn’t that lead to a perverse incentive for the offended to murder innocents in order to persuade the police to enforce the new blasphemy laws?
Mr. Hoffmann seemed to forget that nothing happens in a vacuum. Any law that gives the faithful the right to shut down some criticism will be pushed to its limits in court and beyond through threats of lawsuits.
Eric:
Tariq Ramadan’s Why I am not a Muslim and Defending the West,
Ibn Warraq?
I don’t think Hoffmann wants to talk to us any more. =\
A shame. I really kind of used to like him, despite what I said a few comments up. But I guess we’re just Conservapedia to him now (or something).
The whole thing is rather frustrating to me at this point. I don’t necessarily agree with everything “our side” has said (as if commenters on different blogs were uniform or coordinated political factions!). I’m afraid I find Kevin@#15 a bit over the top just in terms of generalizations. But I don’t see this as the sort of “hornet’s nest” that makes discussion of all topics impossible (the recent incident when he was rather set against the gnus aside, since he must have known that he’d get a reaction out of continuing a direct assault). Sometimes he seems to be halfway reasonable, and sometimes he goes all generalization-y, or makes rather bitter comments about someone he doesn’t like. (He dislikes Greta Christina too, but I haven’t been able to unravel quite why; his words are “crude”, “uninspiring” and “entertainment”, but I suspect that it’s largely because her niche is reporting on atheism in terms of modern prejudice and identity, rather than taking the historical approach he favors.)
I almost wonder if Hoffmann got used to atheism being an academic position (and one belonging to oddballs like the Randian Objectivists). He doesn’t seem to be coping well with the fact that most of us are just… people? And, on the internet, just regular people on the internet? With a mildly above-average intelligence and education, but no longer to the same degree? Maybe this explains why atheism seemed to get so much worse to him, at the same time it got much more popular and political.
But I think I should maybe stop wondering and just forget about it. He seems to be strongly confirming that he doesn’t much care what we think anyway.
Hoffmann’s post fills me with “meh.” His recent inanities had already killed any respect I once had for his intellect. Now he’s just beating a dead horse.
From Sean’s link:
There are no butterflies there anymore just gasbags like the seminally under-qualified Eric McDonald and clowns like PZ Myers, who could benefit from a reading comprehension course with an emphasis on analogies.
Jebus, if Eric is ‘seminally under-qualified’ and PZ is a clown, then Hoffman must think me on par with an Amoeba or worse. All together now: “We’re not worthy!”
‘Seminally under-qualified …’!! ….. Seriously, what is with this fellow?
Apparently, he seemed to think that I somehow had a better understanding of Islam and the Middle-East as opposed to Jerry, PZ or Eric. Not anymore. A longer reply just got moderated. Keep up the good work.
Not anymore.
DIY lobotomy?
@37 : Actually, I think his compliment for me came after the procedure. Somewhere along, it wasn’t entirely effective.
It was also educational, at least for me it was. I had no idea that there were Catholics who seriously believed that the cracker mutates into the flesh of Jesus after the magic incantation performed by the priests–so much so that they could accuse the student of kidnapping Jesus and accuse PZ of murdering Jesus. Witnessing their reaction was as disturbing as the ensuing comments were hilarious. That level of dogmatic insanity is something you can’t learn by simply attending a Catholic church service or two.
Shorter recent Hoffman:
From RJH’s blog comments:
“Your readers aren’t the least bit interested in civil discourse:”
Oh please, and that from the man who has just spent two days weaseling around “fair questions” by me and others in his comments. That was a pretty sad show in the comments, and still is.
I still wonder what the difference is to other insults of islam, caused by better respected members of society (cartoonists, authors, theatre directors, even the Queen who knighted Rushdie and caused some protests with it), all of which could have indirectly lead to innocent deaths (and some actually have).
You think you’re pretty clever, don’t you?
Oh, and if you’re going to call your website a blog, you might want to be a little less. . .one-sided. The common understanding of a blog is a place where the author expounds on a subject, then engages the readers in a conversation about it. That’s not what you have. You’re running a site where you pontificate at exceeding length (which you’re allowed to do, obviously, even if ill-advised) and you only allow a minimal amount of reader feedback in the form of comments (which you’re also, obviously, allowed to do, although that makes you a dick).
You should decide what you want:
1. A one-way, Reader’s Digest-style column where everyone hangs on your every word and hopes fervently that you’ll read their email responses
2. An actual blog where you engage your readers, whether they agree with you or not
Your selective comment moderation serves neither 1, nor 2. But it sure makes you look vain, egotistical, petty, and full of shit.
Hoffman’s silly, trivialising and ill-tempered responses here are beneath contempt, as is his tarring gnu atheists with the brush of ignorance and unreasoning prejudice. What has impressed me from the time I first came across them about Jerry Coyne’s, Eric MacDonald’s, Ophelia Benson’s and PZ Myers’ blogs has been how generally well and carefully argued they have been, and though PZ’s crowd can be bloody vociferous at times, the comments (which are not policed in the way people like Stangroom and Hoffman police theirs) are often thoughtful, and one can have a respectful argument. I certainly do not agree with everything these bloggers say, and have on occasion disagreed strongly – and in such cases I have stated why I disagree. If Hoffman wants to gain some respect, he should address people’s arguments and not indulge in ad hominem flailing and the scattering of slanderous little assumptions about the reading habits, knowledge and prejudices of people whom he hasn’t bothered to listen to or acquaint himself with.
Oh dear Ophelia, reading that exchange between Hoffman and yourself on his blog, I guess yet another of your friends has petulantly picked up his ball and gone back home.You are the better blogger hands down (what else, with me being a solid member of the admirathon!).
I am really sorry to see the unravelling of so many of the new atheist bashers- is it something in the water? Middle-age crisis? Some new disease that causes an incredible thinning of the skin and swelling of ego? What?
This is the best argument against free speech there is. Only good, exemplary speech is intended to be free. It doesn’t say that, of course, but what fool doesn’t know that if the good people don’t like what you say you don’t have the right to say it?
@Tim Harris
Off topic – but are you the DA Shadow Minister of Trade and Industry?
@TH:Couldn’t agree more.
Oh, and Ophelia: We demand that you go over there and tell him that you aren’t our puppet!
Only joking. But really, not sure what happened with that one. You may be the blogger (well, among others) that brought us here, but that implies that the people here are self-selected for agreeing with you, not vice versa. I really can’t understand what’s going on in that man’s head anymore.
The arguments against Jones and his right to burn the Koran are sophistry, I’ll bet many of the apologists are just plain scared of the threat from ‘outraged Moslems’- so who are the cowards?
@Bruce Gorton
I don’t think so, bit enlighten me as to what DA stands for so that I can give a definite answer!
Oh wow. As a member of a forum with very little decorum (elsewhere, not here) it amazes me to think that Hoffman thinks it’s ok to say this:
On the one hand. And pay out on so many others for, amongst other things, tone, and damage to causes.
Amazing.
I went and read his latest blog post and lost my temper with the pompous dick-cheese. I posted the following, which I am pretty sure won’t go through:
That does it.
I have been holding off on doing this Hoffman, my criticism of your post was relatively mild because I didn’t want to jump on the bandwagon and wanted a different angle, now I am going to go at this properly.
First of all: You talk about cowardice because the critics aren’t in the countries being criticised. Bullshit. Cowardice in this case is giving into the threat of violence in order to pacify angry mobs a half world away.
When you give into threats and acts of violence, it works no better than giving in to a small child throwing a temper tantrum because it wants sweets. It just shows the kid that temper tantrums work.
Giving in to threats of violence and ending free speech even for “Jerks” like Jones is cowardly, and just ensures future tantrums.
Second on Myers, the full context was a student who had taken one of the holy crackers from church to show his friends was facing blowhards calling for his expulsion, as well as getting death threats.
What Myers did was to demonstrate that holy objects are bullshit and to take the heat off of that kid. What did you do to help that kid? What have you done to help kids like him? Nothing.
You support castigating those who have, like a coward fearing courage because it puts a dent in his own ego.
Third of all, free speech is not about protecting comfortable speech. Jones is an easy villain, but his right to burn Islamic holy books is anybody else’s right to burn the US flag in a peace demonstration.
Protecting free speech is a principle designed to protect offensive speech, and that includes Terry Jones just as much as it includes the Westboro Baptist Church, as much as it includes the bullshit you are posting.
That is not the “price” of freedom of speech but the entire point. Nobody has the right to not be offended, because when we start giving people that right it leads to oppression of all minority views.
@Tim Harris
Its just you share a name with the guy. The DA is our local opposition party – its pro-business while the ANC is pro-ANC.
The man is as insane as Terry Jones.
Just a note, but Juan Cole at Informed Comment, whose blog is always worth reading, suggests that Jones’s burning of the Koran provided an excuse for Afghans to vent their anger at what they see as an overly large American foot trampling over their land.
@Bruce Gorton
Plenty of cousins in South Africa, but I’m in Japan!
I’m having that very discussion over at my usual forum haunt.
http://forums.next-gen.biz/viewtopic.php?t=17156&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=225
(Reading the page before, which was written before I’d read the comments section at Hoffmans, I may have to change my tune a little.)
But yeah, a lot of people are keen to blame everything but Islam/religion.
Oh, I’m posting there as Facewon, fyi.
Yes, but Juan Cole thinks everything means that. Would he have said that a riot against an overly large American foot trampling over the land was really about a yahoo in Florida burning the Koran? No, I don’t find Juan Cole interesting, I find him formulaic. He’s like the religious bigot who thinks all disasters mean a god wants to punish us for gay marriage and taxing capital gains.
@David M; thank you: I thought your comments very good.
Jason Rosenhouse has a post up now in which he comments on all this. Here’s a savory bit:
Well it does kind of feel like Hoffman writes what he does with the specific intent to drive atheists insane.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/04/going_squishy_on_the_first_ame.php
I’m a mild sort of chap, but this kind of stuff from Hoffman really just is not cricket. It’s what I would have expected from a stroppy teenager.
PZ, for all his merits, is not (yet) an international leader of men and women. He’s a Professor and a blogger. He’s not an elected leader of atheists with duties. What is happening here is silly. It’s insisting that people have become leaders and then knocking them down for the way they lead. If you don’t like what PZ writes don’t read him. No-one is forcing you to. If you think he’s wrong, do better yourself. All you need is a blog, and time, and a bit of wit.
For goodness sake, some people really need to grow up.
Well Joe, two out of three ain’t bad.
Sorry Brian, of course it was Ibn Warraq. It was late!
[…] its capital on its worst instincts.” (I assume that David M is quoting accurately from the forum on which Hoffmann says these delightful things.) While I’m not sure what he means by ‘seminally under-qualified,’ I readily […]
A question I’ve thought of: Is Jones’ burning of the Koran morally similar to the kind of rhetoric that was condemned for inspiring the actions of Jared Loughner in the Tucson shootings?
I think the question really hangs on intent. With all their talk of “2nd amendment rights”, there’s an argument to be made that the political rhetoric by some on the right has passed the line of willful incitement. But there’s really no way of knowing whether Jones was informed enough to realize what was likely to happen–in his own deluded, narcissistic way, he may have thought that he was the most likely martyr. I know others warned him about the consequences, but if the man thinks God is talking to him, is he even likely to hear what others say?
The two key points that Hoff man is hung up seem to me to be:
1. Muslims take their religion, prophet and holy book really, really seriously and their young men are really, really angry blokes.He comes by this widom because he used to hang out in Lahore and he might well have been the next Daniel Pearl. Naturally, it follows that you should never piss off these people. Not even in discussions in your new atheist blogs, you insentive brutes.
2. If westerners, epecially atheists, don’t unequivocably condemn Jones’ quran burning (and with it the constitutional right to free speech which wasnt meant for the peasants and deluded anyway), moderate-and -inclined-to-be-liberal muslims will never trust westerners again since they too can’t be weaned from 7th century islamic norms.
Is the man muslimophobic? Does he really believe that for muslims religion is destiny?
This was the comment that got moderated …
I’m not sensationalizing anything, far less implying that somehow you don’t grasp the risk or are too reluctant to criticize Islam (although it does take some effort to confirm that). What I categorically object to is your idea that the solution to all this is to be more sensitive to the cultural and religious ideas of those very Muslims who threaten violence at every perceived offense (after all, how many American Muslims are even remotely bothered by what Jones did?). You insist that everybody else should be extra sensitive to Muslims because some of them don’t react particularly well to blasphemy. And it doesn’t matter to you how much Muslims should be sensitive to other cultures. That in itself is downright condescending. Respect is a matter of resonant reciprocity. I respect the right of every Muslim to practice his/her faith any manner they choose to. He/she is free to believe whatever they want, to regard any book to be holy and sacred, to pray as many times as they wish to, to freely decide on their dietary preference (including deciding upon how an animal should be slaughtered). It is neither my right nor my inclination to lecture them on how they should decide on any of these matters. What I do mind and oppose is when some of them (a minority, but a dominant one) demands at gunpoint that we have an abiding obligation to respect their beliefs, at least as much as they do and that if that demand is not satisfactorily complied with, they are at liberty to resort to the most grotesque violence and intimidation. And lastly, I’d rather that you free yourself from this weird obsession with credentials. If you find a particular viewpoint disagreeable, by all means oppose it by substance and merit. My arguments do not magically acquire validity just because I was able to spend time at an alien land among people with distinct cultural sensibilities.
Oy. This is sad. That comment is just………….
Words fail me.
For the record –
Of course not (and what does “brave” have to do with anything?). As I said, I was ignoring it and hoping it would be generally ignored, but when it wasn’t ignored, I wanted to make sure silence wasn’t taken for assent. I really don’t want to assent to that kind of thing.
Bravery has nothing to do with it: all that sort of “I’m tougher than you are” practically admits that Hoffman can’t actually refute the arguments being made. Besides, there is no bravery in bowing to tyrants and publicly urging others to do the same.
Not all bravery has to do with defiance, of course: every firefighter who rushes into a burning building to save a life is being brave. Every queer teenager who comes out to their relatives is being brave. Every agoraphobe who leaves the house is being brave. And none of them is harming anyone else, or telling anyone else how to live their lives.
Now…I can see how this post would look irritating. There’s no substance to it, so it could look like just a dog whistle for commenters to pile on. I can see how that would be irritating. But if I can see that, I think Joe ought to be able to see that his free hand with the insults is also irritating, especially since there’s a great deal more insult than actual argument. I think he ought to be able to see, at least, that he hasn’t got much right to indignation about people saying rude things to him.
For the record (again) – the post wasn’t intended as a dog whistle. I just didn’t want there to be any doubt about my view of the matter.
This part of a comment on the RJH “Bloody Fools” thread made me curious:
Specifically, I wondered, if the offense is to Muslims in general and not just to those living in Pakistan or Afghanistan, why the notion of sending him there or bringing over what can only be construed as his potential murderers at, I presume, considerable expense? I don’t know how many Muslims live near him, but the Facebook page for the Gainesville Muslim Initiative had been liked by 651 people when I looked just now, and the “wall” is not aflame with calls to kill Jones. Somehow, I suspect that the offer of a free flight will not suffice as a temptation to get him to visit the less law-abiding Muslims.
As one of the people who said rude things to Joe, I’m sorry if it messed up your living room, Ophelia. I do think he has it coming, however. I do think he’s being nasty, petty and dishonest – shockingly so.
You know, Josh, if you apologise, you might get your Gnu license revoked.
Oh, you didn’t, Josh. I don’t think it makes any difference what anyone says, unless it’s simply abject agreement.
@75
Yes, and a Gnu License enables one to drive her opinions anyplace, except through that one Intersection.
Damn, it’s only the 5th and I’ve already used up my bad pun allotment for the month of April. :(
Andy, if you show your Gnu License to the right people, you can get the bad pun allotment extended.
It seems the only way you can possibly persuade Hoffman with your arguments is to flaunt your credentials. Just list all the degrees you’ve earned, the classes you’ve taught, lectures you’ve delivered, countries you’ve visited, lynch-mobs you’ve escaped and I’m sure he’ll start listening to you. Guy’s got a fetish for it. Neatly explains his regard for Alister McGrath as a worthy debating opponent to Dawkins. Alister McGrath! For Pete’s sake!
No, you are giving him too much credit. If you said “I once stood on a Kabul street corner and burned a Quran.” He would reply, “But, did you do it wearing a “Jesus and Mo” t-shirt?” If you said, “Well yes, what else would any self-respecting Quran-burner wear?” He would get huffy and retort, “But, I bet you weren’t eating a BLT.” And so it would go….
Of course, the Muslims could have decided to show that Jones is wrong about Islam being the work of the devil, but they didn’t think of that. They chose instead actions prompted by the sin of idolatry, of equating an ink-and-paper copy with the Original Word. Or they chose to view the actions of a lunatic as an opportunity, an excuse. I’m afraid that the responsibility is theirs. Jones didn’t make them do anything.
I’d also like to point out that to post comments and then to delete responses that one happens to find inconvenient for one’s point of view is a cowardly thing to do, so I don’t think that Hoffmann has any right to call other people cowards, in particular certain people whose honesty and integrity is observably greater than his. But as his name-calling, like his muddy comments, clearly springs from a deep bog of arrogance I don’t suppose that this would have occurred to him.
Saikat, I can see no reason why he would have moderated your comment out, which I thought very good and sensible — although I’d enter some kind of a qualification for Halal butchery. There is no reason to approve the killing of animals by means of cruelty, and since this means, in many cases, that others will end up eating animals killed this way, I do object quite strongly. In any case, obviously, the price of licenses over at RJHoffmann, Inc., is going up and up and up. However, I did get to experience the “Steph” phenomenon. Really quite astonishing how someone can be all breathless and gushing — and in cold hard print on a screen! Didn’t think it could be done, but it can.
Thanks Eric. For the record, I really don’t care how any devout Muslim would like to have his meat slaughtered for him, just as long as everybody else is made perfectly aware of it and as long as he/she doesn’t bother me from enjoying my non-halaal pork-chops and wine. I’m more than willing to accommodate Islamic rituals (barring of course practices like FGM) if the reciprocal gesture is not to demand submission to (or expect uncritical respect for) those rituals. I absolutely resent any whiff of dhimmitude.
Susan Jacoby has more balls than Hoffman ….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/spirited-atheist/post/terry-jones-and-afghan-mullahs-who-is-responsible-for-violence/2011/04/04/AFBwa5bC_blog.html
Thanks for the link to the very nice Jacoby piece, Saikat, but (to go all feminist on what I understand was an innocent resort to a cliché) there’s no connection between real courage and “balls.” Plenty of women—Jacoby and Ms. Benson among them—have far more guts than men such as Hoffman on this issue. And numerous other issues as well.
Testicles are a lousy substitute for (and symbol of) courage.
Testicles are a lousy substitute for (and symbol of) courage.
My bad. It’s all guts from now on.
:- )
Thank you Rieux and Saikat both.
I remember a demo in the early 70s, at which some Mr Macho was shouting into the microphone about whatever it was, the colonialist war machine no doubt, and he said something about someone not having cojones, at which point I yelled (hoping others would yell along with me) “Neither do I!” Ahhh the memories…
I’ve never been quite sure what guts have to do with courage either. Do brave people fart a lot? Maybe there is hope that Mr Hoffmann could admire me for my courage after all. It would sure mean a lot to me.
Who would not be impressed by the high caliber of this discussion? All about ideas!
Ouch! That stings – coming from the author of such profound ideas as those in the passage I quoted in the post:
All about ideas!
The recycled posts currently on your blog are idea-rich, too – I particularly like the giant clown-face to illustrate Dawkins and Coyne. It’s not original, to be sure, but it’s always impressive.
Wow, I guess it is possible to call people names, not to mention post the kinds of clownish stuff that Ophelia just cited, and then complain that the discussion isn’t cerebral enough.
This is like Newt Gingrich talking about the sanctity of marriage.
Extraordinary, isn’t it?
Here’s the oh-so-sophisticated witty cerebral clown-face post –
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/of-atheist-tribes-via-the-new-oxonian/
which illustrates this sophisticated witty cerebral “idea”:
Who would not be impressed by the high caliber of that?
And recall when P.Z. dared to refer to Francis Collins as a “clown.” “How is that helping?” was, I believe, the response from Mooney. Well here we have gnus being referred to with the exact same term? I presume the scolding from Mooney is forthcoming.
I really am puzzled about what is going on here with this ranting against Gnus. What is it supposed to achieve? Seriously – have I missed something about the nature of the Internet over the past 20 years of my use that means that there will be a sudden conversion of those who are being criticised? Even if the ranting is justified (and I’m not saying it is) it’s got not a snowball’s chance in the centre of a supernova of working, so what is this all about?
If someone doesn’t like the way PZ or Jerry or anyone else posts, then just do better yourself, I say. You may not get the same visibility, but life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Move on. Have some calming tea.
Yes so am I; I find it endlessly fascinating (because so puzzling and odd). I’ve always liked meta discussions.
By the way, he disappeared those infantile passages, Ophelia, and disappeared the clown face image. Also, he’s set his blog so that Google doesn’t cache it.
Oh for heaven’s sake – so he has. Without acknowledgement, concession, apology, “you have a point” – without anything. Without admitting that that clown picture and “two clowns named Coyne & Myers” was a good deal ruder and more idea-free than anything on this page and thus withdrawing comment # 89 with apologies. Honestly!
I think we can take the fact that he took that stuff down as something of a tacit acknowledgment. As for an apology, let’s not hold our breath.
Gee, to just take that stuff down without explaining the reason is…what’s the word? Well, let’s just say I’ve seen the word “cowardly” used much more liberally.
One could add “intellectually dishonest,” and “acting in bad faith.”