Oh grow up
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed his predecessor’s line on cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday, saying free speech should respect religious sensitivities. “The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs,” his spokeswoman Marie Okabe told reporters.
That’s asking a great deal too much, even as a ‘should.’ Freedom of expression should be exercised in a way that respects all religious beliefs? If that advice were heeded there wouldn’t be any free expression at all. How can we respect all religious beliefs when we don’t even know what they are? We would miss that slightly mildewed guy in Toadback, Arkansas who believes a can of peaches he bought at the Piggly Wiggly in 1957 is the Messiah. And then of course how can we respect all religious beliefs when they don’t respect each other? How can we respect all religious beliefs when they contradict each other? And then apart from all that, why the fuck should we? Why should our freedom to say things depend on our respect for particular kinds of beliefs without regard to whether they are well founded or not? Why, in fact, should our freedom to say things depend on our respect for beliefs that are by definition not well founded? Why do people keep singling out religion as an entity to which we all owe unconditional respect? When in fact religion is the set of ideas that does the least to earn respect? Is that perhaps why? Religion is the spoiled child of the world, whining and pitching fits and demanding everything in sight because no one has ever summoned up quite enough gumption to tell it to grow up and get its own damn dinner? Other, grown up, low maintenance beliefs are expected to take care of themselves; only religion gets to demand the baby treatment. Well, the hell with that. I don’t respect beliefs more the more unwarranted they are; I don’t believe in affirmative action for beliefs; religion should just wipe its nose and pull up its horrible dirty shorts and go compete with all the other beliefs like an adult.
I liked the line further down in the report, where Reuters casually state:
“Most Muslims consider depictions of the Prophet offensive.”
Quite apart from the obvious objections to this assertion – e.g. who exactly were the cartoons depicting? People get offended by almost anything, so what? And if I am offended, does that give me the right to incite violence, etc,etc – I had no idea that someone had taken the time to poll them all…
Wonder if women would be included in such a poll, or whether it would simply be assumed that they agreed with whatever their male ‘owners’ said?
Does anyone think the UN Sec.Gen. understands what he’s actually saying?
And do any religious leaders, many of whom seem to be fairly united in promoting such castrations of free expression, understand what the implications would be for their right to preach nonsense against all the other people’s er, different nonsense?
ho hum.
Let me play the devil’s advocate. Religious beliefs should be respected, as long as they don’t promote the violation of human rights or of the law, because they are deeply held convictions of many of our fellow men and women. Part of respecting our fellows involves respecting their convictions, once again as long as their convictions are not contrary to human rights. For example, someone prays before eating: wouldn’t laughing at her be a lack of respect, not only of her religion, but also of her being.
amos,
But what if I, perhaps, have a “deeply held conviction” that praying before eating, being a futile display of personal delusion, is deeply offensive (not to mention a complete waste of time, effort, and good food I’ve spent bloody ages over possibly getting cold?)
Who is going to decide which equally-deeply-held conviction gets priority?
And who gets to decide what exactly constitutes a “lack of respect”?
There’s also the possibility that ‘respect’ has to be earned – it should not be automatically awarded, ESPECIALLY to “deeply held convictions”.
E.G. “many of our fellow men and women” have a deeply held conviction that “trickle-down” economics is the best way to run/manage/tickle lightly an economy for the greatest benefit to the most citizens.
Evidence suggests otherwise, so why should I ‘respect’ it?
Another example, from personal experience – Southern Baptists are taught that men should be the spiritual and temporal head of the household…now that, technically, doesn’t violate any law or “human rights” legislation, but isn’t it just a little bit demeaning to women, hmm?
Now, you can’t seriously demand that anyone ‘respects’ that (or any of their other tenets, for that matter!), and not rip the piss out of them, surely?
Amos,
Trickle-down-economics is still widely revered by many who self-identify as “conservatives”, particularly in the USA. You wouldn’t believe how some of these folk still revere Reagan, by the way…!
As to the praying-before-eating situation, your original position was one where my freedom to express ridicule would have been curtailed, even though this would have violated my ‘deeply-held beliefs’, etc. You haven’t answered the issue of hierarchies/prioritisation of ‘rights’. I’m perfectly happy for her to pray, so long as I’m free to express myself…
Amos, I fear the biggest question here is still that of who, ultimately, has the authority to determine what should be ‘respected’ – exactly which/what/whose ‘ethical principles’ are we going to apply, for instance – what exactly constitutes “disrespect”, and who gets to call “foul” first…?
I’d like to think that I try to be as “respect neutral” as possible (hah!) – wait and see what someone brings to the table. It’s quite clear from this forum, just to use the obvious example, that it doesn’t matter whatever ethnic-religious-gender-socio-political-whatever background you come from, if you present a poor argument, you’re going to get ripped…which seems ideally egalitarian to me! :-)
Of course, if they come bearing certain obvious baggage (Un-intelligent design advocate, Holocaust Denier, ‘Naturopathic therapist’, Po-Mo apologist,etc,etc), then the ‘disrespect default setting’ button tends to get pushed…
:-)
And anyway, conflicts are inevitable – it’s when we shy away from them, and pretend they’re not there until they become huge, and blow up in our faces…oh, hang on, we weren’t talking about marriage, were we..?
:-)
Andy, That’s a lot of talk about ripping people…or ripping the piss out of people or what have you. If someone’s praying before dinner offends you, but doesn’t hurt you or anyone else, I would say ripping them, or the piss out of then, is just a bit much. I’d say you ought to keep your feelings to yourself. If they’re planning on committing an honor killing after dinner, it’s another matter. In that case, persuasion is an excellent thing to attempt, but I’d saying ripping them or the piss out of them is not the way to achieve it. In fact, such behavior is just more likely to provoke them to kill you first, and then get on with the honor killing.
amos,
But why is “because they are deeply held convictions” a reason for respecting a certain category of beliefs? Do you respect all deeply held convictions? Do you respect the deeply held conviction that God created the universe four thousand years ago? (If so, why?) And who says we have to respect our fellows? We have (other things being equal) to be civil to them, but we don’t have to respect them. Again, that’s asking too much; it’s an exorbitant demand and expectation. I know people I don’t respect, for what I take to be good reasons; I’m not aware of any requirement – even an ethical one – that I change my mind about that.
Obviously laughing at a particular person for praying would be abominably rude and unkind; respect doesn’t come into it; but it is not the case that there are two stark alternatives: either respect all religious beliefs, or laugh at particular people whenever they demonstrate religious beliefs. There is a very very large territory between those two poles.
Are you just taking respect to mean not being rude? But that’s not what respect means. Respect is earned; respect is about something; respect is a lot more than civility, it’s more than tolerance. It matters what we respect, and it matters that we not be required to respect everything and anything.
To put it another way, ‘respect’ isn’t just the antonym of ‘mock.’ The Secretary General was saying a lot more than just ‘freedom of expression should be exercised in a way that refrains from mocking any religious beliefs.’ I would still strongly disagree with him if he’d said that, but the fact remains that he said a lot more than that.
And people praying before dinner is really beside the point. I find this kind of thing irritating. The Secretary General of the UN in his official capacity telling everyone to respect all religious beliefs is a very public matter; personal relations and behavior is a different subject; I’m interested in the public matter; I think it ought to be obvious that I’m not advocating private rudeness. Can we stick to the subject?
Also, again, if the only thing religious people asked us to put up with was praying before dinner, I don’t think anyone would care.
It’s all the other things they want us to let them do that are the problem.
Yeah – like respect all their beliefs!
snicker
This is going to sound hopelessly saccharine, but there are lots of people with weird and irrational religious beliefs in this world, and unless we want to bring back the 30 year’s war, we are going to have to learn to live with them, on a basis of tolerance, if not respect. Limits to tolerance should be, as I said before, human rights and ethical principles. Andy, I posted in this forum, expecting to get ripped, as you put it. Most religious people live their lives without bothering anyone else and without posting in this forum. However, I, for one, respect as well as tolerate the religious options of others, as long as they don’t violate ethical principles. By the way, two problems with starting conflicts are that they tend to escalate and that you (or we, since I’m an atheist myself) can lose. Prudence (or phronesis) is a virtue, says Aristotle.
Well there you go, amos – tolerance, okay (depending on how it’s defined, what it entails, etc); respect, a whole different ball game.
It may be that the Sec Gen meant tolerance when he said respect; it may be that all the people who keep telling us that free expression has to respect everything mean tolerance rather than respect; but the confusion is a harmful one, because it gives people the idea that their religious beliefs really do deserve respect, and then they get very het up when respect is not forthcoming.
As a matter of interest – when you say you “respect as well as tolerate the religious options (opinions?) of others, as long as they don’t violate ethical principles” does that mean you would never, as a matter of principle, defend the theory of evolution by natural selection? Do you as a matter of principle refrain from expressing any opinions that are different from those of most religious believers?
I ask because 1. that seems unlikely to me and 2. that is what the Sec Gen is (whether he knows it or not) saying. If we have to ‘respect all religious beliefs’ before expressing anything, there is a very great deal that we can’t say.
Now you can say oh come on, he just meant cartoons and things. But the point is, he said a hell of a lot more than that, and it’s a staggeringly illiberal thing to say. It’s good to avoid conflict, but not at the price of everyone shutting up except for religious believers.
A few points:
1) I really doubt he actually meant “ALL religious beliefs.”
2) OB’s distinction between public and private is a key thing here. No, Andy Gilmour, most people aren’t as personally attached to their economic ideologies as they are to their religions–and more to the point, their economic ideologies concern things that are everybody’s business, which praying before a meal is not.
3) Amos is quite right that we have an obligation to avoid causing unnecessary emotional distress. As for “respect,” consideration for people’s feelings is a form of respect. Respect is about actions as much as it is about attitudes. Some forms of respect don’t have to be earned. We automatically owe them to each other.
It’s perfectly fair to criticize speech on the grounds that it’s gratuitously hurtful to a large number of people’s sentiments. Key word there is “gratuitously,” of course. That’s the sticking point in most of these cases–it’s usually NOT gratuitous hurtfulness, there’s usually something seriously wrong going on.
Do you as a matter of principle refrain from expressing any opinions that are different from those of most religious believers?
What opinions are held by “most religious believers,” other than “there is some sort of God”?
Anyway, I don’t know about Amos but I don’t refrain from expressing opinions that are different from those of believers. I show respect for them by arguing with them civilly if it’s a subject I think is worth arguing about (like evolution). That’s how I try to treat everyone I disagree with, not just religious believers.
My questions for the Secretary General would be, what sort of behavior constitutes disrespect? Can you think of specific examples? Who gets to define it? And are there any circumstances where it might be acceptable?
Why is it obvious the Secretary General is urging a lot more than you would urge–just civility? If his comments were aimed at the cartoons, then what bothers him is laughing at other people for their beliefs. Cartoons = laughing, surely. When he says we should “respect all religious beliefs” I very much doubt he means we ought to think they all have an equal chance of being true. I can’t imagine he’s saying we should close down philosophy of religion classes, where religious ideas are challenged and debated. It’s more a matter of tone and attitude surely. Do you listen, try to understand look for common ground, or do you attack with zeal and laugh your head off? All that can surely be fun within a group where everyone has the same outlook, but the guy’s the head of the U.N. Keeping conflict at bay is his job.
This is exceptionally good: “Religion is the spoiled child of the world, whining and pitching fits and demanding everything in sight because no one has ever summoned up quite enough gumption to tell it to grow up and get its own damn dinner.”
Good grief there are lots of closed minds amongst the open minded, aren’t there?
If a person invites me to dinner and wants to pray before we eat, it is good manners on my part to let them, it has nothing to do with ethics or beliefs. It is not my place to get into discussions about religious beliefs and practices at my hosts dinner table unless the host wishes it. If I invite them to my home, I expect them to display the same good manners and not insisting on praying at my dinner table.
@David,
I am not quite sure your analogy is relevant to the situation at hand.
If I for some reqason should enter a mosqe, I’d probably take off my shoes, ditto, I’d wear a kippah (or whatever it is called), etc in a synagogue.
But the respect/civility expected towards muslims’ religious sensitivities is NOT limited to their own religious home-turf as it were, it is expected/demanded in a space of the commons.
I am not prepared to cater such an attitude.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
ob: I have never met a creationist, even online, so I have never had the opportunity to defend the theory of Darwin. Yes, I tend to respect the religious beliefs of others, even when I disagree with them. When asked about my beliefs, I state that I am a non-believer and if asked, I explain why I don’t believe in God. I never challenge people about their religious beliefs, even if I find them to be absurd, such as the case of my Mormon neighbor. Some cases are hopeless. If someone’s religious beliefs involve an ethical or political element which I consider wrong, for example, the idea that homosexuality is a sin, I would argue, generally using religious arguments to show that, say, loving another person is never a sin according to the teachings of Jesus. I try never to mock or to convey the impression that I consider religion or belief in God to be stupid or irrational. Actually, I don’t consider belief in God to be stupid. Too many intelligent and wise people, who I respect, believe in God for me to consider said belief to be stupid.
One more point: when I tell people that I am a non-believer, I have never received negative comments (although some have expressed curiosity)
from religious believers nor have I felt rejection. (What happens online is completely different: there I have received abuse from religious believers.) Since religious believers, in my case, generally Catholics or Jews, have always treated my lack of belief respectfully, I return that respect. It’s a matter or reciprocity. I admit that I have never been in the Bible belt of the United States or in a Muslim country.
David (& possibly Jean, & Serafina),
At NO POINT did I say I, personally, would have a go at someone praying before a meal…I put forward a (quite silly, but there are plenty of memorials to solemn asses) hypothetical example of a possible “deeply held belief”, purely in response to Amos, illustrating the problem with the UN S-G’s call for us not to disrespect any of ’em.
Interestingly, though, my experience of this: “If I invite them to my home, I expect them to display the same good manners and not insisting on praying at my dinner table.” was that me in-laws didn’t care a fig, and did as they pleased, with nary a thought of asking whether it was appropriate…
Serafina – you might be surprised at how closely socio-economic ideologies (and their adherents) can resemble religions in practice…and anyway, I did NOT compare that to “praying before a meal”. Again, I was responding to Amos, who was talking about “deeply held beliefs”. You’ve never met a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, perchance? Try distinguishing between their adherence to their ideology and that of a Hindu zealot, say.
Jean, sorry, but could you please define “civility”? All you’ve done is introduce another vague term into the equation, as if “disrespect” wasn’t tricky enough to start with :-) And who has the right to determine what constitutes “civility”, anyway? The authority/power to judge is the real problem here.
As for getting “ripped”, I only mentioned that ONCE, and in the context of this forum, and quality of argument presented therein. [I speak as one who has been on both sides of that particular experience :-) ]
Don’t recall advocating laughing at people who were intent on committing honour killings. Ah well.
Jeff – yeah, being a full-time parent, I loved that particular passage of OB’s…
Amos – you’ve NEVER encountered a creationist online?? wow! I can give you a list of websites where you can see them in all their glory if you like…? :-)
I was blissfully unaware of the reach and ambition of the creationist movement in the states until I got married…both my in-laws work for Answers in Genesis – currently in the Creation Museum in Kentucky…boy, was THAT an eye-opener!
You said:
“Actually, I don’t consider belief in God to be stupid. Too many intelligent and wise people, who I respect, believe in God for me to consider said belief to be stupid.”
It’s entirely possible for otherwise intelligent folk to believe truly daft things…we probably all do, on some level. I have a good friend in the states, who’s a heavyweight US constitutional scholar (and lifelong ‘conservative’). I deeply respect his opinions on a wide range of issues, and he doesn’t evangelise in my direction, although he does insist on trying to wind me up by telling me he’s praying for me – so I rib him back by sending him studies on the effects of intercessionary prayer…
He, though, is not someone who is seeking to impose his supernaturally-derived sense of moral authority on others…unlike, unfortunately, a great many Pastors, Imams, Ministers, Priests, Rebbes, Archimandrites, Gurus, etc,etc…
As for reciprocity, I take it you aren’t calling for the deaths of unbelievers in your, er, unbelief…?
:-)
‘1) I really doubt he actually meant “ALL religious beliefs.”‘
I hope he didn’t. But he did say all; if he didn’t mean all he shouldn’t have said all. It’s important for people who have the kind of influence that Secretaries General and Archbishops and Princes of Wales have to be careful about how they word things.
“Why is it obvious the Secretary General is urging a lot more than you would urge–just civility?”
I didn’t say it was obvious. But it is, after all, what he said. If he meant just civility, he could have said that; he could have used the word ‘civility.’ He said ‘respect,’ instead. Respect does mean more than civility.
amos,
“I have never met a creationist, even online, so I have never had the opportunity to defend the theory of Darwin.”
You’re completely missing my point – which is exactly why it’s irritating when people drag in the personal relations issue when it’s not the subject. I didn’t ask if you refrained from defending evolution by natural selection in conversation; that wasn’t my question; I asked ‘when you say you “respect as well as tolerate the religious options (opinions?) of others, as long as they don’t violate ethical principles” does that mean you would never, as a matter of principle, defend the theory of evolution by natural selection?’ My point was precisely to indicate that your generalization would make all general, public discussion impossible. But you answered as if it were about one on one chats. You took me to be talking about personal confrontation, then you advised against that but you did it in general terms, and you’re still failing to grasp that I’m not talking about personal confrontation. The result is incoherence.
How often do I have to say this? I’m not talking about personal relations, because that’s not what Ban was talking about; I’m talking about public discourse.Forget the people at the dinner table! We’re talking about newspapers, press statements, magazines, radio, tv here. As I said last night: can we stick to the subject?
Sorry about the irritable tone. But really – I think my meaning was pretty clear, and the personal rudeness issue is just entirely beside the point. It’s not what Ban was talking about and it’s not what I was talking about. I really would prefer to talk about what I was talking about (on this particular thread) rather than something completely different.
It doesn’t really matter how civil we are; lack of respect is always defined by those who choose to take offence.
Motoons too disrespectful? How about Jesus and Mo? Life of Brian? Satanic Verses? Jerry Springer the Opera?
Who, really, is going to be calling the shots?
It’s not his business, or anybody’s, to tell the rest of us that we should not create an image, write some words or express an idea if it showed a lack of respect for any religion.
I hope I’m as civil as the next man, but the idea that disrespect for religion is per se ‘a bad thing’ is outrageous.
He’s just bloody encouraging them.
He’s just bloody encouraging them, and keep in mind, he’s doing it by telling us all to exercise prior restraint. He’s telling us to self-censor whatever might be considered by someone somewhere to fail to respect religious beliefs. This is in the context of the Motoons – which could not possibly have been foreseen to be such a source of outrage. No one, looking at them ahead of time, would have said ‘You can’t publish these! These are indendiary – these will get people killed!’ If we’re expected to veto everything from the level of the Motoons on up – that would be an enormous quantity of vetoing. There would be little left.
The thing about prior restraint is another reason amos missed the point of my question. He took me to be asking if he would defend evolution by natural selection in reply to a creationist, but that’s not what I was asking at all: I was asking about prior self-restraint, since that is what his comments amounted to urging. That’s the thing about what Ban said: he didn’t just say ‘Don’t reply to religious believers,’ he said freedom of expression should be exercised in a way that respects all religious beliefs. That means don’t say anything in the first place. Since amos seems to be endorsing what Ban said, I was asking if he would therefore refrain from defending evolution under any and all circumstances – if he would avoid the risk altogether.
Make no mistake: that’s where this crap leads to. I think it’s disastrous to pretend Ban meant something much more anodyne and minimal, when that’s not what he actually said.
I really don’t think a clear line can be drawn between what it’s OK to say to someone who’s in the same room and what it’s OK to say in the public domain. That’s why this conversation has zigzagged from one to the other. It just doesn’t hold water that you must be civil and polite when talking to “real people” in private, but can laugh at anonymous people and ridicule their beliefs. Public incivility can be more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, but I have a hard time seeing why it’s defensible.
As far as respect goes–which is something a bit more than civility, but not as much as agreement–there are religious fanatics who don’t deserve any respect, but leaving them aside, I do think most of the time respect is possible. The religious people I know aren’t dumber or less ethical than me. I certainly hope they don’t think I’m dumber or less ethical than them because I’m an atheist.
Quick on-topic question, using a current example from our wee town:
Down by the local Asda supermarket there’s a large, prominently-positioned advertising hoarding with the following on it (in BIG LETTERS):
“Some people are gay. Get over it.”
(paid for by Stonewall)
A mildly-confrontational challenge to assorted belief systems, I think we can agree?
Could that be regarded as “disrespectful”, assuming the ‘offended’ group’s “religious sensibilities” were turned-up full blast?
The article on Toleration in the Stanford Encyclopedia outlines 4 types of toleration:
1. permission: a superior authority allows his subjects to practice a certain religion for example.
2. coexistence: two religions or doctrines agree to tolerate each other.
3. respect: two religions or doctrines treat each other as moral-political equals without agreeing with each other.
4. esteem: two religions or doctrines, while retaining their differences, esteem certain elements in the other doctrine.
I think that we are all in agreement that we are going to have coexist with religious beliefs. I, for one, think that in general I can respect religious beliefs, with certain exceptions, those exceptions having to do with those religions which foment practices which go against my ethical principles. In certain religions, for example, Buddhism, there are elements which I esteem.
Andy: Belief in God isn’t daft in my opinion. I just don’t believe in God myself. I don’t consider that all beliefs which I don’t share are necessarily daft. Certain religious beliefs are daft: the second coming, the eucharist, the virgin birth.
Since I was a child, no one has tried to impose religious beliefs on me. However, religions have the same right to sell their ideas in the market-place of public opinion, as any other ideology or world-view does. Finally, Andy, I don’t understand your final remark (or joke?) about reciprocity at all. You seem to have misread what I said above or perhaps I just don’t understand your sense of humor.
OB: Of course, I would defend the theory of evolution, if the occasion presented itself. I would even defend and have defended a woman’s right to choose in this very Catholic country.
Andy, Sounds like a good sign to me. The thing is, it’s not gratuitously disrespectful. It’s making an important point in the interests of gay rights, and it makes it without more nastiness than necessary. I agree–you really can’t have an absolute ban on speech that offends someone. Surely the Secretary General didn’t mean any such thing though. The UN regularly takes positions that cause offense. His point is, presumably, that we ought to recognize religion as an area of great sensitivity, and refrain from gratuitously insulting people and stirring up hostilities. Gratuitously–that’s implicit and important.
But he didn’t say that. He said what he did say. What he did say is dangerously repressive and illiberal. I don’t see any reason to read extra (and liberal) meanings into what he did in fact say when other people will take him at his word and go right on demanding that everyone shut up about religion.
Also – Ban was talking about the cartoons. But the cartoons were not gratuitous (and who decides what is gratuitous, anyway?); the cartoons had a purpose just as the Stonewall sign did.
Saying everyone has to be sweet to religion in public is to rule out Shelley, Voltaire, Hume, Twain, Dawkins, ‘Jesus and Mo,’ and countless other satirists. It’s also to infantilize believers.
Also…
“there are religious fanatics who don’t deserve any respect, but leaving them aside, I do think most of the time respect is possible. The religious people I know aren’t dumber or less ethical than me.”
But the issue is not religious people, it’s religious beliefs.
Ah, but the fun of satire is that it does say what shouldn’t be said. It relies on sensible statements like the Secretary General’s. If he didn’t say such things, the likes of Dawkins wouldn’t seem so outrageous (and naughty and fun).
The secretary general isn’t infantilizing anyone who isn’t already infantile. A reasonable person with self-confidence can take being made fun of, even when it comes to his/her most deeply held beliefs. But we seem to have millions of people in the world who aren’t that way.
It is hard to respect people who get so
enraged by a couple of satirical cartoons. However, OB, your approach is utopic, for lack of a better word. What I mean is that we can’t compare religion with any other belief system, because the world isn’t set up that way. We can’t start at point zero and rationally, compare religion with, say, consequentialism. Religion has another weight in the world. In another world, religion would have to compete with social psychology and would undoubtedly lose in the competition. But isn’t that like imagining a world where the United States doesn’t have nuclear weapons or where the United States would be willing to give up its nuclear arsenal in the interests of world peace? That would be nice, like the John Lennon song, Imagine, but it’s not real. Religion is not just a belief system, but a political force. I’m beginning to understand your indignation, OB, but it’s like the indignation of someone who discovers the capitalism is cruel and unjust. Sure, but capitalism is what we have. Sorry.
amos,
I see, you are using the word ‘respect’ in the sense of ‘Respect my authority’?
Thanks, amos; I’m a permanently naïve adult child who’s only just noticed capitalism. I love being patronized. I realize religion is what we have, but it’s not the case that the idea that everyone should respect all religious beliefs is not ‘what we have,’ it’s an idea, a contentious and contestable idea, and it can be disagreed with.
“The secretary general isn’t infantilizing anyone who isn’t already infantile.”
How can you possibly know that? All this stuff spreads, it influences people’s thinking. The Motoons fuss didn’t happen spontaneously, it was made to happen; people listened to other people, and then went out and rioted. How can anyone possibly know how many people who are not now infantile will read the SG’s words and become that little bit more infantile?
It’s not the case that the idea that everyone should respect all religious beliefs IS ‘what we have,’ I meant.
Don: No, when I say that’s hard to respect those who get enraged about the cartoons, I mean that it’s hard to respect them as moral-political equals. By the way, OB, the word is “utopian”. “Utopic” doesn’t exist in English. I was thinking of “utópico” in Spanish. The cognates always confuse me. Maybe when the UN General Secretary talks of respecting all religions, he means “respect” (although he would never say that explicitly) in the sense that I use the word when I say that in my neighborhood there are a lot of gangs and it’s prudent to respect their territory.
Everyone posted simultaneously. OB: I’m a permanently naive adult child too. I’m not patronizing you at all. I’m trying to understand your indignation, and finally, I think that I understand it. As a result, on a certain level, being utopian myself, I agree with you completely. Enough for tonight. This is a shared computer.
I kind of like utopic…
Okay, amos. I suppose a lot of my indignation goes back to two years ago – I followed the Motoon fuss quite closely, and there was an amazing amount of bad faith around. And an amazing number of public officials got up and officially disavowed the principle of free speech, without admitting they were doing it. And for what?! For some Rageboys who think cartoons are immensely important while Darfur is the name of a video game.
Buenas noches!
I think that OB is obviously right, and that those who are trying to “interpret” (i.e., spin) what the UN Sec. Gen. said are convoluting far beyond warrant, and by so doing are illustrating not just that OB is right, but also why.
Curiously, the lingering and unexamined ‘respect’ I had for religion and the religious as a result of my upbringing has been pretty much destroyed by the the activities of the latter over the last decade or so.
Sorry Mr UN, but I feel under no compulsion to re-awaken it.
Here’s the problem, as I see it. Religions present themselves as a series of truth claims, much as does, say, the philosophy of Kant. OB wants to judge religions as a body of truth claims, without any special respect, much as we would a paper in a philosophy seminar. However, religions, unlike Kantianism, are also powerful institutions, which are mixed up with the geopolitical ambitions of certain states, for instance, Iran, and in a more complex manner, with the United States, at least under the government of Bush. Finally, religions are mass phenomena, unlike the philosophy of Kant, and thus, form a way of life for millions of our fellows. So while we can compare religion X to empiricism as far as their truth claims are concerned, we are not really comparing what religion X is, a powerful institution and one which has wide mass support. Now, we respect powerful institutions, first of all because we fear them. I don’t much believe in the theory of respect creep. It’s not a problem of conceptual confusion, but there is a human tendency to respect in all senses those who are powerful, although, in my opinion, that respect begins with fear, be it conscious or subconscious fear. Thus, the candidates of the powerful mainstream parties are more respected than the candidates of some minor party. Thus, when Al Gore talks about global warming, he is more respected than when George Monbiot does: Al Gore is more powerful and more important. Finally, there is the question of how we relate to the mass of people who are believers in religious doctrines. I feel that, unless their doctrines lead them to violate ethical principles, we should respect them, simply because it seems absurd not to respect (perhaps with what Jean calls metaphysical respect)the majority of humanity. I understand the desire of OB to compare religion X with philosophy Y, but on some level, it would be like comparing Hizbollah to the ethics of Aristotle. Religions are a different type of entity than philosophies are or than sciences are. Now, I can also understand the anger of those who feel that religions are not playing fairly: they present themselves as doctrines with truth claims, but they back up those truth claims with either hard power (Hizbollah) or soft power (the way that religions get preferential treatment in the media in all Western countries; the incredible budgets that all major religions use to promote their image, etc.)
“The secretary general isn’t infantilizing anyone who isn’t already infantile.”
“How can you possibly know that?”
I think we have lots of evidence–what is it but infantile that people rioted over the teacher who named the teddy bear Muhammad in Khartoum? Death sentence for Salman Rushdie? Etc. Etc. The secretary general is on very firm ground if he’s encouraging respect just to keep the peace.
But he’s probably encouraging it on other grounds too. This is only crazy if he means there should be no religious debate and every religious belief ought to be treated as true. His comments were way too brief for me to assume that’s what he thinks.
amos, basically every single one of those things you listed are reasons not to automatically defer to religion. Enormous institutions wielding vast temporal power are, and should always be, the first targets for any kind of criticism.
When the “body of truth claims” is the very source of the institution’s perceived authority it becomes absolutely mandatory to analyze and dissect them whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Not doing so is insanity.
“OB wants to judge religions as a body of truth claims, without any special respect, much as we would a paper in a philosophy seminar.”
No, not exactly. I do realize that religion is a lot of other things – but it is a body of truth claims too, and I do think it’s important to keep that in mind as well as to judge the truth claims themselves. All too often it’s just taken for granted that religion’s truth claims are basically irrelevant to our evaluation of the religion, and I think that’s a bad situation for a lot of reasons.
I don’t think religion’s truth claims should get a free ride just because religion is powerful. On the contrary.
Additionally, giving some group’s moral/ethical philosophy a pass because those people have guns and bombs is not “respect”. It’s extortion. Straight up organized crime. “Don’t go poking around our epistemological foundations if you know what’s good for ya.”
Cross-post with dzd. Just so.
“I think we have lots of evidence–what is it but infantile that people rioted over the teacher who named the teddy bear Muhammad in Khartoum?”
People rioting over the teddy bear is not evidence that they were “already” infantile – it’s evidence that they became infantile at some point. It may be that they were in fact “already” infantile, but we don’t and can’t know that; we don’t know who talked to them, who preached to them, who worked them up; or when, or how. The point is that people can be made infantile by others. It’s not a coincidence that we’re always hearing of riots that take place immediately after Friday prayers, after all.
“This is only crazy if he means there should be no religious debate and every religious belief ought to be treated as true. His comments were way too brief for me to assume that’s what he thinks.”
The Sec Gen is not on very firm ground if he’s encouraging respect for all religious beliefs in a context of murderous death threats over very mildly satirical cartoons “just to keep the peace.” That peace is the peace of silence and submission. As Tacitus so cleverly said, they make a desert and call it peace (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant).
I don’t know what the Sec Gen thinks, and that’s not the issue. The issue is what he actually said. He said what he said. I see no reason to assume he meant something much more congenial than what he in fact said.
You’ve never met a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, perchance? Try distinguishing between their adherence to their ideology and that of a Hindu zealot, say.
I have met far fewer people who are passionate in the same way about their political ideology as they are about their religious practices. Religion is usually personal in a way that politics is usually not.
And whether a dyed-in-the-wool Communist is different from a Hindu “zealot” depends on what the “zealot” is trying to do: is he “zealous” about fasting and being a vegetarian? If so, then he’s very different from a Communist. A Hindu “zealot” who wants to impose economic division of labor according to his view of the caste system, OTOH, is very much like a Communist–and at that point his ideology has ceased being wholly “religious” and has moved into the sphere of politics.
Jean K. said,
“Why is it obvious the Secretary General is urging a lot more than you would urge–just civility?”
And OB responded,
I didn’t say it was obvious. But it is, after all, what he said. If he meant just civility, he could have said that; he could have used the word ‘civility.’ He said ‘respect,’ instead. Respect does mean more than civility.
Maybe in the dictionary respect means more than civility, but in real-life conversation they’re often used interchangeably. Civility and good manners are generally considered a form of respect. At worst, Moon is guilty of imprecise use of language here, relying on general connotations too much. Yes, he “said what he said.” But there’s a much more charitable interpretation of what he said than the one you’re using, and I think that’s the more sensible and rational interpretation given who he is (i.e., someone who by definition has to oppose lots of religious interests as part of his job).
Sure, I know they’re often used interchangeably – but that’s my point. They shouldn’t be; it’s harmful. And there is nothing wrong with trying to clarify meanings; it’s this kind of blurring and slopping that creats so much confusion and politics-by-stealth in the world.
Charitable interpretations are all very well in seminars, but the point about Ban’s statement is that it has power, real world power. That being the case, charity is completely irrelevant. My point isn’t about Ban at all; I couldn’t care less what he really thinks; I’m not interested in Ban; I’m interested in what he said and the effect it will have.
The trouble with words that can be taken in both a minimal and a maximal way is that they can be taken in both those ways. While optimists are busy assuring us that Ban meant only this or only that, people who actually want to silence critics of religion are busy understanding him to mean that we should ‘respect all religious beliefs’ in the most maximal sense possible.
Therefore it is a mistake to defend what Ban said. It’s not about blaming Ban, it’s about refusing his advice.
OK. Can someone please – without digressing into vague qualifiers – define what “respect” means? OB is trying to point out the vast difference between civility and toleration and respect, but some here just won’t define what they mean by “respect.”
I would like, please, *specific, direct* examples of what would constitute respectful and disrespectful treatment of religion and why. If we’re going to agree or disagree here, I think we all need to know what we mean by the terms we’re throwing about.
And I agree with OB – there is no cause for bending over backwards to charitably interpret Ban’s statements. I’m really puzzled why so many people *want* to do so. Several people have said, “I’m sure he didn’t mean X or Y. . ” How are you sure? The answer is, you’re not, and neither is anyone else. But why do you seem to *want* to be sure he didn’t mean something as illiberal as what he actually said?
And Amos – you’ve said repeatedly that you haven’t met a creationist, and you’ve never had someone try to force his religious beliefs on you. I submit your experience is in the minority, at least in the U.S. I don’t know what country you live in, but let me assure you, this is not the way it is in the U.S. I realize we all form our opinions from our own experience, but please understand your experience is most emphatically *not* a common one in my country.
Much of religion really (really) is aggressive, confrontational, and wont to annex everything and everyone it can. You’ve got to understand the gentle, non-confrontational attitude you have is a luxury that comes from your experience and *not* a luxury we have in the U.S. There are good, legitimate reasons to tackle religion head-on here that you really need to acknowledge.
That’s the thing.
I keep thinking (in relation to all these ‘he just meant’ comments) of appeasement and Fascism. I haven’t said so because it’s a bit bullying, and we’re just talking here, we’re not Neville Chamberlain. But all the same – the attitude does remind me of appeasement. Theocracy isn’t a nice gentle kindly let’s all respect each other thing, and it’s bizarre to assume that it is.
If Ban had said ‘No one should risk pissing off Muslims because it’s dangerous,’ then we’d know where we were. But this business of dressing up fear as some kind of high-minded ethical diplomacy (repudiating genuine free speech in the process) is both hypocritical and sinister.
“I would like, please, *specific, direct* examples of what would constitute respectful and disrespectful treatment of religion and why.”
Is it really such a mystery what respectful treatment of religion means? You just have to think of some occasion when you disagreed with someone you basically like, so you were careful about how you put things. Respect means being polite and civil, but more than that–it means caring about the other person’s feelings, treating them as intelligent and moral despite the disagreement, being open to whatever elements of truth may be in their outlook.
I don’t know that all disagreements about religion can be mutually respectful, but in my experience a lot of them can be. I look at it as something to strive for, myself. I suppose it would be a dull world if everyone did, and I do enjoy writers who throw caution (and mutual respect) to the winds.
“when you disagreed with someone you basically like”
Which, obviously, has zero relevance to public discourse, which is what this is about.
As I’ve said from the beginning – this is not about being nice to friends and acquaintances; it’s about the neutral impartial world of public discourse. This whole business of people we know is a complete red herring.
For the third time – can we stick to the subject? The subject is public discourse.
I think this Miss Manners stuff is inane, because it’s so entirely beside the point. Ban Ki-moon wasn’t telling us to be nice to our friends!
Jean, yes, it is a mystery, because everyone means something different. I surmise you mean “not yelling or launching ad hominem attacks” at people you disagree with. But this is *not* obviously what everyone else (including Ban) means by “respecting” religion.
I’m asking for real clarity here, and frankly, I’m getting pretty peeved that some very smart people on this blog are acting as if this is a difficult question. It’s not folks. OB has been repeatedly begging people to stop with the irrelevant comparisons to manners in private conversations. For the love of Pete, what is unclear about this?
“it’s about the neutral impartial world of public discourse”
The what? You want to define that, OB?
The world of public discourse, which is neutral and impartial because we don’t assume we’re talking to friends and acquaintances; we treat our readers or audience impartially and equally. We don’t worry about whether we ‘basically like’ our readers or audience or not, we just address them all on equal terms, as adults. We don’t feel any obligation to baby them or to vet everything we say in case it might outrage someone very tender-minded or oversensitive or hot-tempered.
In the newer thread, I’ve given my reasons why I agree, with certain reservations, with the UN Secretary General, and I’m not speaking about private conversations. I will not repeat my arguments here and unless someone presents an argument which has not been expressed so far, I will not reply, since there is no point in reiterating my opinion and anyway, according to the rules of this blog, reiteration is not acceptable. However, if those who oppose the thesis of publically respecting religious discourse, even fanatical religious discourse, want a target for their arguments and/or invectives, I invite them to read my post.
Let’s see. Josh asked “what is respectful treatment of religion?” I figured we could take our cues from our own experience. So I explained what we all know–being respectful is more than civility. It’s not demonising someone, not assuming they’re less intelligent or moral, treating them as likeable and more or less like yourself, seeing the truth in their views, as much as possible, being fair. It’s a set of attitudes that lead to a way of behaving.
This is exactly how I treat religious people I come into contact with…people who are students of mine, colleagues, people involved in political causes, etc. Not just friends, but everyone.
Now, supposedly there’s a firewall between issues of interaction with “live” people, and issues about public speech. The thing is, I think this firewall is illusory…which is what I’ve said above repeatedly. The way I treat people in real life isn’t just to avoid fist fights, which aren’t a worry when I’m writing a book or article. It’s the way I think they deserve to be treated. It would seem odd to have two separate standards, one for talking to people I bump into and the other for people I talk to indirectly, through a book or article. I don’t, or at least try not to.
That’s not what Josh asked – the quotation marks are on something he didn’t say. He asked something more specific. (And it was a little odd to reply by asking if it’s really such a mystery what respectful treatment of religion means, because that’s not what he was asking, he was asking for clarification of what people meant by it here – and that is something of a mystery at times, because there’s a lot of subject-changing going on.)
What you explained is not what we all know, because you phrased it as being about disagreeing with someone you basically like, and the whole point here (my whole point) is that we can’t be expected to treat everyone in the world the way we treat people we basically like. We can’t ‘respect’ everyone, sight unseen. We may try to be civil and/or tolerant; we can’t do more than that, and it’s absurd to expect it – especially when doing things like writing books or drawing cartoons. We can’t pretend we know everyone who’s going to read the book or see the cartoon – we can’t expect them to love us and we can’t expect to love them.
I get what you’re saying about the separate standards – but I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I think that distinction – that firewall, if you like – is crucial. How else can we possibly write anything without constant self-censorship? I write things every day that I would not want to say to my very kind evangelical cousin – but I’m not about to stop writing them because I would never say them to him!
I don’t think it seems in the least odd to have separate standards for people we know and people who might read something we write; I think pretty much everyone who writes has those two separate standards.
It’s not self-censorship. It’s just basic decency to be considerate toward real live people who you are talking to through your books. The result could even be a better book. When you remind yourself of real, live, smart, likeable Christians (or whatever) who may read what you write, the result is that you work much harder at being fair to Christianity. It’s not that I’m never going to make any reader feel disrespected, but I wouldn’t do so without thinking about it and deciding it was worth doing for some particular reason. Hmm…the ethics of writing. It’s an interesting subject.
With all due “respect,” Jean, I think you’re just obfuscating the point now. You continually mingle the ethics and manners of private conversations and interpersonal, everyday relationships, with the ethics of writing a book, or speaking out in newspapers, or taking a public stand on this or that moral, religious, or political stance. Why are you doing this?
I’ve read your posts on this blog for some time, and I know you’re a thoughtful woman. But I can’t understand why you continually posit – in such a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm way – that “respecting” other peoples’ religious stances is just exactly the same as having polite disagreements with the people in your family. This is *obviously* not what this conversation is about, and I can’t believe you don’t recognize it. Ban was *not* (soooooo obviously) talking about the nice, genteel way we approach controversial subjects with our friends. No, Jean, it’s not the case that we can approach and criticize controversial issues of grave public and political import the same way we moderate our tone at family dinner parties. To refuse to recognize this is, well, I don’t know – I find it astonishing.
Am I the only one here who is not living in a drawing room? Am I really the only one who doesn’t see that the pronouncements of “respect” that come out of the UN, or any other official body, are *not* admonishments to be nice to your family, but instead coded instructions to be silent and to *not* contradict patently false and anti-human dogmas? Perhaps the posters here ought to re-read and reconsider Richard Dawkins’ observation that what passes as normal, everyday, robust criticism of ideas automatically becomes “disrepectful,” “controversial,” or “hateful,” if applied to religions.
Crikey. . I feel like like I’ve stepped right through the looking glass, and on Butterflies and Wheels, of all places.
Oh, honestly, Jean – why do I have to be “fair” to Christianity – “fair” in the sense of framing everything I write so that it will please “likeable” Christians? That sounds like sheer Podnsappery – write nothing that will bring a blush to the cheek of the Young Person.
I am “considerate” toward real live people who read my books, and who read Butterflies and Wheels; I do that by not patronizing them, not writing down to them, not thinking of them as so fragile and childish that I can’t write honestly.
And I don’t know what you mean by “making any reader feel disrespected.” By saying what beliefs you consider to be unsupported by evidence or argument for instance? Is that to make any reader feel disrespected? Is that really something you think a serious writer should hesitate over? Or am I on the wrong track, do you mean something else? But if so, what? What on earth are you talking about?
Really. In sober truth, I think that having a policy of never making any reader feel disrespected without thinking about it and deciding it was worth doing for some particular reason is a recipe for self-stultification. I can hardly think of a worse way to go about the job – worrying about how (purely imaginary) readers will feel about what one writes.
How do you even know that the kind of people who would pick up a philosophy book would be likely to “feel disrespected” by anything in it? Do people that childish and fragile even read philosophy books?
And all this prompted by the Motoons….which themselves are so inoffensive. To read you and amos anyone would think they had been full of scatalogical obscene caricatures worthy of Streicher.
If you think this idea of hesitating to write anything that would (according to whom?) make some reader feel disrespected is not self-censorship but “the ethics of writing” – well, I disagree. Strongly.
You admire Katha Pollitt’s writing, for crying out loud! Do you think she pauses to ask herself if every thought might cause some reader to feel disrespected?! You miss Molly Ivins; do you think she thought that way?
I think the ethics of writing has to do with writing the truth as you see it, not with trying to shape it to the palate of people who are easily upset.
Josh made the crucial point – “it’s not the case that we can approach and criticize controversial issues of grave public and political import the same way we moderate our tone at family dinner parties.”
I too find it astonishing that anyone with sense doesn’t get that. We have to be able to talk about public subjects in a fearless impartial way, we can’t think of the public as just a lot of family members. If public discussion were that drastically inhibited – godalmighty, there would never have been a civil rights movement, there would never even have been an American Revolution. There would have been no feminist movement, no gay rights movement, no contraception.
And then – I loathe sentimentality, and this whole idea seems to me to reek of sentimentality. It reminds me of Nussbaum at her worst, rebuking Mill for not having enough “tender regard” for Calvinists when he said something harsh about Calvinism. Fuck tender regard. We should treat each other as adults, not babies.
Does this difference of opinion matter?
I treat all people I meet with respect but if they do certain things they lose it. Demanding respect while threatening to behead “infidels” is contemptible so I have contempt for such people. To do anything else would cause me to lose my self-respect. To speak of the necessity of “respect” in the context of calls for the murder of cartoonists is petty-fogging at best. The only resonable response to such calls is to condemn them and to say nothing against the cartoons.
@ OB
You wrote:
…
And all this prompted by the Motoons….which themselves are so inoffensive
…..Endquote
????
I would think some are highly offensive. In particular, the turban-Mo, which IMHO is a very good charicature.
I do not agree that it alludes that all muslims are terrorists, but it nevertheless hits oodles of nerves:
1) It alludes that their beloved prophet (the ultimate and IDEALIZED human) is a villain.
a) To the extent that Mo can be
(historically) accurately described,I’d think it is fairly accurate description. As a twist of irony, Mo even had one (or was it two?) poets assassinated when they had written unfavoably of him.
They have serious dissonance when trying to reconcile their idealized picture with the desciptions in the quran where he executed (or had executed) opponents, and explicitly reccomended his adherants to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers etc
b) He is not just depicted a villain but an UGLY VILLAIN :-)
2) It refers to the fact at least some of the modern terrorists obviously were devoted muslims who made explicit referance to the scripture and Mo’s example when “justifying” their own terror attacks
3) Their own anger might give a nagging reminder that they themselves are very close to an IDOLIZED Mo, which of course is prohibited.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Oh my God, I’m standing up for respect! That’s shocking!
Yes, writing or speaking in public is an interaction, like talking to someone in person. Y’all have twisted the examples to suit your purposes. No, no…I’m not talking about the family dinner table, as I made clear. (Really….) The point is that when you write, you’re not in a closet. There’s an impact on real people.
Yes, I think awareness of that can be salutary, not just from the point of view of keeping the peace, but from the point of view of keeping the writing fair. Of course you should be fair. To all positions that you discuss, not just religious ones.
Look, I’ve got nothing against books that aim to expose the worst elements of religion. I’m a big fan of Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith, which is quite savage. If you’re in that business, there will be points where respect just has to give way to other values. My point is that it’s an important value and people who write/talk publicly aren’t exempt.
OB, you heaped scorn on the secretary general for standing up for respect. I’m not making respect the sole important value in writing, or saying truth doesn’t matter (ouch!). I’m trying to give respect its due.
Jean:
Human life is a stratospherically higher value than any claim to “respect”, however the latter is defined. It is incumbent upon everyone to stand up for the right to life of the cartoonists given the threats against them. It is both immoral and tactically wrong to engage in a debate about “respect” while these threats exist. Those making them need to be told to get over themelves. And that’s all that anyone in a position of authority should have to say on the subject at this time.
I don’t disagree–yes, he should stand up for their right to life. But are there any limits at all to how people should exercise their freedom of speech? I should think there are. Lives can be saved by encouraging mutual respect, just as they can be saved by defending the right to free speech.
But respect for people and respect for ideologies are not the same things. (The second shouldn’t exist, for starters) You are starting to blame the victims here. The cartoonists (motoonists?) didn’t kill anybody, the rioters did. There is such a thing as individual responsibility.
(And the fact that people are claiming special status for their religion doesn’t mean we have to give them.)
On the other hand, Paul also seems to want to close the discussion on moral grounds. That doesn’t wash either: there is always somebody somewhere whose life is threatened on religious grounds. If that is your condition sine qua non, we’ll never be able to talk.
No; writing or speaking in public is not an interaction, like talking to someone in person. That’s just what it isn’t. Public writing is not like talking to someone in person, just as playing squash is not like scuba diving. There is some common territory (language, for instance), but they are not simply the same kind of thing.
Of course when one writes there is potential for an impact on real people (only a potential, which is not always fulfilled). But nobody knows what that impact will be. Nobody knows who the real people will be. Nobody knows anything about it. So what reason is there for deciding in advance that some real people will “feel disrespected” by something one wants to say and so deciding not to say it? I suppose that could make sense in certain kinds of very targeted books – self-help books and the like – but in argumentative books, which I take to be the kind we’re talking about here? What reason is there for imagining a set of people who “feel disrespected” and then filing down one’s book to fit their imagined wishes?
Yes of course of course you should be fair. My question was ironic. But imagining groups of needy oversensitive readers is not the way to train oneself to be fair – it’s the way to train oneself to be woolly.
I didn’t heap scorn on the Sec Gen, I heaped scorn on what he said.
I feel disrespected by what he said. He should have thought of that beforehand, and acted accordingly.
“But are there any limits at all to how people should exercise their freedom of speech?”
Yes, of course. But the limit should not be what might offend a small number of easily-offended people. As many commentators have pointed out, that would be no freedom of speech at all. Freedom to say the inoffensive is no freedom.
And to tell the truth, “standing up for respect” in the sense of censoring one’s own writing in advance because it might make imagined people “feel disrespected” is rather shocking, at least for a philosopher.
I have no wish to stop any debate. However when one side are pointing weapons at the other then debate is impossible.
Cassanders – Fair enough. But the thing about the turban one is that it can perfectly easily be read as a sorrowful reproach of people misusing the Prophet.
On the other hand…
Jerry S reminded me that we had a protracted discussion of this a year ago when the Clare college (Cambridge) student paper published the Motoon with a bluntly abusive caption and the Cambridge authorities made a spectacle of themselves. I found the discussion – 83 comments! He nudged me into agreeing to a more nuanced position, or perhaps a more detailed one, than I’ve been defending here.
So…fair enough. It’s true that I don’t think it’s especially clever or advisable to publish stuff that is purely abusive as opposed to cleverly satirical or well argued. I also don’t think the Motoons fit the first description, but the Clare college version perhaps did. We both think that the violent reactions change the equation – that the reactions make it more of a duty to publish the Motoons rather than less of one, and also that reactions of that kind cause us to be more vigilant beforehand than we would be about possible Christian reactions, and that that’s unfortunate.
“And to tell the truth, “standing up for respect” in the sense of censoring one’s own writing in advance because it might make imagined people “feel disrespected” is rather shocking, at least for a philosopher.”
Whoa! No censorship. There are lots and lots of writers who write in the respectful manner I’m talking about. Which means they don’t insult opponents, they bend over backwards to be fair to other people’s views, they try to interpret ideas charitably. Martha Nussbaum is that kind of writer, I think, and I hardly think she’s censoring herself. Christopher Hitchens is the opposite. Hitchens is fun to read, but if someone wanted to chastise him for disrespect, I couldn’t blame them.
Okay (up to a point). JS told me I agree with you more than I think, and he’s right – I don’t (usually) set out to insult opponents either, and I don’t consider that self-censorship; it’s just not something I want to do.
But on the other hand I still think that none of that is relevant to Ban’s statement, or that Ban’s statement was useful or well expressed or consistent with a genuine defense of free speech.
There’s a lot of territory between Nussbaum and Hitchens.
I can blame anyone who chastises Hitchens or anyone else for disrespect, because I still think respect is the wrong word. I think it’s both silly and sentimental to expect writers to be respectful.
Doesn’t the word creep you out at all, Jean? That whiff of sanctimony, of piety, of unctuousness? Doesn’t it sound all Uriah Heepish? At any rate, it does to me.
I think we like and dislike a lot of the same books, so we can’t possibly disagree that much…
But wait, we do disagree about the word “respect.” I like it! It sounds to me as delightful as “equality”. Who wouldn’t want it? I like the vocabulary of Kantian ethics…though not the whole story.
What I’m saying is that people should try to disagree without losing esteem for each other. When you lose esteem, you lose connection with other people. As a writer, I don’t want to do that As a reader, I don’t want to be encouraged to do that.
Then again you can’t talk about just anything with esteem. There are limits. There are religious ideas and other ideas that are through and through insane, with no redeeming features There’s just no way you can talk about them in this connection-maintaining fashion.
If you can keep esteem intact, you should. This is probably saying something much more muted than what the Secretary General said, but it does agree with him that respect is a Good Thing. Or rather mutual esteem and connection are Good Things. That works for me too.
“If you can keep esteem intact, you should.”
I think the moral calculus is more complex thant that (depending exactly what you mean by “if you can”).
I think there’s a kind of moral obligation to take into account how one’s words are likely to affect other people. So there’s a kind of cautionary principle.
But there are instances where one might decide polemical writing is what is required. For example, OB and I taught on a course run by the Center for Inquiry last year. A lot of the people attending that (atheists and agnostics mainly) felt under siege by the forces of religion in their everyday lives. It’s certainly arguable that one might want to write a book with the aim of giving that constituency of readers a little boost – you know, as a counterbalance to the scorn and derision that is heaped upon them by religious people – and it’s not implausible that one effective way of doing this is by aiming scorn, derisiion, etc., back in the other direction. After all, sometimes this stuff is just about taking sides.
Basically, I’m not sure that the moral principle is that one should always act to preserve the esteem of other people, so much as that one should always factor in the esteem of other people as part of the moral calculus.
Sadly enough, to say anything true it takes lots and lots of qualifications. Yes, preserving esteem and connection is a good, but not the only good.
What you say makes sense and sheds light on my own ambivalence. I do live in a corner of the world where there are lots of taboos against challenging religion. I do feel under siege sometimes. So I’ve read a lot of the “new atheist” books and enjoyed their irreverence.
After a bunch of that, though, I start thinking it’s time to get back to mutual esteem and connection. OK, I better stop here before I start talking about peace, love, and understanding…and get called Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (again).
How about Sunny of Rebeccabrook Farm?
Ha!
But at least we’ve found some common ground.
I suppose my starting position is always the one described – strong and not pleased awareness of the ever-increasing presence of religion and religious demands. I used to just shrug at religion! A colleague and friend at the zoo used to undertake Socratic dialogue (he’s an ex-academic) with fellow zookeepers on religion, and I thought it was an odd (though rather amusing) enterprise. But that was a couple of decades ago. Now…I feel a strong need to fight back.
And the thing about not knowing how people will react – Jerry pointed out yesterday that sometimes we do know, and he gave examples that I had to agree to. True. But…we know in general but not in particular. We know some people are likely to be offended by X, but what we can’t know is how many people in the group expected to be offended will be startled into thinking in a new way. Maybe that’s my Sunny of Rebeccabrook Farm idea – a certain optimism about the possibility of changing minds, of opening minds, of transformative reading and ideas. That kind of thing may not happen often, but it does happen – and I think it’s lively, sharp, combative writing that is likely to spark it. It’s to do with inspiration, with intensity, and so with shock or at least surprise. I think writing that is too respectful kind of rules out that possibility. I think people like Hitchens wake people up in a way that more polite writers don’t. I think a certain amount of bluntness and even scorn (for ideas or beliefs, not for people) wakes people up in a way that respect doesn’t. Sometimes being woken up is a good thing. Or it can backfire badly. But I hate being urged to give up even the chance.
Being urged by statements like the Sec Gen’s, I mean.
Or another way to look at it is that scorn and mockery can be liberating. They can be and they very often are. We can suddenly realize ‘Oh – we can laugh at that!’ That’s a huge relief for some people. For others it’s an outrage. That’s the problem. I suppose one reason the prior restraint by respect idea makes me bristle is that it is biased toward the people who will be outraged, at the expense of the people who will be liberated. And that’s where not knowing comes in – we really don’t know how many there will be of either. I think the respect idea tends to push us in the direction of assuming there will be lots of people outraged and hurt, while forgetting the possibility of other people being liberated.
That’s an eloquent defense of writing that shocks and possibly offends. I certainly think there’s a joy of being liberated from old proprieties and ideas. The fact is, I do like a lot of the confrontational anti-religious literature (not so much Hitchens because I just think he’s a bit juvenile and unfresh).
I wrote something about these things in a book review in the current issue of Free Inquiry–about how there’s a joy of breaking away and a different joy in staying connected. I think you find both in people who write critically about religion. Lots of people would put down an anti-Christian diatribe but will be deeply influenced by the subtle skepticism of Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels (two writers I love). But also vice versa.
But yes, there’s room for confrontation. I think it’s probably harmless in a society where readers are steeped in liberal values and respect for basic rights. It’s in other contexts that you get more serious repercussions.
No, I don’t like Hitchens’s God book much either – for just those reasons. Which relates to another point Jerry reminded me of yesterday: even I don’t like mere abuse. In fact I shouldn’t really say ‘even I’ because it’s not as if there’s a struggle about it. I hate mere abuse; it’s an aesthetic thing as well as an ethical one. I think it’s worth risking offending people for the sake of potentially liberating polemic – but the polemic has to be good.
I think about those competing joys a lot. Autonomy and attachment, to use Bowlby’s terms.
True about the other contexts, but at the same time, people in such contexts are the one most desperately in need of the liberation. There’s a real quandary here. I can imagine Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis sparking outrage in Saudi Arabia but also being a lifeline for a lot of people, men as well as women.
How funny that you mentioned Persepolis. I’m writing something for TP about these issues and mentioned it. I love her books. I mentioned her as an example of a “warm critic”…someone who humanizes the people and lifestyle in Tehran while also explosing terrible things. She’s got the right balance between connecting and disconnecting, I think. Which maybe goes to show that when I say “respectful” I mean something far to the left of what someone like the Secretary General means.
I love her books too. She was here a couple of years ago – doing readings for the library. She was amazing.
She’s well to the left of the Sec Gen all right! She has no respect at all for the theocrats. She nails their sorry asses. But of course her Tehran is full of people who aren’t theocrats.
Hi Jean,
Mea culpa for the “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” crack. I get heated sometimes when I disagree, but that was an example of a lack of respect and I ought not to have said it.
Josh, I said some annoying things above myself, including to you…at least your annoying thing was funny.
Sure, I know they’re often used interchangeably – but that’s my point. They shouldn’t be; it’s harmful.
Hmm. I don’t think it is. I think civility is a form of respect–not respect for ideas necessarily (honestly, I don’t even know what it means in practice to “respect” an idea, let alone respect it and still disagree with it), but for persons and for their intellectual abilities.
But that’s rather off-topic. I agree that sometimes offensive mockery can be liberating. The question is, as always, how do you strike a balance? Is the offensiveness necessary to make a point worth making? Often it’s not. Often it is.
Can you provide examples of people being “woken up” by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins.
If you mean, fired up to mouth pro or anti blatherings, then yes. But it’s all a little too close to Plenty-of-heat-not-much-light.
“We don’t feel any obligation to baby them or to vet everything we say in case it might outrage someone very tender-minded or oversensitive or hot-tempered.”
Oh, the Fe-y (oooh, lame science joke) that OB was the author of this
Off the top of my head, no, and I don’t have time to hunt down examples. But I don’t have to, either; notice that I didn’t claim to know that there are such examples; what I said is that we don’t know how many there are.
Mind you – Dawkins himself provides examples, from his book tour for instance.
Second comment merely stupid. I don’t have the Secretary General of the UN telling people to respect all my beliefs.
“But I don’t have to, either; notice that I didn’t claim to know that there are such examples; what I said is that we don’t know how many there are.”
Twisting and turning. Laughable.
As for the comment on the second comment: You just don’t get it, OB.