Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education.
-- Sam Harris, The End of Faith
D commented that there's nothing in my blog about Mohammed's caricatures. I guess one of the reasons is that I don't really give much one way or the other. But okay, I'll bite.
Here's a story.
Let's say you work for a medium-sized company called SlaevDryver. Things are chugging along nicely, times are good, and the company is seeing a lot of work. Since you're hiring, you hire this new guy by the name of--now, let's see if I can come up with a suitably vague, culture-neutral name that won't offend anybody...I got it--Abdullah.
You hire Abdullah after a diligent interview. Abdullah does nicely in the interview and seems otherwise competent. Then comes the orientation on Monday.
Your team trudges into the big conference room by the elevator and after some general bitching and moaning about how your respective weekends went, you turn to Abdullah for introductions. Abdullah gets up, clears his throat a bit, and says:
Abdullah: Hi, I'm Abdullah Rahmatullah ibn Mohammed. For those of you who're blinking, I also answer to Al.
Chorus: Hi Al.
Al: It's so nice to be working here. It's always been my dream to work for SlaevDryver. To give you a brief sketch of what I've been up to, career-wise...well, after graduation, I worked for Duzntpae-Well for ten years as Senior Software Dude, before upping and moving to the Midwest to work for a further five years in So-u-wanna-rayz in the capacity of Very Senior Guy Who Does Mysterious Stuff. And now here I am.
Chorus: Welcome, Al.
Al: Thanks.
Chorus: Sure.
So all of you get up to leave and schlep on back to your desks to indulge in a couple of hours of the Mandatory Monday Morning Zone Out. Al clears his throat again. You look at him curiously.
Al: Guys, just one more thing. I have a request, and I want you to bear this in mind very well. I'm generally a nice sort of guy but you should never, NEVER, ever, use the words "Great Bearded One-eyed Mooh-Daddy" in any sort of writing to me. Never, ever, because it goes against certain deeply held beliefs that I have which prohibits using those words in that order in writing. You can say it out loud, but you can never write it. Anybody who uses this sacred phrase in any sort of writing commits blasphemy and insults my beliefs. So please, just don't do it, okay. I cannot stress this enough.
Now of course, this strikes some of you as very strange, but most of you are like, "Yeah whatever, dude. Just don't drink all the coffee and hog the refridgerator shelves, okay. Remember to clean out your shit once a week."
So time goes by and Al seems to be doing all right at work. He's considered a little strange because five times a day, he lies on his stomach on the carpet in his cubicle, circles his arms and his legs in a swimming motion and chants in a sing-song voice. It appears to be a strange form of worship involving "Mooh-daddy".
Now, some people are a little annoyed at this because the chants can get a little loud at times. But then again, most of you just chalk it up to harmless eccentricity. And besides, as you like to point out to the annoyed people, Al is at least doing his worship-thing in the privacy of his own cubicle and also, he's quite good at his work. So leave him be, you say.
There is also this incident at work when someone, just to see if Al was serious about the Mooh-daddy thing, sends him an e-mail that says: Hey Al, remember that time when you said that we shouldn't mention Great Bearded One-eyed Mooh-Daddy, so were you, like, serious, dude?
Five minutes later, Al is at the sender's desk, red in the face and foaming at the mouth, yelling, "I told you not to write that, I told you. Blasphemy! I demand an unconditional apology, Sir. I demand satisfaction."
He calms down only after the co-worker apologizes humbly and profusely. You guys pretty much don't go there ever again, because for chrissakes, this guy seems serious about this blasphemy business.
Some more time passes, and somehow, there seems to be this growing bunch of people who are a little ticked off at Al. Part of the reason, you overhear at work one day, is this. Apparently a colleague who was invited to dinner at Al's house a few times got the impression that Al's domestic arrangements are a little, umm...shady. It almost appears that Al has more than one wife! Either that, or he's trafficking. Now most of you guys, being what you are, are not really disturbed by this news. You are more like, "Way to go Al. Monogamy is for wimps. Rock on." But for some unexplained reason, the women at work see this differently.
Women! Who'll ever understand them, eh?
Gradually, more tidbits about Al's other life start floating in. You have a hard time sorting out the truth from the hatemongering, but here's what people say. Al is a wife-batterer. He is rumored to have gotten into a brawl at his local pub over his religion. It was all sorted out in the end and everybody shook hands, but still.
Most disturbing of all however is the strong rumor that Al and a bunch of his bullyboy friends apparently tried to convert a sixteen year old boy into Al's cult, and when the boy refused, severely beat him up and broke his arms. The police almost got involved, but backed off later because it now appears that these cultists are a sizable population in your town and more violence may follow if Al and his buddies are pulled up over this.
The more liberal among those of you at work still take the following position: Al's personal business is his personal business. He's never slipped up at work, and that's what matters. Besides, most of the stuff about him are rumors anyway. So just leave him be.
Everybody is not so liberal though, and so one day some jokers at work get together and decide to pull a nasty on Al. They know that a particular phrase pisses off Al real good, so they decide to paint a big banner in red with the dreaded phrase on it and hang it on the bulletin board in front of Al's cubicle over the weekend, so that it's the first thing that Al sees on Monday morning.
Al does see it, and what follows is quite predictable and unpleasant.
Now my question to you is this. Let's say that you indeed worked at this hypothetical company. Where would you fall on this issue? Would you side with Al, because he was deliberately and needlessly provoked. OR, would you side with the jokers, because they were completely within their rights to put up a banner, and besides, Al seems such a mental sort outside of work, anyway.
How you answer that question might determine how you will vote on this caricature issue, because the situation described above is analogous to the caricature deal. And if you don't see the analogy, then either I don't communicate well, or you don't have any imagination. I am, for obvious reasons, inclined to believe the latter. Kidding, kidding.
Anyway, while you mull that question over, let me say this.
No one will argue against the fact that dear Al is irrational in his beliefs. It is quite irrational to get upset over the breach of a nonsensical convention. Most people would agree that if somebody really behaved like Al at a workplace, he would shortly be given an official letter asking him to seek alternate employment, most likely followed by some unofficial advice to spend a little time with a mental health professional.
At the same time, the jokers at work deliberately chose to be insensitive to Al's irrationality. So (and I'm sorry to switch horses on you) here's the real question: Just how sensitive should someone be towards irrationality?
And I would request you to answer that very carefully, unless of course, you claim complete exemption from irrationality.
Here's what I would say. And let me put it in the form of two rules.
(A) If one person's irrational belief does not interfere with your own designs in any way, it is the path of least resistance to be tolerant of it.
(B) Quite naturally, the opposite also applies, i.e. if a person's irrational belief encroaches on your freedoms--even a little--oppose it by all means available.
As an example of Rule A, consider that I, an atheist, am tolerant of your rather harmless belief in God, because the alternative is to call you delusional and lose a friend. Yes, yes, it's a compromise. The same applies to you. You are tolerant of my non-belief (I hope) because the alternative is to...you get the idea.
This is another example of Rule A with respect to Muslims. Muslims consider the representation of their prophet in a visual medium to be blasphemy. As a non-Muslim, I am not particularly disturbed by this because it is a convention that I would have no trouble following. It's not like I just love to draw pictures of a bearded, long-dead Arab businessman every day, and bite back tears if deprived of this right.
On the other hand, if a Muslim insisted that I not eat pork in front of him because it offends him, I would apply Rule B and ask him to go make tender love to a camel.
Note: If a Muslim asked me to stop eating pork in front of him in an officially Islamic country, I would say, "Yes, Sir. Where's the nearest trashcan, Sir?" Keeping that in mind, here's a thought for all the fucking head-in-the-asses pseudo-liberals of this world. This is why you should never, ever let your respective countries go Islamic, you clueless fuck-all morons. If for nothing, at least for the privilege of eating pork in public. Islam is a one-way street, you confused cretins, and if you don't get that, may Allah grant you mercy.
To take much license with Will Durant: Civilization is a precious good and guard it as such, you sainted idiots; don't sell it for tuppence and a fucking song.
Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. I'll come back to the topic at hand. So this is where I stand. Everybody has a right to free speech, and everybody has a right to be offended. So it follows that the Muslims are right to be offended. But they do not have to right to be violent because that infringes on another's right to remain unharmed.
Note that it is very hard for me to say that Muslims have a right to be offended because in general, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to any Muslim cause. Given the near-history of my country, it's difficult for me to be otherwise. There is also another reason. I am turned off by revealed theology of any kind in general, but even among rotten ideas, there are some that are more rotten than others. Islam ranks among my least favourite philosophies. If somebody came up with a painless and quick scheme to reverse the brain-washing that one billion people on Earth have been subjected to since 626 A.D, I would fund it.
Okay, okay, so maybe I ask for too much when I ask for both painless and quick. Let me downsize my expectations. I'll settle for quick.
But I grudgingly admit that Muslims have the right to be offended over the Danish cartoons.
The Danes of course have a right to free speech and are quite right in publishing the cartoons. But broadly speaking, I don't see how upholding your freedom of speech will make a difference in the long run if your country is poised to become majority Islamic in the not too distant future anyway, as some demographers say it will.
This is my problem with the European countries: They make all these noises about freedom of speech and corruption of cultural values, but don't do anything fundamental to prevent Islamic influence on their precious culture. France outlaws headscarves, Danes paint the prophet, but tell me this: Has France limited Muslim immigration? What about Denmark? Nope. France, at least, needs the labour. So all this talk of freedom of speech is just so much irrelevant hogwash, if you ask me. Why polish brass on a sinking ship?
I have to pause here and say this. What the fuck am I writing? I am actually defending something that I wouldn't defend if paid a salary for it. It's like I'm stuck in this surreal nightmare that I can't shake myself awake from.
Disclaimer: I am categorically not arguing for or against limiting of Muslim immigration into European countries. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. The only two countries that concern me at the moment are India and the United States. Europe's problems are Europe's problems. I don't care if fifty years from now, the Danes are all wearing skullcaps and raising their asses to the sky five times a day in deference to an imaginary Sky-Poppa.
All said and done, an average European doesn't give two fucks about an average Asian, and I reciprocate that sentiment doubly. This callousness has been demonstrated many times before , and most recently when everybody went batshit about 57 deaths in London and precious few eyebrows were raised when 60 people got splattered over the pavement in Delhi shortly afterwards. Yes Europe, cry copious tears for us, and make it convincing, if you expect tears and sympathy from us.
Here's my personal note to Europe and its near-unconscious racism: Sink or swim, it's your problem. In a perverse and ultimately self-destructive way, I almost hope that you grovel before the Muslims.
Gradually, more tidbits about Al's other life start floating in. You have a hard time sorting out the truth from the hatemongering, but here's what people say. Al is a wife-batterer. He is rumored to have gotten into a brawl at his local pub over his religion. It was all sorted out in the end and everybody shook hands, but still.
Most disturbing of all however is the strong rumor that Al and a bunch of his bullyboy friends apparently tried to convert a sixteen year old boy into Al's cult, and when the boy refused, severely beat him up and broke his arms. The police almost got involved, but backed off later because it now appears that these cultists are a sizable population in your town and more violence may follow if Al and his buddies are pulled up over this.
The more liberal among those of you at work still take the following position: Al's personal business is his personal business. He's never slipped up at work, and that's what matters. Besides, most of the stuff about him are rumors anyway. So just leave him be.
Everybody is not so liberal though, and so one day some jokers at work get together and decide to pull a nasty on Al. They know that a particular phrase pisses off Al real good, so they decide to paint a big banner in red with the dreaded phrase on it and hang it on the bulletin board in front of Al's cubicle over the weekend, so that it's the first thing that Al sees on Monday morning.
Al does see it, and what follows is quite predictable and unpleasant.
Now my question to you is this. Let's say that you indeed worked at this hypothetical company. Where would you fall on this issue? Would you side with Al, because he was deliberately and needlessly provoked. OR, would you side with the jokers, because they were completely within their rights to put up a banner, and besides, Al seems such a mental sort outside of work, anyway.
How you answer that question might determine how you will vote on this caricature issue, because the situation described above is analogous to the caricature deal. And if you don't see the analogy, then either I don't communicate well, or you don't have any imagination. I am, for obvious reasons, inclined to believe the latter. Kidding, kidding.
Anyway, while you mull that question over, let me say this.
No one will argue against the fact that dear Al is irrational in his beliefs. It is quite irrational to get upset over the breach of a nonsensical convention. Most people would agree that if somebody really behaved like Al at a workplace, he would shortly be given an official letter asking him to seek alternate employment, most likely followed by some unofficial advice to spend a little time with a mental health professional.
At the same time, the jokers at work deliberately chose to be insensitive to Al's irrationality. So (and I'm sorry to switch horses on you) here's the real question: Just how sensitive should someone be towards irrationality?
And I would request you to answer that very carefully, unless of course, you claim complete exemption from irrationality.
Here's what I would say. And let me put it in the form of two rules.
(A) If one person's irrational belief does not interfere with your own designs in any way, it is the path of least resistance to be tolerant of it.
(B) Quite naturally, the opposite also applies, i.e. if a person's irrational belief encroaches on your freedoms--even a little--oppose it by all means available.
As an example of Rule A, consider that I, an atheist, am tolerant of your rather harmless belief in God, because the alternative is to call you delusional and lose a friend. Yes, yes, it's a compromise. The same applies to you. You are tolerant of my non-belief (I hope) because the alternative is to...you get the idea.
This is another example of Rule A with respect to Muslims. Muslims consider the representation of their prophet in a visual medium to be blasphemy. As a non-Muslim, I am not particularly disturbed by this because it is a convention that I would have no trouble following. It's not like I just love to draw pictures of a bearded, long-dead Arab businessman every day, and bite back tears if deprived of this right.
On the other hand, if a Muslim insisted that I not eat pork in front of him because it offends him, I would apply Rule B and ask him to go make tender love to a camel.
Note: If a Muslim asked me to stop eating pork in front of him in an officially Islamic country, I would say, "Yes, Sir. Where's the nearest trashcan, Sir?" Keeping that in mind, here's a thought for all the fucking head-in-the-asses pseudo-liberals of this world. This is why you should never, ever let your respective countries go Islamic, you clueless fuck-all morons. If for nothing, at least for the privilege of eating pork in public. Islam is a one-way street, you confused cretins, and if you don't get that, may Allah grant you mercy.
To take much license with Will Durant: Civilization is a precious good and guard it as such, you sainted idiots; don't sell it for tuppence and a fucking song.
Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. I'll come back to the topic at hand. So this is where I stand. Everybody has a right to free speech, and everybody has a right to be offended. So it follows that the Muslims are right to be offended. But they do not have to right to be violent because that infringes on another's right to remain unharmed.
Note that it is very hard for me to say that Muslims have a right to be offended because in general, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to any Muslim cause. Given the near-history of my country, it's difficult for me to be otherwise. There is also another reason. I am turned off by revealed theology of any kind in general, but even among rotten ideas, there are some that are more rotten than others. Islam ranks among my least favourite philosophies. If somebody came up with a painless and quick scheme to reverse the brain-washing that one billion people on Earth have been subjected to since 626 A.D, I would fund it.
Okay, okay, so maybe I ask for too much when I ask for both painless and quick. Let me downsize my expectations. I'll settle for quick.
But I grudgingly admit that Muslims have the right to be offended over the Danish cartoons.
The Danes of course have a right to free speech and are quite right in publishing the cartoons. But broadly speaking, I don't see how upholding your freedom of speech will make a difference in the long run if your country is poised to become majority Islamic in the not too distant future anyway, as some demographers say it will.
This is my problem with the European countries: They make all these noises about freedom of speech and corruption of cultural values, but don't do anything fundamental to prevent Islamic influence on their precious culture. France outlaws headscarves, Danes paint the prophet, but tell me this: Has France limited Muslim immigration? What about Denmark? Nope. France, at least, needs the labour. So all this talk of freedom of speech is just so much irrelevant hogwash, if you ask me. Why polish brass on a sinking ship?
I have to pause here and say this. What the fuck am I writing? I am actually defending something that I wouldn't defend if paid a salary for it. It's like I'm stuck in this surreal nightmare that I can't shake myself awake from.
Disclaimer: I am categorically not arguing for or against limiting of Muslim immigration into European countries. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. The only two countries that concern me at the moment are India and the United States. Europe's problems are Europe's problems. I don't care if fifty years from now, the Danes are all wearing skullcaps and raising their asses to the sky five times a day in deference to an imaginary Sky-Poppa.
All said and done, an average European doesn't give two fucks about an average Asian, and I reciprocate that sentiment doubly. This callousness has been demonstrated many times before , and most recently when everybody went batshit about 57 deaths in London and precious few eyebrows were raised when 60 people got splattered over the pavement in Delhi shortly afterwards. Yes Europe, cry copious tears for us, and make it convincing, if you expect tears and sympathy from us.
Here's my personal note to Europe and its near-unconscious racism: Sink or swim, it's your problem. In a perverse and ultimately self-destructive way, I almost hope that you grovel before the Muslims.