Saturday, November 04, 2006
For some reason, I was dreaming about Iraq on Friday night.
It seems to me that certain streams of Islam are totally incompatible with liberal democracy (no surprise there). The question Western societies have (and Iraq too) is how to deal with these streams of Islam. If their Imams call for murder (or their flock participates in it), then they can be arrested - but that is often too little too late. The Imams from these groups know it, and so know how to say what they want to say while dancing around these rules. I know it sounds a little radical, but I wouldn't mind extending the limits on speech and religion in this case. I would argue that any church that preaches certain illiberal concepts (primarily unequal rights for different classes of citizens) ought to be censored in some way.
You can then put a cap on radical groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood and its many children, while allowing other streams to grow and succeed.
There are two sides to the separation of church and state. In the US, the state can't have any involvement in churches. But isn't it reasonable to say that the church ought not try to fundamentally change the liberal nature of the state?
Thoughts?
Joseph ¶ 4:32 PM
It seems to me that certain streams of Islam are totally incompatible with liberal democracy (no surprise there). The question Western societies have (and Iraq too) is how to deal with these streams of Islam. If their Imams call for murder (or their flock participates in it), then they can be arrested - but that is often too little too late. The Imams from these groups know it, and so know how to say what they want to say while dancing around these rules. I know it sounds a little radical, but I wouldn't mind extending the limits on speech and religion in this case. I would argue that any church that preaches certain illiberal concepts (primarily unequal rights for different classes of citizens) ought to be censored in some way.
You can then put a cap on radical groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood and its many children, while allowing other streams to grow and succeed.
There are two sides to the separation of church and state. In the US, the state can't have any involvement in churches. But isn't it reasonable to say that the church ought not try to fundamentally change the liberal nature of the state?
Thoughts?
Joseph ¶ 4:32 PM
Comments:
<< Home
It is, IMO, too difficult. People redefine language all the time, and "intolerance" is something that anyone can turn around. Look at how Israel is considered by many to be the Middle East's only terrorist state. Anything designed to limit speech can and will be turned on its head to hurt the good guys.
I think that it is in the open, that radical Islam can be defeated. It will take persistence, and a considerable amount of humour (Islam seems incapable of taking a joke), but this can be won without resorting to censorship.
I think that it is in the open, that radical Islam can be defeated. It will take persistence, and a considerable amount of humour (Islam seems incapable of taking a joke), but this can be won without resorting to censorship.
# posted by 
: 4:45 PM
: 4:45 PM
Should there be an explicit policy of identifying these sorts of Islam as problematic? Maybe not censoring speech, but making an effort to publicly condemn speech that is problematic? Bloggers do it, but outside of Australia almost no public officials venture in this direction. IMO, part of having a battle of conversation is actually entering the fray.
I think basic principles of free speech have to hold here. People have to be willing to debate those who are intolerant. No set of rules will protect civilization if civilization cannot be bothered to have the argument.
And I repeat that humor is critical. It is the most incisive tool for forcing people to confront their problems. "Borat" is a great example -- ridicule everyone, and see who can take a joke. So far, Kazakhstan has shown a profound inability to do so.
And I repeat that humor is critical. It is the most incisive tool for forcing people to confront their problems. "Borat" is a great example -- ridicule everyone, and see who can take a joke. So far, Kazakhstan has shown a profound inability to do so.
# posted by : 6:59 PM
: 6:59 PM
In other words, yes: people who say stupid or evil things should be ridiculed and/or condemned.In other words, people must be willing to engage radical islam, not pretend it is not there. It is all about confidence in one's own civilization. If you lack that, then Islam, or anything else, can destroy you. If you have it, then Islam is actually a relatively weak force.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 7:11 PM
: 7:11 PM<< Home
