ASIDE: Just in case you don’t believe the threat to free speech is real

I’ve posted several times on this issue but I wanted to take the time to reply to several points that I have heard in the media or that were made in response to my comments. In particular I want to clarify my position on the issue and try to distinguish some subtle issues surrounding this controversy. Before I do let me just remind everyone that the anger in the islamic world was greatly enhanced (perhaps primarily the result of) three fake cartoons (one of which isn’t a cartoon) and seems to be more a response to the widespread (though scarily far from universal) western unwillingness to punish/condemn the publishers than outrage at the actions of one newspaper. Also there is no reason not to believe Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons with the well intentioned goal of drawing attention to an important free speech issue. In fact compared to cartoons critical of other religious groups these images aren’t even particularly insulting. In fact it is far from clear that these cartoons are (objectively) offensive/insulting to islam at all. Most christian westerners wouldn’t find an image of christ carrying a machine gun really truly offensive if it was drawn to illustrate the supposed hypocrisy of our born again president pursuing war.

Despite the relatively mild content of the cartoons many people, including governments and politicians, have criticized the newspapers for publishing offensive content. The argument, made in the comments here as well, goes something like this. The newspapers and publishers knew that the cartoons were likely to offend some people even suggesting that they should have foreseen the violent protests and harm to property and life. Therefore since one should try to avoid doing things that cause other people pain or harm it was wrong for the newspapers to publish the cartoons. In other words Jyllands-Posten missed that day in kindergarten about not hurting other people’s feelings.

This argument is flawed in many respects, chief among them the fact that we don’t believe we should always avoid hurting other people’s feelings. For instance Martin Luther King’s protests in the south certainly offended a great many southern whites and we surely don’t think he should have avoided saying things racists found uncomfortable. Of course it was directly necessary that MLK offend people to achieve his noble end but there are plenty of other examples where we feel the same intuition. Does a gay man have an obligation not to come out because his orientation might give his christian community offense? Should a newspaper refuse to publish editorials favoring gay rights because some christians get upset? Is it wrong to write a letter to the editor urging support for Ralph Nader knowing that some businessmen will (perhaps incorrectly) interpret your support as an offensive attack, even if you think Nader’s cause is hopeless? Since many muslims seem to be offended by the unwillingness of the west to support a curtailment of free speech do bloggers (even those critical of the newspapers decision) have a responsibility not to state their belief that Jyllands-Posten shouldn’t face legal repercussions?

If you agree that it isn’t obligatory to hide your sexual orientation, reasonable political positions, or some other important form of self-expression just because you know some people will be upset by what you say why doesn’t Jyllands-Posten deserve this same defense. While this point would be compelling regardless there are plenty of public depictions of the prophet that have been deemed inoffensive by the very muslim groups that are protesting these cartoons, e.g., the supreme court fresco depicting law-givers. So in essence the islamic protesters (at least those who haven’t been mislead) are simply demanding that we not say negative things about their religion (hypocritically so as many other bloggers have documents pervasive anti-jewish and some anti-christian expression in islamic society). Since a demand for preferential immunity from criticism is clearly unreasonable it is no more right for European newspapers to keep these cartoons out of their papers because muslims raise a fuss than it would be for the New York Times to censor letters to the editor which criticize affirmative action because this offends some liberals. Any other position would just encourage groups to become more easily offended by rewarding them with the power to effectively censor critical opinions.

Even if you think that one has an obligation to avoid causing offense/pain even in these situations a criticism of the European newspapers is deeply unfair. As I observed the publication of the cartoons only indirectly caused this great outcry, the forged cartoons and misleading propaganda spread by some imams and perhaps the lack of near universal western support for curtailing freedom of speech were the direct causes of the offense and the violence. Certainly an argument could be made that the publishers of Jyllands-Posten should have known of guessed that this was a likely consequence of their actions but under this standard muslims are even more guilty. I don’t just mean the imams who fanned the fire or even the people protesting but anyone who teaches, propagates or otherwise supports a religion/interpratation that is likely to find cartoons like this so offensive. It is pretty obvious that sooner or later someone is going to depict the prophet in a less than flattering light so helping to propagate a religion that finds this offensive is just as knowingly causing pain and offense. Besides one could easily guess that people like me are offended by demands for censorship (self of otherwise) of this kind. Thus if Jyllands-Posten is morally culpable for publishing these cartoons then so is every parent who raised their children to be islamic.

The primary problem in this debate is a confusion between two senses of the word ‘should.’ We use the word both to mean one is obligated to do something as in ‘you should not commit murder’ and to mean that one choice might be somewhat better than another even though there is no obligation, ‘I know you’ve never met Kristen but you should send her flowers they would make her feel better.’ While in this later sense of the word it is true that one ‘should’ donate all your money to charity and become the next mother Teresa we don’t judge people to have an obligation or to be blameworthy if they do not. At best the argument that Jyllands-Posten should not have published the cartoons might establish that all things considered it probably would have been better if they had not. It can not establish that it was blameworthy or a violation of some moral obligation for them to publish the cartoons.

At the end of the day I think it is crystal clear that Jyllands-Posten did not do anything blame worthy. The question of whether it on the whole hurt or helped things is much more murky. The harms are immediate and clear to see while the benefits are diffuse and abstract but this doesn’t mean they aren’t even more important. I think the situation is somewhat analogous to a black person in the early 20th century south publicly claiming to be just as good as white people. His remark gains neither him or other minorities any benefits, in fact likely brings retribution. Nor does it bring any knew intellectual ideas to the table. By making this remark he offends many racist whites and even encourages violence and conflict. Yet despite these immediate and clear harms his statement probably does good in the long term. If one allows a misguided group to control the public discourse with threats of violence or even just offense important ideas are stifled, people come to believe what isn’t criticized is right and social change is forestalled. By stepping out and taking the heat for being critical of aspects of islam (or perhaps islam itself) Jyllands-Posten, like generations of blacks in the south who refused to completely knuckle under (though involving far less personal courage and nobility), makes it easier for others to express important ideas or change the culture. The exact same point could be made about gays coming out of the closet. In particular if muslims are forced to take the heat of criticism in the west the same way other religions and ideas must they will ultimately find it less big of a deal. In ten, twenty or maybe 50 years criticism of islam will seem less shocking to muslims the same way christians in the west now tolerate displays that would have outraged them just 50 years ago. While the violence and deaths are tragic I think the increased freedom of expression and hence possibility for religious reform this will offer to future muslims may very well be worth it.

Since this post is already too long I will address the racism argument below. So many people (including former president Clinton) have argued that these cartoons are somehow comparable to anti-semitism. Even if so they should be treated exactly the same way we treat anti-jewish cartoons like the one linked above. However, this falsely misunderstands anti-semitism to be a religious criticism of jews. The very name implies that it is about an ethnic group (though arguably the wrong one) and declaring oneself to be non-practicing hardly lets jews escape from anti-semitic hatred. When I point out that it is stupid and ridiculous to believe that some man in the sky is specifically looking out for your ethnic group (despite your historically disadvantaged position) I am simply not being anti-semitic. Even if I were to say (I’m not I just don’t know) that religious faith in judaism tends to encourage unproductive hate/resentment of Palestinians it just wouldn’t be anti-Semitic because I would be criticizing a belief held by these people not their ethnic makeup. Similarly criticizing muslims for supporting suicide bombing is simply not like racism or ethnic prejudice.

Of course this distinction is irrelevant unless there is a good reason for us to treat the two categories . After all they both tend to be set by the circumstances of one’s birth and create strong feelings of group identity. Unlike race religious beliefs can be influenced by criticism, argument and social pressure. While it may be rare I stopped being a catholic because of rational arguments. More commonly people change their religion when they marry or move to a community with a differing faith. However, these dramatic changes of belief are not the only way religious belief changes. More important in a large sense is the slow evolution of religious doctrine inside a given tradition. Though (with some exceptions like the reformation) most people born catholic stay catholic nevertheless the modern catholic church is a great deal different than the one that performed the inquisition. The greater freedom members have to hear and exchange ideas critical of the church or elements of its teaching the faster these changes happen. While I’m not arguing that the cartoons themselves are likely to shift islamic teaching much (though it is valid to criticize the connection of the religion to violence) familiarity with this sort of criticism makes it less likely the scholar in the middle east who says we shouldn’t interpret the Koran literally will end up getting killed.

Additionally there is simply more in need of discussion about religion than there is about race or ethnicity. We have strong evidence that genetic differences between the races are exceptionally small. One can still quibble about whether or not different races have slightly different proclivities and abilities but one can’t make a serious argument that just being black (as opposed to the cultural context race is embedded in) makes one several times more likely to murder someone. However, it is quite plausible that convincing someone that martyrdom is rewarded with beautiful virgins does radically increase their changes of being violent. I sure as hell I know I would be more likely to blow myself up if I thought it got me good sex in heaven. Apart from the pragmatic social impacts a religion is also making claims about how the world works. These claims are either true or false like other claims and one must argue and analyze them to determine their veracity. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about an ethnic group being true or false the way it does with a religion.

I also think it would be a mistake to underestimate the enjoyable feeling of being right in the face of adversity. Whatever your religion you have to believe there are tons of people out there believing falsely and nevertheless trying to make martyrs or otherwise seeking out adverse situations. There is a certain perverse pleasure in believing you and yours persist in hanging on to the truth despite outside criticism. So there is a certain emotional reaction which softens the blow of religions criticism which often isn’t at play in ethnic criticism.

So even if you don’t buy into the intuitive distinction between beliefs and other voluntary/representational states and skin color there are valid reasons to believe we should not condemn religious criticism the same way we do racist speech. If my arguments weren’t convincing you still must recognize that there is a pretty significant distinction between properties of our bodies and beliefs. Thus it is quite reasonable to draw a line between criticism based on these two different traits. However, if you lump religious criticism in with racist speech as being totally unacceptable (morally not legally) there seems to be no way to draw a distinction between religious beliefs and other sorts of beliefs. After all religious beliefs are just a set of beliefs people tend to believe strongly and learn from their parents and this isn’t much different than political affiliation. As I’ve already argued I think giving religious beliefs special treatment is nothing but discrimination against the minority non/anti-religious viewpoint.