Why I Published Those Cartoons

[gilliam]

By Flemming Rose
**
But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations . . .

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

 

[Adonis33]

By Flemming Rose

But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations . . .

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Excellent article.

 

[Chris7]

A must read for everyone who can!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

From the article:

The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

One of my fundamental values is not to belittle others on the basis of their faith.

To dismiss one of my fundamental values as “appeasement” is to entirely miss the point.

The point is that – as a creative person and as a strategically focussed person – I try to avoid false dichotomies because false dichotomies operate to paint me into a corner. My instinct is to create choices for myself where others do not expect choices.

We have before us a Fatwa which basically says Islam or Death. Is that the reality? I am not persuaded that it is the reality for all of us all of the time. I am still persuaded that many of us have many more choices than those set out in the Fatwa.

The thinking in some quarters seems to be that, if I refuse to belittle Muslims on the basis of their faith, that they will lose respect for me. And let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that this is true. So my Muslim neighbours start to push the envelope a little, push the boundaries, push my buttons.

What do I do? I show them were the boundaries are. By belittling them on the basis of their faith? No. By giving them clear negative reinforcement when they violate my boundaries and clear positive reinforcement when they respect them. And they learn not to push my buttons. Now they may push those buttons with other folks – but not with me.

What is helpful is that I have a range of options to offer my neighbours so that their approach to me is not fraught with intensity, urgency, and all-or-nothing thinking.

This is the nature of learning: to know exactly where the boundaries are in real terms, in personal terms.

The point is, I am not going to give up control over my own boundaries. It is my responsibility to know where my boundaries are. It is my responsibility to defend those boundaries in whatever way will work.

In real terms these are a few of my boundaries:

I am not going to belittle others on the basis of their faith.
I am not going to tolerate the beheading of hostages.
I am not going to look the other way while terrorists fly planes into buildings.
I am not going to stigmatize my neighbours because of the criminal actions of some rather strange folks far away.
I am not going to call Nazi-Pope cartoons free speech.
Neither am I going to call Prophet cartoons free speech.

And I am not going to be forced into changing my boundaries through intimidation by terrorists or shaming by secular humanists.

As a Catholic, would I choose a disrespectful cartoon to express my concerns about the WoT? No. That whole issue, imho, falls under the purvey of secular humanism. Do I feel any pull to defend secular humanism?

Nope. :nope:

Does this mean that I defend those who burn, loot, pillage, desecrate, kidnap, torture, and murder?

Nope. :nope:

Because a terrorist decides he is my enemy, does that make the secular humanist my friend?

Nope. :nope:

I am observing events in Europe with enormous skepticism. I do not identify with them. I do not believe that my lot is automatically cast with them. I do not trust the EU.

Are there individuals in Europe whom I do trust?

Yep. :yup: The Pope. And a few others.

 

[Lischou]

Fantastic article, well written with clear and concise explanations of why he published the cartoons.

Lisa

 

[Shoshana]

Ani Ibi:

From the article:

One of my fundamental values is not to belittle others on the basis of their faith.

To dismiss one of my fundamental values as “appeasement” is to entirely miss the point.

The point is that – as a creative person and as a strategically focussed person – I try to avoid false dichotomies because false dichotomies operate to paint me into a corner. My instinct is to create choices for myself where others do not expect choices.

We have before us a Fatwa which basically says Islam or Death. Is that the reality? I am not persuaded that it is the reality for all of us all of the time. I am still persuaded that many of us have many more choices than those set out in the Fatwa.

The thinking in some quarters seems to be that, if I refuse to belittle Muslims on the basis of their faith, that they will lose respect for me. And let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that this is true. So my Muslim neighbours start to push the envelope a little, push the boundaries, push my buttons.

What do I do? I show them were the boundaries are. By belittling them on the basis of their faith? No. By giving them clear negative reinforcement when they violate my boundaries and clear positive reinforcement when they respect them. And they learn not to push my buttons. Now they may push those buttons with other folks – but not with me.

What is helpful is that I have a range of options to offer my neighbours so that their approach to me is not fraught with intensity, urgency, and all-or-nothing thinking.

This is the nature of learning: to know exactly where the boundaries are in real terms, in personal terms.

The point is, I am not going to give up control over my own boundaries. It is my responsibility to know where my boundaries are. It is my responsibility to defend those boundaries in whatever way will work.

In real terms these are a few of my boundaries:

I am not going to belittle others on the basis of their faith.
I am not going to tolerate the beheading of hostages.
I am not going to look the other way while terrorists fly planes into buildings.
I am not going to stigmatize my neighbours because of the criminal actions of some rather strange folks far away.
I am not going to call Nazi-Pope cartoons free speech.
Neither am I going to call Prophet cartoons free speech.

And I am not going to be forced into changing my boundaries through intimidation by terrorists or shaming by secular humanists.

As a Catholic, would I choose a disrespectful cartoon to express my concerns about the WoT? No. That whole issue, imho, falls under the purvey of secular humanism. Do I feel any pull to defend secular humanism?

Nope. :nope:

Does this mean that I defend those who burn, loot, pillage, desecrate, kidnap, torture, and murder?

Nope. :nope:

Because a terrorist decides he is my enemy, does that make the secular humanist my friend?

Nope. :nope:

I am observing events in Europe with enormous skepticism. I do not identify with them. I do not believe that my lot is automatically cast with them. I do not trust the EU.

Are there individuals in Europe whom I do trust?

Yep. :yup: The Pope. And a few others.

God bless you, Ani!!! :clapping: