ROTFLMAO. Good one, Jim. Not to imply that you’re incorrect in noting that–I’ll leave that decision up to readers. Just the same, that’s very funny.

Anyway: Interesting article at TNR. While reading it, it occurred to me that absent some principal of “equal offense,” multiculturalism is little more than a shield for enemies of our own traditions and traditional values.

This is an issue that really fascinates me. On the one hand, it’s astonishing to see the Boston Globe, which lept at the chance to use fake internet p*rn (depicting US soldiers and iraqi captives) as the basis for demanding Rumsfeld’s resignation, deem it irresponsible to publish the cartoons (If I recall correctly, the publisher of the liberal Mormon blog Political Juice repeated both of these mistakes). On the other hand, it’s kinda’ funny when the same newspapers that scorn middle class Americans for objecting to Mapplethorpe’s NEA funding, and that laugh at those who support fining a network for the Janet Jackson-Superbowl fiasco or the Victoria’s Secret show, bow in deference to the delicate sensibilities of Muslim religionists.

It’s also interesting that this issue could bring strong enough agreement between the unlikely duo of William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz to prompt them to co-author an opinion piece about it together. (From yesterday’s Washington Post, available here.) I don’t know how thought provoking it is, but it certainly hits the nail on the head.

Leaving aside your example of assault and battery (since they don’t fall under the behaviors protected in western liberalism), there is something about badmouthing everybody that makes it more innocuous and less vindictive than if you singled out some group or individual for badmouthing.

Even so, Flemming Rose’s actions didn’t take place in a vacuum. As a reaction against months of caving in to the anticipated objections of violent extremists, he’s right on. You’re right that it’s not the only way, but it certainly is the best.

There is some logical truth to that, but it is perverse. If I beat up one neighbor, I don’t have to beat up all of the others to be egalitarian. I should stop beating people up and do something else to prove that I don’t favor the neighbor or neighbors I didn’t beat up. I understand the logic of your third paragraph. I just don’t buy it. There are other ways to establish that Islam is one religion among others and that it is not above Western discourse than publishing insulting cartoons about it.

You ask, “Was the publication of those cartoons the reflection of a principle so central to the constitution of Danish society that to not publish them would consist of the breakdown of that society?”

I say emphatically, “Yes.” The principle that is at stake is simply the demonstration that such cartoons can be published, that Islam is not above western discourse in any way that precludes cartoons’ publication, and that Islam can be engaged candidly by western journalists (and not all of the cartoons were negative depictions of Mohammed–one actually called the paper’s editors reactionary thugs). In light of the kowtowing to Islamic interests that had been occurring in the months and weeks preceding the publication of the cartoons, I think that this is an important thing to establish.

You’re correct to point out that a sizable number of people in Denmark would prefer that the cartoons were never published. I just don’t see how that is relevant. For any controversial publication, there are scads of people who wish that it could be swept under the rug. (For example, many of people would prefer that the Starr Report had never been published.) In fact, the very purpose of freedom of the press is to ensure that the decision is not left up to them.

Jim: Regarding any discussion I have with Shannon regarding whether I’m responsible, my only recourse is to the Sammy Cahn lyric: “Call me irresponsible. Call me unreliable. Throw in undependable, too….”

Ah, but you’re eliding an important step there–the moment in which the boundaries of the system are constituted. When was that, and how was it done? In democratic societies, those boundaries are presumably informed by and reflective of the participation of the persons who live within that society. If a lot of those people turn out to be Muslims for whom certain acts are considered blasphemous, then how is it that they should continue to privatize their concerns about blasphemy in the name of an elite construction of the liberal order, or else be branded a “disloyal” opposition to the system? Granted that those who turn to violence are, of course, interacting with the system wrongly and should be punished for such; but were the demands for and expectations of what you call “special treatment” in themselves disloyal, or revolutionary? Was the publication of those cartoons the reflection of a principle so central to the constitution of Danish society that to not publish them would consist of the breakdown of that society? Even the decision not to publish them happened to be supported by a large number of persons who actually live within said society? At some point, one has to face to up who gets to define the boundaries of discourse, and whether those boundaries ought not be allowed to change in the face of immigration, conversion, etc.

“So they also display a glib, self-congratulating attitude of defiance? So do I. Am I irresponsible to?”

Yes, insofar as this matter is concerned. I’m surprised you wouldn’t agree. Every free society will of course produce Voltaires, H.L. Menckens, Christopher Hitchenses, and DKLs; it’s inevitable. And it’s not a major problem; in fact, it’s a boon. But a society that always praises and defends from all consequences such irreverent spirits when they shape public discourse is not a society that will be attending to the necessary roots of public feeling particularly well.

There is, to be sure, plenty of grey area. The problem is that any society willing to tolerate the destructive consequences of speech-as-incitement isn’t likely to appreciate the distinction. On the other hand, when there are no destructive consequences, there is a tendency to to say, “No harm, no foul.” That said, I don’t consider it wise or responsible to publish overt bigotry in the name of free speech, no matter how legal it should otherwise be. I just don’t see the Mohammed cartoons as overt bigotry.

Russell, as a political scientist, you know that liberalism conceives of political opposition as loyal in some sense; that is, all political parties support the system that they participate in. The problem of a disloyal opposition that seeks power within a system in order to disrupt it is another very old problem. In liberalism and illiberal systems alike, the only workable solution has been to treat such opposition as though it were a covert attempt at a revolution or a coup. Indeed, I see the current debate over the importance of security vs civil-rights in the USA as an argument over the criteria we use for classifying someone as covert revolutionary.

To me, the worst that one can say that of Flemming Rose is that he yanked the carpet of special-treatment out from under Islam. So they also display a glib, self-congratulating attitude of defiance? So do I. Am I irresponsible to?