Patterico's Pontifications

1/8/2015

Ross Douthat: The Blasphemy We Need

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:53 am



[guest post by Dana]

From Ross Douthat:

If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.

In this sense, many of the Western voices criticizing the editors of Hebdo have had things exactly backward: Whether it’s the Obama White House or Time Magazine in the past or the Financial Times and (God help us) the Catholic League today, they’ve criticized the paper for provoking violence by being needlessly offensive and “inflammatory” (Jay Carney’s phrase), when the reality is that it’s precisely the violence that justifies the inflammatory content.

Read the whole thing. Surprisingly, there are a number of readers who comment that this is the first time they’ve ever agreed with Douthat.

And in a bit of a disconnect, it’s ironic how Douthat’s piece is in the NYT but the paper has seemingly opted not to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoon.

–Dana

Update: Here is the New York Times explanation for their lack of journalistic courage in printing the cartoon:

“Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”

64 Responses to “Ross Douthat: The Blasphemy We Need”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  2. This was not in the printed paper today. It’s a blog post but it may be printed elsewhere. Apparently his column only runs on Sundays, and he skipped December 27th.

    Here is a similar thought about North Korea:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-north-korea-and-the-speech-police.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fross-douthat

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  3. Dana, thank you for this post—I had read Douthat’s essay, and was hoping that it would be showcased here.

    Simon Jester (e57b35)

  4. Sammy Finkelman,

    I’m unclear why it makes a difference when it was it was printed. If you link to the piece, it’s dated January 7, 2015. I read it last night around 10 pm. Does that help?

    Simon Jester, it’s such a great point he’s made. Too bad the NYT editors didn’t take heed.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  5. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said

    Not necessarily.

    It is necessary to defy them, which is not the same thing.

    The move “the Interview” wasn’t particularly good.

    In the case of the cartoons, it is the idea of something being off limits that needs to stopped, because the intention is somethings else will be later. With the cartoons, they probably deliberately picked a quarrel with something not too many liked, and the attackers don’t particularly care. They are just trying to give people the idea that something is off limits.

    because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.

    They, and anyone behind them, need to be put out of business.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  6. I hope everyone here and elsewhere who is worried about the world over-reacting with Islamophobia has taken the time to actually read in full the Choudary opinion piece that USA today printed yesterday and also watch the Hannity interview with Choudary. They are both embedded and linked in the following HotAir piece. Of course one can reasonably argue that Choudary does not speak for all in Islam as it must be argued that an incendiary radical, Al Sharpton, does not speak for or represent all American AAs. But neither can one deny that Choudary is a very very influential leader in the radical sense and that millions if not billions of the approximately 23% of the world’s population that are Muslim know who he is and pay attention to what he preaches.

    Douthat is correct that tippy-toeing around all this is what’s dangerous.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/08/usa-today-column-why-did-france-allow-satirists-to-attack-mohammed/

    elissa (486ef4)

  7. Waiting for the editors of the NYT to have common sense and a self-preservation instinct – let alone, act to protect civil society – is a fool’s errand.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. Dana (8e74ce) — 1/8/2015 @ 9:10 am

    I’m unclear why it makes a difference when it was it was printed. If you link to the piece, it’s dated January 7, 2015. I read it last night around 10 pm. Does that help?

    It wasn’t, and probably won’t be, printed at all, in spite of the fact of having a “print headline.”

    I think it’s online content.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  9. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/8/2015 @ 9:14 am

    Waiting for the editors of the NYT to have common sense and a self-preservation instinct – let alone, act to protect civil society – is a fool’s errand.

    Here’s an amazing thing I read yesterday in a New York Times editorial. I actually agree with the quote – but there’s something very panglossian about it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/opinion/no-justice-no-police.html

    If the Police Department’s current commanders cannot get the cops to do their jobs, Mr. de Blasio should consider replacing them.

    He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities. I agree. But only a republican president – if he was really bold – might do this.

    The whole “civil rights” community is against police.

    There are no demonstrations calling for more police.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  10. the quote is:

    He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities.

    Curtis Sliwa sputtered at this yesterday on the radio.

    I agree with this, and it’s an incredibly stupid thing to say.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  11. almost ten years to the day, the Times rationalized the network:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/international/europe/27france.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&

    the conclusion was of course, Abu Ghraib, who they saturated the environment with, had to be responsible, they have done much the same with the ‘torture’ report, not having learned any lessons,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  12. If this column is never printed in the paper and is only printed online, it’s because the New York Times’ editors know its readers can’t comprehend something this intelligent.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  13. yes yes society is like a cocktail party in society’s living room and my favorite is manhattans but other people have their own favorites

    for example some people like negronis but I think they’re too sweet (cloying) if you make them with the rossi vermouth but they’re way more better if you use dolin

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  14. Sammy Finkelman,

    Clearly, I need to always bear in mind your absolute literalness in all things.

    I’m glad you comment here.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  15. Excessive adherence to literalness is a recognized disorder, more common in boys and characterized by repetitive internalization. It’s an avoidance technique closely associated with depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal.

    Originally identified with Bibliolatry – excessive adherence to literal interpretations of the bible.

    ropelight (bb7409)

  16. I’ve seen commenters on other sites straight up claim that Charlie Hebdo got what it deserved because they were inflammatory towards Muslims.

    I’d like to think they were comments said to get a rise out of people, but I doubt that is the case.

    I find it so odd how some people stand on the pedestal of protecting religious beliefs so selectively. Pictures of a homosexual Jesus are defended for free speech and pictures of Muhammad are denounced for their mere existence.

    Now, I get that it isn’t necessarily the same people saying one is okay and the other is not, but, unfortunately, that’s the exact image of free speech projected by the Obama Administration.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  17. Well, the AP is doing its part. In a show of solidarity with self-censoring craven cowardice everywhere, the AP made the grand gesture of removing pictures of the “Piss Christ” [pissed me off, but I didn’t kill anybody] after 27 years. Must have been all those threats from the Amish. Say good-bye to the First Amendment as we’ve known it. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/ap-pulls-piss-christ-after-paris-attack-200719.html

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  18. Don’t start about the 1st Amendment, all Americans have a Constitutional guarantee of free speach and they can say whatever they want about Muhammad, but White Americans better not use the N-word or Eric Holder will sic the Feds on ’em. And, no, it doesn’t matter if Afro-Americans use the N-word to describe each other. That doesn’t count, and it doesn’t work in reverse. Afro-American citizens can use racial epithets till the cows come home and never, ever, never – never – never, be guilty of racism. It’s as impossible for AA’s to be racist as it is circles to be square (except in boxing).

    The N-word is only an unimaginably hurtful insult sufficient to warrant incarceration and forced re-education if White Americans say it, or think it, or if Al Sharpton imagines they say it, or think it whether they do or not is irrelevant.

    ropelight (bb7409)

  19. > Say good-bye to the First Amendment as we’ve known it.

    How is the first amendment implicated here? Is there any evidence that the paper is responding to government pressure or that the government is otherwise involved in the removal?

    Don’t get me wrong; I agree that the AP and other news agencies should be reprinting the cartoons rather than declining to do so out of fear, and I think that there’s a real danger that the press are giving up their *cultural* commitment to the notion that they should be free to print what they want without fear of physical injury.

    But that’s not a first amendment issue, and i’m lawyer-technical enough to object to that characterization. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  20. The 1st Amendment was undermined by the “Shouting Fire in a Theater” example from the SCOTUS.

    Such a little thing. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  21. One time, my law partner took the case of a Dindu Nuffin who had been charged with simple assault — placing another person in reasonable apprehension of battery — and unloaded it on me. The youth had been by some lady’s house on the Northwest Side; and a conversation, he outside and she at her window, progressed to him calling her dirty names and inviting her to do dirty things. Her brothers came out of the house and beat the hell out of him. Then the police came and beat the hell of him. A beautiful job — two black eyes, swollen nose, split lip, bruises all over. Then they arrested him for assault against the lady. Well, even I could get a case like that dismissed. So it’s over and the judge looks at me and says, “Mr. nk, your client should be careful how he talks to people”. And I said, “Yes, Your Honor”.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Yeah, that damned SCOTUS is just another arm of the federal government’s triumvirate. The Executive Branch operating in cahoots with the SC can always overrule the Congress. The real power in our so-called representative government is stacked against the people, it represents the oligarchs at the expense of the taxpayers, and the devil takes the hindmost.

    ropelight (bb7409)

  23. Race Horse Hinds was sued for damages when his dog bit a passerby. RH offed 4 points in his defense:
    His dog don’t bite, his dog was tied up in the back yard at the time, the plaintiff never got bit, and he don’t have a dog.

    ropelight (bb7409)

  24. Post updated with NYT explanation for not posting the cartoon.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  25. eh… posting = publishing

    Dana (8e74ce)

  26. Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.

    Truly, because we all remember when Bill Maher’s anti-religion film Religulous came out the New York Times paid no attention to it.

    Wait, what’s that you say? Oh, well never mind then.

    JVW (887036)

  27. 19. Yes, technically you’re correct. While not in fear of government reprisal, which the First Amendment is aimed at, the AP has been cowed into self-censorship based on terror. When a major media outlet cravenly bows to wishes of barbarians, the principles of a free press are compromised, the public is deprived of a vigorous press, and political correctness rules public discourse, not the truth – kind of like the Obama administration calling the Ft. Hood massacre “workplace violence.” Add the Obama administration’s treatment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to cover for its ineptness in the face of Islamic terrorism to self-censorship based on Islamic terrorism, and you’re getting mighty close to basic First Amendment rights. The AP’s cowardice does not bode well for a free press.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  28. Shorter NYT explanation: We’re wussies.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  29. #27, WC, I like the cut of your jib. High marks for a point well made.

    ropelight (bb7409)

  30. #22. It is the foundation of our current “Special Interest State”. Because the current federal government is expected to act at the behest of special interests. Now, of course, most people are okay with special interest groups like the Civil Rights Movement or Environmentalism, but it altered the very way in which government interacts with the people it is supposed to serve.

    It went from a limited federal government system to one that is expected to grow and influence.

    The serving the oligarchs is just an offshoot of that because the more the feds grow, the more they must be influenced.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  31. Note that the NYTs not only refuses to print the cartoons, it also is engaging in self-censorship lest the barbarians find offense. Note the disappearing paragraph after the NYTs sanitizes its copy:
    Originally it read:

    Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

    Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

    Now it reads:

    Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

    Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

    “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/08/new-york-times-reports-on-muslim-proselytizing-during-charlie-hebdo-attack-then-deletes-it/

    Remind me again why we have a First Amendment.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  32. That’s pretty creepy Walter. Thanks for the plain breakdown.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  33. The editorial from today’s Bee – (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article5584899.html)
    (don’t bother clicking through. The Bee has a new cultural suicide business model, where they only allow subscribers to read their lies and half truths online, and bless their hearts for it!)

    – goes down a list of attacks on freedom of speech. They did the Sony, Rushdi, and of course Charlie Hebdo.
    Noticed absence, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because gee wiz, to mention those incidents would be to indict their own ideological brethren in the public universities, who are all of the same stripe as the homicidal islamists.
    Only a difference of degree, but fanatics just as bent on the destruction of society.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  34. shorter version: “gutless cowards are gutless: details at eleven.”

    granting freedom of the press to spineless wimps who are afraid to exercise it is a waste of liberty.

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  35. Another incident of islamic murderers trying to cripple freedom of expression the Bee skipped over, Benghazi.

    You would think they would mention it, if they believed the administration’s narrative. I guess behind closed doors, away from public discourse, even the Bee’s editors can’t stomach the stink from that kettle of fish.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  36. I’m never shocked to find myself in agreement with Douthat. He is, after all, the designated conservative who took over the space long occupied by Bill Safire. But it is rare enough to agree completely.

    AP is the most cowardly of the news organizations. They refused to publish the cartoons for being offensive. Then someone pointed out that not only did they still host the Serrano photograph “Piss Christ” on their website, they even sold copies through their web store! It came down quickly, including from the store, with a weak excuse they were “updating standards.”

    Estragon (ada867)

  37. i think Mr. Cronanty’s comment would make a worthy update to the post, if not a whole post by itself

    happyfeet (831175)

  38. Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women,

    Sigh. Squishy, French, compassion for compassion’s sake sentimentalism has infected militant Muslims too.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Yes, happyfeet. Comment 31 is especially good.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  40. like i said over at pw, it’s really genuinely shocking how not-close-to-home this hit american journalists

    there’s a sociopathic lack of empathy and understanding on display

    happyfeet (831175)

  41. 32, 37 & 39 – Thanks for the compliments. A bit of personal history. My dad was the first one of his family born in the US. He was not college educated, but he constantly pounded in my head that the First Amendment [he referred to it generically as the “Constitution”] and its protections of the press, speech and religion was the most important law of our country, providing us with rights unmatched in human history.

    I grew up and became a lawyer, appearing before the US Supreme Court, several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and all levels of my State Courts in cases involving the First Amendment and other areas of the law. I taught First Amendment Rights as an adjunct at the local law school. “Walter Cronanty” is but a mash-up of the most duplicitous and hypocritical purveyors of misinformation known to US journalism – Walter Cronkite and Walter Duranty.

    I’m now retired. To see the MSM piss on its freedoms in the most craven manner, whether its toadying up to Obama, refusing to vet him like they would any other candidate, or refusing to honestly report on terrorists who kill because they want to drag us back to the 7th century and convert us to a barbarian religion, just flat infuriates me.
    Your comments would make my dad beam. Thanks again.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  42. On the internet, I only found the Mirror to have the first (full) quote. The French, Spanish and Greek publications I saw have it as “I won’t kill you, we don’t kill women, but you need to read the Koran”.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. 42. All I can tell you is that 10 hours ago I copied, pasted and posted the quote from the NYTs on Wizbang. I just went back and clicked on the link, and the sanitized version came up, as reported in the Daily Caller post. The Mirror quotes French radio as reporting:

    Ms Vinson told Radio France Internationale that one of the killers aimed his gun at her but decided against taking her life.

    She said the man told her: “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu’ran and wear a veil.”

    She added that as the man left, he shouted “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar.”

    Another report says:

    The reporter said a gunman told her: “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam.”

    http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/charlie-hebdo-journalist-sigolene-vinson-spared-death-by–/de/News/41172576
    See, also, http://www.fchornet.com/travel/a-journalist-has-revealed-how-she-was-spared-death-by-h597331.html and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/deadly-shooting-at-french-satirical-newspaper-report/article22329480/

    Perhaps there’s a reason, other than cowardice, for the NYTs changing its copy. It would be nice if the NYTs had the integrity to note changes in its stories, along with a rationale for the change.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  44. Putting togetehr some dfferent fragments, the gunmen told Corinne Rey to type in the security code – which is how they were able to kill a dozen people- that she should tell the media that were from Al Qaeda in Yemen.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  45. I believe you, Walter. I was checking the (snicker) layers of editorial oversight.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. nk – Yeah, you gotta constantly check my layers of editors. And if I ever find out who’s laying my editors, …

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  47. Oh. “Layers of editorial oversight” is maybe not as well known on this site. It’s a joke for when the MSM gets things wrong.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. Anyway, Koran or veil or not, Sigolene should give a prayer of thanks to whichever Higher Power was watching over her whether she believes in Him or not.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. Walter Cronanty’s #31 is now a post.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  50. Islam is Satanism.

    DNF (e6f122)

  51. no it’s not

    I promise.

    happyfeet (831175)

  52. I think Satanism is Satanism.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. 49. Holy crap, now what do I do?

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  54. Take a bow, Walter.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  55. 51, 52. No doubt your forthcoming rebuttals will center on the prohibition of iconography in the subject.

    Another prescribed lie.

    DNF (e6f122)

  56. Who am I to question another’s beliefs? I have enough trouble with mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_verses

    The Ka’aba is carried over from the ancient Meccan religion(s).

    DNF (26e1da)

  58. 56. I rather doubt this emote pertains.

    DNF (26e1da)

  59. It’s a strong theme in the Old Testament that the gods of foreigners were demons. Maybe they are. But my understanding of Satanism is that Satanists understand that there is God and there is Satan and they renounce God and give themselves to Satan. Not that they mistake Satan for God.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. My point is that religious belief follows from an authority.

    The OT documents the war between The Lord and other gods.

    Worship of notGod is not accepted as valid by The Lord of Hosts. The obverse, however, does not hold.

    DNF (26e1da)

  61. Worship of notGod is not accepted as valid by The Lord of Hosts. The obverse, however, does not hold.

    Do you mean that the Romans would have accepted God and Christ in their pantheon if the Jews and Christians at a minimum paid the proper reverence to the official gods such as Mars, Saturn and the Emperor? I think so, too.

    If your broader point is that worshiping false gods, when the True God has been revealed to you, or denying him like atheists do, is the road to Hell, I agree with that.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. *I agree with that* in my own personal belief system. I don’t know if God does for other people.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. 61, 62. In addition, I would say with Paul that men are without excuse, revelation manifest in the Creation itself is robust enough to make the character of a Holy God evident to all.

    Evidence in the example of Abraham:

    “Is anything too wonderful, too marvelous for The Lord?”

    Which truth Abraham acknowledges on the mount offering the acceptable sacrifice for the gift of life, that of Isaacs itself.

    There can be no confusion of Allah with this God, the difference is that of darkness versus light.

    DNF (26e1da)

  64. 59. nk (dbc370) — 1/9/2015 @ 4:33 am

    It’s a strong theme in the Old Testament that the gods of foreigners were demons.

    No, that they just didn’t exist at all. If conceived as something separate from God. (cf: Malachi 1:11 where one interpretation is this is referring to what some idol worshippers do.)

    There is a reference in Levticus (17:7) to people sacrificing to “satyrs.” (goats)

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0974 secs.