Recent events in the US have made quite an impression on me. The most recent such event was the proclamation from a pastor in Florida to burn the Koran as a commemoration of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Such proclamations have caused a lot of concern and pleas to stop what can only be considered a savage act of bigotry. I’m adding my voice to such opinions.
Book burning has been practiced by the most retrograde governments in history. During Nazi Germany the book burning was the prelude to much worse atrocities. There is a famous quote from Heinrich Heine: “ Where they burn books they will eventually also burn people”. I fear that if people do not stand up against this, we will see such in the future here as well.
I grow sad that it is now fashionable to show contempt for muslims in this country. The proposed Islamic center in New York has attracted a lot of attention, most of this attention has been in the form of hate speech against muslims. I am for the building of the center.
According to the laws and constitution in this country, religious freedom can not be voted away by the angry rabble. It is right for the US president to stand on the side of the Constitution, much to the chagrin of the Republican opposition. The rights of individuals to practice their religion and to build their temples on their own property is unassailable. Even if people feel that it is an issue that makes them think and might push a few buttons, they should think and act rationally and use it as a chance for their own enlightenment. They should also above all reflect on why upholding the constitutional view on these issues makes this country what it is today: they shouldn’t surrender their rights for the sake of oppressing others.
The Republican outcry and misinformation campaign about this center is a shameless act of self-serving individuals: they hijacked the issues for political gains. This was predicted by Time magazine with an editorial admonition against the wisdom of such a path. They didn’t listen.
Questioning the nationality of the US president is also popular, as well as suggesting that his wife forbade Christmas. I don’t usually worry about conspiracies like these. Except when elected politicians on the right, endorse these opinions by opening the room to doubt and propagate them for their own benefit. For some reason this is not attacked as defamation or as libelous statements, even though prominent media figures (see here) use them exactly with malice.
Nowadays 18% of the US population seems to believe that the current president is muslim. I’ve been receiving e-mail that suggest that since 2008. It was not long ago that the president was criticized for attending the sermons of pastor Wright.
But it is not just the US. Germany is now also in the midst of extremist thinking against muslims. And the Netherlands have Geert Wilders spouting his usual extremist talk all the time.
I can not remain silent about this anymore.
Do you not think there is an irony in entitling a post ‘The rising tide of bigotry’ and then making straw man statements such as “It is right for the US president to stand on the side of the Constitution, much to the chagrin of the Republican opposition.”? Do you really, honestly, truely think that all who disagree with you do so only due to stupidity, ignorance and prejudice? Because frankly this is what this comes across as.
Hi Piscator:
No, I don’t believe people disagree with me just because of their ignorance, stupidity or prejudice. But there is a lot of unfounded prejudice out there. And also a lot of stupidity and a lot of ignorance. Especially ignorance.
If the argument strikes as a straw man, too bad. This is not a scholarly article on the subject. I striked out part of the comment. I want people to open their eyes to what is happening. Even if some rhetorical devices are poorly executed I still believe that the burning of the books and the symbolism of it all is very wrong, and the demagoguery that goes with that as well.
Dear piscator,
I couldn’t approve your comment about Hawking which was kind of obscene. When I was a teenager, I would also think that Hawking’s fame had nothing to do with science. But very soon, I found out how wrong I was about this single person.
His semiclassical calculations of black holes were really the first meaningful “united” application of GR and QM and physics of quantum gravity still works with this pillar.
Even when you come to recent papers he co-authored, they’re still decent papers and they’re actually more valuable than the typical papers that are being promoted in the media these days – let me mention Erik Verlinde’s non-gravity as an obvious example. Your data on Hawking’s papers must be corrupt. Comparing Hawking and Maldacena – and recent Hawking with recent Maldacena – would actually be a subtle exercise. I would prefer to say that their contributions to physics are comparable and they are still active.
Your criticism of the initial wave functions etc. was incomprehensible to me so I didn’t have to hesitate before erasing it because the constructive content looked to be zero to me. Note that your superficial defense of the GOP on this blog couldn’t have changed that…
Best wishes
Lubos
Dear David,
on one hand, I am not thrilled by the burning of the Quran and similar acts which are barbaric and uncultural.
On the other hand, I think that you are spreading fog and you are mixing up many concepts – culture, law, freedom, decency, constitution. It’s my guess that there’s nothing unconstitutional in the U.S. about someone’s burning a book.
We may dislike it but it is his or her freedom, too. It doesn’t threaten other people’s lives, health, or assets, so it is the kind of freedom that the U.S. constitution is actually protecting, and for a good reason. Just like some people may think that Allah is above everything, others are equally allowed to think that Allah is a pile of trash. Sorry for that, this is what religious freedom also implies.
Also, while these acts may look barbaric, they represent a reaction to a broader situation. I have no idea whether Obama is a Muslim or whether Michelle celebrates Christmas. I have no accurate enough data. While I am not obsessed by the (fake) certainty that he is a Muslim and his wife abolished Christmas, I am not obliged to be certain about the opposite statement, either.
It’s very plausible that a person from a similar background (and with a similar stepfather) as Obama *is* a Muslim believer, just like it is plausible that a person who is born to a Kenyan father and a U.S. mother could have been born in Kenya while his parents have improved the documents to get some advantages from the U.S. mother. Everyone who thinks that such a thing is as impossible as Elvis on the Moon is just deluded. It’s very possible.
It would be completely unacceptable for some organized forces to prevent people from believing that Obama is a Kenya-born Muslim with a Christmas-hating wife. That would violate the basic values of America. Burning of Quran only violates the cultural image of a few individuals.
Islam is spreading in Europe and there are European reactions, too. You may dislike them but they’re, once again, at least as legitimate as the Islam itself. People simply have the right to dislike Islam, especially on a continent that has never belonged to that religion and that was, frankly speaking, existentially threatened by empires worshiping that religion for a millennium.
By the way, Angela Merkel just took photos with the Danish cartoonist and even gave him some prize or whatever. She is blind when it comes to many “types of freedom” that are being threatened but at least she does realize that Europe is a “continent where such cartoons can be drawn”. We’re still not obliged to worship a bogus pseudo-God and his would-be prophets, could you please kindly notice? And be sure that if this right of ours, the right not to worship, were genuinely threatened, I would be far from the only one who would probably begin to support an almost arbitrarily extreme right-wing party. Institutionalized pressures preventing one from expressing himself in a non-Islamic way would destroy civilization as we know it – including science.
Your indication that you consider any anti-Islamic attitude to be on par with the burning of the books and you would love to ban all of them is an example of such a threat. Now, your impact on the European (and American?) politics is zero. But if such attitudes occurred from places that actually matter, be sure that an appropriate reaction would be equally inevitable and more justified.
Best wishes
Lubos
Hi Lubos:
I don’t dispute their rights to burn the books. Even I think that is a right that has to be protected no matter how offensive the act, if it is legal. I can still condemn it from a moral perspective.
This was the trigger for me to say my opinion about it: I am also exercising my right to free speech on this issue, however confused and muddled.
I also believe that the Danish cartoonists had the right to publish their cartoons and that they should not expect to have to run for their lives after doing so.
I am not defending extremist Islam nor their methods. Nor am I saying that Islam anti-sentiment should be banned.
I just dislike very much the way things seem to be headed and I am saying so.
Does anyone else think the biggest mistake of the whole event was that the press made it an issue by putting it on the frontpage of every journal in North America and the highlight of multiple talkshows for hours on end?
I’m sure that many such events take place in a country the size of America, and indeed with 300 million people you are almost guarenteed to find a few crazies.
Why single this one out?
None of the consequences of making this public is worth it, for anyone involved. Nothing is learned from the matter… It’s just stupid!
Yes, I think in some sense that was the biggest mistake, but it is almost inevitable given how the press operates today. The story would have been picked up by someone sooner or later.
Why there was no such bigotry during Bush’s administration right after 9/11? Why now?
Obviously the target is Obama. The public is manipulated by the media and the media serve various interests.
Having said that I also believe that is people’s right to criticize Islam for one simple reason. Islam’s dogmas and practices influence profoundly the social/ethical structure of the society in which it is embedded in a way that is not always compatible with the values of a free, open democratic society. So you see it’s not just about the freedom to worship your God the way you want to. There are two sides of the story.
Giotis:
I’m not disputing the right to criticize Islam nor its dogmas.
I’m against the targeting of people who practice Islam and generating a culture of hate towards them just for populist appeal.
David
You said:
“I’m against the targeting of people who practice Islam and generating a culture of hate towards them just for populist appeal.”
Of course but don’t you think we should say something more than the obvious?
You keeping talking about people who practice Islam like it’s something totally innocent that does not affect the very foundations of the society you live in. I’m not talking about general Islam’s dogmas related to the metaphysical realm. I’m taking about every day life and practices here. Do you want to live in a society where the women are treated the way are treated by Islam for example? So my point is clear. If Muslims want to live next to us in our societies they should fully embrace the values of a free open secular democratic society. There is no other option. If they do that I don’t have a problem with their religion.
Giotis:
Which of all the versions of Islam are we talking about?
Women are not treated the same everywhere, nor are all the different interpretations of Islam the same: many wars have been fought over such details and they are still being fought.
I don’t believe that women should be oppressed, which is why I am firmly against the Taliban ideology. I don’t believe that women should be forced to wear the niqab, nor placed in forced marriages at an early age. They should not be discriminated against because of their gender.
I agree that part of the contract of being in an open democratic secular society is to share its values. But it is also our own personal responsibility to make the society open.
Dear Giotis, I do agree that Obama is a major cause of a changing sentiment of the ordinary people – but the mechanism of this causation is probably somewhat different than you suggested.
Under Bush, people – I mean non-Muslims – were simply feeling safer than they do under Obama. The burning of the books is a manifestation of this perceived insecurity – and let me add that I consider this perception completely rational and supported by the evidence. People feel unsafe and they think that they must do something themselves to protect things that they hold dear.
Neither Bush nor Obama were pro- or anti-Islamic zealots of an obvious type. Still, Bush was seen as a more likely man to protect the rights of the Americans as we know them, and the beliefs that they traditionally held.
Lubos
I see your point. I do agree that people (republicans at least) felt safer under Bush administration. I’m not sure if such a feeling is justified though. On the other hand you should also realize that this works both ways. Media don’t just reflect public’s sentiments they mainly manipulate them. You think it was too difficult for the media to create an anti-islamic frenzy in US right after 9/11? Why they didn’t do it? Why many of them are nursing and amplify such sentiments now all the sudden? The answer is Obama. He is their target.
Why is this even news? The pastor owns the book and he is free to do whatever he wants with it, it comes with democracy. Sure, its depicable, but the book is his. What I don’t understand is why CNN (and others) has to run this story every fifth minute. Its almost like there is some sort of agenda to create conflict, or put fire on the conflict already there.
Imagine if a news channel were to make conscious propaganda to ignite a global conflict between two major cultures (west / Islam in this case), how would they do it different from what we see now?
Hi Per:
In the era of faster than reason communications there is very little that can be expected to change. The item went viral almost before it was published. Once there is interest, computer algorithms to sell advertisement determine that people want up to the minute information and no news outlet wants to be left behind. The agenda is to sell stuff and to stay ‘relevant’.
Now with all the attention of the world on it, it can’t be ignored any longer.
Item number two would be very different from what we see now. I don’t want to give them any ideas just in case.
NEWS: it seems that the event was canceled. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10obama.html ).
You want to rail against bigotry? Here’s an example: 50 people in a country of 300 million want to burn the Koran. And then muslims all over the world shout, “DEATH TO AMERICA”!
Now THAT is bigotry! Why aren’t you getting all emotional about that?
bravo david — i’m happy for your post.
as for the discussion of democracy, freedom etc. on some of the posts here, it is a little superficial. it’s not just about being able to do whatever you want. most theories of democracy, to my limited understanding, involve notions of public reason or rationality. at zeroth order this might mean that a functioning pluralist democratic society will need to have some kind of consensus of what constitutes a valid justification for an argument. the second half of david’s post is the more interesting half in this regard. the misinformation, downright lies and emotional (fear)-based politics about e.g. the muslim center in new york that is either directly spread or implicitly allowed by many republicans is ultimately anti-democratic. not because they’re not allowed to say whatever they want, but because it attempts to undermines public reason without which democracy cannot function.
Can you imagine how many Jewish lives would have been saved had Hitler’s Mein kumpf been thrown to the fire on time?
Hi Ofer:
I wouldn’t believe for one second that what happened only happened because of that one book. It was sure a catalyst for justifying what happened, but I don’t think that it was written in a complete vacuum of such ideas.
I agree. But still, the book deserved to be thrown to the fire, at least as an act of protest. The Kor’an contains pieces that should be condemned laud and clear. I understand the sensitivity concerning religious manuscripts, but millions of people take these pieces literally, and this may ignite, under certain circumstances, blood bath. In fact, it already has. Burning manuscripts may not be a good idea but ignoring its explosive content is probably worse.
I agree.
Good for you David, great post!
This is such a difficult topic. On the one hand, you don’t want to support the idiot who is burning the book—it accomplishes nothing, it’s merely incendiary and is sure to cause unnecessary conflict (and already has).
On the other hand, you don’t really want to condone the behavior of those who will react violently either. It is a very important right that he is exercising, albeit for very silly reasons.
The media are a whole other beast. It is unfortunate that most consumers of media will pay more attention to non-issues like a mosque in NYC or an idiot in Florida planning on destroying some of his personal property in useless protest, than to say, their mortgage paper work or education or budget or transportation concerns. Or health and medicine or science class.
Any political biases in the media are vastly outweighed by the capitalism driving it, and so for the same reason Jerry Springer was so successful, we get nonsense instead of news. (Though I do think the political right have promoted the atmosphere of fear, including perpetuating doubts about Obama’s birthplace, religion, etc., which the media has then magnified further, predictably.)
In the end though, I think I support his right to burn the flag much more than I support any Muslim’s (perceived) right to react violently to such an act. Though full disclosure, as an anti-theist I would be happiest to see all the Abrahamic religions burn each others holy books in mutual protest, and learn to tolerate people who do not respect their beliefs, which I think is among the greatest applications of our freedom in America.
But I’m also not so disconnected from reality that I don’t know this is all a pipe dream, and that the odds of the violent-reacting Muslims waking up and realizing they will be most empowered by a simple verbal denouncing of the idiot in Florida and ignoring him are far worse than any lottery ticket. It’s also unfortunate that most of them won’t understand that our government is so awesome that it actually can’t stop the man from doing it, as opposed to many governments that could simply throw him in jail; so they run the risk of misinterpreting our limited government as endorsing the idiot.
Thank you for this most thoughtful post.
There is widespread oppression of women in each and every non secular Islamic country. To single out the Taliban is disingenuous.
Personally, I feel that the internet has played a huge part in the rise of extremism in the last decade. This is something which proponents of the internet (which includes myself) may not like to admit to.
There are a few separate reasons why I believe this to be the case. Firstly, communication on the internet is non-verbal, anonymous and impersonal, so it’s a lot easier to be, well, more frank and direct in your opinions. Others might say it’s easier to be rude(It’s a lot easier to be a flaming bigot as well; just take a trip to 4chan if you don’t believe me.). One thing is certain, it’s a lot easier to be perceived as rude and this feeds back into the general tone of conversations on the internet. Basically, conversations get heated very quickly and tend to become polarized, with moderate voice getting shut out. The internet feeds polarization.
Secondly, there is an “echo chamber” effect online. People are free to visit whatever websites, forums, newsgroups, etc, that they want to. And people generally want to visit sites which support and reinforce their existing viewpoint. People can spend hours “debating” things online without ever encountering a real opposing voice. They can become “informed” on topics without ever being given a balanced view, because they have self-selected how they are informed beforehand. Ironically, the world wide web has fed intellectual isolation.
Finally, the internet is the ultimate soapbox. Never in the history of humanity have so many cranks been given so much opportunity to rant so freely to so large an audience with so little consequences. Most extremist sites are essentially in the spirit of timecube.com, albeit slightly more coherent. Previously, such ravings about the President’s birth cert etc would not be given the time of day by most newspaper, publishers, etc. But now these people face no gatekeepers and can devote all their energies to preparing material that can be disseminated to the entire world with a single click. And for every crank writing this stuff, there are 1000 who stand ready to digest it whole and disseminate it further with more single clicks. And thus we have the contents of your inbox.
Polarization, ignorance, misinformation. You may not like to hear it, but the internet enables all these things just as much as it enables education, information and understanding. Probably more so.
Of course there are other factors at play, not least of which is media culpability. But when you hear of birthers, creationists, radical religious conservatism, bigotry, tea parties, or disunity in Belgium, my opinion is you are witnessing the profound effects of the internet on public debate, discourse and policy throughout the western world. It’s hard to say it, but I think it needs to be said.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that a Chinese communist party type view of the internet should be taken, where the net is viewed as an inherently destabilizing force which must be controlled. But society will require moderating factors to counteract the instability it can cause.
My opinion is that better(i.e. non-commerical) media is what’s needed. National broadcasters like the BBC with a conscious objective to give a wider perspective on affairs and topics—and yes, to promote enlightened orthodoxy. Adopting a dogmatic free market approach in the “marketplace of ideas” will lead to chaos there as it has everywhere else.