A good talk on some of the problems facing people who wish to debate sensitive topics in society.
“No idea is above scrutiny and no people are beneath dignity. And what I mean by that is that no idea in Islam, like any other religion and any other philosophy and political thought and creed, is an idea. An idea is by definition adopted voluntary and therefore should be subject to scrutiny. And so I don’t subscribe to any form of blasphemy or censorship when it comes to an intellectual and rigorous debate around any idea. On the other hand, no people are beneath dignity.
So no idea is above scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity. And what I mean by that is, it’s very easy when understanding it in this way to recognize, and you can recognize it in your gut, the difference between somebody who is saying I don’t like the religion of Islam. Let me scrutinize it, you know. I think this whole thing about the literal word of God doesn’t sit comfortable with me. That’s very different to someone saying all Muslims are terrorists and they are a disease in America we must expel them. Your gut can recognize the difference between those two. I think Muslims as a people deserve every dignity like any other human being. But every single idea – Charlie Hebdo is a case in point. People have the right, the absolute right to scrutinize and satirize.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
6 comments
March 6, 2016 at 8:35 am
john zande
There is only one freedom: the freedom to scrutinise ideas. Without that, we have nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 6, 2016 at 8:50 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
Absolutely. :)
Well, I’d like the freedom to consume caramel chocolates, but that might be hard to codify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 6, 2016 at 10:36 am
VR Kaine
Great post. I have difficulty with the “no person is below dignity” part, however, in this way: yes, I believe in general, that “Muslims as a people deserve every dignity like any other human being”. This sounds all right and fair, but look at the actions and beliefs of so many individuals within the religion, and the actions/results that come of it. Are we simply supposed to grant dignity to a religion that automatically removes dignity from so many people, and to such an extreme?
And do you not automatically remove that dignity with say, Christianity here? The mocking, the vilifying, and the shaming?
One doesn’t need to engage in critical thinking or deep academic thought in order to “scrutinize” and conclude that some of the deep-seated Christian beliefs are downright batshit crazy – same as with Islam. It takes a quick common-sense second to determine that these beliefs are so harmful, so deep-seated, and so ridiculous that anyone who would follow them blindly so as to collectively make a “religion” – then why wouldn’t/shouldn’t that prejudice be there automatically? People who do (or support) some of the sick shit these people do deserve zero dignity or “fair treatment”, in my opinion.
If one wants civilized treatment then to me they have to show that they are civilized first, not monsters.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 12:25 pm
bleatmop
I remember after Sam Harris went on Real Time with Bill Maher where he said “Islam is the motherload of bad ideas”. I remember the regressive left shitting all over him, calling him a racist and a neo-con and every other name under the book. All he did is simply bring up the idea that the doesn’t like the tennants of Islam. He never said people who practice it were bad. In fact, watching the entire segment rather than just the clips the regressive left passed around goes to show that both he and Maher went to great length to say they were not attacking the people but simply the idea and theology of Islam. What happened? The regressive left posted a clip and recycled the clip over and over with absolutely no critical thought going into it at all. I’m willing to be almost nobody that posted those clips watched the entire show. People were more interested in scoring political points than having an actual discourse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
March 6, 2016 at 12:32 pm
The Arbourist
@Vern
The two parts of his formulation seem necessary, because it is so easy to vilify people who do not share our point of view. His statement should serve to at least give pause while contemplating gong from that is stupid argument to that is a stupid person to that is a stupid class of people…
We call the stupid as we see it here. :> Or at least I do. Do I generalize the pronouncements of the evangelicals to all christians? Generally I think not. :)
All belief systems have elements of categorical evil in them – our illustrious neo-liberal CF kills innocents at an alarming rate. Yet is to worthy to be condemned outright?
Common sense and straightforward have little to do with the complexities of religion or Geo-politics.
LikeLike
March 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm
VR Kaine
” His statement should serve to at least give pause while contemplating gong from that is stupid argument to that is a stupid person to that is a stupid class of people… “
Give pause to what? To contemplate what someone’s motivations might be for marring off a 12-year old girl or throwing acid in her face or drowning her when she tries to leave? Or to a “lesser” extent, shooting people for drawing a cartoon?
Certain people possess zero dignity and express zero humanity, so what’s this pause supposed to be for? I think that’s just people pretending to be cerebral or civilized.
LikeLike