THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 105, April 17, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
HOW TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITHOUT APPEASING TYRANTS
By Mary Madigan
SHOULD WE TOLERATE THE INTOLERANT? "IF WE EXTEND UNLIMITED TOLERANCE EVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE
INTOLERANT, IF WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO DEFEND A TOLERANT SOCIETY AGAINST THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE
INTOLERANT, THEN THE TOLERANT WILL BE DESTROYED, AND TOLERANCE WITH THEM. . . . WE SHOULD
THEREFORE CLAIM, IN THE NAME OF TOLERANCE, THE RIGHT NOT TO TOLERATE THE INTOLERANT."
Sir Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
FULL STORY:
When discussing religion, how do we know when respecting apparently faith-based beliefs leads to contempt for our
beliefs? Should we tolerate the intolerant? These questions are particularly relevant when a secular political body, the
United Nations, recently passed an anti-blasphemy measure (backed by the 57-state Organization of the Islamic
Conference) combating "defamation of religions."
The Columbia University School of Law conference Candor or Respect: Talking About the Religion of Others,
held on February 26, 2009, was supposed to focus on the treatment of all religions within the realms of the public
sphere (governance, diplomacy, and journalism). It was not supposed to concentrate solely on Islam. But, these days,
when a discussion focuses on religion, and when panel members agree that "there is reason to believe that a failure of
either candor or respect could be profoundly dangerous," the subject of Islam will tend to take center stage.
As several panelists noted, the association of religion with profound danger and abuse would not have occurred to the
majority of the population ten years ago. But we all understand the concept now. Speaker Leonard Leo of the Federalist
Society said, "We've seen a shift" in the concept of respect for religion since pre-Cold War times. The old definition,
described in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerned the need to protect religious belief
against coercion by the state. The religious defamation resolution that was passed by the UN Human Rights Council in
2008 defines respect of religion as the protection of Islam from "attempts to identify [it] with terrorism, violence, and
human rights violations." As Mr. Leo noted, restraints on criticism of Islam were not just directed at states; they were
also directed against individuals.
This definition of respect was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an organization of 57 states
that call themselves "the collective voice of the Muslim world." Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor
who published the "Danish cartoons," understood why the OIC demanded censorship in the name of "respect." As a
former correspondent in the Soviet Union, he saw how the Russian government and mafia used intimidation to gain
"respect." In his Washington Post article titled "Why I Published Those Cartoons," he said:
"I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the
grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian
movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an
insult and punish the offenders. … 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."
Lately, it's sadly obvious that most Western elites have changed their policies on appeasing totalitarian tyrants.
In 15-minute segments, many panelists offered insights on dealing with the candor-or-respect issue. Journalist Ari
Goldman admitted that objectivity "is dead." The best option is for journalists to use "fairness." Respect is what
journalists owe the subject of an article and candor is what they owe the reader.
Faisal Devji, Assistant Professor of History at the New School for Social Research, New York, N.Y., discussed the
limitations of the law in dealing with boycotts and other protests against blasphemy. In the following Question &
Answer Session, Bat Ye'or, an Egyptian-born historian who has researched the history of dhimmitude, pointed
out that Islamic law does not recognize these legal limitations.
When Bat Ye'or spoke as part of a panel discussion on "Why is religion such a touchy subject?" she investigated
the reasons why Muslims were so touchy about criticism. Muslims believe that the Koran is a "divine truth"
and that the Prophet was a perfect model for all to follow, whose every word and deed was inspired by God. Islam
is not just a religion; it's a lifestyle, a political system, and a legal system. For believers, if one criticizes only one
aspect of the belief, the entire system is under attack.
Marci Hamilton, of the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, New York, N.Y., discussed the tension between
what one is allowed to say about religion and what one is not. This concept was basically unknown to her ten years
ago, when a religious lobbyist told her that it was "wrong" to use the words "religious" and "lobbyist" in the same
sentence. But, when she found out about this unwritten and unenforceable law, she lightly noted that she was
determined to say those words in the same sentence every day.
Legal theorist Brian Tamanaha discussed the way the subject of religion can cause disagreements among friends or
colleagues who otherwise agree on most principles. Of all of the insightful observations expressed during this
conference, this one was very apt. The majority of the speakers agreed about basic political issues: most disagreed
with the UN and the OIC's attempt to stifle free speech; most agreed that respect should be earned, not forced
through intimidation. All agreed that nations based on Sharia law were totalitarian states, attempting to impose their
legal system on the rest of the world. But, when the subject of religion and discussions about faith began, panelists
were criticized (and criticized each other) for not respecting or condemning enough. Since the introduction of religion
to a discussion does tend to create insolvable conflict, even among allies, how can issues of candor or respect be
resolved?
Keeping religion out of political discussions would be one solution, but, these days, that's not an option. Philip
Hamburger, of Columbia Law School, New York, N.Y., who arranged the conference, said that, before 9/11 there was a
brief period in human history in which we could pretend that religion didn't matter anymore. Then, he said, it "all came
crashing down." Religion matters, so we have to deal with it.
David Littman, a UN historian and human rights activist, whose right to speak out against Sharia law is relentlessly
censored by other UN delegates, suggested that we follow the advice of Sir Karl Popper, who said:
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who
are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a
tolerant society against the onslaught of the
intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and
tolerance with them. . . . We should therefore claim,
in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the
intolerant."
Another useful idea to remember is the quote often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it." The violent Muslim reaction to Jyllands-Posten's publication of the
Muhammad cartoons was an attempt, organized by Islamist states like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, to enforce
Sharia law in Europe. The Western government and media response to this violent intolerance and this attack against
our laws was, for the most part, submission. The elites showed that they were not willing to stand beside the people
who bravely created and published the drawings. They were not willing to risk death or even mild social discomfort
to defend our rights. This obsequious reaction proved to the Islamists that they had free rein to bully us further.
The opponents of the "anti-blasphemy" resolution need to put various divisive religious and cultural arguments aside,
and we need to unify to defend our right not to tolerate the intolerant. In addition to Littman and the participants in the
Conference, many rational voices are speaking out against the United Nations' attempt to make the "anti-blasphemy"
resolution binding for member nations. The West missed — or chickened out of — our last opportunity to defend our
rights. We can't let that happen again.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Mary Madigan is Publisher of Exit Zero, part of the crew at Dean's World, and a guest blogger at
Michael J. Totten.
The foregoing article by Mary Madigan was originally published in Pajamas Media, April 14, 2009, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/article/2118/how-to-discuss-religion- without-appeasing-tyrants)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
April 17, 2009
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity