OK, before we go where you know I'm going to go, let's stipulate one thing. This, from the NYT account of the controversy:
The disputed scene is not part of Mozart’s opera, but was added by the director, Hans Neuenfels. In it, the king of Crete, Idomeneo, carries the heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon on to the stage, placing each on a stool.
“Idomeneo,” first performed in 1781, tells a mythical story of Poseidon, or Neptune, the god of the sea, who toys with men’s lives and demands spiteful sacrifice.
This jackass Neuenfels was being deliberately provocative, and to what end? So many contemporary artists think nothing of defecating on the most deeply held religious beliefs of a very great number of people. In fact, it's seen as a mark of legitimacy in their circles. There is a nasty, spiteful part of me that takes pleasure in the squirming of these artists under such circumstances. I went to see Terrence McNally's blasphemous but ersatz and boring gay Jesus play "Corpus Christi" in NYC a few years ago, on assignment for the Weekly Standard, and saw hundreds of Christian protesters peacefully demonstrating outside the theater. McNally and his supporters thought they were being so brave. One wonders what they'd do if they had to worry about Christians being as demonstrative about blasphemy as they do about Muslims. A vicious little part of me likes to see them squirm. I have to confess this.
But that sentiment is very wrong, and I reject it. As angry as we may get at the blasphemies of artists, we absolutely must object to this capitulation on the part of the Germans in the face of Islamofascism (yeah, I used the word: what is fascism as a tactic -- as distinct from a political philosophy -- if not using the threat of violence to suppress speech you don't like?). The right to free speech doesn't mean that speech will always be exercised wisely, or tastefully, and there are forms of speech -- child pornography, say -- that must not be exercised at all. The right to blaspheme, though, must be protected, for our own good. Hundreds of years ago, European Catholics burned Protestants at the stake, and vice versa. The right to be able to speak your mind on religious and political questions was not won easily or quickly. If Europe keeps capitulating to Muslim sensibilities instead of standing up for Western free-speech principles, where will it end? In dhimmitude.
What's next for Europe? Cancelling Western civilization itself?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
Germany of all places in the western world should stand against fascism. Look what happened when their people were seduced by the same type of fear-mongering 60 years ago. How quickly the lessons of history are forgotten.>
Alicia:
Let me try to answer some of your points:
I define present-day Muslim culture as having many different strands...
I agree with this.
I am less concerned with the "outbreeding" than I am with the lack of assimilation of Muslims
We would not even be talking about Muslims if it were not for their huge population push. Of course the assimilation is the problem! But we wouldn't care if the numbers did not threaten.
Fareed Zakaria has also pointed out that many of the assimilation problems of Muslims in Europe relate to the superficial "tolerance" of the European elite
This is a dangerous thesis that does not take into account the power of Muslim culture. This culture works . People are attracted to its cultural power and assurance of truth. Zakaria has a condesending view of the Muslim culture IMO.
a Muslim immigrant can be a guest worker in France or Germany, for instance, but can never truly become French or German.
And here lies the danger. This is the same problem that South Africa had and now Israel has. You have large populations of minorities that are growing within your borders, and they do not have your culture. This is DANGEROUS.
...the American model of requiring immigrants who wish to become citizens to adhere to a set of values and rules has led to a much healthier, more truly pluralistic society.
Uh, have you looked lately at the US immigration reality? We are truly multicultural but divided, and our pluralistic culture is getting scary as nobody is assimilating. This ain't the 50s anymore, and we don't even know what will come of our multicultural experiment yet. It's new.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't really believe in the "Darwinian" argument you are advancing...You appear to be advancing it in order to suggest that people with whom you disagree are doomed to decline and eventually disappear altogether. Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps.
This sort of personal jab is just sad. First, the Darwinian "argument" is no opinion, it is a scientific fact. In our whole discussion, it is the only thing we know for sure.
You think I like the idea of Muslim superiority? You haven't read anything I've written.
I have never worried about modern western liberals - they are not even worth discussing regarding the future - they are history, regardless of what Muslims do. This is just a reality of breeding. What I am worried about is there being any Western culture left.
I believe you greatly underestimate the Muslim danger because you seem to think of everything from a liberal point of view. I don't believe you see the attraction and power a simple, authoritative religion has. I notice liberals tend to do this as they generally aren't very religious themselves.
But forgetting theory and opinion, I would ask you to forget ideology, yours and mine, and just look at the numbers like a scientist and see where they take you. If we were looking at chimps or wolves we wouldn't be arguing - Muslims would be seen as the new powerhouse they are. But we in the West are arrogant and forget all the other powerful cultures who have fallen before us to what seemed like barbarians who had just seemed to destroy, not create.>
eastcoastlady:
Condescencion and sarcasm is very unbecoming...Sweeping statements not based on fact don't impress, either. But now I know we're not supposed to question those kind of posts.
But you did answer it - with condescension and sarcasm.>
M_David,
No, I did not answer with sarcasm and condescension. I answered with shock and disbelief.
I questioned your sweeping statement regarding Catholics being the only culture for faith and reason.>
M_David, I am about to turn off my computer so I cannot answer you in full, except to say that I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between pluralism and multiculturalism.
I suspect that genuine pluralism may be the best solution to some of these problems we are discussing.
Still developing my thinking on this, but, at the present, I define pluralism as the multiple identities that each citizen has, and the ways in which those identities create linkages between us.
I see this kind of pluralism as having the potential to take us beyond the narrowly defined identity politics of "multiculturalism" into a genuinely respectful and tolerant society.
However, this only works, it seems to me, if all of the members of the society identify with the values of the primary culture, which is the country to which they belong, as citizens.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.