Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arrowman · 10-10-2002, 06:18 PM

This is a bit political, a bit SL&S, a bit religion - I'll put it here in CSS&SA...

Read Salman Rushdie's column in the Melbourne Age:

<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061255135.html" target="_blank">A loss for Faith and Freedom</a>

Quote:

[Michel]Houellebecq has been brought to court in France by four Muslim bodies - the largest mosques in Paris and Lyon, the National Federation of French Muslims and the World Islamic League - accused of "making a racial insult" and of "inciting religious hatred"...
Last year, in an interview published in Lire magazine, Houellebecq called Islam "the dumbest religion" and compared the Koran unfavourably with the Bible, which "at least is beautifully written because the Jews have a heck of a literary talent".

This generalisation may raise one or two non-Muslim hackles: what, all Jews? And are the Christian authors of the New Testament deliberately excluded from this ungainly compliment?

But if an individual in a free society no longer has the right to say openly that he prefers one book to another, then that society no longer has the right to call itself free. Presumably any Muslim who said that the Koran was much better than the Bible would then also be guilty of an insult, and absurdity would rule.

As to "the dumbest religion", well, it's a point of view. And Houellebecq, in court, made the simple but essential point that to attack people's ideologies or belief systems is not to attack the people themselves.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]

Philosoft · 10-10-2002, 06:32 PM

When did Muslim become a race?

Arrowman · 10-10-2002, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
When did Muslim become a race?

Indeed. That reminds me of something I saw on TV last night. A Muslim guy (with a broad Aussie accent), in Melbourne, I think, has been told by his employer to give up his afternoon prayer break and the matter has ended up in court. The rights or wrongs of the matter are not the point here though - what I noticed was this:

A reporter was pursuing the guy's manager down the corridor, trying to ask questions, and the manager was of course saying nothing. Then the reporter asked "Aren't you being racist?".

Again - whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, it would be nice if people like reporters learned the difference between "race" and "religion", if there is to be any informed debate. Sadly these days the term "racist" gets thrown around far too readily and often distorts discussion and debate.

Toto · 10-10-2002, 11:38 PM

This suit could not be brought in the US. Our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause to restrict libel actions, and in particular to bar all actions based on "group libel". Europe does not have such a broadly interpreted guarantee of free speech. Many European countries, in light of the horrors of World War II, the Holocaust, and current neo-Nazi movements, have laws against racial or religious insults, Holocaust denial, etc.

The line between a religious group and a racial or ethnic group is not as clear as you might think. Anti-Semitism is prejudice against the Jews as a "racial" group, not necessarily an objection to their theology. The anti-discrimination laws in the US include "religion" as a category, because most discrimination based on religion has historically been discrimination against a particular ethnic group. (Discrimination against Catholics, which was more prevalent in years past in the US, was primarily discrimination against the recent Irish immigrants. Discrimination in favor of Protestants was de facto discrimination in favor of the white upper class.)

I think that anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe is probably hard to separate from the fact that most Muslims in Europe are darker complexioned immigrants from former French colonies in Africa, or from the Middle East, so it is not unreasonable to wonder if there is a racial component to it. Although Houellbecq himself denies it:

Quote:

He is due to appear in court in Paris on September 17, charged by the Arab League with inciting racial hatred. This is because when asked by Lire magazine if he shared the sentiments re Islam of his character, he answered, "Yes." I asked him if the magazine had represented accurately his response. He says not. He says he answered their question with a modified yes. "I was talking about the stupidity of all monotheistic religions. And I explained that there is no clear relationship between Muslims and Arabs. That is something that's very obvious in France. Most Arabs can't be considered Muslims any more. They stop practising very quickly ... many come to avoid a Muslim country. It's very hard to meet an Arab who refuses a drink. It's very difficult to meet a virgin Arab girl at the moment of her marriage in France. They behave more or less as other French in this respect."

From this article on Michel Houellebecq <a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,783583,00.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Sabine Grant · 10-13-2002, 02:56 PM

You are absolutly right Toto. France has a large population of Algerian, Tunisian and Morrocan immigrants. Most Senegalese or Ivorians are also muslims. The term "muslim" is often associated with the term " arab". It is always assumed in France that any arab is a muslim. Let us also keep in mind that Islam is the second main religion in France.

I can see how the notion of racism can enter the interpretation of a comment made about Q'ram. I do not know anything about the author but considering how racist the French are towards arabs and also Jews ( the term racist here applies because we have kept the notion of a race behind the term " juif" even if that individual attends a catholic church for example or evangelical) I lean to think that the claim of the Ligue Arabe might have some value. We often refer to a person as a "juif" even if they do not practice judaism. If they happen to have what is identified as a jewish last name such as Levy or Drey or others, they will be refered to as the " jewish lawyer" or the " jewish dentist " etc....

The degree of racism varies from North to South in France. The Riviera has a great number of "pied noir" who constituted the population of Europeans ( French, Italian and Spanish origines ) who were kicked out of Algeria when it became Independent. Most of those folks nurish a perpetual hatred towards arabs ( my mother is one ).Then we have the mistreated "harkis" ( Northern Algerian soldiers) who fought to defend France during WWII. They had to engage in both political and legal battles to insure they would receive the same recognition as any WWII veteran.

The trashy colonialist past of my country is still affecting the way my people think. Racism is found both among the old and the young.

I do not believe that it is a matter of restricted freedom of expression but rather an exacerbated reaction from ethnic groups who have indeed been treated as " low life" for too long. Most French are rather ignorant about the content of their own Bible. We attend church by tradition not by spiritual conviction (of course there are some exceptions). Needless to say that they are aso ignorant about the content of Q'ram. Some of us are more familiar with it as we lived in northern Africa and were exposed to some degree of mandatory coranic instruction in the schools.
I doubt that most defaming comments made by anyone are from a religious comparaison but rather pure racist prejudice.

In any case comparing one religion to the other always lacks an objective analysis.

Dark Jedi · 10-13-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
When did Muslim become a race?

I suspect right after they saw the benefits the Jews got for being a 'race'.

Arrowman · 10-14-2002, 12:11 AM

If anyone's still reading this thread.... I think we've gone off track here, with the "race" thing.

Whether religion relates to race or not, is not the key issue here. The core issue, and the reason I posted the story, is that a man has been hauled in to court because he said disparaging things about a religion, including calling it "stupid". He did not denigrate Muslims as a whole; he denigrated a certain set of beliefs.

The "race card" has been played by the "plaintiffs" but whether or not the term "race" is valid here, Rushdie's underlying point remains - is this a case of censoring thoughts and opinions in the name of "religious tolerance"?

Toto · 10-14-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:
. . . is this a case of censoring thoughts and opinions in the name of "religious tolerance"?

Of course it is. But there is a fine distinction that needs to be drawn between criticizing someone's religion as part of their personal identity and criticizing the theological underpinnings of their belief.

This is especially true in Europe, which does not have the full First Amendment protections Americans have, and which has a history of religious strife and anti-Semitism, and which has tried to control its neo-Nazi extremists with laws against "hate speech".

You many notice that whenever someone criticizes the Pope, the Catholic church's policies on birth control, or Catholic priests' pedophilia, the immediate response from Catholic apologists is "Catholic bashing!" as if any criticism of Catholicism is the same as racism. Just as the response to "hate speech" laws on American campus's has been to charge a violation of the principles of freedom of expression.

If it were not for this overlay of racism, everyone would be quick to recognize this as a new attempt at prosecuting blasphemy.

dk · 10-14-2002, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
This suit could not be brought in the US. Our Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause to restrict libel actions, and in particular to bar all actions based on "group libel". (snip)
From this article on Michel Houellebecq <a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,783583,00.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

So in the US the defendant can sue for slander, not racism. You can pretty much sue anybody for anything in the US, if you got the fee.

Toto · 10-14-2002, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


So in the US the defendant can sue for slander, not racism. You can pretty much sue anybody for anything in the US, if you got the fee.

You missed the point. In the US, you cannot sue anyone for group libel, and actions for slander and libel are subject to restrictions based on the First Amendment.

You can sue anyone for anything, but you might find yourself tossed out of court on your ass and assessed fees for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2002, 06:32 PM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	When did Muslim become a race?

10-13-2002, 02:56 PM	#5
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	You are absolutly right Toto. France has a large population of Algerian, Tunisian and Morrocan immigrants. Most Senegalese or Ivorians are also muslims. The term "muslim" is often associated with the term " arab". It is always assumed in France that any arab is a muslim. Let us also keep in mind that Islam is the second main religion in France. I can see how the notion of racism can enter the interpretation of a comment made about Q'ram. I do not know anything about the author but considering how racist the French are towards arabs and also Jews ( the term racist here applies because we have kept the notion of a race behind the term " juif" even if that individual attends a catholic church for example or evangelical) I lean to think that the claim of the Ligue Arabe might have some value. We often refer to a person as a "juif" even if they do not practice judaism. If they happen to have what is identified as a jewish last name such as Levy or Drey or others, they will be refered to as the " jewish lawyer" or the " jewish dentist " etc.... The degree of racism varies from North to South in France. The Riviera has a great number of "pied noir" who constituted the population of Europeans ( French, Italian and Spanish origines ) who were kicked out of Algeria when it became Independent. Most of those folks nurish a perpetual hatred towards arabs ( my mother is one ).Then we have the mistreated "harkis" ( Northern Algerian soldiers) who fought to defend France during WWII. They had to engage in both political and legal battles to insure they would receive the same recognition as any WWII veteran. The trashy colonialist past of my country is still affecting the way my people think. Racism is found both among the old and the young. I do not believe that it is a matter of restricted freedom of expression but rather an exacerbated reaction from ethnic groups who have indeed been treated as " low life" for too long. Most French are rather ignorant about the content of their own Bible. We attend church by tradition not by spiritual conviction (of course there are some exceptions). Needless to say that they are aso ignorant about the content of Q'ram. Some of us are more familiar with it as we lived in northern Africa and were exposed to some degree of mandatory coranic instruction in the schools. I doubt that most defaming comments made by anyone are from a religious comparaison but rather pure racist prejudice. In any case comparing one religion to the other always lacks an objective analysis.

10-14-2002, 12:11 AM	#7
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	If anyone's still reading this thread.... I think we've gone off track here, with the "race" thing. Whether religion relates to race or not, is not the key issue here. The core issue, and the reason I posted the story, is that a man has been hauled in to court because he said disparaging things about a religion, including calling it "stupid". He did not denigrate Muslims as a whole; he denigrated a certain set of beliefs. The "race card" has been played by the "plaintiffs" but whether or not the term "race" is valid here, Rushdie's underlying point remains - is this a case of censoring thoughts and opinions in the name of "religious tolerance"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.