| By Superduperficial - Feb 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pm EST |
(Edit: Down in the comments section, JR raised some questions about why I write as I do on CampusProgress. Our conversation might be of interest to some people - Hence, the updated title of this post. Scroll down if you're interested. Warning: It's 5AM, I'm zonked out, and yes, there are some spelling errors.)
Apparently, blasphemy is now against the rules at San Francisco State.
Not even intentional blasphemy, either! The protestors were simply stomping on renditions of the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, which included the word 'Allah' in Arabic script unbeknownst to them.
But let's say it were intentional. It would be in poor taste, I agree, but how on earth can any civilized society justify the prohibition of blasphemy? No religion or superstition (I will leave it up to readers to distinguish between the two as they like) is deserving of such special protections.
The school administrators are clearly doing their best to make an uncomfortable and hostile campus environment for people such as atheists and anti-theists, a group for whom historically the restriction of the freedom to criticize religion has been followed by violence and oppression.
(Atheists are one of the most discriminated-against minorities in our society; 40% of Americans say they would not vote for an Atheist for president even if they agreed with him on every policy, as compared with 10% for African Americans, Women, or Jews.)
The right to commit blasphemy is a cause that every liberal and progressive should rally behind.
Edit: One of the students in the campus newspaper is quoted as follows:
“The fact that God was on the flag, it was offensive to me and other Muslims,” Najjar said. “You don’t get to step on people’s religions.”
Setting aside the question of whether the far, far greater offense was that a political party put God on their flag, since when do you not get to step on people's religions at a public university?
!
Comments are closed for this post.
For instance, when Ben Adler wrote about the Gallaudet administration ordering the punishment of protesters in December for staging a sit-in in October during which no property was damaged, you wrote
Now, while you're free to argue that an arrest record and incarceration are insufficient punishment for such a grievous crime as deaf students "wasting everybody's time in defiance of set rules," it makes you look somewhat petty and draconian.
But to then turn around and so vociferously defend the Islamophobic SFSU College Republicans against the horrors of a potential school disciplinary action for trying to piss people off for no discernable purpose and with no clear goals (rather than to effect change on an official administrative policy) seems rather, for want of a better term, asinine. You've defended the senseless act lacking purpose and condemned the targeted act with a clear and reachable goal.
Now, I don't disagree with you about how this is a stupid move by SFSU, and I do agree that those students' speech should be protected while protesting on campus (unlike you, I as a general rule think that the rights of free speech during demonstrations on campus are sacrosanct).
But from where I sit, you are beginning to read like someone who spends way too much time reading Sullivan, Hitchens, TNR, right wing blogs, and supposedly "liberal" publications that conveniently spend more time attacking progressives for one reason or another than defending progressivism against the Right.
Looking through your archives (which I expect will probably be deleted sometime relatively soon, in keeping with your misguided deletion policy), the last time I can find you endorsing a progressive's ideas or writing is last August 3rd when you endorsed something Yglesias wrote about Palestine.
In that same time period, you railed against such causes as Women's Studies courses (August), Foucault and Judith Butler (Sept), The American Prospect (Sept), progressive blogs not being aggressive enough on the incoming speaker (Nov), Howard Dean (Dec), Rep. Reyes (Dec--and on this one I completely agreed with you), veganism (Dec), French health care systems (Jan--this one was incidentally while endorsing a Schwarzenegger-designed system), Pelosi again (Jan), 'Living Wage' advocates (Jan--ironically, this one was about how raising the minimum wage in American Samoa would be bad for their economy, and it came right after blasting Pelosi for not including American Samoa in the initial legislation), Democratic student loan proposals in the "100 Hours" agenda (Jan), the minimum wage (Jan), the ICJ (Jan), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Jan), "progressive orthodoxy" on income inequality (Jan), and this one.
Now, I know you fancy yourself as the great intellectual here to save progressivism from its reactionary and ill-informed supporters, but just take a look at the proportion of posts you've written defending progressivism or left-leaning politicians versus posts attacking progressives or progressivism. Notice anything glaringly obvious?
You're not always wrong--I read every post you write because you're frequently insightful--and, when you are, you put up a good defense that forces me to be a stronger writer. But it seems like you've got a pretty big issue concerning where you look for material, the sort of arguments you prefer, and the voices you turn to for support. And, at the end of the day, it looks like you'd prefer to be against us than with us. If that's not your actual preference (and, given your continued claims of liberal sympathies, I don't believe it is), perhaps your style is what's obfuscating your intent, and perhaps there's a bit of (egregious) selection bias in your cases.
Probing for weaknesses on occassion helps find spots that need reinforcement. Doing it too often, though, makes it more destructive than constructive.
Simply put, why do I, as a progressive and a liberal, only write posts attacking stances that a lot of progressives and liberals are taking? Why don't I write a post, say, criticizing George Bush's policy about this or that? Am I really that more comfortable with "sitting in their own camp"?
My answer may be a bit scattershot (and a bit long; bear with me) , so rather than try to answer each question in turn, I'll just talk a little bit about what goes through my mind as I post here.
Questions include "What's a blog useful for?", "What's Campus Progress specifically useful for?", "What makes the progressive movement, and American liberalism, stronger?", "What makes it weaker?", "How does the strength or weakness of that movement translate into a change in the quality of life for the American people?". Now, with all those floating through my head, here's what I've come to.
The real value of this blog is to give a forum for a bunch of up-and-coming progressive young minds (And that's how I'd fairly describe the group here) to hone their ideas, sharpen their thinking, and in general prepare for the real battles ahead as they get to the point in their lives and careers that they can make a serious difference.
A post criticizing Karl Rove here won't touch him in any way. He'll never read it. The point of posting here is not to impact the target, but to impact one another with our writing, and to impact ourselves - improving our faculties and talents.
With that in mind, it's my view that nothing stifles growth and talent like an echo chamber. Nothing helps someone to hone their ideas like having someone else picking them apart.
The right wing blogs don't provide that service; IMHO conservatism isn't a very coherent, consistent, or weighty political philosophy, and right wing bloggers tend to ignore this little alcove of the internet anyhow.
I do my best to provide that service because I care about the progress the people on this blog make in sharpening their thinking. Both for their personal good, and for the good of the nation as a new generation of progressive thinkers rises into positions of power and influence.
This isn't arrogance on my part, because considering myself an effective Devil's Advocate doesn't require me to hold that I'm any smarter or more thoughtful than anyone else here (I don't.) It's just a matter of different roles.
In person I tear into conservatives I like with the same such aplomb, in the hopes that it'll benefit their thinking and reasoning. If I'm trying to win over an undecided crowd, I'm going to be an advocate for liberalism, not going after all the little problems I see on my own side.
I see far, far more to criticize on the conservative side of the aisle than I do on the liberal side. The reason I spend all my time on here going after liberals, in a nutshell, is the philosophy of "find a niche and fill it".
If the world and the internet were lacking for intelligent, articulate critics of Bush's policies and conservatism in general, I'd be the first to step up to the plate. But frankly, I think there are already plenty of people capably and comprehensibly handling that, so I look for a niche that's not getting handled.
I've long ago concluded that the flaws and foibles of liberals pale in comparison to those of conservatives, and I know which side I ultimately stand on.
My criticism here is my small contribution to a generation of liberals and progressives that will hopefully iron out those last few kinks in our politics and our policies.
Here at Georgetown, the only place I write is for the conservative/libertarian paper. But when I do, it's always to make a conservative/libertarian argument for what are traditionally "liberal" policies. My last piece for them was the social conservative case in favor of gay marriage.
Conservatism, liberalism, progressivism -- a political philosophy is essentially about a set of shared assumptions. Having such different starting assumptions is, IMHO, a large part of why liberals and conservatives so often talk past one anoher.
So, here I often argue for what are generally considered "conservative" policies, but I do so based on our shared liberal assumptions.
Hopefully, that's a benefit to my fellow posters. But it means that my posting history here isn't very representative of where the bulk of my political sympathies lie.
I agree with your point that probing for weaknesses too often can be "destructive rather than constructive" -- but I'd counter that it depends on the forum.
If Campus Progress had a national audience of undecideds that we were trying to lure over to the progressive side, that'd be one thing, and I'd tilt my selection bias in much the other direction.
Instead, I think these blogs are mainly for the benefit of people who post here, and so I don't think my choice of topics is hurting the progressive movement any.
=====
And now, on to the substance of this particular debate...
Big difference (And correct me if I'm wrong on this) between this case and the Gallaudet protests: Gallaudet is a private university, whereas San Francisco state is a public one.
IMHO, that's a huge dividing line in what's appropriate at each.
I go to a private university where no pro-choice organizations are allowed to "officially" exist. I disagree with that, but it's within their rights.
A public university would be forbidden from doing the same.
In the same way, a private Islamic university could establish rules governing how the word "Allah" is used, and I'd disagree with it but it'd be within their rights.
A public university cannot do the same.
Beyond that, there's the whole distinction of one being a violation of private property, and the other being about the content of speech (And yes, stomping on a flag is a form of speech).
But to then turn around and so vociferously defend the Islamophobic SFSU College Republicans against the horrors of a potential school disciplinary action for trying to piss people off for no discernable purpose and with no clear goals (rather than to effect change on an official administrative policy) seems rather, for want of a better term, asinine. You've defended the senseless act lacking purpose and condemned the targeted act with a clear and reachable goal.
Uh, do we have any evidence that they're Islamophobic? They stomped on the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, which can both fairly be described as terrorist organizations. I don't believe they said anything about Islam in general.
Secondly, perhaps we fundamentally disagree on this, but IMHO pissing people off who deserve it (and yes, that is subjective) is a discernible and noble purpose.
I support the wholescale export of our pop culture, in all its glorious crassness, into the unfree portions of the Middle East precisely because it pisses off the right people.
Pissing people off is not senseless because if you do it right, it moves them to act in a way that's beneficial to you.
For instance, the Dutch Mohammed cartoons were, IMHO, all about pissing people off. And in that, achieved a very noble purpose. The reaction it prompted, the violent rioting in many places, helped to clarify the terms and strengthen the commitment of secular, liberal governments to freedom of speech.
IMHO, that's a much higher purpose than merely tussling with the administration over who runs the school.
(Oh, and side note -- I don't read Sullivan anymore. Not because I agree with him more or less than before, but because lately I can predict everything he's going to write, every stance he's going to take. He doesn't add anything like he used to.)
I'm in DC too -- we should meet over coffee (or your drink of choice :).
For me personally, I specifically go out of my way to try to read or watch things with conservative opinions because I have lived in New York City (or right outside of it) my whole life and needless to say most people I encounter normally lean to the left, even the ones who may technically be republicans. That goes for the majority of my friends, my classmates, my professors, family etc. I do have a FEW people who are conservative in my life who I speak to regularly but honestly, I could probably count them all on one hand.
And I find a lot of your points more sound than the ones I encounter on right leaning sites probably in part because you are liberal as well and we can agree on some basic principles, as you stated.
So, in short, it's good to have someone like you blogging this way and your points are really valid...although I think maybe he may have taken it the wrong way because at times you can sound a little harsh in your responses lol but other than that, it's all good.
The assumption underlying this is that there is not a benefit to picking apart those opinions and ideas that, rather than sitting in opposition to your POV, are espousing ideas you agree with.
Take a look at some of the comment threads on posts you've written over the last three months--what usually seems to happen is that one or two commenters will directly engage your post, which (sometimes) leads you to point out weak spots in their arguments. But if you've already determined the arguments to be weak on our side before even writing your initial piece, why aren't you writing better 'pro' arguments instead of simply the 'con' ones? If I post a criticism of Rove, he'll never read it, but everyone here is free to look over my reasoning and evidence and judge whether or not my criticism is valid, and if stylistically it could be improved. Likewise, your post on UDHR devolved into you attacking Jefferson for "sophistry" in the Declaration of Independence and denying the existence of natural rights (incidentally, that made me want to quote "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" so bad it hurt, but I try to refrain from Capraesque arguments)--even your defenses are formed as attacks. That might be a good way to win on "O'Reilly," where you can speak in soundbites and only have to win against the person on the other side of the screen, but it doesn't necessarily make for a strong political debate in an intellectual or academic setting.
Remember, though, that there is another purpose to this site besides helping us improve our writing. The obvious end of improved writing is to create competent and earnest acolytes for the progressive movement. CAP isn't simply trying to create a way for progressive college kids to learn to write better because of any sense of altruism, but because we should be learning to be better advocates for our common cause (or for Common Cause--I hear they're not so bad to work for).
From your writing, I don't read someone who is necessarily capable of offering a strong defense of progressivism. I read someone who makes a great curmudgeon, but not necessarily someone who can serve as a forceful advocate. I don't know how well versed you are in the "progressive orthodoxy" you seek to challenge--I only know that you use the term derisively and have rarely if ever offered a defense of it, even the parts you agree with.
Defending progressivism requires a different set of rhetorical skills than attacking it to find weak spots, and I would be quite interested to see how strong you are in that role. I think that you've got an analytical mind that would make for a great attorney, but I've only ever seen you on the prosecution side, so I can't know for sure.
I don't claim that I'm necessarily any good at writing a defense of a principle; for all I know, I'm specializing in criticism because it's all I can pull off. But I will, at least, give it a shot.
However, Superduperficial, I see your post on blasphemy as heavy on rhetoric and light on actual argumentation. The issues of free speech and blasphemy are ridiculously complex, and I think you missed the point with your condescendingly italicized question:
"How on [E]arth can any civilized society justify the prohibition of blasphemy?"
Well, if you consider Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, The United Kingdom, and the state of Maryland civilized soceities, then I guess the answer to your question is "pretty damn easily." And I wouldn't be able to say that on network TV -- along with "Christ Almighty!" or "My God!" -- a regulation you can't justify on the grounds of obscenity law.
Until the Supreme Court issued the Miracle decision in 1952, sacriligeous speech was ofter subject to prior restraint. While the policies of the FCC and other media regulating bodies today are content neutral, that wasn't the case for much of American history. I guess you can argue that 1940's America was somehow uncivilized, but I'm pretty sure I can construe that as an attack on my grandmother.
The point I'm trying to make is that issues of blasphemy and free speech are by no means clear cut -- if we argue that religion shouldn't be practiced in the public sphere, how can we also claim that blasphemy should be allowed? Add in the issues of demonstration theory and free speech rights on college campuses and what you have is a really complicated problem that doesn't split along normal ideological lines.
So before you play the devil's blogger, make sure that you don't oversimplify the issue at hand for the sake of shock value.
Religion is really just opinion; if you say or do something against "my God", as long as I wasn't actually harmed (as in physically), I have the right to be offended but not a right to try to prevent you from saying/doing something similiar again.
The Black Israelites and the Black Muslim groups are
always preaching on the corners of times square, Penn station and various other streets, about how all white people are evil and going to hell and will go as far as to point a white person out in a crowd cursing at them and using them as an "example"; they are protected under the right to free speech so if someone said something they considered blasphemous, they'd be protected as well.
I can understand that it's a school and they are trying to diffuse a bad situation but banning blasphemy is going a bit too far.
I think in a really civilized society, it wouldn't really have to be an issue because people would express their differing views in less hostile/more respectful ways; however, pissing people off is not the best way to cause any positive change normally.
I thought the Dutch cartoons of the Prophet were more irresponsible than noble. It didn't really change any one's thoughts and people were harmed, even killed, because of it; not that it's their fault someone else harmed someone in response, but if you feel fairly certian that people were going to respond that way, it would have been more ethical not to print it--or at least keep reprinting it when explaining what happened in words would have sufficed.
You're also liable for committing fraud or breaking contracts.
There are logical justifications for these exemptions, though - and they're (relatively) clearly defined.
No one has made a compelling defense of why blasphemy should *ever* be exempted from rules governing freedom of speech.
I think everyone (with the possible exception of Nicole) would agree that the Supreme Court was right to opine that the right of free speech doesn't grant everyone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre (though I adamently defend the right to yell "theatre!" in a crowded fire). Why is that? We know that simply yelling "fire!" doesn't create a fire, so nobody is explicitly put in harm's way. But we recognize that the emotional response to hearing a cry of "fire!" is dangerous enough to warrant protecting the populace by prohibiting this speech act.
Is blaspheme, especially when designed to intentionally offend believers (I'm not saying that it was in the SFSU case), not designed to likewise create a emotional response wherein irrational compulsions are likely to overtake the listener?
Once we accept the principle that certain speech acts can create such a deleterious social effect as to warrant prohibiting them, aren't we just arguing about degrees?
Saying/doing something one considers blasphemous does not make them fear for their lives, so the emotional response shouldn't be as strong and if it is, it is just based on personal beliefs in which case you could start prohibiting a lot of speech because some people find it merely offensive.
If someone did say/do something intentionally to someone or some group to offend them in a way they figured would make them respond irrationally and even possibly to cause harm in retaliation, it is far from respectable behavior but it shouldn't be legally prohibited because it then would rely too much on how the other people/person feels, how strongly they feel it and what their personal temperment is etc.
If I said something against a group with the intention of provoking others to harm the group I was speaking against, that should be prohibited because I was intending to cause them harm; even if I just gave them the impression that what I was saying would cause harm, it would still apply because they would think they were going to be harmed. But if it's just because they feel offended at what I'm saying, it's not crime.
The problem with "Fire!" is not an emotional response, but something else - perhaps the best term would be an instinctual one. It triggers our basic Fight or Flight reflex in a way that can quickly escalate into a physically dangerous situation.
Someone who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater is, in other words, acting with the malicious intent to create physical harm.
(Question: How did 'fire in a crowded theater' become our go-to metaphor of choice for this rule? I've got no idea. Was that the case that the court ruled on?)
I'd argue, based on the above, that there's not merely a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. Creating a false perception of imminent danger is fundamentally different than pissing someone off.
Note, also, that were your argument true, it'd be the perfect logic for restricting abortion; after all, if stomping on the name of God pisses off the religious, imagine what "killing innocent babies" can do?
The pro-choice argument that "Their right to be offended doesn't trump my fundamental personal rights" would no longer work, because you'd already have curtailed the right of freedom of speech (Which I'd hope we can all agree is a fundamental right) for exactly that reason.
That ruling held nothing about malice, but about consequences. If the consequences of the act are unprotected, then the act itself seems to be subject to control. Holmes wrote:
So, what's the point of blaspheme, especially when targeted towards a specific denomination? Is it to incite to anger? To prevent its association? To randomly voice ones ideas about the Virgin Birth, the Holocaust, the divinity of Christ, or any doctrine of faith to those least likely to listen? Does it simply create an emotional response, or does it cause the listener to become irrationally emotional and defensive? Does Holocaust denial trigger a response to perceived danger in some Jews, for example? If it only happens to some people, then at what point is there a large enough mass to justify legislative remedy? (these are just top-of-the-head examples)
Which goes back to the "fire!" analogy: at what point do enough people have to be triggered instictively for a speech act to meet the threshold of being unprotected? Do we revert to Holmes and say it's 'a question of proximity and degree'? And how are those degrees measured?
(Again, I'm just fucking around here--I'm not personally advocating for anti-blaspheme laws, just waiting for something good to come on TV or for my wife to get ready for a biking trip through the nearby state park...whichever comes first)
I was referring to free speech in the sense of being able to say/do what one wants as long as it does not start crossing into other areas where you are harming anyone or breaking any legal contracts etc.
I used the term absolute a little loosely.
In this realm, to be honest, I'm not sure that I'd consider them fully civilized societies. Societies that don't protect fundamental rights of the individual with a strength equal to that of our constitution disgust me on a really visceral level.
As for Maryland's "blasphemy laws", a law that's technically on the books but clearly unconstitutional doesn't really bother me, because any attempt to ever enforce it would see it overturned on constitutional grounds.
Assuming we're talking about expressions of faith that don't break the Establishment clause, I *don't* argue that religion shouldn't be practiced in the public sphere. To the extent that I'd rather it wasn't, that's merely on the pragmatic grounds that we get better outcomes as a society if secularism carries the day, not because it violates any particular principle.
If a candidate wants to pitch himself as the Right Man For The Job because he's a Firmly Believing Such-And-Such, good for him - I don't object in principle, I'd simply point out that he'll likely be an awful politician if elected.
Religions make claims about truth, and these claims have at least some level of falsifiability. I see no reason the truth or falsehood, the 'goodness' or 'badness', of any given faith shouldn't become a publicly debated issue with political implications.
Super, when it comes to your arguments here's the best metaphor I can come up with.
You are similar to an alcoholic who argues that all the water in the oceans be replaced with bud lite.
I mean if you seriously believe that you're somehow providing the rest of us bloggers a "service" by presenting (ad naeseum) the other side of the debate in an antagonistic and arrogant fashion--please hold onto my syllabus for me.
And secondly, for you to actually write a disclaimer and assume that any of the rest of us might find "some interest" in what's already been said a million times before, I just don't know what to say.
To the credit of those maintaining this blog, Campus Progress has been able to consolidate and galvanize some of the best young progressive writers and thinkers in our nation. This--amazingly despite the perpetual distraction.
I find it self-defeating.
It's not "the other side", in that I'm not arguing based on conservative principles. I'm arguing alternate conclusions from shared liberal principles. Big difference.
The 'disclaimer' is that I looked back over my comment and realized my spelling and grammar were crap in several places, but the system wouldn't allow me to edit and fix them. Just a minor apology for the sloppiness.
The reason I added title edit pointing to this is because someone in this comments thread suggested it be its own post. I felt making it its own post would be a little too "meta" for CP, so I edited the title of this one instead.
"So, here I often argue for what are generally considered "conservative" policies."
So don't pretend that you don't argue from a conservative/right wing perspective. You do, and it has NOTHING to do with "shared liberal principles."
I mean, those are pretty good liberal values. The way he usually makes his case is how an intuitive Republican would try to persuade a room full of progressives--by arguing that the progressive orthodoxy is failing to achieve progressive goals, and that other ideas should be tried. But he's not arguing that the welfare of the poor is not a national concern, and he isn't arguing that workers should be paid slave wages (I think he's naive about how little many workers actually do make, but he's well-meaning enough). And, from time to time, arguing with him is great practice for dealing with real Righties or folks from the Republic party.
You seemed to think I had some good stuff to say on this post. Link
I just don't have patience for the willfully ignorant. If evidence countering your assertion is present and compelling, don't act like a petulant child--own up to being wrong or provide some evidence besides spittle-flecked invective to support your assertions. That's how grown-ups do it.