For what it's worth, it's despicable to elide 'harassing women with head scarfs', 'beating up children', and drawing a cartoon in the same light. Despicable and stupid. These things are not alike in any way. One is public speech, a necessary and good part of our marketplace of ideas. The other is personal harassment, which should never be tolerated under any circumstances.

I know the author wants to pretend that these acts are of a kind. They're not. And until he (and, I suppose, the muslim extremists) understand this, there can't be true peace. Peace will not come by eliminating differences and shutting people up. It can only come by setting ground rules of what is acceptable in a society.

I can say whatever the fuck I want about your God, anyone's God, and I demand to feel safe doing it. You can say whatever you want about my God, and you should demand to feel safe while doing it. Those are the rules, and they are absolute. I'd move heaven and earth to stop anyone, however good intentioned, from pretending that beating up a person and drawing a cartoon are along the same spectrum. They're not.

Well put. The author comes very close to saying that "desecreation of the sacred symbols Islam" creates more terrorists so we should stop doing it. Following that logic would lead to a heavily censored society where no one could criticize any religion or otherwise mock or ridicule any religious beliefs. We would lose something very valuable in our culture.

Muslims and all other believers have to get used to their sacred beliefs being criticized, mocked, laughed at and joked about. Christians and Jews have largely accepted this. Threats of violence against those desecrating the sacred symbols of Christianity and Judiaism are rare. Other religious groups need to accept this too.

Much of this comes from the recently invented and completely specious "right to not be offended." No one will ever have this right, and no one ever should. Even considering it is a direct, downhill path to a war of all against all. Each of us has a slightly different set of things that offend us. If we all decide that we have the right not to be offended, no one will be able to say anything to anyone.

I guess I should say, also, that the rest of the essay was smart and on target in every way. Which makes it ten times more infuriating that someone as intelligent as Patel would make such a lazy grouping. I think, in a sense, it exposes the weak link in the thinking about 'respect'.

Respect is nice, but a little abstract for my taste. If you can guarantee safety and freedom, I think the respect issue takes care of itself.

Not a disagreement so much as a clarification...

I don't think there's much of a movement behind the "right to not be offended." This is especially true in the case of the case of the Danish Cartoons; the offense was taken under the pre-modern principles of one's god and faith being absolute and beyond question. This concept pre-dates the idea of what we know as "rights" and exists in a completely different worldview.

Freedom of Religion (an actual right, as defined by laws), I believe, implicitly demands that religious members of society prepare themselves to be open to criticism of their beliefs, such is the nature of a multi-cultural society or world. Point being, any legalistic arguement about "rights" needs to supersede archaic conepts about religion's primacy in society.

The author's point was that, whether we like it or not, Muslims tend to take all disrespect shown to their religion much more seriously than adherents of some other religions might. And that understanding that fact is essential to avoiding the drift toward a "war of civilizations" that is the jihadists' last, best hope.

In other words, a tactical observation. When you go to a church or temple not your own for, say, a wedding or a funeral, do you comment loudly on how foolish this religion is, how unattractive its place of worship, how barbaric its ceremonies? No, for the sake of your friends and to keep the peace, you hold your tongue, regardless of what you actually think. In somewhat the same way, Patel advises, the West can either respect Muslim sensitivities that it finds somewhat absurd (thereby hopefully reassuring Muslims around the world that they need not fear Western contempt) or it can take a loudmouthed principled stand on its right to insult anybody and anything it wishes. As a legal and political matter, that principle is of course correct (at least to our way of thinking). As a tactical matter, it's simply foolish. One may have an undoubted right and yet exercise it unwisely.

Fritz:

The West can't, as a matter of principal, promise to be respectful and not-loudmouthed because we don't control people. We can hold our elected leaders to a certain level of decorum (and as little as I like Bush, I think he's done a fine job of assuring American Muslims that their faith is not under attack), but it's wishful thinking that we're going to solve any kind of interfaith problems by muzzling our own loudmouths. Not only will it never happen, it shouldn't happen.

This fuzzy sense that the whole problem is borne out of hurt feelings is really a huge impediment to finding smart solutions.

But we aren't in a mosque - we're in an open, free society. Sure, I'm not rude and I change my behavior to fit the circumstances. And I'm not advocating mindless blasphemy. But in a country where Jesus has a talk show on South Park, where Homer dresses up as Ganesh and laughs at Apu's Hindu gods, where everyone feels free to laugh at Judiaism (not least of all Jewish comics) to expect that we as a society are going to treat Muslim sensitivities with special reverence is absurd.

Mel Brooks turned the horrors of the Inquisition into a song and dance number complete with diving nuns in swimsuits. That should have offended Christians and Jews but instead it's a comedy classic. Muslims, Sikhs, and Scientologists have to accept that people are going to laugh at their most cherished beliefs and will include open blasphemy as a routine part of cartoons, novels, jokes, plays, movies, and other media forms. Suck it up, buttercup.

I for one look forward to buying a ticket to a film by a bright young comic who has the spine to do a Islamic version of a Mel Brooks comedy, with a big funy song and dance number about jihadist suicide bombers complete with veiled girls dropping their burkas to reveal tight costumes. Maybe Taliban on Ice. That will be a great day.

Taliban on ice would be awesome. Sounds like a big step up from "looking for comedy in the muslim world"

Dude, I am so stealing "Taliban on Ice" for my sig file. With attribution.

I think there is quite a movement behind the "right to not be offended" in the US. One needs to look no further than the same sex marriage issue to see a lot of people arguing that exact point. Like many things, however, people who feel this way about issues that offend them often do not feel that other groups such as the Muslims, should have the same right.

Of course, assuming that people should have a right to not be offended is assuming that people should not be free.

I have no clue what you mean about the "right to not be offended" and Gay marriage. Its just a phrase that supporters use to accuse anti-gay marriage folks of having no standing. (ie, you're just personally offended by it. You bigot.)

And anyone who brings it up brings it up in the context of how people are not entitled to it. When used in arguement, its an intentionally self-defeating principle. Who actually advocates this? I suppose religious types do, but not in the context of a "right." Instead, their arguement is more along the lines of "this millenia-old immaculate text is the word of god and is absolute and you are thus offending all that is holy with your...."

Sure. Round up all the Moslems and put them in concentratin camps and let them say what they want while we listen in.

Dd

So long as they do the same for all the other religions, I am all for it.

...the author's merely saying that by showing a little respect towards the beliefs of Muslims and treating them as we'd wish to be treated would go a LONG way towards undercutting the dangerous terrorists amongst them. And that's a GOOD thing, right?

Or would you rather stand on your "rights" to abuse their faith, and continue this so-called "war on terror?"

Too many Americans want 'rights' without responsibilities...