Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than God is held to?

[The idea]

Suppose that a book insinuates filthy things about Ebert and Roeper (the film critics) and ridicules them, but isn't legally defamatory. Someone offers over two million dollars to anyone who kills the author.

Ebert and Roeper hear about the offer and, after weeks of deliberation, they decide to broadcast this completely serious comment: "Two thumbs up for those who offered that reward. We wholeheartedly approve of what you've done." Do you think that public esteem for Ebert and Roeper would rise?

Now consider the $2.8 million dollar bounty placed on Salman Rushdie's head. Whether or not the people who are making that offer are themselves offended by Rushdie's book, there is another question that arises. Do those people actually believe in God and, if they do, what do they think is God's attitude towards the offer?

 

[davidhorman]

Do those people actually believe in God and, if they do, what do they think is God's attitude towards the offer?

I expect they do believe in God, and they can probably bring themselves round to thinking that God's on their side no matter how many of His rules they're breaking. The end that they choose to believe is His justifies their means (this reminds of the ending to Greg Bear's short story The Moral Virologist).

I always used to wonder about the (specific subset of) Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. What did they think "Thou Shalt Not Kill" meant?

David

 

[jjramsey]

Do those people actually believe in God and, if they do, what do they think is God's attitude towards the offer?

AFAIK, the Islamic punishment for blasphemy is death, so the guys putting the bounty on Rushdie's head probably think they are doing God's will.

 

[Ladewig]

Do those people actually believe in God and, if they do, what do they think is God's attitude towards the offer?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that God told Abraham to kill his son. All three faiths have holy scriptures in which there are several instances of God telling someone to go kill some other people, so from the perspective of the people who endorse the fatwa, there is nothing hypocritical or unusual about it.

I am of the opinion that anyone who says, "God told me to kill that person" is an idiot or mentally ill.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than God is held to?

AFAIK, the Islamic punishment for blasphemy is death, so the guys putting the bounty on Rushdie's head probably think they are doing God's will.

On what basis are you saying this? Strictly speaking the punishment for blasphemy is death in the Christian, Jewish religions as well as Islam, the source being Leviticus.

I don't recall the Koran prescribing death for blasphemy, but my memory could be faulty here.

Also there are traditions that various poets were murdered at the instigation of the prophet but I don't know any Muslims that would take this as being a source of law.

If any of us had said "the Christian punishment for blasphemy is death" you would have called us village atheists.

There are moderates and extremists in Islam just as there are in Christianity.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than God is

On what basis are you saying this? Strictly speaking the punishment for blasphemy is death in the Christian, Jewish religions as well as Islam, the source being Leviticus.

Mainly from the bits and pieces of what I have heard on Sharia law and on the behavior of countries where Islam is the state religion, hence the "AFAIK" on my part.

I don't recall the Koran prescribing death for blasphemy, but my memory could be faulty here.

From Googling around, it looks like the punishment for blasphemy is not specifically laid out in the Koran itself, but in broader traditions that seem to be (roughly?) analogous to the rabbinic law in Judaism.

This page is more about apostasy than blasphemy, but it has stuff about blasphemy as well, especially when the blasphemy indicates a turning away from Islam:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm

I think this is the sort of thing that I had swimming in the back of my mind. It does appear that Rushdie was considered an apostate
(source).

If any of us had said "the Christian punishment for blasphemy is death" you would have called us village atheists.

And I would have warrant for doing so. Christianity has all this stuff about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, and so on. It is honored in the breach more than the observance, but it certainly doesn't square well with punishing blasphemy by death. One could easily call a Christian hypocritical or ignorant for killing in the name of his or her religion. This does not appear true for Islam.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than God is

And I would have warrant for doing so. Christianity has all this stuff about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, and so on.

You would have not been warranted in doing so, this represents a double standard. The death penalty for blasphemy in Christianity is written just exactly where it is for Islam - Leviticus.

And this is apparently immune from the cheek turning, enemy loving stuff. In Matthew 12:31, those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, in this age or the next.

So someone who kills blasphemers in the name of Christianity can find good scriptural support both in the old and the new Testament even if most Christians reject this interpretation.

Most Islamic scholars also reject that the Leviticus penalty for blasphemy applies to modern Islam - the Koran states clearly that blasphemy will be punished in the next life not this.

Most ordinary Muslims are opposed to killing in the name of religion and are happy to live with differing views.

Moreover there is a tradition in Islam dating from the 9th century AD of tolerance for different religious views. (I do have a reference for this but can't lay my hands to it just now).

Your comment narrowly focusses on extremist views withing the Islamic community and unfortunately this type of attitude leaves Islamic moderates high and dry.

 

[Robin]

I find on a quick skim of my Koran that the chapter on repentance does urge people to kill idolators (the example given in the Koran is Christians) if they don't repent and convert to Islam.

Not blasphemy as far as I can see and apostasy is covered by the collected sayings of Mohammed (he says to kill them).

Pretty barbaric but I have never met a barbaric Muslim.

I think I will take refuge in the Upanishads. Never came across anything about killing there. (but I haven't read them all).

 

[Robin]

And of course it should not be forgotten that the practice of suicide bombing was invented by atheists - just in case anyone thinks I am religion bashing.

My firm belief is that everyone should support the idea of a secular state. Secular does not mean, as many today think, atheist, but just apart from religion. Having your state express a preference for any religious viewpoint, including atheism, appears to be a recipe for disaster.

A person's religion (or lack thereof) should be a personal matter and nothing to do with the government.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than

You would have not been warranted in doing so, this represents a double standard. The death penalty for blasphemy in Christianity is written just exactly where it is for Islam - Leviticus.

At best, your argument is that if I am sloppy in indicting Islam, then you are justified in being sloppy about indicting Christianity. This is the classic tu quoque fallacy. There is also a vast difference between having a misleading impression of Islam based on the bits and pieces one has picked up from the news and elsewhere, and the almost willful sloppiness I've seen in more rabid atheists in their handling of Christianity.

On the issue of "the Christian punishment for blasphemy is death":

I already mentioned the stuff about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. I would also point out that Paul pretty clearly said the Old Testament law was no longer binding. The real historical Jesus might have disagreed with Paul on this, but this became part of Christianity from early on. Saying that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, in this age or the next (Matthew 12:31), can hardly constitute a directive to kill such blasphemers. Saying that a Christian could find good scriptural support for killing blasphemers is a stretch.

On the issue of "the Islamic punishment for blasphemy is death":

If you want to point out that this is not true, and that the kind of hardline version of Islam we have seen in Iran is at heart a bastardization of Islam, please do so. As you might have noticed, I have not expressed any great certainty in the claims I've made about Islam.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher standard than

At best, your argument is that if I am sloppy in indicting Islam, then you are justified in being sloppy about indicting Christianity. This is the classic tu quoque fallacy. There is also a vast difference between having a misleading impression of Islam based on the bits and pieces one has picked up from the news and elsewhere, and the almost willful sloppiness I've seen in more rabid atheists in their handling of Christianity.

If I had said anything even remotely like this it would indeed be a fallacy. But I think the meaning of my post was very clear. No, I said that if you criticize others for being sloppy about indicting Christianity then you are not justified in being sloppy about indicting Islam. A village theist is no better than a village atheist.

On the issue of "the Christian punishment for blasphemy is death":

I already mentioned the stuff about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. I would also point out that Paul pretty clearly said the Old Testament law was no longer binding. The real historical Jesus might have disagreed with Paul on this, but this became part of Christianity from early on. Saying that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, in this age or the next (Matthew 12:31), can hardly constitute a directive to kill such blasphemers. Saying that a Christian could find good scriptural support for killing blasphemers is a stretch.

I didn't say that Matthew 12:31 constitutes a directive to kill blasphemers. I said (more than once) that Leviticus (24:16) constitutes a clear and unambiguous directive to kill blasphemers. Matthew 12:31 specifically exempts blasphemy from the strictures to forgive. Do you really not see how someone could interpret these together as strong scriptural support for killing blasphemers?

Moreover I should point out that Jesus very clearly said that the Old Testament law was still binding - in Matthew 5:17-20. "...not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass away". I am not aware of where Paul says otherwise (do you have a reference?) but I imagine he is out ranked here.

It is odd that the same chapter that contains the stricture to love your enemies and turn the other cheek should say that the laws of Leviticus are still in force in their entirety. I would say it is one of the inconsistencies of this text.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Between God and Ebert, I hold Eberts cinematic opinion in higher regard.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher stand

No, I said that if you criticize others for being sloppy about indicting Christianity then you are not justified in being sloppy about indicting Islam.

I am not justified in being sloppy about indicting Islam, period.

A village theist is no better than a village atheist.

Fair enough. I will be more careful next time. I should have known better than to post about something of which I have hazy knowledge, even with the "AFAIK". At the very least, I should have be more explicit about warning that what I said should have been taken with more than a few grains of salt.

(And as I said, there is still quite a bit of difference between careless mistakes and willful distortion.)

Moreover I should point out that Jesus very clearly said that the Old Testament law was still binding - in Matthew 5:17-20. "...not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass away". I am not aware of where Paul says otherwise (do you have a reference?) but I imagine he is out ranked here.

The letter to the Galatians is where Paul lays most of it out.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it fair to hold popular film critics to a higher s

(And as I said, there is still quite a bit of difference between careless mistakes and willful distortion.)

I just realized that this, while true, is somewhat beside the point. There's the careless mistake that comes from wanting to believe the worst about someone or something that you oppose. There's also the careless mistake that simply comes from thinking off the top of your head. Neither is a bright idea, but the former tends to be the byproduct of being a village atheist/theist/fanatic while the latter is not.

Your comment narrowly focusses on extremist views withing the Islamic community and unfortunately this type of attitude leaves Islamic moderates high and dry.

Which comment was that? The one that said that as far as I knew--which turned out not to be very far--that "the Islamic punishment for blasphemy is death," or the one with a link to ReligiousTolerance.org which had both the extreme and moderate views on the matter, and was relevant to Rushdie's troubles mentioned in the OP? If the former, you are justified in your comment. If the latter, maybe not so much? If I wanted to be vicious to Islam, I would have linked to a more slanted source than ReligiousTolerance.org and indicated far more confidence in my opinions.

 

[bruto]

One of the problems with the Rushdie Fatwah, no matter how much of an apologist you might be for radical Islam, seems to me to be the idea that one can lay a charge of blasphemy on someone who is not in your religion to start with. Subsequent events aside, Rushdie was not a Muslim when he wrote the Satanic Verses. Of course I'm sure there are some radicals of various religions who do indeed consider the mere practice of other religions an inherent blasphemy, but taking this charge out of the house, so to speak, seems a very dangerous precedent.

Most of the Muslim disavowals of the fatwah that I've heard have seemed to me to be shamefully equivocal, as have so many disavowals of terrorist acts, taking the form of "it's wrong but..." I was glad to see that at least some prominent Muslims are being a little less mealy mouthed in the wake of the London bombings. About time.

Of course, one other problem is that even if you were to allow that it's all right to punish blasphemy with death, and to do it to a non-Muslim, it would be customary even in the harsh Old Testament world to have a trial of some sort, not just to hire thugs to kill the perpetrator in the street. Why those nasty Muslims are behaving like....hmm, well, like everyone else, I guess*. Still wrong though.

Wandering a bit, on the subject of Jesus and the old law, I hope you didn't expect consistency! I mean, this is the bible, right? Paul says it's new, Matthew says it doesn't change a jot or tittle, but you can also add in Mark, who seems to agree more with Paul. I don't have my handy little bible at hand at the moment, but I seem to recall a couple of instances where the jocular Jesus baited Pharisees with violations of the law so he could bitch-slap them with his better scholarship, and one little quotation I do remember, and which I wish more so-called Christians would too, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

* There's little enough humor to be found in religion, though I think there's a hint of it in Mark. For another good read, quite reminiscent of the Rushdie Fatwah in some ways, and also written with considerable wit, I recommend the chapter in Foxe's Book of Martyrs on Tyndale.

Final note: If you've never actually read The Satanic Verses, I recommend it for a good understanding of what this is all about. I certainly and unequivocally condemn attempts to silence authors, but I can also kind of understand why old Khomeini got so pissed off. The book is indeed, boisterously and in-your-face blasphemous, and for icing on the cake includes a dream sequence in which an unnamed Imam rather obviously symbolic of the Ayatollah, is depicted as a monster devouring his subjects. But as I said, there's little humor to be found in religion.

 

[jjramsey]

I Googled for "Rushdie" and "apostasy" and found a couple interesting links. One is from a blogger who I think is Muslim:

http://arafat.blogspot.com/2004/07/apostasy-in-islam-is-rushd_108907812919184533.html

A couple things struck me as interesting. First, Rushdie was considered an apostate even though he had never embraced Islam. That seems strange to both me and the blogger. There is also this quote:

On top of all the debate on whether Muslim apostates should or should not be punished, the last thing we needed was Khomeini's fatwa. I think many Islamic legal scholars agree that Khomeini's order to kill Rushdie was simply illegitimate according to classical Islamic law itself (For reasons including the fact that a decree of punishment cannot be issued until the accused has been proven guilty of apostasy at a formal Islamic court, and the ruler or caliph's jurisdiction does not extend beyond the boundary of the Islamic state). Khomeini's price on Rushdie's head was thefore no less than an order to murder, and brought nothing but a barbaric image to the name of Islam.

Here's another link, and it goes into much more detail about the apostasy and blasphemy issues:

http://muslim-canada.org/APOSNOFR.HTM

One quote from the link affirms what the blogger said:

It is necessary to have evidence of two reliable witnesses corroborating each other before a Khazi (judge) shall be required to question the witnesses. Thereupon the witnesses will have to make statements describing the words uttered or the acts done which constitute apostasy.

Interestingly enough, there is a partial defense, though:

Ayatullah Khomeni had condemned Salman Rushdie because his book was considered blasphemous; the Pope condemned Madonna for her provocative songs. As head of his respective religious structure, each did what was expected of him by his followers. Any Muslim cleric would have reacted to this book in the same manner as the Ayatullah; any Catholic priest would have found Madonna's songs distasteful.

The article does not say that Khomeni's fatwa was legitimate, however. It doesn't get into the legal specifics of Khomeni's fatwa at all.

Oh, here is a working link to a Wikipedia article on Rushdie to which I referred in an earlier post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Verses_controversy