Moderate Muslims, I believe, interpret the Koran as advocating only a defensive employment of violence. Unlike Christ’s instruction to “turn the other cheek,” Islam does consider it valid to use violence to ward of an attack on Muslims or their religion itself. Therein lies a division between the moderate and the fundamentalist Islamasists. The latter have a very broad interpretation as to what constitutes an attack. Certainly any portrayal of the Prophet is prohibited idolatry. A satiric or critical portrayal of the Prophet is also blasphemy. In either case a fundamentalist’s (and perhaps even some moderate’s) interpretation of Islamic doctrine would regard the creation and distribution of these Danish cartoons as an attack on Islam as well as a capitol offence.

Let’s play one of those ethical paradox games our professors used to love to torment us with in Philosophy 101. Your captors have armed you with an AK47 automatic rifle and, in order to save your life, you must destroy with this weapon, one of two objects that will presently appear behind two curtained doorways before you. The respective curtains are raised and reveal 1) a newborn infant in a crib and 2) Jan Van Eyck’s priceless 15th Century masterpiece, The Annunciation. Hopefully this will not be much of a conflict for folks outside the Art History department or a demented, fundamentalist Christian idolater.

Of course, nothing is equal in value to the life of a new-born child. One human life is priceless. How can the existence or the destruction of even a priceless “work of art” be worth more than life itself? It is interesting that there are people in this world who hunger so for martyrdom that they hold their theology more precious than their own physical existence. There are people who are so offended, that take themselves and their belief systems so seriously, that they would murder and destroy others’ lives to prove how vulnerable their ideas and their icons are. Rarely do you have a person who possesses a truly authentic belief system becoming disturbed to the point of riot at something as insubstantial as marks on a piece of paper. I also understand that people can be so driven to violence by severe injustice, discrimination and victimization that the smallest offense can incite them to insane destruction and bedlam.

Can I then say that the furor in the Muslim communities around the world is justified? Are these the kind of people who would rather take an Uzi to a newborn child rather than have the image of their founder defamed? Today lives are being lost and blood is being shed over the existence of cartoons depicting and demeaning the Prophet Mohammed. This conflict is so fraught with contradictory incendiary issues that one must approach it with blacksmith’s tongs.

There are apparently two issues here. One is the freedom of expression that is respected in most modern democracies. This freedom of expression does not extend to Holocaust deniers in some democracies however. The other issue is the respect for the sensibilities of certain subgroups within these cultures. Can a subculture hold a whole society hostage to their particular sensibilities and beliefs? It’s true there should not be a dictatorship of either the majority over a minority or the other way around. The unfortunate thing about this situation is there is unlikely to be a resolution that will be the result of anything other than an appeal to mass hysteria, political accommodation or other irrationalities. The possibility that the Danish cartoons will result in a learning experience for anyone is not likely.

Before I attempt my flying leap at this, I must acquaint the reader with my own bias in this matter. I would characterize my position on religion especially with regards to the big three, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as reservedly hostile. I have less of an issue with those members of these religions who would regard their beliefs as reformed, liberal, ecumenical and secular. These practitioners are more likely as not to be inclined to soft-pedal the irrational, supernatural aspects of their respective creeds as well as shunning claims of their religion to holding a copyright on truth or an exclusive path to salvation. These moderates probably would agree on some sort of a Universal, single, Deistic-style God who may or may not wish to form a personal relationship with them. I am sorry to offend my many liberal friends who nominally regard themselves as Christian, Jew or Moslem, but I think their identification with the particular creed they advocate is presumptuous if not inauthentic. In spite of those liberal believers who hold to certain ethical teachings or “social gospel” dictates, I believe the real Christians, Jews and Muslims today are the radical fundamentalists who are causing such chaos in this so-called modern world.

What an outrageous thing to say! Let me explain. These fanatics that have been set loose on us are the true descendants of the unadulterated doctrines and the undeniable mandates given by their prophets, priests, rabbis and saviors of their respective faiths. These fundamentalists do not believe their respective religions are collections of metaphors or myths not to be taken literally. They believe literally in the words written in their holy books. Unlike their secular brethren, they are, in fact, willing to kill and be killed over obscure interpretations of their divinely inspired scriptures or liturgy. I confess to a lack of depth in my understanding of the Koran, but I think I am correct in this analysis of the Old and New Testament. In order to be a Christian it is necessary for one to swear by the Apostles’ Creed. Right? Have you ever read a more ridiculous pair of assertions than the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of a dead body? “Well it’s not expected that we believe it in any literal sense.” a liberal Christian may reply. No, I’m sorry, you are standing against ten to fifteen centuries of unified Christian faith asserting that, unless you believe in these blasphemies against a rational universe, you are not a real Christian. I’m sure the orthodoxy from the other two faiths would be sticklers on equally absurd beliefs within their religions as well.

So what is it that these three religions hold in common that makes them so violent, intolerant and frankly so wrong? I think it grows out of their common belief in the concept of monotheism. As we were all taught is Sunday school or in preparation for our Bar Mitzvah or in the local Madrassa, monotheism is the highest form of religion that has ever been revealed to man. Prior to the dawn of these three great religions, this dark world was ruled by paganism, superstition, ignorance and fear. Pre-monotheistic man worshiped and propitiated thousands of contending gods, demons, spirits and ancestors. Finally the prophetic leaders of the Israelites pointed the way to YHWH (don’t say it out loud - that’s a blasphemy!), the most powerful tribal god who ruled, first as a superior over other gods, and finally evolved into a universal God over all mankind. This dramatic story may be suitable for children and people who have no respect for or understanding of other religions, but it hardly bears any relationship to the facts. It is well beyond the scope and the length of this essay to elaborate in detail how many other non-monotheistic religions (including those of such technologically primitive cultures as the Tibetans and the American Indian shamanic tradition) had a spiritual depth, a conversance with mystical experience, a cosmology and a theological sophistication that was well beyond the understanding of even the most learned minister, priest, rabbi or mullah. It is not my inclination here to play the monotheist’s game of, my god’s bigger than your gods, but simply to state a little appreciated fact.

So what is it about monotheism that makes its devotees so inherently violent and intolerant? There are exceptions to every rule, I know, but the pagans, the polytheists and the atheist (Buddhism?) religions are, most often, characterized as possessing a much more tolerant position with regards to people who hold beliefs other than their own. I would assert that this tolerance grows out of a far more sophisticated understanding of the nature of the spiritual universe and human psychology than is found in most monotheistic religions.

Once again I must defer to anyone with a more informed knowledge of the history of the Islamic religion than I possess. My understanding of the conquest of the west by Saladin bore some difference from the bloody massacres characterized by the Christians and the Hebrews. First of all, the Islamic campaigns were notable for respecting the other “people of the Book”- the conquered Christians and Jews under their domain. Unlike the other monotheists, they were not interested in forced conversion and massacre, but often allowed these “infidels” to live in peace and trade. Saladin scandalously violated the sacred Christian code of killing, raping (even cannibalism!) and otherwise destroying the enemy by allowing those he defeated to retreat with their lives - and their horses! The Caliphate was known for the spread of knowledge culture and art. Through the academic customs of Islam, many of the books and knowledge of the ancients were preserved and advanced. Modern science and mathematics certainly owes its existence much more to Islam than to the Christianity of that time. Who’s to say that Spain might not have been better off under continued Islamic rule rather than under leaders beholden to the Holy (sic) Roman Church? Ask the Jews.

So how is it that this seeming most enlightened religion of the big three is presently the most irrational, fundamentalist, violent and intolerant? I think that a century of western imperialism might have had something to do with it. It may be romantic of me to feel that when the Brits hung T.E. Lawrence out to dry, the Middle East’s fate was cast for the poorer. Obviously this event had equally disastrous precedents. The west’s colonial exploitation of the Middle East has planted the seeds of our own destruction in the hearts of the benighted inhabitants of this region and in the consciousness of worldwide Islam. Obviously as bin Laden would hasten to remind us, the brutal over throw and expulsion of the Caliphate from Spain in the 15th Century is a never ending sticking point in the Muslim soul. It is interesting that not only did the Catholics expel the Moslems from the Iberian Peninsula, but also the Jews. The geopolitical decline of Islam and the ascendancy of the Christian west have obviously played an important part in the formation of an anti-modern, irrational, retarded shadow of a once glorious Islam. Oil-lust and the West’s support of corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia, The Shah of Iran and Saddam’s Iraq have metastasized traditional Islamisists into the radical, fundamentalists we are threatened by in every country around the globe today. What might have been a tolerant, rational, modern monotheism has, thanks to these events and influences, now become as brutish and reactionary as its other two brothers of the Book.

Monotheism. What is it about this mindset that predisposes its followers to such bizarre behavior? It stems from the belief that your god, who also happens to be the creator of the entire universe, who revealed Himself to you through his Prophet, Savior, etc. and who presides over a precise and absolute code of behavior which He enforces (with some exceptions) mercilessly, is not content to occupy a sphere of influence any smaller than the whole world. This automatically establishes an us vs. them situation in which everyone who does not subscribe in absolute reverence to your particular religion or (cult variant) should not suffer to live if they don’t convert. All three religions are replete with interpretations concerning the treatment of the infidel. I have heard Muslims state that nothing in their religion advocates violence toward unbelievers (in this life) and only advocates violence against attackers. This does open them up to an interpretation that regards even the most innocuous acts by the unbelievers such as a novel by Salman Rushdie or a Danish cartoon as an attack on Islam that must be met with deadly retaliation.

All cultures and religions contain tendencies towards narrow, provincial prejudices. It’s just that the monotheistic religions elevate this ugly tendency to a sacred, universal absolute. The reason that this belief in the universal supremacy of ones religion is so pernicious is because it inevitably engenders in the mind of the monotheist a profound blindness to the logical fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

“The fallacy of misplaced concreteness …involves thinking something is a ‘concrete’ reality when in fact it is merely a belief opinion or concept about the way things are.”
–Wickopedia

This logical fallacy far from being scorned, usually occupies the highest throne in the hierarchy of the belief systems of the big three. The greatest sin is that of doubt. You cannot be a true believer and entertain any doubts as to the existence of your personal connection to the deity, His hatred of all the unbelievers and His promise of eternal reward for your ego in some (virgin infested?) afterlife.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments,” Exodus 20:3-6

The relationship between art and religion is, like a tempestuous marriage, rarely a harmonious one. This is especially true of Islam. All three religions take their cue from this second commandment of the Decalogue cited above. It might be said to be the commandment with the history of the most controversy and the broadest range of interpretations. While I believe graven images or realistic portrayals of men and beasts have not been universally prohibited by Islam, the modern militant variant is pretty universally prone to iconoclasm. They are especially sensitive to art produced in service of other creeds (remember the Taliban’s destruction of the colossal Buddhist sculptures?) and especially graphic or literary portrayals that might show the Prophet in anything other than an attitude of complete devotion.

I must confess to a certain admixture of conflicting attitudes and emotions concerning this latest flap over the rendering of the image of Mohamed in the Danish press. Of the twelve cartoons initially published, I have seen only two in a resolution and a translation that allowed me to frame an opinion. Let’s start with my first impression upon seeing these two most popular (infamous?) pictures. I admit to immediately disliking the first cartoon I saw. I felt that the portrayal of the Prophet with a burning fused bomb under his turban was insulting to moderate Muslims – the very people who suffer the most from the reaction to the excesses of their fundamentalist brethren. I felt that the cartoon of the prophet as an incendiary was in bad taste, rather like showing Jesus with a Thompson submachine gun clearing liberals out of the temple of Congress. In spite of my feelings that the fundamentalist Jihadist Muslims may represent a more authentic expression of the religion, I still feel we should do all things possible to cultivate the liberal, mainstream, tolerant members of Islam. Like their counterparts in the other monotheistic creeds, we need to try to disenthrall them form the more militant, irrational and megalomaniacal attributes of their respective faiths. This is, after all, the only way to a peaceful world. Would that I could just wave a magic wand and free humanity of the plague of organized, monotheistic religion forever. John Lennon was so right!

The second cartoon made me laugh. It showed the prophet in paradise coming forth to confront charred, newly arriving suicide bombers with the exclamation, “You’ve got to stop coming. We’re running out of virgins!” I admit that the second cartoon appealed to my own bias about the absurdities of many of the ego-driven rewards gullible Christians and Moslems are promised in the afterlife. I’m sorry, but if your religion proclaims to the world a belief that the afterlife is composed largely of an eternity of sexual pleasure, then I think you deserve to have it satirized. In a similar vein, the Christian image of the rapture is equally deserving of ridicule. I’m surprised that more humorists and cartoonists have not taken up this theme. I guess the fact that nearly a third of all Americans are clinically insane enough to actually believe in this absurdity may be the source of their inhibition. I do not know how many peace-loving, moderate Moslems believe in the concept of a heavenly, everlasting, orgasmic reward for martyrdom. I hope not many.

If you’ve ever accidentally happened upon a Christian stand-up comic on a religious cable network, you probably already know that fundamentalists have no sense of humor. I also doubt that there is any equivalent of the Borsht-belt comic network within al-Qaeda. I have no idea if these guys get their yucks over anything less hilarious than watching large capitalist buildings come crashing to the ground. The reason that I think the concept of genuine humor is inimical to many fundamentalists goes back again to the fallacy of misplace concreteness. In order to find something funny, you have to be able to understand and tolerate a basic level of ambiguity and incongruity. You have to be open to contradiction and a knowledge that an exaggeration is often a willful way of testing and laughing at our own credulity. Much humor deals precisely with this all too human quality of mistaking our idea of the world with actual reality. This quality is pretty much nonexistent among religious zealots.

Now lets step over and see what would be considered the other side of this debate concerning these cartoons. What would you call it - the argument for the rioters? - the argument for intolerance? Europe is considerably more secular than America. Unlike our virtual political theocracy, a candidate in many EU countries who made their belief in God a big campaign issue would probably be defeated at the polls and shortly thereafter be placed under psychiatric examination. Compare this unpopularity of religion with the existence of growing numbers of orthodox Muslims in their midst. Add to that fact, the reality that many of these Muslims are also economically and culturally disadvantaged and feel oppressed by the secular culture, and you have a recipe for conflict and resentment. Such a tinderbox does not take much to set it off. That is why the riots and destruction are so widespread and violent. In the Muslim’s minds, these cartoons represent not just a defilement of their religion but also the confirmation of their oppression and the indignities that they are being subjected to daily. Even though intolerance of free speech and an over reaction to a stupid provocation may be wrong, it is also wrong (although not illegal) to deliberately inflame the sensibilities of the oppressed, the literal-minded and the intolerant. Certainly there is freedom of the press over there as well as here (unless as before mentioned you are a Holocaust denier.), yet let me ask you if any newspaper in this country would feel free to publish a similar cartoon critical of Christianity? And the Christians are not even a particularly oppressed group in spite of what Pat Robertson might say.

On top of all this, there is ample evidence that militant influences and some governments within the Muslim world community are taking advantage of this situation to fan the flames. This, of course, can only help with the agendas that many reprobate Muslims desire: propping up corrupt regimes and terrorist recruitment …and so the viscous cycle rolls on.

In summary, all these words are my attempt to analyze and resolve what may be an insoluble situation. How does one balance the requirements of a free, secular, diverse society with the needs and sensibilities of the minorities in their midst? In our own history, oppressed ethnic groups that were not slaves or the object of outright genocide had at least a generation or two to move from ghetto to a trade to politics. The modern world moves too fast for such outmoded means of societal reformation. Of course social and economic justice is always a good start. In my final analysis, I must reluctantly come down on the side of freedom of expression even if it includes the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. We must not give in to the blood lust of this hysterical, manipulated mob. Like all fundamentalist monotheists, the true Muslim will not be satisfied until the whole world is oppressed by his stunted, narrow-minded and undemocratic belief system. And don’t you dare quote me out of the context of my preceding qualifications of this characterization!

Peace,
Bob Boldt