| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
democracyinlebanon
16 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2005 : 9:01:40 PM
|
For the freedom of speech and expression...
This forum is NOT an endorsement by this site of the content of the book “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie. As a book of fiction that became a best seller and in the interest of enlightenment, we invite our members to discuss its content. |
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2005 : 12:51:28 AM
|
I read this book some time ago actually. People have taken it in a whole other meaning. For a start, most of it isn’t about Islam at all, most of it is a rather sympathetic portrait of Indian immigrants coming to live in England. And that bit of it that is to do with Islamic themes goes to enormous trouble to distance itself from Islam. There’s a prophet not called Mohammed living in a city not called Mecca, inventing a religion not called Islam. Although many Muslims argue that Rushdie was really talking about Prophet Muhammad when he used the name “Mahound”. Rushdie himself said that the trouble was that this book was understood in very oversimplified terms by those people who attacked it.
Now whether it was really about Islam, or just a fictional book to get out a message in a masked way, the book was censored in many countries and fatwas brought against Rushdie. So I guess the question is, as a writer or journalist, where you have the power of the media at your finger tips, should you not take advantage of your freedom to speak out to the masses if you could? And if you have the great privilege of living in one of the relatively few free societies in the world, do you use the freedom to reach out to those that don’t have it?
The point about freedom is to use it. Many people choose not to because they feel, oh well it’s nice to have it let’s not bother to use it because that would be a bit scary. Freedom is scary, and it’s not peaceful either…sadly so. But do some of you feel we should draw the line somewhere when it comes to freedom of expression?
|
 |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2005 : 11:15:27 PM
|
Dana you raise some very interesting questions, I will try as much as I can to address them and please feel free to correct me:
quote:
So I guess the question is, as a writer or journalist, where you have the power of the media at your finger tips, should you not take advantage of your freedom to speak out to the masses if you could?
A writer is different from a journalist. A writer must have the freedom to say what he/she thinks be it in an article, an opinion, an editorial, a magazine or a book. A journalist, on the other hand, must limit his/her reporting to the facts at hand and the analysis must be based on the facts. A journalist can express an opinion and this is their right, but it must be distinguished from the news. What do you think?
quote:
And if you have the great privilege of living in one of the relatively few free societies in the world, do you use the freedom to reach out to those that don’t have it?
The answer to your question is YES. In an era of globalization, the physical space is shrunk and the distances are shortened with access to modern technology, be it satellite broadcasts, internet or other media. The societal standards and differences between one culture and another are also coming closer together. If you do not do it, someone else will. There is always the counter-argument that interference in the evolution (social, economic, political, military, etc.) of "developing" cultures may be more disastrous than helpful, but you as an individual cannot stop it. So if you have something positive to say to these less privileged societies, you must say it. Wouldn’t you agree?
quote:
... do some of you feel we should draw the line somewhere when it comes to freedom of expression?
Here again it may be difficult to globalize. The social norms and standards of decency acceptable to the societies of Western Europe and some of the Americas may be different from those acceptable in the Far or the Middle East; they also differ within the various cultures of these geographical regions. I would set the bar above profanity and indecent speech when it comes to publicly distributed material accessible freely by all. Profanity and indecency are relative to local culture. Beyond that, I do not see a reason to control speech. Do you? |
|
|
|
Samir
Lebanon
33 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 7:40:35 PM
|
| I agree to some extent with Truth responses, however I feel that personal attacks of political and religious leaders should not be protected, because these leaders represent their followers and such attacks may be offensive to all. |
|
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 01:47:40 AM
|
Truth Squad –
1. Absolutely agree with you re diff b/w journalist & writer. I should have made that distinction myself. The point I was raising here is the “access” to media on a national and international level through reputable channels: publishing house, etc, can give way to a larger audience to be tapped into. The distinction you have made is important though. Thank u for that.
2. Less privileged societies do need to here what experts have to say in any field, absolutely. Whether it’s theology, politics, scientific, or anything else. Usually those identified as experts generally hold some type of credibility be it due to their high level of education thru ivy institutions, access to modern technology, other influencers etc e.g. a cardiologist living in Afghanistan who may have gone through local medical schooling, would regard a US or European cardiologist, who’s considered a key opinion leader in his/her field, as a major influencer on an international level. If one person picks up on what’s happening around the world, this same person, if he/she, is truly dedicated – will form his or her own spheres of influence on the local level. We have no problem expressing & sharing when it comes to any topic, but when it’s politics and religion, it’s always a sensitive issue – I understand…but I believe we need to be more desensitized especially when it comes to religious discussions, because I believe this is the only way we’ll start to be more humane to each other
3. I agree with you on where the bar should be set, based on the level of acceptability & tolerance of the group you’re communicating to. However, I do believe what would be helpful in cases where the language is offensive, or where the author can foresee potential for misunderstanding amongst certain groups, is to have a section speaking to the local country where the book will be distributed…something which allows the reader to keep an open mind and understand where the author is coming from. I can’t really think of what this piece would be…something like a supplement of some sort to be used as additional material to educate the reader not to feel threatened - that this simply is a point of view of 1 person. Dealing with it upfront, is easier than having to go around apologizing after and expressing what is really meant by the material. May be a little far fetched…my 2 cents (it’s almost 2:00 am – brain shutdown – no creative thought at this point).
Quite frankly, people need to become a little more patient, open minded, and take what they hear with a grain of salt. You would think that by now, we would have seen it all…experienced more…and through time a more educated generation is turning up, you’d think the world would become a more tolerant and understanding place. There are those that say its religion, which is causing us these conflicts, and there are those that say if only everyone followed our “chosen” faith they will see the light. All faiths have the potential to create saints & breed fanatics. Hinduism gave us the wisdom of Gandhi and the madness of his assassins. Buddhism has shown us the tranquil face of the Dalai Lama and the brutality of Pol Pot. Judaism gave us the courage of Anne Frank and the insanity of Goldstein (forgot his 1st name!). Christianity was the religion of Mother Theresa and Hitler, and Islam gave us mystic Rumi and the negativity, which came with Osama. It’s important to learn more about other faiths. Understanding between faiths is ultimately understanding between individual PEOPLE of faith – no matter what that faith is.
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 10:53:49 AM
|
--Dana:
quote:
We have no problem expressing & sharing when it comes to any topic, but when it’s politics and religion, it’s always a sensitive issue – I understand…but I believe we need to be more desensitized especially when it comes to religious discussions, because I believe this is the only way we’ll start to be more humane to each other
RE # 2: I think one's faith, which translates religion in many areas of the world, tends to be often a very private matter that people do not feel comfortable sharing openly or discussing with others, particularly outside their clan. The same can be said about sexuality, psychosocial and mental problems and even some medical problems in many societies. The hesitation to talk about these issues may relate to taboos or social stigma, insecurity in one's beliefs or fear of ridicule. A problem of our society today, particularly in the middle east, is that the solutions we seek to many of our problems (social, medical or even economic) have to conform to certain religious doctrines upheld in that society. With the diversity of doctrines and the lack of open discussions and debates between the various religious groups, this could lead to conflict. In my opinion, the solution lies in a gradual move to separate one's faith from one's worldly needs as the latter relate to a more societal program than to individual idiosyncrasies.
RE #3: This sounds perfectly fine. The author should have the foresight that his/her book may reach isolated corners of the worlds and may come across as offensive to many. They could very easily preface it with a foreword or end it with an appendix explaining ambiguities and clarifying potentially offensive sections.
RE last point: I agree with you on the fact that people of every religion can do “good” or do “evil”. I personally believe it has nothing to do with the religion itself. It has more to do with the moral compass of the individual which often times is the product of upbringing, social and cultural environment, genetic makeup, education and religion. Our acts are a translation of our will, most often under command from our rational brain. Our faith is a product of our emotional brain, not necessarily rational. When our acts become under command of our emotional rather than rational brain, you tend to see some irrational behavior, be it very selfless goodness or highly selfish and destructive evil.
I am interested in reading your take on all of that.
-- Samir: I disagree with your point on attacking leaders (religious or civil). These are public figures in charge of the common good. As such they must be held accountable to their acts. We must have the intelligence to separate an attack on a leader from attack on his/her group or what the leader represents. For attacking the group as a whole (whether it is a religious group or a civil group or a state) may be a form of racism, discrimination and intolerance. But attacking the leader may be a call for reforms.
|
|
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 12:21:08 AM
|
Truth Squad -
quote:
In my opinion, the solution lies in a gradual move to separate one's faith from one's worldly needs as the latter relate to a more societal program than to individual idiosyncrasies.
You’re absolutely right – and doing so in the way we separate “Church” and “State” in N. America. Although many would argue for example that Bush’s policies are strongly influenced by his Christian faith. Look at the choices for supreme court several months ago – ultra conservative. It really depends whom you are speaking with, and they could tell you how religiously influenced some politicians and policy makers may be, and how some are not rigid enough. If you speak to a homosexual for example, they feel deeply offended in the way they are being denied certain privileges in many states such as marriage to long-term partners, adoption, etc….then you have stem-cell research, and the list goes on. State support of religion is a crucial battleground. Challenges to Bush's many faith-based initiatives are wending their way to the high court e.g. the lawsuit brought against government funding for Salvation Army social service programs on the grounds that they are infused with religion (AIDS programs that teach only abstinence, for example), and have religious tests for employment. I read that 2 years ago, the court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of a voucher program for parochial schools, not a good sign for people who believe in separating church and state.
It really is very difficult to try and make this separation even in N. America – we believe we have it, but it’s still a constant battle…and many people are not happy with many of the policies which have been put foreword, and those which are being pushed back.
quote:
Our acts are a translation of our will, most often under command from our rational brain. Our faith is a product of our emotional brain, not necessarily rational. When our acts become under command of our emotional rather than rational brain, you tend to see some irrational behavior, be it very selfless goodness or highly selfish and destructive evil.
Most people do apply their emotional brain when thinking of their own faith, however they are quick to use their rational brain when it comes to analyzing another faith in comparison to theirs. Usually, what I have seen happen anyway, is that you get to a point where you have attempted to rebut many of the arguments brought against one’s religion in attempt to rationalize why yours makes more sense and the other does not as much…however in the end, your emotional brain takes over because people start to feel that rationalizing might be taking them away from their faith and they need the strong emotion to bring them back to the comfort level they have known most of their lives. I believe there is a medium between rationalizing religion, and feeling spiritual (emotional) about it both at the same time. A scientist could have a deep sense of faith for a particular monotheistic religion, and be a scientist at the same time. Religious doctrines might not necessarily have strong scientific back up according to a scientist’s methodology, but his/her deep sense of faith will just place it in the “unexplainable” or “supernatural” category – leaving it at just that and not attempting to go further.
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 9:23:16 PM
|
Dana:
The Bush example, in my opinion is the exception not the rule. In addition, let's not forget that most polls in the US show that a majority of the population remains socially conservative. Without getting too specific about US policies, I believe they have some of the best protections of individual rights: freedom of speech in the US is paramount. Yes it is not perfect, the more money you have, the bigger your loudspeaker can be, and the more influential you become, but by comparison to what we have in Lebanon, it is paradise. Again it is not a perfect system, but it has the ability to self-correct without years of civil war.
If you ask me my personal opinion, I think one can be highly spiritual without being religious and without subscribing to any kind of dogma or religion, be it mono or polytheistic. I respect what many schools of thought and religions have given humanity, and I try to learn from them all, but I think that as an individual I belong to the garden of life and I have the right to choose the fruits as I please. I choose to rise above the debated differences and the idiosyncratic ideologies, to the level of a singular spirituality that brings together with other spiritual beings in a one to one communion with the creator. The holy books were meant to be a guide, an initiator to the right path, more like the books you study in high school; they prepare you to go and seek higher education and advance your knowledge but at some point, your quest for knowledge must become an individual enterprise that leads you to your goal. In as much as you go back sometimes to your high-school Math books, that's how often you need to go back to the religious books. The rest you can answer by exercising your spirit. |
|
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 11:57:33 PM
|
Truth Squad:
I guess I could stop addressing my posts to you personally, as it seems we own this topic now 
Where is everyone? We lost Samir somewhere….waynak Samir?
Ok back to discussion….
You’re right, we do have it much better in N America, I’m not denying that at all nor am I belittling the system. Although I feel we are made to believe we’re living a structured and democratic system, but it’s all simply masked in an organized fashion to seem to be in discriminatory and “fair”. Nothing is perfect…and ur right…we do have it better than the ridiculous sectarian divisions we include in government back in Lebanon. Mind you, I never lived in Lebanon so I can’t say I experienced it first hand (following many discussions with the parents, uncles, aunts, and cousins – I get the picture! Oh & let’s not forget mum drilling me with LCB news every night ensuring I don’t lose my Arabic. Information overload!)
I agree with you that one can be “highly spiritual without being religious and without subscribing to any kind of dogma or religion, be it mono or polytheistic”. I am intrigued by the emphasis of spirituality & mysticism in different religions as in Sufism in Islam (I know most deny this is Islamic at all) or Kabbala in Judaism (also not accepted by some Jewish sects). They don’t concentrate on the dos & don’ts immediately (it’s secondary in a way), but it’s truly very spiritual. Please keep in mind that I’m not saying you have to follow any religious sect that identifies with mysticism in order to reach a high level of spirituality, not the case at all. For me, I find spirituality is often contrasted with religion as being more personal, less authoritative, and definitely more interesting!
|
|
|
|
Eyad
Lebanon
24 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 11:11:15 AM
|
I really do not care much about the religious and spiritual discussion, offense to no one, so I will focus on freedom of speech.
What is with the east and freedom of expression? It seems symptomatic to me. I cannot understand banning books!!!
If a publication is profane, limit its distribution, if it is offensive, ignore and it will wither and die, if it contains falsities, then discuss it and highlight the truth. This goes to Rushdie's book and to Dan Brown's. These policies adopted by the states and a few religious groups are akin to book burning ceremonies in the dark ages. |
|
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 12:29:23 PM
|
Exactly Eyad!
Why do some people believe that books are dangerous anyway? Really, it's like standing on a chair and screaming at a mouse. An overreaction. If you don't like what you're reading, put it down and suivant...next
Everyone has something to say, and not everyone needs to listen or like what they hear. |
|
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 1:34:43 PM
|
| I think it is the conservative versus progressive mentality (often labeled as liberal). They are in every society. Conservatives are afraid of change, afraid of new ideas, holding to their old ways, and progressives are more after what's new and hip, unafraid of trying new things be it in government, in faith and even in traditions. There is your East and West. There is your Clash of Civilizations and there is Islam and the modern world. More rural societies tend to be by and large more conservative societies regardless of religious affiliations, partly due to their limited communications with the outside world and interactions with other cultures. You see that East and West, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc. More urban tend to become more progressive and more tolerant of different cultures by the fact that they to be more cosmopolitan. I think Islamic societies today are gradually opening to the world and other cultures. Hopefully, this will be reflected in a more progressive culture. Let's not forget when Christianity was at the age of Islam today, we had inquisitions, book burnings, persecution of scientists, and almost everything in Europe was by decree of the church. I am glad that is behind us. I hope Islam can transcend this phase with the least damage possible. |
|
|
|
Samir
Lebanon
33 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2005 : 9:53:37 PM
|
Books as such are not dangerous; but the way people use the information in these books can be. I agree that this book was a work of fiction but can anyone tell me where it all started? Who started the whole thing about Satanic Verses? Who was the first to say that they were attacking islam and muslims. I think the writer or the publisher to draw attention to the book and sell more copies.
As a conservative, I do not see islam getting to where christianity is today. that would mean the end of faith. islam is more structured and its laws are better enforced. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2005 : 2:34:04 PM
|
Despite the many reservations that some have expressed, freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly mirrors the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people.
Freedom of speech is also important to governments because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond to answer unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumours, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across the length and breadth of the country through conversation and surreptitiously circulated writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. It is in a government's interest to have criticisms in the public arena where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. The government generally has access to electronic and printing communication far in excess of individuals and groups. It is able to present its view only if the opposing views are in the open and known.
Finally, freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens, although private property is required for its operation. Without free speech no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or consequently economic freedom. The sine qua non of a democratic society is the freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
PaxLibano
France
39 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 09:58:01 AM
|
The Young Man Suspended Between Two Lines
Ghassan Charbel Al-Hayat 2005/06/4
It's time for your article, so don't be late. It's not your style to claim you have an appointment. It's not in your nature to make excuses. You're not the kind of person who fails to keep appointments. You're simply not the kind of person who fails. You don't make a mistake of these proportions. You don't commit the crime of being absent. Gebran would scold you and the "Ustaz" would scold you; the readers would become consumed by anxiety.
It's time for your article, so don't be late. Warriors don't take holidays. A boxer doesn't retire in the prime of his life. Don't apologize. Page One would be sad. It might be taken by the desire to apologize, or disavow. The city's day is lacking. The "day" of An-Nahar is lacking. If you aren't around, sadness will spread to the ink at the printer's. The headlines will once again open the closet containing our mourning clothes.
The rooster will crow blood.
They killed you.
Samir Kassir
We are weary of the scarves of farewell; the gravediggers have yet to become weary. We are weary of burying martyrs; the criminal geniuses have yet to become weary. We are weary of the caskets bearing our brightest; the hands of killers have yet to become weary. As if Beirut is still hungry for martyrs, as if it hasn't had its fill. It flirts with them, lures them, then steals them to bury them in her bosom, turning them into shimmering screams. It steals them, so they become roots, and bridges.
It was no secret that you committed many offenses. A lover of ink, a lover of freedom. It was no secret that you didn't know how to dissemble; you didn't like to be half-brave, or love something with only half your heart. It was no secret that you resorted to ink, illuminating it, and you were burned. You resorted to freedom, until the banks of the grave. Isn't the grave the latest battlement of a journalist who doesn't capitulate, a seeker of knowledge who doesn't surrender, a fighter for a cause who doesn't stop at the red light and the promise of safety?
In bidding you farewell, in the name of Al-Hayat newspaper we voice our horror, our revulsion, our condemnation. We voice our rejection of the policy of breaking pens, of muffling voices, regardless of what they support. In bidding you farewell, your colleagues, from various affiliations, are losing your coming articles and books, your fiery eyes, your learning and audacity.
This is a lot for one city. Rafiq Hariri, Bassel Fleihan, and Samir Kassir. This is a lot for one city, for one nation.
It's time for your article, so don't be late.
They say that they caught you committing dreams, with your eyes closed.
They say that they caught you, suspended between two lines. |
|
|
|
lebanon419
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:09:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by democracyinlebanon
For the freedom of speech and expression...
This forum is NOT an endorsement by this site of the content of the book “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie. As a book of fiction that became a best seller and in the interest of enlightenment, we invite our members to discuss its content.
When it’s anti-Jewish, we hear the about the Holocaust, the Jews have had enough, anti-Semitism, blah blah. Sheish the amount of movies/books the Jews have lobbied for them not to be published is unbelievable, esp. in the ‘democratic’ United States. Whereas, when its anti-Islamic, it tends to be applauded, and we hear arguments about Muslims who should be a little more open-minded etc etc.
There will come a time where many will die,
When the ground will shake and the skies will cry.
But out of the darkness will rise a light,
A servant of Allah, full of wisdom and might. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
ãä ÇÌá ÍÑíÉ ÇáÑÃí æ ÇáÊÚÈíÑ
Forum Locked
