I am referring those myths of those who are abjectly arrogant or overbearingly prideful… those preachers who think their brand of truth is The Truth, whether they are religious preachers or preachers of science, academia, or art, or in any other domain of human interaction.

Chris Hedges talks this way somewhere.

Yes, I agree.

How poetic OM...what insight!
Yes that is one way to treat myth:  Those primordial kinds of myth that have seeds of truth in them.  That is not the meaning of myth I am discussing.  I am referring those myths of those who are abjectly arrogant or overbearingly prideful… those preachers who think their brand of truth is The Truth, whether they are religious preachers or preachers of science, academia, or art, or in any other domain of human interaction.  Those are the myths of self-deception, those that promote unconsciousness.  Those are the myths that need exploded to reveal the truth.  In those myths resides no delicate scent of truth but only lives the rank smell of the ignorant.

I recommend a film, The Mission.  It is a powerful restatement of exactly what you described. 

Noi testamento sempre sosta il meglio di amicizia anche se abbiamo diverso credenza! Ÿ questo non veramente?
We will always stay the best of friends even though we have different beliefs! Is this not true?

Noi testamento sempre sosta il meglio di amicizia anche se abbiamo diverso credenza! Ÿ questo non veramente?

I enjoy putting sentiments into Italian.

“New testament always… friendship… we have diverse beliefs! The question is not true?”

I enjoy making up interpretations of things i dont understand!

But please tell me what it was that you really said. Same with French, and Latin, and ummm, everything else, too.

I agree with you that the idea of universal truth does ‘walk’ a razor’s edge, but we are liable to cut ourselves if we insist our own understanding is THE only right understanding.

Yes, i agree. We might cut ourselves. And others.

For example, a preacher visits some natives. Before begining a sermon with the intention of exploding their myths, it would be nice to think first. Think of what this will do to the culture of the natives, and to their civilization. These words should be printed onto the first page of every preacher’s Bible so he will not forget them:

“Once I destroy the root of a rare and slow growing plant, the flower will die and we may never see such a flower again. Simliarly, if I destroy a myth, any good thing which that myth provided could be lost.”

The good things might be simple to understand in a simple native culture. But as the culture makes many advances, it becomes harder to trace the effects of the myth. The natives themselves might not be aware of the relation. They might even assume that all people everywhere experience the relation, regardless of place or religion or time. But caution, have caution, Mr. Preacher! Even if the natives no longer attribute aspects of their culture to their myth, it may be that without the mythic roots the civilization flower will fade. What took a thousand years to grow… the finest flower, which anyone can appreciate as a good thing, gone forever because someone began a rightious ‘explosion’ of ‘myth’ to clear the way for ‘truth’.

People who explode myths rarely appreciate what they destroy. How easy it is to destroy, really, because the faults of the natives are so obvious, with their primitive or violent ways. It is all laid bare to us who occupy the ‘higher’ vantage point. But somehow we are not smart enough to trace the really good things in their civilization… to their myths.

The scent of the delicate and rare flowers filled the air, and we still dont make the connection, until the fragrance is gone. Only then do we look back and wonder if there was truth in the myth. But the question is academic, since the myth is gone, and it’s great results are gone with it.

Exactly how do you perceive the cosmic battle?  Shall we define cosmic?  And of what form do good and evil take? 

Well you are quite right about pale and wrinkled bodies being part of the human race, but that is not the question Mapplethorpe is asking us to think about, is it?

And no it doesn’t become a more human portrait because the subjects are good looking and young, but it doesn’t become less either.

The distinction between myth and truth is to what I was referring.  If a myth is “exploded,” I think that means it is shown to be myth and not truth.  Myths are often believed to be truth and were thought to be truth at one time in the ancient cultures where the myths emerged.

For example (from The Free Dictionary): myth is defined to be a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society, such as the myth of Eros and Psyche; or a creation myth; or, an idea or explanation which is widely held but untrue or unproven, i.e., the myth that the USA is a classless society.  This latter is mainly the type of myth that artists’ works aim at.

The “way,” in this context is meant with respect to truth.  If there is only one truth, then we do not know it the same as the one and only Truth. For instance, the integrity you offer would mean different things to each of us depending on where we each learned what it meant and would be colored by our idiosyncratic histories.  We would have to come to some agreeable definition and then that might be different than what our other acquaintances believe.  I agree with you that the idea of universal truth does ‘walk’ a razor’s edge, but we are liable to cut ourselves if we insist our own understanding is THE only right understanding.

Noi testamento sempre sosta il meglio di amicizia anche se abbiamo diverso credenza! Ÿ questo non veramente?

I enjoy putting sentiments into Italian.

You see there really is not a “cosmic battle” over good and evil.  It is a battle right in the human mind.

I dont understand why the two sentences are mutually exclusive. I think its both.

The photographed slick black bodies of homosexuals of Mapplethorpe are intended to say these humans are part of the human race whether you like it or not!

Yes, and they would be part of the human race even if they were pale and wrinkled. It doesnt become a more human portrait because the subjects are good looking and young.

If an artist indeed does explode a myth, it doesn’t need applause of his/her own fellow artists but of those, any of those, who intuit the explosion.  If insult is felt, it is because the arrow struck its mark.

What does that stricking mean? Does it mean the myth is really exploded? Is it a blow for truth because I understand its an insult?

OM, I would never consider you an enemy.  Would you so consider me?  The distance between us is merely a thin line compared to the size of our humanity.  I do not even see you as an opponent but I see you as another mind in search of the truth in a different direction.  Aristotle said “the way is wide.”

I dont know that the way is wide. When it comes to friendship, yes, the way can be as wide every person in the world. When it comes to truth, when it comes to maintaining integrity, the way might be narrow. I think we both believe that. I think within yourself, Shenonymous, truth walks a razor line. Which is one of the things I like about you.

My opponent? If so, only in the best way, and on this topic of art you are merciful to a borderline ignoramus. I didnt know what the term ‘modern art’ really meant until you explained it.

Friends? You bet!

1.  As a bull would lower its hard head...bravo for digging in with the hooves.  I think direct words are the most unfair form communication can have.  The thing is that with art one can walk away without the slightest inking understanding what is said.  Sermons use words that are at least the language of the listener.  If the listener is incapable of understanding, that is akin to not understanding the work of art that appears prima facie to be something loathsome or obscure.  Modern art purposefully left dialectic or narrative out of its imagery and concentrated instead on the effects of the elements, the inherent qualities of color, shape, line, texture, and shade (value), or the abstract ideas of space and time.  For example, modern artists such as Pablo Picasso in his Guernica that alludes to the atrocities of the bombing of that village in the Spanish War, used the elements of shape to express the idea, shape ascended to be more important than the story because it is shape that actually affects our sensibilities and the story comes second after the initial shock of the sharp and angular shapes that instill terrifying fear and desperate avoidance psychologically first for that is what registers in the mind first.  The story of atrocity is more poignantly told with the shapes.  Artists such as Jackson Pollock used lines to express human gesture, Franz Kline also used line as an exploration in a much different manner focusing on how a close observation of a line may be expressive within a composition that had to do with the principle of balance that also invested in the difference between black and white.  Such are the concerns of modern art.  This is a different mentality than say Symbolist Art or Futuristic Art that also emerged about the same time late 19th to mid 20th century.  The narrative kind of art that we speak of with respect to degenerate was created along side the other arts and may even incorporate some of the stylisms of modernity crossing both modern and non-modern camps.  Impressionism is a precursor to modernism with their interest in the effects of light and how to overcome the realism of the camera.  Their focus was not on the subject matter of boating scenes, or the countryside but rather what was happening to the retina of the eye when looking at the world.  This was also the interest of modern sculptor August Rodin who was completely taken with breaking up the surface of the bronze so that light reflections gave an animation to the sight of the viewer looking at the inert bronze.

All this notwithstanding is different than when an artist is intending to call on you to explore an idea of violence or other human depravity.  Those ideas are naturally and usually pushed out of the mind so that it is psychologically safe, for if humans were to have them constantly in the front of their thinking, they would become completely depressed at human existence and then where would we be?  Mass hysteria and suicide I would venture.  This happens on a small scale at any rate, I believe.  The intention of the artist is to strike a blow of the deepest psychically kind.  The art photos of the piles of human carcasses of the holocaust are intended to offend.  The photographed slick black bodies of homosexuals of Mapplethorpe are intended to say these humans are part of the human race whether you like it or not!  They can be positioned in beautiful ways, where in this case the notion of beauty offends some.  Now that is a juxtaposition that makes one question the idea of beauty itself.  How could such depravity and beauty be combined, if in the eyes the real god it actually is depraved?  And how could base mortals, as all mortals comparably are base, presume to know the mind of god?  And are you so blinded by your own idiosyncratic idea of morality that you violate your own Jesus commandment to love your fellow humans?  And what of love, what does it really mean to love?  These are questions art poses.

2.  You see there really is not a “cosmic battle” over good and evil.  It is a battle right in the human mind.  And what is or is not moral are the questions not of one person’s sensibility but of a community, a society to determine, and if there is a difference of opinion within that society, then it is something that that society must work out in order to live peacefully.  And if one cannot abide by the society’s decision then that individual must leave and go somewhere else. 

Of course people have a right not to see the truth.  They always have the option of closing their eyes.  Just as they can close their ears to a sermon they do not want to hear. 

Imagining a conversation among artists as applauding each other is a device for avoiding real dialogue.  The comedic drama is only in the head of whoever is doing the imagining.  If an artist indeed does explode a myth, it doesn’t need applause of his/her own fellow artists but of those, any of those, who intuit the explosion.  If insult is felt, it is because the arrow struck its mark.

All communication is the longing to connect with Other than oneself.  Humans are essentially social creatures and long, either genetically or through being conditioned by the need for love, sustenance, and nuture.  Places where artists may show their works are limited.  The fact is that they have been invited to exhibit in many non-traditional places including churches, railway stations, restaurants…

OM, I would never consider you an enemy.  Would you so consider me?  The distance between us is merely a thin line compared to the size of our humanity.  I do not even see you as an opponent but I see you as another mind in search of the truth in a different direction.  Aristotle said “the way is wide.”

Your last paragraph is insightful.  For the most part, art that is more than an exercise in copying some object or scene, but intends to arouse questions about some aspect of life for humans to think about beyond the surface, that is what art is.

The strong ideas she has earned in all these matters, the strong intellect and knowledge behind them, do not need recourse to the shouting and extreme language that occur so often. She holds her truths no less dearly than the shouters, she understands her truth better than most of them, she speaks it more clearly and firmly.

While I have only a rudimentary appreciation of art, (recently i attended a modern sort of art exhibit for the first time and understood what was going on… with help), I am digging my stubborn hooves into the ground and lowering my hard head. Only slowly and by degrees am i understanding this, and until I do, i am not budging.

The question, again to make a correction, is whether sacrilegious art has a right to public display, not whether all art does.  There are artworks the content of which I would not put on public display for the mere reason that there are children who ought not to be exposed to vile ideas.

Yes there is no argument or defense that a child can make against an artwork, no less than they can against an adult who wishes to hurt them. Maybe there is no argument anyone can make. All one can do is withstand the blow. Isn’t Art the most unfair form of communication? It is a bit like a sermon which one must listen to. One cannot interrupt or argue with it.

All ideas are subject to become the subject of artworks.  That does not mean there are adults who should not be exposed to such as there are valid reasons to raise the consciousness of the adult public about repugnant ideas through the media of art.

If people want to be exposed to it, yes.  Otherwise it is like being forced to go to church. People have a right to not see it, to not go, to not listen. But in that case only the folks who need it the least will show up. The folks that the artist(and preacher) really want to get to are never there.

As consolation, fellow artists(and preachers) reciprocally applaud each other with phrases like ‘bold’, ‘truthful’, etc. To me these mutual praises are not worth anything. If one artist says of another, ‘his work is boldly exploding myths’ I get the drift but it makes me laugh. I dont think people who talk like that and who do such things should be taken seriously. For it is not so bold to insult Christians in an art gallery (or preach Christ in a church). To come up with a new way to insult(or a new phrase to preach with) ... isnt that really just the same old thing? It is a cleverness, yes I grant that. It turns on the converted like electricity, yes I grant that too. 

The artist(and preacher) worth his/her salt longs to connect to a wider audience, to really test themselves against the unwashed masses. The legal limitations of where and how a preacher can compel people to listen is basically established. We might argue over exactly where the line should be drawn, but we agree that there is a line. Should not the same be true for the artist? 

Now, if we argue over exactly where these lines should be drawn, does this make us enemies? Is the distance between us so great? No, at least i hope not. We are merely opponents.

Now in those rare times when Christians look at an artwork and say, “That is really good. I disagree with the answer but its a well proposed question.” or when the artist hears a sermon and says, “That was beautiful and true. I dont believe in the conclusion, but it was compelling.” In both cases we can say it was a great thing. It isnt mere rhetorical flourishes or well worn phrases that make for great preaching. Nor is mere shock and insult the ingredient for great art.

When I said ‘no matter’ I meant that in response to your changing the direction of the discussion, not that it didn’t matter that others than Christians pay taxes.  As my next comment implied that I would continue with my own point.  Again it doesn’t matter that I put the discussion back on the track I was on.

Was I happy with the compromise of turning panels so offended students would not have to look at my nude drawings?  Happiness was not an emotion I felt or did not feel.  A peaceful resolution always makes for a tranquil state of affairs.  The show went on uneventfully except for the congratulations and compliments.  Now that made me happy.

The question, again to make a correction, is whether sacrilegious art has a right to public display, not whether all art does.  There are artworks the content of which I would not put on public display for the mere reason that there are children who ought not to be exposed to vile ideas.  And horrid ideas do show up in artworks.  All ideas are subject to become the subject of artworks.  That does not mean there are adults who should not be exposed to such as there are valid reasons to raise the consciousness of the adult public about repugnant ideas through the media of art.  That however is a topic for another time. 

The 1998 amendment Supreme Court decision needs to be stated verbatim to understand also its limitations and explicit intentions. 

Such legal limitations would have banned the highly controversial Heironymous Bosch’s tryptic Garden of Earthly Delights that was condemned openly by the Catholic Church and outlawed but was shown extensively in the public and actually became panels in a altarpiece.(JSTOR reference: Divine Judgment in Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights by Peter Glum) I will provide upon request.

You are welcome to the art lessons.  I am always glad to help the uninitiates become more aware of what art is.

Shenonymous, your three posts were very informative, about things I know little about. I finished reading them twice and will read them again later.

Shenonymous: I should like to point out, however, that Christians are not the only ones that pay taxes nor ought to be able exclusively to say which dollars goes for what!  But no matter.

Yes, it does matter. What you are saying is absolutely right.

After tracing out religious/sacriligious through Michalangelo and Goya(by the way, Cyrena was right. We are getting a free education here! It generates a desire to understand art more) the links to the website were helpful, Not too partisan. I read several of the summaries.

Yet my minor contention continues, from the website Shenonumous linked:

In 1990, Congress adopted an amendment which directed the NEA to take into consideration “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”

This amendment led to a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the decency standard enacted by Congress.

That is Congressional action and the Supreme Court episode I was referring to. That law is still in effect.

And back to Shenonymous:One could extrapolate on one’s own what might be the next logical step for curtailment of the freedom of speech.  There are wolves at that door.

I dont know. I must be missing something. I will have to read the 1st Amendment website more closely tomorrow.

Whether it ‘is’ sacrilegious is also in question.  And whether sacrilegious art has a right to public display, particularly within a society that is homogenous in ethnicity and ethnic values.

Does art have a right to public display… I am not sure that in all cases it does. I liked the compromise you came up with in your undergraduate days. But I feel a bit bad for you. Were you happy with the compromise?

Good Morning
Part 1 – On the nature of controversial art and the freedom of speech
I do not argue with your contention that artists ought to obey a standard of decency in their works.  And you ought to be able to easily live with what shall be hurled below!  Each of us has a right to their own personal opinions, at least in this country and you know I would fight to the death for that right!  Though I hope I never have to.  But I submit that what is offensive to some is not offensive to all.  And yes, as an artist, an extensively educated artist, I do probably have more knowledge about the arts than you.  First of all I did not reference Mapplethorpe’s work, but you used that work to make a different point than what I did.  Nor did I suggest that the government subsidize artists who do depict violence and depravity in artworks.  I should like to point out, however, that Christians are not the only ones that pay taxes nor ought to be able exclusively to say which dollars goes for what!  But no matter.  I will continue with my point. 

Using the most paradigm examples in the culture of today of a medium of communication, art, to demonstrate what I meant by restriction of the freedom of speech, the artworks I cited are probably the most controversial.  They are contentious because they fuse together religious content with secular symbolism that appeared to attack sacred meaning.  The 90s in art was the highlight of a staggering assault on the sensibilities of the religious and the most profane of topics. 

The power of art to bring to cognizance the capacity of human emotion and action is uncontestable and is able to arouse the most intense response available to that consciousness.  This is true of all the arts, but images in visual experience can be the most keenly distressing.  I purposely refrained from using Mapplethorpe’s art here as an example since his art involved the morality of homosexuality and did not use religious iconography although his subject matter did elicit the sharpest response from the ultra-conservative religious right. 

Serrano and Ofili, however, did use the most common of ecclesiastical imagery.  All three of these artists, and others not mentioned, while not their primary purpose, were challenging the freedom of speech in their unique way and the challenge was ultimate.  How much farther could one go beyond that, as Ozark asks, is rhetorical.  Freedom of speech spills over into the freedom for all to speak.  The aesthetics of these artists’ works was a direct hit to the limitations of that freedom.  Our accounts of beauty and our responses to it is partly at bottom of what art is about.  While some think it is only about such things, other critics think art has nothing at all to do with beauty or life or politics, and some think it ought not to at all.  Such are the variety of opinions.  But that is the point, to have or not have a voice, to have or not have a vision of reality and to choose what is reality and what is not.  And the debate is not whether what these artists produced is art or not, for if one were to take any number of ways to criticize art, these works qualify unqualifyingly.  The debate is whether what they had to say was important to raise the level of thinking about what is important!

The discussion is not even whether the content is acceptable in the public domain and ought to be funded by public money.  But that in essence is where politics entered the picture and the idea of the freedom of speech became involved.

Part 2- On the nature of controversial art and the freedom of speech Cont.
Leaving the topic of homosexuality aside at this time is also on purpose because it is a subject that would take another direction and a great deal of debate that is dealt with copiously elsewhere, and is not really the subject of my talk here.  I do want to discuss briefly whether controversial religious topics are proper in the domain of art.  Some religions absolutely forbid religious images and finds them a sacrilege (Islam).  These religions have no say in the debate since all portrayals are anathema to them clearly putting them entirely outside the arena of discussion.  Other religions, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., have used visual imagery, and it could be argued since the cave if one were to suggest that primitive man had religion and painted quasi visual descriptions of entities greater than themselves.  It depends, therefore, on the tradition of the society in which the artworks appear.  Art has consistently been used to critique every aspect of human endeavor.  There is no quarter within the arts where it has not provokingly inquired into the most vital and fundamental beliefs and this definitely includes the realm of religion.

The mistake is that the arts are there for the general public’s enjoyment, pleasure, and to appreciate beauty, albeit to present “pretty” pictures.  In fact, those are not the essential reasons for art.  Art is to raise consciousness in ways that are not accessible by any other means.  The fact that the arts use particular emotive and affective ways to get “the message across” is important for its reason for existence.  One could just tell the story verbally of the abusive and unjust exercise of power that is found in the history of religion, the horror of torture and violence by those speaking in the name of god.  However, when a crucifix is seen in a glass of human piss, that is quite a knockout worse than any boxer could inflict.  One must, one is compelled, to ask what does it mean?  Why in their wildest dreams, or nightmares, would anybody present that image?  What is this seemingly probing of primal psychological drives?  The fact that Serrano’s photograph has aesthetic value, the cropping of the image, the colors chosen, the position of the crucifix as turned slightly to the viewer’s left, the array of bubbles in the bloodlike color (red), these are all the elemental tools and principles the artist employs to present his/her idea as strongly as possible and in this particular discussion, while having importance since we are dealing with art, is secondary and adjunctive to the content and the fact that it ‘seems’ sacrilegious is the issue.  Whether it ‘is’ sacrilegious is also in question.  And whether sacrilegious art has a right to public display, particularly within a society that is homogenous in ethnicity and ethnic values.

Part 3 - On the nature of controversial art and the freedom of speech Cont.
Let us stipulate, for the moment, that these images are artworks, and that their content is sacrilegiously offensive to some.  Controversial subject matters in art do have precedence.  What first comes to mind, since they are so well known and revered, are the works of Michelangelo, particularly the Last Judgment painted on the Sistine Chapel that depicts bloody scenes of martyred saints and tormented sinners obviously with religiously moral intentions, or Francisco Goya’s works, i.e., The Naked Maja certainly presages the modern works that depict sex, and his The Executions of May 3, 1808 that painted pools of blood while the monks portrayed “hide their faces in horror at the massacre.” Does Goya’s moral perspective indeed differentiate him from Serrano?  One must read about Serrano to understand his artistic intentions.  They are not obvious from cursorily viewing one work.  Viewing Goya’s Black Paintings are said to be within the most jarring and disturbing in all of art history.  His Saturn Devouring One of His Sons, shows as graphic as any image can cannabalistic infanticide.  So precedence of horrid and sacrilegious imagery is found historically.  Highly charged imagery in artworks of a religious nature were not new to the 20th century.

FYI: Although the Supreme Court made clear that the government is not required to subsidize artistic expression with public funds, the Court also found that once it does decide to provide funds for arts programs, the government cannot withdraw that funding, thus censoring certain works, because it disagrees with the viewpoint expressed in the work.  The uproar over the Mapplethorpe exhibit led to its cancellation at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and to the arrest and trial of the director of Cincinnati’s Contemporary Art Center on charges of pandering and obscenity after he allowed the exhibit to open at the center. However, the director, Dennis Barrie, was acquitted after a much-publicized six-month trial.

My argument is not about whether or not public funds ought to be used to support exhibitions of controversial artworks although that could be food for an extended debate at some other time.  The point is how curtailment of freedom of speech seeps into all facets of life.

And to answer Ozark’s question of what is next? I refer you to a 2006 report http://www.fac.org/rel_liberty/establishment/..../rel_ liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=art_funding
that gives a fairly good description of the issue and the state of Art and the First Amendment, Public Funding of Controversial Art.  One could extrapolate on one’s own what might be the next logical step for curtailment of the freedom of speech.  There are wolves at that door.

As an undergraduate student, I had personal experience with this issue for an exhibition in the campus library of a community college where I attended.  My works were part of an art exhibition where three of my drawings of nude figures were displayed.  Some religion students expressed offense at having to look at these drawings (which were the result of in-class exercises and were not of lewd composition, but definitely as nude as the Botticelli Venus).  The library did not ask me to remove the drawings, but the panel walls used to hang the works were turned so that direct observation was eliminated and if one wanted to see the works, walking through the panels was the option.  It was a peaceful solution without anybody’s rights being eliminated.

It all began in 1989 when Piss Christ, along with the homoerotic photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe, found themselves at the centre of controversy in the United States, where the forces of the Christian Right rallied to curtail the National Endowment for the Arts. More recently, Congress legislated, upheld by the Supreme Court, that the NEA must take “into consideration general standards of decency” in awarding grants.

What artists want to do in for their exhibits is their own business. Yes, I agree with that. But unfortunately, Shenonymous, we are going to clash on this somewhere along the line. Unfortunate because you are an artist and i am aware that you know more than i do about this matter.

Yes, Mapplethorpe et al. can do whatever he likes on his own time. Artists can skewer us and our beliefs all they want. So at first the NEA seemed to think it was unassailable. From their high walls the elites motioned for the barbarians at the gate to go home. It was their program to do with as they pleased.

The tipping point came when Christians became aware that they were footing the bill. The US government provides the money so that the NEA can hand out grants to Mapplethorpe et al, so it is our taxes that pay for these projects.

Government sponsorship of art is not a right. The sense of entitlement needed to be adjusted. 

The symbolism of the artworks, their possible merits, etc, was a smokescreen. If we would have been gullible enough to think the whip or the piss was somehow nice, I bet the artists would have laughed all the way to the bank as they cashed their NEA checks. 

I am certain if we let the artworks pass, our political action would have only been postponed until the next more obvious insult. Artists like to test boundaries. Who knows what they would have done next, pushing harder to find out if there is any limit to our credulity. 

Again, it was not the artwork itself so much as the fact that we were paying for it. If it had been privately funded, the protest against it would have been limited to the fringe. But as I recall the reaction was like a tidal wave. The consensus on my side was that the NEA was either going to be more selective in distributing its cash or it was not going to get any more cash.

If the Supreme Court had ruled that it was illegal to make the NEA be more selective in its grants, then we would have lobbied to shut down funding of the NEA. Completely. 

In the event it was a fine compromise which everyone was able to live with.

I hope I can live with whatever Shenonymous is about to hurl my way.

Part 2
Freedom of speech, while guaranteed in American constitutional law, is not absolutely a freedom since it is restricted when it is judged to be inciting a riot.  Freedom of speech is not guaranteed anywhere else in the world.  There are two artworks that received a great deal of controversy in the late 90s called Piss Christ by Andres Serrano and The Holy Virgin Mary, by British artist, Chris Ofili created using elephant dung.  A great deal of furor was raised and some politicians were catapulted into the public limelight by taking vehement issue with the Serrano work on the congressional floor.  The works were not banned however and have gone on be exhibited extensively and to be referenced in all art history books that deals with contemporary art.  There are others, within the Christian clergy, that defended the Piss Christ work as “profoundly religious,” see Casey, Fisher, and Ramsay at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Serrano.htm
and
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Casey Fisher Ramsay.html

Challenging the basis and reason for art, these works are obviously associated with religion and religious beliefs. No huge outcry emerged in England with the Ofili work and there are other works of his that deal with human and animal waste.  The disputes are kept civilized.  The point here is that religious disputation must be debated and kept within the religion itself and not in the world of politics.  Religious communities, whether they are western in origin or eastern must stay within the boundaries of its religious dogma and thought.  Imperialism in religions is the cause of wars, death, and destruction and are antithetical to basic tenets of their religions. Intelligent evolution of humankind measures the sophistication with which religions can deal with huge questions about their religion.  It is a sign of weakness that any religion cannot sustain and defend with reason any assault on the dogma or traditional belief system.  Questions reasonably answered only strengthens the foundation of a religion.  Ozark’s concern is obviously about the defensive posture of Islamists.  His points have validity and seem to be an honest attempt to come to terms with what seems a devious protectionism that wishes to alleviate responsibility for unrighteous behavior. There is evidence for his concerns.  We have made the argument on this forum that to modify the first Amendment to the American Constitution would be a dangerous de-strengthening of the protection.  His argument is that “trimming back” the freedom of speech on the world stage sets a precedence to devalue human rights even further.  I think he has a powerful point there.  Although it seems he is making an attempt to step out of that framework, the thing that seems to reduce the strength of his arguments is his attachment to his own brand of fundamentalism.

Part 1
Taking a counterexample:  Let us suppose that an Islamist, say an Iraqi citizen who is not part of the insurgents, but an ordinary citizen who is very angry with the United States because the US bombed their neighborhood and they no longer have a home, uses the Bible for target practice.  Does the United States then also sponsor a UN resolution about the repression of free speech having taken insult from the Iraqi’s action?  But since the US is a country of many faiths, it might not as a country take complete offense at the shooting at the Bible.  However, burning of the American flag might be akin to the infraction of shooting holes in the Bible.  Americans as a whole are more nationalistic than religious.  So perhaps a resolution from the United States UN representative that proposes criminal acts against countries who harbor American Flag burners, would be reasonable?  Except Americans have been watching the burning of their flag for decades in various countries.  I do not think any resolution against the freedom of speech was proposed to the UN on account of flag burning. Preparing for a discussion with a friend, I was re-reading Satanic Verses recently.  I ran across the following that had to do with a recollection of surviving a fire where, after a great distancing, one friend helped the other:  “love had shown that it could exert a humanizing power as great as that of hatred, that virtue could transform men as well as vice. But nothing was forever; no cure, it appeared, was complete.” It is that last sentence that seem most important, don’t you think?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more than an attempt to establish what are universally moral.  The problem is to enforce those rights.

The film, Fitna, the Wilders film, was uneven for me in content.  It was intended to be provocative with the female wearing a revealing see-through gown which would only tend to enrage the Islamist public, especially the clergy.  The fact that the woman committed fornication, which is forbidden by the religion, was also meant to create a riotous response since she would not have been virginal at marriage.  While I personally am not disturbed by either nudity, being an artist and using the nude human figure for decades, female and male, or disturbed by sex between consenting adults, I think to use those two behaviors in order to effect social change in a culture-wide repressive religion is not a smart thing to do.  If it is desirable to change the attitude toward either of those actions, it needs to evolve within the belief system itself for it to become accepted and indelible regardless of how slow the process might be.  Given their penchant for reactive violence, antagonizing the community of Islamists is not useful for the purpose.  All that being said, however, neither of these conducts are violations worthy of the woman being beaten, raped by the uncle, nor being subject to murder, and although a dramatization, I believe this is typical.  While there may be enlightened men in the culture, the general view of women in Islam is uncivilized at best.  But those two things are not really the substructure of the film.  The real motive is to criticize the irrational beliefs of Islam about freedom of speech. While it is almost impossible to impede one’s thought, although the emotion of guilt could be conditioned in the members of a social group for particular kinds of thought (as Catholics do with their corpus on sin), it is possible to prevent and prosecute particular kinds of speech.

A friend communicated to me that the OIC sponsored repression of free speech needs to be understood in light of the insults to Islam. An example is the Qura’n being used by a US soldier for target practice. And then the rhetorical question, “What do you expect the OIC to do, love you for it? be passive? or take actions at the highest level possible?”

A few comments. Once we allow that OIC should take action, a reasonable question arises: ‘what action is appropriate?’ And by what standard are we to judge the appropriateness of the action?

Islamically speaking I figure that the OIC is doing the right thing. Islam deserves respect. Islam means submission. Without the submission there is continual disturbance(fitna). That means that the OIC must resort to some kind of force to compel the desired good behaviour from the un-believers.

The UN action to limit freedom of expression is that force. It is acceptable (Islamically speaking) to punish those who show disrespect to Muhammed and the Qura’n.

So, having here cleared the OIC of wrongdoing(from an Islamic point of view), and acknowledging the pious motivation of the OIC, certainly the fact that they are Islamically correct and pious will put some people’s mind at ease.

The only drawback of this line of thinking that I have taken… What other bad behaviours of ours will prompt a new punishment, or a further trimming back of our freedom? What might they do next which we will be asked to excuse ‘Islamically speaking’? What else might their religion request of us?

Karen Armstrong will not tell you. Either she conceals the information or she just plain doesnt know. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will tell you to the best of her ability. On the basis of that alone Ayaan is worth reading.

Here is a report about Geert Wilders, who made the movie Fitna. The court in Jordan has requested he appear there for trial, which he refused to do. From the website ‘Atlas Shrugged’:

Geert Wilders fears he will be arrested soon when traveling abroad, due to his movie Fitna. Jordan is working on an international warrant for the arrest of the PVV leader in order to prosecute him. Last Monday the court in Amman found the complaint filed to be acceptable. Wilders expects that the court will soon appeal for an international warrant for his arrest, reports De Volkskrant. Jordan can possibly make a request through Interpol. Such an appeal can be fought by the Dutch government. It is also possible Jordan will ask individual nations visited by Wilders to extradite him. In any case, the Wilders’ freedom of movement will be severely restricted. Wilders complains about the uncertainty. “One never knows when it will happen. My freedom of movement will be enormously limited and I cannot operate as a politician,” according to Wilders in De Volkskrant. The risks are being mapped by the ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/0 6/geert-wilders-t.html

To Shenonymous, and A Reply to Other Friends

While it seems to me that your contrast of two kinds of Islam could be usefully applicable, Humanist/Religious, what is your motive for presenting Ali’s distinctions to us, OM?

I meant to test myself. I needed a variety of leaders of Islam. Ayaan is the only one i could find. I tested my definition on her catagories.

Direct answer: I like her classification. It starts with the opinion that there is a problem, and that the problem needs to be talked about. From this bias she points out who is helpful and who is not helping solve the problem.

Whether her bias is a glimmer of truth or not is something that could be debated. Let me say that debating this would be the best thing! Burying this would be the worst thing. Those who wish to bury her will get their wish eventually, perhaps soon. But her ideas… they cant be killed off. Well, no, that isnt true. Ideas can be censored, perhaps that is what is desired, the death of ideas.

The first thing those who wish to bury a person do(sans a body to actually hack up and place in the ground) is ad hominim attacks. Never never do they discuss or debate the idea, for discussion is the one thing that they are trying to avoid.

Therefor, in leiu of investigating if she is right or wrong, we must first undertake the extra screening process which is selectively applied to conservatives and other dissenters: do we ‘bury’ her opinion? or do we ‘discuss’ her opinion?

Its amazing how many opinions you can turn your nose up at if you develop a selective process. And the best part is we feel SMARTER for NOT reading! I made a ridiculous parody of this by not reading Karen Armstrong, and trying to force you all to not read Gore Vidal. Screening books and screening people is really just a way to screen exposure to ideas which contradict our ideology, is it not?

My hope was that we would all agree to drop the screening and read everything without fear of contamination. Instead, our conversation fractured. I am sorry for it, but the effort had to be made.  That was actually an act of love and respect, although it was taken as hatred and disrespect.

It is not to late for us to drop all the screening crap and regroup. Are we intellectuals? Yes. I have believed it of everyone involved. 

Otherwise, another question comes into view. We must also undertake the extra sceening process and selectively apply it to sources of information. Yes, it has been said here that some sources were verboten. Never mind that without those sources this matter of the UN Human Rights fiasco would never have been brought to your attention. 

Places like Truthdig do not know and ridicule those who do. Your sources have not, are not, and will not report on these things until it impinges on them someday. It impinges on some of my heroes already, it threatens to crush them. Do my heroes have faults? Of course. But so do yours. 

I do not like it that a human being with something to offer leaves the table. They cant be replaced! And I do not like to banish any thinker. I am happy to read Karen Armstrong, the whole thing about her was to make a point.  Let reason, and not prejudice, judge if there is truth in every idea. Do not let a fault of an author be used as an excuse to gag him/her.

But why do we not hear more brave speakers from that quadrant of humanity about human rights and protection for them?

If Shenonymous, who is very intelligent, concerned, and aware of events which trouble the world, is only recently hearing about the problem at all, then the problem isnt a matter of receptivity but of the news media.

No news outlet wants to incur the wrath of the multiculturalist, politically correct, crowd. Who wants to be branded ‘Islamophobic’? American Islamic organizations such as CAIR will label you as a racist.  The Left, including academia, will be on your back if you cross the line on this topic.  Trust me, it wont matter to them how much you have read or thought about the topic. Karen Armstrong would probably say you are ignorant. The government of the USA is passively unhelpful, with its new jargon to win the hearts and minds of Muslims(this might be a good thing, but I worry about the price we pay). The governments of Europe are actively unhelpful. Closer to home, Canada has a ‘Human Rights’ committee(not a court with a judge, just some multiculturalists with the power to punish) which has summoned an author into its lair for a trial over an article about Islam. The author has fled to the USA, but we may adopt similar laws eventually. There are people here who wish we were like Canada.

The two presidential candidates dont talk about it. During the primaries one candidate gave a nice talk about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The actor-turned-senator, whatever his name is.

Since few people in the land of free speech are willing to stand up, why do we expect people in Saudi Arabia to do so?

But enough about us. To answer your question Shenonymous, there are people in the Islamic world who do speak out. I marvel at their courage. Mostly women. Mostly atheists. Christians in the Islamic world seem to have nothing to say.  I detect two factors. First, an admiration for the orderly peace of Islam. Second, a fear of endangering the rest of the Christian community by speaking out, since criticism of Islam negates the protected status that the community has. Sharia is not so bad for Christians if they keep quiet.

But those atheists. What must their life be like?

They have to deal with the threats of terrorists types who mark them for death. They have to deal with the normal Islamic community which doesnt threaten them with death but wishes to keep them isolated. They have to deal with their governments, which straddle the line between sharia and secular, but to appease the Islamists the government might act against them at any time. Oh yes, and now they also have to deal with the UN Special Rapporteur for Free Speech, a person who should be protecting them but who now has a mandate to drag them into court for insulting Islam. They have all this trouble to bear… plus they get to see our newscasts and books about how Islam is the misunderstood victim, the religion of peace. Support from the land of the free and home of the brave? ZERO.

Surely they must sense that they are on the losing side. The question should be, “Why do they speak out at all?”

Not able to watch the UN videos as noted in comment dated June 21 at 10:22pm

I wonder how the public may monitor these meetings?  It seems a more worthy activity than watching sitcoms on tv, which I don’t do anyway.

The fact that “autocratic governments, i.e., Cuba and Myanmar, are treated with a “light touch,” is ludicrous.  Either these UN councils have some utilitarian benevolent function for the oppressed or it is utilitarianly useless.  Particularly a council for human rights!  Either people wherever they exist, have alienable rights, or they are without human status.  Why would countries that have no problems with human rights have need of a council on human rights?  Is that a rhetorical question?

The argument that theistic-based autocratic countries have the right to serve cruel and unjust impositions and restraints, that is behave in totalitarian oppression, is patently egregious.  Those who systematically crush human rights of their citizens are obviously not countries that can be negotiated with for any reason.  Does that threaten warfare?  Humans have to weigh the value of some human lives against other human lives to solve this question since killing would be involved.  Warfare implies people on both sides of the issue.  The question needs to be publicly debated without the violators’ opinions, for to allow them to participate would be like asking a fox to sit in a hen house while the chickens lay their eggs.  Isn’t that a similar argument they are waging about who ought to be able to talk about religion?  Taking the people of Darfur for example, the world sits by and engages in idle talk as they continued to be starved and murdered.  African politics is hideous. 

With Ali’s five kinds of Islam, what is proposed to be done with respect to each?  It is not clear what Ayaan wants the world to do.  It has been suggested that she has baseless ulterior motives for being so vocal.  How do we find the truth in these matters?  Many others have registered the complaints against Islamists and not merely at the terrorist Islamists.  That is not to propose that all of Islam are deserving of censure. Not at all.  But why do we not hear more brave speakers from that quadrant of humanity about human rights and protection for them?  Is that another rhetorical question.

While it seems to me that your contrast of two kinds of Islam could be usefully applicable, Humanist/Religious, what is your motive for presenting Ali’s distinctions to us, OM?  I am trying fervently to understand what non-Islamist and other non-fundamentalists ought to be doing.  I see and feel the strife in all that is being presented from both sides of the issues.  Will check back soon but wanted to get off an interrogative post before a brief lacuna.

Imperialism of any kind for any reason is a curse and anathema to humankind., whether it is for religious territory or oil.  The felt need to conquer and own others is barbaric at best, by animals destitute of human reason at worst.

A good AP article. Were you able to watch the videos? Please report the event at UN Human Rights Council.

Thats a poor attitude by the US to just walk away. Now we have our answer to “Why didnt the US cast a vote?”

Inspiration from the link Shenonymous provided: “On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group"…

Why not ‘Humanist Islam’ vs ‘Religious Islam’?

The connotations arent so heavy with approval or disapproval. A link to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with an excerpt below just in case. Bold print is my comment.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26595 /pub_detail.asp

“In the quest for reconciliation between Muslim and western societies, it is important to recognize that Muslims are as diverse as Islam is monolithic. Islam attempts to unify more than a billion people of different geographical origins, languages, ethnicities, and cultural and educational backgrounds into one religious tribe. And while I acknowledge that generally stereotyping believers is difficult since belief is subjective, for the sake of discussion I would like to distinguish between five types of Muslims.

The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.” Humanist Islam

“The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.” Humanist Islam

“The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.” Religious Islam

“The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.” Religious Islam

“The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.” Humanist Islam. There are western elites who repeat these selections and use the same bias, I would also consider them Humanists also. They acquire the same ‘ineffective’ label but to the degree they are successful they impower Group Three.

and a couple of website videos of the UN rights council debates at the bottom of the article. Well, these don’t work!  They are restricted, the public cannot access them.  Why in the world then did the newspaper put them in?  grrrr

but the article is longer than the one in the Pakistani Daily TImes and gives a comment by Amnesty International. 

The article on the Muslim man sentenced to death for tearing a few pages of the Qur’an and saying something against Muhammad tells of a human travesty.  It makes one wonder if this world as a whole entity can ever become civilized.

There is a better article at

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/18/news/UN-GEN- UN-Rights-Council-Religion.php

and a couple of website videos of the UN rights council debates at the bottom of the article.

I could be in for it but here goes.  Looks like we have two religions where fault cannot be pointed out.  Except while they abhor criticism, the Christian fundamentalists don’t seem to resort to killing or at the least maiming, but their militant branch the Evangelicals would possibly excoriate in their inimitable way, through the vituperation of ultra conservative talk radio and television hosts and printed matter.  Who knows what they might do through the corporate avenues?  But one could physically survive that!  Or commit suicide if it was too bad (and that has happened.)

Does the same charge of blasphemy hold if one says anything about Islam itself?  Because now for the other don’t-you-dare-criticize-or-you-could-wind-up-dead with no head, or tongue or your entire family wiped out religion and I hope I am not one of those that they would come after!:  We could try some words for the Islam you examine OM.  Let’s forget about Armstrong since she is simply a freelance monotheist historian.  We should work this out on our own since we are the ones totally immersed.  If Nabih wants to smack us he has every right.  I just hope he smacks gently as my puny body can’t take too many blows.

So for the sake of furthering our discussion, how about these bifurcations which would serve the ‘peaceful’ Muslims and those in variance:  Basic versus Incidental Islam or Essential vs. Adjunct Islam, Greater Islam versus Lesser Islam (militants), or Higher and Lower Islam, or Major and Minor Islam, or Significant and Less Significant Islam, guess we’d better watch it here but I could even go for Big Potatoes/Small Potatoes Islam.  What do you say OM?  Or here are a few more:  Standard Islam and Nonstandard Islam, or Canonical Islam or Uncanonical Islam, Concordant and Discordant Islam, Sacred and Unsacred Islam, Obedient or Disobedient Islam, Orthodox and Unorthodox Islam (like the Greek Catholics do), or Sanctioned or Unsanctioned Islam, or Programmed Islam and Non-programmed Islam, or First Islam and Last Islam, or Ordinate or Inordinate Islam, or Honorable Islam and Dishonorable Islam (that one would probably be up for violent reaction) so can’t go there, or how about Conformist Islam and Nonconformist Islam or Common and Uncommon Islam, and my final suggestion Centric and Eccentric Islam might be just too off the wall.  So here we have a plethora of possibilities.  One just has to put one’s head to it.  I bet you could come up with a few more.  Anything can be criticized.  Isn’t that guaranteed by the First Amendment, no?

BTW:  I am now reading “The Battle for God,” Karen Armstrong.  It has lots of footnotes and references and a very decent bibliography.  I will look at the Pakisani Daily Times for your story.  Your link works fine on my computer (I use Safari browser, other browsers don’t always work with the TD links.  Besides I have PDT bookmarked).

For crying out loud, I cant do a link correctly. Here is the story from the Daily Times 6/19/08

Man gets death sentence for blasphemy

SIALKOT: A District and Sessions court on Wednesday sentenced a man to death on charges of blasphemy. Shafeeq Lateef was charged with using derogatory remarks in reference to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and desecrating pages of the holy Quran on March 17, 2006. District and Sessions Judge Suhaib Ahmed Roomi sentenced Lateef to death for making blasphemous remarks and issued a separate fine of Rs 500,000 for desecrating pages of the holy book. Lateef was arrested from a village near Sialkot and charged under the blasphemy laws. nni

hmm, again a link that didnt work. I try again.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20086\19 \story_19-6-2008_pg7_7

If that doesnt work, access the first link about the UN events, then look in the right hand column for the story about the man who is sentenced to death for insulting Mohammed.

Today I present no answers for any of your questions, Shenonymous. Although I hope to do so in future.

Instead I report to you.  A few days ago at the UN Human Rights Council there was discussion of women’s rights.  Some NGOs had a chance to speak and brought up either ‘honor killing’ or stoning, or female genital mutilation. The OIC was able to silence the discussion since it was or could become ‘critical of Islam’. There is video of this at the Geneva webcast achives, but I cannot play them. Without that and without any official document I can only refer you to this story in the Pakistan Daily Times: 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/06/ 19/story_19-6-2008_pg7_6

the next page of that day’s news has this story about a man who insulted Mohammed.  I remind you that this is not the heretical Saudi version Islam. nor the heretical Iranian Islam, but friendly Pakistani Islam:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20086\19 \story_19-6-2008_pg7_7

We must face the fact that there are several exceptions to the Islam we have learned here. I think we should upgrade these from being merely ‘exceptions to the rule’. At the very least we should acknowledge that they are strong competition against the peaceful Islam which we learned here.

What I notice is something Shen pointed out earlier. This suppression of free speech isnt linked to people who are terrorists. It is what I would like to call a fundamentalism. Except I cannot correctly do that, since the term refers to an American Christian development.

Without the name ‘fundamentalism’, and without any other name suitable, we are left with calling it ‘Islam’. Which seems unfair to the majority of peaceful Muslims. Further, to mention ‘Islam’ in any critical way does not appear to be consonant with Free Speech and Human Rights according to the article.

The result is that I have no word.

Maybe it isnt so bad to have no word, to speak no word, since the topic is no longer to be discussed by anyone except scholars. And by ‘scholars’ think of someone like Karen Armstrong. Is this what Nabih was trying to explain to me all along? It isnt that Karen Armstrong is so smart because she is still on her nose over that Quran quotation, which proved the opposite of the point she was trying to make. It cant get worse than that.

So I suppose by ‘scholar’ they mean one who says kind words, and by this servitude is allowed to continue speaking. Or even better, some ‘scholars’ not only are allowed to be published but they also get showered with money from… but lets not go into that.

Words that cannot be used. A religion that cannot be criticized. The scholars will have their way if something doesnt change in the equation.

part 3
To respond to today’s OM post:  Did I ask that? What difference does it make if we do better? No, I don’t think so.  Nor did I ask if our understanding has any good in it.  Not even by implication.  The force of my questions are if there could be any affect outside this forum?  That if we are not so arrogant to think that a public forum of this type has any determining factors on enough others as to make any difference in their actions: if there would be any good other than to ourselves as to the content and conclusions we com to about that content?  I think after reading some of the other forums there is a remarkable delusion that they think they are making some significant difference; that Obama is listening, or Bush is listening, or Ahmadinejad is listening and that any or all of them will act on that listening.  If they are not intending that then the commenters are just doing some sort of mentally smug exercise.  There are other words for such self-gratifications. and if they are, then they fool themselves. So it’s a double edged sword.

What we are doing on our forum is an investigation. Even if we deal with such profound ideas as fundamentalism, tolerance, intolerance, fascism, freedom of speech.  It is different in that we are doing this for ourselves and not to “save” the world, although it might wind up that way.  In my case, I want to know more about Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, etc.  While I do not anticipate embracing either, I do not claim to have all the answers in my atheism.  I believe in humanity and humanitarianism.  I believe humans do have value and none ought to be treated as wasteables, none and there are and have been wasted people, untold numbers.  I get upset at the plight of people in the world, when our president doesn’t give a real damn about people floating in the canals of New Orleans, or the millions of Iraqis killed over petroleum, ad nauseum.  I want to know what in Christianity did to our president to make him say that god spoke to him and told him to do all these evil things.  And I want to know what makes Islamist think their way is the right and only way to live.  Will I do anything with what I learn here, damn right I will.  Do I know what?  No.

That’s all

Purist not only has good connotations but it also sounds pretentious.  Why would any one group be more “pure” than any other?  And besides, to what degree of purity could even be meant?  As purity can be divided up into percentages.  100%, 50%, 10% pure?

I understand what you meant in your eliminating conservativism and traditionalism.  Nevertheless, your notion of tendency is not clear either.  Unfortunately one does not own and certain word that is already in common use.  You cannot trademark or copyright the word fundamentalism.  It will always carry with it ties to the other religions.  Yes, you do seem to be the only one working out a trajectory for fundamentalism.

FYI:  Freedom of expression is not in the Constitution:
It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. But “expression\” is not used in the amendment at all (See copy of Amendment 1 below). This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of “freedom of expression\” is ubiquitous in the common language, it is important to note exactly to what “freedom of expression” refers.

Amendment 1 to The U.S. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But do let’s put some closure on this.

Part 2 – Trying to stay on task…
OM says of himself back on June 5 that he attempted on occasions to explain the fear that lies within the fundamentalist perspective, but that it was going to take a more propitious [my word] time to do so.  My question is, what would make any time more favorable? 

To restate his fifth point: using the hypothetical, as he put it by implication, if the world only perceives fundamentalism by mistaking a particular individual believer’s place, time, and desires to be the defining characteristics of all of fundamentalism, then shouldn’t somebody (you for instance) show the distinctions?  We on this forum, are a captivated audience, we want to be here, and we want to listen to what each of us says with an open mind.  We, unusually, give each other that respect.  We want to have a proper view.  To not help us out to see what you see would show a smidgen of disdain for us.  Maybe more than a smidgen!

The fact is it is not my intention to challenge anyone’s beliefs.  It is not my intention nor desire to do that.  Some justification for saying what one does here is appropriate regard.  I am willing to listen because listening needs to be done.  It is a hidden contract we have with each other.  And I am willing to explain what I say if what I say is not clear.  As an example, please explain more clearly what you mean by antivalue.  You give some description to the word impinging as an act of resisting [that] impingement unintentionally and that creates an antivalue.  How so?  Further, you speak of the need to “break out of conventional culture.” I ask, why the need to break out, as if there are chai