Martin Peretz' Bigotry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:28 here: Well, I think that's up for debate. But I do think that it's socially acceptable to question the Catholic church. However, it's not socially acceptable to question Islam. I think it's safe to say that if I speak out against the sexual abuse the Church was hiding it would be okay. But if I so much as say a single criticism against Islam (or even draw Muhammed), I'm a bigot. Again, this is obviously debatable. But I think a lot of people would agree. I personally think that we should be able to have an open discussion about any religion (fairly) without being labeled racist, bigot, whatever... Of course I mean this without actually insulting other religions, just discussing them. But my opinion is that we're not at that point yet where we can do that. It's like we have to walk on eggshells.

The Catholic church, unlike Islam, Judaism, or a number of other religions is very hierarchical. So criticising the church hierarchy for their disgraceful coverup is not the same as criticising the catholic religion (unless you consider any criticism of the pope and cardinals to be criticism of the religion and all catholics). Likewise, it's fine to blame specific muslims for their actions, but you shouldn't go around blaming "Islam" for the actions of some specific sects/people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:28 here: Well, I think that's up for debate. But I do think that it's socially acceptable to question the Catholic church. However, it's not socially acceptable to question Islam. I think it's safe to say that if I speak out against the sexual abuse the Church was hiding it would be okay. But if I so much as say a single criticism against Islam (or even draw Muhammed), I'm a bigot. Again, this is obviously debatable. But I think a lot of people would agree. I personally think that we should be able to have an open discussion about any religion (fairly) without being labeled racist, bigot, whatever... Of course I mean this without actually insulting other religions, just discussing them. But my opinion is that we're not at that point yet where we can do that. It's like we have to walk on eggshells.

Nonsense. You hear far worse things being said, and going unchallenged, about Islam in this country than about Catholicism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:28 here: Well, I think that's up for debate. But I do think that it's socially acceptable to question the Catholic church. However, it's not socially acceptable to question Islam. I think it's safe to say that if I speak out against the sexual abuse the Church was hiding it would be okay. But if I so much as say a single criticism against Islam (or even draw Muhammed), I'm a bigot. Again, this is obviously debatable. But I think a lot of people would agree. I personally think that we should be able to have an open discussion about any religion (fairly) without being labeled racist, bigot, whatever... Of course I mean this without actually insulting other religions, just discussing them. But my opinion is that we're not at that point yet where we can do that. It's like we have to walk on eggshells.

My original statement is not debatable. This site is full of posters shouting "bigot" when the subject of Catholicism comes up. Unless all those posts are the same person (you?) it is a fact. And I think if you take Martin Peretz's comment and put a Catholic twist on it, you would get equal condemnation. Suppose I said the following:

Catholics should not be allowed in positions of national security. How can we be sure they are looking out for America when they are sworn to obey the Pope?

As for your comment that any single criticism of Islam draws accusations of bigotry, I feel that often they do because the posters are truly ignorant of the religion. They repeat a few inflammatory things they read on the Internet without real knowledge, and then they make categorical assertions. I could take the Christian bible and say "It says right here that the bible allows slavery". Or,
"Did you know that incest is permitted in Christianity?" And you say "What the what?" And I say "Yes, it's right there in Genesis 19".

Criticism of a religion is fine but it requires some reasonable knowledge or it comes off as ignorant. It doesn't matter which religion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

You clearly have blinders on. The reason that I started this thread is because not only is it socially acceptable to criticize Islam and Muslims, you can even have a chair at Harvard named after you after having done so. Do you seriously think that Peretz would still be receiving this honor if he had written that "Catholic life is cheap" and suggested that Catholics don't deserve First Amendment protections?

Yes, actually I think he still would receive that honor. Speaking out about the Catholic church if fairly common. We have a right to do that, and usually people don't get death threats or go into hiding after doing so.
I have enjoyed discussing this with you; but I think you and I just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

You clearly have blinders on. The reason that I started this thread is because not only is it socially acceptable to criticize Islam and Muslims, you can even have a chair at Harvard named after you after having done so. Do you seriously think that Peretz would still be receiving this honor if he had written that "Catholic life is cheap" and suggested that Catholics don't deserve First Amendment protections?

Yes, actually I think he still would receive that honor. Speaking out about the Catholic church if fairly common. We have a right to do that, and usually people don't get death threats or go into hiding after doing so.
I have enjoyed discussing this with you; but I think you and I just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

You ignored my question. I didn't ask if he would get the honor after "speaking out about the Catholic church". I wouldn't care if Peretz simply "spoke out" about a specific Islamic institution. The issue is not "speaking out" and it is telling that you seem to equate slandering an entire religion with a specific criticism of specific religious officials. No, the question is whether he would get the honor if he had said that "Catholic life is cheap" and that Catholics don't deserve First Amendment protections?

Yes, some Muslims react inappropriately to actions that they believe contravene their religion. Some Christians, including Catholics, do the same. Do you believe it is correct to judge all Catholics by the actions of Eric Rudolph and suggest that all Catholics support bombing abortion clinics and the Olympics?

[Anonymous]

The poster does not seem to understand the distinction between criticizing policies of a religious institution, on one hand, and disparaging all of a religion's adherents on the other.

[Anonymous]

It seemed to be a comment on how (some) Muslims believe other Muslims lives are cheap, as suicide bombing are virtually unique to Muslim groups. I dont think he was stating that Muslim life in general has no/low value to everyone, just how some Muslim extremists treat other Muslims. I dont get why its insulting.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

You ignored my question. I didn't ask if he would get the honor after "speaking out about the Catholic church". I wouldn't care if Peretz simply "spoke out" about a specific Islamic institution. The issue is not "speaking out" and it is telling that you seem to equate slandering an entire religion with a specific criticism of specific religious officials. No, the question is whether he would get the honor if he had said that "Catholic life is cheap" and that Catholics don't deserve First Amendment protections?

Yes, some Muslims react inappropriately to actions that they believe contravene their religion. Some Christians, including Catholics, do the same. Do you believe it is correct to judge all Catholics by the actions of Eric Rudolph and suggest that all Catholics support bombing abortion clinics and the Olympics?

Sorry if I was unclear. If he were to say "Catholic life is cheap" I think he still would have gotten the honor. Again, I don't think what he said what right, regardless of what religion he was speaking of. In regards to your other question, I don't believe it is right to judge a religion (Catholicy, Islamic, etc) by the actions of a few. For you to have asked me this leads me to believe that you've missed my point entirely.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It seemed to be a comment on how (some) Muslims believe other Muslims lives are cheap, as suicide bombing are virtually unique to Muslim groups. I dont think he was stating that Muslim life in general has no/low value to everyone, just how some Muslim extremists treat other Muslims. I dont get why its insulting.

Peretz is an articulate guy who is perfectly capable of writing what he means. He pointedly refused to apologize for saying that "Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims" saying that it was "a statement of fact". You will note that the word "some" appears nowhere in either his original statement or his refusal to apologize.

As a factual matter, your statement that suicide bombings are virtually unique to Muslim groups is wrong. Tamil militants in Sri Lanka and India employed suicide bombing extensively, long before Muslims started doing so. Indeed, Rajiv Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, was killed in 1991 by a female suicide bomber. Tamils are primarily Hindu.

I think you understand perfectly well what was insulting about Peretz' statement. But, if not, replace "Muslim" with the name of whatever religious or ethnic group to which you happen to belong. That will likely clarify matters for you.

[Anonymous]

I found this article that includes a link to a petition of Harvard alums that is circulating.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/more_on_the_martin_peretz_affair

Thanks for pointing out this subject. My wife is an alum of the Social Studies department, the department set to establish the fund. I'm sure she is going to sign the petition and forward to her friends.