We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

PZ Myers was, as is his habit, a little too fast on the draw and immediately jumped to the conclusion that Sam Harris supports racial profiling. Hemant Mehta, likewise keeping with his habit, was a little bit more measured and charitable. To be fair to Sam he explicitly isn’t exempting himself from looking like a Muslim. Although to be less fair Adam Gadahn looks perfectly clean to me, which makes it sound as if Sam equates traditional middle eastern Muslim appearance with uncleanliness. (Not cool.) However, even given Sam’s inclusion of his own appearance and his subsequent clarification that he’s “not narrowly focused on people with dark skin,” (as opposed to ‘broadly,’ I wonder?) this just left me wondering whence Sam’s proposed knowledge-at-a-glance is supposed to arise.

He does offer some hand-waving and a very vague suggestion that “ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling [sic] companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances” might be indicative of “a person’s beliefs and terrorist potential” peppered with an ad hominem for good measure, that if you disagree with this Barnum statement, you’re either crazy or dishonest. Oh, so that’s it? All I have to do so that I too may be able to reliably identify Muslims at a glance is to consider every single one of their observable characteristics? Gee, thanks, Sam. I’m glad we cleared that up. If we implement this method of yours today, I’m sure the American prisons will be filled to the brim with would-be terrorists in no time. We just have to glance at people and take into account everything about them. Genius!

Look, contrary to Sam’s criticism towards his detractors, this – to me – isn’t at all about political correctness. Nothing could be less of a factor to me: I’ve drawn Mohammed two years in a row. It’s just that for a man who otherwise prides himself on rigorous sceptical and critical thinking backed up by facts, this idea of Sam’s seems remarkably sloppy, ill-conceived, and quite frankly it seems ideologically clouded by Sam’s (perhaps justified) animosity toward Islam. Sure, dislike Islam for valid reasons if you want. It’s certainly not less deserving of criticism than, say, Catholicism. However, please base policy upon factual efficacy, not personal dislike, however warranted it might or might not be.

Efficacy, after all, ought to be the crux of the matter here, and I can’t for the life of me understand how Sam imagines this will work. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world, most of which aren’t terrorists, so even if we could somehow magically recognise them “at a glance,” how would that help? And what about Sam’s claim that “it is simply a fact that, in the year 2012, suicidal terrorism is overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon?” Is it now? Because I was under the impression that 94% of all America-based terrorism was perpetrated by non-Muslims. Depending on the base rate, of course, it seems likely that you’d catch more terrorists by systematically ignoring all the Muslims.

In any case it’s all irrelevant if we can’t reliably detect Muslims at a glance. So either Sam Harris must be proposing racial profiling after all or else he must have some Disney-scenario held in his imagination where Muslim terrorists show up at the airport cackling evilly and sporting full orthodox beards while wearing keffiyehs, thawbs, and sandals. As opposed to looking like Everlast here, who’s been a devout Muslim since 1996. (Not that I’m implying, mind, that Everlast is likely to blow up anything but mics.)

You know what, Sam? I’ll just let Sage Francis play you out.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’ll show you which culture to pump your fist at, which foot is right to kiss.
We don’t really know who the culprit is yet, but he looks like this!
We know who the heroes are; not the xenophobes who act hard.
“We taught that dog to squat, how dare he do that shit in our own back yard!”

Jenis av Rana – who has been the subject of my rants before – refused, as the only party leader, as one out of three party leaders, one of which had a prior engagement and one who followed av Rana’s lead like a good doggy, to attend the banquet on the grounds that he is an incurable bigot. If you ask me the reaction should have been ‘good riddance’ (really now, if the hateful, bigoted extremists aren’t shunning you, you’re doing something wrong) but any Icelander who was hurt on behalf of Iceland has my complete understanding and full sympathy.

This might not even have been such a big deal if Mr. av Rana had simply stayed away. However, he just had to comment that he would never dream of attending such a banquet because it’s unnatural and against the holy writ. Really, Jenis? Having meals with people is against your code of conduct? How do you even eat?

In any case I considered writing some profound open letter to Iceland and their beautiful prime minister, expounding upon the past relationship between Iceland and the Faroes, underlining that we are not all theocratic bigots, and detailing Jenis av Rana’s hypocrisy in Jenis not behaving very Jesus-like (he should curse more fig-trees to death, if you ask me!)

However, one of our more agreeable Christian specimens, Arni Zachariassen, has already done a much better job than I ever could. This sort of thing also means a lot more when it is coming from other Christians.  We atheists always speak out against fundamentalist mentality but it seems moderate Christians are happy to let it grow and grow until it reaches critical mass and explodes. Only then will they speak out. The world needs more Arni Zachariassens speaking out against the Jenis av Ranas.

Meanwhile, I was interviewed on behalf of the Faroese Atheist Society (Gudloysi) in the Icelandic newspaper Morgunblaðið. The interview is in Icelandic so I would be very grateful for a translation (it should be noted that I am not the chairman of Gudloysi, I’m the secretary). The interviewer wanted to know how many people on the Faroes agree with Jenis av Rana’s hateful views. I assured him that Jenis av Rana and his disgusting party are in the minority. I must admit though that I do not know this with absolute certainty as no surveys have ever been done. However, the Centreparty is luckily a very small party. Of course, that does not preclude there being bigots in other parties but it should enable us to make a reasonable estimate.

I just took a look at Vágaportalurin (the news-outlet that ignited this flame) and it would seem Jenis av Rana is receiving fan-mail from Iceland. If you want to take a look there are a few English letters among the messages. It is sad that even such an open-minded country as Iceland must suffer its crazies.

What do you think of all this? Feel free to leave a comment or weigh in on the discussion in the forum.

- Heini Reinert

Image blatantly stolen from Books booksshouldbefree.com

♦

In this essay I shall argue in agreement with Mill but propose a modified liberalism in response to prevailing critiques.

Mill contends that every individual is entitled to liberty to the point where it infringes upon that of others.

It is worth noting that

the use of ‘self-protection’ might be misleading. Suffice it to say that Mill is not merely referring to the self-protection of oneself but to the self-protection of mankind in general. Therefore, it is not the case that Mill’s liberalism requires one to stand passive observer to a perpetrator’s infliction of harm upon others. In the very next passage Mill goes on to say:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1865, p. 6).

What constitutes harm to others? We all agree that some acts are indubitably harmful and others not – yet it is difficult to draw the precise line between the two.

Should offensiveness be considered harmful to others? Mill argues no (ibid., p. 31) because any argument, which holds any weight, is offensive to those whose opinion it is directed at. It is therefore prudent to make a distinction between distress and harm. It can be argued that offence necessarily entails distress. Yet if we are to remain consistent, distress alone cannot count as harm.

What then of inconvenience? Can an act, which will consequently cause other people great trouble, be considered harmful? It would certainly be an inconsiderate act, yet we should perhaps be disinclined to go as far as decreeing it harmful. A man committing suicide might be considered sovereign over his body and mind (ibid., p. 6) and therefore well within his liberty. Even if this would assuredly be inconvenient and distressful to someone, we have already established that distress in itself is not sufficient to curtail individual liberty.

However, if we concede the point that an inconsiderate act of inconvenience to others does not necessarily qualify as harm. What then is our justification for legislating against theft  – provided the thief is careful enough to merely steal to the point of inconvenience, never crossing into the realm of harm?

An answer to this challenge might be found in Mill’s assertion that:

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it (ibid., p. 8).

Theft on a small enough scale might fall short of depriving an owner of his liberty to pursue own ends. Nevertheless, theft of any kind, no matter the scale, must at least be considered an impediment of the proprietor’s efforts to obtain the commodity in question. This then might seem as relinquishing the claim that the prevention of harm and protection thereof is the sole justification for the exertion of power over a person against their will.

I would contend, though, that this is an underestimate of how far the applicability of the concept ‘harm’ extends. Harm might not only be interpreted as the act of damaging a person’s mind or body. Rather in this context ‘harm’ is properly understood as the act of damaging a person’s pursuit of his own good – by deprivation and impediment alike.

However, I should now argue against Mill in that this newly gained understanding will also have relevance to our previous consideration of inconvenience. Any individual is, by all means, the sovereign of his own mind and body – yet within the constriction of responsibility for not letting either become an impediment to others by sheer selfish recklessness. In other words, even within the liberty to do as one pleases one would still be obliged to a modicum of self-preservation – if not merely for one’s own sake then that of others. This, I would claim, is entirely consistent with the Principle of Liberty and as such might also serve as an incomplete response to a communitarian objection of liberalism’s devaluation of community (Bell, 2008).

An issue raised in An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff is that of public indecency (Wolff, 2006, pp. 126-127). Wolff argues that there is an apparent incongruity between Mill’s condemnation of public indecency (Mill, 1865, p. 58) and his Liberty Principle. Wolff argues by the example that sexual intercourse between husband and wife would be in no way condemnable if performed in privacy, yet deemed unacceptable in public. Should Mill not bite the bullet since, by his own insistence, offence is not enough to invoke the principle of harm?

This ties in with our previous consideration that distress alone does not sufficiently justify the censorship of free expression – even if that expression is coitus on a sidewalk. Consistency then demands that we must either allow such indecency, ban freedom of speech alongside it, or somehow make the case that even public indecency is an impediment to the general freedom.

At this point it is helpful to consider the distinction between positive and negative liberty (Carter, 2008). Since all must share the public sphere, the appropriateness of any action must be weighed on the scale of the freedom to do the deed versus that of others from being exposed to it.

An ongoing controversy is that of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at funerals against homosexuality (Booth, 2007). By our previously established principles their freedom to do so is only an entitlement up to the point where it impedes the bereaved in their freedom from being exposed to such insensitivity at a time of grievance. The example of public coitus might seem trivial in comparison but the same principles apply. Speaking your mind on the radio is freedom of speech because anyone is free to turn it off. Incessantly speaking your mind while tailing someone around against her will is harassment.

In conclusion, I agree that mankind’s sole justification for interference with liberty is self-protection of members from harm. Inasmuch as ‘harm’ is understood in the broad sense of deprivation and impediment of freedom – even to a degree where others become intrinsically involved in the individual’s well-being. I dissent from Mill in willingness to consider individuals entirely as islands, yet I believe my position adheres to the Liberty Principle with the added benefit of greater consistency against prevailing criticism.

♦

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main (Donne, 1959, p. 108).

Bibliography

Books:

Donne, John, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions: Together with Death’s Duel (University of Michigan Press, 1959)

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, (Longman, Green et. al., 1865)

Wolff, Jonathan, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, revised ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)

Websites:

Bell, Daniel, “Communitarianism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/communitarianism/>.

Booth, Jenny and agencies, “US anti-gay church that demonstrates at military funerals fined $10.9m”, Times Online (November 1, 2007) URL = <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2783974.ece/>

Carter, Ian, “Positive and Negative Liberty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/liberty-positive-negative/>.

Let me come straight off the bat and say that I resent what is inherently implicit in this question. As if it were a valid ethical discussion in the first place. Why are we even debating this? Is there a single valid argument as to why they should not be allowed to enjoy these same rights as everyone else? This question invariably impinges just as grindingly upon my psyche’s Humbug-detector as any question would, were it to question the extent heterosexuals, socialists, ethnic immigrants etc. should be allowed the same. Throughout all the pompous babble of those who would blush with indignation by the mere thought of two people, who by happenstance were born the same sex and enjoy the company of each other – carnal and otherwise – being allowed to raise a child in a loving and nurturing environment, I have yet to sort out any cogent justification for their “righteous” fury. I assure you that I have attempted such a feat on many occasions but apparently it is beyond my humble capabilities.

As much of their self-perceived moral high-ground is hinged upon the idea of homosexuality as a morally repulsive sin, I have on numerous times proposed the following challenge: name just one reason why homosexuality is wrong and I will, by my word, join your crusade. I can picture the fervent leafing through the Bible and subsequent clattering of keyboard-keys already. However, there are two rules that you must adhere to in this challenge: firstly, no religious references are allowed. The reasoning behind this is quite simple; the Bible’s say-so is no more a valid argument for homosexuality being immoral than it is for the existence of unicorns. (Yes, it does purport both.) Secondly, there are to be no appeals to nature. The fact that homosexuality does indeed occur quite frequently amongst nature’s species aside, morality can never be inferred simply from what is natural. If you are reading this it is because I wrote it on an unnatural medium and presumably you are also reading it on one such.

I will grant, though, that homosexuality not being wrong does not automatically exempt homosexuals from scrutiny in regards to their child-raising qualifications. Still, you should have given up by now. The only arguments left stand on rickety ground indeed. I am almost embarrassed to even treat the following seriously, as any intelligent person will see it for what it is. But for the sake of a complete whole I shall include this moronic line of thought. It is the notion that a child raised by homosexuals will develop a skewed world-view and be at considerable risk of growing up to be a homosexual itself. “Heavens, no!” one is tempted to retort sarcastically “Just as heterosexual clearly beget solely heterosexual children. And woe be us if people grow up to consider homosexuality as something commonplace!” Another such argument, albeit not quite so devoid of common sense, is that a child has a need of both a male and a female role model in order to develop a healthy mental state.

It might be the case that such classical role models would be preferable, still many people throughout history have been raised by a single parent or, for instance, by a mother and her mother, (the latter being exactly equivalent) and, to my knowledge, no more of them grew up with an unhealthy psyche than is statistically probable for everyone. Besides, try asking any orphaned, little girl living in poverty, hunger and misery, which she would prefer; staying parentless or be raised by no more than two loving fathers who happen to be homosexual, providing her with a secure home and all the necessities of life. The presumed missing female role model (presumed because most likely at least one of the men would have a mother, a sister, a friend etc.) could always be found elsewhere or one of her foster-fathers could be effeminate.

The question really is not if homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. The question is rather why they currently are not. It is a case of the homophobic opposition having failed miserably to present any reason whatsoever as to their immature foot-stomping and putting-fingers-in-ears in hope that everyone will simply forget the issue if they alternately repeat incoherent bigotry ad nauseam and completely ignore any mention of a factually sober rebuttal of their holier-than-thou rhetoric.

The age of enlightenment was a long time ago. It is time you grew up and gave everyone equal rights. Allow gay marriage and adoption already. And while we are at it, elect a black, lesbian, atheist woman in a wheel-chair president, prime minister – or whichever political post of prominence is equivalent in your country – the next time around.

Faroese politicians Torbjørn Jacobsen, Páll á Reynatúgvu, Bill Justinussen, and Jenis av Rana have placed before Faroese parliament, The Law Thing, a proposal, that the age of voting be reduced from 18 to 16. The education, they say, is so good in today’s society that young people become adults faster and therefore susceptibility is no valid counter-argument. This is backed up by recent Programme for International Student Assessment survey issued in 2006 where the only country scoring lower than the Faroes was Mexico out of 35 countries participating. (…)

Torbjørn Jacobsen and Páll á Reynatúgvu are members of The Republican Party, which would like to see a Faroe Islands free from Denmark and governed by the Faroese people.

Bill Justinussen and Jenis av Rana are respectively a member and the chairman of The Centre Party, which would like to see a Faroe Islands free from reason and governed by a vengeful metaphysical entity obeying their every whim and prejudice.

Jenis av Rana, who recently published an open letter about the lack of tolerance for Christians and the suffering they have to endure because of prejudiced atheists, is best known for consequently referring to homosexuals as Satan’s Ill Weeds and ‘sex-confused’, a term that has become an epithet in the Faroese language equalling that of calling black persons the N-word. (How dare the people we are prejudiced against prejudice against us!) Other notable achievements of The Centre Party include, but are not limited to, failing to ban The Vagina Monologues because of obscenity, failing to ban stores from being open on Sundays because it’s sacred, and trying to keep homosexuals from gaining basic human rights. (Why is Amnesty so prejudiced and intolerant to our faith?!)

Additional laws proposed by The Centre Party include, that the legal drinking age be increased to 21, that bars, pubs and similar be prohibited from selling alcohol before seven pm and that Rúsan – the only store allowed to carry hard liquor – be prohibited from being open for business before noon.

In other words because of non-existent adolescent public awareness young people today become rational and responsible so fast – just take Jenis & Bill as an indication – that they are mature enough to decide what is best for Society at large at age sixteen, but not mature enough to decide what is best for their own body before aged twenty-one and will never be mature enough to be trusted to decide for themselves which plays their sinful psyches can bear to watch. Thank goodness for The Centre Party safely leading The Faroes out of moral decline!

Since Jenis av Rana is a general physician, I’d like to propose a law that allows him to perform open brain-surgery but prohibits him from prescribing cough syrup. Because that is how it is done in The Centre Party, where we prepare for the second coming by alienating ourselves from the first.

Thanks guys, you put the ‘fun’ in fundamentalist.

Ceterum Censeo Centre Partynem Esse Delendam.

Source: portal.fo