Some?
And another thing. Thomas Perry of Random House said, we are told, that Random House received ‘cautionary advice’ that the publication of the Aisha novel ‘might be offensive to some in the Muslim community’ – he said this in partial explanation of Random House’s decision not to publish it. But that’s imbecilic. It’s beyond imbecilic – it’s deranged – it’s surreal – it’s self-nullifying. It is not possible to write anything that ‘might’ not be offensive to ‘some’ in the X ‘community.’ In fact it’s all but certain that anything anyone writes will be offensive to ‘some’ in some ‘community.’ The condition of writing and publication is not and cannot be and must not be not being potentially offensive to ‘some’ – because that condition would rule out everything. Every single thing. There would be nothing left. Life would be a desert. The only alternative to the risk of offending ‘some’ is complete nullity. That’s too high a price to pay. If we want to be able to think and talk and write at all – and we do – we have to take the risk of offending ‘some.’
And that is why freedom of speech is more important (more fundamental) than freedom of religion or the mythical ‘freedom from religious insult’. Freedom of religion follows from freedom of speech and cannot exist on its own without it.
I logged in to Notes and Comments just after reading the BBC report about the Pakistani militants who blew themselves up trying to blow up a school. The last line of the article is telling. After speaking of Sarfraz Ali, a bank accountant who was kidnapped and beheaded, the article ends with the laconic comment: ‘Taleban militants consider Shia Muslims to be heretical and have often beheaded them.’
What does Thomas Perry want to do – offend a few people now – or wait until groups begin beheading each other because they are offended? We can either talk, Mr. Perry, or we can kill each other. Which is it to be? It is indeed deranged. As IMU so nicely says: ‘Freedom of religion follows from freedom of speech and cannot exist on its own without it.’ Ask any non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia about that.
I disagreed with you about the cartoons, but books should be published without worrying about offending group X or Y. There is a big difference between mass media, TV and newspapers, and books. The aim of this post is not to start another argument about the cartoons (in which I will not participate), but to express my support for your position on the book in question and on books in general.
Amos. I have a couple books of political cartoons. Do they count?
Some of my relatives (fundamentalist Christians) were deeply offended by the Harry Potter books. I guess if you can make lots of money offending people it’s okay.
Well, after all, here in America we’re so consumer-oriented that our religious fanatics will buy copies of the books just to set them on fire.