Brad DeLong is outraged at reports of mishandling of the Koran at Guantanamo emanating from news sources, and while it is certainly offensive for guards to engage in behavior like urinating on prisoners' belongings or kicking them about, one thing I don't get about all this is why it is that I'm supposed to be especially teed off because it's "The Holy Koran" or any other religious book which is the subject of mistreatment. Since when did the secular-minded carve out a special exception for Muslim sensibilities in particular?
It should be of not an iota more importance that a Koran was urinated on than it would have been if it were a Bible, the Perl Cookbook, Misner, Wheeler and Thorne's "Gravitation" or the latest copy of GQ: at most I'm willing to grant a distinction based solely on resale value - under which pissing on "Gravitation" would be by far the worst offense. For secular liberals to act as if prisoners' items are owed any special level of care by nature of their religious origins strikes me as nothing other than a politically-motivated fall from grace on their part. Is a prisoner's personal Koran piss-stained or defaced in some way? Then let him have a new one, and that ought to be the end of the matter, not this ridiculous rigmarole currently being played out in the media.
PS: Here's a guy who at least partially gets the issue. I don't agree with some of what he says, but I think the following is 100% correct:
To a racist white person, having your daughter raped by a black man becomes a much greater offense than her having been raped by a white man. Needless to say, it would be unimaginable that as a civilized society we would make any attempt to empathize with the man and pander to his hatred. So why do we do it at Guantanamo?
Maybe we should, at least for the "Christian Identity" believers, seeing as pandering to irrational beliefs is now the thing to do - just as long as said beliefs sail under the banner of "religion."
PPS: At least a few Muslims do seem to get it. We should not be humoring attitudes in others we wouldn't tolerate amongst ourselves.
This is at least partly an issue of tactics and pragmatism: in the same way that torture can be counterproductive because it lowers America's moral standing in what is in some sense a "war of ideas", mistreating prisoners is bad not just intrinsically, but also because (and to the extent that) it makes people around the world - especially moderate Muslims who could maybe be swayed - hate America more. So, if there is a case of mistreatment which is *especially* offensive to Muslims, that would be instrumentally bad as well as intrinsically bad. This is like those rumors (I can't remember if they were true or not) that the British Raj used pork and beef grease in its gunpowder packets and required Indian soldiers to bite packets to open them, thus making Muslims eat pork and Hindus eat beef - and if I recall correctly, these rumors (part of a larger grievance against the British, of course) helped spark the Sepoy Mutiny.
Beyond the instrumental argument - if there is a prisoner that places an irrationally high regard for the Perl Cookbook and becomes very offended and agitated if a guard defaces his personal copy - isn't defacing his book bad to the extent that it causes him harm? I don't think being outraged about Koran defacement necessarily has to do with carving out an exception for Muslims or even about religion per se (or even religious tolerance per se), but rather with being aware that for some prisoners, Koran defacement is exceptionally offensive. One could make the same argument for not using psychological techniques like smearing menstrual blood on prisoners (fake or real), forcing people to say "f*** Allah", and so on.
Posted by: Andrew | June 04, 2005 at 01:18 PM
I'm sorry, but this is one of your most ignorant postings. IIt is not the same as the bible etc. Christianity does not (currently) have the same view about the physical importance of the Koran itself.
Posted by: Muninn | June 04, 2005 at 01:20 PM
"This is at least partly an issue of tactics and pragmatism: in the same way that torture can be counterproductive because it lowers America's moral standing in what is in some sense a "war of ideas", mistreating prisoners is bad not just intrinsically, but also because (and to the extent that) it makes people around the world - especially moderate Muslims who could maybe be swayed - hate America more."
No, I completely disagree. My problem with torture is primarily a moral one, not pragmatic, and as a practical matter, torture actually works to a far greater extent than many people are willing to concede. As for looking bad "in the eyes of the world", so what? Allowing women to drive makes America look bad in many Muslims' eyes, allowing antisemites and racists to speak soils America's image in other eyes, and allowing the likes of Serrano and Ofili to defile venerated Christian symbols outrages hundreds of millions more. Are we supposed to therefore treat all these things as high crimes?
"I'm sorry, but this is one of your most ignorant postings."
The "ignorance" isn't in my post, but in your eagerness to leap to the defense of rank stupidity. It's plain stupid to treat small-scale property damage as being on the scale as the mistreatment of actual human beings.
"Christianity does not (currently) have the same view about the physical importance of the Koran itself."
Why should I as a secularist give a shit about what Muslims, Christians or anyone else thinks about their "holy book?" If I declare A4 notebooks to be "holy" to me, are you going to start treating them with veneration all of a sudden? I hereby declare the IRS form to be the holiest book of my personal religion, and demand the right to riot and kill people if you dare to fill it in next April. Maybe we ought to make flag-burning a capital crime while we're at it, seeing as so many Americans worship the damn thing as if it were a personal gift from Moses himself. Or how about we prohibit all government personnel from eating meat in acknowledgement of the religious values of Hindus? Where does the bullshit genuflection before superstitious nonsense end? That Muslims hold a codex of paper sheets with squiggles on it in absurdly high regard is *their* problem, not mine, and I'm not going to pander to any relativist nonsense by pretending that such irrationality deserves to be respected in the slightest.
As far as I'm concerned, the *real* travesty in Guantanamo is that the administration made special efforts to defer to the ridiculous superstitions of their inmates in the first place. There'd be no daft outcry about Koranic "desecration" if no Korans had been handed out to begin with, and you can be damn sure that not a single Muslim country extends the same courtesy to imprisoned subscribers to Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or other traditions of superstition: heck, rare is the Muslim country that extends real tolerance to free practitioners of anything except the locally endorsed religious cult.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Why should I as a secularist give a shit about what Muslims, Christians or anyone else thinks about their "holy book?"
There are ample reasons for atheists to give a shit. It's important that the War on Terror is not a) seen as a Holy War by the Islamic world, which we are trying to win the hearts and minds of in the war against Islamism, not Islam; b) seen as a Holy War by the rest of the non-Islamic world which needs to be on our side as much as possible. With G.W. Bush in the white house this perception *is* a major concern;
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 02:49 PM
c) most importantly, that the War on Terror doesn't actually transform into a Holy War by the perceptions and actions of our leaders, or soldiers, and our citizenry.
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 02:50 PM
If anything, I'm not going to assume a soldier pissing on a Koran is scoring a goal for reason, or contributing to the war on terrorism, but fighting a religious war with his dick.
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 02:52 PM
Abiola, I'm sorry, but I have a bunch of sentences written out, but your box says everything I'm trying to post looks like spam, and I don't know what's triggering it. I thought it was the word 'dick' but apparently not. Long story short, I guess: I don't agree.
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 02:55 PM
"It's important that the War on Terror is not a) seen as a Holy War by the Islamic world, which we are trying to win the hearts and minds of in the war against Islamism, not Islam; b) seen as a Holy War by the rest of the non-Islamic world which needs to be on our side as much as possible."
It's not so important that American soldiers should be treated as if they'd committed high treason simply because they engaged in minor property damage - and I'm betting said property wasn't even the inmates' to begin with, but that of the US government. There is a limit to how far one should go in pandering to Muslim sensibilities, and if it requires trashing American secular values to secure the allegiance you think so desirable, I say it just isn't worth having: I'm sure prohibiting all criticism of Islam within the US on pain of death would do *wonders* to recruit Muslim hearts and minds ...
"With G.W. Bush in the white house this perception *is* a major concern"
Bush certainly can't be faulted for failing to pander cravenly enough to Islamist outrage, at least where this "Koran desecration" nonsense is concerned: he and Condi Rice have both gone overboard to declare their love and admiration for the "Holy Koran", and to swear that all those who failed to show it the level of idolatry it deserved will be gravely punished for their sins. What more do people want?
"I don't know what's triggering it. I thought it was the word 'dick'"
Spam-filtering prohibits a few sexual words that have been used to litter the blog by pornographers.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 03:07 PM
No all the sentences it wouldn't print had nothing conspiciously spam-like; dick was fine, obviously.
The sentences that it wouldn't print expounded on the idea that I don't want this war to be hijacked as a Bush/Christian weapon against Islam, and as a Secularist I think some guidelines need to be set, and the War's real goals well delineated and protected from corruption. And I believe such corruption is an ever-present threat and possibility given the American people and current leadership.
I think you are either taking the events out of proper context or interpreting them in wrong context, but I certainly see little in this that should please Secularists.
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 03:18 PM
I'm not saying that it "pleases" me - on the contrary, I don't see that there's anything at all to be gained by gratuitous disrespect of prisoners' property, and I said as much at the beginning of my post. The soldiers who are guilty of peeing on prisoners' belongings and kicking them about need to be reprimanded, but *not* merely because said belongings are "The Holy Koran".
What I'm taking issue with here isn't the wrongness of the behavior mentioned above, but that avowed Western secularists should be writing as if the Koran were owed special veneration, tacitly endorsing a viewpoint people need *weaning* from, not pandering to. I'm sure the prisoners in Guantanamo are offended to no end by being bossed around by (to their eyes) half-naked female soldiers, and yet I don't see any liberals arguing that this is something which needs showing sensitivity to.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 03:26 PM
We are trying to create a situation in which the jihadists are isolated, and in which the bulk of this war is carried out by middle-eastern moderates anxious to suppress the jihadists, not cheer them on.
Posted by: Brad DeLong | June 04, 2005 at 04:26 PM
I don't see why this isn't obvious.
Posted by: Jason Malloy | June 04, 2005 at 04:40 PM
Perhaps because this effort to win the "moderates" over to our side risks confirming many Muslims in the belief that they *are* justified in kicking up an almighty fuss whenever someone fails to treat their religion with the exact same veneration they do? "See", many will say to themselves, "even the Kufr know this is a grievous offense, just look at their papers!" These very same "moderates" are the ones who sit by in quiet approval as their fellow religionists go on murderous rampages because someone has "insulted the prophet" by saying e.g., he'd take a beauty queen for a wife if he were alive, and the last thing the world needs is that they be encouraged in thinking such backward attitudes will be humored in all seriousness.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 05:15 PM
I agree with you in essence, Abiola, but there's something I think you're overlooking here.
The Koran is just a book. No, let me rephrase that, because books are by and large good things. The Koran - like the Bible - is a blend of second-rate literature studded with cultural myths, occasional pretty poetry, and lies.
Abuse of the Koran in this setting, however, has little to do with the veracity of the myths contained therein, or the often abhorrent uses to which any holy text is put. The fact is that many Muslims do hold the book as a sacred object, and are caused distress by disrespect shown to it.
The abuse of the Koran in America's Gulags(TM) is done with the express intent of causing emotional distress to prisoners. It is psychological torture. We shouldn't be engaging in such practices, and we shouldn't spend time second-guessing the validity of our torture by judging what the Realpolitikal ramifications might be, or whether people should get pissed off when the Koran is pissed on - which I agree they shouldn't, other than in that private property sense.
Reductio ad absurdum: I think balloon angioplasties are wonderful, and I would abhor Christian Scientist parents who refused their ill children such a procedure if it was warranted. But were the US at war with Christian Scientia, and were POWs with constricted blood vessels given (skilled, painless, hygenic) balloon angioplasties against their will, that could be seen as psychological torture. It has little to do with whether the act is heinous in and of itself. The prison setting changes everything.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | June 04, 2005 at 06:08 PM
I have no difficulty seeing Brad DeLong's point. An analogy might help those who don't. I live in a predominantly Catholic country (Ireland). I can easily imagine the reaction if there were reports of soldiers urinating on a consecrated host. I certainly wouldn't try telling a devout Catholic that it's just a bit of bread; not even nowadays, when religious belief ain't what it used to be. In the 1950s a story like that would have been a gift to any holy warrior seeking recruits.
But analogies can only do so much. You see it or you don't. I'm pretty sure Abiola Lapite has a blind spot here.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | June 04, 2005 at 07:46 PM
"I certainly wouldn't try telling a devout Catholic that it's just a bit of bread; not even nowadays, when religious belief ain't what it used to be."
Catholics who go rioting because a bit of waffle offered to prisoners gets some urine on it are as moronic and deserving of contempt as Muslims who run amok because the Koran was "mishandled."
"In the 1950s a story like that would have been a gift to any holy warrior seeking recruits."
Northern Ireland wouldn't be in such a sorry state were it not for hundreds of years of humoring rival superstitious idiocies. It's ironic that you take a religious conflict as inane as the "Homoousios" vs. "Homoiousios" squabbles of centuries gone by to illustrate your point.
"You see it or you don't."
This argument is the last refuge of those with no reasons to offer for their position.
"I'm pretty sure Abiola Lapite has a blind spot here."
Again with the argument by assertion. Is anyone who isn't already in your camp supposed to be persuaded by this? My only "blind spot" is my refusal to close my eyes to the dangers of granting a spurious legitimacy to a widespread attitude that deserves condemnation. I've lived through the Gideon Akaluka lynching, the Miss World riots, the recent murder of Celestine Kwanda and far too many other rampages attributable to Islamist oversensitivity, to believe that indulging such lunacy is worthwhile, even from a pragmatic viewpoint: those who reward bad behavior with respect can expect to get more of it.
Here, take a look at what this loving sensitivity to Muslim reverence for the Koran buys you in the real world:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3686950.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-05-16-holy-books_x.htm
Pardon me for wanting to fight this rather than cowtow to it.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 08:11 PM
If, from the viewpoint of the American soldiers, the Koran is simply an odd bit of bound myth, why have it there for the prisoners in the first place? Second, why defile the Koran ESPECIALLY in the face of the detainees? Why single it out for special defilement?
Both these actions show that the American military establishment recognises the Koran as special to the detainees. If their attitude is such as yours Abiola, then they should say so outright. Tell the Moslems that we have no respect for their religion and we want them to stop believing and then deal with the consequences. Otherwise it's hypocricy to conduct psychological torture and then shake your head if it works too well. It ranks about the same as repeatedly heaping racial epithets on black detainees but when the story leaks out and the black masses express displeasure, one simply says they were just words.
Posted by: captainblak | June 04, 2005 at 10:41 PM
"If, from the viewpoint of the American soldiers, the Koran is simply an odd bit of bound myth, why have it there for the prisoners in the first place?"
Because the soldiers don't give the orders, their "sensitive" bosses in Washington do?
"Second, why defile the Koran ESPECIALLY in the face of the detainees? Why single it out for special defilement?"
Simple - it's an easy way to rile religious fanatics without actually hitting them and incurring the wrath of ACLU supporters. That's what the guards were probably thinking, at any rate.
"Tell the Moslems that we have no respect for their religion and we want them to stop believing and then deal with the consequences."
Spare me this "Muslims are being put upon" crap - I have no "respect" for *any* religion, especially when it comes to prisoners captured in the middle of a religiously fuelled conflict.
"Otherwise it's hypocricy to conduct psychological torture and then shake your head if it works too well."
Yes, "psychological torture" is when individual guards do anything which happens to upset Muslim prisoners. I'm sure it's "psychological torture" to read Playboy within sight of Guantanamo inmates too, right? What a load of crap! Why not save your outrage for the *real* thing, i.e. genuine mistreatment of actual *human beings,* rather than inanimate "holy" objects?
"It ranks about the same as repeatedly heaping racial epithets on black detainees but when the story leaks out and the black masses express displeasure, one simply says they were just words."
This is the daftest thing I've read in ages. Refusing to show special respect for one brand of superstition is akin to mistreating people because of their racial origin? You're out of your mind.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 10:53 PM
"why have it there for the prisoners in the first place?"
You can be sure, if it wasn't there, that the very same newspapers, (and dare I even add you?) would be claiming that the DEPRIVATION of the koran would in itself be a form of "psychological torture".
Posted by: dof | June 04, 2005 at 10:59 PM
“Northern Ireland wouldn't be in such a sorry state were it not for hundreds of years of humoring rival superstitious idiocies. It's ironic that you take a religious conflict as inane as the ‘Homoousios’ vs. ‘Homoiousios’ squabbles of centuries gone by to illustrate your point.”
The sorry state of Northern Ireland is a consequence of the refusal of the rival sects to humour each other even slightly. As evidence, consider the fact that areas where it is considered bad manners to flaunt doctrinal differences are mostly quite peaceful. And to a sceptic, any religious conflict is apt to seem “as inane as” any other. What matters is how the believers see it – unless you simply don’t care how they react.
Your advice – “the last thing the world needs is that they be encouraged in thinking such backward attitudes will be humored in all seriousness” – is similar to the advice which many generations of hardline Irish Protestants used to offer to British commanders facing rebellious Papists. Some officers were very receptive to that advice; Cromwell is the most famous example. However if a present-day British soldier urinated on a consecrated host I am quite sure he would be severely disciplined, whatever his commanding officer might privately think of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I am also quite sure that would be the sensible response. Offering to replace the wafer and saying “that ought to be the end of the matter” would not be sensible at all.
It isn’t a matter of “rewarding bad behaviour with respect.” It’s a matter of respecting the beliefs of those who, for the most part, are not behaving badly at all – the many Muslims who have no quarrel with America until they hear about this kind of thing.
“You see it or you don’t” is not meant as a last-refuge argument or any other kind of argument. We cannot really argue at all unless we have some common ground. I believe that American interests are not well served by disregarding Muslim sensitivities. You obviously disagree, but I can’t imagine any way we could resolve the issue.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | June 04, 2005 at 11:16 PM
"As evidence, consider the fact that areas where it is considered bad manners to flaunt doctrinal differences are mostly quite peaceful."
Yeah, that explains why all is peace and light in northern Nigeria ... No, it is precisely in those places where people can make fun of religious bunkum at will that peace is to be found, not where the residents tread on eggshells for fear of each others' superstitions.
"Your advice – “the last thing the world needs is that they be encouraged in thinking such backward attitudes will be humored in all seriousness” – is similar to the advice which many generations of hardline Irish Protestants used to offer to British commanders facing rebellious Papists."
Yes, "rebellious Papists" and Taliban prisoners are one and the same, aren't they? I suppose that's why we let SuperMax inmates vote - oh wait, American prisoners are actually *expected* to take leave of certain liberties on being incarcerated ...
"Some officers were very receptive to that advice; Cromwell is the most famous example."
Another incredibly daft reference. What exactly does an advocate of secular indifference to any and all pious rubbish share in common with an English religious fanatic? Better hurry up and apply for your membership in the False Dichotomies Club, right alongside the nuts who claim "science is just another form of religion."
"t’s a matter of respecting the beliefs of those who, for the most part, are not behaving badly at all – the many Muslims who have no quarrel with America until they hear about this kind of thing."
Their rights *are* being respected: US troops aren't doing a house-by-house search of the Ummah and stamping on the korans of innocent Muslims sitting quietly at home, are they? It's utterly absurd to argue that one owes Muslims in general respect by showing special deference to the sensitivities of *prisoners* captured in *battle*.
"I believe that American interests are not well served by disregarding Muslim sensitivities."
I believe that pandering to Muslim sensitivities, no matter how absurd, is a recipe for disaster in the long run: weakness breeds more misbehavior, and a refusal to make a principled stand will only breed contempt in those whose favor one is trying to curry; you can be sure that these "moderate" Muslims would never pay American combatants a similar complement in a million years, and in their eyes our efforts to pander to them just paints us as weak-minded sheep.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 04, 2005 at 11:29 PM
i disagree with abiola in practice but agree with him in spirit. i doubt i'm the only one. or, put it another way, i disagree with him on the epiphenomenon but agree with him on the phenomenon.
Posted by: razib | June 05, 2005 at 01:41 AM
"It ranks about the same as repeatedly heaping racial epithets on black detainees but when the story leaks out and the black masses express displeasure, one simply says they were just words."
This is the daftest thing I've read in ages. Refusing to show special respect for one brand of superstition is akin to mistreating people because of their racial origin? You're out of your mind.
How is it mistreating someone if only words are used? Afterall, words don't physically hurt someone, do they?
Look, the point I am trying to make is that if the goal is to stamp out this "superstition" , then the establishment should simply say so. That way, everyone knows where they stand. In a better world we wouldnt have these proselytizing religions being shoved in everyone's face but we do have them in this world now.
Posted by: captainblak | June 05, 2005 at 04:19 AM
"Look, the point I am trying to make is that if the goal is to stamp out this "superstition" , then the establishment should simply say so. That way, everyone knows where they stand."
Your statements seem especially ridiculous in light of the recent disclosures about what exactly the "Koran mishandling" consisted of.
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/06/the_closer_you_.html
If these 5 trivial incidents (out of 1600 korans handed out) constitute "the establishment" at work, then we have some pretty impotent rulers indeed!
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | June 05, 2005 at 02:01 PM
I'm sure it would be both imprudent and improper for American guards to abuse the Koran in front of Muslim detainees.
But I'm tempted to suggest a mass public piss-in, say in Hyde Park, where everyone who is fed-up with all the world's whingeing religious loonies could piss on copies of the Koran, the Bible, the Torah and any other holy scriptures. With a bit of luck, the blood pressure of the loonies would rise so far that they would spontaneously explode.
Posted by: David B | June 05, 2005 at 07:58 PM