At around 12/2/06 12:11 am, Autoplectic wrote:
> On 2/11/06, ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> This is itself a morality the morality of a withdrawal from morality
>> in any strong, insistent form. It is certainly different from the
>> morality of those for whom the Danish cartoons are blasphemy and
>> monstrously evil. And the difference, I think, is to the credit of the
>> Muslim protesters and to the discredit of the liberal editors.
>
> --------------------
>
> Yawn.
>
That's it? I thought Fish was more provocative than that? ;-)
--ravi
--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!
Why anyone would think such pompous drivel is even worth reprinting amazes me. So FIsh sets up a dogmatically defined liberal who really does not take moral and religious beliefs as a basis for policy or action and then compares them unfavorably to those who still have strong moral beliefs. He does not tie the controversy to the increasing right wing reaction to Islam in Denmark and elsewhere. Not a whiff of that. Nor does he even give a nod in the direction of those who gave their lives or have been imprisonedbecause they believe in free speech as value which should inform public policy etc. No apparently those who are involved are not right wing zealots nor any who truly are engaged in a moral fight for free speech but some mythological fish caricatures who measure up poorly against the authentic morality of the protesters.
