This year has been pregnant with anniversaries. 400 years ago Galileo pointed a telescope to the heavens and settled forever the question of whether we occupied the centre of the universe. We don't.

200 years ago was born Charles Darwin, the greatest thinker of the second millennium. His magnum opus, On the Origin of the Species, was published 150 years ago.

100 years ago Bleriot flew across the English channel.

70 years ago Hitler invaded Poland and started World War 2.

40 Years ago Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

20 years ago the Berlin wall fell

On a personal note, 20 years ago I "left the left".

20 years ago an Iranian cleric pronounced a death sentence on a British author. That did not shock or even surprise me. Nor did the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury to extend the blasphemy laws to cover Islam, surprise me. I had long concluded that there is no more point in hating a cleric for being a cleric than in hating a scorpion for being a scorpion. They are what they are.

What dismayed me was the failure of so-called liberals to come to the defence of the Salman Rushdie's right to publish whatever he damn well pleased.

"I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Rushdie's manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them". Thus spoke Hugh Trevor-Roper, a leading British historian and, till then, doughty defender of free speech.

Germaine Greer called Rushdie a megalomaniac and said "I refuse to sign petitions for that book of his, which was about his own troubles".

Well, expecting clear thinking from Greer was always a bit if a reach.

Iqbal Sacranie, now Sir Iqbal, said "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him".

Ironically Salman Rushdie had till then both anti-British and anti-American. He was especially hostile to Thatcher. I found Satanic Verses almost unreadable. It is more about the experiences of South Asians in Western countries than about Islam.

Did 1989 mark the beginning of the end of the enlightenment?

In retrospect I suppose I never was a true Leftie. I was living in South Africa and was against Apartheid. That made me a "Leftie" in the eyes of the then ruling National Party.

I'm not sure I qualified as a "Leftie" in the rest of the world.

Methinks you're being just a teensy bit selective in your quotes, stevenlmeyer.

>>Iqbal Sacranie, now Sir Iqbal, said "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him".<<

The rest of the quote goes as follows...

"...his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah"

As you can see, in context Sir Iqbal was feeling sorry for Rushdie. You don't have to agree with the sentiment either, but it is clear he wasn't supporting the death threat.

In fact, to balance the equation a little, here is another quote from the gentleman.

"there can never, ever be justification of killing civilians, full stop." Independent on Sunday 18 July 2005

http://tinyurl.com/mqba3t

And here's a letter he wrote in his position of Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3586703.stm

He urged his colleagues to "...provide the correct Islamic guidance to the community, especially to our youth as to our obligation to maintain the peace and security of our country [and]... observe the utmost vigilance against any mischievous or criminal elements from infiltrating the community and provoking any unlawful activity"

Seems a pretty peacable chap really.

Why did you pick on him, just out of interest?

Was it because the part of his quote you selected could be interpreted as inflammatory?

Incidentally, where did you get the notion that liberals support free speech?

>>What dismayed me was the failure of so-called liberals to come to the defence of the Salman Rushdie's right to publish whatever he damn well pleased.<<

When was the last time a "so-called liberal" leapt to the defence of David Irving's right to speak his mind? Or protested that his work is banned in Canada?

And Argentina, come to that.

Although Satanic Verses is banned there too, which I find amusing.

"Leftie"? There's people around here who think that Rudd's a Lefty - and I'm not one of them ;)

Steven, FYI - 'Compass' on ABCTV tonight (9:30pm, I think it's available on iView too) is about the 'Satanic Verses Affair':

<< 26 July 2009 21:30
The Satanic Verses Affair
20 years ago novelist Salman Rushdie was a wanted man with a million pound bounty on his head. His novel The Satanic Verses had sparked riots across the Muslim world. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini invoked a fatwa, effectively sentencing the writer to death. Rushdie was immediately forced into hiding. This film looks back on the extraordinary events which followed the book’s publication and the ten year campaign to have the fatwa lifted. Arguably this was the moment when religious identities, in Britain and abroad, became more important than ethnic and cultural belonging. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/comingup.htm

I tried to read 'Satanic Verses' years ago, but I never finished it. However, I recall being appalled by the whole affair and signing the odd petition at the time.

You've piqued my interest - I'll refresh myself with the issues by watching 'Compass', and get back to you later.

Steven,
'The end of enlightenment ?' Not in the least. In fact I would suggest your definitions and proofs (perspectives) are (IMHP) some what selectively arrived at.

Specifically many 'liberals'(as you called them did support Rushdi's turgid book and his right to write it.
I note that technology is gaining pace much like computer speeds. I remember being a State GM of a company that sold 'mini ' mainframes ….e.g. the average memory was between 256k and later 1 meg ; disk pack size was 10-100 meg and 80386 chips were the 'powerful board motors' the cost? Then $250-600k each. The point is technology doubles at an ever increasing rate.

The problem is that Human emotions, ability to accept change suffers a massive lag and tends to occur in spurts much the same mechanism suggested in Steven J Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium'. The base levels still remain. Community accepted mores tend to follow the statistical bell curve with 70% approx within a standard deviation either side of the statistical mean.
Let's not forget that neither are people discretely left or right rather they tend to be an amalgam of attitudes from either side.
Labels like leftie are exceedingly subjective and dependant on the individual making the judgement. Hence the National party seeing you as a leftie is fairly meaningless except in their almost Luddite rejection of change at the time.

I would further argue that 'enlightenment' (reality) like evolution doesn't imply a straight line 'advance' to some predetermined Nirvana. To do so implies some pre ordained *absolute* goal and therefore definition of right and wrong.
It is human 'arrogance' a need for self justification that has caused (s) much of current human conflict i.e. my religion is better than yours, my country, footy team, children are better than yours etc.

Personally the nearest I get to a 'fixed' ideology is to admit to a TENDENCY towards secular humanism.

Plenty of lefties spoke out and supported Rushdie's right to say what he wanted, and spoke out in opposition to the ridiculous fundamentalist fatwa. But a lot of that wasn't front page news - - - just not controversial enough. What WAS controversial, was for the conservative press to emphasise the lefties who did not speak out and to give HIGH publicity to conservatives who DID speak out. That sold a LOT of newspapers, and the editors and owners knew it. This happened worldwide, it wasn't planned or coordinated, it was just a GREAT opportunity for the conservatives worldwide to PUSH THEIR BARROWS, and a secondary benefit was the creation of magnificent newspaper sales volumes.

The result?

To this day, we still have people propagating the myth that the left has double standards regarding the Rushdie controversy.

And so the myth continues.

This might be of interest, to some:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2009/2496121.htm

Dear Steven,

I was never quite game to admit that I found
"Satanic Verses," tedious, to say the least.
I was not that impressed by Rushdie - and
although I did read, "Midnight's Children,"
I preferred Vikram Seth's, "A Suitable Boy."

I can also recommend Sarah Macdonald's "Holy Cow."

You ask, "Did 1989 mark the beginning of the
end of enlightenment?"

Probably, at least in the UK.

BBC correspondent Lawrence Pollard appears to agree.

Pollard said, "It was the catalyst for the emergence
of a stronger sense of Muslim identity in Britain..."
Pollard infers that Rushdie gave them an issue around
which to rally - which was a defining moment for
British Society both for race relations and freedom
of speech.

As Pollard tells us, "Until that time there had been
assumed support for the broad principle of free
speech, the Rushdie affair introduced the question of
how far free expression should be limited to avoid
offending religious feelings in a multi-cultural
society."

I believe that Rushdie has published a book about the
experience.("From fatwa to jihad," ?).

My question is - 20 years later, is the original
fatwa still valid?

its clear that the reason for posting is to reignite the debait on satanic verses...so i will bite

i feel israel had a hand in the matter..to set up the unreasonablness of the response...it is noticable that britan/usa were beginning to get too close to iran...at the same time the bok was published...thus the mossad operation was set in train to get the insulting book written...clearly helping the overreaction..get the negative public exposure intended...by those needing to ridicule islamic/ goys

clearly prostitutes..with the names of the prophets wives would get the reaction it was designed to get....

i look foward to the day that homosexuals write about abraham/mosus/noah/adam et all..or maybe their wives as prostitutes [ie the mainstays of the israel texts]...then we will really see a reaction...[right]...how feels it with the boot back on the other foot

i wonder what was going down at the same time in israel...wasnt that about the time israelk tried to assasinate busche seniour?

but i note the timming of your post..[having just watched the abc expose of the day by day reaction to the aptly named satanic verses

...timming is everthing..im noting your timing...lol...just perfect..

[just as your rehashing the issue now..a few weeks before the planed sneak attack by israel..on iran..being the true/reason for its being raised here..is now a done deal...

creating another/next distraction..to rehash the negativity previous...to the next israelie/sneak attack...well done steven you do israel proud...lol

Call me weird but I have always felt the beginning of the end started when they first showed the X files. Since then people have become more superstitious, more inclined to believe, more rabid about their faith and way way more gullible.

PERICLES,

I can name at least one man who counts himself as a liberal who has defended David Irving's right to speak his mind in Australia, Canada or anywhere else. His name is Steven Meyer.

I have also defended the right of Australian Holocaust denier Frederick Toben to continue, well, denying the Holocaust.

I was aware of what Sacranie said. Whether the full quote indicates Sacranie was feeling sorry for Rushdie is, I daresay, subject to interpretation.

CJ MORGAN,

I've recorded the Compass program and will watch it tonight.

OUG

I'm not going to bother to respond to your increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories.

FOXY

To the best of my knowledge the position of the Iranians is that the fatwa cannot be rescinded but is in abeyance. I shall know more after I have watched the Compass program.

Personally, I seem to recall finding the 'verses' quite funny, and believable -in a 'Yes Minister' kind of way.
I would like to think the Rushdie affair was more like the beginning of Enlightenment; when people slowly started questioning the right of established religions to NOT be questioned.
Also, I see absolutely no reason to intimate that all Atheists and Agnostics are 'left'.

Steve,
If I heard correctly, the Fatwa was rescinded –but you can check my account when you view the program.

Anyway, it seems to make little difference whether it's current or lapsed .A number of speakers made it clear that in their world view Rushdie had committed a crime which warranted the death sentence –with or without a fatwa.

And besides, fatwa’s seem to be a-dime-a-dozen, any backyard cleric can issue one.

For the West this is a self imposed affliction: rather like drinking too much alcohol and afterwards fretting about liver cirrhosis –I like this comment from the ABC link:

“ in a plural society, you need greater censorship than you would in a less plural and a more homogenous society, because in a plural society you have lots of people with different kinds of views and beliefs, deeply held. And one must be careful what one says, so as not to offend these deeply held beliefs and views.”

Kind of makes you yearn for the “bad” old days!

“Did 1989 mark the beginning of the end of the enlightenment?”

The only time the Enlightenment will end is when the universal forces of civil control and order are re-invested back into the hands of the despots, be the despot either a Monarch, a dictator or a Pope.

Regarding Germ Greer, who cares what that malignant old sow believes. She has been a continuous and ugly source of bilious irrelevance since she first put pen to paper.

To 20 years since stevenlmeyer “left the left”

Sorry, Steven, I do not see that event as up there with Galileo : - )

To your definition, I visited SA in 1980 and I would have been “A leftie” by the standards of the SA Nationalist party too, although I did work with some ex-members of BOSS who were quite pleasant fellows when on their own.
And I too would agree with you, in support of David Irving’s right to freedom of expression, which is equal to mine. Without his right to speak, my own right is likewise forfeit.

Freedom of speech permits us to assess the Sage and the Fool by the wisdom of their words.
Censorship reduces our assessment to presume they are Equals.

thanks for making me do some more research steven
seems 1989 was the paek [death toll of the intafarda]
http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2001/oct2001-collaborators.htm

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/first_Intifada_Tables.asp

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

quote..>>In 1989,local committees in Beit Sahour initiated a nonviolence movement to withhold taxes,[26]
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1297/9712081.html
taking up the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation,"[27] the legality of which under international law is disputed.
http://www.beitsahourmunicipality.com/english/historic.htm

The Israeli defense minister Yitzhak Rabin response was: "We will teach them there is a price for refusing the laws of Israel."[28]

When time in prison did not stop the activists, Israel crushed the boycott by imposing heavy fines while seizing and disposing the equipment, furnishings, and goods from local stores, factories, and homes..
http://books.google.ca/books?id=olWnkxm4SPoC&pg=PA204&dq=%22suicide+bombing%22+first+palestinian+1993&sig=VIy73kToRvMzPDwCmuDiKagBt80

no doudt there was a reason ...for creating the satanic verses as a destraction...what better than a simple mossad operation via the zionist controled media [eh?]
http://books.google.ca/books?id=olWnkxm4SPoC&pg=PA204&dq=%22suicide+bombing%22+first+palestinian+1993&sig=VIy73kToRvMzPDwCmuDiKagBt80

http://www.jmcc.org/research/reports/intifada.htm
http://libcom.org/library/rebellion-palestine-le-brise-glace

<< Did 1989 mark the beginning of the end of the enlightenment? >>

Okay, having now reacquainted myself with the salient issues raised by the 'Satanic Verses' controversy, I think the answer to Steven's question is a firm "no".

However, it did mark the point where Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs demonstrated both their disdain for Western values and their ability to create terror in Western societies in the name of their Prophet and/or God.

Contra Steven's claims, the hapless Rushdie's cause was widely supported by academics, politicians and authors throughout the West, and no Western country (except Argentina, Pericles?) to my knowledge has banned the publication and sale of 'The Satanic Verses'. Yes, a few prominent idiots in the West supported the fatwa (which is still current), but to claim that the 'Left' did generally is to exaggerate wildly.

The rise of aggressive Islamic fundamentalism probably acted as something of a catalyst for an apparent increase in Christian fundamentalist sentiment in Western countries, such that the short period where religion's salience in society was thought to be an anachronistic irrelevance was attenuated.

Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists of all kinds seem to be becoming more aggressive and political, so Steven's question is a reasonable one. However, I think that it's somewhat premature to declare the Enlightenment dead - although the enlightened secular majority in the West needs to be alert to the religious cancers lurking within our societies, while continuing to foster and encourage rationalism and secular education in the developing world.

CJ MORGAN wrote:

"The rise of aggressive Islamic fundamentalism probably acted as something of a catalyst for an apparent increase in Christian fundamentalist sentiment in Western countries,…."

I think that's probably right. There is some evidence from Britain that when Muslims move into a neighbourhood many previously a-religious people tend to start self-identifying as Christian. (See eg John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, God is Back, The Penguin Press, 2009. I do not have page numbers handy)

From the Christian perspective the growth of Islam in the US and Europe may turn out to be the best thing that's happened since Constantine. There is nothing like the spur of competition to galvanise a moribund institution into action.

The more I survey the scene the more convinced I become that back in the 1960s atheists were too quick to claim victory. I fear that religion, like the poor, will be with us always. What is more I think its role in the public square will increase rather than diminish.

Apologies, CJ, and one-and-all

>>no Western country (except Argentina, Pericles?) to my knowledge has banned the publication and sale of 'The Satanic Verses'.<<

My careless reading, I'm afraid, of a banned-book list that I tracked down following a lead that Argentine had banned Lolita. There I found Irving's "Search for Truth" and Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" juxtaposed, and leapt to the wrong conclusion, that Argentina had banned those also.

In fact, they had banned neither.

<red face>

I should point out that the enlightenment project is not merely under attack from religion. Chinese films have been withdrawn from the Melbourne International Film Festival because of the decision to screen "The 10 Conditions of Love", a movie about the oppression of Uighurs.

See:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-firm-on-film-festival-criminal-20090715-dli1.html

Commendably festival director Richard Moore refused to bow to Chinese Government pressure. "The 10 Conditions of Love" will be screened.

So far so good.

But what now? In coming years will the directors of the MIFF exercise some self-censorship? Will they decide that it is too much hassle to screen certain films?

Withdrawing the "The 10 Conditions of Love" would have been a highly visible act. It would have led to howls of protest within Australia. But suppose in future films of similar character are simply not included in the line up with the excuse of insufficient artistic merit? That sort of self-censorship is hard to prove.

For that matter, how much self-censorship goes on right now? Are there movies that are excluded because they might upset sensitive groups?

"20 years ago an Iranian cleric pronounced a death sentence on a British author."

The Russians were successful in putting down the Muslim insurgents by using the very tactics the Islamists uses.

If any imam or Muslim religious leader passes en edict (or pronounced a death sentence) to have someone killed. What should be done is to kill not only the cleric who gave the order; his mosque should be bombed and all members of his family killed off. This is the only way Islamists understands and respect you.

Communist China is getting soft, like the West, on dealing with the Islamists, they should learn a thing or two from the Russians.

Steven

I was very young when Armstrong took that one small step, so I don't recall the actual event. However, I do remember the sense that humans could achieve anything throughout my childhood, that women stood equal to men, that we would probably colonise other planets and that all the world would never suffer from starvation or other inequities.

I never dreamed that in 2009, the influence of orthodox religion would have even greater influence than it did when I was young, that abortion would still be an issue or even the right to equal pay for equal work would still be discussed. Nor that evolution would even be doubted, that an American president could refer to other countries as an "axis of evil" or we have become so timid as to fear the reactions of any religion for simply holding a difference of opinion. Or that I would be called a feminazi for expressing my opinion while female.

Was 1989 the beginning of the end of enlightenment? For religion it appears to be a darker age; did it start with "The Satanic Verses"? I think the fatwa called on Rushdie was the first obvious symptom of a backlash by extremist religions. I doubt there was a single catalyst but I do believe it began with bigotry and inequity both of which have been used since humans separated from other primates, for domination and power.

'The Enlightenment' or just enlightenment? Many here wouldn't know the difference, thinking that they are enlightened, but the other bloke isn't.

If you are talking about the new Western philosophy of the eighteenth century, then that was knocked in the head well before the 20th century. Now, with post-modernism and relativism, it has been almost forgotten.

Stevenlmeyer
Christmas Day this year will mark the 95th anniversary of a remarkable event in the front line trenches of World War 1 (the war to end all wars).
On Christmas Day in 1914 along one section of the Western front, Scots, French and German soldiers celebrated Christmas together.
They sang Christmas songs, exchanged gifts, showed each other photos of loved ones and realised that they had more in common with each other than they had differences.
It did not take long to get the killing machines back into operation, some of the soldiers were court marshalled and shot, others were transferred to different parts of the front.
This event should be remembered and discussed more often as it may be the closest we have ever been to eliminating war as a means of solving conflict.

'Or that I would be called a feminazi for expressing my opinion while female.'

Why do the gender warriors have to infiltrate every bloody thread with their boring arguments!

Steven re:
“But what now? In coming years will the directors of the MIFF exercise some self-censorship? Will they decide that it is too much hassle to screen certain films?”

I would posit that it is already with us – that the media( including, if not, especially, film makers) by-and-large have been self censoring for some time.
There appear to be certain issues /perspectives that are not in favour with the bulk of main stream media.

Fractelle Re:
“I never dreamed that in 2009… an American president could refer to other countries as an "axis of evil"

(Actually is was before 2009 –but point taken)
Maybe it’s just my warped view of the world but I would hazard a guess that a number of former –now, media canonized –US presidents/administrations have called unfavoured regimes a lot worse in the past!

The Satanic Verses written in Australia are written by anti-Christian committees of Judges and Magistrates with a view to denying justice to all except those brought to worship in a Court by a legal professional. There are numerous versions of them ranging from the Federal Court Rules and High Court Rules 2004 down to a separate set for every Supreme Court in each of eight jurisdictions, and some even for Magistrates Courts and District Courts.

Compared to these Salman Rushdie was an amateur. I also saw a special on Rushdie, and the Fatwa, imposed upon him by the Ayatollah, but there are virtual death sentences passed by Judges in Courts every day in Australia. Bankruptcy is a civil death sentence in practical terms, because after the trustee has picked over the bones of an estate, there is usually nothing left except heartbreak.

Australia has such a bunch of lackluster clerics, that not one whimper has been heard from them, and in return the attendance at their pathetic little gatherings has declined. The Church that has been standing up for justice all over the world is thriving.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is definitely law in Australia, but the Rules of the Courts do not accept it as law. It should be the rules of every court, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth should be shown respect, but while we have weak ineffective churchmen we will continue to let the Satanic Verses be given full force and effect.

We need some passion Muslims have, and should threaten to teach Judges and Magistrates manners in the same way as Muslims do, to get back what is in effect our birthright. One of those manners should be respect for the Christian right to worship, in a jury equipped court, as we were before the Satanic Verses were written

Horus

Oops. Of course I meant George W's doctrine of alienation, no doubt many world leaders have said far worse, but not made it a part of a public crusade. My thinking was that in 2009, we're not exactly an enlightened lot in spite of some steps forward we have slid back in many ways.

Houllie

Thank you for proving my point.

Man I get a laugh out of you. You're like a black guy saying 'It's because I'm black' every time he feels hard done by.