Charlie Rose

pooltrader  12/28/2012 02:01 PM Report

Rushdie is wrong on the freedom of speech, it is not the greatest of them all. The second amendment is!!! " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" this is the foundation of the constitution!!!!

Gelles  09/22/2012 07:18 AM Report

The outrageous attempt by Muslim political fascists (who have subjugated the Iranian nation and now threaten the peace of the world,) to murder Salman Rushdie (for mistaken political impressions of a Rushdie novel,) has brought from Rushdie a new book about his ordeal -- it's title is “Joseph Anton”; and I will soon read it.

I found this Charlie Rose interview to be as important as any he's done. The interview brought us Rushdie's magnificent prose, spontaneously formed for TV, explaining the nature of freedom and its defense in our time.

It supports Rushdie the legend and icon, which the living man, himself, is too modest to claim as his due, -- yet I (as a new and now Rushdie worshiper,) know he deserves.

On account of my insistence we all worship and listen to this man, my own son (who is generally perceptive) resisted my advice; he is of the school who believes that Rushdie should have refused protection and taken the fight for free speech to the enemy as an individual who never hid from assassins just to save his own life.

My son thinks if Rushdie had been a soldier at the point of civilization's attack in defense of free rational speech, his martyrdom (if he'd been killed) would have been necessary for him to ascend to the iconic heights of Lincoln or Martin Luther King, where I placed him.

Many will agree with my son -- that Rushdie is more a mere author whose testimony is not that important -- than he is the God I would make him.

Of course, we make our own Gods to suit our own needs. And Rushdie claims only to be a man who was, and perhaps remains, in trouble.

After I read "Joseph Anton", I may be less ardent. I will tell my son what the book says -- he works too hard every day to have time to read it himself.

"You broke it, you fix it", some people say to Rushdie. That's nuts, I say.

"Your friends shall form an iron ring around you and you shall be protected inside it," sad others (if I remember the words). I liked that.

Freedom of belief and expression is basic to life, says Rushdie. And, saying it, he has survived (but others in the story did not). The Clash of Civilizations continues.

EthicalHumanist  09/21/2012 07:57 PM Report

Freedom of speech is more important than Allah, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and anybody else.

shanifft  09/21/2012 01:33 AM Report

interesting take...but one should not mistake freedom for license.

Max83  09/20/2012 02:22 AM Report

I very much identify with Salman Rushdie about his experience of the importance and power of Friendship. Just a couple of days ago I watched Mr. Rushdie's previous appearance on the show as part of the discussion/appreciation of Christopher Hitchens, here the link to that video: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297

Christopher Hitchens's friends talked about how he was a believer in the ''Ideology of Friendship''. I am a follower of this exact ideology myself and I rate it much higher than the ''Ideology of Family''. Family members can be friends if we are lucky, but friends are always family.

May we all find our families of friends.

Ricardo_Amaral  09/19/2012 05:58 AM Report

A friend of mine asked me some questions about Israel, the Zionists, the "Jewish Lobby" and Iran - In response to his questions I put together a new blog with some of my postings that I posted at the Elite Trader Politics/Religion forum as follows:

[b]Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Israel, the Zionists, the “Jewish Lobby” and Iran[/b]

http://israelzionismjewishlobbyandiran.blogspot.com/2012/09/israel-zionists-jewish-lobby-and-iran.htm l

.

Ricardo_Amaral  09/19/2012 05:54 AM Report

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Israel, the Zionists, the “Jewish Lobby” and Iran

http://israelzionismjewishlobbyandiran.blogspot.com/2012/09/israel-zionists-jewish-lobby-and-iran.htm l

.

ShalomFreedman  09/19/2012 02:03 AM Report

Articulate, intelligent, principled Rushdie tells the fatwa story in a convincing way. He also points out the fanaticism of the Iranian regime, and the basic conflict between Radical Islam and human freedom. His idea that it is only a transformation from within that will bring Islam to a better place in its relation to Mankind, also seems right.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  09/18/2012 07:36 PM Report

Charlie, can you believe this?

The price is back on his head and now it is $500K.

"Ayatollah Hassan Sanei, head of a powerful state foundation providing relief to the poor, said the film would never have been made if the order to execute Rushdie, issued by the late Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been carried out."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9546513/Iran-resurrects-Salman-Rushdie-thre at.html

I hope all the sane people in Iran are making travel plans.

Bibi is now checking his list to see who is naughty and who is nice. (Without the launch codes one can only hope.)

Oy vey

As-Salamu Alaykum

badoodahbad  09/18/2012 06:57 PM Report

Is there still a million dollar bounty on his head?

REMant  09/18/2012 12:52 PM Report

I doubt these events are really explained by crowd behavior or animosity towards free speech, which strikes me as self-serving. Rather the need to believe in salvation, the family romance, as Freud called it, applicable as much to Judaism and Christianity. One could I suppose characterize some Marxists the same way, and, indeed, the metaphor has been used. Indigence and envy, may have something to do with it. But as I've said several times, if men go around making gods to suit themselves, you have to expect those they create will be believed to act like their creators.

Rushdie, who is Muslim and an Indian by birth, it seems made his career writing about social tensions in that part of the world. While I've never read the book or any of his, and have no desire to or interest in them, or novels generally, it appears to me the so-called Satanic verses are akin to the non-canonical New Testament texts, which are very often termed "gnostic," meaning they were mystical, made up and just plain crazy, because they don't agree with the dogma arising out of Church councils. Christianity has certainly not been a stranger to that sort of thing. And it seems the more hierarchical the church, the more it is concerned with heresy rather than sin.

This isn't meant to excuse those who defame others or denigrate their beliefs. Truth is not always easy to come by, and even then there's the question of malice. And it's entirely possible the protests are motivated by the belief that we are the ones ignoring it. Tho freedom of speech may allow escape from interference with conscience, it does no more to guarantee truth. God surely does speak through men; the issue is how directly, and whether He is understood.

The Guardian published a piece regarding the Satanic Verses controversy over the weekend (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/14/looking-at-salman-rushdies-satanic-verses) which rehearsed the defense's contention in the blasphemy prosecution that ensued upon the novel's release, that it wasn't intended as a slur, but quite the opposite. The same might have been said in Luther's defense. I imagine it was, however, the book's plot, and not the specific charges which were the problem. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if you are going to write about sensitive subjects, it's more sensible (as well as safer) to stick to facts and not get involved in fictions, avoid misinterpretation.

To his credit, IMHO, Rushdie opposed the passage of hate speech legislation in Britain. Tho he has, I understand, as a result of this episode, renounced all faith. Yet it is not really different from asserting one may alienate inalienable rights, and as I understand it, it was just this question the novel meant to deal with. That suggests to me the author holds a very narrow view of faith.

The emphatic embrace of Rushie tho does strike me as a rather unfortunate political statement, and he might have done better to have refused the honor, if I can also see why he might have been reluctant to offend those who protected him for a decade. Especially since, apparently, not everyone is satisfied with the Iranian govt's remission. Newspapers reported yesterday The 15 Khordad Foundation increased the reward for his scalp to $3.3 million.