You can watch the arguments (scroll to Jan. 11) in the Supreme Court. I only watched the first few minutes, but it looked like the husband's counsel was getting his butt handed to him trying to argue that the case was all about lack of respect for Islam.

Boston Globe article

Concord Monitor article

In this case, though, our jurists looked at how Islamic law treats women, and said New Hampshire would have no truck with that sort of thing.

Are you sure about that or could it be that he tried to divorce under Islamic tradition while in the state of New Hampshire that made it invalid? I would guess that if the divorce had happened before they moved to the U.S. that it would then have been recognized as valid. But because the husband and wife were residing in the U.S. at the time, New Hampshire and U.S. law superceded any tradition.

I'd like someone to verify that even Lebanese law accepts Shari'a divorce. I thought the Lebanese legal system had moved away from that, but maybe not.

But it's also interesting to watch how the US gov't handles the matter of polygamous marriages which, while legal in some countries, are not in the US, of course. When a multiply-married visitor wishes to travel to the US, he has to choose which wife will be the wife for the duration of the visit. I suppose they could take turns...

"Sorry you didn't care for living in a civilized nation, Samer. Feel free to stay away."

By writing such comments, are you trying to say that the country he comes from is un-civilized? That people there are barbarians? That people in America are "superior" and "civilized" as compared to his Muslim home country?
Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.

In New Hampshire it does, Muslim.

The court looked carefully at it, and decided that since the Ramadans were in New Hampshire, they had to follow New Hampshire law.

WOW! What a concept! Maybe some of the justices on the US Supreme Court could take a lesson here.

Hmmmm.

Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.

Preach it brother!

Muslim, you assume that all cultures are equal in value. Which is quite ironic, really, given the fact that Muslims apparantly don't feel that way. All one has to do is look at the Mohammad cartoon controversy to see that they believe Islamic culture is superior to Western culture.

Hi Jay,

I'm a Muslim and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. Islamic law was developed and canonized in pre-modern and patriarchal society in which women had few, if any, rights. That, of course, doesn't make Islamic civilizations unique in that respect. However, I believe Muslims should stop clinging to centuries-old misogynistic traditions that have no place in a modern, rights-based world.

>

Civility is a socially constructed concept. It's not a natural phenomena. There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility. There are only local and contingent standards. By the standards of New Hampshire, Samer's conduct was certainly uncivilized. I happen to endorse those standards would therefore label Samer's conduct uncivilized, barbaric, shameful, pathetic, disgusting, and utterly reprehensible.

-- Aporia

Sorry, that should read, "It's not a natural phenomeNON."

Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.

Well, when the traditions of said culture are inherintly uncivilized, how would you suggest it should be refered as?

There may be ways in which Muslim cultures are superior to the USA's, but the treatment of women ain't one of them.

To Mr. Burgess:In Lebanon,followers of each faith or even sect follow their own laws for such matters as marriage,divorce,inheritance,custody,etc.However,
since there are four main sects,there are four
different laws namely those of Sunni Moslems,Shiite Moslems,Marnoite Christians,and Roman Orthodoxs
Christians.

Aporia: "Civility is a socially constructed concept. It's not a natural phenomena. There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility."

Incorrect, Aporia. Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility.

So the guy brings his family to the US, claims the right to divorce her, and dumps the resulting social and financial burdens on the US and the state of Hew Hampshire.

Glad to see that a US court recognizes the mischief any other ruling would have caused. Or perhaps they just happened to read the applicable state law as written by the elected representatives for cases within the state.

I just watched the entire court proceeding (thanks, JohnAnnArbor). For the first time in my life, I feel utterly sorry for a lawyer. Something along the lines of someone handing you a turd and telling you it's a Baby Ruth.

Something tells me that Mrs. Ramadan has a slightly better view of America at this point.

Thanks, Libnani, for clearing that up.

"Incorrect, Aporia. Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility."

I think you're confusing two things. One is the particular ethical code that constitutes the civility of a particular, historically contingent community. The other is a universalist claim according to which it is a moral duty to follow the respective ethical codes of each local community. The first, I believe, is self-evident. It's a fairly common social constructionist argument. As far as I can see, any contrary point of view carries the burden of proof. The second, however, is far from self-evident.

To speak of "one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility" would only have rational merit if you were speaking in institutional terms. If, however, you are speaking of a standard that stands independently of the contingencies of all institutions, languages, places, times, circumstances, etc., then I'd say that you're dabbling in metaphysics and that such an argument could not possibly be supported on rational, philosophical, or empirical grounds.

If you believe you can produce a successful argument to the contrary, I'd be delighted to see it. You'd have succeeded where 300 years of modern philosophy have failed.

In any case, this seems like it's going a bit off topic and I'd hate to bore everyone else. If you'd like to continue this thread by email, you're welcome to contact me at narrativity@hotmail.com. I'm also happy to continue posting on here.

"By writing such comments, are you trying to say that the country he comes from is un-civilized? That people there are barbarians? That people in America are "superior" and "civilized" as compared to his Muslim home country?"

Umm... Yes, as a matter of fact. It seems particularly OBVIOUS, in fact, that Jay Tea meant EXACTLY that, and the facts of the case bear out his analysis quite clearly.

Thanks, "Muslim Unity", for demonstrating your remarkably weak grasp of the obvious. Your prize is in the mail.

Actual civilizations, for one thing, don't prescribe the death penalty for victimless crimes like blasphemy.

Civilized societies try to strongly discourage their barbaric members from acting as such.

Through laws, open disapproval, and shunning.

Aporia , Let break address each part of your original graph:

Aporia: Civility is a socially constructed concept.

I agree.

Aporia : It's not a natural phenomena.

Fish and whales both have wide flattened tails. They arrived at them independently. We recognize the similarities, even though are are not exactly the same. Both structures emerged through natural processes, in the same sense that civility emerges from natural processes, and in the same sense we can recognize their shared utility.

Civility is as natural as all emergent phenomena. It is a means for the collective to carry information with less burden. When the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility. Regardless, at any point, the definition of acting civil is that one attempts to follow the current local rules of civility.

Aporia: There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility.

Let me state it again.

Culture A has rules of civility of shape A. When members of A act in shape-manner A, they are being civil.
Culture B has rules of civility of shape B. When members of B act in shape-manner B, they are being civil.

What observation can we make about civility from this? We can say that the definition of acting civil is to follow the local rules of civility. Is this a tautological statement? For sure. So why are you arguing with it?

Aporia : There are only local and contingent standards.

And it therefore follows that to act civilly is BY DEFINITION to follow those rules. Which is what I stated.

300 years of philosophy have not failed, only your ability to wield it.

Regards.

Hmmm.

Summary: When in Rome ...

"Fish and whales both have wide flattened tails. They arrived at them independently. We recognize the similarities, even though are are not exactly the same. Both structures emerged through natural processes, in the same sense that civility emerges from natural processes, and in the same sense we can recognize their shared utility."

I'm not sure what you've been reading, but civility, ethical codes, morality, etc. do not result from the same biological process of evolution through natural selection as do the physical structures of the various species of fish and whales. If you believe biolinguists like, say, Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Lyle Jenkins, etc., then at best, you can make an argument that human beings have an innate moral faculty that's part of our biology. In that case, you'd have to distinguish between the moral faculty and the actual moral content, the two of which are not the same. However, it is entirely unclear how "civility emerges from natural processes" akin to the emergence of the anatomical structures of the various species of fish and whales. That's an extraordinary argument that requires evidence. Again, you're invited to furnish that evidence.

"Civility is as natural as all emergent phenomena. It is a means for the collective to carry information with less burden. When the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility. Regardless, at any point, the definition of acting civil is that one attempts to follow the current local rules of civility."

Again, I have no idea what you've been reading. I'm not sure that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) would agree with your curious statement that "civility" is "a means for the collective to carry information with less burden." You seem to ascribe a pragmatic logic to civility, whereas it's entirely unclear that civility is intrinsically driven by such a logic or that "[w]hen the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility." According to who? In what work or works of anthropology (or some other relevant field) is such a bizarre argument made and actually supported by empirical evidence? Again, what you offer is just an argument without any rational or empirical foundation. And, once again, you're more than welcome to provide that foundation.

"What observation can we make about civility from this? We can say that the definition of acting civil is to follow the local rules of civility. Is this a tautological statement? For sure. So why are you arguing with it?"

Again, bear in mind your previous argument, one no less curious than others you've made so far:

"Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility."

If your argument is something to the effect that, for merely practical purposes, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, then you'd be making a thoroughly uninteresting and unenlightening point. It's also a point with which many people would seriously disagree.

If, however, your argument is that we have a moral duty to follow local standards of ethics and civility, a duty that transcends the contingencies of language, time, place, and circumstance, then I'd again say that you're dabbling in metaphysics and that such an argument could not possibly be supported on rational, philosophical, or empirical grounds.

Or perhaps you were just terribly unclear in making an utterly trivial and uninteresting point, namely, my previous point that there are only local standards of civility. In which case, why bother tortuously making a point I've already made and in terms much more confusing and obscure than mine?

Whether your argument is tautological, semantic, or metaphysical, it doesn't seem to have any discernible moral or intellectual value.

It is very sad to read such racist comments over here. I have read people write things like "Nuke Palestine" and "Destroy Islam" . All cultures are unique and should be respected.
I respect your culture. Even though it is so different from mine. You'll should learn to do the same.
Killing in self-defense and to protect ourselves is not wrong. But killing innocent people for oil and money is wrong. Telling people to destroy the entire "Muslim Community" is wrong and barbaric.
It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace.

Yes Muslim Unity, I can see the civility in killing over a 2X3 cartoon in remote Danish newspaper. That certainly is one heck of a "religion of peace" ya got there.

"It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace. "

Really? Do you really truly believe that or are you trying to play cutesy and score verbal jousting points? The actions of your fellow Muslim brothers over the last few weeks put the lie to your words.

Hey, MU, where's your respect for OUR culture, that says if WE want to publish a cartoon in OUR newspaper in OUR nation, that's no business of yours?

And what race is being maligned? I thought Islam was open to people of all races, and was for everyone? If Islam is not identified with one race, how can criticizing it be racist?

The "telling people to destroy" comment I have no problem with. Start with those destroying embassies across the Middle East, churches and businesses in Nigeria, and Buddha statues in Afghanistan. No, forget that last one. We Westerners took care of that one for you.

Yes, killing to protect yourself is allowed. Care to tell us how a non-Muslim cartoonist in non-Muslim Denmark has threatened the lives or well-being of anyone? And if you say "insulting your faith," then the Buddhists and Christians of the world have as much right to avenge themselves on all Muslims everywhere for the above offenses -- far greater than a few silly cartoons.

You speak fairly pretty words, MU, but they are drowned out by the deeds of those who so stalwartly defend. And when deeds and words conflict, it is the actions that speak loudest.

J.

'It seems that a couple from Lebanon -- Samer and Sonia Ramadan -- came to New Hampshire'

I thought Lebanon WAS in New Hampshire...

This Country was founded on freedom of speech and freedom of religion, among others. There is no clause that gives muslims special treatment because their religion has extra protections or special circumstances. In a perfect world, you either adhere to these tennants or you get lost.

Now, thanks to muslim apologist groups like CAIR who stand at the ready to scream racism at the very mention of terrorism and islam in the same sentance, we are changing our way of life.

It's hard to tell if we're afraid of the racist label or cowards, or both. But what I do know is a segment of our population has taken the first steps to appeasing these people and their often barbaric way of life. Sorry folks, but our way of life is better, and much of what we see and hear from the muslim world is uncivilized.

The good news is that Europe is much farther down the path to destruction than we are and will serve as a shining example of where cowardice and appeasement will get you with these people. Lord knows they've done it before. Today it's a cartoon, what will be tomorrow - and what will be the reaction?

Sooner or later, even the most liberal muslim apologists are going to start and take note of the savagery that takes place on a daily basis for things as trivial as a cartoon. Spare me the outrage, I don't believe in islam and am not beholden to their belief system. I could care less about mohammed, and certainly am not the least bit interested in their thoughts on publishing his likeness. I can't think of a more shining example of exactly why it's time for us to dig in our heels and let the muslim world know that your people are more than welcome here, but under no circumstances will you be given special consideration for anything and you will adhere to every facet of our rule of law, period. If you want honor killings, female servants, girl genital mutilation, public executions, etc. etc. etc. plan on staying in whatever stone age middle easter territory you currently reside in.

I will never give us my way of life and will never cave to these people. In time, more people are going to feel this way courtesey of story after story of what muslim is really about. Ultimately, there's going to be a fight, bloodless or not, and we're going to win. The US is often slow to react to crisis, but eventually we do and will react.

I have to wonder how counties like Canada and others who won't extricate criminals to countries with the death penalty are going to respond to an honor killing or the demand of a death penalty according to Sharia law. Hmmmm, will be interesting to watch the convoluted twisting in the winds.

Oooops silly me, should have been extridite not extricate!

Salam 'alaykum Muslim Unity,

"It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace."

Look at these pictures for yourself and tell me who the "wild savage barbarians" are:

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12102031635.britain_prophet_drawings_llp121.0.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r1365134527.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12202031827.britain_france_europe_llp122.0.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12502031855.britain_denmark_europe_llp125.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12602031854.britain_denmark_europe_llp126.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r399679231.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r1363645636.jpg

It's a fairly standard Muslim complaint that the entire Islamic world is unfairly vilified for the crimes of a relative handful of extremists. So, why are you now vilifying the entire civilization of the West? Why be a bloody hypocrite? If you have problems with specific people and specific policies, then address those specific people and policies ONLY. Don't reduce an entire civilization to idiotic caricatures like "wild savage barbarians." Otherwise, you rob yourself of any right to complain when others indiscriminately accuse all Muslims of being extremists, terrorists, fundamentalists, fanatics, etc.

Grow up.

A handful of extremists? Tens of thousands of people rioting and murdering because of a drawing is not called 'a handful'. At least in the non-sharia term of the word I guess...