Stanly Fish offers another p.o.v. on the cartoon controversy, in the NYTimes:

Our Faith in Letting It All Hang Out.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism’s museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give — ask for deference rather than mere respect — it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of every newspaper in the country.

One of those arguments goes this way: It is hypocritical for Muslims to protest cartoons caricaturing Muhammad when cartoons vilifying the symbols of Christianity and Judaism are found everywhere in the media of many Arab countries. After all, what’s the difference? The difference is that those who draw and publish such cartoons in Arab countries believe in their content; they believe that Jews and Christians follow false religions and are proper objects of hatred and obloquy.

But I would bet that the editors who have run the cartoons do not believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must either be converted or vanquished. They do not publish the offending cartoons in an effort to further some religious or political vision; they do it gratuitously, almost accidentally. Concerned only to stand up for an abstract principle — free speech — they seize on whatever content happens to come their way and use it as an example of what the principle should be protecting. The fact that for others the content may be life itself is beside their point.

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.

In other words, relativism does not comprehend absolutism or in fact seeks to subvert absolutism.  Unfortunately, the “morality of a withdrawal from morality,” which is apparent in liberal cultures, is itself an absolutism:  All our freedoms come from the Constitution or other absolute strictures, without which we could not be free.  Fish confuses his argument at the end of his op-ed piece:

This is why calls for “dialogue,” issued so frequently of late by the pundits with an unbearable smugness — you can just see them thinking, “What’s wrong with these people?” — are unlikely to fall on receptive ears. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism’s theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.

But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn’t want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but further persuade him that you have missed the point — as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.

First, the idea that “no idea is worth fighting over to the death” does not describe those partisans within the liberal culture of the West who believe that the only way to ensure free speech is to ultimately fight the absolutist Islamists  — or other absolutists.  The only reason they do not rise in violence themselves, one supposes, is that they have mostly won already in the liberal culture.  (At least, the outlook is good from their p.o.v.) Furthermore, as evidence of this belief in fighting for liberty, just look at how the martyrs for liberty from other cultures have become heroes in the liberal West.

Second, as mentioned already, Fish fails to see the outline of an absolutist ideology in the liberal editors he has described.  For them, “free speech” is an absolute requirement which leads to the belief that dialogue will win the day; moreover, the effect of dialogue, from their p.o.v., is the creation of an absolute relativism: Hey, if we just talk it out, we will both realize (but, especially you will come to realize), that the moral good is a relative proposition.

Third, and most significant: Fish does not seem to realize that the liberal outlook also seeks to prevail.  The relativist ideologue does not wish to change his ideology but requires that others should adopt that ideology — just like the absolutist theist.

Fish is not entirely wrong; but he has failed to connect all the dots.  The advocates of free speech who elevate above all other forms of free speech the ideal of “freedom from self-censorship” have shackled themselves —

The thing about respect is that it doesn’t cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don’t bother me. This was certainly the message conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, who explained his decision to reprint one of the cartoons thusly: “It is one thing to respect other people’s faith and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos.”

Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to “accept” the taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter his behavior in any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger of crossing the line between “respecting” a taboo and taking it seriously, and he is not about to do that.

— out of fear of dhimmitude.  They do not believe they are free to publish or not publish incendiary material, but that the extremist Islamist ideology requires them to publish that material.   Isn’t this silly?  They believe that the question of their so-called dhimmitude is not theirs to answer however they wish; no, they must dance with the dervishes to prove they are free of the dance.  Perhaps they believe that they lead in the dance, but I do not.