As you are aware, back on September 11th,
2012, Islamic fanatics calling themselves Ansar al-Shariah (a group heavily
influenced and perhaps financed to some degree by al-Qaeda) attacked the
American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, murdering Ambassador J. Christopher
Stevens, members of his staff, and a member of the U.S. Foreign Service.
I’m not interested, at the moment, in the intricacies of
the attack, or the hysterical, FOX News-inspired, who-knew-what-when gibberish
that has somehow taken over the conversation. No, I’m interested in a different
aspect of the story.
When news of the atrocity broke it was widely reported
that the attackers had been moved to their deeds because they had been outraged
by the 14-minute trailer for a ridiculous movie called Innocence of Muslims. It quickly became apparent, however, that
even if the group of some 100-150 armed thugs were enacting a vengeance-oriented attack on the US embassy, it had
little or nothing to do with that stupid movie. It was an act of terrorism
perpetrated by Muslim fanatics with no other goal than the death of “infidel”
Westerners.
Knowledge of the actual motivations for the attack did
not stop religious leaders across the globe from blaming the movie for it, and
using their outrage (which is probably real, but who cares) to get the ball
rolling behind one of their primary world-wide goals. And here we arrive at the
crux of what I want to talk about.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation stepped up their
demands for the United Nations to criminalize what the group termed “defamation
of religions.” The vice-chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars proposed
that the UN “criminalize the denigration of religious symbols.” (Yeah, “Muslim”
and “Scholar” in the same sentence. What do they study? How big should the
excision knife be? Or, maybe, how they might explain away the fact that the
Prophet Muhammad raped a nine-year-old girl?) The president of Pakistan, Asif
Ali Zardari, suggested blasphemy should be made illegal world-wide, because
blasphemous statements “endanger world security by freedom of expression.”
Other Muslim reactionaries have been busy reacting, but
I’m not going to bother with further quotation, as it is obvious what they
want: the criminalization of speech that upsets the pious. And while that
notion is alarming enough in and of itself, what really freaks me out is the
number of Americans who have lined up behind the noisy Muslim nutjobs.
Take the following two (of many) examples. The noted
University of Pennsylvania professor of religion studies, Anthea Butler, called
for the arrest of the above-mentioned filmmakers on the grounds that the movie
doesn’t qualify as free speech since it “denigrates…religion.” And University
of Chicago law professor Eric Posner made the sinister claim that “blasphemy
could function as some small, manageable exception to our national guarantee of
freedom of expression and belief.”
Many of the Americans who have come out in favor of
anti-blasphemy legislation—too many, in fact—share a troubling commonality.
They are academics. And worse yet, they are left-leaning academics.
I’ve been a liberal pretty much since the womb. (And I
mean liberal. I hate the word
“progressive” for reasons I’ll get into some other time.) But it’s getting so I
don’t understand some of what passes for liberal thought these days. Yes, we
seem to still be in favor of aiding the less fortunate, those who are the
lamentable by-product of capitalism. Yes, we still wish to create a level
playing field for minorities. Yes, we continue to believe that people are free
to fall in love with whomever they wish. And, yes, we are at the forefront of
the necessary fight against the corporate takeover of our country. But at the
same time too many of us, mostly out of a commendable desire to act with
tolerance toward those with whom we share the planet, are much too willing to grant
that tolerance to totalitarian governments and religions—regimes and religions,
remember, which will never, ever,
return the courtesy.
The brand of misguided tolerance I’m talking about has, I
believe, slithered into liberal discourse from the blinkered confines of the
academy, specifically the humanities branch and its bizarre fealty to the
“tenets” of “postmodern” moral relativism. Every belief system, they claim, is
as impeccably true as any other. You say the moon is a millennia-old body of
rock orbiting the Earth. I say that it appeared in the sky the day before
yesterday and that it’s made of Cool-Whip. In the postmodern world, we’re both
right. They aren’t saying that we are each entitled to believe whichever moon story we wish. No, what they are saying is
that my version of the moon story, and your version of it, are both unalterably true. The fact that we can verify one version and not the other
means nothing to the postmodernists. There are no such thing as facts, you see.
And any claim that your “facts” outweigh my “facts” is simply an example of
your ugly adherence to the tropes of Western intellectual tyranny. When we
apply this thought process to moral questions then nobody can ever be on the
wrong side of anything, and we might as well stop talking about “morality” at
all, and keep the conversation focused on where it will inevitably lead:
nihilism.
If a god-poisoned twenty-something from Saudi Arabia
straps dynamite to his chest and blows himself up, along with the preschool he
was visiting at the time, is there any
meaningful way to define his actions other than with the word wrong? Of course not, and no sane person
would assert otherwise. But among certain influential segments of the academic
left it is better to tread cautiously lest we, consciously or not, marginalize
some non-Western group. It’s almost as if they want us to feel bad for our
condemnation of a suicide murderer.
And so, even though our “facts” are of no consequence, our
right to free expression needs to be restricted so that those same
inconsequential “facts” don’t hurt anybody’s feelings.
Makes perfect sense, right?
*****
A few weeks after the murders in Benghazi, President
Obama spoke before the United Nations General Assembly. After his speech,
various conservative politicians and bloggers began accusing the President of kowtowing
to his Muslim friends by stressing the need for anti-blasphemy laws. He did
nothing of the sort, but that didn’t stop dipshits like John Bolton and
Jennifer Rubin from intentionally misinterpreting (read: lying about) President
Obama’s speech to make him appear weak and a friend to extremists.
What President Obama did say was that the precepts of
freedom of speech “are not merely American values, or Western values—they are universal values.”
And he was right.
Curtailing our liberties for the sole purpose of
protecting those whose “faith” is so fragile that it cannot stand up to
scrutiny or ridicule—i.e. blasphemy—simply
cannot be tolerated. And if the “progressives” in this country want to stop
looking like idiots, they’ll get on the right side of this thing in a goddamn
hurry.
Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment