I’m a big believer in the First Amendment. I am in full agreement with the statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.[1]” Except for the death part. If you’re going to shoot your mouth off and get yourself lynched, you’re on your own. But I will definitely defend your right, in principle, from a safe distance.
When defending the rights of Muslims to build a mosque near ground zero, people should stick to the facts. The fact is that the First Amendment guarantees them that right. End of story. It’s absurd that there is any debate at all regarding their right to build a mosque. But instead of sticking to this simple fact, people seem compelled to churn out fabricated bullshit. Here’s an example:
“All of the world’s great faiths, including Islam, teach a core message of peace and tolerance.”
It’s not true. It’s not even close to true.
Some quotations from the Koran:
[8.12] I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah.
[2:191] And kill them wherever ye shall find them . . . for seduction from the truth is worse than slaughter
Many will rebut these quotations with similar vile invective from the Old Testament. And I welcome this, because, frankly, I think it’s far more accurate to state “the world’s faiths teach a core message of hate and intolerance.” I’m not a big fan of religion. This is an understatement so large it is in danger of gravitational collapse.
But there are reasons to give special attention to Islam as far as an ideology almost perfectly incompatible with the First Amendment. Renouncing or criticizing Islam or actively promoting any other religion is punishable by imprisonment or death in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim nations. And it is not merely an artifact of an earlier, less-enlightened era, an archaic old law that is still on the books, like not being able to buy watermelons on Tuesday in Iowa. It is widely enforced in those nations where Sharia is the law of the land.
Many of those who are rallying to the cause of the proposed mosque, (which, as a firm believer in the First Amendment I feel is their inalienable right to build), are conspicuously less vocal about the blatant and repeated denial of free speech throughout the Muslim world.
That doesn't mean we should ever stoop to their level. The First Amendment is the single best thing this country has going for it.[2] We should earnestly defend the rights of any citizens to express any opinion, or to worship any god, be it Jehovah, Allah, or flying spaghetti monster. The principle embodied in the First Amendment is absolutely antithetical to that of the world's theocracies. And while we are on the subject of theocracies, there are many in the US who are earnestly endeavoring to turn our nation into one. Sarah Palin and her icky ilk would be happy to run the First Amendment through the shredder and set up a Christian fundamentalist theocracy right here in the U.S. This is a horrifying thought. Because theocracies are universally bad. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Amen to that.
We absolutely should defend the First Amendment protection of all our citizens. But people who are spending their time and energy defending the rights of religious devotees should spend at least some small fraction of that energy decrying the far greater injustices committed in the name of religion.
Filmmaker Theo Van Gough was brutally murdered in 2004 in response to his film, Submission, illustrating the appalling treatment of women throughout much of the Islamic world. And earlier this year the creators of Southpark received extremely graphic death threats, including grisly pictures of Van Gough’s butchered corpse, and promises that they and their families would meet the same fate if they continued their negative characterizations of Mohammed and Islam. And it worked. Comedy Central pulled the offensive material from distribution. Religious nutjobs: 1. Free Speech: 0 [3]
I don’t even like Southpark, and I was outraged by this assault on free speech. I was more outraged that it actually worked. Then I was driven absolutely apoplectic by the glaring lack of outrage by the very same people who defend the rights of citizens to erect religious buildings anywhere they want, (a position, I feel compelled to repeat and emphasize, with which I agree 100%), but don’t seem to have much concern for filmmakers and cartoonists exercising their right to free speech.
Speaking of cartoons, I recently saw one that made no sense at all. It depicted a church being built next to the site of the Oklahoma City bombing site, and someone screaming that this was insensitive to the families of the victims there. It didn’t make sense, because Timothy McVeigh was not a religious zealot. His stated reasons for the murder of all those innocent people had nothing to do with his religious views. In fact, McVeigh, though raised a Roman Catholic (much like myself, before I decided it was the embodiment of evil) had rejected it and become an agnostic and, more to the point, he was very explicit about his reasons for blowing up the building. It was entirely motivated by a frothing hatred of government.
Now I ask: suppose the tea-baggers wanted to set up their headquarters, promoting their droning “government is evil” message, right across the street from the devastated federal building.
1) Would you defend their legal right to do so?
2) Would you feel that this might be just a wee bit insensitive?
3) Would the people in the surrounding community, including friends and families of the victims, be justified in being a little upset by this? Would this make them xenophobes?
I know a few libertarian anti-government types. I disagree with their philosophies on many points, but they have as much in common with McVeigh as the proposed mosque-builders have with the September 11 hijackers. Still, I imagine they would probably choose a location far removed from the single greatest act of terrorist murder committed in the name of anti-government sentiment to deliver their non-violent anti-government message. If they didn’t, I would still support their First Amendment right to build it anywhere they wanted, but I would have to question the sincerity of their desire to heal the rift caused by those who share their same core philosophy, but chose a horribly unjust and violent means to express it.
I have already stated several times that I fully agree that the First Amendment protects the rights of US citizens to build their mosque anywhere they want. I have not stated, though you may have inferred, that I am personally opposed to it. If so, you inferred wrong. I don’t live in Manhattan. It doesn’t affect me. I really don’t care.
But what does bother me is that some people who have expressed their discomfort with the idea of a ground-zero mosque are immediately labeled racists and xenophobes[4], out of hand, without any acknowledgement that they may have legitimate reasons for their reaction. It bothers me that their critics uniformly lump them together and act as if they have a complete understanding of their objections—as if only a frothing right-wing hypocritical Christian fundamentalist xenophobic racist could possibly voice any disapproval—and then fail to listen to the actual objections raised.
I don’t like religion, but I know and like a lot of religious people. I’ve only met a few Muslims, but they’ve all been very nice people. I am somewhat baffled that they can accept the hateful passages cited above as unquestionable truth revealed directly from the almighty creator, whom they describe as “munificent and merciful,” seemingly oblivious to the staggering contradiction, but they’ve always seemed nice to me, albeit logically inconsistent. And I have no reason to doubt that the people who are proposing to build this mosque are nice people too.
But what would be really nice is if they’d openly reject some of those passages, and if they’d condemn Sharia law, and if they would put some effort into passing the equivalent of the First Amendment in Muslim nations around the world. I’d respect them more if they would go on record as according women rights equal to men, and denounce unambiguously the appalling degradation of women throughout the Islamic world. If they proposed to do something that immediately upset a lot of people, it would show a genuine commitment to fostering understanding if they would voluntarily reconsider the proposal, and at least engage in a dialogue about it, and not simply pigeon-hole those who voice discomfort with their proposal as xenophobes.
And I’d be a lot more willing to accept the sincerity of alleged champions of the First Amendment if they would be quick to condemn its violation by religious zealots, instead of remaining silent except for the much rarer occasions when it is the religionists potentially facing a denial of their free speech. Which, incidentally, they are not in the current controversy. Nobody is making any serious suggestion to legally deny anyone their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Some people have criticized the proposal as insensitive, and that is what has generated the controversy. Critics of the mosque proposal exercising their right to freedom of speech. That, apparently, is controversial. Go figure.
Religion is a bad thing. Free speech is a good thing. Even if it’s about religion.
[1] This quotation is popularly and incorrectly attributed to Voltaire. I could give you the name of the person who actually said it, but all that will prove is that I know how to use google. I assume you do too.
[2] See http://andyrantsandraves.blogspot.com/2010/01/supreme-folly.html for a discussion of some abuses of our poor beleaguered First Amendment
[3] They apparently also pulled an episode critical of scientology. Religious nutjobs: 2. Free speech: 0
[4] And a lot of them are.
3 comments:
I feel the same about the religious worship place in manhattan--if they have to put one there who cares which relgion it signifys. I also understand the people that oppose it because they are lashing out at anything associated with the middle east as our country did when we attacked Iraq (although there was an agenda behind it, our people were told otherwise). As far as OKC goes, take it from someone who lived there too long, anyone protesting a church being built near is not going to get far-for one thing there were several churches within only a couple of blocks that wre destroyed and only being rebuilt-they were already there so this isnt new. Secondly, this is deep bible belt territory which means anyone trying to protest good christian anything is going to lose. You talked about Palin and the other republicans trying to turn this whole country into a good christian community and let me tell you the bible belt is already there. People are afraid to even run for an elected office if they are not christian and to my knowledge very few have even tried. If you ever move there be prepared for people to ask you which church you go to before they ask your name and they only count christian churches as acceptable-if you say you are atheist they will turn and run or give you a sermon. Church and state is so enmeshed you cant see the difference. They still talk about the bible in the schools and they still do prayers before games and the feds will never change that, nor will a few non christian people-they just keep quiet and are outcasts. It is hard for me to imagine a world without religious condemnation and killing. If all the religions could just take the good messages and leave the rest this world would be so different or if everyone just did the right thing without the need for religion then it would be amazing. But lets face it, there are still some people who dont do evil things simply because they have become addicted to religion-I have seen this first hand, I would say as many that do bad things in the name of religion which is just scary either way. I guess Lennon's Imagine will never come to pass-if it's not religion it's greed-either way people are dying, being abused, raped, pilaged, plundered and their spirits are being crushed. No matter how much people protest, nothing will change so most choose to close their eyes and lose themselves in anything that people tell them about the afterlife or politics, it makes no difference. Our country has always been about religion though even when the first amendment was written and it will always conflict because all of the fundamenatalist religions are based on not questioning and simply obeying what the religious leader says.
When people insist on totally irrational claims, it's absurd to argue with them, or refute those claims... on rational grounds! This is SO condescending! And SO freaking middle class privileged intellectual deaf and blindness. You have to ...counter on the level of narrative, metaphor--on the level of the myth and what it affirms--even if it DON'T RHYME (that kinda poetry is OWNED by the power elite!).
Not like almost ALL Americans aren't equally, irrationally caught in the web of capitalist ideology--the worship of OWNERSHIP and profit and the 'gradual improvement of the human condition" with fairy tales that all end up with the wealthiest getting even more wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Post a Comment