The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
~Christopher Hitchens, God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?, July 30, 1997
In God-Fearing People, Christopher Hitchens examines the arrest of 23 year-old Pace University student Stanislav Shmulevich for felony criminal mischief and aggravated harassment. Why? On two occasions Shmulevich threw a Qur’an in a toilet.
Consider for a moment the aphoristic gem I quote above.
What astonishes me more than people who value liberal ideas like individual rights, free speech, et. al. but see no threat from the ideology of jihadist Islam is this: had Shmulevich placed a Bible in that toilet, the National Endowment for the Arts would have examined the act through a jar containing a crucifix in urine and declared Shmulevich a visionary.
Whoever is behind these charges—I have my ideas, but no corroborating evidence—has pitted what Hitchens calls the enemies of intolerance against their own principles. If the enemies of intolerance support these charges, they step on Shmulevich’s First Amendment right to free speech. On the other hand, if they oppose these charges, they are upholding Shmulevich’s “intolerance.” Brilliant. Freedom of Speech vs. Intolerance. You pick.
Ultimately these charges pull violently at the fabric of pluralism while doing nothing to eradicate the stigma attached to Islam since 9/11.
I contend this is intentional.
Cheers,
Some of the most powerful and irreplaceable statements concern the use of symbols of a particular group, whether it relates to a religious text (or a picture of the Pope), a national flag, a fur coat, or an SUV. Some would argue that the World Trade Center is an appropriate symbol for a vivid statement, and I agree to the extent that it is involved without the loss of human life. Tolerance relates to actions and free speech relates to message. There is a clear demarcation between intolerant actions and free speech, and the differentiation is not that difficult to discern. The problem is that personal offense by a criticized group is now cited as a symptom of intolerance by the critic. I side with free speech, yet support tolerant actions.
Some of the most powerful and irreplaceable statements concern the use of symbols of a particular group, whether it relates to a religious text (or a picture of the Pope), a national flag, a fur coat, or an SUV. Some would argue that the World Trade Center is an appropriate symbol for a vivid statement, and I agree to the extent that it is involved without the loss of human life. Tolerance relates to actions and free speech relates to message. There is a clear demarcation between intolerant actions and free speech, and the differentiation is not that difficult to discern. The problem is that personal offense by a criticized group is now cited as a symptom of intolerance by the critic. I side with free speech, yet support tolerant actions.
WR–
Not to get into a argument I cannot win (I defer to your expertise in this area), but isn’t burning a flag an action that is protected as free speech? The Supreme Court has made clear in several rulings that symbolic expression, or expressive conduct (action) is protected by the First Amendment…
Cheers,
WR–
Not to get into a argument I cannot win (I defer to your expertise in this area), but isn’t burning a flag an action that is protected as free speech? The Supreme Court has made clear in several rulings that symbolic expression, or expressive conduct (action) is protected by the First Amendment…
Cheers,
No argument there, Mitch. I do get concerned about how narrowly Constitutional Amendments banning flag-burning have been defeated, so I don’t think we should take the right for granted. However, to me it is a very clear example of free speech that should be protected and is not an example of intolerance against, say, “red-blooded Americans.”
No argument there, Mitch. I do get concerned about how narrowly Constitutional Amendments banning flag-burning have been defeated, so I don’t think we should take the right for granted. However, to me it is a very clear example of free speech that should be protected and is not an example of intolerance against, say, “red-blooded Americans.”
[[Flag burning] is a very clear example of free speech that should be protected and is not an example of intolerance against, say, “red-blooded Americans.”]
Then, besides being idiotic for a variety of reasons, is putting a Qur’an in a toilet an example of intolerance against Muslims?
If this goes to court, surely some part of New York’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000 will be invoked, which will be interesting to me because I’ve always thought that the hate crimes legislation I’ve read would not hold up under serious legal scrutiny.
Cheers,
[[Flag burning] is a very clear example of free speech that should be protected and is not an example of intolerance against, say, “red-blooded Americans.”]
Then, besides being idiotic for a variety of reasons, is putting a Qur’an in a toilet an example of intolerance against Muslims?
If this goes to court, surely some part of New York’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000 will be invoked, which will be interesting to me because I’ve always thought that the hate crimes legislation I’ve read would not hold up under serious legal scrutiny.
Cheers,
[Then, besides being idiotic for a variety of reasons, is putting a Qur'an in a toilet an example of intolerance against Muslims?]
Not at all. I’d even advocate flushing if that refines the message. Personally, I would read both the Bible and the Qur’an (or one of the myriad translations, at least) and have an extra copy of each to put in the toilet as a statement concerning the role of organized religion in our world. Notwithstanding the fact that both copies in the commode is a big load, such a statement is not intended to be intolerant of any one individual’s spiritual beliefs.
However, I doubt that very many people would agree with my “statement” and would try to say that my true message is entirely different. I believe this is the dynamic that occurs when people erroneously refer to Reckless G as an “anti-Semite”.
[Then, besides being idiotic for a variety of reasons, is putting a Qur'an in a toilet an example of intolerance against Muslims?]
Not at all. I’d even advocate flushing if that refines the message. Personally, I would read both the Bible and the Qur’an (or one of the myriad translations, at least) and have an extra copy of each to put in the toilet as a statement concerning the role of organized religion in our world. Notwithstanding the fact that both copies in the commode is a big load, such a statement is not intended to be intolerant of any one individual’s spiritual beliefs.
However, I doubt that very many people would agree with my “statement” and would try to say that my true message is entirely different. I believe this is the dynamic that occurs when people erroneously refer to Reckless G as an “anti-Semite”.
[...I'd even advocate flushing...]
LOL
[...the role of organized religion in our world...]
Next book on my list is Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Reading books and articles that don’t comport with my own views does not trouble me, and it’s rarely disappointing.
Cheers,
[...I'd even advocate flushing...]
LOL
[...the role of organized religion in our world...]
Next book on my list is Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Reading books and articles that don’t comport with my own views does not trouble me, and it’s rarely disappointing.
Cheers,