Multicultural and Monocultural Hypocrisy
Pop quiz: What do these two things have in common?:
1. The furor a few months ago about the Danish cartoons of Muhammad
2. The current semi-furor over newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison swearing into office on a Quran instead of a Bible
I bet you think you know. They're both about how much or how little tolerance we should show to Islam and the ideal of pluralism, right? Some of you think we should ban depictions of Muhammad and let Ellison swear on the Quran, while others of you think that we should allow parodies of Muhammad and make Ellison swear on the Bible.
What's wrong with this picture? Why would each side ban one type of ideological expression and allow another?
See, I have a confession to make: I don't much like Islam. You could even say that -- during the long dark nights of my whitebread soul -- I sometimes dislike "Muslims" in the abstract on some visceral level, even though the few Muslims I met in college seemed decent. I'm not proud of being prejudiced against Muslims and I hope to resist it -- I don't want to be a prejudiced person toward any of my fellow humans because of some random classification, and when I'm thinking rationally I can sort of banish it from my mind. At the same time my most un-prejudiced opinion of Islam the religion is that it's at best no worse than most of the world's religions, including Christianity, and at less than best it's, well, worse.
At the same time, this is not about my opinion of Islam or anyone's opinion of Islam. I know that nobody likes to take libertarianism whole hog -- including me -- and I don't want to reduce all issues to ones of personal expression, since we all know selfhood is an illusion and it takes a village and little platoons and stuff. But I think these two issues really are about personal expression.
Tell me if this sounds sane: Let people draw pictures poking fun of Muhammad if they want to, and also let Congressman Ellison swear his oath of office on the Quran.
When the Danish cartoon thing was all over the news, I was so angry that people around the Muslim world were getting violent over the assertion that Islam is violent. I wasn't violently angry; that would be too ironic. But come on! Then there was the demand by Muslim groups to have those cartoons removed from the public eye everywhere. Then there was a bunch of my fellow infidels who were actually agreeing with them!
To those of my respected fellow human beings out there who wanted Muhammad pictures banned: Okay, Muslims can't make pictures of the prophet Muhammad. But the cartoonists weren't Muslim! Why the fuck, my friends, do you think it necessary for someone to be forced to follow the strictures of another person's religion? Okay, but the pictures were offensive what with bombs in turbans and whatnot. So you'd never let anyone make a painting making fun of the Virgin Mary again? What kind of liberals would you be then?
Use the argument you use -- rightly -- with all the killjoys; if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it. And if you want to ban it just so the Muslims won't blow us up, well, that's just the way to encourage them. I don't think the Muslims are out to convert us all or in any case that they would even have a chance. I think there's more of a threat of them taking our lives than taking our lifestyles. All the same, what kind of a world would it be if anyone who was personally offended by a public expression went and killed a bunch of people? Predictable allusions to Chamberlain aside, that's just not cool.
All right, all right ... let's move to the other issue and make conservatives look bad.
To those of my respected fellow human beings out there who want Ellison to swear on the Bible instead of the Quran: Duh!!! Why the fuck, my friends, do you think it necessary for someone to be forced to follow the strictures of another person's religion? Oh, oh, I know! Because you have a real God, right? Because in this particular century, fewer people are being murdered explicitly in the proverbial name of Christianity than in the proverbial name of Islam. Well, good for you! But you know what? It doesn't matter! Ellison, for better or worse, is a Muslim. We can assume he's probably one of them good 'uns because he hasn't blown up anyone to our knowledge -- though he is a Democrat, which you probably think is worse. All your creepy ideas about the U.S. being "a Christian nation" aside, there's this: as long as we think Ellison's Muslimimity won't keep him from being fit to be a Congressperson -- and even prejudiced old me doesn't see how that could be -- then there's really no reason to make him swear on a book that he doesn't believe in instead of the one he does.
Of course, supporters of Bible-swearing-only position will state that the issue is indeed about the U.S. being a Christian nation. I don't have the energy and ambition at the moment to try to sift through that pile of bullshit to anyone's satisfaction. I just repeat -- this Christian nation now has a Muslim congressperson. If you don't plan on holding a test of salvation-hood for public officeholders, then I suggest you let this Muslim congressperson take his congressional oath on his Muslim book. 'Cause otherwise, if all the Mexicans convert to Quetzalcoatl-ism and in 30 years, the Mexican majority tries to make you swear on the Popul Vuh, you'll wish you had done unto others as you'd want them to do unto you.
If a curmugeon who hates sand monkeys as much as I do can see not the slightest offense in Ellison swearing on the Quran, then ... well, then you must really hate sand monkeys (and if you can't see I'm being sarcastic here, you haven't learned a goddamn thing).
To all my friends: It's not about Islam. It's not about our religious hang-ups. It's not even about "tolerance", whatever that is, or a Christian nation, whatever that is. Not all issues are only or merely about personal expression and individual freedom, but these two are. Real tolerance is all about this. In a world where we all can tolerate both anti-Muhammad cartoons and pro-Muhammad ceremonial gestures, we can be free to kill each other explicitly over oil like civilized people. What a wonderful world that would be.
P.S. - I got the idea for this post after reading Kathleen Parker's illogical turd of an op-ed piece. You can find a link to it here. See how many instances of hypocrisy you can spot:
www.townhall.com/content/4f632130-0999-478c-9d6c-57d640862a52
1. The furor a few months ago about the Danish cartoons of Muhammad
2. The current semi-furor over newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison swearing into office on a Quran instead of a Bible
I bet you think you know. They're both about how much or how little tolerance we should show to Islam and the ideal of pluralism, right? Some of you think we should ban depictions of Muhammad and let Ellison swear on the Quran, while others of you think that we should allow parodies of Muhammad and make Ellison swear on the Bible.
What's wrong with this picture? Why would each side ban one type of ideological expression and allow another?
See, I have a confession to make: I don't much like Islam. You could even say that -- during the long dark nights of my whitebread soul -- I sometimes dislike "Muslims" in the abstract on some visceral level, even though the few Muslims I met in college seemed decent. I'm not proud of being prejudiced against Muslims and I hope to resist it -- I don't want to be a prejudiced person toward any of my fellow humans because of some random classification, and when I'm thinking rationally I can sort of banish it from my mind. At the same time my most un-prejudiced opinion of Islam the religion is that it's at best no worse than most of the world's religions, including Christianity, and at less than best it's, well, worse.
At the same time, this is not about my opinion of Islam or anyone's opinion of Islam. I know that nobody likes to take libertarianism whole hog -- including me -- and I don't want to reduce all issues to ones of personal expression, since we all know selfhood is an illusion and it takes a village and little platoons and stuff. But I think these two issues really are about personal expression.
Tell me if this sounds sane: Let people draw pictures poking fun of Muhammad if they want to, and also let Congressman Ellison swear his oath of office on the Quran.
When the Danish cartoon thing was all over the news, I was so angry that people around the Muslim world were getting violent over the assertion that Islam is violent. I wasn't violently angry; that would be too ironic. But come on! Then there was the demand by Muslim groups to have those cartoons removed from the public eye everywhere. Then there was a bunch of my fellow infidels who were actually agreeing with them!
To those of my respected fellow human beings out there who wanted Muhammad pictures banned: Okay, Muslims can't make pictures of the prophet Muhammad. But the cartoonists weren't Muslim! Why the fuck, my friends, do you think it necessary for someone to be forced to follow the strictures of another person's religion? Okay, but the pictures were offensive what with bombs in turbans and whatnot. So you'd never let anyone make a painting making fun of the Virgin Mary again? What kind of liberals would you be then?
Use the argument you use -- rightly -- with all the killjoys; if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it. And if you want to ban it just so the Muslims won't blow us up, well, that's just the way to encourage them. I don't think the Muslims are out to convert us all or in any case that they would even have a chance. I think there's more of a threat of them taking our lives than taking our lifestyles. All the same, what kind of a world would it be if anyone who was personally offended by a public expression went and killed a bunch of people? Predictable allusions to Chamberlain aside, that's just not cool.
All right, all right ... let's move to the other issue and make conservatives look bad.
To those of my respected fellow human beings out there who want Ellison to swear on the Bible instead of the Quran: Duh!!! Why the fuck, my friends, do you think it necessary for someone to be forced to follow the strictures of another person's religion? Oh, oh, I know! Because you have a real God, right? Because in this particular century, fewer people are being murdered explicitly in the proverbial name of Christianity than in the proverbial name of Islam. Well, good for you! But you know what? It doesn't matter! Ellison, for better or worse, is a Muslim. We can assume he's probably one of them good 'uns because he hasn't blown up anyone to our knowledge -- though he is a Democrat, which you probably think is worse. All your creepy ideas about the U.S. being "a Christian nation" aside, there's this: as long as we think Ellison's Muslimimity won't keep him from being fit to be a Congressperson -- and even prejudiced old me doesn't see how that could be -- then there's really no reason to make him swear on a book that he doesn't believe in instead of the one he does.
Of course, supporters of Bible-swearing-only position will state that the issue is indeed about the U.S. being a Christian nation. I don't have the energy and ambition at the moment to try to sift through that pile of bullshit to anyone's satisfaction. I just repeat -- this Christian nation now has a Muslim congressperson. If you don't plan on holding a test of salvation-hood for public officeholders, then I suggest you let this Muslim congressperson take his congressional oath on his Muslim book. 'Cause otherwise, if all the Mexicans convert to Quetzalcoatl-ism and in 30 years, the Mexican majority tries to make you swear on the Popul Vuh, you'll wish you had done unto others as you'd want them to do unto you.
If a curmugeon who hates sand monkeys as much as I do can see not the slightest offense in Ellison swearing on the Quran, then ... well, then you must really hate sand monkeys (and if you can't see I'm being sarcastic here, you haven't learned a goddamn thing).
To all my friends: It's not about Islam. It's not about our religious hang-ups. It's not even about "tolerance", whatever that is, or a Christian nation, whatever that is. Not all issues are only or merely about personal expression and individual freedom, but these two are. Real tolerance is all about this. In a world where we all can tolerate both anti-Muhammad cartoons and pro-Muhammad ceremonial gestures, we can be free to kill each other explicitly over oil like civilized people. What a wonderful world that would be.
P.S. - I got the idea for this post after reading Kathleen Parker's illogical turd of an op-ed piece. You can find a link to it here. See how many instances of hypocrisy you can spot:
www.townhall.com/content/4f632130-0999-478c-9d6c-57d640862a52
---------------
-----------------
Back to contents:
P.P.S. - Here's a link that should be informative for anyone who thinks opposing bin Laden and those fuckwads means you have to be some sort of ultra-neoconservative, or (even more oddly) that offering criticism of America or capitalism means you're somehow bin Laden:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4764730.stm
posted by jlhart7 at 9:39 AM
2 comments
