Knee-Jerk Liberalism
I've been reading up on the current discussion surrounding the politician Geert Wilders and his prosecution by the Dutch government for spreading "hate speech". I'm not really sure if he was really inciting violence towards people who choose (or don't choose!) the Islamic faith, and for my purposes it doesn't matter.
Reading the university student newspaper this week I noticed an article commenting on Wilders. The article was definitely anti-Wilders and made the claim that his anti-Islamic views are both bigoted and "racist". Struck by this, I chose to re-read the entire thing a few times, just to confirm my utter disbelief at how narrow the article's focus really is. Interestingly, there is no discussion of the claims that Wilders actually makes, claims that actually hold a lot of validity and express a legitimate concern towards the content an influence of core Islamic values. Instead, it was an arrogant pontification claiming victory for "tolerance" of religious freedom and the mandate to improve "relations between the West and the Islamic world" because, very simply, Geert has been effectively neutralized and silenced by the Dutch (and British) government, and apparently this is good enough. No word at all about what he's actually opposing.
The article makes no ditinction between the benign practice of one's faith and the active violence that many Islamic people engage in to do whatever they feel they are commanded to do by their faith. The distinction is often quite blurry: is anti-Semitism considered a benign and acceptable practice of one's religion? I'd argue that, given the arguments put forth by many liberal commentators, it doesn't appear that they've made an acceptable distinction at all. Instead, religious practice, violent or not, is seen as a victim of "intolerance" and "hate". This is more than just ignorant. It's careless and dangerous to those others who are also protected under the auspices of tolerance.
Probably my biggest worry is this. The same reasons why, for instance, gay people are protected by most respectable Western societies are the same that are being mustered to discredit Wilders, while all the time totally missing the irony:
"it should be stated that sodomy (or homosexuality) is a wicked and grievous sin and a crime against society, but beheading or stoning those committing it are punishments that have no foundation in the Qur'an or the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet...All what can be said is that sodomy is a fahishah, the same way the Qur'an described zina, so it has the same legal punishment - the lashing of the perpetrator one hundred times in a public place as stated in Surat An-Nur, or imprisoning and punishing him as stated in Surat of An-Nisa'.
This statement can be found here. What a disgusting and morally insane view. But, unlike the newspaper's article writer, I can actually see why Islam needs to be criticized, at least on this front (and sadly, on many other fronts as well). I can actually see the tension inherent in protecting both Islamic and gay rights. What I contend is that, minus its more intelligent circles, many liberal-minded people cannot (or will not) see this tension. It's all about "tolerance for everyone", end of story, right? Well, yes, we understand that, but until some thought goes into what that statement means the statement remains irrationally broad and vague, and the liberal politics it founds moreso.
And what if we did condemn the homophobia and anti-Semitism while choosing to "embrace" the more meek and milk aspects? Well, on what basis do we (as Westerners!) decide what part of religious thought is and or is not worthy of sweeping of comdemnation? Wouldn't we be just as guilty as Wilders for a kind of "venomous" discrimination if we reasoned that out? And what if we choose to ignore the inherent tension and simply decide to sweep it under the rug? Well, that is at best irresponsible. Not only is it exactly what the newspaper's commentator chooses to do, but more broadly and significantly it undermines liberalism's intellectual credibility -- for a liberalism that chooses to ignore the facts is not equipped to deal with the problems these facts present.
Reading the university student newspaper this week I noticed an article commenting on Wilders. The article was definitely anti-Wilders and made the claim that his anti-Islamic views are both bigoted and "racist". Struck by this, I chose to re-read the entire thing a few times, just to confirm my utter disbelief at how narrow the article's focus really is. Interestingly, there is no discussion of the claims that Wilders actually makes, claims that actually hold a lot of validity and express a legitimate concern towards the content an influence of core Islamic values. Instead, it was an arrogant pontification claiming victory for "tolerance" of religious freedom and the mandate to improve "relations between the West and the Islamic world" because, very simply, Geert has been effectively neutralized and silenced by the Dutch (and British) government, and apparently this is good enough. No word at all about what he's actually opposing.
The article makes no ditinction between the benign practice of one's faith and the active violence that many Islamic people engage in to do whatever they feel they are commanded to do by their faith. The distinction is often quite blurry: is anti-Semitism considered a benign and acceptable practice of one's religion? I'd argue that, given the arguments put forth by many liberal commentators, it doesn't appear that they've made an acceptable distinction at all. Instead, religious practice, violent or not, is seen as a victim of "intolerance" and "hate". This is more than just ignorant. It's careless and dangerous to those others who are also protected under the auspices of tolerance.
Probably my biggest worry is this. The same reasons why, for instance, gay people are protected by most respectable Western societies are the same that are being mustered to discredit Wilders, while all the time totally missing the irony:
"it should be stated that sodomy (or homosexuality) is a wicked and grievous sin and a crime against society, but beheading or stoning those committing it are punishments that have no foundation in the Qur'an or the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet...All what can be said is that sodomy is a fahishah, the same way the Qur'an described zina, so it has the same legal punishment - the lashing of the perpetrator one hundred times in a public place as stated in Surat An-Nur, or imprisoning and punishing him as stated in Surat of An-Nisa'.
This statement can be found here. What a disgusting and morally insane view. But, unlike the newspaper's article writer, I can actually see why Islam needs to be criticized, at least on this front (and sadly, on many other fronts as well). I can actually see the tension inherent in protecting both Islamic and gay rights. What I contend is that, minus its more intelligent circles, many liberal-minded people cannot (or will not) see this tension. It's all about "tolerance for everyone", end of story, right? Well, yes, we understand that, but until some thought goes into what that statement means the statement remains irrationally broad and vague, and the liberal politics it founds moreso.
And what if we did condemn the homophobia and anti-Semitism while choosing to "embrace" the more meek and milk aspects? Well, on what basis do we (as Westerners!) decide what part of religious thought is and or is not worthy of sweeping of comdemnation? Wouldn't we be just as guilty as Wilders for a kind of "venomous" discrimination if we reasoned that out? And what if we choose to ignore the inherent tension and simply decide to sweep it under the rug? Well, that is at best irresponsible. Not only is it exactly what the newspaper's commentator chooses to do, but more broadly and significantly it undermines liberalism's intellectual credibility -- for a liberalism that chooses to ignore the facts is not equipped to deal with the problems these facts present.