I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I
chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word
"offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human
revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most
powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs
to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a
synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I
will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn
books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and
value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object.
It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the
exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the
suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger.
But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random
violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and
holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking
the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or
making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway
individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled
tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show
yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our
species.
As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very
mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet
identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say
publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here
one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim
leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and
funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course
there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another
reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption,
dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually
the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.
The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First:
Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid
offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken
enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified
of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its
viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose
because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which
nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are
determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation
somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it
is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion
be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to
it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he
did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in
the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped
that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and
we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against
him but against "all those involved in its publication," which
led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of
another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one
point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on
our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for
literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word
until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun.
(The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear
state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by
the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international
relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of
blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression
trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be
inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts,
and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have
discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
< back
|