"Infidels" in the U.S., France and Pakistan Challenge Free Speech

Died for Jesus' Sake

Stupid people, and we are not granting any other more refined epithet to those who push lies, live in vocal fear that the President might be an infidel, Islamic. He might use his attendance at a church for 20 odd years as a counterweight to this argument, but then he opens himself to having to fight his associations and the fact that he did not vet the speeches of his pastor. Rock meet hard place. But even if those who voted for him were accidentally blind or delusional--and that would be half of the voting population, roughly--and had voted in someone who followed Islam, then what? What is the proper response?

One of the things that makes us uniquely different from the world is our tolerance of people's differences. It's a tolerance that cannot be removed from the western tradition, mind you, but it's also a tolerance that keeps the door open to people being able to express their minds, their thoughts, and their religious beliefs. It's a freedom to be what you want, name your own name, and not be hindered by the majority, since majorities often get it wrong until enlightenment slowly comes.

Thankfully, and we say this slowly, we are not France, where Brit John Galliano, the now former Christian Dior chief designer, is up for trial for spewing anti-semetic nonsense while drunk. He has apologized, but that won't immediately undue his loss of lucrative employment or the potential jail time and financial penalties. And all for speaking words, and while tossed. Your words can kill... your career.

(On Wednesday, the Paris prosecutor announced that Mr. Galliano would stand trial for racial insults Also on Wednesday,Mr. Galliano released his first statement. It said in part: “I only have myself to blame and I know that I must face up to my own failures and that I must work hard to gain people’s understanding and compassion. To start this process I am seeking help and all I can hope for in time is to address the personal failure which led to these circumstances and try and earn people’s forgiveness.”)

(N.Y.Times)

Contrast that Christian Dior incident with the ostensibly "Christian" Westboro Baptist Church. The church was  sued by the father of a soldier whose funeral they desecrated by proximity. The church has a long running feud with America in general, figuring the nation godless and on the sodomite path to ruin. It's actually a type of fiery message you often hear in the more conservative born again, non-denominational and fundamentalist churches, except Westboro has amped the message up to hateful and distorted proportions, targeting every "sinner" except themselves. Ministers talking, and talking, from Jeremiah Wright (Obama's former pastor) to the bought and sold Franklin Graham, nary mindful that any message, even a judgmental one, should be centered in love for everyone.

The ruling came down today that the church was well within their constitutional rights, with the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favorite of their right to speak and be evil. Alito was the lone holdout, taking a more Francophone approach:

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote, adding that giving a family "a few hours of peace without harassment" would not undermine public debate.

Yet the court majority made plain that states may regulate funeral protests in some situations. Roberts observed that since the 2006 Snyder funeral, the Maryland Legislature has enacted a law prohibiting picketing within 100 feet of a funeral. Roberts also noted that Westboro's picketing would have complied with that restriction.

(USA Today)

We think here that Alito might be right in some fine line, inconsistent, depending on mood kind of way. The majority of the court likely assumed that making a judgment in favor of the soldier's father would prove too arbitrary a decision that could lead to an erosion of First Amendment rights as each future case attempts to determine where the line to be crossed is not.

So here in the United States, you are free to speak, and speak lies, or hideous and hateful things, because we want to also preserve the right to express the opposite, or the right to express unpopular things that need to be expressed. Weighed out, we hope the good overwhelmes the bad.

Not so in Pakistan, the paid ally of the United States, where you pretty much won't get the right to express your beliefs if you are Christian.Shabaz Bhatti was Pakistan's only Christian cabinet member. He lost his job today too while expressing his beliefs. He also lost his life. In fact, he knew that he might lose his life for expressing ideas and words. These words expressed his belief in Jesus, and his desire to see minority rights in Pakistan respected.

Bhatti could visualize his own death, and new his enemy. He knew those following a different religion might come for him and make him put his life where his heart was. His last interview included an affirmative statement of his belief in Jesus, his fight against blasphemy laws, and his willingness to die for his beliefs.

In Pakistan, you cannot be a vocal Christian, and they killed him, spraying him with bullets. Bhatti fought the law, and violence won (for now). His carefully chosen words, his desire to express his faith, shut down by people who cannot tolerate difference.

We pay Pakistan. They are our ally. They kill people for words that represent ideas they fear. In the light of Bhatti's death, I can appreciate our Supreme Court's ruling even more.

But in the light of the Supreme Court's correct ruling, I can appreciate Alito's assertion that words matter, and we need show some attention to the power of speech.

In leaflets left at the scene of the shooting, al-Qaida and the Pakistani Taliban Movement in Punjab province claimed responsibility. They blamed the government for putting Bhatti, an "infidel Christian," in charge of an unspecified committee, apparently referring to one said to be reviewing the blasphemy laws. The government has repeatedly said such a committee does not exist.

(NPR)