Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

White House Walks Back/Cleans Up/Clarifies The Foreign Policy President's (TM) "Not An Ally" Statement | Main | Total Security At Consulate Hit By IED in June, In Al Qaeda Stronghold, On Anniversary of 9/11:
1. Doors with Locks
2. Four -- Four! -- Libyan Guards, At Least One Of Whom Betrayed Staffers
September 13, 2012

William Saletan: Romney Betrayed Free Speech By Championing It

At Hot Air.

I've asked Saletan a series of questions about this piece on Twitter. Alas, I got his name wrong, so he has all the excuse he needs to pretend not to notice.

The question I ask -- it's long and multi-pronged -- is this:

What does William Saletan imagine the purpose of anti-Christian art is? I do not dabble in it myself, but it seems to me that such art is animated by several things:

1. Simple hate. There is no doubt that many anti-Christian artists simply hate Christianity, and, perhaps more than the religion itself, Christians themselves.

2. A belief that art which injects doubt into the mind of a believer is a good thing, because artists tend to think of themselves as free-thinkers, and wish to encourage free thought. They believe that Christianity (and other religions, but especially Christianity) is a silly superstition, and they think their art helps to liberate people from this superstition.

3. An anger at the political stances engendered by Christianity. They don't like where fundamentalist Christianity leads, politics-wise, so they seem the sowing of doubt as a useful method of undermining the Christianity where the rubber meets the road, that is, at the point Christian thought affects policy choices.

Has William Saletan ever objected to any anti-Christian art? Has anyone at Slate magazine? Has any liberal in the media, the entire media, objected?

Even when the motivation seems to be simple hate -- and yes, there are those who simply hate Christians and Christianity, and that bitter venom comes through -- I never see anyone calling such art "juvenile provocations" or "hateful stupidity."

Now, many of us -- and this includes me; does it include William Saletan, I wonder? -- think that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and rather bad for those living under it. And we -- again, is William Saletan among them? -- would like to see, if possible, a movement away from fundamentalist Islam.

We don't like that it justifies murder in the name of "god." We do not like that it turns women into de facto slaves -- every wife is the slave of her husband, to be beaten, or raped, or disposed of as the husband may wish. Every non-married woman is in an even worse position, except to the extent her male relations may protect her. But even in that case, a woman's status comes through the men around her.

We do not like its rejection of the Enlightenment, or of its reactionary opposition to unobjectionable (or so we thought) universal values of human dignity. We do not like its insistence on championing believers in a faith with a superior legal status over nonbelievers (also known as "polytheists," "blasphemers," "apostates," "dhimmis," or, worst of all, "Jews").

We do not like its apparent political agenda of building a bridge to the 14th century.

For nonbelievers like myself -- agnostics -- and believers in other creeds as well, it is alarming in its championing of anti-blasphemy laws (punishments ranging from long terms in prison to execution) and its insistence that everyone living in an area controlled by Islam give praise to a "god" and an ideology that we do not actually believe in.

It is unobjectionable in the modern age to express hostility towards the Catholic Inquisition. It is, however, very strangely considered something approaching a hate crime to express hostility to the currently existing Islamic Inquisition.

Now, if someone like myself would like to encourage people to abandon this hidebound, hateful, backward mode of thought -- and, again, I ask: Does William Saletan disagree? Is he a big fan of fundamentalist Islam? -- we might take a page from all that anti-Christian art the country has been awash in for 70, 80 years, and think to ourselves, "Perhaps spoofing this religion, pointing out its absurdities, pointing out its true evils, will help inject a modicum of useful doubt into the minds of the believers, and perhaps cause a moderation, a skepticism of things like woman's servitude and especially Murder In The Name of 'God.'"

Would I be wrong in thinking this? To read William Saletan, I would, because his piece says, with very little caveating at all, that to offend the dignity of Islam (especially fundamentalist Islam) is not a use of free speech -- not a permissible use of it, like all that anti-Christian art he's never got 'round to condemning -- but an an abuse of it.

One might have certain beliefs -- such as the idea that a religion predicated upon the de facto slavery of women, the rejection of the reason and humanism, and ultimately, even the rejection of the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill -- and one might think he would be on firm ground to use the exact same methods and techniques of subversion and spoof and plain ol' vitriol directed against the Faith of the West for coming on a century now.

But no, William Saletan sharply disagrees, and calls such things an "abuse" of free speech.

Not a legitimate use of free speech. Not a true expression of truly held beliefs (and, again, does William Saletan disagree that fundamentalist Islam could use some reform and rethinking? Let's get him on the record).

But an abuse of free speech, and if not a crime, per se, at least such a transgression as requires the mobilization of social pressures (ostracization, demonization, even threats to physical safety -- ask Salman Rushdie about that) to punish those who would give themselves to such "abuses."

Am I wrong to think that fundamentalist Islam is in dire need of some doubt?

William Saletan, I am fairly confident, would be quite effusive in describing all the manifold ways in which the Christian mind is "closed" and "hidebound" and "haunted by superstition." He would, I'm reasonably certain, be quite in favor of any artistic project which undermined the foundations of Christian thought.

And yet, when we turn to fundamentalist Islam, he becomes... a censor. He becomes not an agent of the Inquisition per se, but a bit of a fanboy of it.

And why? Why the anger directed towards someone who is doing what Saletan would almost certainly praise were it directed at any other religion?

I think I know. There is a line of magnificent wisdom in the film The Spanish Prisoner (by David Mamet). It is spot-on about human nature.

The circumstances of the quote are that a young financial wizard has created a "Process" which is worth, literally, trillions. However, it was created as work-for-hire. He created it, but the company owns it. And he's wondering if the company will actually compensate him for it, as they have promised.

Steve Martin gives him the bad news (paraphrased): "I think if they have a moral obligation to you but not a legal one you will begin to find them behaving cruelly towards you. You will find them treating you poorly, isolating you, speaking badly about you when you are not present. Even as they decide to stiff you out of what they owe you, they will compound that with bad manners and worse intent. They will not be apologetic about it; they will become increasingly hateful towards you."

The reason is this: When people know they have a moral obligation towards someone which they do not feel like honoring, for reasons of personal interest, or personal safety, or personal political agenda, they feel awfully bad about themselves for not honoring the moral obligation. They feel awfully bad that they are ignoring a moral obligation in favor of their own personal interests.

And people do not like feeling bad about themselves.

So what people do, is this: They begin demonizing the person to whom they have an inconvenient moral obligation, convincing themselves that he is in fact the Bad Guy because, hey, he makes them feel bad. So he must be the bad guy.

In fact, he must be a Monster.

And no one owes a moral obligation to a Monster.

So, as William Saletan, and the news media generally, gives up completely on its own duty to protect free speech, they have to explain this to themselves in terms of No Duty To Protect a Monster.

Indeed, they will even, at the end of the day, help jihadists find the inconvenient Monster in order to murder him, and thereby make the Bad Feeling About Oneself go away.

If left to his own devices, without any contrary narrative to cast doubt on his claims, a coward can write an account of his heroic deeds in battle that would make Achilles himself quail.

digg this
posted by Ace at 02:33 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Ordinary American: "Trump has never been any Demosthenes. He's given s ..."

Mr Aspirin Factory, deplorable clown: "Clearly I’m 29 and PDJT is a force of nature ..."

dantesed: "Saw a stat that 35% of Democrats think the Trump s ..."

Chuck Martel: "If that is even the feeling of even just a quarter ..."

2Ciampino - Fri Update #25: "London: ..."

Smell the Glove: "Newhart's bit about the Driving Instructor is gut ..."

rhennigantx: "RIP Lou ..."

Don Black: "I missed the balloon drop ..."

Mr Gaga: "You think it was staged because all you watch is M ..."

Divide by Zero [/i]: " [i]Saw a stat that 35% of Democrats think the Tr ..."

MAGA_Ken: "He was also a staunch atheist and cut down Christi ..."

Lady in Black[/i][/b][/u]: "Sadly, I thought PDJT's speech was a clunker. Pos ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64