Selective Outrage and Tolerance

Large parts of the Middle East have gone aflame in outrage in the wake of a video titled "The Innocence of Muslims", which has been labelled as anti-Isalmic from a number of media observers. According to Wikipedia:

Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage".According to Reuters, the video portrays Muhammad as a "fool, a philanderer and a religious fake"; NBC News said the trailer depicted Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser." Time magazine described the dialogue during the scene with a donkey as "homoerotic".According to the BBC, Muhammad's followers are portrayed as "savage killers hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children."

Response to the video has been explosive in places ranging from Pakistan to Egypt to Afghanistan to Lebanon and Nigeria. Muslim peoples across the world have held demonstrations protesting the films and angrily demanding action as diverse as the criminal prosecution and execution of the filmmakers and annihilation of the United States and Israel. The protests in Libya were particularly tragic, where a number of embassy workers including United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens were killed in what may have been a premeditated attack independent of, though facilitated by, demonstrations precipitated by the film.

The United States government has taken a conciliatory approach, with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the movie. And you know what? I think President Obama is right to do so, and I applaud him for doing so despite the political pounding that he's getting from some circles. If he feels that the movie is one which is making a contrary point in an incendiary and degrading way which lacks respect, grace and civility - he's certainly right to voice his displeasure and disgust. In addition, I give Secretary of State Clinton kudos in also emphasizing that while the video is "offensive, disgusting, and reprehensible" the violent reactions are unacceptable, citing, "It's important for responsible leaders, indeed responsible people everywhere to stand up and speak out against violence, and particularly against those who would exploit this difficult moment to advance their own extremist ideologies."

There needs to be some "universal norms" around how we deal with differences around things which are sacred to people in a pluralistic society. On one hand, people must be given the freedom to disagree on a perspective, even one which I may hold sacred without fear of persecution or physical violence. On the other hand, we must as a civilized society insist upon a level of respect, honor and civility in the midst of these promoting these opposing views. This is essentially what Secretary of State Clinton is talking about.

This is all well and good, but I can't help but notice the silence is deafening when the blasphemy and disrespect is aimed towards Christians. There are some things that I see on television on how God, Jesus and Christians are portrayed that I (and I'm sure others) find absolutely offensive and reprehensible and my response is usually to turn off the television. Last year, comedian Bill Maher infamously tweeted the following after Tim Tebow had a bad game on Christmas Eve:

Wow, Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler "Hey, Buffalo's killing them"

"Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane has crossed the line numerous times, including a scene where a petulant adolescent Jesus angrily dismisses Mary and phones "his real Dad" God who is portrayed lying in bed with a woman. God hangs up on Jesus and leers lustfully at the woman, who holds up a condom. God responds: "Oh, come on, baby. It's my birthday."

Nobody apologized and certainly no head of state apologized to those who were offended. Why? The first reason is that Christianity is the one major religion which people are allowed to mock for laughs. And it's even more cool to make fun of those who are trying to stand up for Christian tenets (see "Focus on the Family", "Family Research Council" and "Parents Television Council") These groups are routine told to "lighten up" or worse. Or as someone once told me, "If you're white, male or Christian, nobody cares if you're offended." On the other hand, it's obvious to everyone that it would completely insensitive to tell protesting mobs of outraged Muslims to "lighten up". 

The second reason is that Christians who are offended generally don't react by forming mobs, burning down buildings and threatening to overrun embassies and government buildings in protests. Who knows? Some would argue that the squeaky wheel gets the oil and to be pragmatist more civil (or non-civil) disobedience should be organized to express outrage towards blaspehmy. But I tend not to be in favor resorting to violence and hate to express offence. After all, getting attention isn't worth violating one's principles and conscience.

Columnist Christine Flowers made some good points in a recent article, similarly highlighting the different standards which are placed upon the need to respect other religions, and how attempts to defend one's religion are applauded ("Protesters! We share you outrage and anger! And please stop raiding our embassy.") and empathized in certain cases and mocked in others ("Lighten up and go back to your cave, you close-minded fundamentalist bastards.").

As I said earlier, I respect our freedom of speech, and it rightfully governs the right to not be legally persecuted for speaking your mind, right or wrong. But that doesn't mean that we can't hold societal standards in which we insist that contrary points of stark disagreement are done with respect, grace and civility. These are where those aforementioned "universal norms" come in. When these lines are crossed, we need to condemn, even if we don't prosecute - and we need to condemn when those lines are crossed across the board, regardless of who and which faith is being mocked.