Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The crime was horrific, and the mob outside the jail was angry. They had gathered before and demanded the death of the man inside, but a conservative cleric, who ran a religious school for boys, had appeared and told them all to go home and repent before God. Because the men in the mob were all religious and obeyed this particular cleric, they went home as he had ordered. When the crowd returned a few days later, though, while that cleric was away preaching elsewhere, they fought their way past the guards and found the man for whom they were looking. The man was from a minority group in the area, and though he was actually innocent of the crime of which he had been accused, that did not stop the violent mob from beating him horribly, tying a rope around his neck and throwing him off a bridge while hundreds cheered.
The year was 1906, and the place was my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The name of the man killed was Ed Johnsen, a black man who had been accused of the brutal rape of a white woman, Nevada Taylor. (The conservative cleric? Well, that madrasa he founded has produced several U.S. senators, governors, businessmen and one dyspeptic defense policy blogger.) The details of the lynching of Ed Johnsen are fascinating because they resulted in local officials being held in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States, which had been reviewing the case, and raised all kinds of issues relating to federal supremacy in addition to those of race and prejudice in the American South.
The reason I mention the story, though, is because it popped into my head when I read my friends Dion and Maria's account of what had happened in Mazar-e Sharif a few days ago when several innocent United Nations workers were brutally murdered because some fundamentalist crank in Florida thought it would be a hot idea to videotape himself burning a Quran. It was not that long ago, we should remind ourselves going into a discussion of what happened in northern Afghanistan and why, when the ugly kinds of mob scenes we saw in Mazar might have also happened in the United States. (The last lynching of an innocent black man of which I am aware took place in the American South in 1981.)
***
In my many travels through the Islamic world, there is both widespread admiration for the freedom of political speech we enjoy here in the United States as well as incomprehension regarding the freedom of religious speech we enjoy. It's all well and good to be able to denounce the president, but why on Earth do we Americans allow people to speak ill of Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or Muhammad? If "freedom of speech" means watching some artist immerse a crucifix in urine or defecate on the Bible, no thanks. Because in the Islamic world (as well as in the region of the United States where I grew up), God isn't some abstract idea, and Jesus and Muhammad were real prophets of God who should be venerated. A common refrain I hear, whether in Afghanistan or in the Arabic-speaking world, is that we Americans should have reasonable limits on what we can say and do regarding religious speech. And there is genuine incomprehension as to why we Americans would let a wing-nut like Terry Jones walk free? How could we allow him to do the things he does? He is obviously evil and is stirring up trouble, so why does the U.S. government not put him in jail? (This is often asked in the nations of Europe, too, which often have restrictions on "hate speech.")
As a practicing, believing Christian, I honestly understand the frustration. I too am disgusted by cheap artistic stunts that denigrate the religious traditions of others and also rabble-rousing "pastors" who burn the Quran and think they are doing the Lord's will. But as an American Christian, I am comfortable talking about how the United States was founded and why we all agree, in our social contract with one another, to not establish any laws that constrict one's freedom to worship. We are a nation founded by the political and religious dissidents of Mother Europe, and we reject the ways the tired old nations of that continent forced us to worship in a certain way, or denied our right to free political speech and assembly.
We keep organized religion out of government, to protect the integrity of the government, and we keep the government out of organized worship, to protect a man's freedom to worship God "“ or not worship God "“ as he pleases.
This is who we are as America. This is our DNA. Yesterday, I argued that we had some tough questions to ask about how much blood and treasure we should spend to promote the rights of women in Afghanistan. That's an honest question we have to ask ourselves because our values balance against and compete with our security interests and other priorities. But with respect to Terry Jones, we have to defend his right to burn the Quran to the last one of us, no matter how foolish he is and no matter how much havoc he creates.
If opportunist clerics want to inflame a crowd in Afghanistan because one idiot out of 300+ million Americans does something grotesque and stupid, fine. In the YouTube era, there is nothing the U.S. government can do to prevent such gross provocations aside from denounce them ex post facto, and we are all, as global citizens, adjusting to this new reality where a speech act in the state of Florida can lead to a massacre in Balkh Province. But when the first U.S. soldier in Afghanistan dies because of the actions of Terry Jones, we can take comfort in that fact that he or she will not have died in vain. He or she will have died defending the very document he or she swore to protect in the first place.
I agree completely with what you said concerning freedom of religious speech and that it should be something we all should be prepared to die for as it is the essence of a dignified life in which you make your choices freely. I am also familiar with European anti-hate speech laws and have great reservations about them as they tend to do more harm than good in my opinion. The only case in which a certain expression of opinion should be punished, in my view, is when it is direct and clear incitement to commit a crime, in which case, it falls under the rules of criminal law. However, considering the nature of some religions, this would mean that Islamic sheikhs should be punished for everytime declare someone an 'outlaw of religion' in which case murdering them is not considered a crime under Islamic law. I wonder what you think of this..
"The last lynching of an innocent black man of which I am aware took place in the American South in 1981." Why does it matter if he is innocent? Lynching defies the rule of law regardless of guilt.
A very persuasive argument but nonetheless I disagree. Terry Jones is just inciting violence for reasons only known to himself in a time of "war." The people who rioted in Afghanistan do not live by American rules. As we have seen from the Mohammad cartoon rage in Europe to this Terry Jones embarrassment the State has to place some restraint when the country is engaged in multiple wars and our people are placed in the line of fire. I don't think our soldiers are worried about defending the constitution. They are more worried about survival in a hostile land fighting an enemy they cannot see. I think Brandenburg v. Ohio is a clear enough roadmap to restrain "Rev." Terry Jones. Free speech in the U.S. when it incites violence against our people elsewhere must be restrained.
"Why does it matter if he is innocent?"
Becuz of the injustice wrought by religious fevor.
Is that a trick question? :)
@Gary - I don't believe Jones' action can be considered an incitement. He wasn't trying to persuade anyone to commit violence (as far as we can know his mind), though that was the result.
Your thinking represents a threat to our democracy, sir.
Now, if you get so mad you hunt me down and kill me, have I incited you to violence?
Don't focus on Terry Jones.
Yes, he is a tool and represents the very worst of us. (Okay, since he doesn't actually star on "The Jersey Shore" maybe not the *very* worst but close...)
However, I'm much more disturbed by the reaction in Afghanistan. Not by the backwards savages who think beheading UN workers is a justified response to the burning of the Quaran but the government of Afghanistan itself. The fact that Hamid Karzai chose to televise his disgust with what happened in the US and to have that message repeated again and again on the local stations shows how little this partnership means to him. Condeming the actions of Jones is one thing. But he could have done it alongside General Petraeus and left it at that.
I may be wrong, but I have not heard Karzai speak out against the violence that occurred. I have not heard him seek to tone down threats of murder against those who choose to leave the Islamic faith. Instead, I hear a politician who is trying to appeal to the very basest emotions of his constituents without any effort to *lead* them to a more civilized state of governance.
I understand that this latter argument puts his position (and potentially his life) in danger. But I don't think its too much to ask the guy not to seize every opportunity that presents itself to show how vehemently "not an American puppet" he is...
Jones should be held accountable for his actions. A letter writing campaign, a censure by the Christian community, whatever. But so should the savages who claim Islam's right to kill be held accountable. Maybe this is happening and the story just isn't making it out but that's part of the reason I come to this blog, to get an idea of what I'm not seeing.
"when the first U.S. soldier in Afghanistan dies because of the actions of Terry Jones, we can take comfort in that fact that he or she will not have died in vain. He or she will have died defending the very document he or she swore to protect in the first place."
If the US Constitution is threatened by ANYTHING that happens in Afghanistan, we are in deep, deep trouble.
Whatever the hell we are doing in Afghanistan, it is not "defending the Constitution".
from my understanding, terry jones was not trying exercise his free speach but in fact _was_ trying to incite violence. it seems to me that he got exactly what he wanted. he _wanted_ violence in the name of islam. he _wanted_ muslims to kill westerners. he _wanted_ a situation in which it would be easier for impressionable westerners to be able to dehumanize afghans as 'savages' and 'barbarians' because they will kill innocent people over a book while christians in the west have to face increased persecution (perceived or actual) from their liberal opponents.
I agree, law and government should be kept out of this completely. But if some Americans dance in the street and mimic rape, or if they burn Israeli maps and flags, most Americans won't cheer or yawn, they'll express their disgust, because such acts pick on very sore spots. Acts have different impacts depending on the specific context in which they're done, and picking a time when Muslims, both in the US and elsewhere, feel more persecuted than ever, is intensely insensitive.
Freedom of speech is essential, but civilised societies can use their values to ensure that it's not used to victimise vulnerable groups. I see almost none of that happening. Our one value should be freedom of speech, our other should be attempting to protect the vulnerable. Hopefully soldiers are there to protect both these values, not only one, because without either, we're stuffed.
Read Full Article »