On Terror, Free Speech, and Moral Clarity

Before the marches stop and the uproar dies down I want put a few words in on the goings on in France and how the wider culture has responded. First, we need to understand the nature of our enemy. So many of us scratch our heads and ask, “Why?” Why do terrorists commit such terrible acts of violence? The answer nobody seems to grasp is that the Muslims believe they are fighting for something real. We have lost this concept in our postmodern era. Relativism is so pervasive that acting as if something is worth killing (and dying) for makes no sense whatsoever. Beliefs are simply adornments, political positions, or “stances.” All are subject to change, however, because as soon as any real kind of pressure is applied to change or abandon these beliefs they evaporate into simple silence or a “personal evolution” on the issue. Of course, some Christians in the West have stood up for their beliefs at great personal cost (look at the public firing of several CEO’s for example). But for the most part our culture is characterized by its ambivalence on just about everything.

Now, before I get into what I’m about to say next I want the record to be clear. Murder is always wrong. I was so upset by what happened in France that I’ve seriously thought about organizing something at school to show solidarity with our French brothers. Gimme some french fries in exchange for those freedom fries and would somebody hang the Tricolour from the Capitol building already. Count me as someone who was glad the terrorists were killed in the stand-off. And with that I’ve already broken one of my own personal rules: say what you believe without qualification. But alas, in these days we sometimes have to, so here goes.

There is something weirdly perverse in all the rhetoric we’ve seen in the last few days. What I mean is that two extremes are arguing as if they were the only things to be considered. On one side people are arguing that freedom of expression is so sacred that defending obscenity is the essence of what free speech is all about. On the other side radical Muslims (one could say consistent Muslims) believe their religion is so sacred that killing in the name of the prophet is a moral obligation. Before you object that I am engaging in moral equivalency let me stop you and say there is none. Believing in the right to publish obscenity and believing you must kill to achieve shari’ah law are qualitatively different. But they are qualitatively different wrongs.

The content at Charlie Hebdo magazine was obscene. It not only targeted Islam, but all religions in attempt to satirize and degrade them. You may believe that this is an essential right, the essence of free speech, and go on drawing your cartoons. But what you cannot do is believe there is no inherent cost in doing so, and I’m not talking about the risk that comes from masked gunmen. The cost is moral clarity and stability. When a society believes in defending the profane above all else it has utterly lost any moral defensibility. At that point the gates of Western Civilization are no more effective than the Maginot Line, and the clamor of ugly passions that was once kept outside can hardly be contained once they are within. If you thought that last crack was a little insensitive, I’d remind you that most of the moral confusion of our age has come from Europe, and namely France at that. This is not to say that anyone deserved what happened. Absolutely and unequivocally not. What I am saying is that the secular view, adopted and embraced by a secular Europe, is unequipped to give an answer as to why angry Muslims should not commit heinous murders in the name of Mohammed.

Limits on free speech may seem antithetical to the notion of freedom of expression, but paradoxically they support the right to think and speak. If you want to say religion is stupid, fine. If you want to go a step further and say religion is harmful, fine. I would defend your right to do so. But we should all agree that there is a line one should not cross. The institution of laws that establish those lines creates moral clarity. The rule of law is more than just something that keeps our more base instincts in check, it shapes culture. Some things should be sacred, and that sanctity should be a value expressed not only around the dinner table, but on our streets, in our institutions, and in the press. If you disagree with me, fine, but realize you have actually given Western Civilization away. It is surrendered because if there is nothing worth protecting, if there is only the profane and nothing sacred, then we are simply sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Let us stand for something today and say, “Vive la France!” with all our might.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Ethics, Journalism, Politics, Religion, Secularism

It’s All About the System

At first glance the tragic series of events that have unfolded in Ferguson, Missouri appear to be all about race. A white cop kills a young black man. There can be only one explanation. As if on cue a chorus of voices erupted explaining that officer Wilson’s actions were part of a pattern. In fact, this shooting was nothing more than state-sanctioned violence.  Placard signs with the phrase, “Black Lives Matter” have become talking points on shows like MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry. It all seems so self-explanatory that issues of character seem to have no place in the discussion, unless of course it comes to explaining the character of the cop, whom it is assumed, prima facie, has it out for anyone with a black face.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that this had nothing to do with race and everything to do with character there is something else being lost in the discussion. The Ferguson police department has now become one of many under investigation by the federal Department of Justice. According to this Washington Post article, as many as 34 municipal police departments are now under federal investigation for civil rights abuses. Police tactics and practices are under scrutiny and several have had to put their officers through sensitivity training. The long arm of the federal government is now reaching for officers badges, even if they were only defending themselves.

Policing is hard work. Many decisions have to made in a matter of seconds. Adding further complexities, as the federal government is apt to do, will only make the work more burdensome and more dangerous. But as always the federal government thinks it knows better when it comes to such matters. Notice how the event has provided the context for a “discussion” or “conversation” about the Grand Jury process, a constitutional right, that some consider evil. Whenever a tragic event provides an opportunity to increase your power (if you’re one who believes in government as the answer) then you cannot let it pass you by. This is what’s happening right now. Look at the movement to have cops start wearing body cameras; Obama wants to buy some right away. Or look at the calls for a national commission on justice. The meme that someone has to do something runs straight through the language of those on the Left regarding this issue. Race is very successfully being used as a pretext for government action.

I say successfully because there is no denying that America’s history of race-relations is fraught with prejudice and outright violence. This is something deeply seated in the consciousness of African-Americans. Racism still exists and only an ignorant fool would deny that it plays no factor at all in how some police officers carry out their work. But by using this specific case, which is complicated by Brown’s own actions before his death, and building a movement off of its example only make the calls for a national “discussion” that much more transparent.

Unfortunately, any serious discussion on race now seems impossible. The division that some people feel is now so entrenched that it will take years to bridge the gap. Civil rights “leaders” and, disappointingly, our president seem all too happy to let others believe this is about black and white. And Americans will pay the price, not only because they will see in black or white, instead of the color of character that Martin Luther King Jr. so extolled, but because policing will be that much harder. Americans will be less safe, more tragedies will come, and the only thing to console us will be the heat from burning buildings. But don’t worry, the federal government will have a plan for that too.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Fact Checking, Life, Politics

The Politics of Character in Ferguson

Oh, what a world we live in… The tension is palpable. I fear for the good folks in Missouri who are waiting for the earthquake that will be the grand jury’s decision in a case that has gripped the nation’s attention. Issues of race and the criminal justice system have been brought to the fore, but one issue remains largely ignored and for reasons no one wants to seem to acknowledge. Character goes right to the heart of what happened in my opinion, regardless of how the details are interpreted. A great write-up of the facts regarding the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri can be found here.

According to the article mentioned above the incident began when officer Wilson asked Brown and his friend to move to the sidewalk (the pair were walking down the middle of a two-way street). One version of the exchange has Wilson telling the pair to, “Get the fuck on the sidewalk.” Another version of the story has Wilson saying, “Come on guys, get out of the street.” We will never know what was actually said, but it does get one thinking about each person’s state of mind. If you and a friend had just forcefully robbed a store a few hours before how would you interpret the cop’s directions? I work with kids for a living. Many that find themselves in trouble on a frequent basis often view the simplest directions as “being yelled at” or “being treated unfairly” even though nothing could be further from the truth. I think there are a variety of reasons for this, but one reason is that they often have a belligerent attitude. When you are in fight-mode, “Come on guys, get out of the street,” is often heard as “Get the fuck on the sidewalk.” When you’re in a certain state of mind you hear things the way you think about things – I see it all the time. This is not to say that rudeness on Wilson’s part is beyond the realm of possibility. He could have been having a bad day, or he could have been motivated by prejudice.

But this brings me to my main point: character. Apparently the vehicle stopped after one or both of the young men replied that they were almost to their intended destination. One version makes it sound like Wilson stopped because the reply was not what the officer wanted to hear. Let’s just assume this is the case for a moment. What would have happened if these young men had simply said, “Ok, no problem.” Would the tragic events that followed have happened? Had the young men simply respected the authority of the police officer Michael Brown might still be alive. But when you’re walking in the middle of a two-way street when a sidewalk is available I’m guessing you don’t care much about inconveniencing anyone. Respect, respect for a store-owner or a cop, does not seem likely from young men with no character.

Another version of the story has Wilson hearing a dispatch that put out a description of two men who had robbed a store just as he drove past Wilson and Johnson. It was at that point that he turned the car around. If this proves to be the case then the intent of Wilson seems clear: he was trying to stop criminals. And that’s what they were, criminals. Whether Wilson swore at them or not, or even if Wilson is a prejudiced bigot, it does not change the fact that Brown and Johnson are criminals. Look at the video that Brown’s parents have called character assassination (Brown is in the red hat):

I’d say the true assassin of Brown’s character is in dispute.

Now, if Brown was willing to do what you’ve seen with your own eyes, how likely is it that he was resisting arrest and went for Wilson’s gun? This is what I don’t understand. How is it that someone’s character is no longer something that holds explanatory power? Martin Luther King’s dream that African Americans would be judged by the content of their character has been lost. Tragically it’s been stolen by the race-baiters and professional pushers of perpetual victimhood who do not want to the see the dream realized. I can only shake my head. The hordes of young people who feel like they are part of a movement based on justice have been deluded into thinking that what they can see with their own eyes is not the point. I feel nothing but sadness at this. Not only is their energy and potential being wasted on a lie, but the indictment is already in: character does not matter. God help us.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Ethics, Politics

Well Needed Humor

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Question of Ethics?

Do ethics have an ontological status? Is there such a thing as metaethics? Regardless of the answer ethics cannot be informed without referring to experience. In other words – ethics is meaningless without the people we love and love to hate.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, Philosophy

Political Musings

Secularism is not anything in itself per se, though some challenge the assertion that secularism has no “position.” I take this to mean that they believe secularism itself is a stance, that is has substance in both a political and philosophical sense. But this obscures what secularism really is – it is a vacuum. It is a political and moral vacuum into which fly all sorts of ideologies and moral systems. The danger is that this secular vacuum takes the form of, morphs into, whatever zeitgeist holds sway. At one point it is a mostly homogeneous, Protestant, and white America; the next it is a heterogeneous, spiritually nebulous, and diverse America. The only meaningful way to talk about the failure of secularism is if the vacuum, the messiness of what we call the American experiment, takes a permanent form. And it does not matter if the permanence is theocratic or totalitarian – they are the same thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Secularism

Controversy in Texas

A strange convergence of medical ethics, the debate over abortion, and family rights has people talking in Texas. The New York Times is reporting the story of Marlise Munoz – a 33 year-old woman who is now brain dead after collapsing due to a blood clot in her lungs. Unfortunately she was pregnant at the time of the incident, but remarkably the baby is still alive, and is now being kept alive because Marlise is on life support. You can read the story for yourself, but here is a quote from Munoz’s father:

Mrs. Munoz’s father, Ernest Machado, 60, a former police officer and an Air Force veteran, put it even more bluntly. “All she is is a host for a fetus,” he said on Tuesday. “I get angry with the state. What business did they have delving into these areas? Why are they practicing medicine up in Austin?”

The complexity of this situation leaves one with more questions than answers and I feel for the family caught in this horrible situation. That being said I’m honestly shocked by the family’s stance on this – their grandchild, the only connection they will have left to their daughter is alive, yet they wish to end the pregnancy by taking their daughter off life support.

Despite my shock the issue is better left to the family to resolve. But does the state of Texas have a right to interfere is what is clearly a delicate and complicated family affair? In a state where abortion politics are a hot button issue it will be interesting to see what public opinion is on this horrendously sad situation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Ethics, Life, Politics