www.cotemaison.fr
Once again
fanatical followers of Islam have murdered while shouting: Allahu Akbar,
literally God is great. This time the atrocity happened in Paris, France, and
the attack was directed at editors and cartoonists for the satirical French
weekly Charlie Hebdo. By perpetrating this viciousness, the people involved and
the movement in which they swarm, showed the weakness and utter futility
cloaked within their fury. Although weaponry can make the weak appear mighty
and allow malice to murder the peaceful, resorting to violence is an admission
of intellectual impotence. The following paragraph makes this point well.
“More
than anything, masked gunmen—hiding their faces and shouting "God is great”—show
the appalling lack of confidence in their ideas, their ability to participate
in public debates, to stand by their arguments, and return to the political
process day after day if they suffer setbacks. This is why they are cowards,
bullies, killers and yes, evil. This is one version of what evil looks like
today.”
When twelve
people are killed and eleven are injured in a brutal, premeditated attack, the
shock this produces can make it seem as though the attackers or the movement
they adhere to are powerful because they are obviously dangerous. In reality,
these incidents are admissions of weakness and absolute loss of confidence on
the part of the fanatics. They are killing people who dispute their beliefs and
refuse to honor their conceptions of the sacred. No matter how fervently they
believe what they profess, they have been largely unable to win people to their
side.
Consequently,
while fanatics feverishly demand that the world submits to their chosen creed,
everyone else ignores them, disputes their claim, or even makes fun of their
doctrines and dogmas. Because all varieties of fanaticism are so thoroughly
unsupported by evidence and logical argument based on evidence, attempts to
convince unbelievers are frustrating to put it mildly. Therefore, there is an
almost unbearable tension in the minds of fanatics who think they have the one
true faith that every human being should accept and follow but are perpetually unable
to win over masses outside their circle of belief.
The Prophet
Muhammad had little if any humility in regard to the honor he was due saying:
"Whoever insults a Prophet
kill him." Muhammad convinced many that he was channeling the will of
Allah. Thus, all who ignored what he said should be believed or done were
thwarting the will of the Almighty. This seemed not a mere difference of
opinion, but a potential cosmic calamity. If the Almighty says think this and
do this, refusing to comply is stunning and probably dangerous insubordination.
It is this
realization that shows what is sought by all zealots whatever creed they claim
justifies their fanaticism: they want obedience and they want it now and
forever. Because they are the champions of the divine will, this means that
others must obey them in all aspects of their earthly lives. People must
profess the creed the zealots dictate; behave in the way the zealots demand;
dress as the zealots command, and generally never suggest that the zealots are
full of bilge water and swamp gas.
Whether
fanatics claim to serve Allah, God or Adonai, the Master Race, the Proletariat,
or the Knights of the White Camelia, they are deluded, malicious, and deserve
only opposition and defeat. In France, America, England and many other nations
we have true and benign ideals that require none to comply unwillingly. Our
civic ideals justify the abuse and execution of no one simply for what they
think and express. While these ideals are peaceful at times we may have to bear
arms in their defense against the comparatively few fanatics who mistake
tolerance and openness for vacuity and cowardice.
The newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and those who worked there, dared
to speak uncomfortable truths about people, parties, beliefs and institutions
that were intolerant, driven by fanaticism and completely unhesitating in imposing
their views on those who did not share them. This malicious and lethal attack
was not one on a periodical or journalism but on inquiry, ideas, competing
perspectives and beliefs, and on the principle that enlightened societies can allow
differences to exist and sustain discourse, debate and a quest for what truly unites
people rather than imposing a forced conformity on all citizens.
This ideal of
a society of citizens rather than subjects with all rightfully pursuing the
truth in the way they choose rather than a realm of indoctrinated and subjugated
people submitting to the divine revelation of one or another prophet is worth
working for, worth living for, worth fighting for and if need be worth dying
for.
An essay in favor of freedom of expression and a liberal, democratic society in the face of attracts by fanatical authoritarians.
ReplyDelete