Free Speech

[ann_leckie]

I've been kind of alarmed by the number of people who think not having a three day party thrown in your honor is the same thing as being silenced or censored. The whole "Your refusal to be bullied is proof that you're the real bully!" vibe. Not to mention the apparently widespread assumption that bigotry against Muslims is a position any reasonable person might hold, something one can fruitfully debate because there are two reasonable sides to the matter. I mean, seriously? The idea that Islam unfits one for US citizenship, this is something that we should all calmly discuss? Because maybe there's some good points in that list of bigoted assumptions there? Really?

I've been pondering what, if anything, I might say, but have decided that what I want to say is what Saladin Ahmed said:

Every discussion is not worth having. More speech is not *always* the answer to hate speech. When someone corners you at a party and says "You know whose fault all this is? The Jews!" or "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" or "I'm sick of them coming over here and taking all our jobs." or "What did she think would happen, being dressed that way?" you're not under any obligation to treat that as an invitation to reasoned, civil discourse where understandable differences of opinion will be rub up against each other in useful ways. You've every right - some might even say obligation - to treat it as jerkoff bigoted bumper sticker-ese, and to to look at the speaker as if the words that just crawled out of their mouth were slimy little poisonous vipers.

Recommended reading.

Comments

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

This.

There has been a whole of attempt to engage sensibly with people who aren't interested in engaging sensibly. They're not actually intending to listen at all to the "other side" of the discussion--they only want to force the other side to listen to them.

We've wasted a lot of time the past five or ten years considering all opinions equally valid, rather than being smart enough to recognize that opinions based on verifiable facts are generally more constructive than opinions based on jingoism and self-contradiction.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, yes.

[gwynnega]

Yes, exactly.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

While I agree with what has been said, I can't get over the suspicion that after liberals work their asses off to get equality for Muslims, their religious beliefs will turn them into Republicans (anti-gay rights, anti-divorce, etc). It's one of those things I find discouraging about life.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

So, Americans who are Muslims don't already have political beliefs, and do not vote, but will only do so after "liberals get equality" for them?

The equality of every American before the law is already legally established. The irrelevance of any American's religion to her status as a citizen is already legally established.

But let's pretend that Americans who happen to be Muslims do not already have political opinions and do not actually vote, but surely will, on some magic day when we bestow equality upon them. Any whose beliefs impel them to vote against gay rights or against the availability of divorce, they are different from Christians who vote that way, how?

This country is already jam-packed with Christians who vote against the civil rights of various fellow citizens. Compared with their numbers, the Muslim citizens of this country are the smallest, most infinitesimal drop in the bucket.

And of course, we know all Christians vote Republican, are anti gay rights, anti-divorce, right? Right?

No? You mean to tell me, Christianity is huge and varied and in fact one can't actually predict that just because someone professes belief in Jesus Christ, they'll vote Republican??? Surely there's no such thing as liberal Christians?

Oh, right, there are. Scads of them, in fact. Something like eighty, ninety percent of this country is Christian, and yet I don't see Republicans regularly coming in with eighty to ninety percent of the vote in every election across the land. Huh. There must indeed be lots of liberal Christians in this country. I wonder why there wouldn't be liberal Muslims, too.

Oh, wait. Maybe there would be.

And maybe no matter how someone votes, they are equal before the law in this country, and have the right to practice their religion (or lack thereof), whatever it is. There's a radical thought.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with all that, too, but the essential irony of it is if you put a moderate Muslim and a conservative Christian in the same room to talk about a variety of issues, especially gay and women's rights, they would agree more than they disagree, and yet they are fighting because of the basic psychology of their respective theologies. I also think the only reason more African Americans and Hispanics aren't Republican is over racial issues; both of those groups have a strong strain of religious conservativism that would attract many of them to the political right. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the GOP would be more powerful if they didn't keep kicking them out.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I also think the only reason more African Americans and Hispanics aren't Republican is over racial issues; both of those groups have a strong strain of religious conservativism that would attract many of them to the political right.

Seriously? You seriously think this? Do you think maybe white voters vote the way they do over "racial issues" too?

So, Black Americans who are also religious only vote Democratic because the Republicans are racist? Honestly? You do know that besides gay marriage and divorce, Christian churches of nearly any stripe also have a good deal of interest in things like taking care of the sick and the poor, and questions about how to deal with unemployment and homelessness and healthcare intersect very much with their religious concerns. In a way that lines up much better with Democratic positions than Republican ones.

This is, of course, a large part of what drives even some fairly socially conservative Christians to vote Democratic. Any Christian has to look at the things her church teaches, the positions of the various candidates, and her own values, and decide how to vote. You're not going to find anyone lining up a hundred percent, and if you're a devout Christian, depending on your church's specific teachings, you're going to see some odd splits--that gay marriage and divorce thing on one side, issues of poverty and caring for the helpless and such on the other. That devout Christian has to decide which is more important to her, whether she's black or white. Why do you assume white Christians do that, but black ones don't?

Muslims have the same social justice concerns, and face the same split, the same need to prioritize what they should be using their votes for, that Christians do.

Why is it that white Christians are assumed to be voting their conscience, but Black, Latin@, and Muslim voters are the slaves of whatever religion one assumes they follow? Are such folks less able to figure out the nuances of their beliefs, or what?

I mean, seriously.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

1: I never said Christians were only Republicans.

2: I agree that the Democratic platform is more in line with the teachings of Jesus, but as economic injustice in America hurts minority groups more than white people, it is quite logical for minority groups to consider economic justice a higher priority than their social conservativism.

3: I do not think "white Christians" necessarily vote their conscience. I think it is ironic that the same Bible many African Americans turn to for the strength to survive racism is the same Bible that many "white Christians" turn to in order to justify racism, and is where many find the roots of social justice. It's a big book and people tend to remember what they want.

Yes, I think many, but not all, white people do vote Republican or Tea Party because they don't like minority groups. Otherwise how did the Willie Horton ads work? Why the present obsession with shutting down Mexican immigration? I don't think it's because Mexicans are taking the jobs white people don't want. I think the GOP and TP keep pushing their tax cut platform as a giant bribe so their other policies (anti-social justice policies), ones much harder to justify, can ride the tax cut coat tails into law. I haven't seen "small government" GOP and TPers talking about cuts to programs that benefit white people.

4: I've been a life long Democrat. I'm just more cynical about people's motives than you are, regardless of their race, religion, or sexuality, and tend to see groupings more than individuals concerning political issues.

[chomiji]

The over-the-top statements in these pro-Moon reactions make my skin creep. Thanks for your measured response, and the link to Saladin Ahmed's post.

Would you mind if I sent this link to elf's link collection on Dreamwidth? I won't do it if you'd reather not.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I don't mind at all!