March, 2008
The P.C. of Murder
Johnathan Lott
Don't get me wrong; I'm hardly a fan of the PC movement. In fact, I detest it. The notion that it is wrong to be offensive in any way to anything and anyone has carried what was once a good idea way too far in the wrong direction. But that's an article for another day.
The fact remains, though, that PC movement started out as a good idea – that we should be tolerant of people with different values, beliefs, lifestyles, and most importantly, factors over which they have no control. In America, Europe, and many other places throughout the world, we have done an excellent, arguably overzealous job of implementing this ideal. It is now completely socially unacceptable to say anything remotely offensive about minorities, gays, and disabled individuals.
The rest of the civilized world does not necessarily feel the same way about this. Parts of the world, particularly those parts dominated by radical Islam, are years if not centuries behind the west in terms of tolerance. I of course am strictly referring to the radical, fundamentalist sect of Islam that is characterized by extremely literal interpretation of the Qur'an and outspoken support for terrorism – the kind that “wants you dead.” I certainly am not referring to mainstream, tolerant Muslims. I hope this is sufficient to avoid an e-mail from Dr. Patricia Telles-Irvin to the entire student body on my behalf.
That said, I bring up this issue because radical Muslims recently committed what should be an unthinkable atrocity in any civilized nation: they used mentally disabled women as suicide bombers. According to Reuters, 99 people were killed when 2 women who were allegedly affected by Down's Syndrome apparently carried out two coordinated attacks in a crowded Iraqi marketplace. It is doubtful that they knew they were being used as suicide bombers.
While murdering mentally handicapped people would be seen as an unforgivable sin here, the radicals who orchestrated the bombings seem to view it as noble. This is evidence that they do not view the disabled with compassion as we generally do here, but see them as tools in their Islamofascist political struggles. Furthermore, they do a fine job of removing their “burden” of disabled individuals from society when they blow them up. I wonder Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor and proponent of utilitarianism, would approve.
These radicals are simply intolerant. They do not tolerate the disabled and view them as a burden on society. They have no respect for the lives of these individuals. And it's not only the disabled. In many nations which follow sharia in courts of law, homosexuality is a crime punishable by law – often in inhumanely severe ways. Iran has put over 4,000 convicted homosexuals to death since 1979. This is a completely heinous atrocity violating even the most reactionary viewpoints on human rights, yet we do nothing about this.
Also, (and I realize that it violates every taboo to say this), these radical Muslims are equally intolerant of religious freedom. Islam gained publicity as a “tolerant” religion when it gave certain infidels (Christians and Jews) the status of Dhimmi. Dhimmi are forced to pay additional taxes and abide by humiliating, demeaning laws unless they converted to Islam. Granted, this is significantly more tolerant than the Spanish Inquisition, but many Islamic governments have not adopted the secular view of the state that has prevailed in Western nations since the 1700's. Islamic states are named such because Islam is the official state religion there. There is no separation of church and state as we know it and no guarantees freedom of religion. In Saudi Arabia, widely considered one of the most pro-west and moderate of the Islamic states, all citizens are required by law to be Muslim and public practice of any non-Muslim religion is strictly forbidden. Christians, Jews, and atheists are persecuted without protection from law. Even the new Iraqi constitution, which is in many ways very liberal, establishes Islam as the undisputed religion of the state.
And yet it has become terribly un-PC to criticize the Islamic religion or any of its followers in any way. Christianity is perfectly open to attack, yet it is improper to criticize a religion whose radicals ban the freedom of religion and kill gay and disabled citizens. Yes, true Islam is a religion of peace, just like Christianity, Judaism, and almost any other religion. The fundamentalist proponents of sharia, the oppressive and archaic set of laws (when taken literally) that dominates such places as the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, are arguably less tolerant and more judgmental than America's most rigid evangelicals. Yet it is not politically incorrect to criticize them.
Tolerance is NOT is the equal acceptance of all contending viewpoints, as we have come to believe on college campuses. Tolerance is a policy of allowing people to believe, practice and discuss contending viewpoints whether or not we agree with them, as long as they do not violate sensible laws in the process. The Iranian government cannot actively ban the freedom of religion and execute gays and claim to be tolerant of them.
We should remember that tolerance is a very good idea and essential to the preservation of the natural rights which every human has. So let us become intolerant of intolerance. We should not accept the views of these radical Islamists in any way, shape, or form. They want us dead, and even the retracted e-mail from Dr. Telles-Irvin seems to acknowledge this.
What we need is a change of public sentiment towards these Islamic states, and hopefully their use of the disabled as suicide bombers will be a wake-up call to how horrible some of those individuals really are. I certainly wouldn't recommend war or any sort of imposition of democracy against otherwise non-threatening states – their problems are their own – but we need to understand that the people responsible for the problems in the Mideast are not typical peace-loving Muslims but are Jihadist radicals. They do not deserve our sympathy, our respect, and certainly not our tolerance.