stanley fish - sobre o mundo árabe
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Stanley Fish - sobre o mundo rabe
1/3
Stanley Fish September 17, 2012, 9:00 pm311 Comments
Libya, Violence and Free Speech
By STANLEY FISH
Stanley Fish on education, law and society.
Tags:
First Amendment,free speech,john locke, Libya, religion
Back when Salman Rushdie was made the object of a fatwa because his book TheSatanic Verses was regarded by many Iranians as a blasphemy against the prophet, I
went to a conference where a panel discussion was devoted to Rushdies situation. A
member of the audience raised his hand and, without a trace of irony, asked, Whats
the matter with those Iranians? Havent they ever heard of the First Amendment?
The implication was that if they had heard of it and read it and gotten its message, they
would have understood that you dont target or attack people because of what they have
written; you dont respond to words, however harsh and wounding you take them to be,
as if they were physical blows. Now, in the wake of the events in Libya, the same kind
of thing is being said by American politicians and commentators. If youre listening to
the radio and tuning in to the cable news shows, youre hearing any number of people(including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton) declare, first, that of course the
video vilifying Islam is reprehensible and, second, that nevertheless nothing can justify
the eruption of senseless violence.
Senseless means without reasons, and the assumption is that it cant be a reason to set
a consulate on fire that someone in the consulates home country made a movie saying
nasty things about your religion. After all, if your religion is worthy and strong it will
survive a malicious representation of it. And besides, an assault on your religion is not
an assault on you; its not personal. This is the point made by the Florida pastor Terry
Jones, who insists that the video (with which he is associated in some way not yet
specified) was not designed to attack Muslims, but to show the destructive ideology of
Islam. In other words, were not attacking you, just some of the ideas you hold, an
assertion that makes sense if you think that your religion is just an add-on to your
essential personhood, like the political party you belong to or the football team you root
for.
That is the view of religion we inherited from John Locke and other
accommodationist Protestants, Protestants who entered into a bargain with the state:
allow us freedom of worship, dont meddle in our affairs and we wont meddle in civic
matters or attempt to make public institutions reflect theological doctrines. In his Letter
Concerning Toleration, Locke is eloquent when he explains how this parceling out ofthe world into two distinct spheres a private sphere and a public sphere will put an
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fish/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-free-speech/#postCommenthttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/stanley-fish/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fishhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/first-amendment/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/free-speech/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/free-speech/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/john-locke/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/libya/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/religion/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-free-speech/#postCommenthttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/stanley-fish/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fishhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/first-amendment/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/free-speech/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/john-locke/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/libya/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/religion/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fish/ -
7/28/2019 Stanley Fish - sobre o mundo rabe
2/3
end to the violence that is likely to occur when religious imperatives stray from their
proper home in the heart and the chapel (or mosque or synagogue) and insist on
ordering every aspect of life. If church and state will each of them contain itself within
its own bounds, the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the
other to the salvation of souls, it is impossible that any discord should have happened
between them.
Those who buy into this division of labor and authority will themselves be bifurcated
entities. In their private lives they will live out the commands of their religion to the
fullest. In their public lives their lives as citizens they will relax their religious
convictions and display a tolerance they may not feel in their heart of hearts. We give
witness to this dual identity when we declare, in fidelity to the First Amendment, I hate
and reject what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It hardly needs pointing out that the protesters in Libya and Egypt wont say that not,
however, because they dont understand the First Amendment or the firewall that should
separate religion from civil life or the distinction between ones identity as a citizen andones identity as a believer or the difference between words and blows, but because they
reject all four and, indeed, regard them as evil. In their eyes, a religion that confines
itself to the heart and chapel, and is thus exercised intermittently while the days
business gets done, is no religion at all. True religion does not relax its hold when you
leave the house of worship; it commands your allegiance at all times and in all places.
And the you whose allegiance it commands is not divided into a public you and a
private you; it is the same at home as it is when abroad in the world.
And since for them religion is not an internal, privatized matter safe from the worlds
surfaces, but an overriding imperative that the worlds surfaces should reflect, a verbal
or pictorial assault on their religion will not be received as an external and ephemeral
annoyance, as a mere representation; it will be received as a wounding to the heart, as
a blow, and as a blow that is properly met by blows in return. No sticks and stones will
break my bones but names will never hurt me for them.
So the entire package of American liberalism the distinction between speech and
action, the resolve to protect speech however distasteful it may be, the insistence that
religious believers soften their piety when they enter the public sphere is one the
protesters necessarily reject. When they are told that the United States government had
no part in the production of the video and deplores its content, educated Libyans and
Egyptians reply (reporters tell us), Well, if they think its bad and against their values,why didnt they stop it or punish those who produced it? The standard response is that
we Americans dont suppress or penalize ideas we regard as wrong and even dangerous;
in accordance with the First Amendment, we tolerate them and allow them to present
themselves for possible purchase in the marketplace of ideas.
But that means that protecting the marketplace by refusing to set limits on what can
enter it is the highest value we affirm, and we affirm it no matter what truths might be
vilified and what falsehoods might get themselves accepted. We have decided that the
potential unhappy consequences of a strong free speech regime must be tolerated
because the principle is more important than preventing any harm it might permit. We
should not be surprised, however, if others in the world most others, in fact disagree, not because they are blind and ignorant but because they worship God and
-
7/28/2019 Stanley Fish - sobre o mundo rabe
3/3
truth rather than the First Amendment, which not only keeps God and truth at arms
length but regards them with a deep suspicion.