|
Rationally Speaking.
N. 62, June 2005
On Holy books
OK, so Newsweek made (probably)
a mistake in reporting, based on an anonymous
source, that US interrogators at the infamous
base in Guantanamo Bay have desecrated the Koran,
allegedly by flushing it down the toilet. Bad
journalism, though no worse than what the American
media have accustomed us to for the past several
years. Even the use of anonymous sources is neither
unusual nor necessarily a bad idea (Watergate
might not have happened without the anonymous
source famously referred to as "deep throat").
What is most interesting
about the Newsweek debacle is the reaction
of the US government, and perhaps even more
so the underpinning of the widespread outrage
at what the American weekly has allegedly
caused as a result of its mistake.
Take the reaction by US government officials.
The attack on Newsweek was all-out, with allegations
of damaging American reputation with Muslims
across the world. As if that needed any help
since the Bush administration has gone to
war on the basis of what turned out to be
false information about alleged weapons of
mass destruction; information, of course,
provided by an anonymous source ("curveball"),
and that former Secretary of State Colin Powell
shamelessly paraded as "fact" in
front of the United Nations. |
|
It is in fact astounding, and
more than a little worrisome, that the Bush administration
is so eager to attack the press and use it as
a scapegoat for its own foolish foreign policies.
It is downright scary when so many right-wing
media pundits are ready to jump on Newsweek for
being "unpatriotic" (code word for doing
or saying anything they don't like). It is funny
(in a dark humor sense) when the magazine is labeled
as part of the "liberal media conspiracy"
(a convenient rhetorical fiction invented by the
extreme right), even though Newsweek has ran plenty
of stories that favorably covered the war on Iraq
and the actions of the US military. It is dangerous
when almost everybody (except an op-ed piece in
the New York Times) ignored the statements of
an American general (a member of the same military
that Newsweek has allegedly purposely bashed and
engendered) to the effect that the riots that
killed several people in Pakistan had nothing
to do with the publication of the incriminated
article.
But let us consider the broader
picture for a moment. Suppose for the sake of
argument that the short, inaccurate, article in
Newsweek really was the spark that led to murderous
riots half a world away. In what reasonable sense
are the author of the piece and editor of the
magazine responsible for such a sad outcome? The
reasoning behind the accusations raised against
Newsweek is that we actually expect people to
become violent because a book they care for has
been flushed down the toilet. We may not (at least
officially) condone such reaction, but we put
the responsibility square on the shoulders of
the journalists, rather than on the people who
so easily resort to violence. You see, if not
OK, it is at least understandable when religious
zealots riot or kill to defend their twisted understanding
of their faith. It must have been a similar feeling
that prompted the former Pope, John Paul II (the
one now being considered for fast-track to sainthood)
to refuse to apologize for the Catholic Church's
killing of Giordano Bruno in 1600. You know, Bruno
may have been right about the fact that the earth
is not the center of the earth, but after all,
he was a heathen...
| But wait! Isn't
precisely this sort of religious intolerance
that brought about the attacks on the US on
9/11 2001? There may have been reasons why
the terrorists did it, and these reasons surely
had something to do with American foreign
policy in the Middle East during the past
several decades. But reasons are not the same
as justifications. The terrorists who attacked
the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon
were fully to blame for having decided that
the way to resolve cultural and political
conflicts is to kill innocent people. Similarly,
the only culprits in the Pakistani riots are
those religious bigots and overzealous security
forces who went ahead and did the rioting
and killing, regardless of what real or imaginary
"offense" to their religion they
may have used as an excuse for their senseless
actions. |
|
Here is another way to put the
point. Imagine the headlines: "Creationists
flush a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species down
the toilet. Dozens killed in the resulting riots
on university campuses." Of course, you will
never see such a headline, except perhaps in The
Onion. The reason is not just that not even the
most ardent secular humanist actually regards
Darwin's writings as sacred, but that the whole
ethics of science and humanism is about tolerance
for other people's views. To paraphrase Mel Brooks,
a sense of humor is the humanist's best defense
against the universe. Unfortunately, the one thing
religious zealots seem to sorely lack is precisely
a sense of humor. Yet surely God, the most perfect
of all beings, appreciates a laugh here and there,
even at Her own expense. After all, didn't she
create the Platypus?
Back
to Articles |
Home
|
