Brace Yourself: I'm Going Political

So Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor and the radical Muslim world reacted violently; an Italian nun was murdered and Christian churches were desecrated. Talk about anger management issues! The Vatican offered an apology.

In a recent article posted on Slate.com, Anne Applebaum wrote:

"... I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon: I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology (and to my colleague Christopher Hitchens). But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech - —surely the pope is allowed to quote medieval texts- and of the press. And we can also unite - —loudly - —in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies, and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde, and Fox News. Western institutions of the left, the right, and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" —but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or ought to have said if he had been given better advice.'

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism, and hatred that pours out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day of the week all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them —simultaneously. Equally, I see no reason why Swedish social democrats, British conservatives, and Dutch liberals couldn't occasionally forget their admittedly deep differences and agree unanimously that the practices of female circumcision and forced child marriage are totally unacceptable, whether in Somalia or Stockholm. Surely on this issue they all agree.'

... I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and remain united, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too."

Free Speech? Who really has free speech these day? If you look at someone crossed-eyed, she could sue you. If you say "fag" in a public address, gasps will be heard for miles. Everyone is using swear words now-a-days. If someone says "fuck," you probably won't be offended. But if someone uses the "N-word," you'll be going to hell in a handbasket. (Interesting side note, I'll use the word "fuck" but I won't write the "N-word." What does this say about my social consciousness? Have I been trained to hide from one thing yet brandish another?) Valgarity is in while socio-economics are out. Slander has become all-encompasing. A guy in England can't peacefully pass out pamphlets during a gay pride demonstration. We don't say secretary anymore - it's administrative assistant. Soon I won't be able to say that I hate prunes because grape growers will be offended.

Ok, don't get me wrong. I'm going a little extreme in the previous paragraph. Many patterns of speech have been rightfully changed (including the "N-word" in case you're doubting my personal beliefs). But I also remember, in my first college class, being verbally jumped on because I used the name of a politically incorrect song title in a sociology discussion. This has taught me to use discernment when speaking. I digress.

My point is that I think society has become too seeker sensitive. We don't want to offend. We offer constant excuses. There is the infamous "Mistakes were make" example. Such a sentence does not define ownership nor does it define the subject. It's ambiguous. No one takes a stand.

Applebaum's article calls for a stand. I like it. I think we need more of it.