A Pilgrim’s Digression

The Washington Post has a good op-ed today on the Mohammad cartoon controversy. Titled Tolerance Toward Intolerance, the article is written by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Washington bureau chief of the German newspaper Die Zeit. The writer addresses the question of whether European newspapers should have published the cartoons or not, and he concludes that at least in the case of his own newspaper, it was the right thing to do.

I have been wavering on this issue, the more thought I’ve given it. In some ways, Kleine-Brockhoff is engaging in a bit of Solomon-like “let’s divide the baby in half” pseudo-sophistry. He suggests that because the Danish paper published the cartoons first, this made the cartoons themselves a news story, and thus it is now legitimate to reprint the cartoons in furtherance of the story. He points to instances in which offensive images become newsworthy, such as bodies plummeting from the World Trade Center towers.

Thus far, I am not sure I agree with that argument because, as I said, there is an attitude behind it that suggests that since Die Zeit wasn’t the first paper to print the cartoons, it can now print them without guilt.

However, Kleine-Brockhoff does make some legitimate points later. He writes that “It seems odd that most U.S. papers patronize their readers by withholding cartoons that the whole world talks about. To publish does not mean to endorse. Context matters.”

Patronized is exactly how I feel when I see a news story about this subject on TV, and the news program will not show the images in question. I know that I can find the cartoons easily enough on-line, but I live in America, damn it, and last time I checked censorship was out of fashion in this country.  At least, that’s what I used to think.

Kleine-Brockhoff makes his best case at the end of his article, however. He argues that the Muslim people and governments who are protesting these cartoons are demanding tolerance, when they themselves have none. “They are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules.” Kleine-Brockhoff calls this a demand for “tolerance of intolerance.”

It is a compelling argument. Especially when one is faced with the sickening irony of Iran calling for a similar cartoon contest to caricature the Holocaust. One can only imagine what perverted, xenophobic trash Iranian cartoonists are going to produce. But if this contest ever materializes, the west needs to stand by its values and utter not so much as a peep. We need to demonstrate that we are a tolerant people, tolerant even of intolerance, to an extent.

It’s a tough call. On the one hand, as a Christian I recognize that it is our duty not to give offense or cause our neighbor to stumble. Clearly, these cartoons have given offense and led to violence. On the other hand, the reaction of the Islamic world—a world in which all other religions are subordinated and repressed—is so grossly hypocritical that I find it difficult to respect their point of view at all.

This is the difficult path of Christ, I suppose. It is easy to love and respect someone like us, whom we view as good and righteous. How does one find love and respect in ones heart for those who neither love nor respect us? Probably the only way for this divide to be bridged is for Western societies to swallow our pride and apologize, first for the cartoons, then for every insult we have committed upon the Muslim world.

I can be belligerant as the next person, and I don’t consider myself a pacifist.  I too often forget, or else disregard the Golden Rule as inappropriate for application in “real-world” affairs.  However, in this case, I think the Golden Rule may be the only antidote for the poison that seems to be sickening our culture and leading us only to a prolonged death by eternal warfare.  As long as we continue in denial that we have ever wronged the Muslim peoples of the Middle East, there is no chance for love or respect to grow between the two faiths of Islam and Christianity.

We cannot expect them to ever admit that they have wronged us, but we can take responsibility for our own actions. As any psychologist will tell you, a person in a damaging relationship with another person can only change themselves, not the other party.

Admitting our wrongdoing may be a first step; and as difficult as that first step may be, more difficult steps lie ahead. Penance is the most difficult part of any confession.  However, it may also be true that while Denmark and other European countries may eventually come around to an apology for the cartoons, such humility as I am advising may be beyond the United States at this point.  We are far more adept at pointing out the faults of our brother than we are at admitting the blemishes on our own soul.