Sheridan: Con-Law

POPE V. MUSLIMS

There are 1.4 billion Muslims and Pope Benedict XVI has managed to anger any number of them by quoting a medieval Greek Orthodox emperor (eastern rite, Constantinople), Paleologos ("old word" in Greek, literally).  Old Paleologos had no use for Islam, referring to its alleged precept to spread the faith by the sword.

The pope has since been troubled with having to explain his alleged insult, and every time he opens his mouth, he seems to draw new controversy.  Muslims are threatening to kill Catholics over the incident and may already have.  The irony is that the pope was calling attention to an alleged Muslim propensity to resort to violence when claiming insult.  Do the Muslims display an alleged propensity to behave calmly in the face of such criticism?  Just the opposite, enough of them play right into the criticism, as though to underline its correctness, thereby messing things up for all the Muslims who are not resorting to violence.  The few ruin it for the many who, presumably, prefer to live in peace, as only a few seem bent on making trouble.

Muslim trouble is not to be disregarded, as 9-11 attests.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews have been at each others' throats for a long time.  It's almost enough to make you believe that God is a fiction invented to provide a fig leaf for all the killing done in His name, but really done in ours.

We humans kill a lot of people in the name of our Lord.  Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" (samharris.org) takes religion to task over this.

The problem is that traditional notions of religion have provided the organizing principle for the world, from the ancient Greeks (the Olympian pantheon), the Romans (Caesar Augustus), Europe (Christianity), the Middle East (Islam), India (Hindu), China (Tao), America (fundamentalist Christianity mixed with secularism, rational science, etc.)

Religion doesn't seem in any danger of disappearing any time soon.  Yet it is our biggest obstacle to employing the clear, hard thinking exhibited by the ancient Greeks, as opposed to the mysticism advanced by Christians and Jews.

Our choices are to use our heads or our hearts, but it's a lot harder to use your head.

The conflict is between thinking your way past religion, which we call science, or sticking to religion as a way of avoiding thinking altogether.  If you don't think, you can live in bliss, as in the old saying:

If ignorance is bliss, then 'tis folly to be wise.

The pope's problem is that of the pot calling the kettle black.  He can't afford to indulge in critical thinking and intellectual honesty any more than the Muslims or any other person who believes that the idea of God has some relevance to explaining the natural world or the relief of suffering, for the old god has a monopoly on suffering.  For a supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing God, he adds a lot to the store of suffering but prevents none. Traditionally what we do in such cases is to invent a new, improved version of God, relegating the old, but we seem to be stuck on hold with the current immoral one and don't want to think about it.  It's too politically incorrect to do otherwise.

The story goes that if Jerusalem were destroyed in a nuclear blast, believers would make relics of the ash.

Perhaps we should establish a string of temples to morality, the prevention and alleviation of suffering.  We could have altars, ministers, and all the other good paraphernalia that we enjoy having, choirs, music, dancing, feasts, and the like.  Only we wouldn't slit each others' throats.  That would be one of the top commandments, if we had commandments.  Do we need commandments?  Probably we should have two:  Prevent suffering and no throat-slitting, anytime, for any reason, ever.  Carve it in stone.  Get some good architects to design the buildings.  Check your weapons at the door.  We'll have prophets and saints, you know, people who've done good at preventing suffering and who don't slit throats. You wouldn't get thrown out for not believing right.  All you'd have to do was to favor no-suffering and no-throat-slitting and you can join the singing and dancing, maybe meet a few nice people you could marry and raise kids with. 

What could be better? 

Or you could stick to your old religion, run by throat-slitting preachers whose dedication to preventing suffering is wanting.

IMAM ROBERTSON'S FATWA

Television evangelist and big time money-raiser Smilin' Pat Robertson, a Yale product, has called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States, according to the Associated Press, today.  Chavez is one of Pres. Bush's most outspoken critics, accusing the U.S. of conspiring to topple his government and assassinate him.  Do we still do that sort of thing?

Robertson is a founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate who raises funds on "The 700 Club," where he made this remark.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said.  "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Ah, yes, the oil.  Murder is okay so long as it doesn't risk interfering with the flow of the oxygen that sustains our economy, and Robertson's.

Venezuela, according to the AP article is our 5th largest supplier of oil and we buy 59% of its output.

And why does Robertson want to see Chavez assassinated?  Because the U.S. has a duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

It looks like Robertson hasn't quite come to terms with the fact that the Cold War is over and no one, particularly Chavez, is trying to subvert the U.S. by introducing any more communism than we may already have. 

So we may be little communist, in that we have social welfare programs like worker safety, minimum wage, maximum hours, labor union protection, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment compensation, aid to families and children, and a host of other laws that protect individuals while costing corporations, owners and managers.

We'll just have to try and live with the moral impurity of it all.

But what of Robertson's fear that Chavez of Venezuela will make that place a launching pad for "Muslim extremism?"  That's a lot more scary than Communism.  As stated, we already have that, and appear to be doing pretty well under it, so long as we're allowed to own and inherit property.

What is this Muslim fundamentalism that Robertson fears?  Does he fear, for example, that Muslim religious leaders, called imams, might issue religious decrees, called fatwas, the way that they did when novelist Salman Rushdie published his "Satanic Verses" and had to go into hiding for years because it had been made a religious duty to murder him?

Surely Robertson fears religious leaders calling for the assassination of people whose views differ from theirs.  That is the height of Muslim fundamentalism.  Maybe the Muslims got that from the Christians, I don't know.  But right now I'm having difficulty separating Robertson and his fatwa against Chavez from the fatwa of the imams calling for Rushdie's death.

Perhaps Imam Robertson would be so kind as to explain.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

***

The case allowing Robertson to run off at the mouth about murdering foreign heads of state, which has been a crime in America since we tried to assassinate Fidel Castro using exploding cigars and the Mafia as delivery boys (Terrific idea!  Where was Bob Newhart when we needed him?) is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

I wrote the following on a hometown site, calling attention to the meaning of Brandenburg:

Robertson has formally apologized today for his assassination remarks, following the furor which made him out to be no better than the worst of the mullahs. Since I've never seen a mullah take back anything he's said, this is to Robertson's credit.

What about the idea of a person getting on TV and telling the government it should resort to illegal murder of heads of foreign states? Is that allowed under the first amendment?

How about if the call was to private followers to take the law into their own hands and commit a crime?

The law on the subject is embodied in a 1969 case called Brandenburg v. Ohio in which a KKK leader exhorted followers to march on Congress and maybe take the place over, I forget exactly what he advocated, but it was illegal. He was arrested and convicted under an Ohio law and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the question was whether the conviction unconstitutionally impaired the man's freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

You can read the decision here, it's short, only being a page in length, and represents the state of the law today:

http://tinyurl.com/43xkz

Although a short opinion, it represents the distillation of fifty years of difficult struggle in the courts over free speech in the context of WWI, fear of socialism, communism, and the McCarthy Era. You can, essentially, urge what you will provided there's little real danger of action being taken on your advocacy.

Now you'll know what the lawyers know, and after you read the decision your opinion is as good as the next person's because applying principles is different than knowing what they are.

The principle of Brandenburg v. Ohio appears to be that you can advocate illegal conduct such as violence, murder, the overthrow of the government, the assassination of foreign leaders, etc., so long as there's no immediate likelihood that the words or exhortations are likely to be carried out now. Absent these conditions, it's considered just talk, venting, blowing off steam and the like. This doesn't mean that the police have to wait and see if City Hall is stormed before acting, however.

The Robertson affair has provided an interesting teaching - learning example, so we may owe him a small thank-you for this unintended consequence of his ill-considered words.

       

***

Bob Newhart is the celebrated comic whose stand-up routine had him speaking to a historical figure by telephone and acting as though he were the only sane person in an insane world.  Here's how he might have handled a phone call with Pat Robertson, acting as Pat's PR guy:

Bob:  You say that you've made a statement on the 700 Club this morning calling for the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro's good friend?

Bob:  And the reason you called for the murder of Chavez is what?

Oh, you think he wants to use Venezuela as the launching pad for the introduction of communism into this country?  A-a-a-nd what?  Oh, you think he wants to introduce Muslim Fundamentalism into this country?

Um-hmm, and what would that consist of?  Oh, I see, mullahs issuing fatwas calling for the death of people they don't agree with?  Um-hmmm, I think I get it.  You've issued a decree calling for the illegal  assassination of Hugo Chaves of Venezuela because you're afraid he might issue a decree calling for the death of people here who disagree with him?  Did I get that right?  I see...and you want to get him first!  That is an interesting idea; has there been any reaction to it yet?  Um-hmm, the State Department has issued a statement disavowing the remarks?  And the Pentagon?  Who?  Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld?  And the news media? You say they're all over this?  And what about the White House?  They're keeping mum?  That's good, Pat, why don't we try to keep it that way.  Have you thought of saying you were misquoted, Pat?  That won't work because you said it on TV.  tapes?  How about "quoted out of context?"  No, they have the tapes?  How about "misunderstood?"  Oh you tried that and your lawyers are telling you to what?  That you're legally protected, unless, of course, someone murders Chavez tonight?  Oh, dear.  Have  you thought of apologizing and retracting the whole thing, Pat?  Pat, why don't you try that and pray nothing happens to Chavez between now and midnight and I think you'll be out of the woods on this one, Pat.  And Pat, the next time would you call me before you call for the death of anyone on the air, Pat, wouldya please do that Pat, okay?  Thanks, Pat.  Seeya.

Only if Newhart did it, it would be funny.

***

Robertson has since apologized for his lapse.  The CNN account of the story is here.

***

For the unimpressed (!) reaction of the Washington Post, see below: