"I Am Not Charlie"

done! May 15, 2016
 
When the offices of the humor magazine Charlie Hebdo were attacked, there was general condemnation for the attackers.  It was only natural; they were behaving irrationally, reacting to critical words and pictures with violence, murderous violence.  The killers only showed themselves as another group of representatives of humorless fundamentalism and up-tight self-concern.  The cartoons were harsh, even tasteless, to be sure.  We must remember, however, that in a free society, many people will disagree with us and we with them.  There will be ideas and statements we simply do not like.  Yet, ideas should be tolerated as mere ideas, and only actions condemned or labeled as harmful.  This is also part of a free society, the ideal of tolerance for the habits of others.  Still, it was not long before criticisms of the seemingly blind support began to be heard.  They were not loud, for the most part.  Many were dismissed as mere apologetics for Complete Tolerance.  It may be, though, that while those murdered in the offices were victims of cruelty and stupidity, they should not be held up as martyrs.

The main issue with the case is tolerance, namely, religious and cultural tolerance.  The killers were thought to represent the Muslim population, and Charlie Hebdo was well-known for its attacks on religion in general, not just Islam.  The Catholic Church might protest, but only a Muslim would take the road of violence, is that not so?  Some pointed out that the critiques of the Church and its priests were even more vicious than any cartoon portraying a Muslim.  The editors of the magazine claim to be attacking irrationality, which no religion can exist without.  They are not attacking religion per se, nor Muslims in particular, and if the faulty thought process they are attacking is a fundamental basis for somebody's faith, so much the worse for that person.  While we have freedom of speech, nobody has freedom from criticism.  Why, then, was it a group of Muslims that took up arms to avenge their hurt feelings?  The Conventional Wisdom is that Islam is an inherently violent religion, moreso than any branch of Christianity (at least today), or any other creed.  One need only look at conflicts in Asia, specifically India and Thailand, to see how poorly Muslims get along with their neighbors of other faiths.  Hindus and Buddhists are not by nature violent religions, we think, and their conflicts with Muslims only serve to highlight the incompatibility of this faith with tolerance and respect for others.  But even if this were true, is it enough of an explanation?  If Islam is so naturally violent, why is there not even more violence, more often?  How can they sit still, even for an instant?  Can there be no other factors involved?

One possible factor is economic.  We are aware of the riots that broke out some years ago in France, and also in Great Britain, due to the feeling of frustration and abandonment by Muslim youth in those countries.  They were living in ghettos, locked out of the general society.  It is rather more understandable that people fight for their right to participate economically and socially in their civic environment than that they attack that environment based on some holy screed.  In fact, similar social problems have appeared in many countries since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and while the rioters or protestors may have belonged to the same social - read racial or religious - group, they were not acting on mere ideological whims, at least in the majority of cases.  They were reacting to a situation that deprived them of opportunity and dignified life compared to their neighbors in different groups.  They were discriminated against due to a perceived fault in their person, not manifested in any methodically observed and duly recorded way, but through assumption based on their belonging to their group.  In short, based on racism.  Racism still causes economic inequality in the developed world.  Racism still results in violence at an individual level, as well as societal although it can be harder to clearly demonstrate.  Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons actually attacking silly beliefs, or were they attacking a group under the assumption that they must all share exactly the same beliefs?  A more recent cartoon showed a projection of the drowned Syrian child, washed up on a Turkish beach, as a common street harasser should he have lived to adolescence.  The warning is clear: All Muslim males are dangerous to (white) women.  Here, then, is a problem: Are we to denounce all Muslim males as culturally dangerous and suspect while excusing the harassment committed by white and/or Christian men as exceptions to a general rule of good behavior?  How does one identify a Muslim with certainty?  It seems that much rests on the color of his skin.  Hmm.  That sounds very familiar.

It is natural to be suspicious of those who are different from us.  We cannot predict their actions with as much accuracy when we do not know their values.  Supposedly, the Abrahamic religions share their basic values, so it should not be a major hassle for members of those religions to adjust to one another.  Unfortunately, in reality it is a terrible hassle.  For one thing, although a religion has its central tenets and directions for behavior, societies and cultures do as well.  Religions develop regional variations to better fit the needs of the adherents.  The question in a modern society is whether people are citizens of their country or members of their community of worship?  The general values should be the same; but it is not hard at all to find details that give rise to bitter disagreement and conflict, even in so-called Christian countries where there are more than one style of Christianity.  A clear example is in the USA where we see the opposition by religious people, based on purely religious reasons, to the fair and equal treatment of those who are not straight, white, cis-men.  At the moment, their fury is concentrated on trans* people, but the focus of their rage can change quite easily.  A good American citizen follows the laws of the land, which include prohibitions against discrimination for impractical reasons.  A good Christian, apparently, discriminates at every opportunity.  It has been noted that the editors of Charlie Hebdo wrote an opinion piece after the Brussels attacks, in which they warned their fellow Europeans that any form of live-and-let-live with the Muslims among them was tacit support for terrorism.  They rejected any effort by Muslims to spread awareness and understanding of their faith in a non-violent way.  They rejected any attempt to simply live a quiet life according to that faith, singling out veiled women as "not allowing" Europeans to be uncomfortable around them.  They also insisted that they were not attacking Muslims as individuals, but left little room for any Muslim to not be an insidious plotter and time bomb for the naïve and tolerant Europeans around them.

The question remains: What are we to do with the patchwork society that has formed around us?  How can we keep the peace between mutually suspicious groups?  Yes, tolerance is necessary.  Also, openness and communication.  We must all feel that we have a stake in maintaining the smooth functioning of society.  We must know that we are part of one group, besides any others we belong to.  Some would say we should consider the entire human race as that group above all others, and perhaps someday we will be able to truly conceive of ourselves as a single global species, setting aside regional customs and traditions.  Unfortunately, for the time being there are too many conflicting values in different cultures for that idea to be feasible.  We can focus on our political units as a start.  Everything starts with baby steps.

I was inspired by:  http://the-orbit.net/literateperversions/why-i-never-have-been-and-never-will-be-charlie/