Liberalism as religion?

I have read this editorial several times now, and I must say that I can't figure out if the author is trying to blame liberals for the Muslim protests or...what exactly? In his piece, Our Faith in Letting It All Hang Out, Stanley Fish seems to imply that anyone who doesn't "get" why Muslims are so upset over these cartoons, well, they are just immoral liberals.

The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously. This is managed by the familiar distinction — implied in the First Amendment's religion clause — between the public and private spheres. It is in the private sphere — the personal spaces of the heart, the home and the house of worship — that one's religious views are allowed full sway and dictate behavior.

But in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them — that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies — but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed — and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate — is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me. This was certainly the message conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, who explained his decision to reprint one of the cartoons thusly: "It is one thing to respect other people's faith and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos."

Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to "accept" the taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter his behavior in any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger of crossing the line between "respecting" a taboo and taking it seriously, and he is not about to do that.

So, would "Liberals" be most of the United States and the western world then? Would that include the religious right of this country? The right-wing pundits? Cuz...pretty much everyone is looking at the protests as a gross overreaction, much along the same type of reaction of the right in THIS country to, oh say, the Dixie Chicks and France, though I must admit, no French embassy was burned down, though, as I recall, there were public burnings and destruction of Dixie Chicks CDs and a dry cleaners with a French souding name was destroyed.

One of the problems with the essay is the conflation of religious traditions/faith with overall morality. Mr. Fish seems to think that they are one and the same.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

[...]

But I would bet that the editors who have run the cartoons do not believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must either be converted or vanquished. They do not publish the offending cartoons in an effort to further some religious or political vision; they do it gratuitously, almost accidentally. Concerned only to stand up for an abstract principle — free speech — they seize on whatever content happens to come their way and use it as an example of what the principle should be protecting. The fact that for others the content may be life itself is beside their point.

This is itself a morality — the morality of a withdrawal from morality in any strong, insistent form. It is certainly different from the morality of those for whom the Danish cartoons are blasphemy and monstrously evil. And the difference, I think, is to the credit of the Muslim protesters and to the discredit of the liberal editors.

What? We should give them credit??? This makes them more moral than the rest of us??? This is where Mr. Fish conflates religious tenets with morality. They are not one and the same. Muslims believe an artistic depiction of Mohammed is blasphemy. Fine. They can believe that until the end of time. But as I see it, that is not a moral tenet. Don't murder. Don't cheat. Don't steal. Don't rip off the poor. These are moral tenets on which all religions and even athiests can agree. These should indeed be used to fashion the laws that govern us all.

And yes, there does come a point where we say, in our secular government, "Yes, we do respect your religious belief that says it is immoral for women to be uncovered in public. That is your religious choice and perfectly within your rights as you live in our society. But do not expect us to make a law requiring all women of our country to cover themselves in public, so as not to offend your religious beliefs." What would be the reaction in this country if, for instance, orthodox Jews who do not work on Saturdays, and observe strict restrictions in how far they can travel, insisted that the rest of the country do the same?

However, Mr. Fish ends with something with which I can agree.

This is why calls for "dialogue," issued so frequently of late by the pundits with an unbearable smugness — you can just see them thinking, "What's wrong with these people?" — are unlikely to fall on receptive ears. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism's theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.

But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn't want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but further persuade him that you have missed the point — as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.

And the same can be said of the far-right religious fundamentalists in our own country.

Like I said, I have read this essay several times now, and I am still not quite sure what his point is. Is he saying dialogue is useless and we should give in to the demands of religious fundamentalists because, by golly, at least they have a strong conviction that they are right and you morality-challenged liberals don't? Does he mean that we who wish religious neutrality are not as entitled to having our beliefs respected as those who would burn down embassies and murder innocents, all in the name of a religious belief? I refuse to accept his argument, if indeed, that is what he is suggesting.

It's so funny, I can't tell you the number of times I have heard my fellow countrymen say, "If [enter your favorite non-English speaking group here] wants to live in this country, they should learn to speak English." Gee, I would just prefer that everyone learn to speak "liberal." Of course, there are some native born Americans who could learn the same. Yep, freedom of speech means ALL speech. Not just politically correct speech, either left OR right.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet