Affirming a Principle of Religious Bigotry to Combat it

12/14/15

Part 1
Part 2- unintended consequences section

Fareed Zakaria's monologue this Sunday morning on his television program, repeated in his column in Time magazine began with:

I think of myself first and foremost as an American. I’m proud of that identity because as an immigrant, it came to me through deep conviction and hard work, not the accident of birth. I also think of myself as a husband, father, guy from India, journalist, New Yorker and (on my good days) an intellectual. But in today’s political climate, I must embrace another identity. I am a Muslim.

After a pause to let these words sink in, he continues with words that I see negate the clear identification of his religion:

I am not a practicing Muslim. The last time I was in a mosque, except as a tourist, was decades ago. My wife is Christian, and we have not raised our children as Muslims. My views on faith are complicated — somewhere between deism and agnosticism. I am completely secular in my outlook. But as I watch the way in which Republican candidates are dividing Americans, I realize that it’s important to acknowledge the religion into which I was born.

This monologue sheds light on an important issue, which is how does, not only the individual, but the  rest of the world view one who is “of a given religion.”  As a child on my first day in kindergarten, the first question kids asked was, “what are you?” expecting an answer such as Catholic, Italian, or Jew (we were only five years old) But, that meant something to us then, just as now as adults we quickly learn whether a stranger is liberal, conservative or variations thereof. 

What does it mean to be a Muslim who never practices the religion, or goes to its house of worship, and defines himself as “completely secular.”  I’m a Jew in much the same way that Zakaria is a Muslim.  What struck me in Zakaria’s monologue was the time and place that it would have been valid -- which was under the  Nuremburg Laws of 1933.  Then, one’s religion was defined by blood, not belief.  The single religion focused on then happened to be Judaism, but the principle was the same.  Only in that era, would my belief, practices, ideology not in any way change the reality that in that society,  I was a Jew.

Zakaria goes on in his monologue to castigate Donald Trump for his bigotry against Muslims which is actually missing the greater point of his candidacy, which while delivered with bluster, crudeness and distortions, is, perhaps inadvertently, challenging the deep, unexamined political-cultural assumptions of our country and the Western world.  It seems that the voting population of this country is divided, either kill the messenger or cheer him on, with every attack further instilling admiration among his acolytes for this iconoclast.  In some ways,  Zakaria stating “I’m a Muslim” and then pausing a beat to let it sink in, was just short of proclaiming “Allah Akbar.”  His message is such piety is something he defends, yet, in reality, he has chosen to reject it; and given his intellect, not for trivial reasons.  I would guess they were similar to my own rejection of Judaism, and all other structured religions that require a suspension of critical faculties in deference to one who is “higher,” be it in wisdom or closer to God Almighty.

Fareed Zakaria is no more a Muslim than Barack Obama is a man who subscribes to any set of religious tenets, be it Christian or, as he is still accused of, Islam.  Bernie Sanders is in the same bind, accepting the Nuremburg premise, where, a secularist such as he is seen as in the same category as Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman who is a practicing, and thus believing, Jew. Actually, a nasty practice of many religions is punishment for those who publicly renounce them, the act of “apostasy.”  So open denial of their ostensible religion would have consequences.  For Obama, it would have been his never having entered political life;  for Zakaria, depending on the nature of his rejection it could very well be a Fatwah that could be more deadly.

Fareed Zakara’s “My Take” statement as a whole is meant as opposition to bigotry, but his words, his assertion that his religion is what he was born into, is not to be ignored.  He could have substituted, “I am an atheist (agnostic or secularist).  Yet, a part of me will always be Muslim, the religion I was born into.”  Such a statement may have just provided the needed first blow to crack the rigidity, the myth of religious identity being in the blood. It is this that is the root of religious bigotry, with its outbursts of genocide that have plagued humanity throughout history.

Section 2

Two weeks after what I describe and criticize in Part 1above, there was another opening to Zakaria's TV program, also in his Washington Post column, as excerpted here.  It is more important than part 1, but may not have happened if he had not made his, "I am a Muslim" statement.  My criticism of that statement pales in comparison to what followed, as he describes:

>As it happens, in recent weeks I was the target of a trolling campaign and saw exactly how it works. It started when an obscure website published a post titled “CNN host Fareed Zakaria calls for jihad rape of white women.” The story claimed that in my “private blog” I had urged the use of American women as “sex slaves” to depopulate the white race. The post further claimed that on my Twitter account, I had written the following line: “Every death of a white person brings tears of joy to my eyes.”

Disgusting. So much so that the item would collapse from its own weightlessness, right? Wrong. Here is what happened next: Hundreds of people began linking to it, tweeting and retweeting it, and adding their comments, which are too vulgar or racist to repeat. A few ultra-right-wing websites reprinted the story as fact. With each new cycle, the levels of hysteria rose, and people started demanding that I be fired, deported or killed. For a few days, the digital intimidation veered out into the real world. Some people called my house late one night and woke up and threatened my daughters, who are 7 and 12.

It would have taken a minute to click on the link and see that the original post was on a fake news site, one that claims to be satirical (though not very prominently)
I am involved in what has become a cause, perhaps taking too seriously.  But this incident of Zakaria being attacked for a fictional article, reminds me why I'm combating a willful distortion by the N.Y. Times of an Appeals court decision.  If the Times can blatantly do this, it is a challenge not to me, but to the underpinnings of freedom of speech itself.  This freedom is not absolute, for the Times anymore than those who wrote the false article that led threats against Zakaria.  What is not protected is  speech that defames or threatens.  The one defense against the charge of defamation,  is "that it is true."  Yet a society, a nation- indivisable must have a source that is agreed upon as upholding the conveyance of such truth, always subject to revision with new information.  The New York Times has been that vital institution, which in the case I'm addressing they have abrogated. .

Fareed's terrified children remind me that my effort challenging the Times is worth fighting for.