By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — Richard Nixon had many shortcomings, but compared to Barack Obama, he looks like a saint. I do not ever recall seeing Nixon attempting to subvert the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech, but recently with the release of the Innocence of Muslims film that came out several months ago, our President has stepped over the censorship line. His administration “suggested” that YouTube and Google remove the video for violating their guidelines. I fear that in the months to come, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will probably attempt to intimidate YouTube and Google with a lawsuit designed to keep certain undesirable videos from being publicly aired on the Internet.
While their intention is to stem incendiary reactions from the Muslim world, such a venture would decimate one of our most important civil liberties. Moreover, it would set a precedent for imposing other limitations upon the freedom of expression. Many years ago when The Life of Brian movie came out (which parodied Christianity and Judaism), the movie created considerable debate; Jewish/Christian clergy condemned the film for its brazen disrespect of religion. Nobody rioted or killed in the name of God.
But in the psychotic world of the Islamists (I am referring to those wishing to destroy Western civilization and its values), we find ourselves nervously willing to give up our precious freedoms. Holder and his law enforcement agency are attempting to punish Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the creator of the movie, as a means of showing the Muslim world that we are “punishing” the blasphemer for degrading Islam.
In one L.A. Times editorial, the editor attempts to justify censorship under the guise that there is a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored “to put lives and property at immediate risk,” according to Sarah Chayes (and Anthony Lewis). She further adds that “words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits . . . If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard.” The argument is specious because people have the right to criticize or lampoon what they consider to be offensive religion. Are we going to let the Islamists undermine the values of the Enlightenment or the First Amendment to the Constitution because it offends the religious sensibilities of fanatics?
When the Danish cartoons appeared in the newspaper, the atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote these wise words that certainly ought to apply to our situation today:
- You wish to say that it was instead a small newspaper in Copenhagen that lit the trail? What abject masochism and nonsense. It was the arrogant Danish mullahs who patiently hawked those cartoons around the world (yes, don’t worry, they are allowed to exhibit them as much as they like) until they finally provoked a vicious response against the economy and society of their host country. For good measure, they included a cartoon that had never been published in Denmark or anywhere else. It showed the Prophet Mohammed as a pig, and may or may not have been sent to a Danish mullah by an anonymous ill-wisher. The hypocrisy here is shameful, nauseating, unpardonable.
― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir
Muslim fundamentalists (and they are legion) will never be satisfied with any punishment the Obama Administration wishes to dole out. The Islamists (a term they proudly refer to themselves as) will not be satisfied until the U.S. hands over the creator of the film, along with its actors, so they can be tried and executed—Islamic style. The mere idea that a group of fanatics can dictate what a free country can say or do is nothing less than obscene.
From their perspective, the Islamists believe that the American concept of freedom is the real problem, for it guarantees freedoms that are antithetical to Islamic values. Short of a mass conversion to Islam, the Islamists will never be satisfied with any attempt of our country to curtail free speech. It is time to admit this truth and reality for what it really is.
Actually, the film raises a number of valid questions about Islam that deserve to be heard by the public—especially Muslims. Had George Bush made such a request, you can be sure that the ACLU and other liberal-minded groups would have called, “Foul!” Bush would have been accused of assuming dictatorial powers; some might have viewed such behavior as possible grounds for impeachment. Yet, when Obama attempts to subvert our Constitution, we have given him a free pass. Simply put, it is not the business of our government to tell private companies what kind of “acceptable” content they should be displaying.
With a singular voice we need to make it clear to the Muslim world that in a free society such as the United States, everyone has the right to critique or lampoon any religious belief system s/he sees fit. The United States will never replace its Constitution with Sharia law, which belongs in a medieval world.
In reality, the film was merely the excuse for the attack on our American embassy and the murdering of our ambassador to Libya. The attack was planned with diabolic implementation and was designed to let the world know that al Qaeda is still an ominous threat to deal with. Today, the Secretary of State along with recordings from President Obama once again apologized that the film “hurt the feelings of Muslims everywhere.” Such a feckless response is one of the principle reasons why all the countries of the Middle East view the United States like an empire that is in decline.
The Muslim world perceives Obama’s reaction as patronizing and weak.
Let us pray that our leadership present a strong image of leadership, rather than project the image of our country like that of a scared little child who is afraid to stand up to the bully.
*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com