Iraq and Afghanistan

Freedom of Expression in a World of Terror

Today Kristof, the Op-Ed writer, asks us to take seriously the
implications of the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers
based on a reading of the Christian "Book of Revelations". In the
latest, "Glorious Appearing", Jesus returns to earth to kill all
non-Christians, perhaps better said, to kill all persons who have not
accepted him as their saviour. When Jesus speaks, the bodies of
nonbelievers are ripped open in a mass extinction that causes their
flesh to dissolve and their eyes to melt until they finally "rattle to
the pavement". To me, this seems little more than another example of
the exploitation of violence that is rampant in popular "cultural" life
today. The only difference is that "Glorious Appearing", the
best-selling series of adult novels in America today, has sold 60
million copies worldwide.

As Kristof points out, were such a movie to be produced in Saudi
Arabia, depicting the spiritually justified and remorseless massacre of
Christians or Jews as its subject matter, our press and our Congress
would be infuriated, demand an investigation, perhaps even sever
relations with the offending state.

To this point Kristof makes sense. We surely must remove the "motes
from our eyes". We must be aware of how our literature looks to others,
and we must be willing to talk about the aspects of our literature that
promote intolerance at home and abroad. We must not give intolerance "a
pass". But then Kristof goes on to say: "People have a right to believe
in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into
hell. I don't think that we should ban books that say that. But we
should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate
religious intolerance and violence against infidels."

Is this it? We should be embarrassed? Years of dedication to absolutist
positions in the media on freedom of expression and religious freedom
cause Kristof to go no further. But I disagree. We are engaged in a
worldwide cultural struggle that too easily degenerates into violence,
so far not seriously in this country, but certainly in the Middle East,
parts of Africa, and South and Southeast Asia. It is doubtful that we
can continue to countenance in our society the acceptance of
expressions of hatred that explicitly or implicitly advocate the death
and destruction of masses of people. If the Japanese had been quicker
to understand the writings of the Aum Shinrikyo, they would have
avoided the Sarin attack in the subways (as well as the much more
serious catastrophes that nearly occurred as a result of their
doctrines). Germany after World War II decided it could not live with
certain forms of the expression of Nazi ideology. It is not true, as I
read today on a pedophilia web site, that "if you ban ANYTHING, it
leads to tyranny!" Germany has not become a tyranny because of its
anti-Nazi laws. In a world of terror we should come to the same
conclusion as the Germans, for ourselves, and eventually for the
international community. We can no longer live with the idea that all
expression must be given a pass in a free society, no matter its
implications. In the modern world, "Left Behind" is equivalent to a cry
of "fire" in a crowed theatre.

Rethinking freedom of expression seriously, not in the casual manner of
the Patriot Act, should be high on the liberal agenda. This does not
mean checking on the reading habits of library patrons. It does not
mean arresting people for their beliefs. But it does mean that certain
inflammatory modes of expression and groups of ideas need to be
regulated. Just exactly how this is done, and where the lines are
drawn, will not be easy, and will take years of legislation and
interpretation, building on decisions and laws that are a basic part of
our tradition. I doubt if our society and international society can
hold together if our publicists and liberals continue to espouse an
absolutist position on freedom of expression or religious freedom.