Can We Talk?

Islamophobia is bad. It paints an entire population with the faults of some. If most Muslims favor Sharia law and the destruction of Western culture, that is their right. Criticism of their views, however, is not ours. In the United States if there is a verbal expression of anxiety over the fact of Islamic ideas it is considered “hate” speech. If someone labels a terrorist bombing or other incident as a terrorist bombing or other incident, it is viewed by many as Islamophobia and shifts guilt from the bomber to the one speaking. Academia has created “safe spaces” where students, purportedly in universities to learn the views of the world around them, can protect themselves from ideas they don't want to hear.

There is a German song, “Die Gedanken sind frei” – Thoughts are free. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, thought, and religion, but that only seems to apply if the concept you're considering is in fashion politically, and if it can be taken out of context to make a political point or to express something fashionable. You may decry whatever “common knowledge” has decided is evil, but not any thoughts you may have about some taboo topic. Thoughts are free but not their expression.

Muslims participated in slave trade long before it became a way of life in America. And most of the African blacks who wound up here were rounded up by black African leaders who made a great profit from the transactions. We don't talk about that – that part of history is of no interest to us. Rather we undo American history by desecrating and destroying as many as we can of those aspects of the slave trade and the Confederacy with which we disagree. They may have been blights on our heritage (irrespective of how they were viewed at the time), but the blight – and responsibility for indemnification and apology are ours, and not in any way associated with those who sold us the slaves. Vilifying America is virtuous – especially if accompanied by mass action. It is an expression of freedom of speech. But we are not free to question that point of view. We are bigots if we do so. The only thing we're privileged to discuss is what happened in our country, not elsewhere. Context is irrelevant. And discussion of context is forbidden in safe spaces.

Let's take another example. Antisemitism has been around for millennia. And that includes the United States where it can still be found. We don't talk about it. Prejudice against Jews and many other groups – is not a subject of conversation. There is no discussion of “Affirmative Action” anchored in the quotas of the past. It is of no interest to universities. And, of course, what happened to them in the past – history – is not our concern if it doesn't fit into the current narrative. What fits should be excoriated in the names of justice and free speech. What contradicts our current views is hateful and its discussion should be repressed, irrespective of the means necessary.

One more example: whatever is said against blacks or Muslims is hate speech. If it is mentioned at all in the media it is only to be condemned. Better – it should not be mentioned at all. Similar accusations against conservatives, however, are not only legitimate – whether false or true – should be shouted from the rooftops. And those having a different opinion are bigots. Our media tell us so.

Look at the New York Times on almost any day. (That paper is merely my example because I live in New York, but I suspect the pattern holds true in most homes of “liberalism” – the only truly American point of view.) The opinion section is almost entirely about the evils of conservatives and conservatism. It is heavy-handed and it rarely prints contrary ideas, no matter how important and logical the perspectives are – and it's only to provoke outrage among its readers. That's expressed in the letters they choose to print.

Worse. Conservative views are overlooked and even the “objective” articles are filled with the newspaper's opinion (advocacy journalism). Indeed, the choice of what “news” to cover seems to be based on a paper's editorial views, rather than its inherent worthiness.

In short, free speech seems to be limited to politically acceptable ideas. Anything contrary to them is beyond the pale and should be suppressed. In part it's about (political) fashion, but more important it's about the Constitution, and what students nowadays are taught is its meaning and that of the amendments.

Can we talk? Only if you say what I want to hear.