I remember growing up in a conservative movement that, reacting
to the rampant permissiveness of the 1960s and '70s, stressed the
virtue of civility. Sure, you have the right to flagrantly offend
your neighbors and your community. But should you? Conservatism
used to answer “no.”
It was one of the cultural demarcations between the right
and the left. If you were on the right, you generally thought it
unacceptable to excuse boorish behavior with the utterance, “but
it’s my constitutional right!”
Conservatives understood that self-restraint reduced the
pressure for government-imposed restraint. We understood that with
our civil rights came civic responsibilities. We understood that
the United States of America was a land of tremendous religious,
ethnic, and cultural diversity and that the peaceful coexistence of
all of these people of such varying backgrounds and beliefs
required tolerance, and tolerance meant treating others as you
would have them treat you. In short, the republic itself relied
upon civility.
Most conservatives still get this, I think. But sometimes
I wonder how much the self-indulgence of the left has seduced our
side. In the last few days, we’ve seen many on the right come out
in defense of a proposal that once would have been almost
universally considered indefensible, at least on the right — the
burning of hundreds of Korans in a deliberate attempt to anger and
provoke Muslims around the world.
How can we condemn the constant and never-ending
anti-Christian provocations of the radical, secular left and then
rise to Terry Jones’ defense on the lame excuse that he has the
right to free expression? Or worse, that not going through with his
planned incitement amounts to somehow giving in to the terrorists?
No, it doesn’t. It amounts to a belated display of common
decency.
I understand the desire to poke the radical Islamists in
the eye. What could be more enjoyable than that? But really,
burning 200 Korans is an act to be judged only on constitutional
grounds? Would we say the same if a Florida imam decided to burn
200 Bibles? Would we even mention the First Amendment at all in
that case, other than to dismiss it as irrelevant?
Forget for a moment the utilitarian arguments that a mass
Koran-burning would incite violence against our troops and prove a
setback in the overall effort to win the War on Terror. Those are
true, but they need not even be taken up. The event is unacceptable
simply because of its horrible incivility. Or have we come to the
hypocritical position that it’s unacceptable to deeply offend
Christians, but perfectly OK to deeply offend people of other
faiths?
There is nothing to be said in favor of building an
Islamic cultural center in a building hit by landing gear that fell
off one of the 9/11 airliners. It is indefensible. And there is
nothing to be said for commemorating 9/11 by burning 200 Korans. It
is equally indefensible. Our constitutional rights as Americans are
beside the point. Both acts are willfully insensitive, deeply
offensive provocations that have no place in a civil society.
Period.
