For more than two decades, Abdulkarim Soroush has been Iran’s leading public intellectual. Deeply versed in Islamic theology and mysticism, he was chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini to “Islamicize” Iran’s universities, only to eventually turn against the theocratic state. He paid a price for his dissidence. Vigilantes and other government-supported elements disrupted his widely attended lectures in Iran, beat him and reportedly nearly assassinated him. In a country where intellectuals are often treated like rock stars, Soroush has been venerated and reviled for his outspoken support of religious pluralism and democracy. Now he has taken one crucial step further. Shuttling from university to university in Europe and the U.S., Soroush is sending shock waves through Iran’s clerical establishment.
The recent controversy began about eight months ago, after Soroush spoke with a Dutch reporter about one of Islam’s most sensitive issues: the divine origin of the Koran.
[...]
Soroush has been described as a Muslim Luther, but unlike the Protestant reformer, he is no literalist about holy books. His work more closely resembles that of the 19th-century German scholars who tried to understand the Bible in its original context. Case in point: when a verse in the Koran or a saying attributed to Muhammad refers to cutting off a thief’s hand or stoning to death for adultery, it only tells us the working rules and regulations of the prophet’s era. Today’s Muslims are not obliged to follow in these footsteps if they have more humane means at their disposal.
Soroush’s latest views have not endeared him to the powerful conservative wing of Iran’s establishment. Some have accused him of heresy, which is punishable by death. There have been demonstrations by clerics in Qom, the religious capital of Iran, against his recent work. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unexpectedly warned against feeding the controversy. He said those who are employing “philosophy or pseudo-philosophy” to “pervert the nation’s mind” should not be dealt with “by declaring apostasy and anger” but rather countered with the “religious truths” that will falsify their arguments.
In Iran today, many opponents of the government advocate the creation of a secular state. Soroush himself supports the separation of mosque and state, but for the sake of religion. He seeks freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thus he speaks for a different — and potentially more effective — agenda. The medieval Islamic mystic Rumi once wrote that “an old love may only be dissolved by a new one.” In a deeply religious society, whose leaders have justified their hold on power as a divine duty, it may take a religious counterargument to push the society toward pluralism and democracy. [...]
When William Safire died the other day, we lost one of the Elders of journalism and the argumentative arts. We've been losing a lot of them lately: Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. "The stars seem to be going out one by one," said Howard Stringer at Cronkite's memorial.
[...]
Who are the Elders? They set the standards. They hand down the lore. They're the oldest and wisest. By proceeding through the world each day with dignity and humanity, they show the young what it is that should be emulated. They're the tribal chieftains. This role has probably existed since caveman days, because people need guidance and encouragement, they need to be heartened by examples of endurance. They need to be inspired.
We are in a generational shift in the media, and new Elders are rising. They're running the networks and newspapers, they own the Web sites, they anchor the shows. What is their job?
It's to do what the Elders have always done, but now more than ever.
[...]
A few days ago, I was sent a link to a screed by MSNBC's left-wing anchorman Ed Schultz, in which he explained opposition to the president's health-care reform. "The Republicans lie. They want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for us." Next, a link to the syndicated show of right-wing radio talker Alex Jones, on the subject of the U.S. military, whose security efforts at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh show them to be agents and lackeys of the New World Order. "They are complete enemies of America. . . . Our military's been taken over. . . . This is the end of our country." Later, "They'd love to kill 10,000 Americans," and, "The republic is falling right now."
This, increasingly, is the sound of our political conversation.
It is not new to call this kind of thing destructive, though it is. It is a daily agitating barrage that coarsens and inflames. It tears the national fabric. But it could wind up doing worse than that.
Democracy cannot healthily endure without free and unfettered debate. It's our job to watch, critique and question, and, being us, to do it in colorful terms.
But knowing where the line is, matters. Seeing clearly the lay of the land, knowing the facts of the country and your countrymen, matters.
Which gets us back to Safire and Cronkite and Novak and the rest. They knew where the line was. They were tough guys who got in big fights, but they had a sense of responsibility towards the country, and towards its culture. They, actually, were protective toward it. They made mistakes, but they were solid. [...]
It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.
By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom. [...]
[...] Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m cold and inhuman. But my words do not carry the weight of authority, other than with respect to my own body. I have nothing to offer but thoughts; take them or leave them.
The terrifying thing about what our government is trying to do is that, if Obama got his way (his stated goal is a single-payer system with the phasing out of private insurance), his thoughts would have the force of law. These are deeply personal questions being contemplated; questions to be pondered with family and spiritual advisors and God. The problem with Mr. Obama isn’t that he’s necessarily wrong; it’s that he has no damn business in this arena. He’s not just pontificating here; he’s forming public policy. The man has no sense of boundaries.
[...]
I’m not rich, not a member of a “protected class”, not associated with any group that has political “pull”. Certainly not an ally of the people who are crafting these rules, and thus not to be looked upon with favor in the new day. I’m confounded by bureaucracies and intimidated by crowds. In the current system, I’ve got a fighting chance. But the new order will put me last on line.
Nancy Pelosi says I carry a swastika; Harry Reid today described me as “evil-monger”. That’s the word, not from a few fanatics, but from the top party leadership. And now you begin to see why I’m afraid. Tell me honestly: If you controlled the distribution of health care, would you give as much care to the “evil” people as the “good” ones? I certainly wouldn’t! I’d kill the evil people! Am I displaying a horrible character flaw in admitting this? Before you call me names, again remember that I have no power, nor do I aspire to power. I control no resources, save for limited control over my own environment and my own body. That’s all I have, and it’s all I want.
Whether you stand with the left or with the right, you can co-exist with me. We can live with each other, not because I’m right or wrong, but because I’m powerless. It doesn’t matter what I say or do, because it doesn’t affect your life. I may think you’re a fool, but this doesn’t mean I have to be your enemy.
By bullying his way into our lives and declaring dissenters to be enemies, Obama has divided America. It’s ironic that, having condemned the incursion into Iraq as a “war of choice”, Mr. Obama has decided to launch his own war of choice against America and against me. I could have lived with Obama, but Obama cannot live with me. And so we go to war with each other, and that’s a damn shame. [...]
In spite of the name-calling from the looters and moochers, I have no desire to drown out the voices in support of government-run healthcare. I truly believe that those who support what I see as a Democrat effort to secure control of vast numbers of Americans by controlling their health care need to be heard. Our ability to fight this seizure of power is only enhanced by listening respectfully to what the proponents have to say and formulating a logical and reasoned response. In the talk radio station where I began my career as a big mouth there was a sign: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." You can see the poster here. The words are from an English member of parliament named John Viscount Morley. It is absolutely the best possible poster you could find to hang in a talk radio studio. Wish I could find one.
Anyway ... there most certainly have been instances where opponents of ObamaCare have shouted down proponents in town hall meetings. This needs to stop. Our recent history has been one of liberal crowds shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses. Somehow the media and Democrat politicians never seemed to notice. Ditto for the crowds of protesters who would continually shout down President Bush and administration officials over the Iraq war. Again, the media didn't seem to notice. Now, however, things are different. We have a president who was essentially installed in office by a fawning media. He is there creation, and their creation must be protected if for no reason other than to assuage their shame at what was an obvious mistake. OK ... let them play their game. We're on to them ... we know the score. What is good for liberals protesting evil conservatives is not necessarily good for conservatives protesting the actions of well-meaning, compassionate, genuine, loving liberals. [...]
[...] My assessment? McCain's performance immediately quashes the fears of some that McCain didn't have the fire-in-the-belly. A lot of people had begun to by the MSM spin that McCain was done. It's clear now he is not. With that myth finished, the next 18 days have never been more important. The ACORN election fraud scandal will get bigger, McCain will continue to hit Ayers, and needs an ad on Joe the Plumber, while repeatedly reminding people about the Pelosi/Reid/Obama machine and their responsibility for promoting and protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I will remind you again of Giuliani's admonition that Republicans don't win polls, they win elections. This is far, far, from over and Senator Government knows it. Why do you think he's spending $3 million for his primetime television a few days before the election? He still thinks you'll vote for a celebrity with an infomercial. He'll find out on November you're bitter and clingy enough to say "no sale." [...]
[...] The loser of the evening was obviously Backtrack Obama - not only because he sounded like Polly the Parrot mouthing carefully rehearsed talking points but simply for using the phrase "the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression" five times. Of course, hardly anybody alive knows what the Great Depression was so Obama can lie through his teeth.
(The truth is that our financial crisis is not even as bad as the one caused by Carter 30 years ago. There are no gas lines let alone soup lines. But I'll save my thoughts about the Democrats' lies for a real rant.) [...]
[...] This is not the first time Obama has pointedly referred to himself as a henpecked husband. And so what? A shrewish wife is an ancient basis for jokes, often of the self-deprecating variety (think Rodney Dangerfield). It's funny, but this is not the image we associate with a leader or a winner. It's more a whiny schlemiel sort of thing.
[...]
I'm not clear on what all this means. There's something odd about Obama; something I'd like to understand, and something that I'm not sure he understands. He probably has abandonment issues, and his adult life seems to have settled into a pattern of forming associations with angry people, such as his wife or Rev. Wright. Perhaps Obama has buried his anger, and it escapes in these passive-aggressive jabs, which he follows up with a laugh to prove he didn't mean it.
I'm not pretending I understand Obama. But if there's any sense in my armchair pop-psychology, then what would Obama do if he ever found himself on top? Perhaps he'd finally shove these angry, dominant associates aside. I bet that's his fantasy! But I sense he may be doomed to let them push him around, while he shoots back with an occasional verbal snipe.
Obviously this line of speculation reinforces my concern that Obama's instincts may serve him well in putting Michelle in her place (where the downside risk is getting hit with a frying pan), but it will prove fatal when he goes up against Mr. Ahmadinejad. [...]
