TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Geert Wilders is Not Brave Enough to Be a Coward

Posted by Craig Biddle at 2:12 pm

Geert WildersOn June 23, a Dutch court acquitted Geert Wilders on the absurd charges of “hate speech” or, more specifically, “inciting hatred against Muslims” in various public statements and his film, Fitna. According to BBC News, Wilders was acquitted because the court “accepted the Freedom Party leader’s statements were directed at Islam and not at Muslim believers,” thus his statements were “acceptable within the context of public debate.”

As wonderful as Wilders’ acquittal is, the court’s distinction here is ridiculous. Islam is a religion—a set of tenets to be accepted on faith and enacted with unquestioning obedience. A Muslim is one who submits to this particular religion. Everyone else, according to Islam, is an infidel who must therefore be converted or killed by those who have submitted.

Islam wouldn’t be a problem if no one was irrational enough to embrace this murderous creed. Unfortunately, there are billions of extremely irrational people in the world, and many of them embrace Islam. To condemn this creed is, by immediate implication, to condemn those who choose to embrace it—namely: Muslims.

Whether directly or by implication, Wilders has condemned Muslims—just as every thinking person on the planet should. Islam is evil—and so is everyone who embraces it, precisely to the extent that he embraces it.

To submit to the will of “Allah” is to relinquish one’s mind to a fantasy monster. This act is evil on two counts. First and foremost, it is evil because one’s mind is one’s basic means of living; thus, to relinquish one’s mind to a “God” (or anything else) is selfless. Second, to submit is evil because, according to Islamic scripture, “Allah” calls for his followers to murder those who refuse to submit. This is, well, murderous.

Should rational, life-loving people hate this murderous creed and those who embrace it? Of course we should. Should we also speak our minds about this hatred? Should we openly condemn Islam and Muslims and encourage other people to hate them too? Of course we should.

The problem today is not that there is too much “hate speech” against Muslims. The problem is that there is too little.

In reply to praise for her courage in openly condemning evil, Ayn Rand famously replied, “I am not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly.” Mr. Wilders is not brave enough either. Would that more men had his courage.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion

Comments are welcome so long as they are civil.
  • Tim Johnson

    I’d like to preface by saying I am an avid reader of this publication and definitely agree with most, if not all, of the philosophic ideas presented by Ayn Rand. I am also an atheist, one that frequently advocates others to abdicate their religion and come to reason.
    But this kind of tone in public commentary (unsubstantiated by a proper venue for subsequent discourse) is unnecessarily inflammatory. It does little to advance the reasonable point of view you seek to present, rather it just comes off as unthinking bigotry. It also serves to polarize people - there are many, many self proclaimed ‘religious’ individuals who are unsure of their religious beliefs precisely because it is very hard to be sure of irrational beliefs, but will feel targeted and compelled to take a stronger position towards the WRONG side upon hearing such commentary. Perhaps that is what you seek to do – polarize people - but I hold that this is not the most efficient strategy to solve the problem.Think about a time before when you fully embraced the reasonable ideas you hold today – what you may have seen as reasonble then might seem absurd now, but the fact remains that you would have been offended by a personal attack nonetheless. There is one thing to condemn religious theology - and it is entirely another to advocate “hate” against many unsure individuals who are born and marinated in the unfortunate faith and have not yet had enough time to see reason to the extent that you do. Also, another reason why condeming religion is different than condeming the religious is that most do not practice it to the extent or with the heart that it requires – once again, precisely because they recognize on a subconcious level that many religious ideas are antithetical to life. Take for example, Christians. By the same arguments made above, Christianity and Christians are also evil, but we wouldn’t publicly put forth such inflammatory and blunt commentary, because the vast majority of Christians harm no one else directly by holding their beliefs. We can ask the same of Muslims.Yes, I agree Islamic beliefs are more extreme, and I also agree that there is a lot of terrorism today that comes from those who uphold and practice the ugliest of Islamic ideals, but like you said – there are BILLIONS of people that to some extent subscribe to the faith and only a small fraction of who (even if it’s like 10 million) actually enact their bad ideas. Are Muslims worth of praise or total tolerance? No, certainly not, but this kind of commentary is not in our interest, either.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Johnson,
    You bring up the example of Christians and the impropriety of blunt commentary.  Your point is a valid one as it pertains to Christians.  The distinction to be made between our perspectives of Christianity and Islam is that of the difference between contempt and hate. In case that it would be of use to you, and if I remember correctly, I once listened to a segment of Leonard Peikoff discussing this very distinction.  Essentially, one may hold contempt for Christians, as we strongly disapprove of their faith. But, as neither Christianity nor Christians are set on trying to kill us, their beliefs are not necessarily cause for even commentary.
    Contrarily, Islam is set on killing us. It is this purposeful, active stance that is undoubtedly cause for hatred by reasonable men. Muslims, by extension, are worthy of our hatred as well.
    Mr. Biddle, it sounds, wants to “draw a hard line,” leaving no doubt to Muslims, and to any would-be bystanders, that Islam is worthy of HATE and is unacceptable practice.
    I cannot say that I disagree with the approach he takes, and the reason is that he leaves no middle ground on which to squirm.