The Continental Divide

When settlers first left the “old country” and moved to the New World, some were just curious or anxious to discover new trading routes, others seeking natural resources to exploit, but a sizeable number were merely wanted shelter from religious or political persecution. This latter group were searching for a place where what they might say that might offend a majority incumbent religious faction would not crush their lives or draw life-altering retribution. If their beliefs were offensive to those in power, they still wanted the right to express their souls accordingly. This passionate desire for freedom was the solid underpinning for our First Amendment guarantee of free speech, religious freedom and the right of free assembly, a commitment to modern justice that was rapidly adapted by the many democracies that followed our path. That such speech might be offensive to some, majority religions or otherwise, was simply not relevant.

On the other side of the coin are those who passionately believe in a higher order, one that is absolute and usually with a rule system, sacred persons, artifacts and words that rise above any mandate of ordinary mortal men. The rules imposed by God, they charge, are not subject to review or discussion by human subjects. While they may embrace free speech, it remains within the limits imposed by God. Just like one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater even with First Amendment protections, these believers hold, politically-sanctioned free speech cannot condone or allow blasphemy.

To each side of this rather emotional subject, the stakes are high and the logical result is equally clear. Unfortunately, these two perspectives are not capable of compromise. And so, as the Arab Spring fomented “democracy,” it seems to be vastly different from any notion of democracy practiced in the Western world. Free speech was tempered by prohibitions against blasphemy, and demands were made by the newly elected leaders for the West to accept this new definition of free speech. Because their faith sits above the laws of man, they have demanded that Western legal systems create structures that punish blasphemers and protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Muslims all over the world.

Many on our own religious right might agree that God-laws (written the way they want God-laws written) should always trump man-laws, even at a constitutional level. School prayer, a ban on gay marriage, a complete ban on any form of abortion and blasphemy against Christ rise above the man-law. It is not a question that even merits debate; it is simply a mandate from God that must be respected even by those who might adhere to other faiths or no faith at all.

And so we come to another irreconcilable difference between cultures, this time the rights of women in society. As the United Nations considered the issue of violence against women, attempting to set a declaration of international standards according women with many basic, unalienable rights, regardless of place of birth, religion or ethnicity, another cultural wall blocked the path. The proposals considered included the ability of women to deny the sexual advances of any man, including their husbands who could be accused of rape if they forced the issue. Notions of contraception, gay rights, and equal responsibility in raising a family were also proposed.

The loudest screams of protest came from the Islamic community, and no one cried foul louder than Egypt’s ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood. “The brotherhood, whose close allies control Egypt's parliament and presidency, slated the declaration in an online statement on Thursday – calling it a decadent and destructive document that undermined Islamic ethics by calling for women to work, travel and use contraception without their husbands’ permission… ‘This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies,’ the brotherhood’s statement claimed.”Guardian.co.uk, March 15^th.  

Syria, Iran and other Islamic nations joined in the condemnation of this declaration. But lest you think the Christian world were uniformly supportive of this declaration, think again. Russia and the Vatican were equally critical of many provisions. Deeply-held religious beliefs, ones that clearly trumped even the best intentions of man, could not be denied, and so many of the elements of the declaration were morally reprehensible to these groups. Women everywhere, even within these conservative societies, raised their voices in protest at these conservative demands. But some of these basic rights, at least the way we in most (but not all) of the West view them, were morally unacceptable.

A slightly watered-down version of the declaration passed the UN vote: “Conservative Muslim and Roman Catholic countries and more liberal nations on [March 15^th] reached a consensus on a compromise document to loud applause at the end of a contentious two-week meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women… Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Nigeria and Sudan, along with Honduras and the Vatican, expressed reservations about the declaration, but did not block adoption of the 18-page text.” Aljazeera.com, March 16^th. But the tough sections died in the process… irreconcilable differences based on equally held passions. And the way women are treated in so much of the world remain reprehensible to Western sensibilities… and we just don’t understand how anyone could possibly be so inhumane.

I’m Peter Dekom, and when mistreatment of human rights is perceived as a God-mandate, Houston, we have a problem… a very, very big problem.