Unrighteous Indignation

The Ayatollah Khomeini’s rush to judgment illustrates the perils of intolerance.

The fierce Muslim reaction to a novel that blasphemes the Prophet Muhammad felt like a protest deja vu to many who staged last summer’s protest of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses appears to some Muslims to belittle several Muslim historical figures. They find particularly offensive the book’s thinly disguised portrayal of Muhammad as a somewhat hesitant, conniving prophet. Riots in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries signal the worldwide Islamic outrage over the book.

The parallels with the American protest against Martin Scorsese’s movie about an ascetic, lunatic Jesus are startling. Just as Universal Pictures discovered that Jesus’ divinity is sacred to millions of Christians, so Viking Penguin is finding that to Muslims Muhammad is no less sensitive a topic. In both cases, worldwide religious communities are serving notice that trampling on the reputations of our founders in the name of “art” will not be tolerated.

No Smidgen Of Grace

Just as instructive as the parallels between the protests, however, are the differences. First, there is the “spiritual” response. The Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s uncompromising religious and political leader, called for Rushdie’s death. Even after the terrified author expressed regret at the distress his book had caused, the intransigent Khomeini insisted that even if Rushdie were to become “the most pious man of time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to … send him to hell.” So much for any smidgen of grace or forgiveness in the thinking of Islam’s leading spokesman. Can this really be consistent with mainstream Islam?

And consider the “political” response. In Pakistan a riot left six dead and hundreds wounded. Pakistan is a religiously closed country where Islam is both political ideology and state religion. As Pakistan’s Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto suggested, many were using the protest of Rushdie’s book as a political ploy to break down law and order. The book has not been distributed in Pakistan, and it is unlikely any of the protesters have read it. There was also speculation that Khomeini was using the protest to bolster his flagging role in the worldwide Islamic pecking order. When mosque and statehouse are totally identified one with the other, religious sensitivities become tools for antidemocratic political manipulation.

In contrast, no one died in last summer’s protests of The Last Temptation of Christ. And Christian leaders did not put a bounty on Scorsese’s head, but offered their money to compensate losses that might be incurred if the film were to be withdrawn. There was little doubt that the successful protest was spiritually motivated.

There are two lessons that flow from the comparison. The first is practical. Filmmakers and publishers need to take religion seriously. Media have played fast and loose with religious sensibilities in the past. Whether from weakness or meekness, we have stood still for much of it. But there is a point beyond which it is unwise to remain silent. Christians (and now Muslims) are standing up and saying their beliefs matter.

The second lesson is political/religious. A political system that insures freedom of religion is healthier for humans than state-mandated religions. Freedom of religion works. What more powerful image could portray the contrast than the relatively peaceful pickets outside American theaters last summer and the blood-drenched concrete in Pakistan?

By Terry C. Muck.

High government office is not a nine-to-five job. When you are secretary of defense (as former senator John Tower was hoping to be), you cannot count on World War III starting during office hours. Therefore, what you do with your personal life is public business. For that reason alone, the Senate Armed Services Committee was right to take seriously allegations regarding John Tower’s drinking.

Common sense tells us that a leader’s personal morality (whether the issue is drunkenness or womanizing or a dozen other things) affects his or her ability to lead a nation. That is why the reaction to the Tower imbroglio from otherwise-respected pundits was so puzzling. New York Times columnist A. M. Rosenthall said the sex life of John Tower was nobody else’s business—not his, not ours, not journalists’, not the Senate’s. On “This Week with David Brinkley,” George Will said he did not “see the connection” between Tower’s personal life and the question of his ability to run the Pentagon. A kinder, gentler Sam Donaldson agreed. And so did Brinkley. And, of course, the ever-helpful Gary Hart came to Tower’s defense.

Perhaps we will never know for sure the truth of the tales of Tower’s alleged exploits. Fortunately for the administration, the FBI report gave Tower a clean bill of health on the suspicions of alcohol abuse, womanizing, and indiscreet consorting with defense contractors. President Bush took refuge in that report, and Sam Nunn, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just sniffed and said he didn’t share the President’s opinion. But whatever the truth is, the issues of a leader’s personal morality are indeed public business.

Of course, smart is better than dumb. And a leader’s ability is the first question. But there are five reasons to consider personal morality as an important second factor. First, a leader must have good judgment. To many of us, the very things Tower was accused of would be prima facie evidence of poor judgment and lack of control. The barons of the Pentagon hold our lives in their hands. Would we want someone there with even the whiff of the scent of poor judgment?

Second, a leader must have good judgment at all times. A man who engages in heavy drinking makes himself like an office copier that is perennially out of order. It would frustrate his staff and eventually concentrate the actual decision making in the hands of functionaries who are not directly responsible to Congress or the American people.

Third, a leader must be above blackmail. The secretary of defense is responsible for spending one of the largest single chunks of our national budget. Every defense and aerospace corporation in the country is slavering over those dollars, and these interests have not always operated in an above-board manner in the past. The ultimate control of those tax dollars must be in the hands of someone who has nothing to hide, on whom no secret pressures can be exerted.

Fourth, a leader must be a keeper of promises. Someone who engages in womanizing while still married is not a keeper of promises. He belittles the value of his word, of his marriage, and by implication of all our marriages. Considering the difficulty we citizens have in comprehending the complexity of modern warfare and its implements, we need military leaders who can evoke our trust.

Fifth, a leader must earn our respect. Sophomoric, pubescent boys will perhaps admire someone who can drink beer and party. Grownups respect clean living, hard work, and moral rectitude. We believe the majority of American citizens have outgrown the sniggering appreciation for lust and want solid, capable, and moral leadership.

By David Neff.

If television executives and a few high-school basketball coaches have their way, we may soon be able to watch a nationally televised high-school basketball game of the week. According to a report in the New York Times, representatives from SportsChannel America and the National Federation of State High School Associations are trying to make a deal that would result in televising 20 to 25 games a season.

The reasons given sound good: greater recognition of young athletic talent and more money for America’s high schools. And demand for televised high-school sports does exist. Other cable networks, such as ESPN, already do regional high-school coverage.

We have heard those arguments before—they are the same ones college athletic departments used when they began negotiating with the networks. True, television has given college athletics phenomenal exposure (who can forget “the shot” that iced the national championship for North Carolina in 1982?). Television revenue has financed some marvelous athletic complexes. For some, television income has helped develop popular intramural recreation programs.

But along with the money and exposure came increased pressure to win, which led to under-the-table money to heavily recruited players, which led to pampered athletes, which led to even more pressure to perform. That, in turn, led to steroid use, increased dependency on other drugs, and made the university athletic departments a favorite hangout for investigative reporters and FBI agents.

Maybe high-school coaches and administrators can somehow avoid these problems. Maybe the incentive to play in front of the cameras will produce better athletic programs. Maybe high schools will benefit from having their starting five get even greater star treatment. And maybe, just maybe, when a 15-year-old playground whiz kid is approached by a rival coach with an offer to switch schools, or is handed a cash-filled sneaker from a shoe company, or is given a bottle of medicine from a trainer—maybe that athlete will just say no.

Just in case, we suggest the television moguls take a time out and reconsider taking their cameras into high-school gymnasiums.

By Lyn Cryderman.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.