In the mid-1990s, I participated in a panel at Colorado College about human rights and the breakup of Yugoslavia. The panel took place around the time that Serbian hardliners like Vojislav Seselj were saying that if the world did not understand Serbia's point of view, it was "us against the world." At the time, I posited a "Law of Minimal-Percentage Coalitions." It is undoubtedly true that the U.S. and major powers control both the dictionary and the rulebook of international power. If a state or people seek to put an alternative definition on the table, they must assemble a coalition of at least 10 or 12 percent of the concerned global audience, preferably closer to 20 percent, to give their argument some legitimacy. Otherwise, they fall victim to the law of sanity and large numbers. If 95 percent of the people on the planet think your cause is baseless and your position insane, you become insane by definition. And if you lash out as though you are a threatened idea or ideal being pushed to the wall, you will be destroyed, utterly and simply. Maybe not today, but the numbers work against you.
Obviously, the numbers rule does not apply to the small nonviolent group that always operates through voluntarism, without seeking to impose beliefs. Today's cults and small discussion groups provide tomorrow's political movements. But once violence or forced solidarity enter the equation, everything changes. Even the enforcement of values within one's own group can run afoul of human-rights standards, as honor killings show in gruesome fashion. The decision by many European nations to ban the Church of Scientology, for example, demonstrates that a faith group that operates through fraud and violent intimidation can no longer claim the protection of freedom of religion.
I thought about that after seeing the front-page article in the New York Times Jan 4 on Ugandans insisting on the death penalty for homosexuality. The most troubling aspect of the story was not the involvement of U.S. evangelicals, as they seemed to have no real part in suggesting a death sentence for being gay. The scary aspect was the defensive nature of Ugandans encouraging this hard line, saying they didn't care if they lost all foreign aid and the support of most people.
The attitude is similar to that of Salafists and Wahhabists demanding death to infidels who stand in the way of rebuilding a Third Caliphate. What happened to the notion of falling on your own sword if your ideas are outdated, wrong, or unacceptable to 95 percent of the people on the planet? Certainly, a minority culture should have a freedom of expression, provided other groups are not threatened, and provided that the value or concept gains some minimal acceptance in the world culture at large. But if your rulebook or dictionary -- or your holy book -- seeks a violent imposition and is deemed offensive to the vast, vast majority of human beings, and you cannot assemble that double-digit percentage, then it is time to change your most cherished value systems and become a different type of human being. The only alternative is to see your "us against the world" bravado slowly and inevitably crushed and snuffed out, as is only right and proper in a global, consensually-determined culture.
5 comments:
Um Loring? Did you say that a faith group that operates through fraud and violent intimidation can no longer claim the protection of freedom of religion?? Isn't that why so many of us are Christians now? You'd have to ban all religion! (fine w/ me). Aside from all of that - we in America are not in a Democracy it's a Republic - and to the Republic for which it stands.... That means majority does NOT rule. Hence the Supreme Court. To try and maintain freedom, according to our constitution for all! You Curmudgeon you!
Um Loring? Did you say that a faith group that operates through fraud and violent intimidation can no longer claim the protection of freedom of religion?? Isn't that why so many of us are Christians now? You'd have to ban all religion! (fine w/ me). Aside from all of that - we in America are not in a Democracy it's a Republic - and to the Republic for which it stands.... That means majority does NOT rule. Hence the Supreme Court. To try and maintain freedom, according to our constitution for all! You Curmudgeon you!
Well, Pat, decent points all, but a religious group cannot claim exemption from all laws (yes, there are exceptions, but..). Case in point, Lisa Miller taking her child away and ducking out of the courts because she no longer believes in homosexuality and allowing her ex-lover custody rights. Consequently, the courts take away all her custodial rights. You can say in theory that a religious group uses violent intimidation, but if particular cases are proven, mosques are shut down etc. for giving aid and comfort to direct forms of violence. The point here is not that majority should rule, but if your faith demands violence and is offensive to large majorities of people, you need to either (A) get the PR machine going and reach that magic 10-12 percent I was talking about or (B) change the terms of your faith.
Oh, and notice I am not talking about rights within the U.S. form of government, but good sense and responsibilities among the world community at large. Right after the hostages were taken in Iran, the US Revolutionary Communist Party went through high schools screaming, "Kill the hostages!" Did they have the right to do so? Of course. Was it prudent? Was it a career-enhancing move? Of course not. Sooner or later, they would be lynched. If you have an extremely offensive minority point of view and want to use violence to enforce it, you'd better pull together a minimal posse for your own longevity.
As always, I appreciate your big picture perspective. Very well stated. Wish I had something intelligent to add or point out.
Post a Comment