Politics
“Profound Moral Confusion”
by Clay Staggs
Hugh Hewitt is one of my favorite bloggers to read. He asserts this morning that the country, or at least certain parts of it, are profoundly morally confused regarding the decision by Harvard, the University of Virginia, and others to invite former Iranian president Khatami to speak. Now, I agree with Prof. Hewitt that this is tremendously wrong-headed and, indeed, morally confused. Sad to say, though, that I don’t find this terribly surprising for these big-name universities today. I almost expected as much, since academia seems to have long ago driven off the cliff of moral relativism.
However, what really shocked me was when I learned that Khatami will also be speaking at the National Cathedral. According to the Washington Times, his speech will focus “on how the three ‘Abrahamaic faiths’ — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — can work together for a Middle East peace.” Lest anyone doubt Khatami’s real views, according to the Harvard Crimson,
Khatami has criticized Israel in the past and once called it an “illegal state” and a “parasite in the heart of the Muslim world,” according to newspaper accounts from 2000 and 2001.
I’m really having a kind of a Bob Dole moment about this - where’s the outrage? I haven’t heard anything about this until I read it on Hewitt’s blog this morning. Does no one care? The National Cathedral is part of the Episcopal Church USA. Is it just that no one expects different from ECUSA, given their well-publicized liberalism?
There seems to be one person who does get it, though. The governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, a presidential aspirant, has ordered the state not to provide any security services for his visit. Good for him. It really does seem, though, that those who are “morally confused” greatly outnumber those who are not.
Posted by Clay Staggs at September 7, 2006 09:56 AM
While most people would agree (except those at Harvard and UVA who invited him to speak of course)that Khatami is a raving lunatic, there are two very good reasons that make it ok in my book. First, we have freedom of speech. He can say what he wants (with all the lawyerly exceptions duly noted). It’s the left that wishes to censor all the people with whom they disagree. We should let all crazy people speak because this is the only way we can find out what they truly believe in. And this leads me to my second point. It is good for people like Khatami to speak because by doing so their words become part of the public record. So if we allow all the crazies to speak, the law of large numbers guarantees that more and more people will hear what these people have to say and will identify them with the people who invited them to speak. So I say let them all speak. Leader of Iran, come on over. Just make sure to have a photo-op with Howard Dean after speaking at the DNC.
PRC, Your points are well taken, IF Khatami was going to lecture in a hotel ballroom, local convention center, or the nearby Elk’s Lodge. However, he is slated to speak in the NATIONAL CATHEDRAL. Although the building itself is not intrinsically holy, perse, it is identified with the supposed worship of God. Is this the proper venue where Khatami should be venerated and held in a high position of spiritual esteem? I think not.
Tim, I forgot that he spoke there. It doesn’t surprise me that he is speaking there. Several (if not many) years ago, a friend of mine went to the National Cathedral for Easter services. Who preached? The president of the National Organization for Women preached that day. The only possible argument in favor of letting Khatami speak at a site that is purposed for the worship of God is that if you don’t let him speak there then nobody can speak anywhere. If we limit where people can speak then speech is no longer free.
PRC, you assume that free speech— as you have defined it— is a Divine mandate. Yes, free speech is GRANTED via our constitution, but it does not logically follow that the Church is required to give equal time to any and all beliefs when we, ourselves, pratice Freedom of Speech. We are permitted by law, yes, but would that be wise or even spiritually helpful to those in attendance in self-described “house of Protestant Worship?” Again, no.
I never said I agreed with the argument, just said that the argument was valid under our system of government. I agree with you that the Cathedral erred in its decision. I disagree with the argument that I put forth. The church is a private institution and can restrict whom it lets speak. However, I must correct you in something. The role of government is not to grant free speech but to protect the ability to do so. Semantics? possibly, but the intent was for govt to guarantee freedom of speech, not grant it.