Centanni and Wiig Deny Right-Wingers the Propaganda Value of Their Deaths
If you read nothing else in the blogosphere this week, do not miss Glenn Greenwald and Jon Swift (the latter via the former) on the explosion of outrage on the right against FOX journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig for declining to become martyrs.
Here's a snip from each -- Glenn's first:
When Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were being held by Gaza kidnappers, they were used as solemn symbols of our grand struggle against Islamic fascists. But ever since they were released, physically unharmed, they have become, as John Amato documented the other day, the targets of the same sort of hostility and bizarre resentment which was directed at Jill Carroll when she was released. It's almost as though the fact that they weren't killed -- and then refused to read some fictitious propaganda script about their captivity -- instantaneously transformed them from glorious martyrs in the War on Terror to impediments which needed to be neutralized through attacks on their mental health and character.
Jon Swift writes, in a post titled "Kidnapped Fox Newsmen Let Us Down By Not Dying":
At first, conservative bloggers were pulling for Centanni and Wiig. They clamored for their release and attacked their kidnappers, knowing that the more they blogged about it, the more likely that the kidnappers would capitulate in the face of this virtual onslaught and release them. They were outraged that the story wasn't getting the attention it deserved from mainstream media and speculated that it was because of bias against Fox News. Michelle Malkin even quoted some liberals who expressed contempt for Fox News and seemed to feel the men deserved to be kidnapped, including such well-known and respected thinkers on the Left as Bob Laurence, the TV critic for the San Diego Tribune and former Snohomish County, Wash., Democrat party official Mike Whitney. They seemed to be speaking the unexpressed thoughts of all liberals. Although Fox News President Roger Ailes later revealed that he had asked the rest of the media to keep a lid on its reporting while negotiations were going on, which might have accounted for the lack of stories by the MSM, that does not negate the possibility that they did, in fact, have contempt for the Fox News journalists anyway.
Once the conservative blogosphere secured the release of Centanni and Wiig, however, they began to have questions about their conduct. The fact that Centanni and Wiig were Fox News journalists did not shield them from scrutiny. In fact, it meant that they were held to a higher standard than just any old kidnapping victims. While we might expect bad behavior from Reuters or Al Jazeera journalists, who because of their biased reporting are legitimate military targets, we really expect a lot more from Fox newsmen. For some, the journalists' actions while in captivity were a "career ender."
Some conservative bloggers were critical of the "politically correct" statements the men made after their release. "I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it," Centanni said. Other bloggers were disgusted by the picture of the men shaking hands with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Hanyeh, while still on Palestinian territory. They began comparing the men to Jill Carroll and digging into their past for evidence of alleged pro-Palestinian sympathies. Inevitably there was speculation the men must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, although one blogger did suggest one other possible explanation: "I wonder if the journalists are complete and total morons or clear victims of Stockholm Syndrome."
But conservatives were most troubled by a video that was released showing the men converting to Islam at gunpoint. David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen and Real Clear Politics, deplored their "cowardice" for converting with guns to their heads instead of dying as martyrs. " [Emphasis added.] The two Fox journalists, whom I will not stoop to name, begged for their lives even though, in retrospect, their lives probably weren't in danger," wrote Warren, who risks his life everyday living in Canada, a place I must confess I am afraid even to visit. "They could see nothing wrong in serving the enemy, so long as it meant they'd be safe."
The bolded phrase in the last paragraph, above, hits on what I think is one of the most disturbing aspects of the right-wing reaction to Centanni and Wiig's release (other than the obvious cruelty and callousness). The bloggers to whom Glenn and Jon link do not explicitly state that Centanni and Wiig should have martyred themselves -- but that is the clear implication of their criticism. And that speaks volumes about how similar all religious fundamentalism is. Who would have thought five years ago that religious Christians would be signing on to the very concept of martyrdom that they so loudly condemn when found in the Islamic world?
7 comments:
"And that speaks volumes about how similar all religious fundamentalism is. Who would have thought five years ago that religious Christians would be signing on to the very concept of martyrdom that they so loudly condemn when found in the Islamic world?"
Christians have always signed on to the concept of martyrdom, from St. Stephen (Acts 6:8 - 8:1) to Dietrich Bonhoffer (hanged by the Nazis). I'd be quite surprised to learn that religious Christians have been loudly condemning the very concept of martyrdom, in the wake of 9/11 or at any other time.
What many have pointed out is that the Christian concept of martyrdom differs from the concept of martyrdom espoused by certain Muslim extremists. There is a huge moral difference between being killed for your beliefs, or words, or acts of resisting tyranny and setting out to kill yourself and take as many infidels with you as possible. Surely you don't consider Bonhoffer and Atta morally equivalent.
One: I don't know what you mean by "setting out to kill yourself and take as many infidels with you as possible." Suicide bombers (to whom I assume your comment refers) are just as likely to kill Muslims as non-Muslims, so your comment makes no sense.
Two: I don't consider Bonhoeffer and Atta morally equivalent; I also don't consider Bonhoeffer's situation analogous to that of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig -- which is, after all, what I was discussing in my post. Bonhoeffer made a conscious decision to risk his freedom and his life in order to oppose Hitler's regime and resist Nazi ideology. He *chose* to do this. Centanni and Wiig are television journalist who were kidnapped by terrorists in the course of reporting on the Iraq war, and told they would be killed (probably on camera) unless they publicly converted to Islam. It was not their choice to be captured by terrorists. It was not a decision of conscience. They had no self-imposed ethical or moral obligation to let themselves be killed. Your analogy does not work.
Three: I have yet to hear any religious Christian acknowledge the long Christian tradition of martyrdom in any way relating to the corresponding Muslim tradition of martyrdom. I have only heard religious Christians (conservative ones, that is) speak disparagingly and contemptuously of Muslims who want to be martyrs, and that becoming a martyr is an essential part of being a good Muslim. No Christian I have talked to has EVER acknowledged that for hundreds of years, becoming a martyr was an essential part of being a good Christian.
Four: The history of Christianity is replete with examples of religious extremists setting out to die and take as many infidels with them as possible. Does the Crusades ring a bell? There were NINE of them within a period of about 170 years. Also, Christian religious fanaticism has often taken the form of forced conversions, torture, and murder of others (the Inquisition pops to mind) without including the ingredient of the murderers killing themselves as well.
All religious extremism is dangerous. It all leads ultimately to a total disregard for the political and human rights of anyone who does not share the fanaticism.
First of all, Kathy, let me say that I very much appreciate the dialogue.
One: "Suicide bombers (to whom I assume your comment refers) are just as likely to kill Muslims as non-Muslims." Do you think this is true of the 9/11 terrorists? They may have killed some Muslims in the process; the odds were certainly stacked in favor of killing infidels. Same thing for suicide bombings in Israel.
Two: My apologies if I have strayed too far afield in my comment. I have no problem with what Centanni and Wiig did; I have nowhere criticized them. I'm not trying to make the analogy you suggest.
Three: I don't believe that either Muslims or Christians believe martyrdom is "an essential part of being a good" believer. Both faiths have a tradition of it being one honorable path, among others. (Given some shared roots, there is a lot that these two faiths have in common. I obviously believe the truth claims of Christianity and consequently reject those of Islam. But I certainly do not feel any contempt for Muslims, including those who aspire to martyrdom.)
Fourth - I'll bypass the quibbles to say that I agree with the basic thrust of this point. But I wish to add that your examples are now a long time in the past. Few things would make me happier than to see Islam emerge from medieval violence, as Christianity generally has done.
Finally, I agree that all religious extremism is dangerous. May I gently suggest that you do not always succeed in differentiating between religious extremism and the religious conviction of people who are also deeply committed to a pluralist polity.
Interesting response; I'll answer it when I come home tonight (if I'm not too done in; I have my university class tonight).
"Suicide bombers (to whom I assume your comment refers) are just as likely to kill Muslims as non-Muslims." Do you think this is true of the 9/11 terrorists? They may have killed some Muslims in the process; the odds were certainly stacked in favor of killing infidels. Same thing for suicide bombings in Israel.
First of all, you have left out all of the suicide bombings that happen in Iraq. I don't have offhand the exact figure on how many suicide bombings and truck bombings have taken place since the insurgency began, but it's a very large number. Most of the victims of those bombings have been and are Muslims.
Moreover, I don't agree with your assumption that the 9/11 terrorists were primarily motivated by a desire to kill "infidels." The causes of terrorism are much deeper and more complex than a mere desire to kill non-Muslims for religious reasons. Furthermore, those causes, in my view, have far more to do with politics, economics, and history of the region than they have to do with religion.
I'll bypass the quibbles to say that I agree with the basic thrust of this point. But I wish to add that your examples are now a long time in the past. Few things would make me happier than to see Islam emerge from medieval violence, as Christianity generally has done.
In that case, why did you say that "Christians have always signed on to the concept of martyrdom," and why did you use St. Stephen to support your point that martyrdom is just as strong a tradition in Christianity as it is in Islam? St. Stephen, if he was a real person at all, lived quite a long time ago.
I would argue that the entire "war on terror" as it is being conducted by the Bush administration has taken on the cast of a religious war -- the supposed Christian Message of Love and Peace being placed in opposition to the supposed Muslim Message of Violence and Hate. Discussion of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of the Muslim and Arab world in general, in the USA, is utterly saturated in the language of religious comparisons, as well as the language of religious apocalypticism. We constantly are told that the war on terror is about an apocalyptic battle between good and evil -- an explicitly *Christian* religious concept.
One more point: I believe it's a mistake to hold up Society A as superior to Society B because Society A no longer does some bad thing that Society B still does. Human beings everywhere are the same -- the same hopes, fears, desires, longings. There is no such thing as one group of people that is inherently more or less violent or more or less pure of heart or intention than another. Where there appear to be differences between one set of people and another, those differences are due to history and circumstance, not to qualities inherent in the people themselves.
If Americans don't do suicide bombings, it's not because we are more evolved human beings. It's because we have other ways of getting what we want -- like F-14 fighter jets that can drop thousands of tons of cluster bombs.
May I gently suggest that you do not always succeed in differentiating between religious extremism and the religious conviction of people who are also deeply committed to a pluralist polity.
I have been speaking specifically about the savage and vicious attacks that have been made against Stephen Centanni and Olaf Wiig for going through a forced conversion to Islam rather than be killed for refusing to do so. Those attacks have been couched in explicitly Christian religious terms. Centanni and Wiig have been accused of apostasy, of "denying Christ," of being self-serving scum for choosing life over death, although they harmed no one else in doing so. These critics have made their explicitly Christian religious proclamations of condemnation without one ounce of the humility that Christians are supposed to display. They have said they would never convert to Islam even if threatened with death, *when they have no way of knowing whether they would or not because they have never been in a situation where they had to make such a decision.* That kind of absolutism and intolerance is at the very heart of what religious extremists are all about.
I, in my turn, would like to point out(hopefully with similar gentleness)that people with "deep religious convictions who are also committed to a pluralistic polity" do not condemn others of their religion (assuming Centanni and Wiig even ARE) for making choices that go against their religion when those choices are not in any meaningful sense free choices -- when those choices are coerced. People with deep religious convictions who are also deeply committed to a pluralistic polity are not so arrogant or fixed in their thinking as to "know" with such absolute, unyielding certainty what THEY would do in a situation that is purely hypothetical for them. People with deep religious convictions who are also deeply committed to a pluralistic polity do not, I might add, say that the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state is a "myth." People who want to establish a society based on fundamentalist Christian religious dogma are not deeply committed to a pluralistic polity -- and these are the same people who have been verbally brutalizing Centanni and Wiig for deciding it was better to falsely convert and live than to refuse to falsely convert and die.
We agree on a lot of stuff. For one thing, Katherine Harris's comments made me want to puke. The entanglement of the church with various governments, from Constantine forward, was a long, unhappy detour, something that was bad for both the church and the state. I probably disagree with you over some of the line-drawing under the establishment clause of the First Amendment (especially in the last 60 years), but I consider the establishment clause, coupled with the free-exercise clause, as among the greatest contributions of the American founders and an absolutely essential component of what I want the US to be.
Agreeing is always nice.
Of course, disagreeing is more fun. :)
Looks like we've done both, though.
Post a Comment