The Essayist #13: On the Perils of Collective Englightenment

Catholic Light has a fairly typical broadside 'gainst the failure of the Left to stand up for its beloved Free Speech, but with a bonus; he actually points out what the purpose of free speech is:

At its noblest, this was a recognition that no human institution could long survive without honest criticism, protected from reprisals such as arrest or confiscation of property.

Seen in this light, freedom of speech is not a grace for all forms of expression, but a guaruntee that he or she who speaks for the purpose of pointing out folly or proposing a new cours of action will not be attacked. Argument, the process of persuasion and counter-persuasion, is not only permitted, but expected of all who would take part in public affairs.

One could call this the great inheritance of the Englightenment. But one would have to be careful. The Left no longer believes in one of the main tenets of the Englightenment, that the Englightenment was universally applicable. Structuralism has made the Enlightenment nothing more than the ersatz tribal religion of the Modern West, no more inherently valid than Sharia. If conflict is to be avoided, follows the logic, respect for all belief systems must be practiced.

It used to be that conservatives favored doing nothing as much as possible. "If ten logs are rolling at you," remarked Calvin Coolidge, "nine of them will fall into a ditch before they get you." Now it is the socialist who favors sitting tight and waiting for all this Islamic bither-bother to just pass over. Apologize for your insensitivity, and everything will be all right.

One wonders how the 18th-century philosophes would have reacted to such. Some, like Voltaire, would be eminently predictable. But what about others? Would Rousseau have so strenuously defended free speech against the offended masses of more, *ahem* "natural" people (as everyone not European was supposed to be)? Or would he be on the side that says that the Islamic rage must be understood in light of the West's own record of enslavement?

More Catholic Light:

Cowardice is only part of the explanation for the Left's silence. They also believe that the Darker Peoples are less than fully human, and can't be fully blamed for any of their actions. This crude racialism permeates and corrupts their moral sense on most social issues. Foremost, and most shamefully, many Leftists sympathize with the Islamofacists' goal of destroying the West.

The two groups don't agree with each other on every issue -- the Western Left practically regards gay sex as a sacrament, and Islamofacists wouldn't mind stoning gays to death. The latter group's views on "the status of women" are notoriously retrograde. In their fundamental view of Western civilization, though, their critiques are roughly the same: it is dangerously corrupt, exercises a malign influence in the world, and its power should be thwarted at every opportunity.

I wonder how well-thought-out this all is. I wonder if the kind of perverse incentives created when non-muslims are expected to show the same respect for Mohammed that Muslims are, has been considered. I don't think it has. Enlightenment seems to have become like Salvation in the minds of its heirs: something done for us a long time ago, to which we owe neither effort nor thought. Where does the mind belong in such a world?