Blah. Engaging any argument made by Ann Coulter seems like an exercise in futility. However, this bit from her syndicated column on June 3 extends an idea that has been floated by conservatives often, especially during the height of the Bush II years, and I suspect that over time we'll hear a similar argument from the right over and over again, so it makes sense to take it on:
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion - which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists.
Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life - and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller - only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
Let's dissect this. Coulter is attempting to call out liberals, who she claims are quick to tell conservatives that Muslims are generally peaceful, and that terrorist attacks on their part are the acts of extremists; she wishes to know why liberals don't make the same claim about the forced-pregnancy movement. Furthermore, she claims that while a majority of Americans oppose abortion, and a very large majority oppose the kind Tiller performed, there have been only 5 deaths of doctors who perform them; while a far smaller group of Muslims living in America have killed a greater number of Americans by far.
The point of all this is to extend the idea that Islam is a religion of violence, an idea the right in America disseminated in large quantities during the height of the Bush II administration-a tool in the attempt to "other" Muslims generally. By contrast, the forced-pregnancy movement, who liberals accuse of being a domestic terrorist movement according to her, is in her estimation the very picture of peaceful protest for change, based on the fact that the forced-pregnancy movement has only murdered 5 abortion-clinic workers. And, of course, liberals are the worst of hypocrites, simply the very worst, for protecting the larger reputation of Muslims in the wake of their terrorist acts, while not doing the same for forced-pregnancy advocates in the wake of their terrorist activities.
The problem with her position is that she has singled out extremism in the name of forced pregnancy as a movement unto itself, disconnected from any larger movement of right-wing Christian extremism; while she lumps all factions and beliefs within Islam together as if it is a monolithic whole, committed in full to the extremist viewpoints of Al Quaeda, all over the Muslim world from the Middle East to Indonesia. That's obviously a false comparison. Leaving aside the mistake of putting all Muslims under one classification, abortion-clinic terrorism is part of a larger, Christianist extremist movement that has as its target not simply abortion clinics but homosexuals, the federal government, or anyone who threatens "traditional values" as they interpret them (excerpt from NPR, May 2, 1995):
LYNN NEARY: It would be wrong to say that all groups on the extreme right are influenced by religion. The right-wing militias that have sprung up around the country vary widely, but there is evidence that some of them believe that the justification for their cause can be found in The Bible, a manual for setting up militias, which is distributed by a group called the Free Militia, begins with a quote from Jesus. The first chapter outlines the biblical inspiration and authority for forming a militia.
John White [sp] is an expert in terrorism, who also teaches Christian ethics at Western Theological Seminary in Michigan.
JOHN WHITE, Christian Ethics Teacher, Western Theological Seminary of Michigan: Many times the call to religion is a call to violence because the groups are so heavily involved in ontological arguments in the sense that they claim that the deity has chosen them to represent divine will, and they're also reflective of eschatological arguments, believing that they- the end times are upon humanity, in Christian terms that Armageddon is near, and they are ready to fight the final battle of creation for- for God and for America.
This view of the state of America's increasing moral degeneracy and a belief that the nation has strayed from its God-ordained path informs this movement, regardless of the target:
LYNN NEARY: The suggestion that religious freedom was involved at Waco resonates with the extreme right, says James Davison Hunter [sp], author of Culture Wars. Hunter says the underlying political philosophy of the extreme right is a belief that the government has lost its legitimacy in part because it has forgotten its religious heritage.
JAMES DAVISON HUNTER, Author, 'Culture Wars': Corresponding to this broader political philosophy are certain religious understandings about the nature of America and its history, a kind of historical philosophy, if you will, that views America as having been at one time Christian and departing from its Christian roots.
Abortion clinic shootings are but one aspect of a larger right-wing, Christianist-based brand of terrorism. The Christianist perspective regarding the direction they see America taking is what drives people like Shelley Shannon, Paul Hill, and Scott Roeder to do what they do, just as it motivated Eric Rudolph, just as it motivated Robert "Jack" Jackson and Doug Sheets in Shelby, North Carolina. And there clearly is an overlap between the tax-protester, sovereign-citizen movement, militia movement and Christianist beliefs that has contributed to violence such as the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
When Tiller's shooting is put in the proper, real context of Christianist-based terror in America, the number of similar terrorist acts committed jumps considerably-certainly well over Coulter's preferred number of five. This is, of course, excluding the threats and attempts that have been thwarted, of which there are many. Muslim extremists may have killed many Americans in one fell swoop on September 11, but Christianists have certainly tried to keep up over the years, so if their numbers lag behind those of Islamic extremists, its hardly for lack of trying.
Ann Coulter is aware of all of this. Her framing of the event is simply a little trick, a way for her to portray Islam as a religion of violence, liberals as hypocrites, and anti-abortion activists as peace-loving civil protesters all at once, by whiting out the context behind the act.
The real comparison, were she to make it, might be this: Much as all of Islam should not be stained by the acts of a few fool extremists in their midst, neither should all Christians be tainted by the acts of a few fool extremists in their midst. As for the forced pregnancy movement specifically, their rhetoric has been increasingly incendiary for years, in keeping with the rhetoric and actions of Christianist extremists generally, so I have no problem whatsoever with directly linking them with domestic terrorism. The blood of George Tiller is on their hands whether they acknowledge it or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment