Well, there are infidels and there are infidels. Two gay teenagers in Iran— Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni—count as infidels of the other kind. Now, when I did a search in the archives of the
New York Times, I easily found a 2300-word story about Zach, the gay teen who was sent to a religious-based camp in order to be morally rehabilitated. But undoubtedly it is a sign of my incompetence that I could not find in the New York Times anything about the hanging of the two gay teenagers in Iran.
Surely, the New York Times did not miss the story, which caught the attention of folks throughout the world. So what happened? My answer is very cynical. The killing of those two teenagers in the name of Islam is an indication of just how horrendous the belief system is of some of those who invoke the name of Islam. Two teenagers? Could there be a clearer sign that these adherents of Islam simply do not respect life? I am afraid not. And this is an enormous embarrassment for liberals, for whom the New York Times is surely their most visible voice. To have run a story about the hanging of these two teenagers would have, in effect, been an admission that George Bush has more of a point than has been allowed.
Liberals want to say “It is all good”. Hence, there can be no justification for criticizing the ways of others. And Islam is first among things not to be criticized nowadays. And there is the rub. Behead an American journalist or soldier in Iraq: well, its war; and, after all, we invaded them. So liberals can excuse these instances of barbarism. And the appeal to Islam in these instances is said to be just rhetoric.
But hanging two teenagers for committing acts of homosexuality when they were around the age of 16 or 17 constitutes a flagrant and inexcusable act of barbarism committed against two Muslim Arabs. This makes it manifestly clear that talking about doing horrific things in the name of Islam is more than just rhetoric against those infidels in the West, the United States in particular.
You see: All this violence, including the terrorism, has been attributed to the wrongs of America and its allies. But that explanation cannot possibly be operative in this instance.
We know that when people want to they can, with rare exception, always find away around applying a rule. For instance, at least one teenager claimed not to have known that the penalty for homosexuality is death. Perhaps he did; perhaps he did not. But surely the statement allowed for enough doubt, by way of rationalization, to spare the lives of these two youths. For the choice Iran, surely, is not between being tolerant of homosexuality or killing teenagers for committing homosexual acts.
It is not just that two teenagers were killed, but two families each lost a son.
All of this constitutes a tremendous embarrassment for liberals. For what does it mean to respect a religion whose adherents can be so utterly vicious?
Now, of course, Islam is not the only religious tradition that condemns homosexuality. Catholicism does, numerous other Christian sects do, and Orthodox Judaism certainly does. However, all of these traditions have found ways not to be utterly vicious at a practical level in their treatment of homosexuals. It is also true that not all Arabic Muslims in the world would want their children killed in the name of Islam, given that the children had performed acts of homosexuality. But if Islam is being hijacked by the foolish and the intemperate, this I suggest is because far too many Muslim Arabs around the world are remaining silent.
Perhaps I am mistaken. But it seems to me that Arabs around the world lifted their voices loudly and clearly to protest. So we know, first hand, that silent opposition is not the only option.
But the New York Times is perhaps more like those vicious adherents of Islam than most are inclined to suppose. For the New York Times found it much more politically expedient to remain silent than to publish a significant story about the matter. The paper could not have drawn attention to the horrible fate of these two teenagers without acknowledging the evil of some who call upon the name of Allah. Of course, a story that showed the narrow-minded attitude of Christian fundamentalists in America regarding gays was just fine.
I think I have got it. If I understand the New York Times correctly, then Islamic fundamentalist are, well, just practicing a level of religious commitment that differs mightily from our forms of religious commitment. By contrast, the New York Times regards Christian fundamentalists in America as the epitome of what it is to be an ass-hole.
