Je ne suis pas Charlie.
There. I said it. I imagine lightning bolts from liberals are likely to rain down on me, attacking my commitment to free expression.
But the fact remains, I am not Charlie Hebdo. Setting aside the obvious fact that Charlie Hebdo is not a person--and therefore not someone I could potentially be or not be--I find this modern trend of identifying with victims of violence by taking to the streets and claiming to be them as ineffective as it is offensive. I am sorry for Trayvon Martin's family, and I think the failure of our justice system to convict George Zimmerman is an outrage, but I am not Trayvon Martin. I do not possess his particular set of circumstances, his particular outlook on the world, his particular genes and tastes in food and music.
But I have a deeper reason for saying that I am not Charlie. Before the attacks, Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of around 60,000; National Public Radio announced yesterday that a print run of 3,000,000 was expected for its first post-attack issue. While this clearly shows that terrorist attacks can have the opposite effect of the one intended, it does not show that rushing to the side of purveyors of religious disrespect is the best way of either preserving freedom of speech or of countering the threat of fundamentalist forms of Islam. Indeed, the more liberals in the West proclaim that they are Charlie, the more embattled the likes of Al Qaeada of Yemen--who claimed responsibility for the attacks yesterday--are likely to feel. Fundamentalist religion of all stripes thrives on its adherents' sense of being embattled against a modernity that threatens to overwhelm their faith. This is why chants and hashtags proclaiming "Je Suis Charlie" are unlikely to be effective; such claims can only work with people who place values of avoiding harm to others above those of doing nothing to undermine authority. But fundamentalist religion, of whatever faith tradition, makes the opposite choice. Arguing for, or proclaiming, the values of free expression will do nothing to soften the ire or change the behavior of those who dot share that value.
How then is the problem of violent fundamentalist Islam to be dealt with? I would contend through education. The slide in religious literacy--not just belief and practice, but basic literacy--that has marked modernity must be halted. I am not suggesting a return to mandatory devotional Bible reading in public schools, but of mandatory courses in World Religions. The more students are forced to understand and contend with differing faiths and worldviews, the less likely they are to engage in the kind of immaturity Charlie Hebdo showed in its cartoons; the more they are able to see people of different or no religion as people, the less likely they are to seek violent retribution to religious slights.
And this is where blogs like mine can make a difference.
