Crossing the Line

In the U.S., it is rare that someone in a position of authority makes and maintains a claim that is truly outrageous.  Policy in other parts of the world plays out in the full range of the political spectrum, but in the U.S. the David Dukes of the world disappear pretty quickly.  If you are going to, say, deny that the Holocaust occured, call for segregation or forced sterilization, you aren't going to last long in a position of responsibility in American Society.

The Republic's Linda Valdez has crossed the line from the provocative to the repugnant when she used her position as editorial writer as a platform to advocate in favor of some of the worst types of religious discrimination and anti semitism working its way across Europe.

The French said it straight up with their ban, which includes Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses. They want to preserve France's secular foundations.

That's a good idea.

What?  Banning "Jewish skullcaps" is "a good idea"?   My gosh, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan certainly couldn't get away with saying that.

If my kids came to me and said "Dad, why is it that people are allowed to wear head scarves and yarmulkes?"  I would respond patiently that our Constitution protects the rights of people who want to exercise their religion, so it would be unconstitutional to tell Jewish people that they can't wear their hats. 

I would add that even if it were OK to tell people they couldn't wear head scarves or "Jewish skullcaps"  It would be wrong to pass a law to stop them.  After all, that would be really intolerant of other people's beliefs and even though we are not Jewish, we should respect their feelings, ideas and culture. 

Linda Valdez actually addresses--and rejects--those arguments. 

Society can, however, impose limitations on it, just as freedom of speech is restricted for the sake of safety (Don't yell fire in a crowded room) and civility (You can't slander or libel your neighbor). Religion should be restricted when it offends human rights.

The guarantee of freedom of religion etched in the U.S. Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the kind of top-down religious persecution that drove so many early Colonists to the new world. It is a healthy approach. But people and society also need protecting from religion.

She then goes on to provide three examples of religions gone wild:  Warren Jeffs, The 9-11 terrorists and a congregation in New Mexico that wants to import an illegal hallucinogen for use in sacred ceremonies.

So much for Constitutional protection.  After all, if I can't yell fire in a theater, why should you be able to wear a yarmulke in public?  Especially since the guys who blew up the World Trade Center were religious too. 

She treats the tolerance issue even more dismissively.   In opposing the Netherlands' approach, one Muslim leader made a pitch for diversity. Ah, yes, diversity. That's one of those concepts that gets trotted out when it's convenient.

Yeah, the whole diversity thing is simply trotted out when it's convenient.  Like when you are a female with an Hispanic surname who rounds out the Republic Editorial board.  Convenient like that. 

After her diatribe on the constitution, polygamists and terrorists, Valdez reiterates her main point about the European quest to eliminate head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large crosses.  She is unrepentant.

Which brings us back to Europe and the quest to keep religious exhibitionism from undermining civil society.

We are not only clear about her position, but now we also know the reason--religious exhibitionism undermines civil society.

Golly, I've often thought the same thing.  I was in Costco just the other day and a guy was browsing the book aisle while wearing a yarmulke and I thought to myself "Dude, that guy is undermining society.  There ought to be a law to make him take that thing off."  "Religious exhibitionism" is undermining society?  My gosh, that is completely unhinged.

I don't know what is more astonishing that Linda Valdez could write this intolerant piece of hate literature or that she was still working for the Republic the following day. 

Comments

[Paul Srch]

I read this the other day; after picking my jaw up off the floor, I realized that Valdez simply reflects the character and beliefs of the majority of the editors of the Republic (not to mention - and don't get me started on - Steve Benson). So it's no surprise that she's still employed. And, with beliefs like that, it's no wonder that the Republic is quickly picking up steam on its slide into irrelevance.

As for how she could write such a hate-filled, illogical rant AGAINST the protections embodied in the first amendment, that doesn't surprise me either. Valdez frequently sounds like she's trying to become the next Maureen Dowd. She's at least as shrill... if not as well known.

[Joe Baby]

It's a little further back in the same amendment (the 1st), but there's a thing about freedom of the press.

Think she might agree to dialing that back in the name of gettin' along?

[T Edward]

Copy of an e-mail sent to Ms. Valdez

Linda Valdez-


I read your column in the paper today and I just want to make certain that I understand your position.

Apparently you feel that it would be a good thing if we banned "Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses" in America.

If I missed your point, and you do not think that those things should be banned, then I apologize for the rest of my letter. If not, then I have to say that, as a Lawyer, a student of American Government, and a citizen of the freest nation in the world (yes, I have traveled extensively and make that statement based on my observations) what you are advocating is one of the most dangerous challenges to our freedom that I have ever heard.

To think that a country founded on the ideal of religious freedom would ban expressions of that religious freedom is beyond my comprehension. If you do succeed in banning religious expression, then what do you do next? Ban speech of those who do not think like you? Ban all foods that some are allergic to? Ban music and movies and books that you find offensive or which might purvey an idea you find intolerable or dangerous. Ban the very thoughts of those who might disagree with your idea of what we should all be thinking?

Thomas Jefferson felt that any majority could quell any minority and that we would have revolutions every few generations or so because democracy by itself could not endure. For that reason we have three branches of our government, all with staggered terms of office and separations of power, to protect us from any majority that would do us harm.

I only pray (if that is still allowed in your world) that you are never a part of our government and that those like you never have any power over the people of our nation.

You are a very dangerous to those of us who love freedom. I hate to see your America come to fruition. Curtailment of a civil liberty is a very slippery slope and once you start down it the end is not the America that any of us really want.

[Paul Srch]

"It's a little further back in the same amendment (the 1st), but there's a thing about freedom of the press."

So, it's OK to use one clause in an amendment to suggest that we toss out another clause, because we like what the one gives us, but not what the the other allows? Not sure that makes sense...

Interesting, though, that you always hear about press's freedom, but never about it's responsibility. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean it's a responsible thing to say.

[Ann]

I, too, read this on Sunday and was so astonished at the voracity with which Mrs. Valdez attacked religion, faith, and the expression of such that I wasn't sure I had accurately understood the purpose of the column. I decided to re-read it in a day or so and evaluate my original impression. Having done that, I am even more angered by her writings and extremely concerned that the Republic would use its journalistic license to extol such vitriolic virtues.

With full understanding of the first amendment, I cannot agree more with Paul's comments:

"Interesting, though, that you always hear about press's freedom, but never about its responsibility. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean it's a responsible thing to say."

At what point is the use of journalistic opportunity tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? At what point are individual rantings to be portrayed, even in a column with a by-line, as the general viewpoint of the paper itself? If Mrs. Valdez does represent the paper, if she does speak for that entity, then the paper is ultimately responsible for the words on the pages they publish.

Such overwhelmingly offensive views are certainly hers to hold. However, they are of such an inflammatory nature it is difficult to imagine any reasonable publication wanting to be accountable for their dissemination. It seems to me that either “the paper” agrees with these views or they don’t. That they appear without disclaimer of disagreement from an opposing representative of the paper speaks volumes.

[Jane Doe]

In response to Joe Baby, and in agreement with Paul Srch:

Yes, Ms. Valdez has the first amendment right to Freedom of the Press. But let's not forget that she is attacking one of the more fundamental rights of our constitution. The colonists feld Europe to escape religious attacks and go figure, that same continent is attacking it once more. That someone would openly praise such a fundamental right is horrid.

While she in entitled to voice her opinion, we are entitled as a public to be outraged. And if the paper should (against all odds) decide that she abused her power, they would be more than entitled, by my opinion, to release her in the nicest way. One is allowed to speak their opinion but to speak such socially treasonous words should not be acceptable.

[cc burro]

Say what???

"Religion should be restricted when it offends human rights." How does wearing an article of clothing--religious, spiritual, political, etc.--harm human rights?

This illiberal reporter sounds like a definite whack-job.

[Joe Baby]

Jane,

That was my point -- she's arguing that religion should be shuttered (the first two clauses of the 1st Amendment), but would go bananas if anyone said something similar about her lodestone a few clauses later.

She's basically saying "for me, but not for thou."

[Nick]

Miz smarmy doing what she does so often!

"Offending Human Rights" I'll passing on making fun of how one "offends" a "right" - those of you playing along at home can make up your own lines.

BUT - Could she be refering to the Rights in the Constitution, you know, the ones endowed by our CREATOR.

I read this stuff and my mind keeps repeating, "Hell in handbasket...Hell in a handbasket..."

Don't know why my signature is being left off of my posts. Oh well, some anonymous musing isn't so bad...

[Stacy]

Reminds me of high school -- "You can't wear bandanas to class because people in gangs wear bandanas." Sure, let's expand en loco parentis to grown adults, why not?

[esnuck]

Wondering why we lost so many good Republicans this election?

Look at the facts - the media is out of control. They publish political psychobabble without a thought. Taking truth and twisting it to meet their liberal agenda.

Let's all cancel our subscriptions!!

[Obviously Right]

I cancelled mine a long time ago. Greg can keep us posted if the load gets past the top of our boots - like this little tyrannical manifesto. Everyone be sure to right in and let them know what you think - and that you read it on espressopundit and not in their rag...That'll tick 'em off.

[Old Mechanic]

This lady is like andrew sullivan, the NYT's hag --Maurine, or benson -- she is such a socialist useful idiot that she is ignored. Does one pay serious attention to babbling nonsense from small children? I dropped Rep years ago on Benson's nonexistant taste. Only read Robb and Roberts on Web. The others are consistent garbage.

[Ray G]

I'd email her, but Benson got me on the banned list a couple of years ago.

A good question to put to her would be whether or not she would be in favor of removing vulgar language and imagery from the back windows of automobiles.

Calvin urinating on something while flipping the bird is far more offensive than a crucifix or a kippah.