Imagine if Mr. Williams had said the same thing about Jews or Christians. Would he have been fired? Of course not; far from being offended, people would think he was delusional. When was the last time Jews murdered others in the name of Judaism, or Christians in the name of Christianity? Stumped? You're not alone. For Muslims, however, one need only go back a few weeks (no matter when you are reading this). Is this tragic? Certainly. Is it true, though? To deny this is to deny the earth is round. But NPR is much more concerned with being politically correct (read denying reality) than with transmitting truth. As I have said to many friends, the issue is not whether or not Muslim terrorists are misrepresenting their faith; that is for Islamic scholars to decide. It is an undeniable fact, however, that for the majority of Muslim terrorists, they think that they are faithfully performing their god's will. Are they all idiots, or is there something else going on here?
So Juan Williams says what is on millions of Americans' minds. Are millions of Americans anti-Muslim bigots? (To the media elite, that is a rhetorical question; it is a given.) Or, in fact, are they just not oblivious to the events unfolding before their eyes, and do they just want to protect their families?
Are the majority of Muslims terrorists? The notion is absurd. But even according to the most conservative estimates, 10% of the Muslim world supports violent jihad to impose shariah. Friends, that's 130 million people. That's nearly one-third the population of the United States, and more than four times the population of Canada. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs. But the majority of Arabs are Muslims. Why is this obvious truth any less legitimate than pointing out that the majority of terrorists are Muslims?
Considering there have been exactly zero protests by American Muslims against religious violence committed in the name of their faith, cut us all some slack if we are a bit more suspicious of someone dressed in Muslim garb than we would be of a Hasid from Brooklyn, an Evangelical from San Antonio, or a nun from Seattle.
If Ryan Williams said he felt nervous when he saw a Chassidic Jew walk by, he would most certainly have been fired. The reason he got fired was not his feeling but the fact that he said it on the radio.
ReplyDeleteShira's Dad, thanks for your comment. My responses follow:
ReplyDelete1) Ryan Williams would never have been fired, because people would have treated such a comment as a joke. Who would have taken such a remark seriously? Who in his right mind gets nervous when seeing someone dressed in Hasidic garb? The idea is absurd. It is *not* absurd, however, to get nervous when seeing one in Muslim garb, unfortunately. They have a more serious problem in their community with the faithful murdering innocents, do they not?
2) He was wrong to express his feeling on the radio? Where may he do so? He is an *analyst*! Not a reporter! Is not express feelings one of the jobs of an analyst? He expresses a thought, a hunch, or a feeling. That's his job. And he was canned for it, since it was not PC.
3) If Ryan Williams would have been fired for the theoretical "Hasidic Jew" comment, I would object just the same.
The fact is, people are petrified of saying anything negative about Muslims or Islam, even if it is made clear that they do not mean to label then entire Muslim populace or faith. To the PC police, it matters not at all.
There are, in fact, many people who get very nervous around Chassidim, or any one else who believes, acts or dresses differently than they do. Some of those people are certainly "not in their right mind," but most are just plain biased. Having a "gut reaction" to a situation like that is a feeling - a sort of initial reflex reaction which we cannot control - that feeling is bias. For that matter, we are all biased in certain situations. But those of us in our "right mind" quickly understand that these initial gut feelings are unreasonable and, therfore, we don't act upon them.
ReplyDeleteNot allowing our reason and understanding to overcome that bias, as in publically debasing an entire people for the actions of a few - that is prejudice. Jews, as perhaps the first people in history to be "profiled," are all too familiar with the dangerous difference between bias and prejudice.
Just so we are clear, your view is that it is "bias," and not a feeling borne of a legitimate concern, for people to be nervous when seeing those in Muslim garb? In other words, there is no recent historical basis on which people may be nervous?
ReplyDeleteIf there were hundreds of terrorist attacks by Catholic nuns, I assume you would agree that it would be biased to be nervous when seeing nuns on a plane in their habits, correct? I think this is a fair comparison.
Are you aware that by even the most *conservative* estimates, 10% of Muslims worldwide support violent jihad? That is 130 million people! That is more than four times the population of Canada. And you claim that prejudice is what drives many to be more nervous of one in Muslim garb than of, say a Mormon? I do not follow the logic.
No, not all Muslims are terrorists. But nearly all terrorists are Muslims, committing their murderous acts *in the name of Islam* (whether or not their interpretation is correct). Agreed?
Bias is an unconscious feeling often resulting from a prior negatve experience. The more passionately we believe in a cause, the more we tend to accept our own biases as legitimate, thus leading us to condemn an entire group based upon the actions of one or more individuals. In those cases where we are firmly commited to a cause, such as the safety and welfare of Israel, as difficult as it may be, we need to try even harder to use logic and reason to prevent our understandable biases
ReplyDeletefrom evolving into prejudice - that prejudice which forms the basis for all the dangerous consequences of antisemitism, islamophobia, and racism.
Biases are emotional. As Jews, we are usually in the lead at understanding
Just to further clarify: Bias is normal and is a sort of reflex reaction based on our prior experiences. Bias is expected and is normal in all of us. Call it part of our self-preservation instinct. However, bias is often unreasonable and, as such, can be quickly overruled in our mind by force of reason.
ReplyDeletePrejudice, on the otherhand, is something else Prejudice happens when we are unable to use reason to recognize our own bias. Prejudice is abnormal. Prejudice, not bias, leads us to unreasoably malign and/or persecute an entire religion or race for faults that we perceive in individuals belonging to that group.
What is unreasonable about it is the percentage of Muslims that actually act as terrorists (bombers, hijackers, etc.) is minimal compared to their numbers, making the chances that this particular individual is dangerous incredibly unlikely. It also assumes that non-muslims are signifigantly less dangerous per capita due to the range of reasons that people are dangerous (non-theological criminal intent, psychiatric issues, criminal negligence, etc.) It also doesn't account for the extent that Airline security also lowers the risks (far from perfect obviously). Someone who actually looks muslim (as opposed to just being brown and middle eastern looking) is even more likely to be targeted by security (despite claims that there is no racial profiling. The result, picking out someone in muslim garb as being more dangerous as a passenger on an airplane is indeed irrational bias as the chances that he is a terrorist are incredibly low.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Free speech? Doesn't NPR have the right NOT to air things they find objectionable, even if the person said the world is round and not flat.
Bias as a "gut reaction," such as that expressed by Juan Williams, is both understandable and universal. We are all biased in some circumstances and with varying intensity. Nevertheless, bias is, by its very nature, irrational.
ReplyDeleteAs thinking and responsible individuals, however, we should make every effort to overcome our biases by using reason to recognize them for what they are. It is only when we recognize our biases as such that we can use good judgement in deciding whether to and to whom we communicate these biases.
NPR apparently fired Juan Williams, who was a well respected journalist in a very responsible postion, not for having bias, but for using poor judgement in expressing that bias in a public forum.