[Martina]

So typical of a literary critic to create some unnecessary construct and treat it as if it were real. I am talking about this:

. . . if you think that your religion is just an add-on to your essential personhood, like the political party you belong to or the football team you root for.

That is the view of religion we inherited from John Locke and other “accommodationist” Protestants, Protestants who entered into a bargain with the state: allow us freedom of worship, don’t meddle in our affairs and we won’t meddle in civic matters or attempt to make public institutions reflect theological doctrines. . . . .

Those who buy into this division of labor and authority will themselves be bifurcated entities. In their private lives they will live out the commands of their religion to the fullest. In their public lives — their lives as citizens — they will relax their religious convictions and display a tolerance they may not feel in their heart of hearts. We give witness to this dual identity when we declare, in fidelity to the First Amendment, “I hate and reject what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

People have been writing that kind of crap about modernity, well, since modernity. We are not bifurcated entities. Dual identities. *RME* Stanley, there is a discipline out there called psychology -- and I don't mean Freud. You might check into it. People in the modern world are people -- primates. To the extent that we are more disconnected from ourselves and each other, it's because our lives under Capitalism make it harder for us to live in the kinds of groups that we do best in. Why can't he -- and others -- talk about behavior and history and not create these ridiculous constructs out of thin air?

I liked this from one of the readers' comments after the article:

The discussion of free speech, while excellent, presupposes a context free of drones, bombs, invasions, rapes, murdered children, violated sovereignty, torture, illegal and unending detention, etc. etc.

And this reader's comment on Fish goes well with the Daily Beast article:

There seems to be an assumption by just about everyone that what those "foreigners" believe is different from what goes on here.

What about the Archbishops & Cardinals who insist that we must outlaw gay marriage? How is that different from the mullahs? Or the clergy who refuse communion to catholics who don't vote the way they want them to?

John Kennedy would have been condemned by today's Catholic hierarchy for the speech he gave in 1960.

I'm afraid the Locke point of view that informed our Bill of Rights isn't just out of sync with the Muslim world. It is no longer operative in the USA.

I guess Fish was being arrogant about Western Civilization, but it was a backhanded kind of arrogance. And it was patronizing to Muslims, I agree.

He is romanticizing religious Muslims AND treating them as if they were less complex than we are, a point made in the Daily Beast article.

Here's Fish:

In their eyes, a religion that confines itself to the heart and chapel, and is thus exercised intermittently while the day’s business gets done, is no religion at all. True religion does not relax its hold when you leave the house of worship; it commands your allegiance at all times and in all places. And the “you” whose allegiance it commands is not divided into a public “you” and a private “you”; it is the same at home as it is when abroad in the world.

and his last paragraph -- about people in the West:

But that means that protecting the marketplace by refusing to set limits on what can enter it is the highest value we affirm, and we affirm it no matter what truths might be vilified and what falsehoods might get themselves accepted. We have decided that the potential unhappy consequences of a strong free speech regime must be tolerated because the principle is more important than preventing any harm it might permit. We should not be surprised, however, if others in the world — most others, in fact — disagree, not because they are blind and ignorant but because they worship God and truth rather than the First Amendment, which not only keeps God and truth at arm’s length but regards them with a deep suspicion.

Is he not saying that we Capitalists are placing the marketplace of ideas and the wealth that has created for us above truth? Is he saying that if we prioritize freedom of speech, we almost stop caring whether truth or falsehood prevails? The current Pope cold have said that.

From a comment:

Stanley Fish as usual defending outrageous conservatism with a calm faux reasonableness. He could handily defend the inquisition too I'm sure.