Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
John Edwards (a walking contradiction of the rule that nature abhors a vacuum) scolded but did not fire two of his campaign bloggers for criticizing the Catholic Church.
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me," said the would-be Democratic presidential nominee. "It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else." (our emphasis)
What he was telling the women was not that the reasoning of their Internet rants necessarily was wrong, but that their heavy-handed criticism of church doctrine on such matters as homosexuality and abortion were impolitic.
This kind of suppression of free speech is reasonable and acceptable, as it involves the implicit contract in which employees agree not to embarrass their employer. Edwards' reprimand said, in essence, shut up, remember where you get your paycheck and remember that Catholics vote. It seems about right for a first offense.
Still, one must ask why the candidate didn't discharge the women. The likely answer lies in their choice of target. Nobody gets in real trouble for bashing Catholics. It has been open season on the church for decades, because the ''feelings police'' generally don't agree with the pope on questions of homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, ordination of women et cetera ad infinitum.
The bloggers would have been in deeper trouble if they had written intemperately about certain ''protected'' classes in the college town of Excuse Me, Michigan, where the city council has empowered the Human Feelings Commission to levy civil and criminal penalties against those whose writings or statements offend members of certain identifiable groups.
We asked commission Chairman Howard Bashford if the Excuse Me ordinance didn't violate the First Amendment.
''Of course not,'' said Bashford, rather hotly. ''It's high time that society recognized that one needn't commit a physical offense to commit a hate crime. Injury to one's psyche can be as severe as physical injury; hurt feelings can cause as much pain as a split lip or a broken arm, and the scars can be deeper.''
''Then it's the thought that counts?'' we asked.
''That's it – exactly!'' Bashford exclaimed.
''So, if somebody published something offensive to, say, Catholics, you might fine them or jail them for the crime of hurting feelings?'' we pressed.
''No,'' he said, ''Catholics are not on your list, because the Catholic Church is too big and powerful to really be hurt.''
''But individual members – can't their feelings be hurt?'' we pressed.
''You can only be hurt as part of a protected group,'' he said, betraying some exasperation. ''Catholics aren't on the list. Besides, plays lampooning nuns and essays attacking papal decrees are a cherished aspect of our cultural heritage.''
''How about Mormons?'' we asked. ''Mark Twain did a rather funny send up of Brigham Young and the Book of Mormon in his 'Roughing It.' Could you prosecute him?''
''I don't know,'' said Bashford. ''I'd have to look it up. First off, we'd have to know if this Twain lives in Excuse Me. Does he?''
We allowed that he did not live there but noted that many religions had their funny side.
Waxing pedantic, we said, ''The foundational writings and doctrines of the great religions all contain grist for the humorist's mill, ink to fill the critic's pen. The antics of the Old Testament Hebrews can be at once horrific and comical; Christ occasionally shows himself all too human in the New Testament; Allah is oddly and minutely concerned with matters of personal grooming in the Quran – and these are just the main texts. Get into religious subdivisions and you find the really bizarre stuff – snake cults, spiritualism, plural marriage and on and on.''
''We have to look at things on a case-by-case basis,'' said Bashford. ''For example, in Excuse Me, you can't abuse Islamic notions, but you can satirize evangelical Christians.''
We asked, ''Why evangelicals?'' and Bashford replied, ''Evangelicals are dangerous.''
He didn't wait for another question but responded to our raised eyebrows, ''You know perfectly well why. It's because they are among the groups perpetuating the corrupt institutions of what we laughingly call 'western civilization.' They can't really be hurt. You can only hurt protected groups like, like ...''
''Like illegal aliens, radical Islamists, folks with 'alternative life styles,' minority races excluding Asians?'' we offered.
''Yes!'' Bashford said. ''Yes! You've got it! The First Amendment wasn't intended to protect criticism of people on the inside, only criticism of people on the outside. It was intended to protect people who ... people who ... ''
''People who erode or threaten American institutions?'' we suggested.
''Yes,'' he said truculently.
''If you're going to go that far,'' we said, ''why don't you go beyond suppressing free expression and start punishing people for their thoughts alone?''
''That would be difficult,'' he said sullenly, ''but we're working on it.''
Indeed they are working on it. In Philadelphia a sandwich shop owner faces municipal sanctions for posting a sign asking patrons to order in English. In France, the satirical weekly ''Charlie Hebdo'' is on trial for reprinting the cartoons of Muhammad that so infuriated Muslims last year. (The magazine's cover also depicted the prophet, covering his eyes and thinking to himself, "It is hard to be worshipped by idiots.")
In Victoria Province, Australia, two ministers faced penalties for quoting the Quran critically – and accurately. In Canada almost any criticism of protected groups might be penalized for ''inciting hatred.''
College campuses across America have ''speech codes'' designed to suppress heterodox ideas.
The growing, worldwide body of know-nothings, intellectual vacancies and would-be moral arbiters who populate human rights commissions, university faculties, hate crimes committees and other aspiring thought police despise the western institutions that protect them. They ignore assaults on organizations – like the Catholic Church or evangelical denominations – that seek to preserve western society, but they will leap to the defense of any group or doctrine that threatens western institutions.
And we hope we're not hurting their feelings by saying so.