Linen Hall Library

Personal ViewAuthor(s): Paul CampbellSource: The Linen Hall Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), p. 4Published by: Linen Hall LibraryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20534054 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Linen Hall Library is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Linen HallReview.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:14:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PERSONAL view

Much of the cultural relativism of the sixties reached sublime heights but too often plumbed ridiculous and

dangerous depths. If, for example, the inmates of some

strange corner of the globe chose to stone adulterous women to death under some strange (to western eyes) law, culture, religion, practice, then so be it. What was so sacrosanct about white ways and values anyway? Live and let live. Or let die. Or whatever.

Liberal notions such as these have their parallels in the

eighties, in this getting ahead enterprise culture where

nasty, brutish dog eats dog. I'm persuaded that there is at least the possibility that, under the guise of some queer sort of multi cultural liberalism, the present British government

may well consider extending the laws of blasphemy. Since the start of the Rushdie affair we've heard noises to this effect and some of the noises make perverted sense: British laws protect only the white god from insult and leave all

other gods to fend for themselves. Should the government decide eventually to amend the

law, they will not, of course, make the amendment retro

spective and they will, of course, continue to protect Rushdie -

half-heartedly, of course, since it is now touted, govern

mentally agreed, that Rushdie's writing is unreasonably and deliberately and obdurately obscure and that he is thus a bad writer; it has also become obvious to anyone follow

ing this business that Rushdie knew exactly what he was

writing when he was writing it. Tve never considered myself absolutist and I comfort

myself that my cultural absolutism, if such it is, gets the best of both worlds and is only a relative thing. It springs from

my wants and preferences, rather than being value laden, or

so I hope. I prefer, for example, to live in present day western society than in Hitler's Germany or in Pol Pot's

Kampuchea. Fundamentalism is wrong because I fear it. I see myself as reasonable and fear unreason because some

day it will offer harm to my reason and my self. Are we sickened by the sight of Iran's children marching off to war, to die, promise of heaven pinned to their chests, because we know those children, or because we have children of our own? When they burn books do they burn our thoughts?

It is, I have always assumed, reasonable that should a barman agree to set drinks before me for a price, I should sit at his bar of a Sunday evening and mind my drink and my business. Eighteen months ago there was no plebiscite ushering in the new laws on Sunday opening in Northern Ireland. Had there been, and had the ayes won the vote,

would it then have been my right and my power to force onto a barstool of a Sunday the fundament of every unrea sonable little bigot who had taken it upon himself to dictate

my drinking times. The prospect is pleasing, if unrealistic. Of greater consequence, of mice and men writ large

perhaps - it can be argued that one reason why the Soviets

committed themselves so heavily in Afghanistan was be cause their historical fear of frontier violation combined in

this instance with fear of religio-nationalistic fundamental ism. The United States had been humiliated in Iran and the

Soviets probably saw Afghanistan as a buffer state standing between them and the Islamic jihad. And now the Soviets have been defeated. Let us all rejoice. But let the free world have the sense to stop arming bigots. An absolutist view

point? Probably, but not born of love for western values, more of fear of seeing madness sweep the world.

Live and let live is for voting democrats. When a

majority wants to burn books, burn authors, empty beer

kegs into sewers or stone women to death, and when they vote to have their way, is it not then their right? And democ

racy is civilised and big-hearted enough to protect minori ties and their gods, if the minorities and their gods are influencial enough.

Reason has no stake, major or minor, in the workings of

the world and in the working of world governments. If we

should, for example, decide to extend the protection that this country has always accorded the white god to a whole host of other gods

- what protection can be offered to those who see religion as superstition, see all gods as ghosties and

ghoulies darting around under the skirts of old women?

May we think it but not say it, not write it? What govern ment has the nerve to protect and fight for reason? What

government has the reason to protect Salman Rushdie?

?? Paul Campbell

>v." ^^^Km J "-?** '"V""' i^^H

PAGE 4 Linen Hall Review

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:14:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions