There's nothing so deflating as to spend lots of time polishing off a thoughtful piece and then look at the comments to see lunatics ranting about Nostradamus-style end-times prophecy. Or conspiracy theories.
Worse are the haters and mockers who would disagree with even a simple hello. Worst are those who fail to read with any care, hurling canned insults at us, at each other, and at their political, religious, and moral opponents.
There are sometimes thoughtful kudos, careful reflections, and even vigorous disagreements, taking you to task for an oversight or a sloppy argument. I cherish these, even when I'm embarrassed by the oversights they call attention to. Unfortunately, such careful attention to my own argument is rarely paid.
Most everyone today, it seems, gets to throw around whatever accusation, or defamatory remark, or just plain vile and hate-filled snark they want. And they can do this with no transparency. Sitting in their office cubicle, coffee shop, or, as I often imagine in more uncharitable moments, their parents' basement on an old dial-up connection (depressingly middle-aged, unemployed, pajama-clad, and hating everyone for the unfortunate twists and turns their own life took), they spew out venom.
Marty Peretz called his attention to this phenomenon in a piece this week in The New Republic: "Ours is an age when the moral authority of accusers is at its height. Also the moral authority of accusations. There was a time when accusations had to be proven. That requirement has long since passed." Peretz is, of course, in his own piece hurling weighty accusations in the midst of a significant and heated debate about the divides in America's Israeli foreign policy communities. Leaving aside the other points in his piece, he's on to something important about how we engage others' ideas and thoughts.
Consider Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, who has a very thoughtful piece in today's paper on the complex nuances of shari'ah law and the way that Sheik Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, bridges the traditionalist and pragmatic paths of interpretation. As Gerson reports: "traditionalist Islam, in his view, is pragmatic in the way it applies these principles to 'current reality.' It is the job of Islamic scholars 'to bridge the gap between the sources and life today.' Some past interpretations 'may have been corrupt -- we may find a better way. What we look to in tradition is methodology, not the exact results of 500 years ago.' Gomaa focuses on 'the intent of sharia to foster dignity and other core values,' as well as 'a commitment to the public interest.'"
Gerson's piece is patient, careful, and displays a welcome refusal to lump all mentions of shari'ah into stereotypes about jihad and tyrannical societies. Indeed, the interpretive method the Grand Mufti articulates is more pragmatic and modern than a fair portion of conservative religious persons in this country, even while it shares similar views on homosexuality and drugs. One conclusion to be drawn from Gerson's piece is the world is more complex than monolithic views of Islam can describe.
Open the comments, however, and Gerson may have just as well said nothing. The comments barely address his points. Consider these examples:
"surenio31 wrote: 'The clergy in past in all religions and in Islam even today act as peddlers and pimps for crafty rulers to perpetuate their undemocratic regimes.'"
This is a fairly typical kind of comment: you want to speak about the value of a particular religious position? The commenter will simply assert that all religions are evil/wrong/about power, etc. The nuanced position you describe? Swallowed whole by the commenter's blanket assertion.
"fcs25 wrote: The 'scholar' has failed to rationalize Islam into anything except what it is...A hate filled false religion fueled by violence and murder."
This kind of comment is more common. The commenter is of the view that all of Islam is hate-filled and violent. Therefore, all Muslims have to be. Therefore, the position offered by the Grand Mufti is irrelevant. No nuance, no engagement with the reality beyond the commenter's narrow vision.
"MILLER123 wrote: Let me see you do an article on 'Rescuing Christianity from extremism'"
This kind of comment is ad hominem. Gerson often writes in a conservative vein, and the commenter is calling him out for inconsistency (presumably Gerson would champion a more liberal Christian, to be consistent with his championing a more liberal Muslim). It doesn't address the core claim Gerson makes, only tries to deflate it by pointing out performative inconsistencies.
None of these comments address Gerson's representation of the Grand Mufti's positions. None provide any criticism that can be challenged or that even addresses the issue. The commenters don't have to, I suppose, because nothing is at stake for them. Their anonymity means they can charge forth with any manner of accusations, hatred, and incendiary language.
What do "we" educated, modern, try-to-be-thoughtful people do? We laugh at these commenters for their flagrant ignorance, and we simply skip over them. Or, if we find some kernel of truth in what they say, we are uncomfortable that the position is being represented by such an extremely hostile and narrow spokesperson.
Meanwhile the hate-filled social underbelly builds up pressure. And, our rich cultures are depleted by the lack of engaged, critical reflection.
Hannah Arendt had already seen this danger, and called it out years ago in her Human Condition: "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist."
I hope we can check this tendency before most of us lose a grip on the differences between fact and fiction.
