by Bruce Bawer
A reader responds to my post on the pro-gay event at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and in doing so supplies an example of the kind of moral relativism that rebels against any effort by Westerners to help improve the human-rights situation in the Muslim world, and that replies to any expression of concern about that situation by turning the spotlight back on the West and pointing out that human rights aren't perfect here either:
The event at the embassy was foolish….
By making this into an "American" issue, we will diminish the standing of Pakistani gay rights activists to convince their own society. It's particularly hilarious because the United States is hardly the poster child for gay rights in the world. The federal government does not recognize marriages from the 6 states where they are legal, yet Argentina has legalized gay marriage for all its citizens. I applaud your contempt for the atrocities against gay men (it always seems to be the men they condemn to death) in Pakistan, but some humility is called for: a decade ago homosexuality was illegal in many states in the union. Change will come there too, as it has here.
I am reminded of the Times of London reader who, in an online comment about a 2007 article on the execution of gays in Iran, listed some of the West's moral failures, and asked: "Who the hell are we to point fingers?" (The comment is no longer online, but is quoted on page 33 of my book Surrender.) The point being that any attempt by a Westerner to intervene in the Muslim world's affairs – or, for that matter, any Westerner's expression of sheer human concern even about such a thing as the execution of gay teenagers – is an unacceptable, condescending, and intrusive example of Orientalism. According to this logic, until the West has morally perfected itself, there is only one appropriate Western response to antigay (and other) atrocities in the Muslim world: silence.
The Dish 