A Delicate Balance

Abstract

Edward Albee's play, A Delicate Balance, starring Glenn Close and John Lithgow, is playing at the Golden Theatre in New York. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1967, the play draws the audience into reading between the lines, that is, what is left unsaid often is as important as what is said. Thus, the well-to-do suburban couple, Agnes and Tobias, manage to live relatively harmoniously despite Agnes's awareness of Tobias's affairs; her disdain for her alcoholic sister Claire, who lives with them; and the angst produced by their 36-year-old daughter Julia, now on her fourth divorce. Agnes, the main female character in the play, manages to keep her home in order, mostly by ignoring anything that might upset the peace.I could not help but think of A Delicate Balance after the extremists' attack on the satirical magazine, Charlie in Paris on January 7, 2015. It is widely recognized that the satirists' exercise of their freedom of i.e., their lampooning of Islam, provoked the wrath of the Al Qaeda-backed extremists. There was no delicate balance involved. Similarly, there was no delicate balance involved in Ian Paisley's vitriolic, hate-filled speeches in Northern Ireland against the Roman Catholic Church and the Republic of Ireland in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Those of us who lived in Ireland just listened and ignored him, recognizing Paisley as a hate-monger whose views were extremist and who provided certain subversive groups a raison d'etre in the North- and South-of Ireland.Admittedly, in this country, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech-but often within certain boundaries determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. And in Ireland, a blasphemy law now prohibits irreverent speech about religion.Where is the balance? How can balance be regulated?Two interesting columns in the New York Times in January 2015 addressed this matter of balance. One, by Frank Bruni, looked at religious bigotry, and gays. The other, by David Brooks, looked at the Charlie Hebdo tragedy.Examining political shibboleths that focus on same-sex marriage in light of the need to safeguard religious liberty, Bruni noted that marriage-equality laws not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque. He added,Christian fundamentalists in this country are practiced at claiming marginalization and oppression. . . . They and their churches inject themselves into political debates while enjoying tax-exempt status. They get public support in questionable circumstances. . . . What's more, in a country that's not supposed to promote any one religion over others, we do precisely that. Would we be content to let a Muslim store owner who believes that a woman should always cover her hair refuse service to women who do not? Or a Mormon hairdresser who spurns coffee to turn away clients who saunter in with frappuccinos?In Am Not Charlie Hebdo, David Brooks pointed out that many people who lionize those offending the views of Islamist terrorists in France are a lot less tolerant toward people who offend the lionizers' own views at home.Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium, Brooks wrote, referring to the outspoken, Somali-born activist.He noted that if the Charlie Hebdo journalists had attempted to publish their satirical cartoons on any U.S. campus, they would not have had much success. Students and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech, he wrote.Although most of us would be justified in seeing certain cartoons as inflammatory, in recognizing certain comments aimed at our particular religion as offensive, most of us who are not fundamentalists would filter out our sentiments.Although I often disagree with David Brooks' perspectives, I was impressed by his discourse on campus restrictions on free speech. …