Good one CRP. No sarcasm intended with the acronym.
People tend to forget whilst intoxicated with their ability to express themselves that the said ability to express oneself ought not to be confused with the quality of one's expression. The freedom of speech ought to advance thought and critique and one ought not to seek refuge in critique alone as a validation of the sanctity of the freedom of speech.
I'd have more respect if it weren't for the anti-jewish or anti-christian cartoons that islamic sources put out.
They can dish it out but they can't take it?
Respect's a two-way street. Demanding respect while providing none isn't the way to go.
You make a good argument. You changed my way of thinking.
With all due respect, plenty of artists, cartoonists, authors, TV producers, etc. DO make fun of the Christian religion - and many not even to 'critique' but simply to procure a reaction or for some type of nebulous effect. Yet if a Christian is offended at something like 'Piss Christ' and protests they are generally ignored or mocked for being 'intolerant' or 'threatening freedom of speech.'
Defending a violent reaction purports violence as the acceptable way to react to offense. This is a ludicrous idea - would you support the burning down of theaters that showed movies offensive to Christians or threatening the lives of those who disdain them? I highly doubt it. The double standard here is appalling. But the point is that for neither group is violence a reaction to bend to. Speech is one thing - threats and bodily harm are, legally, quite another. There is a difference.
And the beehive example is faulty. That's like saying 'free speech is good as long as it isn't used and doesn't upset people.' Then what's the point? Upsetting people is a fundamental right of free speech - and they can upset right back with something they say. But it is a dialogue, not an invitation to violence. And there's no 'squelching' necessary; simply a need to protect and support those who speak their minds.
Respect by speech is not a mandate. It's a ridiculous proposition and a threat to freedom of expression. You are not, however much you may say it, 'all for free speech' - your rationalizations of it's abridgement make that painfully obvious. I may not like the sentiments that the KKK expresses, but to quote Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That cartoonist has a right to speak and a right to speak safely, with the full protection of his country against those who would do him violence for exercising his rights.
The respect you seem to value so highly should be for the law that protects the right of free speech and those who bravely express their opinions, unpopular as they may be. You don't have to like it. But how about you trying to respect it?
The most effective propaganda comes in under the radar. The Muslim-hating cartoons. Cindy Sheehan. Now, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!
http://
fromthedarkstream.bloghi....propaganda.html
I submitted your post to spymy.com
Don't know if you've seen the latest, but Malkin has gone fucking nuts over this. What a bitch! Look what she wrote
on her blog. But if anybody crosses her religion or jokes about her husband or beliefs, she turns into a rag bag pussy whining bitch!
I don't like Muslims one damn bit, but this shit is TORTURE and it is uncalled for!
Your post would be more effective if not for this:
" What if "they" were making a mockery of YOUR religion?"
It is done regularly and and if any Christian so much as says anything negative about things like "Piss Christ" or the upcoming "Crucifixins" episode of "Will and Grace"(and don't try to tell me the timing just before Good Friday" was not planned to provide maximum insult value), they are villified and ridiculed.
I'll simply repeat what you et al say to Christians who are offended, "If you don't like just don't look at it"
Hey J Rob: Haven't you noticed in the mainstream media it seems to be "cool" to insult religion? I've blogged about this before: it almost seems there is a movement trying to break each and every religion. It seems to be "coolest of all" to mock Christianity (even though the focus the last few days has been on the Danish cartoons.) So, I guess it's a draw, and how unfortunate for BELIEVERS of ANY persuasion: there are those who don't want you to believe in anything at all!
the blogosphere seems to be consumed with hate today that's why I gave up blogging a year ago
I believe that a lot of Americans who are not Muslim don't fully grasp why it is that the Islamic world is so up in arms over these cartoons - most likely because we simply don't have a parallel in our culture. In America, we see cartoons that run right past the far wings of partisanship and into areas of "ick" all the time. We'll see Republicans depicted as Hitler, and Democrats posed as pot-smoking hippies wearing peace beads and eating vegan meals. But this is a religious matter. Again, we don't have a parallel situation here. You actually will see cartoons depicting Jesus in all sorts of inflammatory ways which will greatly offend the true believers and bring out horrified gasps of "Blasphemy!" But what we don't have is a cultural foundation of Christians responding by declaring war.
In Islam, it is a sin to depict the Prophet Mohammed in any fashion. You aren't supposed to create a likeness of him in any way. And you most certainly aren't supposed to do it portraying him as having a bomb strapped to his head. That's beyond what Christians consider to be blasphemy. That's a violation which is a clear declaration of holy war to their most ardent believers.
Dave, I have noticed that. I also agree completely with your last sentence. the problem I am having is with the sentence I quoted. It seems to presuppose that the reaction that you find so distasteful happened in a vaccum. I believe that part of the reason, or justification if you will, for the vitriol is people who remember how they were villified for voicing their displeasure at their religion beliefs and the object thereof blasphemed. Then they see the same people responsible bending over backward not to be offensive to a group that is a cultural anathema to the values of freedom that we hold dear. If it is alright for Serano, why not for the guy in Denmark? If it is alright to blaspheme Christianity why not Islam.
Is some of the reaction out of proportion? Yes. Is the reaction, in general, understandable? Again, yes.
Jazz,
Fair enough point about the politics not being a parallel. However, as far as the religion goes, it overlooks the fact that - sin or not - it is not up to believers of a certain religion to punish others, particularly those not of their religion, for not following their beliefs. Your point about the Christians isn't correct about the gravity of the offense so much as the reaction to the offense. Blasphemy is a violation; most modern Christians (note the 'modern') don't resort to holy war; some Muslims clearly do. It's a similar offense, but a different response.
A non-Muslim doesn't have to heed such an edict about not depicting Mohammed any more than a non-Jew must stay Kosher or any type of other religious violation. Especially in a society with free speech and separation of church and state - a sin is not a violation of law. To treat it as such violates the very principles of civil liberty.
I can understand why they are angry. However, that doesn't legitimize their response or justify the lack of support for free speech that some governments are showing.
I have lost all respect for little Miss Malkinhood!
"Those who reject (Islam), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein . They are the worst of creatures."[98:6]
whole lotta haters out there
Why isn't anyone concerned about THIS:
"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."
Julian Bond uttered those very words two days ago while speaking to a crowd of nearly a thousand people.
oooops, sorry, we must be POLITICALLY CORRECT
it's okay to fuck with Muslims but we must not anger our "homeys"
oooooo fah!
Now more than ever we need to pray together for peace.
dave, you're absolutely spot on.
the danish paper *knew* what the reaction was going to be, they tried to editorialize one aspect of Islam's faith. the difference between this and christianity, is that jesus' image is found all over the world, hell, his execution device is hanging around his believers necks! pointing out that christianity takes it on the chin all the time by cartoonists or artists means nothing.
when mohammed was saught after to be put to death by the leaders of mecca, his flock *protected* him. they sacrificed themselves for him before they would let him sacrifice himself for them. another major differences between the two religions.
when you have a group of people that pray *five times a day* to a higher power, they become grounded in the faith. where's that dedication by the michelle malkins of the world who point to other religions?
posting five times a day doesn't count.
watch "the message" from 1976. it actually works around the issue of depicting mohammed.
people who have created an excuse to display these cartoons, have no idea of faith or religion, or as you simply point out, respect.
I'm a Christian. I have seen Jesus mocked and ridiculed many times. I don't like it, but I don't burn things and beat people up. I don't even complain about it. I just accept that not everyone is a Christian.
There is NO EXCUSE for their behavior. None. Period. End of story.
Commenting by HaloScan
