Posts
Boyd White
Do you and Muslims agree in freedom of expression. If you purport you do then you need to make up your mind.
Every time some one tries to express themselves with a caricature of Mohatmed....bam, violent censorship arises.
Which leads to the questions, if you won't grant freedom of expression to us why should we grant it to you.
This isn't a one way street.
-----
realitynotideology
Boyd, depicting Muhammad has been banned in Islam for damn near as long as it has existed. Don't depict the prophet and don't express yourself aren't exactly the same statement. That's like saying the prohibition of the 7 dirty words on the airwaves makes it impossible to express yourself.
Yup, they are pretty uptight about depicting their prophet, clearly.
Clearly the reactions are over the top and not acceptable. On the other hand, when people do something purposefully inflammatory, especially against religion, and they get a reaction they didn't expect, I'm not really one for having sympathy.
Yes, the reaction that Salmond Rushdie got was way over the top. However, he wanted to be the publicity whore, well he sure as hell got his wish.
-----
The Unrepentant Patriot
So in other words, Tom, if a political cartoonist here in America, in keeping with the First Amendment and our system of Constitutional liberties and the rule of law (as differentiated from the norms of the various theistic autocracies whose very raisons d'etre you claim to abhor), were to draw a cartoon depicting Muhammad doing something caricaturally foolish (like wearing a bomb in his turban, or copulating with a nanny-goat), and in response some Islamist were to kidnap, torture and murder the cartoonist and his family by sawing off their heads with a butcher knife, you would be "not really one for having sympathy."
Is that about right?
-----
realitynotideology
Is that what I said? Funny, I don't remember saying that. Rushdie going into hiding... don't really feel bad. Fuck him. Murder is another story.
Let's put it another way: if you were to pull into a cemetery and find someone popping a squat on the grave of someone you care about, and you beat the shit out of them, I really don't feel bad for them. You still could be charged with assault, and assault is not something I support, but to hell with the POS who was squatting on a grave.
Clearer? What, you think the cartoon guys didn't know there was going to be a reaction?
-----
The Unrepentant Patriot
What you said was, "...when people do something purposefully inflammatory, especially against religion, and they get a reaction they didn't expect, I'm not really one for having sympathy."
What that clearly implies is that anything a person of any religion might choose to do to someone in reaction to a perceived offense against that person's religion is O.K. by you. Which was why I asked the question, which you have now answered -- and I think your response and attitude are disturbing.
Because what your response means -- and you don't have to say it explicitly for it to still mean this -- is that protecting the sensibilities of some particular religion takes precedence over protecting the rights of other people to speak their minds, and, more importantly, protecting people's individual rights in general according to the rule of secular law, a concept you have repeatedly brayed about loudly when asserting that the "National Day of Prayer" legislation amounts to an establishment of religion. If a National Day of Prayer amounts to an establishment of religion, what is the implication of supporting the right of a Muslim to murder (or even threaten and intimidate) a non-Muslim, or even another Muslim, within a country governed by secular laws based upon individual Constitutional rights, in reaction to some perceived theistic slight? Doing so would require the complete abandonment of the philosophy of individual right of conscience, because telling a Muslim that it's O.K. to react as he sees fit to what he deems an affront to his faith is tantamount to telling me that I cannot be free to worship, speak and express myself as I feel inspired or compelled to by my own faith. I suppose that's fine for countries governed by theistic law, as is the case in Saudi Arabia, because the citizens of those lands presumably accept it as part of the price of admission into their own societies. But the reason Americans live in America and not in Saudi Arabia is because we have chosen a different path and have installed a form of government that guarantees each citizen his individual rights without the fear of coercion or intimidation by his fellow citizens, and without the right to similarly impose his will upon them either. The notion that it should be acceptable for the dictates and compulsions of some particular religious faith to take precedence over the principle of equal protection under the law is positively anathema to the very foundational philosophies that birthed of our nation.
I can't believe I'm actually having to elucidate this concept.
If we accept your view, as illustrated by your words quoted in excerpt above, the original settlers of America had no right to ever expect to be permitted to leave England so that they could worship as their consciences told them to, and the men and women who risked everything in declaring independence from the English Crown did so illegitimately, and could not claim any moral foundation for their actions, because the Crown (and particularly the King) was considered a literal extension of God through the Church of England, and rebellion against the King was therefore considered heretical rebellion against God himself. So is it your position that the very moral foundation of America is without merit because the Founding Fathers spoke out against the actions of the King, or do you believe that they were (and we are also, by historical and genetic extension) justified in asserting the right of each individual to pursue the imperatives of his own conscience, and to express himself accordingly? Because if you believe the former, then you place yourself among the camp of those who believe we should be governed by intolerant, blinkered theism; if the latter, then you must accept that in a pluralistic society people will often express themselves in ways offensive to their fellow citizens, but must be allowed to do so without fear of being repressed by those around them. You cannot have it both ways.
And in that respect, I am quite sure I would be extremely offended and angry if I discovered someone "copping a squat" on my mother's grave, and I would feel emotionally justified in opening up a jumbo-sized can of whoop-ass on him for doing so. And if I lived in a society governed by laws based upon the worship of my mother, then perhaps I would indeed open up that can of whoop-ass on him accordingly. However, since I live in a society that does NOT empower me to harm my fellow citizens, except in self-defense or the physical defense of another person, I would have to satisfy myself with calling the police and having him arrested for violating the applicable laws debarring his particular odious behavior -- because my indignation over my mother's grave being "squatted upon", no matter how righteous, would not justify my violating the secular laws written to protect all members of the society equally, without respect to their individual religious beliefs. If that didn't suit me, then I could always move to Momma-Moose-Stan, that far-away land where even depicting Momma Moose in a cartoon is forbidden. However, if I wanted to stay here in America, then I would have to accept that taking a dump on Momma Moose's grave, or drawing a political cartoon caricaturing her for public ridicule, is not justification for harming the person taking that action, regardless of how personally offensive I find it.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Moose
-----
Maggie
I can't believe I'm actually having to elucidate this concept.
Accurate but hilarious.Everything else, awesome. What a dissertation on freedom and superb job, Moose!
-----
No comments:
Post a Comment
Content spammers take a hike.