Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Offensive and Intolerable

September 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head was “offensive” say some Muslims. Other Muslims have gone as far as calling it “intolerable.”

There are many things in the world which fall under the “offensive” label, but not the other. If something is intolerable, it must be removed, changed, or destroyed. That is apparently where blasphemous cartoons are held by members of the Islamic faith. By extension, there is no tolerance for freedom of speech, because it would allow such blasphemy. The screaming mobs throughout the Middle East have called for the murder of those responsible for the cartoons. Effectively, these people are saying, “Give up your free speech or we will kill you.”

While it is possible that the cartoon was in fact offensive, it is hard to believe that it actually could be intolerable. No one is forced to read Danish newspapers, right? I disagree with many things my fellow citizens say every day. I either ignore them or confront them with an alternative position, but I don’t threaten to kill them.

What is offensive *and* intolerable is the proposition that it is OK to murder someone simply because you disagree with them. It is intolerable to effectively threaten the populations of many nations with an ultimatum to change their social policies or suffer violence.

Muslims demanding the censorship of the free press, under threat of violence, should know that they have deeply offended lovers of liberty like myself throughout the world. We speak out when any person’s basic human rights are threatened -- including Muslims. We oppose anyone who uses the tyranny of murder to stifle opposition – including Muslims.

Appeals to human rights only work when you consistently apply them. Reserving them for yourself and not supplying them to others is a sure way of losing all moral standing. The West should respect the citizens of the Middle East, but so must the Middle East respect the citizens of the West.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Comments

The easiest way to not apply human rights is to redefine "human" in such a way that you can apply it to all "others" you happen to like or agree with. I don't think Muslims would have any problem extending free speech to Muslims, only infidels might be a problem, but they are "sub-human" so don't have rights.

We have a problem in this country and much of the western world when you try to define "human", at least when does it begin - moment of conception, or when the head leaves the birth canal (and can you push it back in)? What about the profoundly disabled? Even on a practical level we can assume an expansive definiton (we don't know so we won't take the chance of murder).

And considering what we are using our war machine on, "Be democratic or we will kill you" does seem to be our policy. We are very specificially threatening violence if they don't change their social policy. And this toward the Muslim world. Don't ask where they got the idea about using violence to change social policy, the bell tolls for thee.

Posted by: tomz | February 6, 2006 03:30 PM

Talking about Muslims and the West in such broad strokes seems to imply that they are more monolithic than they are.

While basic rights are a critical issue, my concerns are stated in crayola simplicity here:

"... a war is being waged for the soul of Islam. The behaviour of many Muslims suggests that Islam is a peaceful religion. The behaviour of many other Muslims suggests that Islam is a violent religion.

"Which is the true Islam? That will be determined by which group of Muslims prevails in the struggle to define it.

"We in the West must do everything in our power to help the peaceable Muslims prevail. The stakes are enormously high; it is no exaggeration to say that world peace hangs in the balance. Everybody in the West needs to keep that agenda in mind and act in concert to promote the cause of peace."

Islam is no more monolithic than Western culture, and we don't need to be reminded how many in the West are agitating to dispense with basic rights and "settle" any conflict with endlessly escalating violence.

Governments already cultivate and prune media in order to polarize, & dehumanize human life in society – although the means are considered nonviolent, the reality of degrading human beings is the greatest violence. Media that embraces this role does not express the morality of freedom, but the morality of a master-slave mentality.

Posted by: janpawel | February 9, 2006 02:56 AM

The CMS culled out the link. The quote comes from here:
http://simply-put.blogspot.com/2006/02/inciting-muslims-to-violence.html

Posted by: janpawel | February 9, 2006 02:58 AM

"A war is being waged for the soul of Islam."

It should be noted that this war is pan-cultural. Within and throughout all culture, there is the domination/submission complex and the communion/covenanting drive. The conflict is going in throughout Islam, Christianity, & Judaism, as well as most social institutions and communities. Isolating Islam in diagnosing this spiritual conflict betrays ethnocentric blindness.

Posted by: janpawel | February 9, 2006 03:06 AM