Freedom of Speech.

[Cantousent]

WARNING: I AM INVOKING MY BORE THEM TO TEARS POWER

 

 

I'm going to do something infinitely stupid. I'm going to be completely honest on a message board.

 

Here goes. I look around the world at fundamentalists and extremists and I wonder, "are they better than me? Am I weak and are they strong? Am I afraid to embrace my Christianity and fight for it?"

 

I think of people I've known, both online and in real life. Real life? Do I doubt that meta or moth are real? Some of my real life friends talk to me once every couple of weeks. Conflicting schedules make it hard to meet and discuss things. This message board... I see some of you folks every day. Darth Launch has done more for helping me to understand and sympathize with Muslims than has any person in my "real life."

 

Then I think to myself that Christianity should not be a violent religion. I'm not a coward for hoping for peace and an extremist isn't stronger for burning an embassy or bombing an abortion clinic.

 

Maybe meta is right. Maybe these extremists, the fringe in every religion, have hijacked our faiths. Maybe there is a solid and large core of Muslims who fear and resent the face that extremists have put on their religion. I know I resent the Christian extremists, although fewer in number, who have spoken as a member of my religion.

 

Still, extremist Christians have been a powerful force in times past, but the atheists in our number should acknowledge one fact... that western democracy owes it's religious tolerance not to atheist fighting for equality, but to those of us weak Christians who have thought that it was better to tolerate opposing or even hateful views rather than deny freedoms. Sure, we can cite abortion clinic bombings, but all of us, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and all folks from every creed should be thankful that enough of us see across religious lines to stand in defence of our common rights.

 

It is not weak to believe in peace. It is not weak to fight for freedom.

 

I retire. As always, I reserve the right to re-enter the fray at a later time. ...But I don't seek to win. I'm just one of those pathetic folks who hopes to find some truth during his life. If I can find a little slice of it here on a gaming company message board, so be it. As always, I read. No matter your view, I listen.

[metadigital]

AAaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggg!!!! failed saving throw! logging off!

[LoneWolf16]

I was going to chime in with some basic religion bashing in regards to Christian/Catholic/Methodist/etc. etc. extremists...but damn it, Eldar.

 

That was just........well, humbling.

[kumquatq3]

That was just........well, humbling. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He does that

[LoneWolf16]

That was just........well, humbling. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He does that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I noticed.

[Judge Hades]

Well said, Eldar.

[Karimi]

If anything, the extremists response hamstrung those of us who would otherwise have sided with Muslims.  I'm Catholic.  I think the cartoons were offensive and incendiary.  ...But extremists call for blood.  Not only that, they'll say that Muslims are a special case and that a Catholic can't understand the offense of seeing the prophet depicted, particularly in an offensive way.  Yep, that's right, we Catholics and fellow Christians are happy when folks disparage and insult our religion, huh?

There would have been a lot of us on the side of Muslims world-wide, but now we have a choice between upholding freedom of speech or saying that Muslims are such a special case that our freedom of speech should be held hostage.  I won't do that.  I believe freedom is God given.

 

Extremists don't really understand that their response hurts all of us.  Rail against the cartoons all you want, but realize that, if not for the extremists, I would have been standing with and not against you.  Muslims around the world had a chance to unite in a common cause with other religious folks.  Instead, the loudest voice advocates violence and mayhem.  In addition, we Christians are essentially told to go screw ourselves because we can't understand the offense.  The hell I can't.  My Christianity is no less dear to me than your Islam is to you.  The only difference is, I understand that killing folks over "Piss Christ" doesn't make me a better Christian.  I don't defend or stand behind some nutjob telling me to kill abortion clinic doctors.

 

It's not just temperate Muslims who are hurt by the extremist response.  It's all of us.  Already, Europeans wage a war against religion and here was a real chance to fight back.  Too bad the weapons of choice for so many Muslims were stones and not words.  We could have won the important fight.  It should never have been a war against freedom of speech.  It should have been a war against anti-religious bigotry.  Too bad for all of us that the extremists chose the wrong fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you , extremists burning embassies is wrong. Muslims should fight this battle politically, sort of like how Iran is making the holocaust cartoon thing.

 

As for why christians don't take offense , I would say you've been somewhat numbed to the cartoons because of your society. A society which rejects religion , while muslims have lived in a society which respects Mohammed all their lives. Even in everyday life its become a bit more lax. Im not saying this is the only excuse but it contributes to it.

[Karimi]

Freedom of speech is a grand thing but I think this is just an attempt at angering Muslims, if you know they're senstive about their religion why piss them off ?? I think freedom of speech is just a excuse to validate insulting muslims. Seems to me that its like when someone kicks a dog to see if it gets mad. Don't insult muslims and expect them to take it as a joke, or accept it, they will get mad and they did get mad.

 

Now, the person who asked how come Muslims don't get bent out of shape when a person makes fun of Jesus. Well, we don't like it either, some arab countries banned Passion of the Christ because it portrays Jesus. But I think the general consensus is that if you won't defend your own prophet why should Muslims?

[Walsingham]

Good job, Eldar.

 

Karimi, you also have a point. Tolerance is necessary in any multi-cultural system. It would be _wise_ to avoid publishing deliberately inflammatory cartoons of Mohammed on a regular. But by the same token, it would be _wise_ to avoid burning and killing as a response. Understanding and adaptation ought to be mutual.

 

Having said this, I am very much afraid this issue is getting out of hand. It is being used to whip up hatred in many Muslim countries, by extremsit political parties. And it is stirring up fear and contempt for Islam in Western countries. Regarding the latter I find my own earlier misgivings reflected by virtually every 'regular' person who picks up a newspaper without getting too into current affairs.

 

Fear and incomprehension are dangerous things.

 

So I begin to wonder what can be done. What are the potential courses of action from here?

[julianw]

So I begin to wonder what can be done. What are the potential courses of action from here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interreligious and interracial marriage is the key!!!! We all should thank CoF for taking one for the team. (Wishing he's still with us. )

[Jediphile]

If anything, the extremists response hamstrung those of us who would otherwise have sided with Muslims.  I'm Catholic.  I think the cartoons were offensive and incendiary.  ...But extremists call for blood.  Not only that, they'll say that Muslims are a special case and that a Catholic can't understand the offense of seeing the prophet depicted, particularly in an offensive way.  Yep, that's right, we Catholics and fellow Christians are happy when folks disparage and insult our religion, huh?

There would have been a lot of us on the side of Muslims world-wide, but now we have a choice between upholding freedom of speech or saying that Muslims are such a special case that our freedom of speech should be held hostage.  I won't do that.  I believe freedom is God given.

 

Extremists don't really understand that their response hurts all of us.  Rail against the cartoons all you want, but realize that, if not for the extremists, I would have been standing with and not against you.  Muslims around the world had a chance to unite in a common cause with other religious folks.  Instead, the loudest voice advocates violence and mayhem.  In addition, we Christians are essentially told to go screw ourselves because we can't understand the offense.  The hell I can't.  My Christianity is no less dear to me than your Islam is to you.  The only difference is, I understand that killing folks over "Piss Christ" doesn't make me a better Christian.  I don't defend or stand behind some nutjob telling me to kill abortion clinic doctors.

 

It's not just temperate Muslims who are hurt by the extremist response.  It's all of us.  Already, Europeans wage a war against religion and here was a real chance to fight back.  Too bad the weapons of choice for so many Muslims were stones and not words.  We could have won the important fight.  It should never have been a war against freedom of speech.  It should have been a war against anti-religious bigotry.  Too bad for all of us that the extremists chose the wrong fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You and I are on opposite sides in that "war of religion" you mention then.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no actual desire to belittle or redicule people's religion. But in a democracy of public debate, nothing should be above discussion, and that includes religion. If it is to be a part of daily life, then it should endure the same sort of criticism that all other subjects in society do. Like you I thought the cartoons were offensive and incendiary, but sometimes that is necessary to further the public debate, and other religions have endured this for a long time now. How long is it since Nietzsche declared that God was dead now? It was pretty offensive at the time, I'm sure...

 

The muslims in Denmark wanted their religion to be accepted on equal terms with other religions, but they have failed to understand that this sort of skepticism comes with that acceptance. The fact that this was done is a greater sign that islam is an accepted religion than they could have asked for, because it meant that people did take it seriously. That they didn't like it is okay. That they protest against it is okay. That they send people to the Middle East and then lie about which cartoons were printed is not. Nor is that they cause so much hysteria in the Middle East that the extremists burn down embassies.

 

And their cry for respect is hypocrisy, when they at the same time - as you say - demand "special considerations" for their own religion and talk about how "others cannot understand". Where is *their* respect for other relgions? It's a pact, after all - if you don't show me any respect, then why should I show any?

[Jediphile]

It should have been a war against anti-religious bigotry.  Too bad for all of us that the extremists chose the wrong fight.

Sad but true.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4700414.stm

 

"Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds described Kuriren's move as 'a provocation' by 'a small group of extremists'.

 

'I will defend freedom of the press no matter what the circumstances, but I strongly condemn the provocation by SD-Kuriren. It displays a complete lack of respect,' she said in a statement.

What do you guys think about that quote? Do you think it is imprudent for those press groups to publish material that is clearly offensive to muslims? Is it necessary to do?

 

I appreciate freedom of speech, but if it will offend somebody else, then I won't say something just because it is my freedom. It really seems unnecessary and brazenly impertinent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You only have freedom of speech if you are allowed to express your opinion, no matter what it is. To say things like "I think we should all be friends" is not an example, because that pretty much everyone can agree on that. The right only has meaning when the content is controversial or even offensive.

 

To quote Thomas Payne: "He who dares not offend, cannot be honest"

 

That is exactly that this is about - can we have a serious debate and approach a compromise or is dialogue pointless? Everybody is saying that dialogue is essential right now, but at the same time they call for people to restraint themselves in how they express themselves. That's hypocrisy of the highest degree. If we are to talk, then we should say what we think. Otherwise there is no point.

 

SD-Kuriren don't sound like people I would ever associate with, but I do support their *right* to expres their extreme opinions - we need it in the public debate if it is to remain open and honest, since otherwise not all opinions are spoken. I'll reserve the right not to listen to them, though.

 

Besides, censuring people doesn't mean that they change their opinions. Quite the contrary. And frequently the then find other and sometimes more violent ways by which to express themselves. For that reason alone, I would find that letting them speak to be the lesser evil.

[Jediphile]

They burned down two of our embassies in return, nevermind the flags, I couldn't care less if they wanna burn the Dannebrog or not, it's their money. But the embassies are Danish soil, what they did deserves a bigger outcry by far compared to a few lame cartoons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An eye for an eye. Burn down their embassies, burn their flags, hold demostrations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Burning foreign flags is illegal in Denmark, though burning the danish flag isn't. Go figure.

[Walsingham]

As if this debate wasn't muddy already, let me ask:

 

If it is wrong to criticise Islam, is it wrong for me to criticise interpretations of Islam that treat women as second class citizens?

 

~~~

 

As an aside, can we cut down the multi-posting. Take notes if you have to, for frack's sake.

[metadigital]

WARNING:  I AM INVOKING MY BORE THEM TO TEARS POWER

...

Still, extremist Christians have been a powerful force in times past, but the atheists in our number should acknowledge one fact... that western democracy owes it's religious tolerance not to atheist fighting for equality, but to those of us weak Christians who have thought that it was better to tolerate opposing or even hateful views rather than deny freedoms[1].  Sure, we can cite abortion clinic bombings, but all of us, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and all folks from every creed should be thankful that enough of us see across religious lines to stand in defence of our common rights.

 

It is not weak to believe in peace.  It is not weak to fight for freedom.

 

I retire.  As always, I reserve the right to re-enter the fray at a later time.  ...But I don't seek to win.  I'm just one of those pathetic folks who hopes to find some truth during his life[2].  If I can find a little slice of it here on a gaming company message board, so be it.  As always, I read.  No matter your view, I listen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, now I can see again, I shall make two points.

 

1. I would be careful how you describe Christianity of recent history. The tolerance of today is a far cry from even 100 years ago: my father's parents were told, by the Catholic preist, that they were not married in the eyes of God (his father was a protestant). Naturally he threw out the bigot on his ear, but that was early twentieth century in Melbourne, Australia, not Middle Ages or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

 

Additionally, the free society (wrt freedom of religion) we enjoy in the occident is more a result of disenfranchised royalty than the magnanimity of the Christian Church. Specifically the decrees of King Charles II's 1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence, King James II's 1688 Declaration of Indulgence, and King William III of Orange's 1689 Act of Toleration primary allowed for Catholics (and non-conformist Protestants, like Quakers and Methodists) to legally practice their faith in Britain.

 

Islam has notably been historically tolerant, too: the Spanish Saracens were demonstrably broad-minded and allowed Christians to live and practice their faith.

 

(Don't forget Hitler draped the Third Reich in the cloth of the Church, too.)

 

2. You are not alone in your search for objective truth; I trust that it is not a rainbow's poto'gold, and, even if this be so, I am confient that the search will bring its own dividend.

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

Radio 4 announced a winner in its 'Peace Cartoon' competition here. The winning strip is the first three frames - some of the runners-up are pretty good, too.

[Jediphile]

As if this debate wasn't muddy already, let me ask:

 

If it is wrong to criticise Islam, is it wrong for me to criticise interpretations of Islam that treat women as second class citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The real quesiton is whether it's okay to question or criticise any sort of religion. Is it okay to criticise Christinity for the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades? Is it okay to say that it was wrong to not openly condemn Hilter's regime? Can we, as a society, overrule the word of the bible and accept abortion in the christian countries? Are we allowed to voice criticism of how the current pope has, in the past, given advice on how victims of sexual abuse by protestant priests and their families can be intimidated into silence thruogh threat of lawsuits?

 

Since we have already done this for years if not decades in the west, you already have your answer. Anything else is saying that Islam should have preferential treatment, in case I would ask why.

[Walsingham]

I think that ultimately Jediphile is correct. We actually NEED to be able to criticise religious beliefs and institutions.

[Judge Hades]

Especially religious institutions that makes it their business to get in the face of others. If you want to worship a God or whatnot go right ahead. LEAVE ME THE F**K OUT OF IT!

 

Don't come knocking at my door, yell at me on the street, shove freaking Gideon bibles in my face, bomb the neighborhood Planned Parenthood office/clinic, strap bombs on yourself and blow up my mall, cause wars or support countries that do, and so forth and so on.

 

In other words PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION IN PRIVATE! Let God worry about saving or damning the world and you just worry about yourself.

 

Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to harass and kill.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Cantousent]

There's where you're wrong, Hades. Freedom to criticise is neutral. That means that any idea, religious or not, is open to comment.

 

You don't like folks telling you thing when you walk around the mall? Too bad. That, my friend, is freedom of speech in action. Of course, some fool will cite all the abortion clinic bombings in the United States. I mean, there have been thousands since the begining of the decade, have there not? That's irrelevant at any rate, since bombing abortion clinics is already against the law.

 

Nope, violence, or speech that advocates violence, is already prohibited. Speech that advocates religion, like other speech, is perfectly acceptible. To suggest otherwise makes a lie out of freedom of speech.

 

Now, if someone comes to your door, for whatever reason, it is your right to deny them access. If they approach you on the street, you are free to express a different opinion. In any event, you don't get to deny them speech, Hades. Instead, you get the same opportunity to express your views.

 

Extremist Muslims made a huge mistake in choosing to wage war on freedom of speech. A small bit of advice to others, don't turn it into a war against religion. You might win on a message board where the atheist population is far more vocal than the religious population. Policy, however, isn't decided here. Right now, I'm your friend. A lot of us weak willed Christians are with you in advocating Freedom of Speech. Nevertheless, no one, even an atheist, is above criticism. Don't take you cue from the extremists reaction and follow suit by choosing the wrong war. You should be glad that extremists decided on the wrong course of action, not follow them down the same path.

[Nartwak]

I'm not sure why he's upset out about people coming to his house and all. I always get pretty and impressionable young women proletyzing when it's my turn.

[Volourn]

"Of course, some fool will cite all the abortion clinic bombings in the United States. I mean, there have been thousands since the begining of the decade, have there not? "

 

Eh? Sarcasm? I thought blowing up abortion clinics is so passe nowadays? I haven't heard of too many of those in the last 10-15 years, anyways.

 

 

Anyways, as always, Freedom of Speech is sueless if the only thing we can say is 'Let's all be friends'.

 

The ability to say stuff that other people don't want to hear without fear of them attacking you is the whole point of freedom of speech.

[Jediphile]

Extremist Muslims made a huge mistake in choosing to wage war on freedom of speech.  A small bit of advice to others, don't turn it into a war against religion.  You might win on a message board where the atheist population is far more vocal than the religious population.  Policy, however, isn't decided here.  Right now, I'm your friend.  A lot of us weak willed Christians are with you in advocating Freedom of Speech.  Nevertheless, no one, even an atheist, is above criticism.  Don't take you cue from the extremists reaction and follow suit by choosing the wrong war.  You should be glad that extremists decided on the wrong course of action, not follow them down the same path.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, in the sense you're describing, I actually see atheism as its own sort of "religion" in that sense that it is a religion that says there are no higher beings and that any and all comments to the contrary are delusions. In that sense, atheists are just as bound to respect other religious beliefs, as followers of other religions are to respects their's (i.e., that there isn't any).

 

I consider myself more of an agnostic in that I don't believe that there are any gods. But unlike an ateist, I'm not ruling out the possibility entirely - I just don't think that it matters. I will, if I choose, try to convince others that I might be right, in which case I would be using my right to free speech. But I will accept it if people disagree with me, because I have to respect their belief if I'm to truthfully expect that they will respect mine. If they tell me that they don't want to hear my arguments, I will not pursue them, because I too reserve the right not to listen.

 

People have the right to believe whatever they want. I'm not going to have issue with it, unless they begin to take actions that affect other people as a consequence of their beliefs. When they do that, society can and should interfere and ask questions - no matter what your religion is.

 

I'm not saying all muslims support the recent fury. I know many do not. But some of them do burn down embassies in the name of islam. Some of them do carry out suicide bombings in the name of their religion. Some of them do fly planes into buildings with thousands of people with others cheering in the streets over it. When that happens, islam will be questioned and should be, just like any other religion.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Jediphile

[metadigital]

Eldar, let's just analyze some of the comments from the far right of the Christian Church:

[Cantousent]

Sure you can, meta. They are free to say what they want and we are free to refute it. That's a damned sight better than saying either of us should kill the other. ...But I promise one thing, if the Moral Majority decides to impose anti-blasphemy laws or any other such non-sense, I'm standing with you.

 

Freedom of Speech means hearing what the other guy has to say. Sometimes, I'm that other guy. Sometimes you are.

 

I'm also quite vocal. I write to my legislators. I've called a couple of times. I vote in every election.

 

So, I agree that the moral majority is overbearing and morally superior. Fair enough. They're not, however, outright advocating violence. If they do, they'll have passed beyond free speech into violence and we will hold them accountable. The we will undoubtedly be religious, atheist, agnostic, and all others who hold to the values of democracy.