(Untitled)

[jordan179]

There is an undercurrent in our nation right now that we should do something to prevent people from "provoking" the Muslims by engaging in behavior or speech that is critical or disrespectfal of Islam.  The argument is "It's rude anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to make a movie like The Innocence of Muslims or burn a Koran, so why should we face

Comments

[metaphorsbwithu]

This is not simply about freedom of speech in America.

This march toward supposed utopianism is ideological and global

[marycatelli]

"Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

[metaphorsbwithu]

So, are you a fascist or a constitutionalist?

[melvin_udall]

You misunderstood. That was in support of your argument.

[prester_scott]

Even as a straight male Christian (and not taking into consideration my loved ones who are not straight, not male, or not Christian), under Sharia I would be

[maxgoof]

It is typical of the left, though, which has allowed, for decades now, the "victim" to define what is offensive. Porn? Not offensive. Crucifixes in urine? Not offensive. Calling someone who is being overly loud at 3AM a "Water Buffalo"? Offensive. Making a cartoon about Mohammed? Offensive.

Note, though, it is only CERTAIN GROUPS that get to dictate what is offensive to them. Christians are not, conservatives are not, white males are not. Rural dwellers are not.

Free speech is no longer free. It has not been for some time.

[headnoises]

A "victim" group that doesn't think "correctly" is also not allowed. Try being a conservative gal who thinks human life should be protected because it's human.

[gothelittle]

headnoises brings up an important point. The conservative black and conservative woman suffers more than the conservative or the liberal white.

It's as if you've been drafted against your will into a worker's union simply by being born with a certain attribute, and required to pay your dues as soon as you can speak.

[maxgoof]

I concur completely. You only have to look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell to see how often they are called horrible names by black liberals. Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and Laura Schlessinger get called very vile names as well.

And poor Condeleezza Rice...

Like some

[actonrf]

I know of a Sudanese pastor that can not even go back to his family because he converted form Islam to Christianity. The irony if the guy lampooned orthodox or evangelical Christianity he would be held as a hero. Of course our reaction would be different, we would just pray he hear the Gospel of Christ and the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sin in Christ.

It think Atheist are coming in a distant second: Ie Freedom form religion suing private business that offers church discounts.

[zornhau]

You are of course right.

However, I worry that thanks to globalisation, there is a danger of crowdsourcing our diplomacy and strategy. Sometimes you do need to suck up to lunatic regimes or to exponents of odd expressions of the religious urge. In the past, this meant getting the ambassador to play nice, or - in our case - shunting over a minor royal. Now it's all or nothing.

All that said, the people who deliberately set out to provoke the Jihadis are for the most part not the ones being shot at. This makes them arses.

[jordan179]

We really can't compromise on the issue of free speech. If we make an exception for the tender feelings of one group, we must theoretically make an exception for the tender feelings of all. If the exception is made because that group is exceptionally violent and we fear this violence, making the exception is encouraging other, previously non-violent groups, to become more violent so that they too may benefit from this exception.

Down this path lie the alternatives of anarchy or authoritarianism, and most likely authoritarianism after a period of anarchy. Down this path definitely lies the destruction of liberal democracy.

[zornhau]

Agreed. But it still leaves "us" the problem of crowdsourcing "our" diplomacy and strategy.

For example, it looks as if it's going to be impossible to do any kind of hearts and minds in religiously sensitive cultures - you just have to assume that some dick back home will publically burn a koran.

[ford_prefect42]

IT's *very* possible to perform a "hearts and minds" campaign. You simply have to win the blood and guts campaign *first*. Which is what we have never done in *any* of these conflicts. The Japanese were "religiously sensitive" in ww2, and we had a very successful hearts and minds campaign there. It worked *because* we fought them to the bitter end, and then made friends and fought the "hearts and minds" campaign. The problem here is that we go in, defeat their military, displace the government that the populace put in place, all without seriously inconveniencing the average person, and then try to tell them all "well, this is how it is now, we're in charge". That will never work, has never worked, can never work.