Sanity From The Nut House
The Right Wing Nut House, that is…Rick Moran writes a truly excellent essay on the Muslim cartoon controversy that I recommend you read. In it, he stresses empathy, and the responsibilities that go along with free speech. A couple of highlights:
I have thought very carefully about what to say in this post regarding the cartoon controversy. This is due to the fact that it will upset most of my regular readers as well as many on the right who have, in my opinion, been pouring gasoline on a fire where water was called for. Despite the best of intentions – the desire to stand up for our precious liberties – we have deliberately and unnecessarily made a bad situation worse by not only reprinting cartoons that 1.3 billion people on the planet find agonizingly offensive but that we have criticized people and institutions for exhibiting a kind of decency and empathy toward others that in almost any other case, any other circumstance, we would be offering praise instead.
…I reject the notion that there is no responsibility attached to freedom of speech. For the rational among us, it is simple, common decency to think of how one’s words will impact others before uttering them. This doesn’t mean we have to necessarily moderate what we say. But it does mean that idiots like Julian Bond and others who refer to their fellow citizens as “Nazis” or “Hitler” are being irresponsible and should be taken to task not only for the meaning behind their words but also for deliberately causing another human being unnecessary and unconscionable discomfort. There is no difference between calling a Republican “Hitler” and pulling the wings off of a fly – both are done to deliberately inflict pain.
Well said, sir, well said…
Yes, the cartoons did inflect unnecessary pain on millions of people, however, so did the Brooklyn Museum in 1999. At that time we were all told that we just had to learn to live with it.
I remember Eleanor Clift (?) explaining on cable that it was really a sign of respect to portray the Virgin Mary in elephant dung.
What’s the difference? And what’s her position now?
Fred, no argument here…on Clift or the tastelessness of the exhibit in question…
Personally, I think a well rounded opinion is to say the cartoons were, in fact, offensive and so is the response.
This wouldn’t be a big deal if a) the Muslim community came out and said, “That was offensive and we think you owe us an apology.” and b) the Danish said, “You’re right, we apologize for the offense.”
But no, influential Muslims went quietly to other Muslim countries and built a case for three months on what was printed and added a few of their own to deliberately provoke this insanity.
Even if both parties are seen as wrong, which is more wrong and which do you think is guilty of causing this mass hysteria?
Make that four months.
If, in a free speech society, you feel the need to restrict your own speech out of “respect” for the sensibilities of others, then you do not have free speech.
In a free speech society, someone, somewhere will be offended over what you’ve said. Does that mean we need to silence ourselves and thus void free speech?
If we pick and choose based on threatened violence, then again, we do not have free speech.
It is the responsibility of the hearer, as a member of a civic society that recognizes free speech, to guard themselves from reacting with hate. The cartoons might be offensive, but they are not illegal. However, the response IS illegal.
We should never “condition” our free speech out of fear of illegal activity.
I comepletely disagree with any kind of censorship based on the sensibilities of others. I didn’t like piss-Christ. So I didn’t go see it. What really angered me was not the display or idea, but that I was forced as a citizen to pay for it with my tax dollars.
So if Muslims don;t like pictures of Muhammed being portrayed because it might lead to idolatry, then they really need to take a chill pill because no idiot, in his right mind, could ever possibly worship any of those pictures. Islam is simply using them as an excuse to continue their jihad and stir up support for the conquest of the West.
i don’t know if anyone will read this as it is a little old but Mussolini, haven’t you ever heard the phrase, if you don’t have anything nice to say, say nothing? And that isn’t taking away freedom of speech, it is simply being polite.
When all of you are in public, do you always say what you feel? do you walk up to a large person who is eating and say, “You’re too fat to eat that!” And if you do, then you have balls bigger than most, but if you don’t, ask yourselves why. Are you afraid they will sit on you? Or is it simply that you wouldn’t want to cause a fight, or you don’t think it is a nice thing to do.
My consciencous tells me not to do it because i would hurt their feelings, what does your’s tell you?