by cofty 93 Replies latest social current
Actually, I think statistics show that violent extremists are not the majority. They just get the most press and coverage. Those of their religion who are speaking against them get little coverage.
Unfortunately, violence is felt more than non-violence. It is more in our face, whereas the non-violent people are overlooked, because they are not in our face.
Peace,
tammy
But you said "few" and that was an exaggeration.
I'm sure that the number of non-violent Nazi party members far outweighed those who were directly involved in killing Jews. Were we wrong to speak out against the party because of the "few"?
Interesting comments.
I think the main point is not about whether Islam is foolish and harmful, (it is, but that's another topic) but how we should react to extremists.
Tammy seems concerned about lumping extremists with moderates; I'm not sure why. Moderates will laugh it off when people make crude videos about their prophet, they are not the problem.
People will make critical videos about religions. When extremists react to mockery with violence or threats of violence we should not back down one inch. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
The government has a right and RESPONSIBILITY to regulate even free speech so as to ensure public safety. Why? THe governmental also has the RESPONSIBILTY to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of ALL citizens, protecting them.
The is the reason people need to coordinate their exercise of free speech, in a manner that ensures public safety. This allows the government to regulate the time, place, and conditions set on the free speech, eg whether bullhorns can be used, the hours of the protest, making sure no ohter laws are broken, etc.
I have no problem with the concept of similar restrictions being applied here, or at least the individuals being held held responsible in civil court for the harm they caused (i.e. for wrongful death), esp if their intent to incite a riotous response can be proven. Free speech doesn't include the right to incite a riot.
Fair point KS - you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema just for fun.
However, to what extent do we allow free speech to be curtailed by the fear of religious lunatics? Crude videos are one thing but what about considered criticism of Islam or novels like Salman Rushdie's, "The Satancic Verses". What about a scholarly article exposing Muhammad for his less than virtuous words and articles? What about cartoons and satire?
Freedom of speeech is a joke if we cower from the bullys. Nobody has a right not to be offended.
Cofty said:
However, to what extent do we allow free speech to be curtailed by the fear of religious lunatics? Crude videos are one thing but what about considered criticism of Islam or novels like Salman Rushdie's, "The Satancic Verses". What about a scholarly article exposing Muhammad for his less than virtuous words and articles? What about cartoons and satire?
Freedom of speeech is a joke if we cower from the bullys. Nobody has a right not to be offended.
Yeah, but freedom of speech doesn't mean you don't face a greater risk of someone violating law to assault and/or murder you, or threaten you.
I think the creators of South Park (Trey/Matt) might have some valuable insight on that valuable lesson they learned (the hard way) that it's not smart to tilt at some windmills. Remember the episode where they made fun of Mohammed, and the threats they got from Islamist extremists who targeted them and the Viacom corporate HQs? A few people were recently convicted of communicating a death threat in the matter (25 yrs for one, 11 yrs for another) but that's just the tip of the iceberg of those who feel similar, and are even told that it's their religious duty to do so (and that's not just Islamists: they're many militant Xian extremist groups out there).
It's the same as arguing with an idiot: they'll beat you with their superior expertise in the subject, and will resort to dirty tactics to "win" (in their mind).
Hence Matt/Trey focused on "softer" targets (those who can take a joke), and those which have an American presence and understand freedom of speech, and more importantly: no extremist elements!
Moderates will laugh it off when people make crude videos about their prophet
I don't think that's largely true. My guess is that the majprity of Muslims fall somewhere in between laughing it off and violent responses. Believers are not likely to "laugh it off", in fact they are probably very angry about the cartoons, but most would stop short of advocating violence over the issue.
Moderates are not laughing this off. They are extremely offended, they just don't resort to violence.
I disagree with KS strongly on this issue. If the govenment regulates speech against Islam, then they have won. They have succeeded in taking our freedom, forcing us to respect their particular brand of superstition, and have controlled our government. Never may that happen. There is a risk and consequences to free speech, and I see yelling Fire in a crowded theatre as very different than making a protest video or a video mocking a belief.
These are ignorant, violent people that are using their backward methods to try and control the world. If we give in to their hateful god, then it will never stop. It will encourage these morons to push harder. No way. The most horrible day in history is when this barbaric bronze-aged god was ever introduced to the human race. We have thousands of years of blood and outright stupidity because of this god concept. How much do we want people a half a world away to control our government? Perhaps we should consult with them before passing laws? Should we ask them what they think of the first amendmant and edit accordingly?
They hate the west, period. And if we ban the videos, they will find something else to get murderous about. This is only a symptom. There is no cure as long as people are willing to kill and die for their silly, nonexistent gods.
Silly. Exactly, NC.
