Sojourner Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:44 AM']So which rules do we need to follow? Where does free speech end and respect begin? Should Galileo have been silenced (like he was kind of) because it was "blasphemy" and disrespectful to Christians that the earth revolved around the sun? I remember the protests over the Last Temptation of Christ and Priest, but it did not involve governments and "diplomatic crises". It was individual groups, themselves, who wouldn't go to Disney movies or whatever, or would hold up signs at theaters...that's protected free speech and free assembly too. :lolroll: I don't remember Clinton or Bush 1 sanctioning Hollywood moviemakers or even the Pope calling for a ban.... Peace! [right][snapback]872776[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I find it ironic that you sign your posts "peace" ... Ever heard this? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's a pretty good rule to live by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I heard that somewhere... some really wise dude taught that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:52 AM']I heard that somewhere... some really wise dude taught that... [right][snapback]872787[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yeah, that one dude said it. I have a feeling he wouldn't see a distinction between respect and the exercise of free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 Yeah, and I don't mind the occasional cartoon of Jesus. They're part of dialogue and I respect people's rights to express themselves, even if that expression offends me, then I choose to engage in civil discourse with them, and come to appreciate what motivated that person to express something that offends me. It should also be noted that satire is an inherent part of most western European culture and as such deserves respect. If a person published such cartoons in a country that had a taboo against such things, then perhaps an outcry would be in order, but in this case, I think this is a total over reaction. Lastly, consider the fact that in many predominantly Muslim states, government TV broadcasts anti-Christian messages of various mullahs saying that a good Muslim must "hate Christians". If US government owned TV started broadcasting one of these televangelists who says everybody who's not Christian is going to hell, and that we should hate them, that would be a problem. But it's not a problem to the middle-Eastern countries's gov'ts (by and large), so it strikes me as a bit hypocritical to be able to criticize or preach hatred of Christians, and then to get diplomatically offended about some cartoons. Peace is for all! So is freedom of speech! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:57 AM']Yeah, and I don't mind the occasional cartoon of Jesus. They're part of dialogue and I respect people's rights to express themselves, even if that expression offends me, then I choose to engage in civil discourse with them, and come to appreciate what motivated that person to express something that offends me. It should also be noted that satire is an inherent part of most western European culture and as such deserves respect. If a person published such cartoons in a country that had a taboo against such things, then perhaps an outcry would be in order, but in this case, I think this is a total over reaction. Lastly, consider the fact that in many predominantly Muslim states, government TV broadcasts anti-Christian messages of various mullahs saying that a good Muslim must "hate Christians". If US government owned TV started broadcasting one of these televangelists who says everybody who's not Christian is going to hell, and that we should hate them, that would be a problem. But it's not a problem to the middle-Eastern countries's gov'ts (by and large), so it strikes me as a bit hypocritical to be able to criticize or preach hatred of Christians, and then to get diplomatically offended about some cartoons. Peace is for all! So is freedom of speech! [right][snapback]872796[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So what you're really arguing is, "I get to decide what offends you, so if I don't think you should find it offensive, then you don't get to be offended." along with "You are mean to me, so I get to be mean back to you." Now if those ideas aren't peace-inducing, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 Wow, totally not what I said!!!! I never said I am the judge of what is offensive. I grant that those cartoons are offensive to Muslims, but I disagree with the extent of their reaction, and the refusal to come to terms with the supremacy of free speech over being "non-offensive." If we allow governments to dictate what can/cant be written or published based on who gets offended, then soon (if not already) anything that is not deemed "politically correct" would be censored. That is what I wish to avoid!!!! Actually what I'm saying is that offending people is not a government issue, nor should it be. Inciting violence is one thing, satire, and even disrespect is another. Everyone has the right to express themselves. I object to the involvement of governments (in this case Middle Eastern) in protesting against the expression of free speech, and demanding punishment for the expression of such opinions/ideas. Secondly, I did not say the cartoons "ought to have been made" because of the actions of Middle Eastern government sanctioned "offenses" to Christianity, rather that such "offenses" on their part do, in large part, detract from their claim to moral high ground in this dialogue. If I offend people, how can I claim moral superiority when they offend me? As far as my peace support - I do support peace, and I think peace is best achieved when people discuss rather than simply react to a diversity of opinions, perspectives or expressions that exist, and should exist in the world. Peace out Sojourner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I'd have to say I find it very disrespectful to have those cartoons in a newspaper. Yes, free speech is important, but that doesn't mean a newspaper should publish things that are VERY morally offensive to a certain group. Muslims take that rule very seriously - it would be akin to having a comic about different ways to desecrate the Eucharist for Catholics. I'm sorry, but that's just not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:38 AM']Wow, totally not what I said!!!! I never said I am the judge of what is offensive. I grant that those cartoons are offensive to Muslims, but I disagree with the extent of their reaction, and the refusal to come to terms with the supremacy of free speech over being "non-offensive." If we allow governments to dictate what can/cant be written or published based on who gets offended, then soon (if not already) anything that is not deemed "politically correct" would be censored. That is what I wish to avoid!!!! Actually what I'm saying is that offending people is not a government issue, nor should it be. Inciting violence is one thing, satire, and even disrespect is another. Everyone has the right to express themselves. I object to the involvement of governments (in this case Middle Eastern) in protesting against the expression of free speech, and demanding punishment for the expression of such opinions/ideas. Secondly, I did not say the cartoons "ought to have been made" because of the actions of Middle Eastern government sanctioned "offenses" to Christianity, rather that such "offenses" on their part do, in large part, detract from their claim to moral high ground in this dialogue. If I offend people, how can I claim moral superiority when they offend me? As far as my peace support - I do support peace, and I think peace is best achieved when people discuss rather than simply react to a diversity of opinions, perspectives or expressions that exist, and should exist in the world. Peace out Sojourner! [right][snapback]872849[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Even the U.S. has limitations on the exercise of free speech. It's not an absolute "right." Whatever role the government should have in this situation, the newspaper(s) bear(s) the brunt of the blame here. They printed blasphemous mockeries of Islam. Totally disrespectful. They may have been within their rights, but just because they're right doesn't mean they won't have to deal with the consequences. Stupid, in my opinion. A mockery of rights as well as of Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 Ahhh, now you see my point. It was not at all about the tastelessness of insulting anothers religion, but only free speech, and the governments should stay out of it. And there have been plenty of cartoons lambasting Christianity...so it's not really "targeting" unfairly one group. Peace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Feb 2 2006, 10:22 AM']Ahhh, now you see my point. It was not at all about the tastelessness of insulting anothers religion, but only free speech, and the governments should stay out of it. And there have been plenty of cartoons lambasting Christianity...so it's not really "targeting" unfairly one group. Peace! [right][snapback]872889[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't think governments SHOULD stay out of free speech, though. There's no such thing as the unfettered exercise of rights. I do see a need, from time to time, for governments to define the appropriate and inappropriate said exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 FIRE!!!! EVERYONE OUT!!! QUICK!!!!! Oh, just kidding... just excercising my free speech... Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 We're sending help to the people in the Mid-East. [img]http://www.yatahonga.com/data/media/18/200420/Waaahmbulance.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4678280.stm"]Envoys meet as Muslim anger grows [/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 free speech is not supreme. It never has been and never should be. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 and for the record, the supreme court of the us supports limitations on it as well (i realize that doesn't mean much anymore, but i thought i would throw it out there. The other thing is that the Muslims are really mad about this. Not like just a little bit, they are already asking Bin Laden to blow up Denmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now