I dislike people telling me what I can say or think about a particular religion, or who insist on my respecting their religious tenets regarding iconography.
On the other hand, I dislike people who go out of their way to be provocative, insulting, and hateful, then wrap themselves in the flag and claim it's all in the name of free speech.
Fortunately for them, that same free speech protects them both from government reprisal. But that doesn't make them less doltish or annoying.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest rally: Protesters clash outside Phoenix mosque rally
Supporters from various backgrounds have gathered at the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix.
60 view(s)
Ugly, childish behavior from both sides. Glad I'm not a police officer there.
I read an article on NPR where the leader of the group pushing for these cartoon contests stated she is doing this out of fear of an islamization of the US. Ugh, not a good sign when someone like this is on the right side of a free speech discussion.
The thing I still cannot get over is caring this much about cartoons. I obviously do not understand Islam well enough to know why one cares about these drawings, certainly to the extent to kill over them.
+Jon Weber I suspect this goes way beyond theology (which, apparently, is of mixed interpretation on the topic, and has varied over time and place in the Muslim world) and into strong local custom that is being whipped up as an Us vs Them by extremists on both sides for their own purposes. "See! They hate us! We should stop them!" is a mantra that demagogues use regardless of their ostensible religion or nationality.
That said, words and imagery can provoke strong emotional reaction. "Fighting words" is a concept still recognized by the law, and perceived disrespect toward religious figures can still lead to a violent (emotional, if not physical) reaction, even in the Christian world. While I don't think anyone was assaulted, let alone killed, over "Piss Christ," there were any number of people who thought it should be banned, and quite a few who would have privately suggested the artist and gallery owners should be run out of town on a rail.
But those Christian protesters are simply called devout and deeply religious people who are being righteously offended by someone who is being deliberately provocative, while Muslims protesting (non-violently) against deliberately ugly images of their Prophet are considered silly and childish.
+Dave Hill Yea in this case with protestors being peaceful I have little complaint. It's the shootings after a cartoon that are being egregious.
In either case as a species we need to move past the emotional reactions to trolls and people doing stupid things. If you protest a cartoon it isn't too far a step after to then take some kind of physical act next.
+Jon Weber Anti-blasphemy laws in the West are not all that different in kind from vigilante violence, and they are not so far in our own past (the late 20s for the US, and they were on the books and pursued by various parties in the UK until 2005). Jokes about somebody's mother or sister will still draw violence (or threats thereof) in many quarters of our society.
This strikes me as an area there there should be a broad overlap between what is legally permissible and what is socially acceptable. A person who draws, says, etc. something that is offensive (esp. as an intentional offense) should not be prosecuted by law or subject to any sort of physical reprisal — but should also be deemed gauche and uncivil by the general population. and face social approbation.
There are times when it may well be appropriate, even useful, to be a dick. But they are few and far between, and should always carry the risk of being so labeled by other people.
+Dave Hill I can generally accept that. The only thing I have trouble rationalizing in my head is there could be scenarios where someone does something that offends me but it should not make them face social approbation. For instance what if pointing out something ridiculous in Scientology a bunch of Scientologists get upset. Should the comedian or individual stating this piece of info be said uncivil? What if what they were pointing out could potentially be dangerous?
I think we are all going to be offended at times, its almost impossible not to be. I would want people to think rationally about this offense they feel and judge an appropriate response.
I think it's possible to both agree with something and consider someone is being a dick about it, just as it's possible to disagree with something yet respect someone who's a level-headed defender of it. Maybe it's that "respect" and "agreement" — or "beliefs" and "deeds" — are different things.
I suspect there are no absolutes or bright lines here. Dicks occur on both "my side" and "the other side," and while dickishness / offensiveness can sometimes be a necessary tool in order to awaken people or scream defiance when in the minority, one of my particular kinks is that relatively calm reason and civility, aka honey, should be deemed more effective and acceptable than vinegar.