Muslim Plan to Fight Negative Perception: Suppress Free Speech
Muslim leaders at the Organization of the Islamic Conference appear to be opting for the latter choice because they think they can fight the negative perception of Islam in the West by working harder to suppress criticism of Islam in the West. I remember reading somewhere that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over in the expectation of getting different results. Might this qualify?
The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.
Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.
Source: AP News
The Muslim leaders in question don't seem to understand that free speech includes the freedom to say, write, and draw things which upsets other people. Even if the purpose is just to upset others, people have a right to do it. It's not exactly a nice thing to do, but you can't use the law to force niceness. The freedom of expression is one of the foundations of liberal, modern society — it's not without limits, of course, but one of those limits is not "this makes me feel bad."
"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."
Did Abdoulaye Wade, mean freedom from or freedom of blasphemy? I agree with the former — there can be no "freedom from blasphemy" in a society where freedom of expression is protected. to put it another way, no religious group can expect to be free from seeing or hearing things they consider blasphemous. They have a right to object to blasphemy and argue against it, but they don't have a right to be free from it.
I have trouble believing that this is what he meant, though. I suspect that he was misquoted because he's effectively leading an effort here to suppress free expression. His statement makes much more sense if he said that freedom of expression should not mean freedom of (or for) blasphemy — i.e., that people should not have the freedom to write, say, draw, or otherwise express blasphemous ideas. That's just nonsensical, though, because it gives religious feelings and doctrines a veto power over what can be expressed in society.
Comments
>”I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy.”
And how did you start your article?
>Some people just don’t get it, and then some people really, really, really don’t get it.
Uh, yeah.
What do you even say to that? Freedom of speech is great–but not if it offends MY beliefs!
People say things I disagree with ALL THE TIME. Is there a person alive who can put on a TV and NOT hear someone voicing an opinion they think is sheer stupidity? And half the time it’s someone in a position of power. Look at the letters to the editor in any paper–all it is is a back and forth with people who can’t agree–and on issues that really, really matter to them.
That’s a beautiful thing. And someone saying, “I think we need to shut it down when _I_ disagree and it matters to _me_,” really _DOESN’T_ “get it.”
You’re absolutely right.
I’ve been marvelling about the whole brouhaha about the soon to be released Qur’an-critical movie by Geert Wilders. Though I don’t agree with his politics, I can’t help but marvel how much noise is made over a movie *nobody hasn’t even seen yet*!
The reaction of so much of the Islamic world to the Muhammad cartoons makes me seriously question whether the region has sufficiently internalized the civic values necessary to sustain democracy. If such values haven’t taken root in the region, attempting to spread democracy there is a waste of time.
The reaction of so much of the Islamic world to the Muhammad cartoons makes me seriously question whether the region has sufficiently internalized the civic values necessary to sustain democracy.
–No, they haven’t…
So the theist claim is that “god” can allegedly create a universe, yet can’t withstand the words of one of its own creations. That sounds like an incompetent creator to me.
If a “god” really were offended, it would deal with me directly. The fact that it is the believers who pretend to be offended tells me two things: (1) that “god” is not offended, though since there isn’t one… and (2) this is about the believers’ feigned “offense”, not the “god”’s offense.
Seeker said…”I’ve been marvelling about the whole brouhaha about the soon to be released Qur’an-critical movie by Geert Wilders. Though I don’t agree with his politics, I can’t help but marvel how much noise is made over a movie *nobody hasn’t even seen yet*!”
Wilders Web site has been blocked by their domain host, Network Solutions. one of the largest domain name registrars and hosting sites in the world. They claim that Wilders 15 min movie may violate NS’s terms of service which states, “no objectional material whatsoever”. NS is a US company.
“There can be no freedom without limits.”
WHAT?
WHAT?
Islam is intolerant toward free speech. And free speech tolerates Islam.
They have no argument.
Anyone who cares about anything - blasphemes it. God-damn America.