Freedom to mock the Islamic Prophet

Blackflag: You must decide between the liberty to kill and the liberty to live.
Why is it something I should decide? Because again, this is the absolute moral relativist position - just decide morality as you go.

In this one scenario you and your mom are both right.
It matters not how specifically you construe your moral relativism. The point is that you're pretty clearly resorting to it in the hopes of winning an argument. It's quite transparent when it happens. It's like, if we were arguing about the merits of different Bible books, saying "usually I'm no fan of the Bible, but when it comes to the book of 2 Peter... meh, each to their own on that one." What you need is a justification for why moral relativism applies in this specific case.

You still haven't answered my question though. Why do you get to determine where the line is?
Because I'm not "deciding" it - I'm working it out based on the principle of compassion. Whatever the objective truth of morality may be, I am certain it does not lie in the legitimization of murdering each other as you propose. You've done much to say that I'm not justified, ignored my justification, and not provided any semblance of a justification for your alternative ideology.

Why is the liberty to criticize somehow more golden than the liberty to live uncriticized? Both suffer an equal loss of liberty.
Because the freedom to criticise does not take away from the freedom of anybody else. The freedom to live uncriticised does. As a result, it does not suffer an equal loss of liberty. I explored this in an earlier post.

An argument could be made, perhaps, here from a late-generation equalist perspective, like "because he was uncriticised, he was able to get along better with others". The problem with that is that a justified criticism means that the person was inherently not able to get along with others, and the belief in any criticism of a person means the same. So this is a conflation of cause and effect. But I feel like a philosopher smarter than me could maybe make it work somehow.

If you want to maximize liberty, you find the best middle ground.
You're simply choosing the other freedom, not finding a middle ground.

Blackflag: I completely agree. The government should not be allowed to censor hate speech, but I think the public in general should be collectively condemning Islamophobes simply for being complete idiots. I can't say I really feel sorry for those who get killed when they intentionally mock the most sacred prophet of one of the most reactionary populations on the planet. Like you said, they are using their cherished "freedom of expression" to sign their own death warrants.

Actually, individuals do not have the right to be free from scrutiny. People are allowed to investigate and publicly mock other as much as they want, as long as it's not libel ("a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation"). In the case of the political cartoons, they aren't attacking an individual or even an official institution-- they are mocking a general ideology, and what they are saying actually does have some basis in reality. So what the cartoonists are doing really isn't violating anyone's rights; I don't think this whole issue is a question of "rights" at all. To me, it's a question of why society still tolerates and even openly supports such stupid, bigoted attitudes in the modern world (on both sides, Islamic fundamentalists and hyper-secular anti-theists alike).

Romanii: I agree that there should be no freedom from scrutiny. I was questioning Lars on why he feels some freedoms are worth more than others.

admin: Well, how would your respond to a great big 'Go F*ck Yourself!' everyday? How many times would you attempt to explain why its extremely offensive to you to have that said everyday before you:

a. Demanded some kind of restraining order against the knucklehead (which is pretty much what we do with hate groups in the US - confining them and their hateful comments to ... THEIR PRIVACY and not ours).

b. In the absence of such measures ... take measures into your own hands? (in most cases that is simply a wallop to the mouth).

Although there are a few people who would mock the Prophet in the name of free speech, there are many more who do so solely in the name of bigoted attacks on Islam - who hide something corrupt and vile behind the curtain of free speech. Mocking has never been a particularly high level of rebuttal or disagreement, and the difference between poking fun of a religion and attacking it are very different. When you KNOW that groups like ISIS are out there accusing the West of being Islamophobic and prejudiced ... and they can point to the open mocking of the religion, the prejudice and racism, and the utter failure to reign it in? Maybe we should just hand out ISIS recruiting posters while we are at it? I mean its just free speech and all?

Long has there been men who will seize upon fear and local senses of superiority to gain local power, we should not be so blinded by out tolerance for dissent that we would allow old fashioned forms of bigotry to be normalized at the expense of an ancient religion and its followers in our midst.

Its one thing to disagree with any religion, its quite another to attack it over and over again quite mercilessly - and many, not all, of those attacking Islam are not being honest in their ... criticism. Why you would hitch your free speech band wagon to that? No idea. Its a bit like telling jokes from the KKK perspective ... not likely to be taken as funny by many - save many the KKK.

Admin, I think your whole stance here is hypocritical. You claim attacks on homosexuality should not be protected by free speech. Now you are saying attacks on Islam are a legitimate form of free speech. I do not think this is an issue you can play with semantics on.

Stag has something of a point. Everyone seems to think that insulting 'someone else's beliefs' are just fine and dandy, but when its your values and choices being mocked ... suddenly its bad? If we are supposed to treat homosexuals with 'respect' (even if we disagree), should we not be able to do the same thing with Islam? Are there perhaps ... better? More intellectual? Less acerbic ways to disagree?

And wouldn't we all be better off if THAT, rather than demonization, were the way things were examined? The merits of Islam (or not) vice mocking it? Perhaps?

Blackflag: Well, I guess there's a material difference I can see between "gays should kill themselves" and "the Islamic prophet was a douche", but I guess you'd call that semantics. I think it's important. And by the way, I believe in the right to criticise homosexuality too. I thought gree0232's criticisms thereof were wrong, but they were reasonable objections. There's a big differences between criticizing a belief/choice (religion, somebody's favorite supermarket etc) versus a trait of who a person is that they cannot help (sexuality, race etc) versus actually telling them to go kill themselves.

admin: Well, therein lies the rub ... there is no gay gene, and people routinely switch sexuality.

http://formerlesbianconfessions.blogspot.it

(One of many sources) In fact, its so common in the homosexual community that its got its own word, "Hasbian". Ann Heche would be a famous example of this, Ellen's former paramour, now married to a man with children. And remember, what religion says is that, no matter what your sexual desire, YOU CAN control it. Again, its not like the pheromones of a woman automatically turn me into a adultering fool - its a choice. We can deny ourselves.

Perhaps sexuality is merely a part of us that is so ingrained and defining of what we are (hello! Marriage and relationships DO define us!) that it is effectively beyond choice? Why that would be the same status as religion! Something that, when honest and sincere, is so much a part of a person that it effectively defines them - and such a person just might be as offended by the mocking of his faith as a lesbian would of her sexuality.

Again, we tend to make delineations and effect double standards when its things that are our choices, but standards - real ones - don't work that way. If respect is important to homosexuals ... its probably important for Muslims too.

And just like homophobic extremists use gay bashing to advance an agenda of hate, so too to many bashers of Islam mock to advance an agenda of hate. That we we make that hatred acceptable for for 'some other people' is precisely the problem. When you pitch shit at people, people tend to pitch shit right back.

Should we have the 'right' to mock Mohammed? Sure.

Should we do it just because we can? Knowing it will offend people needlessly (and not actually discuss Islam)? Probably not.

Should we have the 'right' to mock homosexuals? Sure.

Should we do it just because we can? Knowing it will offend people needlessly (and not actually discuss homosexuality or sexuality in general?) Probably not.

Restraint in the exercise of freedom is simple humbleness and respect. Everyone deserves it. There are plenty of 'bad' individuals out there to scorn of every theology (or none) and every sexual orientation that we really don't have to mindlessly offend millions and billions of people with false stereotypes and generalizations.

And remember, what religion says is that, no matter what your sexual desire, YOU CAN control it
Who's religion and when did religion say this?

Blackflag: Who's religion and when did religion say this?

Look it up.

Or do you think religions say "Have Orgies" and "Adultery is OK" and my personal favorite "Make love to animals not war!"

gree0232: Looked it up. I'm pretty confident religion doesn't say you can control your sexual preference. Perhaps some other source says that, but probably not religion.

@admin - So I've thought about this question for awhile. I have always believed anything should be allowed to be said. There is a shocking difference between talk and effect.
But this thread kind of makes me wonder. If criticism like this is unproductive, and at most causes harm to the giver and receiver, should it really be allowed?

gree0232: If there was a gay gene, would you agree that I'm otherwise right?

Because honestly you're just sounding contrarian bringing this up in a thread on a different topic.

Blackflag: This, too, should be put in a different thread. Let's keep this focused on the freedom to mock the central figure of a particular religion.

admin: Okay, let me restate it to make it more relevant.

Lars (the one in this article) insults islam. This is unproductive. This usually causes people to be shot. Why should this not be banned?

admin: gree0232: If there was a gay gene, would you agree that I'm otherwise right?

Because honestly you're just sounding contrarian bringing this up in a thread on a different topic.

It goes directly to the statement about immutability. 'Like skin color'. Somehow religion is different? Thus standards apply differently.

Well, no matter how much you desire it, you cannot change your skin color - you can hold your breadth all day - nothing. You CAN influence your sexuality. You CAN deny it ... which would be a good thing if your sexuality were say ... pedophilia. Immutable or not? Priests do it all the time. For a lifetime. Not always successfully, but many do. And, as pointed out, there are people who fundamentally shift their entire sexuality. It happens - thus it cannot be immutable.

What it CAN be is such a deeply ingrained part of ourselves that it is EFFECTIVELY immutable as opposed to SCIENTIFICALLY immutable. Unfortunately, that places sexuality in the same bowl as ... religion and creed. These too are things that are EFFECTIVELY immutable, even though we understand they can change.

So when you are trying to make a delineation between religion and sexuality, the rebuttal is that the distinction you think is there ... is not. Because if you told me to, "Just stop being Christian," well, I too could scream, "I can't! I was just born this way!" And I would be that you would be among the first to openly point out that there is NO Christian or Muslim gene.

Ergo, if we mock religion but draw a delineation that says we cannot mock homosexuals? Its a double standard.

The simple fact of the matter is that walking around on the street we have no idea who is gay or not and no idea who is Christian or Muslims or Jewish (with exceptions for all of course). That is because the vast majority of people can exercise enough control of their sexuality to be ... people. Why again do some deserve disrespect based on following the conscience but others do not?

If freedom of speech is protected? if THAT is the thing that matters, then you must protect ALL speech. The reality here is that I am saying gay bashing and Islam bashing are both bad. You are saying one is not bad. That is not contrarianism, its ... an issue. And one that a Muslim would openly question you about. One that I as a Christian am openly challenging you on. Why do you get to mock Jesus?

Well, no matter how much you desire it, you cannot change your skin color - you can hold your breadth all day - nothing. You CAN influence your sexuality. You CAN deny it
Ergo, if we mock religion but draw a delineation that says we cannot mock homosexuals? Its a double standard.
I see how this is contrarian now.

gree0232: OK, but you didn't answer my question, just re-asserted that there isn't. I'm asking a hypothetical of you.

@gree0232 - So are you saying that since Islam bashing and Homosexual bashing are close to the same thing, both should be protected? Are you saying both should not be protected?