Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

Blasphemy

17 Comments

…is not bigotry.

For that matter, neither is not wanting to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. It’s a shame that this even has to be said.

[Sunday-morning update]

Thoughts on freedom of speech from Mark Steyn:

It’s not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it’s all the nice types – the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: “Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…”

And the minute you hear the “but”, none of the build-up to it matters. A couple of days before Garland, Canadian Liberal MP (and former Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler announced his plan to restore Section 13 – the “hate speech” law under which Maclean’s and I were dragged before the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and which, as a result of my case, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada. At the time Mr Cotler was fairly torn on the issue. We talked about it briefly at a free-speech event in Ottawa at which he chanced to be present, and he made vaguely supportive murmurings – as he did when we ran into each other a couple of years later in Boston. Mr Cotler is Jewish and, even as European “hate” laws prove utterly useless against the metastasizing open Jew-hate on the Continent, he thinks we should give ’em one more try. He’s more sophisticated than your average But boy, so he uses a three-syllable word:

“Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” said Cotler, who was minister of justice under Paul Martin.

“However…”

Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the “but”, after the “however”. There’s no fine line between “free speech” and “hate speech”: Free speech is hate speech; it’s for the speech you hate – and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don’t have free speech, then you can’t have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is “Allahu Akbar”.

Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I’ve been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things – and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you’re under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you’ve been raised in the “safe space” of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it’s perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what’s the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?

Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom’n’pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it’s easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do – as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.

[Bumped]

[Update a few minutes later]

Reasons why Pam Geller’s cartoon contest is no different than Selma.

[Update a while later]

Say what you will about Bill Maher, but at least he’s consistent when it comes to bashing religions. He doesn’t give Islam a pass. And, as usual, Lincoln Chaffee is a moron.

17 thoughts on “Blasphemy”

  1. I do not have time to dig in my files or the net, but wasn’t that attempt to build a mosque near ground zero a bit more obnoxious and intentional than this article tried to indicate?

    I applaud Pam Geller. All around the world we need things like this that allow insane zealots to self select their own demise. The world will be a more peaceful and happier place without them.

  2. Civilization requires rules. Society has to know those rules and endorse them. Otherwise we spiral into a land of thugs and savages. That so many of the talking heads don’t know the rules is terrifying.

    Imagine you had no right to self defense? All you could do is run away until you are caught. Then what?

    That’s where we’re headed.

    Actually, imagination is not required. It’s already happening.

  3. Here is a dissenting view.

    “Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition
    from the inside. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on that tradition from the outside. ” — Dr. Mahmood Mamdani

    He goes on: ” If blasphemy is an attempt to speak truth to power, bigotry is the reverse: an attempt by power to instrumentalize truth. I have argued that a defining feature of the cartoon debate
    is that bigotry is being mistaken for blasphemy. ”

    See page 13 http://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/pdf/MamdanilectureMarch82007.pdf to consider a different opinion from your own.

    1. (I should note, for those who aren’t going to read it, that he goes on to praise blasphemy as a liberating force for good, etc, so this isn’t the opinion of a religious conservative!)

      1. he goes on to praise blasphemy as a liberating force for good

        Safety is good enough for some. I guess an argument could be made that it brings a sense of belonging. But anyone that finds this argument compelling lacks esteem.

    2. “Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition from the inside. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on that tradition from the outside.”

      Islam disagrees. All are subject to sharia. That’s what this is all about.

    3. So Bob-1 when are you going to apply this standard to those on the left?

      Cartoons insulting Mohammad are pretty tame compared to the abuses the left inflicts on those they view as outside the protection of society and society’s laws.

      Regardless of whether or not you view Pamela as a bigot is irrelevant to her right to free speech and to her right to be protected by the government as other citizens would be. My views on whether progressives are bigoted or not is also irrelevant in terms of their right to be as offensive as they want. Its not like the way Democrats behave is some sort of secret, they chose the jackass as their mascot after all.

      You might ask yourself how one gets exempted from following the rules imposed on the rest of society and if you really want to live in a society that operates like that or if that society can even exist without tearing itself apart.

      Rest assured, at one point you, or anyone else, could suddenly find themselves as part of an outgroup. Suddenly you won’t be exempt from the rules and they will be applied in full, retroactively. Just look at Joss Whedon. Then society won’t be there to stand up for you. The rule of law won’t come to your defense because there will be none.

      You will be left to twist in the wind like all the other victims of progressive ideology.

    4. So Jews who opposed the Nazis were bigots and seeking to instrumentalize their power, because they were criticizing from the outside.

      It seems that bit of fancy sounding logic lasted about 2 seconds, which is a long time on the Internet.

  4. 1) If I say “Mohammed” without the title “Prophet”, have I committed blasphemy, or bigotry?

    2) If I say “Jesus” without also saying the title “Christ”, have I committed blasphemy, or bigotry?

    3) Is the guy with the knife going to accept my defense of (a) not belonging to their religion, or (b) not meaning exactly what I actually said because I have permission to willfully redefine words specifically to make “My intent” fail to meet the criteria … technically.

    1. Dave, it’s called damage control. A basic principal of Islam is Taqiyya, so one article tells you nothing. Deceit is built into the foundation of Islam. The fact that they can’t help but smear Pam as a hater tells volumes.

      Pam does hate what is bad. That doesn’t make her a hater in the general sense. Her hate is specific and virtuous.

      You would paint her as vile, which is the true villainy. Meanwhile, the FBI has been smoking out an entire network connected to the two dead thugs. Which the article you linked suggests may not even have been Muslim (unbelievable audacity.)

      I’ve got a Muslim doctor injecting medicine into my eyes. I do not know him well enough to determine if he’s a moderate. I’ll let his actions speak. He seems a likable guy. But you don’t know a person until they choose to reveal themselves.

    2. What a stupid question. Of course there are “moderate Muslims.” Most people who think of themselves as Muslim probably are. I’m sure there were “moderate” Nazis, too, though that was a lot harder. That doesn’t make Islam a “moderate” religion.

    3. A few observations…

      “leftist” that Dave knows think that Geller has right to a free speech, but Dave, himself, remains silent.

      The Daily Beast considers drawing Mohammed as hate speech. I wonder what the Daily Beast considers Piss Christ and Hunky Jesus.

      Whether there are moderate Muslims or not, it is Islam that considers drawings of Mohammed to be blasphemy. Christians also consider various things blasphemy, including taking the Lord’s name in vain. But you won’t find Christians driving across 2 states with ARs to take out participants in the Hunky Jesus contest. Nor would you see reporters asking the art galleries that displayed Piss Christ if they had regrets for their hate speech. One wonders if those who ask if we believe in moderate Muslims, whether they believe that Muslims can tolerate as much as Christians? Pam Geller is still waiting to find such tolerance. That is what see seeks.

    4. Are there moderate muslims, or does any adherence to the “Religion of Peace” make them religious radicals?

      To Rand’s point, there certainly were moderate Nazis. These includes otherwise nice folk that pretended they were not aware of the gas chambers.

      Muslims persecute other muslims that don’t toe the line.

      Adherence by definition means not radical. That’s part of the PC BS. You may wonder at their reasoning ability but polls show most ‘moderate’ muslims are ‘For It.’

      Islam is evil, pure and simple. What adherents to evil are, you can decide for yourself.

      1. To clarify. Adherence is not radical because getting your virgins is mainstream Islam.

Comments are closed.