The freedom to be an idiot
On February 8, 2006, the Oregon State Barometer published a column by Nathanael Blake that basically stated that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. There are, of course, many more details to the column than this broad summary, but boiling it down to the basics is a good place to start. He spends some time ranting about how the liberal press oppresses the poor Christians and then tries to justify comments like "we expect Muslims to behave barbarously" by interspersing his verbal spew with a few snippets pulled from the Koran without context. Theoretically, Mr. Blake was inspired by the recent violence over the anti-Muslim cartoons (a summary, if you somehow missed it), but rather than comment on the action by fundamentalist extremists, he attacks the core of Islam itself, even calling Mohammed a "pedophile" at one point.
After this article was published, Muslims on campus expressed their outrage by peacefully protesting on campus. Maybe Blake will note that there were no suicide bombers on the MU quad Thursday, no calls for jihad against the Barometer (although a boycott was mentioned) and no death threats against Blake himself. But honestly, I don't think Blake will learn anything from this. I think he's too far gone, brainwashed in a religion that espouses peace, except when referring to those who reject the neo-conservatism faction of modern Christianity.
I fully support a free press, which means I support the Barometer's right to print Mr. Blake's fervent little rant. But I lose respect for the Barometer for printing something so full of flaws and historical inaccuracy without telling the author to do a little fact-checking.
Maybe Blake should start by picking up a history textbook. Maybe then he would learn that his statement "Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies," is truly laughable. Maybe he hasn't heard about the Crusades? Or maybe he is blinded by the rose-colored glasses of his own religion, which really makes him closer to the Muslim extremists than to peaceful folks in any religion.
To me, it seems pretty simple. Fanatics of any flavor are bad. Religious fanatics more easily justify violence because they believe they have God on their side. And this holds true for many religions, including all three major "desert religions": Christianity, Islam and Judaism. (The formation of Israel wasn't exactly bloodless.)
I do believe it is important to maintain freedom of speech and freedom of the press, even when the articles prove inflammatory. It's much better for our society to know where the rabble-rousers are and what they are saying, so we can keep an eye on the ones who seem truly clueless and/or dangerous. And hey...if you disagree and would like to include me in that latter category, you have my blessing. That's what free speech is all about.
After this article was published, Muslims on campus expressed their outrage by peacefully protesting on campus. Maybe Blake will note that there were no suicide bombers on the MU quad Thursday, no calls for jihad against the Barometer (although a boycott was mentioned) and no death threats against Blake himself. But honestly, I don't think Blake will learn anything from this. I think he's too far gone, brainwashed in a religion that espouses peace, except when referring to those who reject the neo-conservatism faction of modern Christianity.
I fully support a free press, which means I support the Barometer's right to print Mr. Blake's fervent little rant. But I lose respect for the Barometer for printing something so full of flaws and historical inaccuracy without telling the author to do a little fact-checking.
Maybe Blake should start by picking up a history textbook. Maybe then he would learn that his statement "Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies," is truly laughable. Maybe he hasn't heard about the Crusades? Or maybe he is blinded by the rose-colored glasses of his own religion, which really makes him closer to the Muslim extremists than to peaceful folks in any religion.
To me, it seems pretty simple. Fanatics of any flavor are bad. Religious fanatics more easily justify violence because they believe they have God on their side. And this holds true for many religions, including all three major "desert religions": Christianity, Islam and Judaism. (The formation of Israel wasn't exactly bloodless.)
I do believe it is important to maintain freedom of speech and freedom of the press, even when the articles prove inflammatory. It's much better for our society to know where the rabble-rousers are and what they are saying, so we can keep an eye on the ones who seem truly clueless and/or dangerous. And hey...if you disagree and would like to include me in that latter category, you have my blessing. That's what free speech is all about.
posted by Corvallist at
3:43 AM
6 Comments:
my god.
I've linked to you and also blogged a bit on this.
thanks for synthesizing the links and taking a stance.
By
me, at 9:36 AM
great points! I've linked to you too and ranted about this as well.
By
Michael Faris, at 5:41 PM
Here's a point, though, lovely Corvallist:
For some reason you use the label "Anti-Muslim" to describe the cartoons.
Why adopt such phrasing when the Wiki itself gives a thorough background as to the genesis of the cartoons? They're not "anti-Muslim" in any outrageous way -- certainly no worse than the mockery and disdain that any religion faces from time to time. Several aren't at all "anti" anything (see, e.g., the one that is an illustration of a man in the desert).
The cartoons were inspired by the atmosphere in Europe (a la Theo Van Gogh's brutal murder), which is decidedly different from that here in the U.S. (with the U.S. having a tolerant and prosperous Muslim community that generally "gets it" when it comes to free speech).
If we're to adopt the "free to be an idiot" model (with which I fully agree), we should have serious issues with the reaction of an exceptionally violent and intolerant minority. Many times in history, it has only taken an exceptionally violent and intolerant minority to gain control of, and oppress, a peaceful society. If a non-Muslim is afraid to draw an illustration for a children's book out of fear for bodily harm, that is very simply a huge problem.
Love your blog!
By
Anonymous, at 2:02 PM
and, yes, I know Theo Van Gogh (pbuh) was a Nederlander, not a Dane
By
Anonymous, at 2:27 PM
I have to admit I make blatant uneducated statements, or have in the past, about Islam. For one thing, the way they treat, or seem to treat, women. I shouldn't do so without researching the opinion first. I have to admit my opinions come from news reports of fundamentalist Islamics, like the Taliban, whom I was happy to see run from Afghanistan because of the way they treated women. But the reports of the Pakistani woman, featured on Oprah, gang raped for the sins of her brother I think it was, who stood up for herself and is now ostracized, also disturbed me and I generalize then. I have no idea how widespread this type of behavior is, though, in Islam. But Christianity certainly is not without its fundamentalist freakazoids and child molesting cults. My brother loves to make fun of the Catholic priests who molest alter boys but thinks its a.o.k. that his own father fondled me. My father was a deacon in the Christian church we were raised in. Isn't it funny how people can justify wrongs committed in their own little cherished groups while condemning the same behavior when its perpetrated by others? It's rather sad. I can call this columnist stupid and lazy for not researching his opinion, but I have ignorant opinions about all sorts of things that I mouth or at least internalize as truth without so much as challenging them. I will try harder to change. Jesus Christ said "Thou Shalt Not Kill". When I read the commandments as a child, I saw no exemptions listed next to that commandment. I must be mistaken because we seem to be killing a lot of people, as Christians, and this goes way back, as you mention, way way back. In fact, I'd almost say it's a trend with Christians---killing for Christ. I steer clear of man made religion of all sorts. And I sure hope America can keep its identity and religious freedom. We're heading down a dangerous path, I think, when mixing religion and government. This is America. If people want a theocracy, let them move to a country governed by religious sects. But not here because like it or not, this is the land of the free. I do believe fundamentalist Christian groups threaten our country's basic tenets.
By
Strayer, at 10:48 PM
But, I do not understand why Muslims would react to a cartoon or a column and not react to the way some Muslims treat women or to atrocities committed by dictators and fundamentalist violent groups in Muslim nations. I do not understand killing in the name of any God. I do not understand abuse/control of others in the name of any God. I do understand all of the above as very basic evil human behaviors. But to pick up a banner and label it God's and attempt to veil one's own evil in some purity, is really sicko stuff, but a popular practise in all man made religions.
Do Muslims write no columns about other religions or condemn other religion? Are they free of guilt? Can they rightfully express righteous anger or do they also condemn other cultural practises, like freedom of the press which is our culture, and other religions?
By
Anonymous, at 12:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home