A long time ago, in a country far, far away, an artist made a statement that was considered offensive to devout followers of one of the world's major religions. Around the world, demonstrations were held where the artist's free expression was condemned and his works were ritually burned. The heated rhetoric damaged his career but did not change his views.
Years later, a man who believed he was doing God's work killed the artist. Should the whole religious movement be held responsible? How about the clerics who condemned the artist's works and called him a blasphemer, directly influencing his eventual murderer? Or should we hold the murderer solely responsible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
And you are worried about Christian terrorists? Really?
The artist in the story was John Lennon, and his murderer was Mark David Chapman, who shot Lennon for his decades-old remark that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus."
Who did you think I was talking about?
Oh, gosh. That superior Leftist itellect resally fooled stupid old hillbillyme.
Nice Anti-Christian rant. Continue please, to beat the rest of us over the head with your moral superiority.
I'm pretty disappointed, you are usually better than that.
Let's see, you have a deranged man and compare him to the entire christian community. Versus a majority of the Muslims in the world who have, at best, a skewed view of the world and who do not condem violence.
Nice try though.
And how many Muslim condemed the murder of the artist in Amerstdam?
A lot of Muslims condemned the murder of the artist (and politician) in Amsterdam, just as most of the world's Muslims condemned the September 11 attacks. Fox News focused on the minority who celebrated, which has left you believing that most of the world's Muslims are jihadist sympathizers. Most American Muslims in particular have as much in common with the jihadists as you have with David Koresh. Your own prejudices keep you from seeing that holding all of Islam responsible for the actions of its violent arm is no different than holding all of Christianity responsible for the actions of its lunatic fringe (or pedophile priests and enabling bishops). This craziness over the proposed Islamic center (which is not a mosque), led by a Sufi (a sect that is persecuted both by the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia and the fundamentalist Shia in Iran), a couple blocks from ground zero (but not in sight of it, thanks to all of the tall buildings in between) has really pissed me off. Not to mention all the attempts to stop actual mosques from being built in places like Wilson, Wis., and Murfreesboro, Tenn. Freedom of religion means tolerating even the religions you don't like (and I think we can all agree that the Westboro Baptist Church is an abomination that would not be allowed in most of the civilized world).
Great entry. This is exactly right: Freedom of religion means tolerating even the religions you don't like
Good post, Jill, and excellent defense of post (above). The First Amendment isn't there to protect POPULAR religions and speech. It's there to make sure UNpopular religions and speech are protected.
Jill = Islam supporter = Embraces 1400 years of "ring of fire" war of barbarism, slavery, rape, pedophilia, beheading.
Jill- May you live under islam.
I mean that most sincerely.
Freedom of speech means accepting responsibility for what you say.
Saying you embrace slavery and murder makes you a very sick puppy.
Post a Comment