This is a discussion question I have to answer for one of my classes. Any help would be appreciated


To what degree should the global community be sensitive to certain religious traditions? For example, should we value the traditions of Muslims over the value of free-speech? One could argue that we should avoid offending Muslims by simply not depicting Muhammad, particularly since even moderate (Western friendly) Muslims tend to be offended by the use of his image. Given the need (or supposed need) to promote peace between the Islamic World and the West, this might seem a perfectly appropriate idea. However, one could also pose this argument: many moderate Muslims desire to fully embrace democracy within the societies. One of the main tenants of democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of the press - some would argue that these freedoms are not only beneficial to democracy, but are necessary for its success. Obviously freedom of speech involves the right to express ideas that may be unpopular without the fear of violence.

How would you interpret this debatehanks

Dave

I stopped giving a shit how "offended" they are in 1979.

Quoted: I stopped giving a shit how "offended" they are in 1979.

I don't think I have really ever cared.

Guys, I could really use some good ideas as to how to write a debate in favor of saving the Freedom of speech with out sayin fuc the muslims( my teacher).

I feel nothing but disdaine and contempt for religious groups. I actually have grown to 'hate' religion. In my experience (which is probably greater than the average bear) the mindset of all 'religious' people is convert/worship/our rules apply/or die.

G_D did not create religion - mankind created religion. G_D is perfect, mankind is SO FUCKED UP - why would any sane, G_D fearing person listen to an entity other than G_D??!!!

Just my two pennies... YMMV.

Quoted: I repeatedly see that the political leftwing keeps telling Christians to shut up and get religion out of politics, and then those same people then start talking about how we should be talking about ways to be sensitive and respectful to Muslims. Christians:  Shut Up. Muslims: We apologize for any offense we cause by being insensitive.

Yep.

My erudite contribution to the debate:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Here is my feeling.
Anyone who is offended by anything is free to make all the protests they like.
Picket, boycott, etc.
But that stops at violence.

Freedom of speech doesn't just protect mainstream political thought, it protects all.

To limit what can be said about a religion, or a political party, or even a race, is foolish.

The Muslims have a right to say what they believe, and so do we, we will disagree, we might both be offended, but the alternative is not to talk at all about anything of substance.

They have no right never to be offended, I'm offended by peoples political and religious positions on an almost daily basis, often by people I'm friendly with.

It's no reason to riot.

As for the religion in politics thing, I don't hear many people proposing making membership in a religion a disqualifier for public office or denying the religious their right to free speech. What I do see a great deal of, and rightly so, is people demanding that they keep their religion out of the LAW.

If you're going to write legislation, there should be a rational basis for it, not a religious one, and it should be constitutionally sound.

If you want to pray in congress or whatever that's fine with me.

Quoted: <Snip> Christians:  Shut Up. Muslims: We apologize for any offense we cause by being insensitive.

That's a good point.  The hypocrisy angle would be one legitimate angle to pursue.  Also, I'd mention Victor Davis Hanson's point about moslems demanding "respect" while they run around defiling every single thing the rest of the world holds holy or sacred.

Quoted: This is a discussion question I have to answer for one of my classes. Any help would be appreciated To what degree should the global community be sensitive to certain religious traditions? For example, should we value the traditions of Muslims over the value of free-speech? One could argue that we should avoid offending Muslims by simply not depicting Muhammad, particularly since even moderate (Western friendly) Muslims tend to be offended by the use of his image. Given the need (or supposed need) to promote peace between the Islamic World and the West, this might seem a perfectly appropriate idea. However, one could also pose this argument: many moderate Muslims desire to fully embrace democracy within the societies. One of the main tenants of democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of the press - some would argue that these freedoms are not only beneficial to democracy, but are necessary for its success. Obviously freedom of speech involves the right to express ideas that may be unpopular without the fear of violence. How would you interpret this debate? Thanks Guys, Dave

Just for the sake of arguement say we do this and reign in freedom of speech.  And completely hypothetically speaking, say it helps achieve peace.  Now what happens when we want that freedom back after peace has been acheived?  For the sake of continued peace do we continue to squelch our freedom of speech, or do we begin to speak out and hope we don't end up on some grainy video with our dome being lopped off?


Oh yeah, remind you professor we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy.  Yes, he/she may have not been refering to the US in the above question...but I am sure he/she still needs to be reminded of it.

They use their religion to justify the murder of innocent, unsuspecting people.

They lose the right to claim they are offended by anything said about the religion.

I would draw a distinction between what behavior I would recommend and what we can legislate.

While it might be wise to refrain from drawing offensive cartoons, we cannot legislate wisdom.  Freedom of speech means that people are free to say things that are rude, controversial, offensive and even downright stupid.

One way to approach the debate might be to take a selection of editorial cartoons from your local (probably liberal newspaper) and illustrate that every one of them offends someone.  If we remove offensive speech we ultimately remove ALL speech.

"When your enemy is angry, irritate him." The Art of War, Sun Tzu

We should be publishing photoshopped pictures of Osama bin Laden eating pork at a whore house, while a Jewish woman wipes her ass with a Quran. This bullshit about not stirring up the ragheads that would right now love to kill us all is too much.

How about some propaganda films of them blowing up mosques and killing children? Or beating women that wanted to vote or go to school? Maybe the CIA should start its own network in the Middle East and put out the US message. Remember Radio Marti or Radio Free Europe? Don't forget Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hanna. You can fight a PC war, but you sure as hell can't WIN a PC war.

Fuck 'em. We have plenty of ammo to send them all to meet Allah. Let God sort 'em out.

I quit caring about their "sensibilities" when the first plane hit the first building.

The 1st Ammendment is there for a reason.

It is in our Constitution for a reason.

The very fact that somone will be offended by what you may say
is the way it's set up.

Words are words, and images are images.  Get over it.

If the media is allowed to showcase "artistic" endevors like
"Piss Jesus" and, The one with the Virgin Mary made from
elephant dung, then, they should surly have the right to print a cartoon
about Muhammed.

I could give a crap less about any religion.

Sounds like a simple premise.

If you are going to suspend the right to free speach only
when it comes to religion, then, we need to call this a "Theocracy"
rather than a Republic.

I DO, however think the Constitution is relevant.

Quoted: This is a discussion question I have to answer for one of my classes. Any help would be appreciated To what degree should the global community be sensitive to certain religious traditions? For example, should we value the traditions of Muslims over the value of free-speech? One could argue that we should avoid offending Muslims by simply not depicting Muhammad, particularly since even moderate (Western friendly) Muslims tend to be offended by the use of his image. Given the need (or supposed need) to promote peace between the Islamic World and the West, this might seem a perfectly appropriate idea. However, one could also pose this argument: many moderate Muslims desire to fully embrace democracy within the societies. One of the main tenants of democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of the press - some would argue that these freedoms are not only beneficial to democracy, but are necessary for its success. Obviously freedom of speech involves the right to express ideas that may be unpopular without the fear of violence. How would you interpret this debate?

The tenets of the Muslim religion apply to the Muslims!  It is patently absurd for them to criticize NON-MUSLIMS for drawing pictures of Muhammad.

Freedom of speech means freedom of UNPOPULAR speech.  And that is how the SC has interpreted the USC.

Quoted: Guys, I could really use some good ideas as to how to write a debate in favor of saving the Freedom of speech with out sayin fuc the muslims( my teacher).

When in doubt, look to the wisdom of R. Lee Ermey.  

"There is no racial bigotry here ... here you are all equally worthless!"

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from abusive, prejudicial or even (so-called) hateful speech.  All points of view are protected equally, not just the popular views or unpopular views.

As such, "sensitivity" to the differences of others is irrelevant.  The ability to offend (if one can said to exist) and the perceived need NOT to be offended (i.e. "sensitivity") are on equal footing.  Both are equally protected forms of expression and so therefore no preference should be given to either.

Oh, and while I'm at it:

"OFFICER?  I AM NOT AN OFFICER!  I WORK FOR A LIVING!!!" (RLE as SGM Bougus in "Space:  Above and Beyond")

Read this article: Link

It reinforces what the previous poster has written: Freedom does NOT preclude 'offensive' speech. Kind of like all the threads about ROPers that get locked here under the guise of being coc violations. You may not like what is said...but it is a slap in the face of freedom to try and censor someone else from saying it!