Chiming in on the cartoon fiasco

I’ve been watching with a mixture of irritation and disgust, for the past week, the development of the Mohammed cartoon debacle. It’s time for me to weigh in on this issue, so here’s my official view on the matter as of today:

I think the whole thing is ludicrous. They’re cartoons for pete’s sake. I’ve been reading news articles about it, and day after day this won’t go away. I think Condoleezza Rice is quite correct, that somebody in Lebanon and Syria (among other countries) is fanning the flames of this mess. Governments? Radical clerics? Insurgents? All of ‘em?

I’ve got news for the extremist Muslims out there who are torching European consulates and embassies: it’s called free speech. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to pillage and murder when you hear or read something that offends you. Here in America, I read or hear something that offends me on almost a daily basis, but I can’t go around burning people’s houses down in a fit of rage. Nazis get to hold rallies in or near Jewish neighborhoods. It’s disgusting, but they have that right. And people who find it offensive have the right to counter-protest peacefully. So it’s free speech. Not half-off speech, drastically reduced speech, or kinda cheap speech. With the exception of threats of murder (which you radical nutbags are giving, by the way) or the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” premise, anybody can say or write anything they like, period.

Which brings me to some thoughts about freedom of speech. First, I’ll address what’s being demanded in the Middle East, which is that Europe and especially Denmark, must apologize to all of the Islamic world, and that the world must enact laws which prohibit speech which insults Mohammed (10th paragraph down). News-flash: that’s not how things work in an open society. The newspapers are independent businesses, and the governments of Denmark and the European Union aren’t in the position to impose unreasonable limitations on what they print. Don’t hold your breath waiting for this one, it won’t and shouldn’t be done. I was surprised to read that the EU is considering kow-towing to these fire-breathing lunatics by adopting a voluntary code among the media to not publish items that will offend anyone’s religious sensibilities. This is a slippery slope, and while I understand the desire to be considerate when publishing, we shouldn’t tip-toe around the beliefs of anyone who threatens violence... where does it stop?

Secondly, I’ll address the entire idea of the demands being issued at the West by Islamic militants, such as Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who said, "But let (U.S. President) George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ... we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices. Defending the prophet should continue worldwide, let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are a nation that can't forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values," Nasrallah said. He said there would be no compromise until Denmark apologizes for the cartoons and the European Parliament and national assemblies in Europe ban the media from insulting Mohammed. (previous CNN article, paragraphs 8-10) All I can really say to such outrageous demands is this:

Fuck you. You don’t get to tell the rest of the world what to say. This is the fundamental issue here: radical Islamists want to make the whole world Muslim (kinda like Christian Dominionism!), and they have a completely different paradigm from the West. Now, I’m a liberal, and I have plenty of compassion for other human beings, but I also believe in the ideals that most of the West was founded upon (Enlightenment philosophies, such as those promoted by Paine, Locke and the like). We cannot and must not allow our actions and values (and speech!) to be dictated to us by a bunch of blood-thirsty savages who want to take the entire world back to the stone age. This must be resisted, and we can’t undertake a campaign of appeasement in order to quell violence around the world. Appeasement has never worked in the past, and it’s not going to work now. If they truly want a war of cultures, and they can really get enough people on their side, then this really may have to be settled with blood. I will not be told what I can and can’t say by some flea-bitten maniac 7,000 miles away with delusions of a global caliphate. Fuck you.

That said, it’s important that somebody (and let’s face it, it won’t be our current administration) tackles the real roots of militant Islam and terrorism. They are socio-economic in nature. People are living in near-squalor in these countries, they can’t get jobs, they can’t afford anything, and they live under the heel of oppressive dictatorships. Of course they’re angry. For reasons I don’t yet understand (but will attempt to glean), they can’t or won’t organize a revolution for change. Guns seem to be plentiful. Or really, some are trying a revolution, but it’s goals are to create Islamic states, where women can be stoned just because. The causes of the disease of Muslim rage and terrorism need to be addressed, not the symptoms (of which al Qaeda is).

This is my first wind-bag post in awhile, and it’s rife with my opinions. After my soap-boxing about free speech, I will accept all comments, save those that threaten me or anyone else with death or harm. Though I may keep those to expose the disgusting lunacy of such statements. Feel free to agree with me, or insult me and my family, but I invite you to back up defamation with some verifiable facts. Please cite your sources which accompany any insults.

And any insults directed at my intelligence are vapid; I was assessed with a collegiate IQ in grade school, and it has far from diminished since then.

So here we go, let the mud-flinging commence!

Addendum:
Note to extremists: Wow, Muslims really can find non-violent ways to protest! Where is this happening? Why, in an open and pluralistic society, where tolerance is the rule, not the exception: Muslims in the United States. See how to protest grievances without resorting to violent tantrums.