Maggie's Farm

It is not a question of "offense" - it is a question of free speech. There are those who would restrict your, and my, right to say what I wish, when I wish and to whom I wish.

The whole idea of free speech is the right to be offensive if only because what may be offensive to you may not be offensive to me and vice versa. Atheists have the right to portray Christ in anyway they choose and often do - photographer Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" comes to mind. The image provoked both secular and religious approval and disapproval. What some saw as patently offensive and an issue statement on the futility of religion others saw beauty and a bold statement on the state of modern religion and a statement on the social values in terms of what we, as Christians, have done to ourselves in disregarding his teaching.

The point is that drawing Mohamet in a free society should not be an issue for Islam and it's adherents. We can feel free to express ourselves in any way we so choose. If we put a fuse on Mohamet's turban, that is our right. They do not have a right to be offended because that is our social rules. If we are required to abide by their rules in their society, it is their duty to abide by ours. If I, or anybody else, chooses to demonstrate this by drawing a ridiculous or outrageous protrayal of Mohamet, that's the way our society, with it's free speech rules, works.

I intend this statement to be strong and offensive. To wit: those who would choose the easy path and offer no offense on issues of the day disavowing all confrontation in the name of being "civil" and/or "inoffensive" are cowards. And they are cowards because the merits of their arguments are cyphers and not opinions based on strong belief and their own logical constructs. In other words, meaningless.

I'm willing to stand up and standby anyone who wishes to say what they want, when they want and for what ever reason they want. I may not like what is being said, I may offer my own opinion on the relative value of that speech and express that opinion in the strongest language I am capable of, but I'll be damned if I will stand and allow somebody else to shut the speech of others in the name of anything.

I understand your point Brian, but it is a non sequitur.

All speech is offensive - totally neutral speech is impossible. You raise this point Why is it unacceptable to speak obscenities at homosexuals?. I would answer, why is it not?

Why is it ok for gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual individuals to call dual sex oriented "breeders" and other offensive terms? Did you note what happened there? In our effort to be "neutral" in speech, we have created whole new categories of personal identification in which we now have to dance through and around to communicate. By being neutral and non-offensive, we have created an entire new set of boxes in which we can pigeon hole "groups" for special treatment which is exactly the opposite of what we intended.

It is not the militant I am concerned about offending it is the muslim who does not desire conflict.

And there is the conundrum - how do you tell which is which? Why should we care? That's the whole point isn't it? You shouldn't have to care. If I say something that offends the militant, but stirs the non-militant to action to reject or disavow the militant, is that not a positive result?

One of my favorite people in the whole world is my Rheumotoligist. She is funny, articulate, one hell of a diagnostician - a genuine personality and throughly Americanized. She is also a Muslim and wears the hajib. One time, when we had time to kill and were just shooting the bull, I asked her why she wore the head scarf and her reply was very instructive.

It wasn't because of religious belief - she is married to a Jewish cardiologist and hasn't been religious for many years although she is still faithful to the main tenants of her faith. It wasn't because she had to for social stricture or requirements. She did because it was her choice to do so. It is an expression of her ethnic and religious heritage. It's her choice - not somebody else's. It's her way of demonstrating that she has the freedom to choose when, where and why to wear it.

I can't see her doing that in most Muslim countries because it would "offend" the powers that be.

The very fabric of our society rests on this simple principle of free speech - we have the right to say what we wish - express an opinion unfettered by self censorship to appease any minority group. In the direction you propose lay dragons - the biggest dragon being the giant maw of moral relevance which is, and should be, anethema to any free society.

The point was that it was her choice, her way to express her feelings - her way of demonstrating who she is at some base level. Nobody made her do it but her. That's the freedom of expression - adjunct to free speech. I can certainly understand that.

We can play this double standard game all day long if you want - I'll play along until BD says enough.