RUTHFULLY YOURS

Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/freedom-of-speech-is-only-free-when-it-can-offend?f=must_reads#ixzz3OWB2GewG
Yesterday over a dozen people were killed and nearly the same number of people were wounded as radical Islamists shot people who expressed an offensive opinion about Mohammed.  It was savagery. They killed a wounded police officer who was no further threat to them. Mercy would have dictated leaving him on the street. The true nature of these horrific creatures was revealed when they ended his life. All across the globe Islamists rail in violent response whenever anyone has the temerity to publically criticize their faith or its founder.  Christians long ago abandoned violence as a solution to disagreement. When will the radicals do so?

Let’s be clear – I’m not a big fan of ethnic jokes, hurtful cartoons against God – regardless whose deity it is, or religious lampooning. But I’m even less a fan of censorship or violence against people with whom I or a group disagree. I’m an educated woman; there are other ways! Recently at a cocktail party one of the guests started making a derogatory comment about Jesus; I quickly, firmly, but politely stopped the woman in her tracks, without having to involve any of my weapons, let alone the handy corkscrew. It can be done. You can stay “stop” or offer a counterpoint without involving bloodshed or the coroner’s office. Note to thin skinned radicals – it’s a cartoon, an opinion, a sound-bite. Offensive, maybe; But get over it!

Part of the blame rests on Western leaders who have not clamped down on this, and involved supposedly moderate Moslems to get their more aggressive believers to knock the violence off. Man up. Sticks and stones. Get over the insult and move on. Unbelievably there remains a tendency in the West to give credence to their anger and tacit approval of the temper tantrums.  Again don’t get me wrong – I may not like the behaviors of radicals but I won’t toss their faith out with the bathwater, nor will I promulgate insults to the many good and decent believers of Islam who, like most of us in other faiths, just want to get through the day making it better for our families and each other.  Should folks protest peacefully – sure, have at it. But murder and promote violence over it? Unacceptable!

The “can’t we just get along” crowd asks a valid question. The problem is most of those folks have as the subtext the implication that everyone has to give in, except the very folks causing the problem.

The danger here isn’t simply that radicals have used offenses in speech as an excuse for violence – from the fatwa on the author Rushdie, to death threats on the cartoonist Lars Vilks, to the recent assassination of satirists in Paris. It is the acquiescence, and appeasement given to them as the insidious narrative which has crept into the public sensibility. Somehow we have been led to believe any insult to Islam or non whites who feel disenfranchised, whether in word or image, is tantamount to a declaration of war deserving of physical retribution, instead of satire, or opinion – you know, an exercise of free speech. From Northern Europe to France, the conflation of “tolerance” with “enlightenment” has led to deadly precedent.  The moral equivalence given to people performing bad acts because it is deemed to be culturally protected is insanity. Whether from ‘white guilt’ or naiveté or some general notion that we owe one group or another something above and beyond the general laws that govern the majority, the reality is simple. When you favor one group, no matter the reason, you ultimately foster a sense of entitlement in that group, and with it the predictable behaviors they feel protected, resulting in increased acts of lawlessness. Yet we continue to turn our heads, look the other way, until the inevitable “last straw” event, such as the senseless murders that just happened in Paris.

As an aside, given the growing population of Moslems – radical and non violent – in Europe, the numbers leading to decided demographic, cultural and political changes, especially in France and Great Britain, as well as Germany and elsewhere, surprisingly there has emerged an anti Islam backlash with protests occurring in Germany and elsewhere, previously written about as regions easily referred to as the lands of appeasement, as evidenced by the tacit allowance of anti-Israel and anti-Jew violence.

Given the growing number of radical Islamists in Europe who seem more than ready and eager to resort to violence whenever something disturbs them, one has to wonder, how many more ‘wake up calls’ do we need like the Paris murders before the West recognizes we are engaged in a world war, whether we like it or not, whether it conforms to our one world ideology or not, whether it is consistent with our morality or not, whether it is unpleasant to consider or not.

Western Civilization is being threatened as are all the beliefs and freedoms we hold dear.  Western nations are abandoning our sovereignty in some nebulous pursuit of utopia. Each nation has a right to defend itself from threats within as well as from the outside. 

Lest we puff our chests in mocked superiority, our own country has allowed similarly disgraceful violence over situations better solved by dialogue, not destruction.

We capitulate to violent race baiters in the aftermath of Ferguson, where the looting and destruction neither honored the cause nor enhanced the well being of blacks in the community. We capitulated to protestors on the streets of Boston and Providence who blocked ambulances and inflicted havoc on commuters – black, brown, Asian and white – who only wanted to come home to their families after a long day at work. Why? Because God forbid politicians even look like they are challenging the narrative. So much for free speech or moral clarity or doing what is right or having a frank dialogue about good versus bad behavior. 

“We are a nation of laws, not men.”

John Adams

Few will ask the hard question – are the laws for Moslems supposed to be different than the laws for Christians or atheists or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, just because Islam is a faith where its governing documents make life temporal inseparable from things religious? Once upon a time Puritans and others lived similarly, but with the recognition each individual has the option to believe or not – freedom of religion – we created a set of laws that protected everyone, while separating things temporal from things spiritual. That was settled hundreds of years ago in the US and in much of Europe.

Now we have Islam and Sharia law – Moslem clerics demanding that their laws are to supersede Western laws in counties where the number of Moslems is growing to sizable, political strength proportion. Instead of reminding these folks that they are subject totally to the laws of the nation, whether because of cowardice, political correctness or ignorance, Great Britain and others, including the US have increasingly recognized Sharia courts. Two laws for one people – really? How do I get in on the act? If a group do not like the laws of the nation within which they live, they can legally try to change it in the public arena of political discourse and get enough citizens to agree, or they can fly off to a nation that is more aligned with their values and faith tradition. If I were ever to leave the US, that’s what I would do – find a nation that aligned with my sensibilities; Australia is looking pretty good right now.

Instead we appease and cave in.

Neither the French, nor British, nor US Constitutions grant separate rights for separate groups. And yet we have increasingly decided to govern as if they did. This includes trampling on freedom of speech.

Speech, especially political, in an advanced democracy is supposed to inspire thought and spark debate in the marketplace of ideas.

In our universities, we hear exhortations about the value of free speech, as if it was ex cathedra, yet in reality that is code for parroting what the ideology of professors and provosts demand.  Debate against Israel and for Palestine is chic. GOP baiting, anti Semitism, and Christianity bashing are the latest flavors of “free speech” on campuses. Try to offer counterpoint and you will find a “C-“on your report card, or swastikas painted on your dorm room, or protests on campus.

All political leaders – deans to mayors and presidents – they just want to get through their terms with as little grief as possible. If appeasing an angry, vocal group is the price of doing business, regardless of the morality, then so be it. So why would we be surprised that heads of state do the same thing?

Even our own president, Obama, is loath to utter the words “Islam” “Radical Islam” or “Jihadists” even in his few words of support to the French. He referred to the malefactor Jihadists as “the few” – really? Call me crazy but even if only 5% of all Moslems are radical Jihadists bent on global caliphate and the disruption/destruction of contemporary Western Civilizations, that’s 5% of 1,000,000,000 – do the math. That’s more ‘soldiers of Allah’ and ‘warriors of Jihad’ than were in uniform during World War II – from both sides!

To be sure, the US was born out of violent rebellion. But only after significant dialogue and diplomacy were tried.  Oh and during both times – peaceful and violent – the press was not tender in opinion or cartoon.

We have now bypassed freedom of speech unless it is in lock step with the new narrative.  Let’s face it, there’s no question that race, religion and ethnicity are the third rail of political discourse.  For a supposedly advanced democracy – here and in Europe – we can’t seem to have a civilized discourse and public disagreement about certain groups or behaviors or ideologies, lest racism, phobia or other terms are launched.  To which I answer – so what? Let them levy those words. Let the truth or at least honest discourse ring loud and clear – whether we agree with it or not – it is time to say things that have gone unsaid, such as…..

IF Islam is the religion of peace, then what justifies killing people with whom Moslems disagree, as if violence is a surrogate for peace?

IF the West is pro freedom of speech, then why does it try to silence that which some find offensive even that which insults others. For example, conservative outlets are at constant threat from this current administration, and pro Israel rallies are often under threat from a wide array of anti-Semites. To be clear, I am not a fan of Bill Maher and his Christian bashing. I think he is a smart man who has used his talents to get rich being a hate baiter. But I would be the first to defend him against censorship.

One has to ask if it is ok to ban offensive speech against Islam (and I am no fan of insulting anyone for their faith – even one that has radical followers determined to inflict carnage incalculable in modern times), what calculus allows it to be ok to permit offensive speech against Jews, or Christians on campuses, on the airwaves, in the media? Can’t have it both ways.

“It is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another.”

Charles Montesquieu, the Spirit of the Laws, 1748

The great French moral philosopher Montesquieu was wont to advise the role of government on protecting the rights of citizens. This is a bad time for leaders to become ignorant. It appears in the rush to demonstrate multiculturalism the West has forgotten a couple key points, which may very well lead to our destruction.

Allowing bad behavior to be culturally protected is suicidal for a country, not enlightened, open minded or tolerant. It is stupidity, and ultimately immoral. When allowing a group to have special privileges, and in so doing turn a blind eye their ‘laws’ or religious protected behaviors that deny another group of people – women for example who under Sharia can be subject to honor punishments that would never be legally protected under the general laws governing the nation – you have guaranteed a rift in the fabric of society that can rarely be repaired.

It boggles the mind that countries, such as France, born out of revolution for the privilege of designing and living under a category of moral laws granting individuals rights and freedoms, within the context of protecting us from the infringements of governments and fellow citizens, could allow themselves to cede some of its ideals. Maybe the deaths of those who were murdered in Paris will serve as a wakeup call, and not be in vain.

When we grant favoritism to one group or another, and in the process super-protect them over the rest of our citizenry, we set the stage for our own destruction. Nations were created by people for a purpose with a national culture emerging. Once upon a time we were a melting pot, and those tossed in were proud to be part of the soup. Now the spirit of revisionism and the politics of divisiveness would lead you to believe there is no America, only a white post slavery enterprise and the resultant disenfranchised. If we are to buy into such a cancerous narrative, then we not only do a disservice to the many free blacks, Asians, whites of many ethnicities, Native people and immigrants from North and South of the border who struggled to build the American Experiment and realized the American Dream. Moreover if we allow the politics of jealousy to continue with the politics of political correctness, with their ubiquitous thought police as enforcers – from Washington to university campuses – we might as well change the name of our country to the Disunited States of America and plan on the funeral of our culture and civilization.

Freedom of speech, laws – these were instituted to protect each of us, not just some of us. We have to ask ourselves when our political leaders selectively advantage and protect one group above another group – without challenge by the loyal opposition – how do they justify and defend that notion? Well since the loyal opposition has been silenced under threat of being called ‘racist’ we might never force an honest answer from those who would undermine your protection and mine for the sake of a favored group. And the biggest question we fail to answer – when the winds of change blow, will the protected group be so charitable as to protect the others when they end up in charge? It is a slippery slope when we abandon our values and laws for the sake of appeasement or political correctness or ideology. 

“In this country (USA) we take it for granted to poke fun of the sacred and untouchable. It is a right some people are inexplicably asked to die for.”

Conan O’Brien  Talk show host, commenting on the mass murder yesterday in Paris

Mr. O’Brien was not wrong. We in this country continuously fail to recognize the growing storm approaching our shores. Israel and Europe are the previews to the coming attraction. In increasingly growing numbers, we are seeing Islamic Jihad being played out across Europe and into our own nation.

We will need to have the courage to protect free speech, and to remind our leaders that even offensive humor – satire – often offers a truth we need to see. And our leaders must have the courage to say in a loud voice – bad behavior will not be protected in the US, even if it is protected in your culture.

We are a nation of laws, not men. John Adams warned us centuries ago that the passions and politics of the day could readily tempt people to allow opinion and emotion to cloud reason and fairness.  Against the backdrop of a Boston ready to toss the Redcoats into the icy harbor, John Adams defended the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre. There were few more ardent patriots than Adams. But a man of justice, he recognized even the soldiers under law deserved their day in court. We may not like a verdict but we are a nation of laws, no men – whether they are beloved or reviled.

From the birth of American journalism, in the 1700’s, civil discourse has been anything but! Newspapers, rudimentary though they were even have been known to falsely announce the death of a candidate with whom they opposed, just to discourage his supporters from voting. Politicians and businesspeople were written in effigy, cartoonists portraying people using imagery the Borgias would have envied when describing their enemies.  Yet somehow through it all, including those pesky opinions from the other side, thanks in no small measure to freedom of speech, a magnificent experiment created the American experience.

Yesterday we mourned the senseless murders in Paris of folks exercising free speech. What day will we mourn the death of free speech? And will we have been complicit in allowing it to happen?