[lit-ideas] Re: Link to "Mohammed" cartoons
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:33:08 -0800
I think your "betrayal" emphasis, requiring the reading of Bush's mind, off
base. He may be mistaken, but I don't believe he is betraying the
fundamental principle of free speech. We have wrestled with this issue here
on Lit-Ideas and I'm sure they have wrestled with it in the White House.
Several people on Lit-Ideas have come to the same conclusion as Bush's. Are
they betraying the fundamental principle of free speech?
I agree with the Danish position because I think that the cartoons are in
the main stream of Western humor. The Islamist/Muslim demands seem
unreasonable to me and I am inclined to stand up to them. However, I have
seen other arguments and can understand them. People who don't want their
own religion maligned feel sympathy for the Muslims. However, the Christian
religion has been made fun of in cartoons and Christians have not responded
like Muslims; so we aren't quite talking about the same thing.
We must ask whether it is ever justified to burn embassies and kill people
when we are offended. If the answer is no then we should not be
sympathizing with the Muslims on this. It is almost as though they are
having a collective tantrum. One wants to give them a "time out" and send
them to their room.
Lawrence.
By coincidence, Geary has made himself a parallel. He was offensive in the
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of P.H.Lundbech
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:41 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Link to "Mohammed" cartoons
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 23:22:12 -0800, "Lawrence Helm"
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The official position from the White House is that the U.S. condemns
>the cartoons but condemns the violence as well.
At first they (including one former president) condemned the
cartoons trying to use what they then thought was a small
relatively unimportant matter to gain a little much needed
goodwill from the arabs.
Then it blew up in their face when embassies were set on fire and
the US government suddenly found they were supporting the
terroist regime in Syria. Then suddenly free speech seemed
important once again...
It has nothing to do with the U.S. as "a voice of moderation".
They were willing to betray a fundamental principle of our way of
life for the benefit of some short-term diplomatic gains.
P. H. Lundbech
Odense, DK
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
