Posted on 01/13/2015 2:38:11 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The upcoming front cover for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo will picture the prophet Muhammad holding a sign that says "Je suis Charlie."
While many in a (let's say hypothetical) march would personally like one expression of free speech, but not necessarily the other, should there be marches supporting free speech for both Charlie Hebdo - and let's say works like Serrano did ("The Piss Christ") and not getting mad at either of the depictions?
In other words, temporarily suspending all dislike for either in the name of free speech in this march, as some in the media do support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what they will, but don't believe that it follows the rule of while you can, should you?
One thing is that Charlie Hebdo takes no prisoners. They are an equal opportunity offender...
My comment was not directed at you personally, I could have stated things better, but as a general comment to our society that has no qualms in accepting derision of peaceful religions and their icons but grovels in fear of applying the standards to the religion and icons muslims.
I know they strive to be intentionally offensive. If they want to do this, they can knock themselves out.
All I am asking is if non-murdering Muslims and non-murdering Christians, etc, could have a march where their dislike for some things would be temporarily suspended in the name of free speech.
Piss Christ is offensive! It has absolutely NO artistic nor moral values, and adds NOTHING to any kind of discussion about Christ, the Church, or the participants of Christianity. Piss Christ, as a conversation piece, simply says, I can’t draw, but I can pee in a jar and drop in a crucifix.
As such, it doesn’t bother me. My complaint about Piss Christ is that Federal Funds (OUR TAX DOLLARS) paid for it! THAT was really offensive and should be STOPPED!
On the other hand, Charlie Hebdo, as you stated, is an equal opportunity offending publication and it is meant to get the mind thinking and people talking. It is a satirical magazine, designed to challenge peoples thoughts and comfort zones.
I don’t think about, nor care about Piss Christ, because it is a useless, Liberal talking point. If you are upset because someone made it, then you are a hypocrite in demanding they not make it. Again, my only complaint is using taxpayer funds to pay the “artist” to make it!
So, I am already there. Sorry, but I don’t care if you burn your Bible or dip your Rosary in crap - as long as it is your money that paid for it! None of those actions actually effect me.
The point is, can non-murdering Muslims ever join non-murdering Christians (and almost all are) in a march, and temporarily suspend their offense at depictions they don't like in the name of free speech rights?
I personally don’t support public funds being used for any works like the aforementioned.
I agree, and have shown this on this thread.
And the NEA shouldn’t use tax dollars at all.
And finally, I never said that our side said that the artist of Piss Christ did not have the right to do it or that he should be punished for it.
But can you, others and the non-murdering Muslims temporarily suspend your dislike for religious depictions that you don’t like and just march in the name of free speech?
Why not have a society where non-murdering people of all religious persuasions temporarily suspend their dislike for their chosen faith being lampooned and just march in favor of free speech rights?
Because the New York Times is puts on a show of being a big strong he-man defender of free speech when there is absolutely zero chance that anything bad will happen to them as a result.
With this type of religious icon, they're all of a sudden "sensitive to cultural norms."
G-d will not be mocked. Let’s see how they respond later ...
You are free to believe what you will, but non-murdering Muslims are already calling out these lunatics who murdered people in France and thus would join that hypothetical march.
Secondly, there are Muslims who are quite Anglo-Saxon in appearance and would pass as a non-believer from any religion, or would pass as a Christian in that hypothetical march.
So what would be keeping non-murdering Muslims and Christians temporarily suspending their dislike for things that lampoon their own faith and then with that temporary suspension in place just march for free speech rights?
Right, the whole reason that this is an issue is because there is one group, and one group alone, who cannot tolerate the ideas of tolerance and freedom. That doesn’t mean the rest of us need to stop getting offended or angry at something designed to be offensive. We aren’t the problem, because we do not overstep boundaries and start killing people when we get offended.
Only the Muslims do that, and that is the problem, nothing else.
That is a good question... And one that needs answering.
Bump!
Timothy McVeigh...Christian? Seriously? I’ve never seen a conservative make that claim.
McVeigh was an agnostic who said that science was his religion.
OK,sounds good, but I am still concerned about aa those murdering people a particular religious persuasion and I don’t think they give a camels a$$ how many people march for free speech rights, nor do I think they will ever evolve.
I just get this idea that the mainstream media has this perception that the first amendment was written for them and them alone. I think they hate any and all amateur media and are generally silent on the free speech rights of the average citizen. As far as I understand, and I could be wrong, but the word “press” is never used in any of the founding documents. These documents simply stress the right for free speech for everyone, not just elite journalists.
You do have a point. Some sources state he was Christian, and others say he wasn’t.
In the end some would just chalk it off and say that McVeigh wasn’t going by what the scriptures teach (and he didn’t did not go by them as we can all see) and thus he wouldn’t be a True Christian.
But saying he was No True Christian would be using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
“That isn’t the point of this thread, as you are using a diversion.”
I am still unable to see any point in this thread. I truly have no idea what you are talking about. It’s fine with me if Christians want to be upset about “PIss Christ”. They have every right to be. Frankly it would be fine with me if Muslims wanted to be upset about depictions of Mohammed as long as they didn’t go around killing people and blowing things up over it.
The problem here IS NOT that religious people can be easily offended. I had the misfortune this weekend of hearing a Unitarian minister proclaim that the events in Paris were due to “Religion”. Religion is not the problem. Murderous savagery is.
No, there will never be a march where Christians and Muslims celebrate the desecration of their faiths. So what?
We must be opposed to all terrorism, and that we can all agree upon.
But how about non-murderers of all stripes and faiths who, while getting personally offended at depictions of their own faith being lampooned, having marches where they temporarily suspend this inward offense and just march in support of free speech rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.