more and more, i think the whole concept of freedom of speech (and actions) has been abused to the point where it is now a joke. i don't buy freedom of speech when it can result in people getting killed, countries go to war, etc. freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. and if one cannot be responsible about his speech, then he has no right to enjoy freedom of speech. constitution or not.
cases in point - man burning the qur'an, man drawing cartoons depicting prophet muhammed (also spelt muhammad, mohammad, etc).
cases in point - man burning the qur'an, man drawing cartoons depicting prophet muhammed (also spelt muhammad, mohammad, etc).
5 comments:
That's really a difficult issue.
Sometimes they should be more diplomatic but at the same time, if everyone were to keep quiet because it is going to be uncomfortable....many things will never change. You know what i am driving at.
And in the case of Kurt Westergaard's mohammad cartoon, it just shows how true it is with the (wrong interpretations of a small group of) radical islamists. There was violence after that.
Similar cartoons has been made of other religion (their prophets), why do we not see attacks of similar violence?
The responsibility u mention also involves pointing out flaws to effect a change. That people were killed eventually was not the direct responsibility of the cartoonist but the beholder of the cartoon.
i think there are many dimensions to the whole concept of freedom. and the responsibility that comes with it demands that before one speaks, one needs to understand the rationale of why things are like that and engage constructively rather than do stupid things like burning or drawing cartoons.
burning, to me, is stupid and reeks of ignorance and intolerance. as for drawing of cartoons, i think there must be an element of respect.
where there is disagreement, one needs to engage. i am a strong advocate of evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change. and people involved in such activism are usually very impatient (and often ignorant). and often impatience is a result of selfish reasons. (eg i want things to change so that i can enjoy the change myself). and impatience lead to anger and once anger comes into play, there is no longer any logic and sanity. there is never a revolutionary change that did not result in lives being lost and i think it is really regretable.
i fully agree abt the stupid religious zealot who wants to burn the koran in florida. He just drawing attnetion to himself & nothing more. It's pouring oil on fire.
But u are mixing two different issues/persons.
Kurt Westergaard is an intellect who has a point to make - that some people are misinterpreting their prophet's message & using violence to solve problems. And he is right. (and i don't think he was disrespectful, it was not his intention to depict mohammad; it could as well have been a Taliban but the people interpreted the cartoon their way & set the domino tumbling.... very unfortunately)
I'm going to "juggle in" some other aspects of this religious group. Which religion do u know STILL (i say still, because, christianity or some other religions were no better in the past) stones a woman who is assumed to be adulterous (but the men are spared)? The women are buried in the soil with their heads expose & a "mob" is allowed to throw stones till she dies. Which century are we living in. Which other religion has such discrimination against women and homosexuals?
I guess Stonewall would not have taken place if the gays continued to be allowed to be physically battered. Unfortunate that violence had to take place - but it DID effected a change.
don't get me wrong. i am not saying he cannot make his point. it is perfectly legitimate for "people with points to make" to make it. and i totally agree with his intention to want to bring out the message that some people are misusing the teachings of islam to do bad things. but i disagree with the way it is made.
as an intellect, i am sure he knew very well that islam is a religion that forbids drawing animate objects like people, birds and animals. yes, he might have some strong views about extremists, terrorism, linking terrorism to islam, etc but that does not mean he could go about doing things that is deemed to be against the teachings of the religion. i am not a muslim but i think i can understand the anger felt by many when they saw the drawing.
oh, from what i managed to gather from the net (unless i read wrongly), the cartoon he drew was indeed depicting mohammed.
and oh, about those points that you had also juggled in, my only comment is this - the teachings of islam is pure. however, there are still people who choose interpret and practise it in a way that is deemed unacceptable by others. and if we do not agree, we should target the people practising it and not the religion.
for example, you mention about stoning. yes i do not agree about it. but i certainly cannot generalize to say it is something that is practised universally amongst all muslims.
Post a Comment