[extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons

[The Avantguardian]

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> For the sake of argument, let us make a thought
> space
> map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two
> questions:
> 
> A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the
> cartoons?
> B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?
> 
> 
> Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker
> position, Bush,
> Blair, some other world leaders are going this
> route.
> 
> Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters
> point of
> view.
> 
> Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here,
> along
> with many westerners who are not 1s.
> 
> Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the
> proponents
> of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to
> conflict
> which could tear apart societies and possibly lead
> to world
> war 4.

I am very much in position 3. It boils down to one
simple thing. Free speech is the embodiment of free
thought. We live in a world where nothing is so sacred
as to be above criticism. Not the secular powers of
the earth nor the various purported dieties. In a
world where the American flag can be burnt and Jesus
made the butt of comedic jokes, there is no room for
any single religion to set itself up as being
inviolable.

Whereas any religious adherent has the right to act as
piously as he or she chooses to in order to earn
whatever salvation/enlightenment is offered, the
rights of those people end at the tip of their nose.
Whereas I would allow religions to police their own in
regards proper behavior, no coercion upon
non-believers to follow any dictates of the believers
can be tolerated without grave danger to Freedom
everywhere.

No person, no tribe, no organization, and no religion
is "special" or excempt from respecting the rights of
others. Remember that rights came about to protect the
weak from the strong. Therefore it is foolish for the
weak to attack the rights of the strong. To do so
raises the specter that the strong will simply
dispense with rights altogether and then the law of
jungle comes back into play.


>From a completely different POV, that of comparative
theology, the whole concept of salvation hinges on
free will. Most such religions require volutary
acceptance of the "truth" in order to be saved. This
is one of the ways in which Islam differs from its
peers in that certain injunctions are imposed not only
on believers but on non-believers as well.

This is not only wrong from a humanist perspective but
from a theological standpoint it is utterly pointless.
Is it assumed that an all-knowing diety would somehow
be fooled into believing that a forced obeissance is
sincere and worthy of reward? Or is it instead the
case that Allah is sadistic and enjoys the sight of
his creations coerced into submission? From these
reflections, it seems quite clear that this is a show
of force by Islam, instigated by its official
hierarchy, against a secular west.

I think that appeasement is a poor choice of
responses. If the non-Muslims of the world back down
to the will of Islam to enforce one small passage of
the Koran upon us, why would they not then be
encouraged to believe that they may someday be able to
force the whole of the Koran upon us?

I am for religious freedom, but all religions must
understand that their freedoms stop where human rights begin.

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com