The Anglican Journal published a reasonably good article on the Charlie Hebdo Islamic terrorist murders. Predictably, it rankled with some reverends: here is Rev. Bob Bettson telling us that the nub of the issue is not free speech at all: it is really all about not upsetting people – “Muslim brothers and sisters”, in particular:
I would echo the previous comment and say that this situation is complicated. Free speech carries responsibility with it. I was part of a Muslim Christian dialogue in Calgary representing the Anglican Church when the Danish cartoon came out. We as a group of Muslim and Christian leaders expressed our concern with the degrading and sophomoric cartoons, and expressed the hope they would not be reprinted in Canada. We acted in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters. The Charlie Hebdo massacre is deplorable. But lets not make this about free speech, because the kind of free speech exercised by Charlie Hebdo is sometimes like pouring gas on a fire. We condemn the massacre as religious leaders. But we also don’t make the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists into heroes–which they were not in any sense.
You will note that Bettson calls Charlie Hebdo’s humour “sophomoric”; I am flattered that when Michael Bird sued me, Bettson used the same epithet about Anglican Samizdat: an endless stream of ridicule and sophmoric [sic] humour.
But to the point: Bettson reckons that “Free speech carries responsibility with it”. It does: it carries the responsibility to offend. If it never offends, it isn’t free. Liberals, whether political or religious, have a totalitarian temperament that has little use for freedom of any kind: it could lead to people disagreeing with them, disrupting the harmony of their inbred little utopias.
For what it is worth, the more I read and hear from staffers the magazine is more like a self righteous rant . They have a ‘right to say it’ and all of that but don’t expect me to like or condone comments. I happen to like responsible satire just to be clear. Times are such that a little sensitivity goes a long way. The murderers or terrorists did not just suddenly ‘wake up’ and decide to carry out these heinous acts. The cartoon’s are creative but I hardly think its message qualifies as journalism.
I agree. The Pope came out with a similar message today…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pope-francis-climate-change-is-mainly-our-fault-and-man-has-gone-too-far/article22457775/
What sticks out for me is that this fellow, an ordained Christian cleric, called Muslims, “our brothers and sisters”. Perhaps he missed reading:
“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.”(Romans 8:14)
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”v16
“For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 NKJV).
We love all people of God’s creation, and we pray those living in darkness would accept Christ and become our brothers and sisters, but it is fundamental to understanding our salvation that it is our fellow saints in Christ who our brothers and sisters.
Fundamental. Yes. Exclusive. You betcha.
I don’t like Charlie Hebdo’s humour and never have, and that goes back to before they were called that and still published under the Hara Kiri name. There is, undoubtedly, a fine line between free speech and just acting like a boor.
But you can’t possibly use the argument that you can’t draw something because someone might not have the self-restraint necessary to refrain from killing you over it.
This argument basically reduces Muslims to animals who only act reflexively. It’s saying “You don’t prod a dog and act surprised when it bites you.”
Muslims are not dogs. They are human beings. Some of them need to learn that sometimes people are awful, disrespectful, vulgar boors — yet don’t deserve death for it.
It seems to me we don’t realize the fear that Muslims live under . There is no assurance of salvation. Their god is capricious. They do not know how much good they have to do to obtain salvation. It is a strongly works oriented religion . But if they die for the cause or kill those who blaspheme their prophet ,they get an express ticket to paradise and do not have to have their deeds weighed out and coming out short. Strong motivator.
There’s always a ‘but’, isn’t there. “I believe in free speech, the sanctity of life, free elections, your choice here, BUT . . . ” And then comes the clause that destroys whatever
is believed in. Either we have free speech, and that includes the possibility of giving offence, or we don’t. Far too many espouse that BUT, the one that kills.
Here in Canada the Supreme Court has ruled that there are reasonable limitations to our Constitutional Rights. For example Free Speech and Expression does not give anyone the Right to slander or to promote hatred. I have to wonder if the cartoons of Hebdo crossed this line?
Admittedly I know very little about Hebdo and so this is only speculation on my part. But I am getting the impression that Hebdo really is not a journalistic newspaper (although many seem to be trying to portray it as that). Instead it seems to me that it is a gathering of people who completely lack respect for anything and anyone. They seem to enjoy poking it to and making fun of everything, all the while expecting (perhaps even demanding) to be respected as “journalists” and afforded all the protection that comes with being “journalists”. If this impression is accurate than Hebdo is more of a cancer upon society for all that it would be doing is indiscriminate degrading (and even destroying) and never being even the least bit constructive. But after all, it is far easier (and perhaps a lot more fun) to be the bully and be destructive rather than be positive and be constructive.