Our erstwhile ally in Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is responding to the brutal murder of U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff in Benghazi on Wednesday. Stevens was reportedly suffocated to death by the attacking mob which attacked the consulate because of a small film shown in the United States that was deemed as insulting to the Muhammad. Karzai then offered his own take on the murders by denouncing the “inhuman and abusive act” of the . . . filmmakers.
President Obama heralded Stevens as someone who “[t]hroughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi . . . and supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.”
Afghan President Hamid Karzai then stepped forward to denounce the “inhuman and abusive act” of the filmmakers and criticized them for causing “enmity and confrontation between the religions and cultures of the world.” I have not seen this film and have little interest in doing so. However, those filmmakers have a right to portray Muhammad in any fashion that they wish. It is the basis for free speech. The continued pattern of Muslim extremists killing people as a protest to intolerance is facially absurd and little more than a rationalization for violence. For Karzai to pick up on that theme demonstrates his fundamental disagreement with key free speech and free exercise values. It also shows the dangers of the Obama Administration’s effort to create an international blasphemy standard with its Muslim allies.
The Obama Administration has been working to develop an international standard for blasphemy prosecutions. The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion. The Administration has drawn a dangerous line with Muslim countries in first supporting the concept of an international blasphemy standard. As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world. After first supporting an international blasphemy standard, the Administration sought to get Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. This case also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Past cases show that even the suggestion of blasphemy is enough to trigger violent riots in some Muslim nations. Because any joke or image of the Prophet can trigger violence, the standard is immediately satisfied in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, which can then claim some legal legitimacy under the standard created with the United States.
Secretary of State Clinton continues to push for the implementation of the new international effort to criminalize certain forms of anti-religious speech as our Muslim allies expand their definition of blasphemy.
Source: Guardian
The death of our ambassador and these other Americans was simply murder. It was not caused by a film or the exercise of free speech. It was caused by the continued failure of leaders like Karzai to stand up to extremists who believe that violence is warranted whenever people insult your faith or a religious figure. There is a global struggle today over free speech, not just in the Middle East but in the West. The solution is not to enable or legitimate efforts by people like Karzai to prosecute those who “cause” violence by engaging in unpopular or blasphemous speech.
Source: National Journal
As an atheist, I find it both frightening and hysterically funny that “Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West.”
Good grief, we’re the OPPOSITE of dangerous. We have no skin in this game. We have no superstition-based beliefs; we don’t offend easily, and we’d never commit an act of violence because one of our hoodoo-voodoo beliefs was mocked or challenged. Atheists threatening, indeed.
Atheists not behaving like Muslims are the Christians seeking peace as far as it is possible with all men.
Bad news Mespo!
“Karzai Denounces Filmmakers for the Murder of Americans in Libya”
Whatever Karzai says eh?
I was @ the American Embassy in Bogota in 1987. The narco-terrorists had the entire country of Colombia in a state of seige. The terrorists had taken over the Supreme Court, destroyed records and killed judges. I can tell you that American Embassy was a fortress and the narco-terrorists never attacked it. This Libyan raid, apparently planned, should not have worked if we were prepared.
Nope, no coincidence at all:
Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/for-veteran-envoy-return-to-libya-was-full-of-hope.html?hp
Such a loss.
Jonathan Hughes:
“Muslims are desecrating, defecating, mutilating, annihilating, pulverizing, pounding, mashing chopping , blasting, incinerating, pissing,and shiting all over morality with a proud justified smile trying to call their acts moral. Try as I might with all of my might I still fall short of words to describe the heinous stretch of the Muslim religion. Why don’t the Muslims repent?
********************
Who would they repent to? They don’t believe in your deity and fervently believe (as do you) that their actions are religiously sanctioned (as do you). They also have engaged in acts no more heinous than those your religion has committed in advancing its faith over its long sad history.
See any pattern here, JH?
I find the title of the film, “Innocence of Muslims,” ironic. Seems to me the ghastly actions in Libya prove the film’s premise that the radical islamists’ religiosity is more than enough tinder for an irrational explosion of hatred and violence. I also find it telling that the supposed spontaneous violence came on the anniversary of 9-11. No coincidence to the adherents of the “Religion of Peace,” I’m sure.
Muslims are desecrating, defecating, mutilating, annihilating, pulverizing, pounding, mashing chopping , blasting, incinerating, pissing,and shiting all over morality with a proud justified smile trying to call their acts moral. Try as I might with all of my might I still fall short of words to describe the heinous stretch of the Muslim religion. Why don’t the Muslims repent? Murder is not in any way form or shape possibly conceived in the mind in any way in reality a moral thing to do. Why then do it?
The plot thickens:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?_r=1&emc=na
Muslims desecrate, defecate, mutilate, annihilate shiting all ovewr morality ,and then try to call their acts moral? Try as I might with all of my might I still fall short of words to describe the heinous stretch of the Muslim religion. Why don’t the Muslims repent? Murder is not in any way form or shape possibly conceived in the mind in any way in reality a moral thing to do. Why then do it?
SwM,
😉
JCTheBigTree,
“By your token, we should continue to insult them…until what/when?”
That’s your spin and never my token so the answer is also yours to provide which will continue to be completely divorced from my opinion.
JCT, I consider artistic freedom as extremely important. Do we set up a panel to review all content in movies, tv, newspapers, internet, to censor anything that will set off crazy people. We can respectfully disagree on this incident, but I hope we can agree that the aforementioned censor panel is antithetical to everything WE believe. Do we flush down the toilet our constitution to try and appease crazy people? NO.
oops! realize
Blouise, I realized preacher Terry Jones and Westboro Baptists have their rights but…….Who is Dung Ho? lol.
Nick/Blouise… Neither do you needlessly incite them, putting the lives of your fellow citizens, who are doing real work trying to change the ways of those people, in danger.
By your token, we should continue to insult them…until what/when?
If we’re going to continue to enable those that incite them, we should be indifferent as to what happens to people such as J. Christopher Stevens and other Americans overseas.
Rights bring Responsibilities.
Another analogy: Way back in college my Fraternity did not tend to get along with another house that was 100 yards away on the other side of a parking lot. Late one night one of our guys got jumped at a party because of couple of their guys were pissed that a couple other guys from our house were ‘talking sh!t’ about their house earlier in the night. Who’s right, who’s wrong?
SwM,
I don’t know about that … it works with Dung Ho 😉
Seriously … you’re right but so is nick … dealing with the crazies on both sides is fraught with peril.
Blouise, but you don’t have to get in their face, either.
nick spinelli
1, September 12, 2012 at 12:37 pm
JCT, You don’t walk on eggshells for crazy, hate filled, people. It simply doesn’t work.
——————————————————–
Sad, but, never-the-less, true.