-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
A press statement issued in the name of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, condemns the attacks on the mission in Benghazi. Also include in the statement is:
The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
What is deplorable is that nowhere in the statement is a commitment to free speech that goes back to the very beginning of our nation.
Our embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The Constitution is clear, the First Amendment guarantees the right to religious “free exercise.” There is no right protecting religious feelings from getting hurt. There is no right protecting religious beliefs from denigration.
The freedom of speech in this case involves a movie that ridiculed the prophet Mohammed. While it would be reasonable to condemn the movie based on its fallacious arguments, criticizing the movie because it “hurt the feelings” of Muslims is pandering. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Romney to criticize the State Department for pandering to religious sensibilities.
Others have called the movie an “abuse” of the freedom of speech. The movie is an exercise of the freedom of speech and would only rise to an “abuse” if the rights of others have been violated. Since there is no right protecting your feelings from getting hurt, free speech, that only hurts feelings, is protected.
Debate in the marketplace of ideas leads inevitably to the denigration of ideas. If this denigration is valid, it should not be condemned but exalted. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in his dissent in Abrams v. United States:
… the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.
Those who oppose free speech do so because they fear their own beliefs are incoherent. After a millennia of arguments from the greatest minds, religion is no more coherent today than when it was invented.
H/T: Eugene Volokh, William Saletan.
Is Mohammed’s feelings hurt?
Unappeasable in the Urban Dictionary would mean no pizza delivery in your area. Where I grew up in Ct. pizza is called apizza
Nick,
Actions speak louder than words. Excuse the cliché.
Our actions in support of the Arab Spring against Mubarak stink. Our actions to enhance a rapid and honest transition to rule by the Egyptian people still stink.
Obama does not decide shit in their eyes. And his govt actions stink in their noses.. And would in yours too, if you were there to know and smell them.
At best speechs to a public are seldom more than crap, and a clap on the back of whomever we are supporting for the moment.
At best Hillary was saying to these country leaders, rein in if you can. And warning for drone attacks to come.
Nick,
I like your neologism (nod to GeneH).
I would say that GeneH is unappeaseable at times. Smile.
Where do I click on the like button? You have submitted it, haven’t you?
Unplacable=can not be placated (?)
Unappeaseable=can not be appeased.
ID, How is that plan of speaking to moderates working so far? Obama made what pundits claimed was a cathartic speech in Cairo in 2009. Maybe it was lost in translation.
Nal,
“Since HRC must follow the policies of the Obama Administration, what may appear to be Hillary bashing is actually Obama policy bashing.”
True indeed.
But I still feel it is correct to say that large factions, on sexual or geographical/economic basis prefer to always have a formerly inferior classed person (ie women or blacks) still available to denigrate, etc. My point is valid even though it does not include yours in the same set.
Implacable is the perfect word, thanks. I was just hoping to get a new entry in the Urban Dictionary
Malisha, Good analogy. OJ just “Loved Nicole too much.”
implacable \(ˌ)im-ˈpla-kə-bəl, -ˈplā-\, adj.,
: not placable : not capable of being appeased, significantly changed, or mitigated (an implacable enemy)
No need for neologisms, nick.
Nick,
“Why the hell are we mumbling about some stupid movie and talking to people who are hateful and crazy like they’re kind and rational?”
Because there are 30 million only in Egypt who are not crazy, and we want to keep them voting for liberal candidates, not Salafists. OK?
Why sre we talking about the movie? Because for my part, I feel the “producer” set us up. He screamed “EFF Mohammed” outside the mosques on Friday, and the nearest idiots ran to the embassy and into the waiting arms of DC filmers and the eyes of media.
Simple.
Mike we are selling out our own country and Constitution trying to appease the unappeasable[new word?]. We can debate which is worse, selling out our own country or another dermocracy. We may be doing both vis a vis Israel.
“Since HRC must follow the policies of the Obama Administration, what may appear to be Hillary bashing is actually Obama policy bashing.”
Nal,
Just what it seemed like to me, although in this case my own feeling would be to re-frame it as: gratuitous Obama policy bashing. 🙂
When a religion and zealouts of some religion, impune other peoples’ rights and very existence, then the religion has taken itself out of the zone of dumb but protected by the rest of us. All religions are by definition dumb, stupid, assinine. How can 1.3Billion chinese be wrong and the rest of the world right or say all the Christians are right and the other religions are wrong. Anyone who believes in a God is a dork. When, as Marx characterized it, was just an “opiate of the people” then it was doing less harm. Now religion is the meth of the people and is more toxic. If there was a God he or she would come down and burn all the Catolic pedophiles at the stake, hang all the Muslim terrorists on a cross, drown all the religious warriors of the world in the Nile. But it aint gonna happen. Cause there aint no God, there is no heaven, no hell, no limbo and there is no such thing as blasphemy. Quit preaching crap and start teaching science and math.
“You seem to assume that I think criticism of ideas is wrong or unproductive. Critical thinking by its very nature is an exercise in criticism and like David I think the challenge (or denigration if you will) of ideas is crucial to their evaluation on the merits.”
My reason to be here. However many times I am proven wrong, I am still back up to use what critical sense I have on the next issue.
MikeS,
“To criticize the statement because of what is left out of it, is a stretch and in this tumultuous situation the idea is to defuse these demonstrations
as much as is possible.”
=================================
Let us assume you are correct in your opinion.
Let us also consider the possibility, that by not playing the “freedom of speech” card that she infuses the domestic eagerness for war, infuses the eagerness for jihad, and all part happily until a war commences, which was the administration’s goal in the first place.
Unlikely. How about Vietnam and 9/11?
Those jabs were not meant for you MikeS. You know all this.
Natalie, the film did not MAKE anybody DO anything.
That’s like an abuser saying, “Look what you MADE ME DO.”
Somebody made the film (it was really dumb!). Somebody else DID some things, some of which were really bad. Nobody MADE THEM DO IT.
Blouise:
Since HRC must follow the policies of the Obama Administration, what may appear to be Hillary bashing is actually Obama policy bashing.
You forgot to mention incomplete too, Mike. Incomplete comparisons are a form of logical fallacy just as a false equivalence is a logical fallacy. It’s a two-fer.
“Accordingly, when our dogs are getting kicked while serving us abroad it is the duty of the Executive branch to protect our dogs as quickly and efficiently as possible.”
Bob,
While the analogy might not be the one I’d choose, it does effectively make the point. This was a speech meant to convey a diplomatic message, not to restate the American position on free speech. I think in this case apples are being mixed with oranges (not the best of analogies either and a cliche to boot) to make a point about a discrete issue. I’m certainly not in favor of an international treaty limiting religious discussion, or any other discussion for that matter. To use Hillary’s diplomatic statement conjoined with ongoing treaty negotiations seems conflating two different things. As for the ongoing treaty discussions I personally wonder if they are ever going to result in anything other than discussions. It’s like referring an issue nobody wants to go out on a political limb for, to a bi-partisan committee to explore and bury.
“Hillary bashing is still a sport that many find attractive and engage in with great enthusiasm.”
Blouise…..
I wondered about the choice between Hillary and Barack. b
Now I realize that the right choice was made by the DNC et al in the primaries.. The nation was half men, all opposed to a woman President.
Whereas, only a much smaller fraction are opposed to a nominally black president.
I wish Michele had proclaimed soul food as the only right food for children. Just to irritate the haters.
No chance.
Bob,
Haven’t you ever seen a rhetorical apology? 😉