I care more about how the media frames debates like this than I care about religion itself.
And to my complete disgust, the New York Times today (May 6), printed an editorial calling the Texas cartoon exhibit "not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred."
This was authored by "the editorial board," not a specific author. That means it's the official position of the newspaper. This, in my opinion, is such a profoundly dangerous road to go down it's almost unthinkable.
What they do here is attempt to guess people's motivations for creating art or staging exhibits. If they deem your motivation "bad," it's hate speech. But who are they to say what constitutes bigotry? How do they know anyone's real motivations?
What these idiots don't realize is that they're signing their own death warrant. This same school of thought could be used to censor their own writing if the wrong administration gets into office or if societal norms change.
What happens, for instance, if the Muslim and fanatical Christian factions of our society grow to the point where they deem seeing a Jew in a yarmulke is "hateful" to their religion? Should the NYT get behind them, too? What if Hanukkah offends them? Then what?
Don't think two different groups like this won't band together. If feminists and Christians could wage an anti-porn war in the '80s, this could happen.
This really has little to do with Muslims, anyway. The New York Times could just as easily be deeming it hate speech for people to come out against feminists, the "trans community," or any flavor-of-the-month group. Expression did not = hate speech 30 years ago. Now it does. This is not progress.
The cumulative effect of this is that it restricts our language and therefore our thoughts (language begets thought). The less we're allowed to express, the easier we can be victims of tyranny since we'll be too cowed to protest.
Anyway, here is the NYT's latest disgrace:
***
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
By The Editorial Board, May 6, 2015
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex.,
was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”
Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.
Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.
Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.
Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinio...-well&_r=0