----------------------------------
Where is the middle ground?
----------------------------------
I am shocked at the
recent debate about the publishing of "offensive" cartoons in Denmark and Sweden, apparently depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
Many of the responses I heard on ABC Melbourne radio tonight were frustrating to listen to. No one seemed to be taking a moderate position, considering both sides of the issue.
The conclusion I have come to is:
- Violence is never acceptable. No one can blame the cartoons for "inciting" violence. People should always accept personal responsibility. Violence is never the answer.
- Free speech is one of the strongest foundations of any modern society. It should be staunchly defended.
- No one should go out of their way to offend followers of a particular religion. If the intention is to offend, it is wrong.
- No one should be forced to stay silent when they are offering a valid critique of a certain religion. (whether that be serious prose, or witty cartoons, etc.)
- Stereotyping "all followers" of a particular religion is not a valid critique. Rather, an honest discussion about the ideas behind a certain faith is the way to go.
- Portraying Muhammad as a terrorist is not a serious critique of Islam. Rather, it seems like an extremely unfair attempt to suggest all Muslims are terrorists.
- The right to free speech entails a responsibility: to be sensitive to the effect of your words on other people.
I hope this situation will calm down over the next few days. Religious wars just seem so silly and unnecessary to agnostics like me.
