This article by Reason magazine puts the matter into perspective. It is deplorable that "political correctness" (from both sides of the political spectrum) so easily leads to a discussion being more self-referential than it should have. I cannot see why anyone can quote the Bible and indicate that many passages are repugnant or self-contradictory or hate-inciting or whatever, the same with the Qur'an, the Torah or other holy texts of various religions. The Reason article is correct in pointing out that all the rage today is to not offend Muslims. The Mohammed cartoon stories, and the way in which the United States reacted, almost admonishing the artist who drew them, instead of taking a stance consistent with the First Amendment to their own Constitution, is a (sad) case in point. Respect, courtesy, they are indeed necessary for a society to function and to set rules of behavior between its members; but such rules can only rise to be social norms or conventions and not lead to their violation being a punishable offense. If a mere claim by persons or groups that some form of behavior or other offends them could lead to a criminalization of other people's behavior (and, mostly, of their speech or expression), then the whole premise behind freedom of expression would become moot. And, of course, Muslims (this is in reference to a Sam Harris article linked to in a comment to the previous post) can claim no special right of non-offense relative to all others.
Healing Balkan Wounds with Actual Human Rights
-
David L. Phillip's opinion piece in the New York Times is, sadly, an
exercise in unfounded generalization. His assertion that Albanians are in
favor of hu...
11 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment