| |

Muslim Protests of the Pope’s Remarks

I have not been very excited about the vatican over the last few years, and I was not overjoyed when the current pope was elected, but in general since I’m not a catholic, it’s not something I get very excited about.

But the current round of protests about the Pope’s quotation of a medieval text on Islam in a speech to college professors just emphasizes again that there is an element in modern Islam that simply cannot tolerate freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Now the words of a major Christian leader are different from the publication of one person’s cartoons, and the history of the crusades adds a negative element to the context, but nonetheless this kind of universal protest and anger in Islam is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

I know that Christians also protest negative things said about them, and the Muslim world provides plenty of opportunities with a number of grossly irresponsible leaders who have serious mouth control problem. Still, I don’t think they should be forced to shut up. That’s freedom of expression. I’m not talking about the legal right of free speech, but of the concept of freedom of expression.

But many Muslims are reserving to themselves the right to insult practically everyone else, while protesting any effort to respond. Let me be clear. There are moderate Muslims with whom I have no problem. In fact, I have no problem with any Muslim who is not planning to try to use force to impose their views on me or on my country. They can use as much peaceful persuasion as they wish. At the same time, I condemn every person who feels that they should be able to shut up their opponents by threats of violence. I would suggest that western leaders, religious or otherwise, refuse to apologize or respond in any way while angry crowds run around the streets protesting words and images.

The behavior in these protests is stupid, and it should be condemned as such. The behavior of those who threaten death to westerners is evil, and it should be condemned as such. If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.

Having said that, if westerners or Christians call for violence against civilian populations in the Muslim world, or any unjustified violence against anyone, they should also be condemned. At the same time, their right to express their view should be protected. The pope may have made less than the best choice of words, but thus far, I don’t even see that much of a problem in his speech.

Freedom is threatened right now on every side, in our own government here in the United States through authorization of torture and indefinite incarceration, in Europe through the imposition of politically correct speech, and in the Muslim world by the advance of fundamentalist Islam. The only remedy is for those who love freedom to defend it by word and deed at all times.

(OK, I’ll get off the soapbox!)

Note: Actually let me note that as long as the protests are non-violent, the protesters also should be allowed their expression. I would certainly consider it hypocritical, however.

Similar Posts

4 Comments

  1. I have no problem with any Muslim who is not planning to try to use force to impose their views on me or on my country.

    So it’s OK for them to use force to impose their views on other people and other countries as long as it doesn’t affect me directly? Did you really mean to imply that?

    If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.

    OK, you do condemn Muslims who oppress women and impose cruel punishments. But do you really think it is OK for them to “burn down pieces of their own countries“, often including churches among other ways in which they persecute Christians, and that is only their own problem and not for us to condemn? When innocent bystanders suffer, and even more when they are our Christian brothers and sisters, isn’t that our concern as well?

    But most of this was a great post, thank you!

  2. Peter,

    On both points you make an excellent catch against my working. It’s my intent to state that, while I may object to how another religion behaves or acts, or to how people in another country act, I do not get to apply force to them except under particular circumstances. Effective force in defense of someone else is acceptable, I believe, though I look for other means first.

    I’m trying, in a short presentation, to suggest that I can criticize, but do not have the right to control. I think I missed some of the details in the way I presented my points, and your criticisms are quite valid.

  3. Thanks for the reply, Henry. I wasn’t intending to justify use of military force in other countries to defend Christian brothers and sisters from persecution, just that we have a right and a duty to protest on their behalf as well as on our own.

  4. Peter, That makes another interesting point for me. I find it extremely hard to get all the nuances into a post that I’d like and even harder in a comment. Some people (my wife comes to mind) can get more or less precisely what they mean into two or three paragraphs. I struggle with it. It’s an interesting difference in people.

Comments are closed.