The news about U.S. embassies being under attack keeps getting worse. We've now learned that Chris Stevens, our ambassador to Libya, is among the several who have been killed.

The claimed reason for this carnage is that some Americans made an anti-Muslim film. So in our response to Muslims who don't like the existence of this film, our leaders keep saying things that I'm sure are designed to calm the situation down. Here's Hillary Clinton yesterday, for instance:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

In President Obama's statement on Stevens' murder, he used this line:

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

The Bush administration used to issue similar statements when Muslim mobs caused death and violence during their time in power. It's difficult to write these statements but it is a lie that the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. We do not officially deplore any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Our government has no right at all to deplore the criticism of another religion. In this country, the freedom of religion must always include the right to criticize other religious views. Without it, the freedom means nothing.

If your understanding of religious freedom and freedom of speech does not cover the right of people to make anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish or anti-Buddhist films or books, your understanding is wrong.

Comments:


Patrickb63
Joined
Jun '12
Patrickb63

We have a cowardly appeaser as a president.  That is what has happened.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Right on, Mollie.

Devereaux
Joined
Jul '10
Devereaux

Oh Molly, Molly, Molly. That was the old America. Now we are told how to speak (PC), what subjects are taboo, what words are no longer allowed ("disabled" is now "challenged"), how we can worship, where we can or cannot put up a cross, what concepts a religion can hold, and what a preacher can or cannot say from the pulpit. ?You see any "religious freedom" anywhere in there.

A.D.P. Efferson

Mark Steyn puts a fine point on it, "The Taliban, the Muslim Brothers, the Ayatollahs and most other fellows paying attention already understand American impotence, the lack of will and strategic honesty, all too well. "

Whiskey Sam
Joined
Jul '10
Whiskey Sam

They think we're weak because we are weak.  Where's the response?  John Bolton last night drew parallels to Iran pre-revolution.  When they attack our embassy and our response is to apologize, we're inviting more of this.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil

Secretary of State Clinton: "all faiths should be shocked"..."this tragedy"..."we and the people of Libya honor their memory"..."complicated"..."we must be clear-eyed"..."done by a small group; not the government of Libya"..."they carried his body to the hospital"..."we are working closely with the Libyan authorities"..."working to understand the motivations"..."response to inflammatory material"..."but no justification for this"..."difficult that this happened on September 11th"..."may God bless them and the United States...."

Patrick Gibbs
Joined
Apr '11
Patrick Gibbs
This just in: SOS Hillary Clinton will announce a new 
policy for female State Dept. employees serving in 
Islamic countries. They will wear a hijab whenever 
appearing in public.

That's a joke now but probably the news in January if 
Obama is re-elected.


Bemused Canuck
Joined
Jul '12
Bemused Canuck

A strong leader would point out that the US should first be applauded for the multitudes of people who are free to practice their Islamic faith in America, and that the price of such freedom is that isolated individuals might also insult it.  This should be contrasted with the lack of religious freedom in the Islamic nations.

Then it should be pointed out that America should be judged on the fair treatment given  to millions of Muslims, rather than the actions of a few contrary individuals.

A really strong leader would finish by comparing the isolated actions of the filmmaker to the systemic persecution of Christians and Jews in the Islamic nations and eject the Ambassadors of those nations.

skipsul
Joined
Mar '11
skipsul

Canuck - a really strong leader would tell the Egyptians and Libyans a few things which would violate the CoC here, beginning with "Go" and ending with "self", then park a carrier nearby and run "drills".


Joined
Apr '12
Herbert Woodbery

I disagree,  it's totally appropriate for government officials to "preach" religious tolerance in order to de-escalate religious conflicts that have the potential of  spinning out of control.


Joined
Sep '11
Ontheleftcoast

"Senseless violence?" Someone planned it, someone carried it out, and by Obama's reaction, it advanced an end -- several ends, including the diminishing of US prominence in the world, an end that Obama has endorsed.

Evan Pokroy
Joined
Sep '12
Evan Pokroy

I know I shouldn't be surprised by the insane violence the Muslim mob perpetrates when ever they get their collective panties in a twist, but it still shocks me that the civilized world kind of nods its head and says it's okay. Most of Europe is already deep in the throes of capitulation to Islam. Northern Africa is now totally in the thrall of militant Islam. Swaths of Asia are also on their way. Even avowed secular states like Turkey are moving in that direction. This pot is coming to a boil. If the West doesn't wake up, it might be too late.


Joined
Apr '11
KeystoneStater

Mollie,

Doesn't that same freedom give even our State Department or the president for that matter the right to deplore anything? 

Can I still deplore someone's action while standing for one's freedom to criticize or make other choices such as some who deplore the murder of the unborn but defend a woman's right to choose?

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

The President is on right now, speaking about this event. We had the television on in a meeting room, but . . . I had to leave the room. I just couldn't take it. I just couldn't listen to his cold, clipped cadence talking about religious tolerance.

He took the "law enforcement" approach, speaking of how we will work with the Libyan government to bring the criminals to justice blah blah blah. Given that we had two attacks yesterday on two different embassies in two different countries, I don't think we're talking about a small group of criminals.

Interestingly, he spoke of those good Libyans who carried the ambassador's body to the hospital. I've heard elsewhere that the protesters were "parading his body through the streets." Which is true? I admit some skepticism about people carrying him to the hospital. Are there no ambulances?

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa
Herbert Woodbery: I disagree,  it's totally appropriate for government officials to "preach" religious tolerance in order to de-escalate religious conflicts that have the potential of  spinning out of control. · 4 minutes ago

But when that is the first and only option in the arsenal people begin to die.

Hillaire Belloc's famous couplet on pacifism seem apropos:

“Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,

But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.”

The U.S. needs to be lot more Roaring Bill and a lot less Pale Ebenezer.

And can't we dispense with bloodless diplomatic language.  How about this:

"In America, people have the right of free speech, which includes the right to offend others. We've also developed the ability to ignore those who offend instead of killing them.  Those who attack American embassies and consulates are attacking America. America will defend itself.  If you climb the wall, we'll shoot you off it.  If your government doesn't protect American consulates and embassies we will treat it as an act of war and respond with deadly force."

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 5:02pm
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Herbert Woodbery: I disagree,  it's totally appropriate for government officials to "preach" religious tolerance in order to de-escalate religious conflicts that have the potential of  spinning out of control. · 10 minutes ago

Well, condemning the condemnation of one religion isn't preaching religious tolerance, is it.

But either way, those statements really kept things from spinning out of control, eh?

Nick Stuart
Joined
May '10
Nick Stuart

We are entering a situation fraught with danger.

I speak of course of the acute shortage of emphatic adjectives so critically essential to the crafting of strongly worded communiques.

From tweets to full-out diplomatic briefings and congressional testimony, we have literally (as VP Biden would put it) reached the bottom of the barrel of our strategic stockpile of umbrage.

The only thing left now is to sit in the dirt and throw dust and ashes on our heads.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover
perdicaris

The old.

and VDH

These terrible attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 are extremely significant. They come right at a time when we are considering an aggregate $1 trillion cutback in defense over the next decade. They should give make us cautious about proposed intervention in Syria. They leave our Arab Spring policy in tatters, and the whole “reset” approach to the Middle East incoherent. They embarrass any who continue to contextualize radical Islamic violence. The juxtaposed chants of “Osama” and “Obama” in Egypt make a mockery of the recent “We killed Osama” spiking the football at the Democratic convention. And they remind us why 2012 is sadly looking a lot like 1980 — when in a similar election year, in a similarly minded administration, the proverbial chickens of four years of “smart” diplomacy tragically came home to roost.

Romney has been handed a foreign policy event that can turn the election.

Best thing  from this would be  a new President.  The SecState should be fired now for okaying the privatizing of security at an embassy in Libya of all places. Fat Chance !

Where's Obama ? Viva Las Vegas !

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 5:06pm
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

KeystoneStater: Mollie,

Doesn't that same freedom give even our State Department or the president for that matter the right to deplore anything? 

Can I still deplore someone's action while standing for one's freedom to criticize or make other choices such as some who deplore the murder of the unborn but defend a woman's right to choose? · 8 minutes ago

Private individuals can say whatever they want or deplore whatever they want. The government, on the other hand, runs the risk of violating the the First Amendment's provisions on free speech and freedom of religion when it condemns an American's religious views (that oppose another religion).

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

Jesse Walker writes:

In addition to being wrongheaded, these little announcements are self-defeating. When you issue such statements, you encourage the view that the government is somehow responsible for the speech you're condemning. Even if you succeed in calming the crowds -- and to judge from what happened yesterday, you shouldn't expect to achieve even that much -- any fringe film that you haven't anathematized can become the next cause célèbre. And if you think you can keep pumping out statements attacking every one of them, ponder what will happen if a mob decides to riot over the comments of a congressman, or someone else that a diplomat wouldn't want to officially denounce. Better to embrace free speech from the beginning than to lend support to the idea that your job requires you to sort acceptable expression from bad.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In