Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
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.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
As I've said a couple of times already today, this is Obama's Jimmy Carter moment. If he performs well, he'll likely secure a second term. If he screws it up, he's toast.
So far, he seems to be reacting with all the intelligence and wisdom of the peanut farmer from Georgia.
Jun '10
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Katrina Trinko posted an extended statement from Romney here. This is a lot better than the feckless treacle we get from Obama:
Apr '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
I wonder if the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton will be on their collective way to Libya to insert themselves in this heinous act of murder, I mean senseless act of violence because I'm sure that was what the president and the Reverends called Trayvon Martin's death in Florida.
Jesse has been there before as a mediator and I'm sure he can go and calm the situation with Al serving MSNBC as an embedded reporter and serve the country in a more positive fashion and then Romney and Ryan can have their moment, because they surely both do have sons who look like Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Once there, they can work to bring the perpetrators to justice, as they did so effectively here, because that country is celebrating its "Spring" and there is no racism and injustice only democracy, as in when they vote to kill innocents -similar I'm sure to the same voice vote the Dems recently had - and I'll bet they heard at least a 2/3 majority and I know they wouldn't want God's name and Jerusalem as Israel's capital in their platform either.
Apr '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
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).
It condemned religious intolerance and violence. In addition, they clarified that the religious speech in question(the video) wasnt sponsored by or sanctioned by the u.s. government. By your logic, Islamic violence shouldn't be Condemned because it would violate the first amendment....
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Herbert Woodbery:
It condemned religious intolerance and violence. In addition, they clarified that the religious speech in question(the video) wasnt sponsored by or sanctioned by the u.s. government. By your logic, Islamic violence shouldn't be Condemned because it would violate the first amendment.... · 21 minutes ago
That only makes sense if free speech is the same thing as murder, which it's not.
Apr '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
That only makes sense if free speech is the same thing as murder, which it's not.
Depends on whether your religious views condone/sanction violence or murder doesn't it? Quite a few Muslims believe it does, a few Christians do as well.
Apr '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Welll said, Mollie. Emmanuel Kant set off The Enlightenment with his essay "An answer to the question: what is enlightenment?"
Kant says people must be able to question and he stipulates religion be included. Kant says, "have the courage to use your own understanding. "
Kant does explain how to question in the public domain in order that the army does not have chaos due to questions. He also explains that religion can be questioned in the public domain. Niall Ferguson explains that Kant's essay spelt out why the Middle East fell behind as the scientists, religious leaders and military were all told what to think.
The Great Enlightenment transformed the West.
Hilary reveals a lack of understanding about religion. She could begin with Kant's essay.
Jul '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Anyone else thinking of The Onion's "Our Dumb Century" coverage of the 1980 campaign?
Jimmy Carter "Let's Talk Better Mileage"
Ronald Reagan: "Kill The Bastards"
Which Message Will Resonate With Voters?
Oct '10
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
"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."
Apparently our smartest-president-ever doesn't even know what the word "unequivocally" means, given the fact that he used it immediately after uttering equivocating words.
Jul '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
You're missing that he only said we must condemn it unequivocally; not that he actually does condemn it.
Nov '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Why oh why does anyone believe statements issued in English will have any effect on the terrorists responsible for these acts? It's all posturing. The ridiculous movie and Terry Jones have nothing to do with terrorists attacking and murdering people. It's just an excuse. Stop giving credence to the premise.
Nov '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Let me reiterate:
Bland government statements about religious tolerance have no effect on the people attacking and murdering Americans. The intended audience is our idiotic (and Europe's) media. Stop pretending that terrorists murder because of ridiculous movies.
Nov '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
I have no problem with the government encouraging religious tolerance as a general principle--but only so long as we maintain a reasonable understanding of the important distinctions between what should be tolerated, what should be denounced, what should be opposed, and what should not be tolerated.
All beliefs should be tolerated. But not all beliefs should be respected. Some beliefs, including some relgious beliefs, deserve to be denigrated and denounced.
If a belief deserves to be denounced, the coincidence that the belief is, for some, "religious" is irrelevant.
Mrs. Clinton should understand, for example, that a religious belief that women are inferior to men should be denounced, denigrated, belittled, ridiculed, laughed at, and treated as unworthy or respect. (Tactfully, of course.)
Edited on September 12, 2012 at 8:38pmApr '12
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Mrs. Clinton should understand, for example, that a religious belief that women are inferior to men should be denounced, denigrated, belittled, ridiculed, laughed at, and treated as unworthy or respect. (Tactfully, of course.)
People are free to do that. It shouldn't be in the governments purview to be deciding which religious views are politically correct.
Nov '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
It's not a question of being politically correct.
It's a question of being correct simply.
Our constitution guarantees certain rights, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection under law. Every officer of our government takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Therefore, it is very much within the "purview" of our government officials to defend the constitution by speaking out to oppose any belief, religious or otherwise, that is contrary to, for example, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. It is not only within their purview to do so; it is their constitutional duty to do so.
Libertarians typically do not understand this straightforward obligation of government to defend our constitution by defending the principles expressed therein. How foolish to think our government officials must sit silent when our fundamental constitutional principles are opposed by contrary religious principles.
The belief, held by many muslims, that women are inferior to men, is a religious belief. We should denounce it, not simply as an incorrect belief, but as an incorrect religious belief.
Edited on September 12, 2012 at 9:11pmApr '11
Re: Whatever Happened to 'Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead'?
Astonishing
It's not a question of being politically correct.
It's a question of being correctsimply.
Our constitution guarantees certain rights, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection under law. Every officer of our government takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Therefore, it is very much within the "purview" of our government officials to defend the constitution by speaking out to oppose any belief,religious or otherwise, that is contrary to, for example, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. It is not only within their purview to do so; it is theirconstitutional dutyto do so.
It seems worth differentiating between Mollie's freedoms of speech and religion and the Constitution's. Mollie's, based, I guess on natural law or some such holds that that freedom is incompatible with bans on the disparaging of religion. The Constitution, unless there has been a development that slipped me by, allows for blasphemy laws, as do most state constitutions.
Quibbling aside, great post and comments.