Once again, the West steps on freedom of expression for the fear of pissing off Muslims. Because a particular scene in an opera scheduled at a German opera house depicts the severed head of Muhammad, the police received an anonymous threat. The director of Deutsche Oper Berlin pulled the opera from the fall schedule as a result.
The disputed scene is not part of Mozart’s opera, but was added by the
director, Hans Neuenfels. In it, the king of Crete, Idomeneo, carries
the heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon on to the stage,
placing each on a stool.
I haven’t heard of any Christians making threats over the head of Jesus, nor did I read about Buddhist monks wanting to blow up the opera house for insulting their guy. But, oh no, the Muslims are going to bitch and moan about it. They’ll also blow people up because of it. So, of course, the best answer is to suppress freedom of expression like a bunch of terrified cowards. The terrorists are clearly meeting their goal.
People say the Muslims are lunatics for getting violent over insults to their prophet. I say non-Muslims who bow and scrape to avoid inciting their wrath are the bigger loons. Live your lives. Be free. Every time you suppress freedom in the name of security you are playing right into the terrorists hands and giving them another victory. It’s not the body count that wins this war for the terrorists — it’s the paralysis of the free world. And the Deutsche Oper Berlin, like several newspapers that refused to print cartoons of Muhammad, are surrendering before they even begin to fight. How many more times must we appease those bloodthirsty savages out of fear?
Technorati Tags: Muslims, Muhammad, terrorism, terrorists, Germany, opera
{ 10 } Comments
I take great exception to being called a ‘bloodthirsty savage’. You do not know me and you haven’t heard me say I will blow you up if you make fun of Mohammed (PBUH) — what exactly makes you more tolerant than those you condemn? As someone living outside the US, you at least are not bombarded by partisan media and should know better. Instead, your comments reek of the same redneck ignorance that Fox News spews out all day.
And while we’re on the topic of free speech, let’s not ignore the fact that free speech is an illusion, a promise that has never held up to careful examination. See Wikipedia for what happened to Roeland Raes and Vlaams Blok when they expressed doubts about the extent of the Holocaust. Or what happened to Andrew Wilkie. Or the passenger who wasn’t allowed to board a flight because his t-shirt had Arabic script on it.
Oh, you are right that free speech isn’t all it’s supposed to be. That’s precisely why we need to be standing up for it every chance we get. Every time we gag free speech, we dig the hole deeper.
As to the “bloodthirsty savages” remark, I ask you to read the post again. Perhaps you missed the dripping sarcasm in the middle? The “bloodthirsty savages” I refer to are those who want to blow people up. I don’t care what religion a person is, calling for murder over an insult is bloodthirsty savagery. If you don’t want someone’s blood, then you aren’t bloodthirsty at all, are you?
And I am far, far from being an ignorant redneck.
Aldacron, I came upon your blog by way of your post “Expats and the Great Dilemma”; a great read that hits home for me as I find myself at that crossroads now. But that’s another topic…
From what I’ve read so far, you’re obviously not an ignorant redneck! I find your assessment of the Republican party oh so refreshing. (One of the best things about living in Kuwait for the past 2 years is being spared incessant images and soundbytes of our pal “W.”)
As a liberal American living in a Muslim country, I guess I’ve become more aware of the way Muslims are oppressed in thought and action (thanks in large part to the history of US foreign policy). And I have to say, you do kind of imply that Muslims = terrorists (”But, oh no, the Muslims are going to bitch and moan about it. They’ll also blow people up because of it.” You didn’t say “The terrorists will blow people up because of it.”)
You know all too well that the conservative fundamentalist Christians are happy that the average American makes that equation in his mind. Remember too that the vast majority of Muslims protested the Danish cartoons peacefully, using the powerful economic weapon of boycott.
Keep writing and I’ll keep reading.
Susan, thanks for the kind words. I enjoy reading all comments (other than spam, of course), both positive and negative. It’s nice to know that there are other people out there on the same wavelength and that I’m not just ranting to myself.
I’m afraid one of the things I have yet to master about blogging is shaping the words in my head into a form that clearly confers my intent. I tend to blog in the same manner I talk. The lines you quoted are intended to be sarcastic. Too many people do equate Muslims with terrorists, calling Islam the “religion of the sword” or “the religion of the bomb.” It is precisely that association that causes some to tip-toe around anything offensive to Muslims and to suppress the freedom of expression. My sarcasm was intended to mock such people.
I’ll keep writing and, hopefully, improve with time and experience. Good luck with your dilemma.
Aldacron, as a longtime writer and communications professional, I really do understand how difficult it can be to convey your meaning correctly in writing! I appreciate your comments and can see your sarcasm now as I re-read your original post. Ah, the world is so full of ignorance and fear, just the tools our government in particular loves to use to manipulate the masses…!
This probably qualifies as beating a dead horse (particularly because I myself couldn’t care less what you say), but your audacity in defending this post compels me.
Accepting for a minute that you were being sarcastic (implying that people are being stupid for subscribing to the Muslims-are-terrorists stereotype), why is the heading ‘Muhammad was an idiot’? Where’s the sarcasm in that?
There may be sarcasm ‘in the middle’, but it doesn’t negate the comment about the ‘bloodthirsty savages’.
The content of the post should make it clear what the title means. I don’t know if Muhammad was an idiot or not and I don’t really care. The point is that I am free to say so, just as the director of the opera was free to use the head of Muhammad in a play, just as newspapers were free to publish the cartoons depicting Muhammad.
I’m sorry that you find my defense of this post audacious. I truly have nothing against Islam or Muslims specifically and I was trying to make that clear in the comments, since the post itself is so easily misinterpreted. It seems you are accusing me of equating my “bloodthirsty savages” remark with all Muslims.
Please look at the opening of the last paragraph:
“People say the Muslims are lunatics for getting violent over insults to their prophet. I say non-Muslims who bow and scrape to avoid inciting their wrath are the bigger loons.”
In that sentence, I use the word “Muslims” once. Now, read the last four sentences of the same paragraph:
“Every time you suppress freedom in the name of security you are playing right into the terrorists hands and giving them another victory. It’s not the body count that wins this war for the terrorists — it’s the paralysis of the free world. And the Deutsche Oper Berlin, like several newspapers that refused to print cartoons of Muhammad, are surrendering before they even begin to fight. How many more times must we appease those bloodthirsty savages out of fear?”
Here the word “terrorists” precedes “bloodthirsty savages” twice. You can believe what you want, but I’m quite aware that the 1.2 billion (or whatever the number is) Muslims in the world are not “bloodthirsty savages.” If they were, the whole world would be praying to Allah by now.
While I have nothing against Muslims specifically, I do have many gripes about religion in general. Your reaction to this post, which you are, of course, entitled to, is an example of one of the reasons why I feel religion is more harmful to mankind than helpful. People feel very strongly about their religious beliefs, causing some to have tunnel vision and their reactions to be tainted by emotion. You took offense at my calling you a “bloodthirsty savage” when I did nothing of the sort. I called “terrorists” bloodthirsty savages, not Muslims. Neither did I equate “terrorists” with Muslims in my post. The reaction of Muslims around the world to the Pope’s comments last month is another example. He was quoting something to make a point, not expressing his own personal belief. Yet the emotionally-blinded faithful took it out of context. I don’t know if you are emotionally blinded, but emotion played an apparent role in your reaction. My grandparents, devout Christians that they are, suffered from the same affliction (though they have grown more tolerant and less emotional in their later years).
It’s not just Muslims who are guilty of this, but also Christians, Jews, and all who are devoted to a particular religion. Political ideology suffers the same problem. But what really makes me angry is when people try to impose their religious restrictions on others.
Denmark is not an Islamic state, so they can publish all of the Muhammad cartoons they want. Germany is not an Islamic state, so if a director wants Muhammad’s head on a table (along with those of Jesus and Buddha) he should be able to have it without fear of repercussion. America is (supposedly) not a Christian state, so homosexuals should be free to marry no matter what Christians think of it.
Religious belief should never trump human rights. That’s what the title of this post means.
ADDENDUM: I should probably mention my recent post from three days ago, My Religious Evolution and the Atheist Revolution. Being a religious person, you certainly won’t agree with most, if not all, of what I say there. But it should make it clearer what my beliefs are. In fact, all of my posts on the topic should make it crystal clear, regardless of the clarity of this one particular post. I don’t mind at all when people disagree with me, but I hate being misunderstood. If you’re going to disagree, at least disagree with what I really think and not what you think I think.
I truly believe that Muhammad was a sex crazed savage wingnut. You don’t have to watch Fox News, CNN or BBC. All you need is a brain to figure out that he was just another savage barbarian but one with enough charisma to hoodwink his fellow savages to follow him in an orgy of bloodlust.
One just has to listen to what Islamists, their Imans and the like say in public to know that these sorry SOBs do not belong anywhere in the civilized world. Read the Koran (written by Muhammed and others) itself, The Sword of the Prophet (Dr. Sergi Treflovic), Why I am Not a Muslim (Dr. Ibn Warraq), or just visit http://www.askimam.org/ (great for a great big laugh – but serious stuff for Islamists).
@Peter: Whatever Muhammad was or wasn’t is irrelevant. Like Jesus, he lived in a different time. Mainstream Islam, like mainstream Christianity, has moved on from that time. It is the fundamentalists who cling to the barbaric practices, in both religions (and others) who are barbaric.
I do hold that religion itself is the problem, because it encourages fundamentalism. Tolerance of religion gives the fundamentalists a screen behind which they can hide. But while the fundamentalists are nutjobs and loons, the mainstream followers are well-intentioned (if misguided) people. To label them all as savage and barbaric, if that is what you are doing, is just ignorant and exacerbates the problem. It makes you, like George Bush, a poster child for terrorist recruitment, “You see, it is a war on Islam, not a war on terror!” Of course, if you are just attacking the fundamentalists (you weren’t quite clear in your comment, exactly the trouble I had with this post to begin with), then you are right.
Still, I suggest you read the Old Testament, or take a look at Jesus Camp to see just how savage and barbaric Christians can be. Radical Islamists aren’t alone in their lunacy.
As for the message from the media, it most certainly is biased. Take the new strategy used by House Republicans. They know that they can’t win a straight up debate on the Decider’s Surge, so they are trying to shift the focus to radical Islam. More bullshit for the ignorant masses to swallow whole.
I think I love you….
In all seriousness though, you are correct. I assume you read (and agree with) Richard Dawkins?
I feel that somehow we should turn the way (some)muslims regularly protest about “being offended” on its head. For example, it would be legitimate in my mind to feel offended that one’s right to freedom of speech is being restricted by someone’s RELIGIOUS opinions. Why can’t I walk around with a placard that reads “Behead those who don’t let me insult islam!” ?
Is it any different for me to be offended (in some way) if walking around IN ENGLAND* I see a woman (presumably) entirely covered from head to toe in fabric, with GAUZE to look through? I could find that just as offensive as when, say, a muslim is offended when he/she sees a western woman wearing a dress. (Indeed I perhaps even SHOULD feel offended, as oppression of women is no joke)
However, the crucial difference in a myriad of examples that I could give, and also the reason why I am not actually offended to the point of rioting and killing people (people were actually KILLED over CARTOONS (!) of Mohammed, in itself fucking ridiculous and disgusting) is that I have NO religion that forces me to think irrationally. Islam especially, as well as Christianity, closes the mind, and forces (false and violent) ideas into people’s heads. A moral framework based on religion is a tainted one.
My logic is as follows:
There is no God.
Therefore belief in God is false.
Some people base what they think as wrong or right on God, or the “word of God”.
It follows then, that what they think is “right or wrong” is based on falsehood anyway! (The same goes for any action done “in the name of (a) God”)
A moral framework based on rational thought will always trump a religious one. I find it preposterous that some people think that RELIGION should have a monopoly on morality.
You are entirely correct, we should under no circumstances EVER give in to religious sensitivity, and especially when it comes to matters concerning Islam. Doing so only means terrorism is succeeding.
Racism is wrong, but Religionism (NOT hating PEOPLE because of their religion, rather “hating”/challenging religion itself and dispelling its myths at every opportunity) should be promoted. Also I think it’s important to note that being anti-islam is NOT being racist in any way, shape or form, as being a muslim does not equate to being a race.
I am interested to hear your thoughts.
*I should mention that although I wrote “IN ENGLAND”, substitute any country of your choice and the point still stands. I am NOT an English Nationalist by the way, or actually really give a sh*t about England anyway; so please, no suggestions that I am hiding some sort of English nationalistic pride or patriotic bullsh*t, because I am not.
Post a Comment