Lindsey Graham Thinks We Should Appease Barbarians

I expect this sort of thing from Democrats, ever eager to pander to Muslims. But here's Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

the first member of Congress to say the legislature needs to explore the possibility, however unlikely, of limiting some kinds of free speech - like Terry Jones' Quran burning - that help America's enemies.

"I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

What a great idea. We should limit our free speech rights because of the actions of murderous, fanatical barbarians. We aren't bending over backward enough to avoid giving offense to Afghans, all while pouring money we don't have into a corrupt country that has done very little to deserve our assistance. Now we need to think about restricting a classic form of free speech by U.S. citizens: the harmless destruction of a symbol. We have to do that because savages poisoned by religion can't control themselves.

The people that should be held accountable are those who advocate and justify murdering innocent victims because someone burned a book and hurt their feelings.

Following Friday prayers, Muslim clerics instructed religious worshippers to avenge the slander of the Holy Quran by western infidels.

Back in 2009 I wrote the following:

Deploying assassins to kill terrorist enemies is something we should already be doing, and should have put into place right after 9/11. It is also worth considering directly targeting radical Islamic clerics who preach jihad against Americans and openly support terrorism. Such clerics believe they can inspire terrorism and send suicide bombers to their deaths with impunity, remaining secure themselves while others blow up civilians or install roadside bombs. It's time they started dying also.

If we want to hold someone accountable, that would be the way to go about it.

As for Lindsey Graham, he should be voted out of office. Unfortunately he'd probably be replaced by an even worse Democrat.

Restricting Free Speech to Protect Free Speech?

There was an interesting editorial in yesterday's LA Times by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff called, "It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists." The authors call for new legislation similar to that passed to deter intimidation tactics used by anti-abortion protesters.

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook.  ... they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. ... A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.

Although I strongly sympathize with the intent, I'm highly skeptical of remedies that involve protecting free speech by passing more laws. The way to defend free speech against Islamic extremism is to defy intimidation by collectively refusing to pander to delicate Islamic sensibilities. Terroristic threats should be taken seriously, the perpetrators tracked down and prosecuted. But passing a new law that allows implied threats to be subject to preset legal damages -- as the authors advocate -- is a bad idea that will likely lead to unintended consequences. It would almost certainly result in a stifling of certain forms of political speech, based on court interpretations of what exactly constitutes some sort of threat. Protecting free speech by giving courts a new weapon to restrict it is a really bad idea.

Man Fired for Making a Political Statement

Derek Fenton, who burned a few pages from the Koran in a 9/11 protest was abruptly fired by New Jersey Transit after working there 11 years. NJ Transit claims he somehow violated their code of ethics. It sounds more like a combination of political correctness and fear of Muslim reaction. What does taking part in a political protest, and harmlessly burning a few pages of paper have to do with the ethics of working for a transit company?

There's no right to hold a job, and companies have all sorts of reasons for firing people, but firing people for making political statements, or for harmless acts religious people find offensive should disturb everyone. I'm not sure, but Fenton may have a first amendment case, since NJ Transit is a state agency. This appears to be a case of a government employer firing someone for taking part in a political protest and exercising his right to free expression.

Hypocrite in Chief

As everyone knows, President Obama recently spoke out with regard to the Park51 project,  a project that roughly 70% of America feels is tasteless or offensive and should be moved elsewhere. Here's what he had to say about it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," ... "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

He later expanded on those remarks, but continued to emphasize the rights of the developers to proceed regardless of public opposition.

But now we have another situation involving the first amendment, with a small religious group wanting to burn a book on their own private property. This action is even more unpopular than the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero. But since the president is such a strong supporter of the first amendment naturally he took the same position. Wrong.

I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. ... it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country. [emphasis mine]

Where's our valiant defender of the first amendment now? He's bemoaning the fact that our laws inhibit him from taking action to shut down the Koran burning. Now the first amendment is a problem. He mentions citing him for "public burning." Apparently the administration has been searching for ways to suppress the religious freedom and free expression of this church. It's just too bad that the first amendment stands in its way. 

Remember all the times the public has been lectured by liberals like Obama about how we can't let fear of terrorism compromise our rights and freedom? Remember all the talk about "fearmongering," and how if we give in to fear, and compromise our principles Al Qaeda wins? But now one person plans a calculated act designed to offend Muslims, and suddenly fear of their reaction means that the entire force of the government must be directed at intimidating him into changing his mind. It's doing everything possible to figure out how it can get around the first amendment to shut him down. Obama is a gutless hypocrite.

Burning the Koran

By now everyone probably knows about a small church in Florida that plans to burn the Koran on 9/11. I've looked through various posts and comments on this story, and something is missing. Where are the sanctimonious, self-appointed defenders of the Constitution and religious freedom? Why aren't they vigorously defending the obvious first amendment right of free expression involved in this case, and demonizing critics as anti-Christian bigots? Could it be that they care very little about the Constitution or religious freedom, and much more about silencing people they disagree with? Few of the same people so eager to aggressively defend religious freedom have had much to say in supporting the rights of a small group of Christians who merely want to destroy some paper & ink as a symbolic gesture. Now all of the sudden they seem to understand that having the right to do something that is tasteless and offensive to some, and the wisdom of actually doing it are two different things.

Having a public Koran burning is obviously in poor taste, and clearly offensive to Muslims. But what's more offensive are people who respond to symbolic attacks on their religion with threats of death and violence. What's also more offensive is the best-known U.S. general, General Petraeus, actually trying to silence a small American religious group for fear of offending the tender sensibilities of Afghan Muslims.

I'm not a big fan of book burnings of any sort. Religious books should be read in order to point out the absurdities of religion. One of the main reasons I'm an atheist today is because I did so much reading & studying of the Bible. But there's no right not to be offended in the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the offense is to your religion on anything else. Get over it. That goes for Christians whining about offensive art and hostile depictions in popular culture, Muslims whining about pretty much any offense real or imagined, or any other religious type that can't deal with the fact that others just don't respect their beliefs. The very last thing we need is to give credence to the idea that certain topics are off-limits to free expression. That's a far more dangerous thing than burning a couple of books.

As for foreigners who are supposedly going to hate America because a single radical church burns some Korans, I personally welcome their hate. If that's all it takes to inspire hatred of America, if it wasn't this, it would be something else. There's no reason to pander to ignorant, fanatical religious barbarians at the expense of our own free expression. Americans are free to burn the Koran, the Bible, any other so-called holy book, or even our own flag. It's too bad our gutless hypocritical defenders of the Constitution aren't interested when it doesn't involve a politically correct position.

UPDATE

Giving credit where it is due... NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has publicly defended the Florida pastor's right to burn the Koran.

"In a strange way, I'm here to defend his right to do that. I happen to think that it is distasteful. I don't think he would like it if somebody burned a book that in his religion he thinks is holy," the mayor said following a news conference about the progress of the reconstruction at the World Trade Center site.

He emphasized that Jones' planned act is protected by free speech rights. "We can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement."

Bloomberg = not a hypocrite.

Protest Does Not Equal an Attack on Religious Freedom

Before I address the main point, I want to note a few things, since my last post on this subject attracted various comments and questions. When this controversy first erupted, I refrained from posting anything. It's not really a big issue for me if a Muslim group wants to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero. My first thought was: that's a really bad idea which will anger a lot of people. But, if they own the property they have a right to build it. I was not surprised that large numbers of people started to protest. A strong majority of Americans were going to object to the project for what I think are obvious reasons -- and those reasons (for most) do not include bigotry toward Muslims. What caught my attention was the almost immediate campaign, led by the left, to smear the majority of Americans as ignorant bigots for daring to object, even in mild terms, to an Islamic center near Ground Zero. I find this campaign particularly annoying because of the rank hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the loudest voices. In my opinion, there is no question that many of the same people screeching about religious freedom, pretending that there are no reasonable grounds for objection, and smearing those with differing opinions would be on the opposite side were this an issue involving a Christian or Jewish structure planned for a place where it was guaranteed to cause offense. That's why I feel compelled to address the mosque issue myself.

Returning to the main point... As many have rightly pointed out, the question of whether or not the Islamic center should be built is not a religious freedom issue. Saying that it is, over and over again, no matter how loudly, does not make it one. This has been one of the main false narratives from mosque supporters, that opponents are against the constitution and want to restrict religious liberty. Public protest is not an attack on religious freedom. It is instead an attempt to persuade, to change minds, to demonstrate the strength of public opinion in opposition and to convince those being protested to change their behavior or designs. It is an exercise of free speech. If a land developer of any kind wants to construct something on private property that others find offensive, protesting it is what we do here in America. The fact that this is a religious project in no way turns protests into an attack on religious liberty. Being religious does not and should not shield someone from criticism or protest.

The only time religious freedom becomes an issue is if government intervention is suggested to shut down the project by force. If this is the case, then the Islamic center development becomes not only a religious freedom issue, but a question of property rights. But most people protesting the project are not suggesting government action of that kind -- although a few are. There is a giant red line between protesting the construction and calling for government intervention. But supporters of the Islamic center have lumped both positions together, and labeled all opposition as bigotry, and an attack on constitutional rights. They are not only wrong, but in my opinion intellectually dishonest, as most are aware of the distinction between protest and government action.

Elements of the Left Actually Defend Free Speech

Far too often, much of the left is in favor of free speech only if they agree with the speech in question. This was demonstrated yet again when Full Equality Now DC, a pro-gay marriage activist group, demanded that ads from an anti-gay marriage organization be removed from Washington DC public metro transit. Their basic argument, typical of the left, was that the message was "offensive," and therefore should be banned. Nevermind that the whole idea of free speech is to protect expression that others might find offensive. 

But, since I bash the left on a regular basis for its attitude toward free speech, credit must be given when due. And in this case, other organizations and individuals on the left, including Colbert King, author of the article I'm quoting from, stepped up in support of the right for opposing views to be heard.

The group includes Mitch Wood, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance; Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital; Jeffrey D. Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club; Aisha C. Mills, president of Campaign for All D.C. Families; and activist Richard J. Rosendall

As King writes,

Speaking not only for themselves but also for people like me, they said: "Free speech is not only for those whose beliefs we find acceptable. The proper response to offensive speech is more speech. Your proper response to Full Equality Now DC, therefore, is that those who object to ads by Stand For Marriage DC are free to place their own.

King also notes,

So it was heartening to see how some citizens reacted to the issue raised by the Metrobus advertisements. The conflict provided a good -- but rare -- example of citizens standing up for the principle of protecting despised speech of a disagreeable speaker.

It's particularly rare when it comes from the left, and is therefore especially noteworthy.