I’m still trying to come to terms with my feelings (mostly angry) regarding the vicious attacks on American diplomatic posts in Benghazi and Cairo. Like the author of the American embassy’s twitter feed, I certainly deplore gratuitous insults directed at any religion. But I would have more forthrightly articulated the connection between freedom of speech and religious freedom. The two are intimately connected, which means that, unlike some, we have to protect the rights of error, not only those of truth.
I don’t at the moment attribute to the host governments the opinions and actions of the protestors. How they handle the messes their lax security created, how they interact with the Obama Administration (which ought to do more than issue condemnations), will go a long way toward settling the matter for me. Will they hold the attackers accountable? Will they insist that an insult directed at “the truth” is deplorable, but not cause for violence and mayhem?
As for the protestors themselves, we shouldn’t mistake their motives or the challenge they pose. The choice of September 11th, the “Osama” chants at the American embassy in Cairo, and the desecration of an American flag (and its replacement with one that is associated with al Qaeda) all make their intentions clear enough. They certainly believe that only their truth has rights, and we benighted Americans should submit to it. They continue to pose an existential threat, even if (for most of us) it’s less immediate than it was eleven years ago.
My prayers go out to the families of the murdered diplomats.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:01 am
When was it that murderous hordes in Cairo attacked the Israeli embassy? That was a foretaste of what was to come, as well as an indication that for all of people’s attempts to blame people other than the attackers, such people will always strain themselves to find an offense that will justify their crimes. As Publilius Syrus said, the man who wants to do evil, never fails to find a reason for it.
Of course, some will blame free speech. Terry Jones created a video that the Osama-chanters didn’t like. It’s a sad day when murder is all but excused, while free speech is condemned – including by the very embassy that was targeted.
The word ‘Islam’ means submission. We should not be surprised when followers of Islam demand our submission.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:16 am
Maximilian,
That’s a comment that I can completely agree with. (Hey it’s only fair that if I’m going to push back when I disagree to acknowledge when I think you’re right…)
As a Christian, I get offended when someone says or does something that I perceive as an attack on my beliefs or something that I hold dear. But that’s it. I get offended and depending upon the situation I may push back in a verbal or written fashion (whichever mode of communication is appropriate to the situation) and may feel quite angry or upset. But to take the step beyond to violence is unconscionable and there is no excuse for it. People who are willing to commit murder for a perceived blasphemy or insult are owed no sympathy.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:42 am
Is it being argued here that when something as offensive as the American-made film sparks a protest outside an embassy, the embassy is supposed to denounce the protestors? It’s my understanding that the embassy statement was issued before the mob actually perpetrated violence. It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to denounce the film. Now, after violence has been perpetrated, it is certainly not appropriate to excuse the violence, but certainly it is still appropriate to condemn the insult to Islam.
Will they hold the attackers accountable? Will they insist that an insult directed at “the truth” is deplorable, but not cause for violence and mayhem?
Part of Obama’s statement was as follows:
But I would have more forthrightly articulated the connection between freedom of speech and religious freedom. The two are intimately connected, which means that, unlike some, we have to protect the rights of error, not only those of truth.
What would the reaction on First Things be if an anti-Christian film depicted Jesus “as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex . . . ” I don’t expect it would be a call to violence, but I also don’t expect it would be a lesson about the importance of free speech.
September 12th, 2012 | 1:10 pm
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. . . .We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
This is the desperate and mealy-mouthed plaint of a weakling—-we love you, we LOVE you, we are your friend, honest Injun….and it’s OUR fault, anyway. Don’t hit us, you’re scaring us.
I suspect that obnoxious movie is just a handy pretext for the extremists pulling strings (ours and their fellow Moslems), anyway. This is how they celebrate September 11. If it weren’t the film, it would be something else, or even nothing in particular. They don’t want what we are peddling.
This is getting to look like the end of the Carter presidency.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:11 pm
This is the desperate and mealy-mouthed plaint of a weakling—-we love you, we LOVE you, we are your friend, honest Injun….and it’s OUR fault, anyway. Don’t hit us, you’re scaring us.
I am genuinely astounded that anyone would interpret the embassy’s message in this manner. The embassy statement would be exactly the kind of statement Christians would be demanding of any government that they suspected of fomenting deeply offensive anti-Christian propaganda or Jews would be demanding of any government that they suspected of fomenting deeply offensive anti-Semitic propaganda. It really does appear to me that some people believe that Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions that should not be insulted.
If a movie similar to the one about Mohammed were made about Jesus and distributed across the United States, I am quite sure Christians would be in the streets in protest. I wouldn’t necessarily predict violence, but I wouldn’t rule it out if the film were as provocative to Christians as this one is apparently to Muslims.
There is no excuse for the Muslim violence, but there is also no excuse for ant-Muslim bigots doing their best to provoke Muslims when they know perfectly well it may result in violence.
Does anybody in their right mind expect the United States to defend, on the grounds of free speech, material produced in the United States that is deliberately insulting and provocative to any religion? One might defend free speech itself, but defending free speech does not mean defending anything, no matter how offensive, that anyone says.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
If a movie similar to the one about Mohammed were made about Jesus and distributed across the United States, I am quite sure Christians would be in the streets in protest.
To clarify a point, I am aware that the anti-Muslim film was not being distributed across Egypt or Libya. (Of course, it was made available to the world on the Internet.) But my point is that if you deliberately try to provoke people, you should not be surprised when you succeed. And when others deliberately try to provoke people, succeed, and the result is deadly violence, those responsible for the provocation are not innocent parties.
People who goad others to violence are to some degree responsible for what happens, even thought they are not the perpetrators of the violence themselves.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
“If a movie similar to the one about Mohammed were made about Jesus and distributed across the United States, I am quite sure Christians would be in the streets in protest.”
Really? Movies and books like this have already been made (and have been made for quite sometime). Quite famously there was a big uproar about the Scorcese adaptation of the Kazantzakis novel, “The Last Temptation of Christ” – which fizzled mightily. There might be a boycott or a buycott (see Chick-fil-A) and lots of outraged Facebook posting. But what would be more likely is that for every outraged Christian who wants to take to the streets there would two bloggers/commenters lamenting that the film or book only proves how much that the Church has failed to really display the love of Christ to the world.
I’m glad you doubted that violence would be in the mix – it least separates you from the hyperventilating prophets of doom warning of the imminent “Christian theocracy” looming in American society due to a conspiracy of Tea Partiers, fundamentalist, the KKK, Opus Dei and Colonel Sanders.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:41 pm
David: But my point is that if you deliberately try to provoke people
The only ones deliberately trying to provoke, are the spreaders of offense. Remember the Danish cartoons? No news outlet was given permission to publish the cartoons, but the Danish imams were handing them out, like they were going out of fashion.
You ask whether saying the same thing about Jesus would not cause offense. The question is: would it be true or not? Also, I am pretty sure that if Christians in a particular country started to riot and kill in response to a “blasphemous” movie, First Things would stand with their freedom of speech. Of course, this sort of thing is extremely rare. While I am not pleased that some Christians often pretend that they are being persecuted when they are not, Christians don’t respond to being offended by threatening and killing people.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
David,
It is frankly sad and distressing to see you going to the lengths you are to (seemingly) excuse or at least rationalize this behavior. It is not the role of the government of our Republic to “apologize” for the free speech (however offensive) behavior of her citizens. I do not (nor does anyone here) expect the United States government to defend the ~content~ of all free speech. I do, however, expect the government to protect and vigorously defend the ~right~ to free speech. There is quite a difference and conflating the two muddies the issues significantly.
Does the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv apologize to Jews when neo-Nazis air their odious views on You Tube? Does the government apologize to African Americans when the Klan or white supremacists spew their racist nonsense? Whatever makes you think that the United States government should treat offensive portrayals of Islam as a special category?
And I absolutely reject the assertion that “any religion” would respond just this way. The Last Temptation of Christ (a major Hollywood film — distributed worldwide) had dream sequences depicting Jesus as denying his own divinity, committing sins, marrying and having sex and a child with Mary Magdalene and upon her death marrying ~both~ Mary and Martha. So let me see, Jesus — confessed by Christians as the sinless Son of God portrayed as sinful, having sex, polygamous, and denying his divinity? Pretty offensive to most Christians, I’d say. And what was the death toll again? There were protests to be sure, but very little violence, and certainly nothing on the scale that we have seen repeatedly in the Muslim world over much smaller provocations (cartoon depictions of the Prophet, rumors of Koran mistreatment, to name just two of numerous recent and deadly examples).
You further write: “People who goad others to violence are to some degree responsible for what happens..”
Do you understand the way that reads David? You seem to be saying that the deaths of the murdered embassy workers are to be laid “to some degree” at the feet of whomever produced this film. To what degree? Mostly? Somewhat? A little? And do you see that to whatever degree you grant that formulation your are offering a corresponding reduction in responsibility to the actual murderers? That seems deeply morally askew.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
Quite famously there was a big uproar about the Scorcese adaptation of the Kazantzakis novel, “The Last Temptation of Christ” – which fizzled mightily.
Steve Billingsley,
The Last Temptation of Christ (both the novel and the movie) was not a cheap work deliberately designed to provoke Christians. Nikos Kazantzakis (who also wrote Zorba the Greek) was an acclaimed Greek writer, and Martin Scorsese was nominated for an Academy Award for directing the film. There is a difference between something being controversial and something being intentionally downright offensive. For Muslims, it is offensive for Mohammed to be portrayed at all, and reportedly this film portrays him as a fraud, a homosexual, a pedophile, and a thug and depicts him having sex. I know there is a lot of stuff that is offensive to Christians, but this seems to me to be equivalent to just about all of them wrapped up into one.
I don’t know how, on the one hand, people can preach respect for other people’s religions and then not condemn a film like this, and claim that those who do condemn it are “apologizing.” The embassy statement was made before any violence took place, and how that can be considered an apology or an excuse for the violence mystifies me. When Muslims are offended by something that was truly scurrilous and clearly meant to offend, what is the United States supposed to do? Offend them more to show them who’s boss? I think a lot of Americans have fatwa envy.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:20 pm
“But I would have more forthrightly articulated the connection between freedom of speech and religious freedom.”
There is no connection in this context. A private individual making a film, regardless of how (pick the point on the spectrum) embarrassing, distasteful, inaccurate, offensive, loathsome, or blasphemous the content, has no bearing on anyone’s “religious freedom.” Religious freedom is something only authority can infringe on, not people who say things you don’t like/obnoxious loudmouths/or even blasphemers.
The U.S. government has absolutely no role in denouncing the free speech exercise of one of its private citizens acting in a private capacity, or that of any other country.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
“When Muslims are offended by something that was truly scurrilous and clearly meant to offend, what is the United States supposed to do?”
What “the United States” (i.e., the federal government, or the DoS) is supposed to do is remember that it is not the government’s role to pass public judgement on the speech of American individuals, but it is its role to act in the interest of the security of its citizens abroad.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:27 pm
Christians don’t respond to being offended by threatening and killing people
Maximilian,
I can’t think of any instances of angry Christians killing anyone in the United States, but death threats by Christians who are insulted are a very common occurrence. See, for example, FOX News Facebook Page Gets 8000 Death Threats After Segment On World Trade Memorial Cross. (It was about a lawsuit by atheists to prevent erecting the “cross” on the site of the Word Trade Center.) Death threats are quite a common occurrence when Christians are angered by atheists.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
David Nickol,
Wow, what an exercise in missing the point. I haven’t seen the film in question, but I’m reasonably certain that it is horrible and offensive in every way. But that isn’t an excuse for murder.
Secondly – Christians have gotten upset over all kinds of works of art (“Piss Christ”, anyone) – LTOC was just an example I picked out of the air. And that anger and offense has resulted in protests (that didn’t really do anything), demands to cut funding for the National Endowment of the Arts (which didn’t happen) and all kinds of sound and fury. But no riots, no murder, no storming of embassies, government offices, Hollywood movies studios, art exhibits – anything.
Not remotely comparable to what we just saw yesterday (and unfortunately have seen all too often).
I also said nothing about the U.S. Embassy’s response, the State Department’s response or the President’s response. I wasn’t criticizing any of them at all. I am frankly not that interested in parsing their statements or second-guessing their actions. None of them are the bad guys in this scenario.
I’m just outraged at the violence perpetrated for no good reason. A private film-maker’s second-rate film is not an excuse for murder. If the film is truly awful and objectionable – then condemn the filmmaker in an appropriate fashion – with strongly worded statements and rebuttals of this “arguments” such as they are. But the murders aren’t his fault. They are the fault of the hate-filled extremists who committed them – full stop. And it isn’t the job of the US Government to censor the film-maker, either.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:42 pm
One more comment. These murderers aren’t children. When my children get mad at one of their siblings and hit them because they said something mean or took away a toy – I don’t accept their excuse and I’m not going to accept an excuse for grown men who commit murder.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:46 pm
One of the issues that seems not to to have been discussed is that the movie in question appears to be (poorly) dramatizing scenes from the Islamic canonical sources for Muhammad’s life, the Sira and Hadith…
September 12th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
I think the major Catholic response to a corresponding film would come from the Catholic League. Take a look at Dr. Donahue’s response to FX’ American Horror Story that denigrates nuns or Paradise Faith. Note he points out the problems with the presentations and holds those who made them responsible. He’s pugnacious and irascible but a call for violence? Never. Occasionally, he’ll call for a boycott or ask League members to write the sponsors but just as often he’ll point out a particular “offensive” movie is just plain too stupid to be offensive. That’s the extent of the Catholic response (unless you count the labeling of such movies as “O” for “morally Offensive”). And some quarters consider Dr. Donahue a face of the coming American Theocracy. The coming American Theocracy is also as likely as the coming zombie apocalypse.
This was a human caused tragedy. Our sympathies are with the families and this is their time of mourning.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:00 pm
david c.,
Here is the statement from the Cairo embassy, which was issued before any violence occurred:
First, how that can be construed as an “apology” is beyond me. It is a statement that I would think any American could make. It is also the kind of statement that an embassy surrounded by hostile Muslims would quite reasonably make. The characterization of the statement as an “apology” is a political maneuver by Romney and other conservatives to try to discredit the Obama administration. And for those who don’t like the statement, it has been disavowed by the White House, which frankly mystifies me. But it is ludicrous to attribute to the Obama administration a statement made by an embassy surrounded by angry demonstrators. Romney’s politicizing of this matter, on 9/11 when he had agreed to make no political attacks, was shocking and shameful.
Second, I am in no way justifying the violence of the Muslim demonstrators. As I have said a couple of times now, I think many Americans have “fatwa envy.” They seem to think that it is to America’s shame that we haven’t frightened people into being anti-American the way some Muslims have frightened, by threats of violence, people who insult Islam. It is not to America’s shame that we don’t do the kind of thing violent Muslims do. It is to America’s credit. Christianity is not about an eye for an eye. It’s about turning the other cheek, bearing wrongs patiently, and loving one’s enemies. This is not weakness.
I have already said something about The Last Temptation of Christ, which I have not read nor seen, but as I recall, all the things that Christians objected to were the temptation,which Jesus resisted. This was not a film to tear down Jesus as a fraud and a womanizer. It was a film that showed him being tempted and resisting. I can see how it would be controversial or offensive to some Christians, but it was not a deliberate attempt to depict Jesus as a charlatan and a fraud.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
One other question…are we really even sure that the attacks/murders were really about the film?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/
Some State Department officials believe that the protests were just a convenient ruse.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
David: I can’t think of any instances of angry Christians killing anyone in the United States, but death threats by Christians who are insulted are a very common occurrence. See, for example, FOX News Facebook Page Gets 8000 Death Threats After Segment On World Trade Memorial Cross.
You’re right, and that’s not even an insult. I should have said that credible threats from Christians are extremely rare, actual murders even more so. Also, I think American Christianity is exceptional. I doubt that Lutherans in Denmark will be issuing death threats to anyone. What is also galling is that people make excuses for Muslim violence, which they would never do for Christians. What’s the relevance of whether or not the movie is “offensive”, decided by people who have likely not even seen it. Since when are governments in the business of declaring that certain movies are offensive? Only when the reaction to the movie is violent and murderous. The mob has to be satisfied.
Yes, people can be provocative, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am often provocative, and I do not expect to be murdered for it. What’s an insult? In my experience, pointing to anything in Islamic holy texts that one’s interlocutor finds inconvenient.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Some State Department officials believe that the protests were just a convenient ruse.
Steve Billingsley,
According to the New York Times:
The statement that is being grossly mischaracterized as an “apology” was issued by the embassy in Cairo.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:42 pm
What is the point of issuing that weak-kneed apology to the protesters outside the Embassy—-surely they didn’t think it would placate them and send them on their way?
For that matter, judging by the chanting they were (and are) doing, I suppose our killing of Osama bin Ladin offended them, too, so I wonder that the embassy didn’t apologize for that, in the hope of shooing them away.
I gather the offending video was being played on local TV, no doubt a fact reported by the embassy to the State Department. Too bad the president didn’t attend any of his intelligence briefings last week. maybe he would have thought to increase security at the embassies. But his chair was empty, as Clint Eastwood observed.
My husband and I were in the Foreign Service for 30 years. These dead people were our colleagues. I am tired of people making excuses for their killers.
September 12th, 2012 | 5:04 pm
The CNN report referred specifically to the Libyan attack. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
Again, why are you responding to me regarding the actions of the Embassy, State Department etc..?
I haven’t commented regarding those and don’t really have any criticisms per se….to me their only role in this affair, unfortunately, is that of victim.
My responses have been regarding excuse making for murderers and false equivalencies of how Christians respond/would respond to offensive material. And no…death threats on Facebook, horrible as they are, aren’t anywhere close to you know, actual murders.
September 12th, 2012 | 5:15 pm
What is the point of issuing that weak-kneed apology to the protesters outside the Embassy—-surely they didn’t think it would placate them and send them on their way?
In what way did the embassy “apologize.”
Also, the statement was at the Cairo embassy. The serious attack and killings were at the Benghazi embassy.
I am tired of people making excuses for their killers.
Who made excuses? Obama said,
Is there somehow an excuse or an apology in there that the rest of us can’t see?
September 12th, 2012 | 5:22 pm
Amazingly, today’s readings in The Church are from the beatitudes and Mathew 5.11 ! – ‘blessed are you when they curse you and persecute you because of My Name ..’ ; a Name that stands for truth of God’s love for us , in The Person of Lord Jesus , whom Christians adore …a similar comparison would be , if someone made a movie, to intentionally bring lies and calumny about Allah , to offend Muslims ..
such was not the case ..
and the movie maker was possibly only trying to share light of some historical truths ..
Our scripture mentions expicitly that St.Peter was called as ‘satan’ by our Lord Himself, for trying to speak as ‘humans ‘ in our fallen nature …
Christians have not burned bibles over same !
This instance seem no diffrent than that , except another instance of the varying capacity for mercy and forgiveness that The Lord alone brings into human hearts !
The church today esp. venerates the Holy Name of Mary /Miriam … a name that calms down the storms even in those who have not really known The Father Love , in and trhough our Lord !
May there be many who invoke that name , on their behalf too – Mary, Our Loving Mother ..
May
September 12th, 2012 | 5:31 pm
“Christians don’t respond to being offended by threatening and killing people”
16 year old Jessica Ahlquist begs to disagree with you
http://morallowground.com/2012/01/28/atheist-teen-jessica-ahlquist-bombarded-with-death-rape-threats-over-cranston-high-school-west-prayer-banner-lawsuit/
September 12th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
I find it very interesting that David N in his first post switches the focus of the thread to some kind of a Christian equivilancy. The Christian west has had many humiliations and disturbing films and artwork made against Mary, Jesus and the church in the last thirty years. Piss Christ, for one and despite his protestations the last temptation of Christ was an obvious shock piece. Why do you continually change the thread to attack the west, christianity or some other foundation of western throught that in the end allows you to make the arguments that you do. Your moral equivilancy would not fly in most of the muslim world, I hope that you understand that. You make comments about 8000 death threats and such and yet actions speak louder than words. Does not the name Theo van Gogh or Daniel Pearl or the thousands killed on 9/11 mean something?> It would be different if Americans were indiscriminatly raining bombs on Islamic innocents but that is not happening despite the lefts peering into every military action with an electron microscope. These people are simply butchers and there is no justification that can be made. There will always be wackos seeking to provoke, do innocents need to die then because of the few idiots actions?
September 12th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
“There is a difference between something being controversial and something being intentionally downright offensive.”
Serrano’s crucifix in a jar of urine struck me as “downright offensive” to Christians. So did the painting of the Blessed Mother smeared with animal feces. I don’t remember retaliatory assassinations.
That topic is a distraction anyway. This isn’t about Christians and Jews and what they mighta, woulda, coulda, done IF, etc. The problem is Islamic extremists and their ultra-precious sensibilities that demand kid-glove treatment.
September 12th, 2012 | 7:17 pm
This is a tragedy indeed – a pair of tragedies – and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice.
But I fail to see how mob violence can possibly be an ‘existential threat’ to the United States. So long as the middle East keeps moving toward theocracy, they can’t possibly pose a military or economic threat to the West. Even destruction on the scale of Hurricane Katrina couldn’t do that.
September 12th, 2012 | 8:10 pm
It’s perhaps unsporting to pile on Mr Nickol, but on the other hand he seems not to have heard of the first rule when one finds oneself in a hole of one’s own construction. This also breaks my own rule about feeding trolls, since I still think Mr Nickol is the most clever, subtle, and patient troll I’ve ever seen (can anyone remember the last time he agreed with an OP?), but I couldn’t let this pass. His hypothetical is flawed.
If a movie similar to the one about Mohammed were made about Jesus and distributed across the United States, I am quite sure Christians would be in the streets in protest. I wouldn’t necessarily predict violence, but I wouldn’t rule it out if the film were as provocative to Christians as this one is apparently to Muslims.
First, from what I can tell, this movie was on YouTube, not “distributed across the United States”. That makes it sound like it had a major studio producing and publishing it. The more I look into it, the more it seems like it was made by a few guys with too much free time. Second, the correct hypothetical would be to consider the Christian response if a movie was made in the Middle East about Jesus and then posted on YouTube, not if it were made here. And finally, I bet with a little trouble, someone could find a deliberately provocative film made in a Mohammedan country by followers of Mohammed critical of Christ, but no one here has ever heard of it because we realize that since Christians in the Middle East are often killed for their faith, we ought to reserve our energies for actual atrocities instead of poorly formed insults.
I have trouble believing that you were “genuinely astounded” that folks on this blog disagreed with you, Mr Nickol. It’s been noted before that almost all of your comments here are in disagreement with the OP; why should this one be different? Also, it’s not as if the argument that a failure to defend the right of free expression will lead to more assaults on that right is completely out of left field. You may disagree, but it’s at least an arguable point.
September 12th, 2012 | 9:43 pm
Max,
We are a complaining country and the anonymity of the Internet emboldens a lot of cowards of all strips. Death threats are a common phenomenon with just about anything someone doesn’t like. Some of those cowards are Christian as well. Some are atheists. And some are just gamers who don’t like a change made to their current favorite online game. It would help law enforcement if we could filter out those with real intent but that’s like finding a needle in a haystack.
To keep the record straight, they are cowards for making despicable claims while hiding behind the net.
September 13th, 2012 | 6:20 am
Vatican Statement:
September 13th, 2012 | 6:43 am
1987 Piss Christ (photo) by Andres Serrano
1988 The Last Temptation of Christ (movie)
1999 The Holy Virgin Mary (painting) by Chris Ofili
These examples keep coming up again and again. As movies and art exhibits go, they belong to the fairly distant past. All three were works of art that certainly offended some people, but were not intended to offend and were all quite defensible on the grounds of artistic merit. Serrano and Ofili were both badly misunderstood, and mostly by people who were not interested in contemporary art. But these are all distractions.
September 13th, 2012 | 7:03 am
First, from what I can tell, this movie was on YouTube, not “distributed across the United States”. . . .
Bob McMaster,
Please note that I amended the message you are criticizing. I was not attempting to set up an equivalence between what happened in Cairo and Benghazi and anything in the United States. I am unaware of any Christian extremists in the United States that would react to an insult to Christianity the way Muslim extremists have reacted to insults to Islam. I was not intended to set up a “moral equivalence.” I do think, though, that when something like The Last Temptation of Christ is offensive to Christians, they tend not to focus on the “connection between freedom of speech and religious freedom, and say that, “he two are intimately connected, which means that, unlike some, we have to protect the rights of error, not only those of truth.” In fact, in the case of the Chris Ofili painting, Mayor Giuliani withdrew city funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art and initiated a lawsuit to evict the museum from the city-owned building that housed it. This was not a rousing defense of First Amendment rights, and thankfully a federal court put a stop to it.
September 13th, 2012 | 7:14 am
I have trouble believing that you were “genuinely astounded” that folks on this blog disagreed with you, Mr Nickol.
Bob McMaster,
I expect to be disagreed with a great deal of the time, and even be subjected to name-calling. What I was “genuinely astounded” about (and remain astounded) is that anyone could interpret the Cairo embassy statement as follows:
I am having a problem understanding the sentiment, so I am open to correction on this, but it seems to be that if someone in the United States does something grossly offensive that agitates Muslims, the reaction of the United Stated should be to say, “We have freedom of speech in the United States. Our citizens are allowed to insult your religion. If you don’t like it, that’s just too bad.”
September 13th, 2012 | 7:33 am
The inside story of the statements from the Cairo embassy can be found here.
See Politifact for their article Did the U.S. embassy in Cairo make an apology? The answer is no:
Romney has no interest in the truth here. He is trying to use the death of an American ambassador to his political advantage. It is reprehensible.
September 13th, 2012 | 10:52 am
“but it seems to be that if someone in the United States does something grossly offensive that agitates Muslims, the reaction of the United Stated should be to say, “We have freedom of speech in the United States. Our citizens are allowed to insult your religion. If you don’t like it, that’s just too bad.”
No, we don’t have to go out of our way to be offensive. We could simply decry the murderous violence directed against our embassies (which is the business of the U.S. government) without reference to the free speech activities of U.S. citizens (which is not the business of the U.S. government.)
Why did anything have to be said about the video at all, since it is true that no provocation would justified the attacks on the embassies anyway?
September 13th, 2012 | 11:03 am
David: it seems to be that if someone in the United States does something grossly offensive that agitates Muslims, the reaction of the United Stated should be to say, “We have freedom of speech in the United States. Our citizens are allowed to insult your religion. If you don’t like it, that’s just too bad.”
Exactly the right tone. When has the United States ever condemned something that was anti-Christian? Did the British government condemn Monty Python’s “grossly offensive” movie about Jesus? Muslims simply need to learn that people in Western democracies have freedom of speech, and that this freedom includes the right the tell the truth about their religion (which is sometimes grossly offensive). This is not served by bending over backwards to soothe the feelings of people who will murder over free speech – which is also immoral and hypocritical.
It is, after all, in the holy texts of the Muslims themselves that Muhammad married a girl who was 6, when he was 51 – and ‘knew’ her three years after that. I agree that it is offensive, but it not the fault of anyone who points it out.
September 13th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
Why did anything have to be said about the video at all, since it is true that no provocation would justified the attacks on the embassies anyway?
pentamom,
First, nothing was said about the video. The statement was very general. Second, what I don’t understand here is that you were in the Foreign Service, but it is the people “on the ground” who did what you object to, and you seem to blame Obama. The State Department and the White House both objected to the statement before it was posted in Cairo:
September 13th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
I find the commentary directed at Mr Nickol amusing. Troll has been redefined as a “person whom I disagree with.”
As the political dust settles, it seems clearer this was Mr Romney’s Lehman Moment. I’m sure it’s troubling to consider that “fatwa envy” may have helped ensure the president’s reelection.
As for the perception of apologies, it’s clear that some conservatives have already stockpiled their grenade launchers and are awaiting the next or closest convenient target. It’s a human failing to indulge one’s anger in a mob setting. Entertaining in a way. But sad nonetheless.
September 13th, 2012 | 4:17 pm
David,
Is it really now your position that in the context of looming protests specifically related to the video in question, that the statement was only a “general one” since it does not mention the movies specifically? That’s cutting it mighty fine. Given the timing of the statement, and the fact that the drafter of the statement was also tweeting in response to folks who were specifically critical of the movie your latest spin, frankly, beggars belief. What, if not the movie in question, led the embassy spokesman to issue the condemnation? And why the timing? If it wasn’t about the movie but just a general statement, why was it issued then?
Finally, and yet again, what business is it of representatives of the United States in a foreign land to issue condemnations of the free speech actions of her citizens? Would you approve of embassy personal in Israel doing the same? How about our Ambassador to Vatican City? I reiterate my earlier question. Why does Islam deserve special treatment?
You need to move away from your reflexive need to defend all things Obama and recognize (as even the administration clearly does) that the statements and the tweets that preceded and followed it were (at best) a grave misjudgment from the beginning.
As for your statement (and the Obama administration’s assertion) that the “embassy acted on it’s own” think about whether or not you would accept that explanation from a Republican administration? An embassy in a foreign country is viewed by international law and political custom as sovereign territory. Embassy personnel are quite literally the voice of the US (and particularly the governing administration) in that land. “We didn’t approve” a day after the fact smacks of both blame shifting and an attempt to distance.
If the embassy in Cairo indeed went rogue and released a statement against the wishes of the administration then firing seems the least that should happen — particularly given the consequences.
This whole event is a frightful mess. The sovereign territory of the United States was overrun by rioters and a persoanlly appointed representative of the President of the United States (and three others) was murdered. Such an act by both international law and political custom may be (and often has been) considered an act of war. The thus far tepid, largely incoherent, and highly politicized response of the current administration should distressing to anyone who has concerns about the safety of our Foreign Service officers around the world. Mitt Romney’s response has not been real good either. But, ~he is not the President~! This is not about Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama. A pox on both their houses. There is much more t stake here than who wins in November. American sovereignty has been violated in a way that it has not been in almost a generation. The fact that folks want to make this all about the election and nothing more is ignorant and nauseating.
September 13th, 2012 | 5:13 pm
“what I don’t understand here is that you were in the Foreign Service, but it is the people “on the ground” who did what you object to, and you seem to blame Obama. ”
You must have me confused with someone else, as I’ve never been in the Foreign Service or anything close to that. Also, I never said a word about Obama. I said it is not the role of the government to comment on the free speech of American individuals, and insofar as “the people on the ground” are speaking in some official capacity, as seems to be the case, then they are speaking on behalf of the government.
And I said nothing either way about Romney, either.
September 13th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
pentamom,
Apologies. I was responding to peg’s message of September 12th, 2012 | 4:42 pm.
September 13th, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Why does Islam deserve special treatment?
david c.,
I think this line from your message is very telling.
September 13th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
Is it really now your position that in the context of looming protests specifically related to the video in question, that the statement was only a “general one” since it does not mention the movies specifically?
david c.,
Yes, it was a general statement. It was no doubt clear to everyone what it was referring to, but these are diplomats talking, and they made a diplomatic statement that did not single out any individual. That is what diplomats do.
Embassy personnel are quite literally the voice of the US (and particularly the governing administration) in that land. “We didn’t approve” a day after the fact smacks of both blame shifting and an attempt to distance.
You are free to doubt the news reports, but they seem credible to me. They are credible because we know in fairly significant detail the back-and-forth between the embassy and the State Department and White House.
If the embassy in Cairo indeed went rogue and released a statement against the wishes of the administration then firing seems the least that should happen — particularly given the consequences.
What were the consequences? Are you saying that the embassy statement somehow was responsible for the attacks? I don’t think from the viewpoint of the White House and State Department that the statement was outrageous. It just wasn’t very good. If no heads roll in the embassy, it will be for the reasons Obama stated:
The fact that folks want to make this all about the election and nothing more is ignorant and nauseating.
Romney turned it into a political issue by putting out his ill-advised statement and doubling down on what was baseless criticism. The Obama administration did not “apologize” for anything, nor did the Cairo embassy.
Here is a transcript of a State Department spokesman from 2006 commenting on the Dutch Cartoons. Notice he does much the same thing as the embassy statement. When he speaks about what the US condemns, he doesn’t name anything specific. If he hadn’t really seen the Dutch cartoons, it was almost certainly because he didn’t want to put himself in a position of commenting on them specifically. He makes it clear where the United States stands on published material that is anti-Islamic.
Yes, it is stronger on the rights of free speech, but it makes it clear that just because someone exercises his or her free speech rights does not mean that the American people or the government have to defend what they said.
I think it is extraordinarily ironic that some of the same people who claim that Christians are “persecuted” in the United States and howl about alleged offenses that are decades old are now staunch supporters of the rights of Americans to trash other people’s religions.
September 13th, 2012 | 6:42 pm
david c.,
See what Peggy Noonan has to say.
September 13th, 2012 | 6:45 pm
Because the Pope won’t lead the College of Cardinals and lay siege to the American embassy in Vatican City. Sad but true, but violence and aggression pay.
September 14th, 2012 | 9:38 am
I am not sure why the frequency or recency of offenses against Christianity like those cited above maters to the point. The point is that in any or all of these cases, angry mobs did not storm office buildings thousands of miles away from where they were created and murder people not even connected with the creators or sponsors of those works. Whatever reasons one may draw for why it happened in this case and not those, it shows a distinct difference, which is the point of bringing up the examples.
When people calling themselves Christians issue death threats because of perceived offenses, that is shameful and inexcusable. However, in a world where “You should die” is a common thing posted to express mild objection to someone’s singing style or some celebrity’s manner of dress, such shameful but powerless words typed on a free medium by people not even willing to put their diet Cokes down and walk across the room to do anything about it, just don’t really weigh in the balance against angry, murderous mobs.
September 14th, 2012 | 9:42 am
“I think it is extraordinarily ironic that some of the same people who claim that Christians are “persecuted” in the United States and howl about alleged offenses that are decades old are now staunch supporters of the rights of Americans to trash other people’s religions.”
I don’t know what’s ironic about believing that a right exists, and that sometimes it is exercised in a way that is offensive and should be legitimately protested. Can you explain to me what is ironic about that?
“Yes, it is stronger on the rights of free speech, but it makes it clear that just because someone exercises his or her free speech rights does not mean that the American people or the government have to defend what they said.”
Speaking for myself, I am not asking anyone to defend what was said. I am asking them to stop representing the principle of freedom of speech as being subject to government approval and review, and keep *entirely silent* on the matter of the appropriateness of a private citizen’s speech. What they should do, is shut up about what’s none of their business (what was said) and yell their heads off about what is their business (invasion of our embassies and murder of our diplomats.)
September 14th, 2012 | 10:13 am
David — re: 9/13 5:51 p.m. — no harm no foul. A type of mistake I’ve made myself often enough.
September 14th, 2012 | 2:15 pm
David,
I do not give a mustard burp what Peggy Noonan had to say about Mitt Romney. HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. Mitt Romney’s embassies are not under attack, his emissaries are not being murdered. What part of “I don’t care about the electoral politics of this” do you not understand?
You continue to want to inject politics into this discussion. I never introduced the name of Romney. You did. He’s your obsession not mine.
As to my question, I will ask it a third time since you find it “very telling” and in hopes that maybe you’ll answer this time instead of throwing out red herrings like chum. Why does Islam merit special treatment? Why does not the ambassador to the Vatican condemn anti-Catholic speech by citizens of the US? Why does the American legation in Tel Aviv not do the same for the anti-Semitic garbage that is all over the Internet? Why should Islam alone, be given the “heckler’s veto”? That’s what I mean by “special treatment”.
I am in complete agreement with pentamom and max on this one. It is simply not the business of the US government or it’s representatives to say anything whatsoever about the content of private citizens free speech activities. As pentamaom wrote: what they ought to be doing is being silent on the issue of the stupid and or offensive things all Americans are given the (more or less absolute) right to say and stick to the job (and it’s a big one at the moment) of “yell[ing] their heads off about what is their business (invasion of our embassies and murder of our diplomats.)
The Left used to talk all the time about the much hyped “chilling effect” on free speech particularly in a time of war. But that was ever so “Bush administration” ago. Now the tune is completely different. Last night the folks on MSNBC actually wondered aloud if the makers of this film should be arrested as accomplices to murder…. Think about that David. Think of the incredible hypocrisy and very real danger in that line of thinking. Do we really want the government in the business of deciding who gets to say what about whom and exercising police power against those it finds out of compliance?
One last thing. Where’s the ACLU on this? I went to the website and there wasn’t word one.
September 14th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
BTW – please don’t lump me in as one who “howls about the “persecution of Christians” in this country. I don’t. I don’t because thanks in part to the genius of the First Amendment I believe us to be extraordinarily blessed with a notable absence of such things.
As for your statement that those of us who have spoken out against this particular act of our Embassy are asking for them to “defend what they said” we aren’t and it is simply a falsehood to say we are. Both pentamom and myself have been very explicit on that point. Reread my first post again if you are unclear on that point.
September 17th, 2012 | 10:24 am
Speaking of the Last Temptation of Christ: I live in a country (Colombia) where the Catholic Church held a lot of power, including the power to censor movies until a couple of decades ago. And yes, they managed to get the movie censored, it arrived to this country until 10 years later, and not precisly because the Church changed its mind, but because it lost power to maintain censorship. So I see David Nikol point.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact