I recently commented on a Facebook post of an old army buddy who had posted the following video:
My first impression of the woman was that she was somewhat rabid and that perhaps I should call a vet and have her humanely dealt with. This may seem harsh but if you take a moment to view the film you will see
how she is so full of anger and venom that she basically spits at the camera. Ok, maybe this is her normal demeanour and she would be just as aggressive ordering a KFC, therefore I will try to ignore her out burst
and deal with her points.
My initial reaction was this:
That is almost comical; her islamaphobic rant displays a major lack ofunderstanding of constitutional law. Since when has freedom of speech meant freedom of incitement and offensiveness. Her claim of the Koran being a book of paper and ink... is laughable; even the stupidest schoolchild knows a religous book of any ilk has more meaning than it's paper value. Also since when has Islam been the sworn enemy of the US? Does that mean that the US bases in Saudi Arabia are now in enemy territory? I think she displayed who the real jackass is.
To which my former colleague replied with:
How is burning a book incitement? She referenced how Christians were offended by matters such as Andres Serrano 'piss Christ' but tell me how many people were killed by Christian mobs when that occurred? What she is saying is that freedom... of speech includes the right to offend, yet Muslims seek to erode this vital right by causing chaos whenever 'their' religion is subject to criticism or mockery. It's also ridiculous to suggest that Americans in AFG are endangered by a Pastor burning a Qur'an in Florida, was it safe before that?
This was alas to big an issue to reply to on Facebook and so I decided to respond here.
Firstly let us look at the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Mainly people refer to the 1st amendment as “freedom of speech” yet this is in fact only a small part of it and must be read in the context of the whole amendment. The amendment also must be understood within a historical context. The bill of rights was a hastily put together document mainly ripped for the English constitution and was aimed at curtailing the powers of the ensuing federal government. As such it was the product of the contemporary culture: a culture built to a large degree on puritan foundations (as remarked upon by Samuel Huntingdon in his book: Who are we?)
Were Ann Barnhardt to burn a bible (a mere collection of paper and ink – using her argument) at this time she would no doubt have been lynched on the spot and given her behaviour in her video no doubt burnt as a witch to boot.
It does not take the brains of an arch-bishop (forgive the religious pun) to understand that freedom of speech concerns not restricting the topic under discussion and does not mean you can just go around insulting everyone. Were Barnhardt to be correct it would mean that you could conceivably walk into a kindergarten and yell sexual expletives or go up to a policeman and tell him where he can stick his truncheon. As
we all know this is not the case. While freedom of expression should be defended, it should not be stretched to the ridiculous.
Regarding her comparisons with attacks on Christian symbols. This is just a childish argument at best. Saying that people in the west do not respond to attacks on Christian icons actually only points out the level
of evolution of western society. I for one am glad that we no longer respond violently to attacks on our sense of self. To use the difference between east and west as justification for intentionally offensive actions just belittles her argument. If the US constitution and, by Barnhardt's association, the bedrock of western political belief has come down to defending a moron burning Korans then god help us. To burn a Koran is intentionally incitefull. It does not matter if you belief or not, the book is sacred to millions and as such is part of a joint human heritage. All such books, whether they be eastern or western should be
respected.
While she is of course right in regards to her comments concerning WW2 censorship. Her understanding of the situation in Afghanistan is astounding. Following her logic she would have it that all civilians in the country be regarded as targets. This is I think generally regarded as genocide.
