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.
Except that is not what Barnhadt is saying, she is not arguing for unlimited freedom of speech. What she is arguing for is that the first amendment be upheld. The argument is fundamentally a legal one and it boils down to should the constitutional safeguards enshrined in freedom of speech be weakened so that religious groupings in this case Muslims not suffer hurt feelings?
ReplyDeleteIt’s worth looking at the Jurisprudence that surrounds freedom of speech in the USA. Firstly Senator Graham has said that he ‘wishes there was something he could do about’ Americans burning the Qur’an. In essence he wishes to pass laws restricting this which is a worry. Furthermore looking at the Jurisprudence it can be gleaned that amendment one has been used to safeguard freedom of speech in a very broad and common sense manner. No you cannot shout obscenities in a kindergarten or tell a police officer to shove his truncheon up his ass as both would be considered obscene. However you certainly could unfurl a banner suggesting where the cops should put their truncheons so longs as it was not overtly obscene or explicit. Furthermore you can burn the US flag in spite of some states wishing to outlaw this, that is far more offensive in spirit I would have thought to most Americans than burning a religious text, certainly a religious text such as the Qur’an which has had no positive or other influence on the development of western civilisation unlike the Bible or Torah.
When describing how Christians in the west had hurt feelings over say Andres Serrano’s ‘piss Christ’ but they did not riot or act violently in comparison to Muslims over say the Mohammad cartoons how is that not relevant? We are talking about freedom of speech in the west where these occurrences happened. Furthermore it is that freedom that Senator Graham wishes to see curtailed presumably to appease radical groups. That is very dangerous and should not be allowed, that is freedom of speech needs to be vigorously protected against religious zealots wishing to see mob rule and intimidation dampen any criticism or mockery of their man made religion. I suspect with respect you were being flippant when you said Ann Barnhadt would be burnt at the stake for burning a Bible? Certainly the examples mentioned demonstrate that Christian figures can be mocked, defiled or scrutinised without a violent reaction and this is a good thing. Ms Barnhadt does appear to accept this. Many people argue forcibly or emotively over issues related to freedom just look at the outbursts of Mrs Thatcher. However Ann Barnhadt is sticking up for freedom of speech which is the cornerstone of the west’s civilisation and she is entirely correct in that regard. I would rather people understood the Qur’an than burnt it, however it should as with any book not be elevated to a status that sees it inviolate not least as what is in it inspires violence, misogyny and anti-Semitism today.
Thank you for hosting this discussion.
Firstly, Paul you are a gentle man as ever :) Your polite and reasoned response has many things worth considering. You are of course right that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our civilisation and as such needs to be protected. My main problem is simply that I don't like people using freedom of speech as an excuse to be insultive. Let me remind you of her view of Islam "sworn enemy of the USA". She is blatently just a bigot using the First Amendment as an excuse to fuel racial and religious hatred.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your comment about the Koran not contributing to western society, well in a direct sense you may be right. However, don't forget that while we were stuck in the dark ages it was the Arabs who preserved the works of the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians. When we were emerging from self induced stupidity, we got a lot of important texts and ideas from Muslim scholars. This was no mere accident Mohamed expressly decreed that education be a top priority. It was only in later years that Islamic fundamentalists twisted the messages and chose the bits they liked to promulgate.
I am not arguing a pro-Islam case, just the opposite: I am arguing a pro-western case. I don't want out society to suffer from dogmatism and fundamentalism in the way Islam's did. In my view I can not see anther meaning to burning a Koran other than as an insult to each and every Muslim; freedom of speech or no freedom of speech.