The Danish newspaper publications of Muhummed cartoons and the Islamic backlash that followed makes me wonder how the western world feels about our current freedoms to poke fun at religious icons or faith in general. Currently, in most of the west, we can make light of God, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Bhudda and so forth. So, do you believe that freedom of speech should be limitless (aka, can we be free to offend) or do you think that mocking other's beliefs should be off limits and thusly illegal?
2006-10-30 09:33:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Freedom of speech gets a little weaker when it's used to foster violence (e.g. at a KKK rally in the bad old days when white folks would get fired up to go hang a black person or a Jew). I don't know how that should be monitored legally, but I'm opposed to speech that intentionally incites illegal violence.
Parodying or making fun of religious figures may be offensive to sensitive people but that should fall under freedom of speech and should be tolerated.
2006-10-30 09:41:46 · answer #1 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Our first amendment is the freedom of speech. We need to value that tremendously. Christians are often mocked on secular TV without any defending time allowed. I have very little problem with that even though I am a Christian. All religions should have the freedom to speak from the pulpit for or against candidates that support their values and religious concerns. That is the concern I have is that Christians and others are being silenced by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) (but it could be renamed "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit") who take issue against religious icons in public areas. The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the churches and religious arenas, not prevent the church / religious institutions from influencing the government and freely speaking to the public about concerns. GIVE THE PEOPLE FREE SPEECH!!!
2006-10-30 09:43:14 · answer #2 · answered by Cordelia 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am a Muslim and I was offended by the cartoons of Muhammad along with countless other Muslims and Non Muslims I know. In Islamic countries, people are not allowed to make fun of any Prophet or religious figure, because they are to be respected. I was equally offended when Robert Mapplethorpe made some obscene artwork pertaining to Jesus (who has a very important role in Islam) I disagree with the backlash against these cartoons of Muhammad in the form of violence and outcries from the Muslim people across the globe. The people who created the cartoons got just what they wanted--more publicity and to enrage the Muslim population. Non-violent protest is acceptable. one wrong plus one wrong does not make one right. Freedom of speech and expression is a great responsibilty. Thus, we should all take great care in not offending the sensitivity of others by mocking thinkgs that are sacred to them. If we all learned at least this much about others, imagine how much more tolerant our society would be.
2006-10-30 09:41:54 · answer #3 · answered by dijfojri 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only example of Freedom of Speech being abused is the Westboro Baptist Church (a.k.a. "God Hates Fags"). They picket funerals of dead soldiers and other people and I understand we have Freedom of Speech, but funerals should be considered private events and that picketing should be considered loitering and causing a disturbance.
As far as the comics go, I don't see the problem. If Kevin Smith can make a movie that depicts Jesus as a "Buddy Christ" and if Kanye West can imitate Christ and no one gets in an uproar, then I don't see the problem with comics. If they don't like comics about their prophet, they don't have to look at them. Besides, if bombing stuff is how they cope with anger, then we should get to print offensive comics by default. They need to quit their whining.
2006-10-30 09:49:27 · answer #4 · answered by Maria Isabel 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the 1st modification says that government can "make no regulations" proscribing freedom of speech or the loose workout of religion and government departments regulations and regulations are seen via the courts to be valid regulations. So what happens is that the plaintiff documents a lawsuit claiming that the regulations are unconstitutional. whale
2016-10-21 00:32:33 · answer #5 · answered by schrum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Should Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al be exempt from criticism? Not on this planet!
2006-10-30 10:52:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
when one starts limiting then one puts the chances of offending everyone at some point in time and soon there are none who can protest anything as they are afraid to offend.
2006-10-30 09:44:59 · answer #7 · answered by Marvin R 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Freedom means freedom. If you take away freedom of speech at religious groups, other special-needs groups will want the same thing. If you take one thing away, pretty soon, you'll have to take them all.
2006-10-30 09:39:12 · answer #8 · answered by Sparkiplasma 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A little fun is OK but when it turns into mocker or hurts anothers feeling then it becomes harassment. Think before you act, that is a good suggestion.
2006-10-30 09:38:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Let's not mess with the Bill of Rights.
2006-10-30 09:37:24 · answer #10 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋