By Tom Quiner

The winds of oppression are building to a gale force.

The first blast, the HHS Mandate, did grave damage to our freedom of religion. The president and his party were insistent: Catholics had to let go of their religious consciences and begin paying for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations.

There would be no accommodation. Comply or succumb to the coercive power of the state.

Will the second blast topple more of our first amendment freedoms? I ask in light of the administration’s response to the murder of Americans in the Mid East by Muslims. A letter I read in the morning’s Des Moines Register captured their sentiments. The writer is a frequent contributor and ardent liberal.

He had no words of outrage for the Muslims who killed our ambassador and others. His outrage was directed at the American who made a short, anti-Muslim film:

“Does the First Amendment guarantee the right to say anything you want, regardless of the consequences? No. There is a legal concept known as “fighting words” that, according to the Nolo Plain-English Law Dictionary, “are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace.”

In other words, American free speech is the problem.

This is why you can be prosecuted for yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater or incite to riot. And this concept is why it is appropriate to prosecute the filmmakers who surely had some inkling that portraying the Prophet Muhammad in a vulgar, insulting manner was bound to result in violence by scores of offended Muslims around the world.

In other words, American free speech is the problem.

If America expects the rest of the world to respect our standards — say, of free speech — then shouldn’t it be up to America to apply all the rules as they surround those standards? The filmmakers yelled “fire!” in a worldwide theater, crowded by millions who believe that Muhammad should never be portrayed in any manner.

In other words, American free speech is the problem.

Why can’t we respect that belief? And why can’t we apply our own rule of law to those who have wantonly broken it?

In other words, American free speech is the problem. Let us label anti Muslim free speech as hate speech and imprison violators.

Murderous Muslims are not the problem. We are the problem, and the solution is to gut the First Amendment even further.

The solution is to show more tolerance and understanding to the hair trigger murderous impulses of millions of Muslims.

The solution is to temper our infatuation with free speech to accommodate the sensitivities of the Muslim mobs roaming the planet.

Although no such moderation will be tolerated when it comes to pornographic free speech or anti Christian free speech, we need to be sensible when it comes to the Muslims.

Let us gut the first amendment.

7 Comments

  1. skyedog27 on September 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Regarding your ‘solution’ (sarcastic, of course): My reply to that is, “When Hell freezes over”.

    • quinersdiner on September 19, 2012 at 3:28 pm

      Did my sarcasm come through? Son of a gun.

  2. Bob Vance on September 19, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Regarding that “art” exhibit, I found it in very poor taste also. Hopefully his “I have no talent so I will shock / offend people” tactic was short lived. I have not heard of him since.

  3. Bob Vance on September 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Bob, what do you think about the possibility that Jesus was indeed married – most likely to Mary Magdelene? It goes well with the “Gospel of Mary”. I never understood why people deemed her a prostitute. To me, it makes me admire him even more.

    • Shawn Pavlik on September 20, 2012 at 9:24 am

      I think people mistake Mary for the woman who was to be stoned to death, about whom Christ said “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” There is nothing indicative in the word that they are the same woman, IIRC. Regarding the possibility that they were married, I find that highly unlikely given it is never mentioned in the 4 Gospels. One would think that if that happened, that it would be a pretty key event. Scripture makes it pretty clear that “the bride of Christ” is the church.

  4. Shawn Pavlik on September 20, 2012 at 9:30 am

    I was disturbed more by the delayed and then feigned outrage by our Commander-In-Chief than by the actual murder of our ambassador. I’m sick of the finger pointing at people who draw cartoons or make a film rather than pointing the figure at the islamofascists who are the actual perpetrators of the violence. And blaming this film on this obviously pre-planned attack is the high of ridiculousness. They were merely looking for an excuse to kill. Hunt em down like the dogs that they are.

    And if I have to hear the words “religion of peace” one more time, I may throw up.

  5. quinersdiner on October 6, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    Reblogged this on A Heapin' Plate of Conservative Politics & Religion and commented:

    I’m re-running this blogpost from two years ago because of a response that came in today from a contentious Muslim. Check back tomorrow for her angry comment and my response.

Leave a Comment