Guest Post by James F. McGrath, "The Freedom to Be Offended and to Offend..."

FROM The Freedom to Be Offended and to Offend: At the Intersection of Academic Freedom, Art History, Respect, and Religion
JANUARY 18, 2023 BY JAMES F. MCGRATH

"A lot of people have written already about the recent case in which Hamline University decided not to continue to employ an adjunct art history professor, Erika López Prater, after a student took offense at her showing (with due warning in advance) of a Medieval Muslim work of art depicting the prophet Muhammad. Prater is now suing Hamline. Below is my effort to articulate my stance on the matter.

"Inclusivity and respect on the one hand, and freedom of expression/academic freedom on the other, are positive values. Sometimes the pursuit of one of our important values is in tension with another. Then we have to choose which to prioritize. If more institutions would indicate up front what they put first when these values conflict, there would be less shock and less public outcry when they apply their clearly-stated prioritization, even from those who might disagree with their stance.

"Ultimately, for me there are two key concerns. One is that history includes things that some people find offensive. Whether one is dealing with individuals who want to believe that the historical Jesus thought of himself as fully God as per the later creeds, or individuals who want to believe that their nation never committed any atrocities, history presents inconvenient data. To hide that information is to put one’s teaching in the service of an ideologies that educators should not be required to subscribe to or promote.

"Of course, that’s not strictly analogous with the case of Islam and the depiction of Muhammad, since there is nothing in conservative Christianity that constitutes a prohibition of
hearing or seeing something you disagree with. In some streams of Islam, however, there is a prohibition against depicting the Prophet, and some would say that depiction of any living thing is prohibited. I think there’s more to be gained by making analogies with Judaism. Most Jews won’t pronounce the divine name, but they don’t expect others to share that scruple. If you are serving food that isn’t kosher you alert Jews and they abstain or you come to some arrangement for an alternative.

"The particular Muslim student who objected to the art being shown was equivalent to saying “you shouldn’t have served pork even though you announced the menu in advance and offered an alternative, because my religion prohibits me from consuming pork.”

"The student was demanding that no one see the image because of her scruples, in essence, wasn’t she? In a pluralist society you should not be obligated to make an image of Muhammad if you find that objectionable, but neither should you be able to prohibit others from seeing such images if they choose. There isn’t a perfect balance that will make everyone happy, but there is a tried and true approach in the United States that, however imperfect, seems to work better than alternatives........

---

"What are your thoughts about this? Please feel free to share them!"
--James F. McGrath

Read the rest of this excellent blog article on Professor McGrath's blog: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/


My comment: Bizarre! What has happened to freedom of speech in the U.S., especially for teachers and professors?! IF a student takes an Art History course, she ought to expect to see some paintings that don't agree with her own life stance. What right does she have to have a professor fired because he showed a painting against her particular view of Islam!?

It's good that I no longer teach! I wouldn't survive in this intolerant, anti-free-speech current time.
This professor is only one of many who have been fired in the last several years because students were "offended" by their professor's instruction.

Dan Wilcox

Please write for 2 missing Turkish men, Gokhan Turkmen and Mustafa Yilmaz

From Amnesty International:
"Gökhan Türkmen and Mustafa Yılmaz have been missing since...February 2019...suspected to have been abducted and forcibly disappeared. The authorities have so far been denying that they are being held in official custody."

And "On 29 July four men who had been missing since around the same time resurfaced in detention at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters."

"The authorities must promptly investigate to determine the whereabouts of Gökhan Türkmen and Mustafa Yılmaz and urgently inform their families."

Turkey "is bound by the prohibition of committing enforced disappearance under customary international law and other human rights treaties of which it is party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights."

"Write a letter...email, fax, call or Tweet them.

Mr Abdülhamit Gül
Minister of Justice
Adalet Bakanlığı
06659 Ankara, Turkey
Fax: +90 312 417 71 13
Email: info@adalet.gov.tr
Twitter: @abdulhamitgul
Dear Minister,

Ambassador Serdar Kiliç
Embassy of the Republic of Turkey
2525 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: 202 612 6700 | 6701
Fax: 202 612 6744
Email: embassy.washingtondc@mfa.gov.tr
Contact Form: https://bit.ly/2HZCUZu
Twitter: @SerdarKilic9 @TurkishEmbassy
Facebook: @turkishembassy

Salutation: Dear Ambassador,
https://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent-actions/urgent-action-investigate-whereabouts-of-two-missing-men-turkey-ua-111-19/



In the Light of Human Rights, Justice, and Equality,

Dan Wilcox

Support free speech: Request that Indonesia release Meliana for false charge of blasphemy

from Amnesty International:

"URGENT ACTION: 18 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR MOSQUE NOISE COMPLAINT (INDONESIA: UA 161.18)
Meliana, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman, has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 18 months in prison for complaining about the loudspeaker volume at a local mosque.

Amnesty International considers her a prisoner of conscience who must be immediately and unconditionally released.

Meliana, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman, has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 18 months in prison for complaining about the loudspeaker volume at a local mosque.

1) TAKE ACTION
Write a letter, send an email, call, fax or tweet:

Immediately and unconditionally release Meliana and all other individuals who have been convicted of blasphemy;
Ensure that Meliana and her family are given effective protection from violence or threats of violence;
Repeal or amend all blasphemy provisions set out in laws and regulations which violate the rights to freedom of expression and of thought, conscience and religion.
Contact these two officials by 10 October, 2018:
Ministry of Law and Human Rights
Minister Yasonna Laoly
Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said Kav 6-7
Jakarta Selatan, DKI
Jakarta, Indonesia 12940
Fax: +62 (0)21 525 3004
Email: rohumas@kemenkumham.go.id
Salutation: Dear Minister

Ambassador Budi Bowoleksono
Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia
2020 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036
Phone: 202 775 5200
Twitter: @KBRIWashDC @b_bowoleksono
Salutation: Dear Ambassador

--
Read the rest of this urgent action at AI:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent-actions/urgent-action-18-months-in-prison-for-mosque-noise-complaint-indonesia-ua-161-18/

--

MORE INFORMATION from THE STRAITS TIMES about the basis for the blasphemy charge:

"Criticism mounts in Indonesia against jailing of woman for complaining about volume of mosque speaker

"Wahyudi SoeriaatmadjaIndonesia Correspondent
JAKARTA - Criticism has mounted, even among Muslims, against the jailing of an Indonesian woman of Chinese descent for complaining to a neighbour about the volume of the azan (call to prayer) from the speaker of the community mosque.

"Civil society groups and lawyers denounced the verdict as excessive and silly while the two biggest Muslim organisations in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, questioned the use of the blasphemy clause against the woman.

"I do not see how saying 'azan is too loud' is an expression of hatred or hostility towards a particular group or religion," Mr Robikin Emhas, head of the legal, human rights and legislation department at Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Muslim organisation with more than 80 million members, was quoted as saying in a statement.

"The blasphemy clause should not be used to "bulldoze" anyone's right to express opinions and Muslims should consider such opinions as "constructive criticism in a plural society", he said...

"Meliana, 44, a Buddhist, was found guilty on Tuesday (Aug 21) of blasphemy by the Medan district court in North Sumatra and sentenced to 1½ years in prison. The mother of four is a resident of Tanjung Balai sub-district in the eastern part of the province. Her husband, a labourer at a local swallow's nest farm which supplies bird's nests to restaurants, lost his job because of her trial.

"On July 22, 2016, Meliana was speaking with the owner of a small convenience store, who was her neighbour, when she referred to the volume of the speaker at the nearby mosque, saying that it had become louder than previously...This quickly spread on social media, which then triggered riots as Muslims, offended by the remarks, went on the rampage. Several Buddhist temples were burnt in what was believed to be the worst bout of anti-Chinese violence in the country since 1998...Meliana became a victim of a mob who descended on her house...who then vandalised and burned her house...

"Dozens of people, including former Jakarta governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama, have been sent to prison under Indonesia's controversial blasphemy laws, the Jakarta Post reported."

Read the rest of the news on Meliana at:
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/criticism-mounts-in-indonesia-against-jailing-of-woman-for-complaining-about-volume-of

Shine the light of goodness, justice, and compassion,

Daniel Wilcox

Guest Post: "Why I am a Free-Speech Fundamentalist"

from Secular Outpost on Free Speech by Keith Parsons:
"I am a free-speech fundamentalist. That is, I hold that public forums, including public universities, should be open to the free expression of opinion. Period. Even when the opinion is offensive and obnoxious. Especially when the opinion is offensive and obnoxious. There can be no free speech if it is required that the speech not offend anyone.

There can be no free speech if only certain viewpoints or ideologies are permitted. There can be no free speech if certain topics are sacrosanct and not allowed to be touched. Does that mean that white supremacist Richard Spencer should be allowed a platform? Yes.

Does it mean that professional provocateurs such as Ann Coulter and Milos Yiannopoulos should be allowed to do their odious act? Yes.

But what about those whose feelings would be deeply hurt by the mindless effusions of such trolls?

Tough. You have no right not to be offended.


You also have no right to shout down such speakers or prevent their audience from hearing them. If you do so, you should be forcibly ejected from the premises."
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/10/30/free-speech-fundamentalist/#jB30jA1OoQoSeE0z.99
Why I am a Free-Speech Fundamentalist



--

Thank you, Keith Parsons!!

Though I never thought you would describe yourself as a 'fundamentalist;-) of any sort. (Though, of course, I get your humorous hyperbole:-)

It is so scary, so irrational, so undemocratic, so aberrational that these many humans now want to deny for others what they claim for themselves.

And the strange current view that you mention, "But what about those whose feelings would be deeply hurt by the mindless effusions of such trolls? Tough. You have no right not to be offended."

When did civilization, democracy, progress come to mean not being "offended"?!

Also, during the many years that I taught literature to high school students including basic debate (on the most controversial topics from abortion to same sexuality to war), our school never had a problem, nothing like the current upsets at some universities from New England to Berkeley. By my insisting on a few courtesy rules and that they present their views with reasoning and evidence, 9th graders and 11th graders, for years, were able to espouse ANY view they wanted to, without censure.

During all of those debates, students learned much. Never once, though they were immature teens, especially some of the 9th graders:-), did I ever have to send any one out for discipline problems. NOT once.

What is wrong that so many now demand that the free speech of others with whom they disagree, be restricted?!

In the Light of Freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion or non-religion, freedom of the press, freedom, freedom, freedom!

Daniel Wilcox

The Dividing Line Isn't Between Rightists and Leftists, But "Cuts Through Every Heart."

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the current crisis in the U.S., all sides are forgetting this keen ethical observation by the prisoner of conscience, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Various sides are claiming, self-righteously, that it is only their enemies who are wrong.
But actually, all of us humans to one degree or another are both good and bad.

"That means that when we oppose and criticize our enemies we ought to do so with an honest awareness of our own moral failings."Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love...Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, [or Black man or Brown man] but to win his friendship and understanding."
--Martin Luther King

A few Key Points:

#1 Free Speech is for everyone, even for those we think have evil views! It is truly scary that the counter-protesters--Black Lives Matter, etc.-- against the White Supremacists appeared to be seeking to deny the White Nationalists their right to assemble, protest, and speak.

#2 All of us need to more strongly than ever counter right wing (and left wing) racism, especially when overt racists act upon that racism and even murder others such as the horrific murderer of the young woman in the street.

#3 The Media needs to do a better job of objective reporting. Notice that in the coverage of the White Supremacist rally, nearly all media outlets identified the legal protest as that of White Supremacists, BUT failed to identify the “counter-protestors.”

Many of the latter were part of Black Lives Matter, a group which is anti-police, which claims that police in the U.S. systematically abuse, unfairly arrest, and attack Blacks.

This is mostly untrue. The vast majority of police officers serve and protect everyone. (I do know that a few police are racists, have heard it myself. But even they don’t treat Blacks wrongly when the latter are arrested during the commission of crimes.)

For instance, Black Lives Matter holds Michael Brown up as a hero, even though he was a criminal who committed a strong-armed robbery shortly before he was stopped by a police officer in Missouri!

Then Michael Brown, allegedly, attacked the police officer in his car. Yet Black Lives Matter, in an odd twist of reverse racism, claims that the police officer was guilty of racism!

#3 All political sides need to take a step back, meditate, learn to respond with empathy and humility toward their enemies.

The complex problems of the present (and the past and the future) aren’t solved by simplistic, political rhetoric and sloganeering.
ALL sides have both good and evil running right through their heart and mind.

#4 The removal of statues and monuments to past human leaders NEEDS TO STOP! We need to learn from the past, both the good and evil, not delete it from our public consciousness.

Nearly all of the first 12 Presidents of the U.S were racists, and many of them slave owners. Does that mean we need to take down the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Monument? Lincoln was a racist, so ought we to remove the Lincoln Memorial?

NO.

The past’s memorials, monuments, and statues ought to be used to teach, of how ALL human leaders’ actions are combinations of good and evil. Deleting their statues only worsens the already bad situation.

Those leftists who pulled down the statue to Confederate soldiers in North Carolina ought to be arrested for vandalism, trespassing, etc.
Not only did they do what is unlawful, it was immoral and unjust.

NO more memories from the past ought to be deleted from our public consciousness.

Napoleon committed many evil actions as did Oliver Cromwell, the Kings of England and France, the Roman Catholic Church, etc.
BUT
none of their statues ought to be removed.

Neither should any statues of leaders of the United States or the Confederacy be removed.

#5 The CENTRAL focus of current actions ought to be on grieving for the family of the murdered young woman, on seeking to counter the racism of many Americans including the overt horror of the White Nationalists.

We do best if we remember the emphasis of Martin Luther King, of how he emphasized we need to show benevolence toward our enemies, seek to help them escape from their evil views and actions.

#6 At legal protests, NO one ought to be allowed to carry weapons of any sort, certainly not guns.

#7 The police and National Guard ought to keep the opposing sides separate.


And, thanks to Starbucks of Camas, Washington and Hood River, Oregon while I am van-traveling. They made this brief post possible.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

The Revenge of the Politically Incorrect: Don Trumphalism

triumphalism: "excessive exultation over one's success or achievements (used especially in a political context)"

"an attitude or feeling of victory or superiority: as
a : the attitude that one religious creed is superior to all others
b : smug or boastful pride in the success or dominance of one's nation or ideology over others"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

triumph:
"late 14c., "success in battle, conquest," also "spiritual victory" and "a procession celebrating victory in war," from Old French triumphe (12c., Modern French triomphe), from Latin triumphus "an achievement, a success; celebratory procession for a victorious general or admiral,"

"from Old Latin triumpus, probably via Etruscan from Greek thriambos..."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=triumph

But beneath the Trump-halism and the Hilary-Everestism:

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico: "As you have probably noticed, as more polls include my name and show us in double digits..."

"Not only is the news media taking TO Governor Weld [former Republican governor of Massachusetts] and me more, they are now talking ABOUT us more."

"And, of course, that is precisely what we need...the media, and voters, will take note of the fact that 15 percent puts us in the presidential and vice-presidential debates this fall...Being in the debates is a game-changer."

Even though this is impressive: two former conservative/libertarian governors running in the presidential election, what can it really achieve?

Will it throw an odd curve ball?

Could it possibly throw the election, like the infamous election of 1860?

Republican Party Abraham Lincoln 39.8%

Democratic Party Stephen A. Douglas 29.5%

Southern Democratic Party John C. Breckinridge 18.1%

Constitutional Party John Bell 12.6%
--

Who will benefit from the Johnson-Weld run, Clinton or Trump?

Or will the curve be split?

In the current 4-way race, NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll:

Libertarian Party Gary Johnson 10%

Green Party Jill Stein 6%

Democratic Party Hilary Clinton 39%

Republican Party Donald Trump 38%
--

Businessman Ross Perot in 1992 earned 18.9% but that was no cigar.
--

In the divided election of 1912,

Democratic Party Woodrow Wilson 41.8%

Bull Moose Party Theodore Roosevelt 27.4%

Republican Party William Howard Taft 23.2%

Socialist Party Eugene V. Debs 6%
--

Other Third Party Runs:

1968:

American Independent Party, Former Governor George Wallace 13.5%
& General Curtis LeMay

Republican Party Richard Nixon 43.4%

Democratic Party Hubert Humphrey 42.7%
--

1924:
Progressive Party Robert M. La Follette 16.6%
--

1980:

Independent Congress John B. Anderson 6.6%
--


Could the current election get such a severe split this time around, over 100 years later?

Unlikely, but then no one thought Trumphalism was going to defeat the usual standard bearers of the Republican Party in the Primaries.




But where in all of this rhetoric, propaganda, and multi-millions spent, is there any LIGHT?

Daniel Wilcox

Is Muhammad Killing Free Speech?

As readers know from my past blogs, I am no friend of obscene speech ("Pure and Profane Speech" May 16, 2011).
Furthermore, it is important in theism and humanism to be respectful of other people's worldviews, religions, and beliefs (unless a particular belief calls for harm, abuse, or slaughter).

No, I am no friend of the gross cartoons against various religions drawn by Charlie Hebdo magazine or the recent racist image by a Palestinian cartoonist comparing Jewish people to vermin. Sick and repulsive.

But all forms--including reprehensible expressions--of free speech need to be defended from right-wing theocrats, politically correct leftists, and violent jihadists.

I am fairly well read in Islam and understand why the ban on images, Muhammad in particular, came about. Also, Islam is seeking to carry on the tradition of Judaism not to idolize.

However, #1 the ban has strangely turned into the very thing it was meant to prevent, the glorification of a human! #2 the ban now serves as a pretext, even a command, for Muslims to persecute, abuse, and slaughter others.

And #3, worst of all, the ban is contrary to free speech. Free speech is so important; free speech is the fundamental right of every human. Without free speech, it isn't possible to seek truth in philosophy, science, aesthetics, society and culture.

Whatever worldview a person holds he/she needs to understand his/her own perspective shouldn't be forced at gunpoint upon others. But tragically that is what millions of Muslims are doing around the world right now, and what Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. have done in the past.

Sadly, this anti-free speech jihad of Muslims seems to go back to the founder. According to most historians, Muhammad himself ordered the murder of a woman poet because she wrote a satirical poem against him and his views!

When free speech is killed, the murder of actual humans is on the way.

Let us be free.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Hanging a Woman Because She Spoke Against Islam

Islam is very confusing to me though I'm reading through the Qur'an in translation a second time, have lived in Palestine/Israel for seven months, have dialogged with Muslims for many years...

Consider the contradiction between the following noteworthy, positive witness against the ISLAMIC STATE by many Islamic scholars which ends: "In conclusion, God has described Himself as the ‘Most Merciful of the merciful’. He
created man from His mercy. God
says in the Qur'an: ‘The Compassionate One has taught the
Qur'an. God forgives all sins. Truly He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.”’ (Al-Zumar, 39:53).And God knows best.
24th Dhul-Qi’da 1435 AH / 19th September 2014 CE"

http://lettertobaghdadi.com/new-en2.php#

CONTRASTED TO THIS WEEK'S NEWS:

A Pakistani Christian woman has been sentenced to hang after she was accused of making 'blasphemous' comments about the prophet Mohammed during an argument.

While working as a berry picker in 2009, 46-year-old Asia Bibi got into a dispute with a group of Muslim women who objected to her drinking their water because as a Christian she was considered 'unclean'.

Hours after the incident one of the women reported mother-of-five Ms Bibi to a local cleric, claiming she had made disparaging remarks about the prophet Mohammed during the row.

As a result of the allegations, a furious mob arrived at Ms Bibi's home and savagely beat her and members of her family.
She was later arrested, charged with blasphemy and eventually sentenced to death - with her entire family forced to go into hiding after receiving threats on their lives.

This week, despite international outrage and hundreds of thousands of people signing a petition for her release, Ms Bibi lost an appeal to have her sentence overturned, meaning she now faces death by hanging.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796178/pakistani-christian-woman-sentenced-death-blasphemy-making-derogatory-remarks-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html#ixzz3HYc7EDta

Human Rights Watch described the court's decision as a "disgrace to Pakistan's judiciary."
"Asia Bibi's case is an example of how Pakistan's vaguely worded blasphemy law has led to discrimination, persecution and murder since its imposition almost three decades ago," spokesman Phelim Kine told CNN.

Bibi's attorney, Naeem Shakir, told CNN on Monday that he would file an appeal once he had received a detailed copy of the judgment.
"I have a very strong case, I am sure the Supreme Court will provide us with relief. There is no concrete evidence against Asia Bibi, and the courts are only relying on the statement on those two women," Shakir said.