Free Speech vs. Just Not Being a Moron

By now, most people "know" that observant Muslims believe that one should not depict Muhammad in a drawing or picture. Technically, the Qu'ran prohibits idolatry, as does the Old Testament, and a blanket prohibition of images cannot be found there. However, in the hadith, stories about the life of Muhammad, can be interpreted as banning images of humans and other living beings. This has been interpreted in a variety of ways over the centuries, with the norms changing depending on the sect, the culture and the theologians doing the interpreting. Generally, most Muslims avoid making visual representations of God and of Muhammad. In addition, most Muslims would be offended if an artist created an offensive or disrespectful image of Muhammad, much as many Christians were offended at Robert Mapplethorpe's images of a crucifix in a jar of urine. The cartoons in the French publication Charlie Hebdo were not just innocent depictions of Muhammad, they were specifically designed to be offensive. Several Muslims took their offense at these cartoons to the extreme of killing the cartoonists. In Texas recently two Muslims were shot and killed by law enforcement after attacking a security guard at a "Draw Muhammad" gathering. They apparently were outraged and offended that someone would have the audacity to draw a picture of Muhammad.

I am not about to presume to judge Muslims sensibilities or their hurt feelings over the lack of respect their religion receives in certain quarters. What I will presume to do is judge the appropriateness of their reaction: killing people because they offend your religion is extreme, it is deranged, it cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

While I understand the thinking behind some of these "Draw Muhammad" events - it's a logical reaction against those who use violence to essentially terrorize others into falling in line with the tenets of their religion - I also wonder whether it's being unnecessarily provocative. Is it really appropriate to insult and offend religious believers in an organized fashion like this in order to make a point against the violent extremists among their coreligionists? I think it's pushing it, but being that we have (generally) freedom of expression in this country, I do not think that these events should be stopped. I don't think that the protests that the idiotic Westboro Baptist Church conducts should be stopped either and I think that they're way beyond offensive and provocative. Whether we like the "speech" or find it offensive, the First Amendment guarantees the right for it to be said.

Recently a group in Phoenix Arizona has moved beyond free speech to threatening, even terroristic action. Putatively described as a "free speech rally" the events included a "Draw Muhammad Contest" in a restaurant parking lot. So far, so good: stand up to the crazies who want to kill you for a cartoon - take a stand and declare that we don't put up with that nonsense in the United States. But it didn't stop at that. The participants in this "rally", many of them openly carrying firearms, surrounded a mosque, not just to stand up for free speech, but to protest against Islam itself. Fortunately for all concerned, none of the weapons were fired and no violence ensued. But what about next time? Is that what we consider a proper exercise of our First Amendment rights? Threatening our neighbors because we don't like their religion? And make no mistake, this was not just some citizens expressing their opinions, this was calculated to intimidate, to provoke.

What would you think if you walked out the front door of your church one Sunday morning to find a crowd of armed men shouting at you, wearing t-shirts and carrying banners and signs with offensive messages like "Fuck Jesus"? Without a doubt you would feel a bit threatened. Free speeech? Okay, but how about not being an idiot?