Still Thinking,,,

Well, the past weeks have been quite interesting, though lots have happened to dampen the situation concerning the topic at hand. While my original topic was a bit narrow in terms of looking at religious violence and free speech, it should perhaps have been broad enough to discuss free speech vis-a-vis other social events. In all, the clamour for social justice in the wake of recent political, social and religious disturbances have peppered our understanding of just what free speech entails. I particularly like one that nferyn posted when replying to another thread: "The right of your fist ends where my face begins." Classic, isn't it? Nferyn and I may not agree on a whole lot of things, but I think we both agree on one premise: "Calling terrorism a freedom of expression is perverse." (see his post here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6236.96.html - it's on page 4 of the topic "The Prophet Muhammad Cartoons". Just last night when my wife said something that put me in my place, it suddenly dawned on me that "freedom of speech" is not the same thing as "vacancy of thought." (Don't even ask me what she said, because that might cause another 'katakata').

We should all cherish the freedom to express ourselves. That is precisely what makes the world go round. We value the right to say whatever, whenever, however, and to whoever in as many places as can be called 'wherever'. It is true that not everything we say will go down well with everbody on whatever topic - and William Shakespeare still has me shaking on how well he captured the thought with this: "I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

How far should the freedom of speech or expression be tolerated? What does it entail - and does it give me the right to be crude in just about anything and everything? Who determines what is freedom of speech and what is not?

These are the many questions that have emerged in the past weeks. Besides religious sensitivities, the question of free speech has its throes and pathos in various other contexts. Not too long ago, some reknowned cartoonists in celebrating their art as a means of conveying their message to society, are of the opinion that free speech and expression should be seen as inclusive of the right to insult anyone. Perhaps, that is why public figures like politicians and businessmen and women are caricatured with an aim to opposing their views or policies. Maybe you agree or not; but how should we interpret the deliberate or calculated insult at publicly-affecting issues, with the results of the events following that cartooning of Muhammad?

Some of us only got to know recently about, and were appalled that, British historian David Irving denied the Holocaust (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4710508.stm). There are mixed feelings as to the jail sentence he got in the Vienna trial which sees it as a crime for anyone to deny that event. If this was a joke, perhaps no one would have bothered with him. Yet, a lot of thinkers are still wondering about the mystery behind Irving's revisionist work at such a level as to make his opinions not only public, but also with an aim to deride the wounds of a group of people.

I am free to write and say whatever I want - here on Nairaland, and in my bedroom where my wife could hear me loud and clear. I am also free to run for cover when rocks are pelted at me for not exercising discretion at people's sensitivities. By and by, I've learnt that the "Zero Tolerance" sign in most buses in Atlanta, Georgia were not posted for the mere fun of it, but to warn that a law is in operation that we need to respect as regards my bus fare. But, do you feel like my neighbour sometimes who sees laws as somewhat synonymous with a killjoy in the exercise of his freedom? I'll leave it here with another quote from a great sage:

     "Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without
       penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population." - Albert Einstein.

Free speech and tolerance - perhaps that's another matter entirely, depending on what side of the fence yoou are on. 

@ 4get_me
sorry to bother you again, but I still don't understand you when you're saying

I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Do you mean that a specific interpretaton by Luther constitutes proof of the validity of Christianity?

Islam? A religion of peace? Think again!

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them

4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; (Anyone who resist Islam is deemed to be making war with Allah)

5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. (Talking about christians)

nferyn:

@ 4get_me
sorry to bother you again, but I still don't understand you when you're saying

I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Do you mean that a specific interpretaton by Luther constitutes proof of the validity of Christianity?

Not necessarily, nferyn. Let's look at it this way: if I had always thought that Belgium was a town in Denmark, I would have no proof that my notion was correct. Even so, I might be suspicious of anyone arguing to the contrary. However, if someone should point out with clear proof from a map source that Belgium was a separate and sovereign nation from Denmark, I would have to change my views from my previous notion because it just wasn't in the books. In the same way, I had been taught loads of things that just were not in the Bible - such as purgatory and penance. It matters little whatever Martin Luther's specific interpretation of a text was. If I was told that "the just shall live by faith", and I found that in the Bible, it would be enough for me to change my previously held notion about salvation. This was what I meant by "clear text proof."

I do not hold the view that Martin Luther's (or anyone's) specific interpretation constitutes proof of the validity of Christianity.