by Phil Lawler
special to CWNews.com
Feb. 11 (CWNews.com) - “Ultimately, there is no compromise,” writes Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum. “Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.”
Is “the right to insult and blaspheme” an intrinsic aspect of our civilization? Maybe so. Freedom of speech necessarily entails the freedom to say things that others may find offensive. Still, is it necessary to applaud insult and blasphemy? Or to put it another way, is it wrong for government officials to say that some expressions are tasteless?
Pipes, in a CNSNews column, answers that question with an emphatic Yes. He finds it offensive that some government leaders have apologized for the cartoons that Muslims find offensive.
Fair enough. As long as he’s not using violence (like Islamic fundamentalists), or trying to shut down the presses (like tyrannical governments), he can express his views freely. And we can disagree.
My disagreement with Pipes began with the first paragraph of his column:
**The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West?
[comment KK: this is wat flaming is basically,inflames both sides.clever no?]
**Here Pipes falls into the same mistake that has weakened Europe in the face of militant Islam. The West is locked in a global struggle against militant Islam. And what is at stake is far more important than “customs and mores.” If you classify freedom of speech in the category “Customs and Mores,” you’re already in trouble.
Daniel Pipes in a perceptive, intelligent observer of world affairs. I feel sure that he did not intend to suggest that freedom of speech is merely a matter of social custom. But the fact that he would slip into that error, on a topic of such fundamental importance, reflects a confusion that is all too common among political analysts. This confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between matters of taste, which are determined by individual choice, and first principles, which are based on logic and faith.
Militant Muslims have no uncertainties about their own beliefs. But in the West, and particularly in the intellectual salons of old, jaded Europe, belief itself is unpopular. No longer prepared to speak about truth and natural law, a weary generation instead clings to its preferred “values” and “customs.” But values and customs are things that you choose to uphold, recognizing that others may choose differently. In this respect they are very different from truths, which remain true whether or not you choose to accept them.
As we call for the defense of Western society, let’s be clear what we’re defending. The cartoons that originally appeared in a Danish publication are not the fundamental issue here; the issue is freedom of expression. The cartoons themselves were vulgar and offensive; they offered no particular insight and expressed no sentiment more profound than simple contempt for Muslims. There is no reason to applaud their publication. But even as we regret their appearance, we can defend the publisher’s right to print them, because something much more important is at stake.
In Western society, our system of government is constructed upon the truths of natural law. If you recognize the truths which the American Founders declared to be “self-evident,” then the right to freedom of speech follows-- not as a custom, which might be altered with the passage of time and circumstances, but as a fundamental human right, which should be always and everywhere defended.
Islam is on the rise all around the world**[comment KK: by birth or by immigration or by conversion or a mix of factors…could this be a threat?]**-- and again, particularly in Europe-- because Muslims are clear in their beliefs and unapologetic in advancing them. If we in the West are not equally clear about our beliefs, we are at a severe disadvantage. What are the fundamental beliefs that Europeans will defend at any cost? If there are none, then the eventual Islamicization of Europe is a foregone conclusion.
Ultimately this conflict is a clash of beliefs, a clash of faiths. Those who have abandoned their faith are entering the battle unarmed.****[comment KK: quite possible isnt it,serves to keep the reasons for a world war hot]