On legal action

Submitted by Meghan (United States), Mar 17, 2008 at 03:13

This is why the legal process is -here-. More power to them for choosing to use it.

The funny thing is, in the United States, people are routinely subjected to being forced to acknowledge Christianity in order to participate socially and legally in our country's processes. We have to fight legally for recognition in order for certain non-Christian religions to be allowed to have grave markers for our soldiers. We have to fight legally so that soldiers who are going off to Iraq do not have to pray in Jesus' name in order to be allowed to participate officially in their boot camp graduation. We have to fight the trappings of Christianity legally all the time. Likewise, Christian groups and other religious groups fight legally against organizations that defame their faiths.

That's why the legal process exists in the first place. Did I not just read a blog by you about an Islamic group apologizing to you under the threat of being sued? You yourself make use of the legal process rather regularly, it seems. Personally, I think Muslim leaders going about finding redress for grievances legally is far better than doing so illegally.

I know I keep referring to America and that this particular action will include nations such as Denmark as well, but American freedom of expression is extremely limited. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't say things that are untrue in many instances. Unfortunately, you can express your religion to the point of infringing on other people's rights, and to the point of the absolutely absurd (Westboro Baptist picketing the death of hate crime victims and, more recently, the student body president who was murdered, anyone?). I don't see how an objection to blasphemy is particularly out of place (especially when one is forced to acknowledge God if we want to pledge allegiance to our country, exchange money, testify in court, or do just about anything else).

From my understanding, the freedom of expression laws are similarly limited in other Western countries. Let the courts of these countries decide.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".