Current Events: February 2006 Archives

Newsweek had a comment in their Conventional Wisdom column that said, "Will riots and threats from the Arab world (over offensive cartoons) lead to a new form of censorship?" Ah, the First Amendment fundamentalists — I see their concern is not the people who have been killed or injuried, rather it's with "censorship".

I thank God for censorship.

I thank God when publications censor information from sources not proven to be reliable, and not from every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants media exposure.

I thank God when publications censor material unfair to or grossly offensive to a particular group (such as Christians).

I thank God when publications censor sexual material, since it helps me keep my mind pure instead of planting images that I can't escape.

I thank God when publications likewise censor disturbing material that traumatizes people (such as photos of mangled bodies).

I thank God when publications censor what they know is defamatory or not true.

I thank God when publications censor what is a threat to national security.

The other side of "censorship" is discretion. Not everything needs to be published. Discretion is the skill of determining what should and what should not be published. There is nothing wrong with deciding not to publish something deliberately intended to inflame passions.

This is not to say that there isn't merit to fighting some forms of censorship, or that censorship is an absolute good. But neither is opposition to censorship.

Within appropriate bounds, I say then, let's hear it for censorship.

For more information, see the Zondervan Responsibility in Free Speech campaign.

One wire-service wag wrote concerning the cartoon controversy, 'But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.'

The amusing thing of course is that these cartoons would have languished in total obscurity had there not been any reaction to them. Now they have been spread all over the world. If their objective was to stop the spread of blasphemy or whatever they consider it to be, they failed, failed miserably. We have course have seen this in our own protests, which is why we are often careful not to protest anything too strongly, lest we make it more popular.

I wonder how long it will be before I start getting ugly comments from Muslims on this issue.

Ok, figure this out:

Iran's largest selling newspaper has announced it is holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper, which is published by Tehran's conservative-run municipality, said on Monday.

Oh yeah that makes sense — some Danes publish cartoons of you, so you publish cartoons offensive to Jews. Makes a lot of sense. Besides the fact that you're attacking someone who didn't attack you, it's a return of hate for hate. Scream bloody murder when someone attacks you — then go attack someone else. Maybe, just maybe, if you don't want someone to wrong you in a certain way, you should not wrong someone in the same way?

This kind of thing makes it obvious why Jesus came and taught what he did.

What is wrong with these people?? Do they really think they are promoting their cause by behaving this way? Can they even think at all? Are they capable of civil behavior? Frustrating!