During a week in which the President of the United States stood before the morally corrupt body known as the United Nations and used a video (that no one has seen) to apologize for and appease Radical Muslim savages who assassinated the American Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans; in a week that the producer of the controversial said anti-Islam video, “Innocence of Muslims ” was arrested by Federal Authorities for allegedly violating the terms of his probation (gotta love those coincidences); in a week where an Egyptian-American Muslim activist vandalized a legal advertisement in the NYC Subway system, all the while claiming her criminal acts were protected “free speech,” and in a week in which the vile and offensive “P**s Christ” made its return to the Big Apple with an exhibition at Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on 57th Street, we are reminded once again of the assaults on the First Amendment and Free Speech Rights of all Americans.
With a tip of the hat to Sesame Street, it appears that one of these four events is not like the other. What does the 1987 photograph, “P**s Christ” and its new display in NYC, have to do with the other three Muslim-related events? What does the riot-free and violence-free display of “P**s Christ” tell us about the state of the First Amendment and Free Speech here in the United States of America? Glad you asked.
While I believe that both the “P**s Christ” is a vile, sick, offensive, and blasphemous attack on Christianity, I would nevertheless defend the right of Andres Serrano (without government funding, of course) to create — and museums to display — what many believe to be “art.” What distinguishes those who say they believe in the First Amendment and Free Speech (more and more those who call themselves conservatives) from those who try to create exceptions to the First Amendment (more and more those who call themselves liberals or progressives) is the fact that true defenders of this most precious right understand that speech that we might personally find vile, sick, offensive, and even blasphemous must be protected, even in the face of violence and threats. When we begin to allow savages and their sympathizers to exercise a “heckler’s veto” over what can and cannot be published, produced, or preached, then we will eventually come to the end of the slippery slope.
That slippery slope, particularly when it comes to speech which is considered “anti-Muslim,” always starts somewhere. It starts with banning cartoons. It continues with the F.B.I. “interviewing” a nut-job of a pastor in an attempt to keep him from legally burning a Koran. It gathers steam with the firing of a well-respected journalist (liberal at that) for daring to make comments that could be considered insensitive. It races downhill when a Presidential Administration lies and uses a video in an attempt to not only appease savages, but to cover-up the fact that the savages cannot be appeased. It sadly takes flight to the bottom part of the slope when politicians in NYC — the site of the horrific attack by savages on 9/11 — rewrite their rules to capitulate to the savages who vandalize others’ free speech rights, all in an effort to prevent an incitement to violence that was started by the savages to begin with.
But, make no mistake, the slippery slope always ends somewhere as well. That somewhere is the curtailment of First Amendment rights — including freedom of speech and freedom of religion — all under the guise of not wanting to offend the religious sensibilities of our fellow citizen. As this week’s reemergence of “P**s Christ” vividly illustrates, the only religious sensibilities that will be safeguarded will be those of adherents to Islam. President Obama’s speech to the United Nations earlier this week should make that abundantly clear to anyone who is not so blinded by the appeasement and double-standards of the left:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.
What lovely rhetoric. But, that’s all it is. Just words. One must ask why “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?” What does it mean to slander the prophet of Islam? Would calling him a false prophet fall within that category? If it does, then how would the President go about ensuring that the future “must not belong” to those who would so speak? What laws should be passed to prevent anyone from slandering the prophet of Islam?
Mr. Obama’s words raise other more curious questions. Why should the future not belong to those who would slander Jesus Christ? What would President Obama do to ensure that the One (the true One, not the false one) — who Christians believe is the only true Prophet, Priest, and King — is not maligned, slandered, or blasphemed like He has been with the “P**s Christ?” Oh, that’s right. He will doing nothing. When it comes Mr. Obama’s promises to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of non-Muslims (particularly Christians and Jews), I simply do not believe him.
The words that I wrote two years ago are even more relevant today than they were when I first penned them. If President Obama is re-elected this November, I have a pretty good idea where the slippery slope will end:
As the sled of what is considered offensive to Islam hurdles down the hill, plowing over the First Amendment as it goes, it is not a question if something else will be seen as offensive, but merely what will be seen as offensive. The next time, it may not be the Dove World Outreach Center. It may be you. Or me. Remember, the slippery slope starts somewhere! (“The Slippery Slope Starts Somewhere,” published on September 9, 2010)