Remembering 9/11

With the passing of time, the urgency we all felt that awful September day seems to have waned somewhat. Now we are more focused on the inconveniences of air travel that event spawned than on what we as a nation and a people experienced in the first weeks and months following the terrorist attacks.

Not that we should keep the fear and anger foremost on our minds, as that terror-mindset just feeds the cause of the terrorists. That was pointed out in a recent column by Steve Blow in The Dallas Morning News last Sunday. He wrote about the hatred against Islam that is sometimes preached in the pulpit and on the airways, pointing out that most Muslims do not support terrorists, especially the most recent activity by ISIS in Iraq.

Steve quotes Robert Hunt, a professor at SMU's Perkins School of Theology, who wishes that the press would be more interested in spreading the news that many more Muslim nations are condemning the violence than the few who perpetuate terrorism. Unfortunately, the old newspaper adage still prevails, "If it bleeds it leads" and "The fact that Islamic society condemns ISIS isn't news. We only hear about Muslims at war because peace isn't news."

Hunt also offers this comment, "If we want to defeat terrorists, we have to refuse to be terrified. And we have to not spread their fear"

And in honor of this day I want to share this video of the Alan Jackson song, "Where Were You "When the World Stood Still?" I get goosebumps every time I hear it, mainly because the song encourages love, not fear and hate.

Freedom - At What Cost?

Charles Lane of The Washington Post wrote recently in defense of some cartoons that were published in a French magazine Charlie Hebdo, claiming that freedom of speech trumps everything else like common sense and decency. The cartoons apparently poked fun a the prophet Mohammed, and there were significant concerns that the publication of the cartoons could spur more violent protests and riots in the Middle East.

Perhaps that claim that freedom of speech trumps everything is a good policy when the only thing at stake is someone who has their feelings hurt or otherwise object to what is said or published. However, when the safety of many people are at stake, perhaps the policy doesn't have to uphold a person's right to make fun of another person's religion just because they can.

We in the Western world understand satire and spoofs, but not all mid-east cultures do. They see those cartoons as a direct insult, and their reactions are not even in the same ballpark as ours. They don't have a constitution that supports freedom of speech or an understanding of what that means. What they have is a long legacy of retaliation against anything they see as an insult. 

So maybe we need to be more mindful of that.

Back when Voltaire made his famous remark, "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," he was speaking to people of a like mind. In the Western world at that time, most people acted and reacted with a sense of civility and decency. Direct attacks on religion or culture were not commonly made, and when they were, for the most part, responses were tempored with that same sense of civilty and decency.

That doesn't happen anymore, and I cerainly would not like to see another 9/11 just so someone can make a film or draw a cartoon, or write an article that some radical extremest will take issue with.

On the other side of the issue, Charles Lane says that if we stop publishing the type of cartoons that the Islamist found offensive we are giving in to a "small handful of extremists who want to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave."

I don't think that asking people to stop and consider the consequences of what they say or write takes away from freedom of speech. They can still choose to go ahead, or they can make the decision not to because of the potential grave danger.

What do you think? Should our basic freedoms trump everything else?