[Dilbert San Diego]

I never understand the liberal criteria for viewing issues.

In the case of Piss Christ, liberals tell us we have to be tolerant ,etc. and that it doesn’t matter if Christians are deeply offended. We’re lectured about freedom of speech and other issues if Christians find offense at Piss Christ.

But in the case of the stupid Mohammed video or Mohammed comics, we’re supposed to bend over backwards to show that we have deep respect and reverence for the beliefs of another religion. We’re supposed to bend over backwards to avoid offending adherents of a certain religion. In such cases, issues of freedom of speech are said not to matter. It’s all about avoiding offending someone’s religious beliefs.

So which is it liberals? Are we permitted virtually unlimited freedom of speech so that we can offend religion, or not?? Are we supposed to avoid offending religion, or not? What are the criteria????

[texanred]

Most leftists are using a dangerously out of date worldview that says that one can engage in more risky communications with insiders than outsiders.

My neighbor that I've enjoyed good relations with for 10 years makes French jokes and I make Mormon jokes. He would never do so in French Canada and I would never do so at a gathering of Mormons that I was unfamiliar with. Neither of us has the level of familiarity with these strangers that would permit that.

However, there's also a sense that one should bend over backwards to avoid offending strangers - particularly in high profile international situations.

All of this ignores the reality of instant communication and almost costless replication of information. The stranger is no longer safely geographically far away. They are, as it were, staring in our window and making judgments about now tidy we keep our homes.