Can we respect religious senistivities and still have free speech?

-
Freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs! This is what the spokeswoman of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters. This statement apparently is in line with the previous Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who said that "freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions". I believe it is my right under the tenets of free speech, to reply: What a load of crap!

We hear this kind of statement being repeated blindly, mindlessly by learned men and women who should really know better. These are the people we have entrusted with such herculean tasks such as global warming and genocide. And this is what we get for all the trust we have given them? A dogmatic statement without one valid reason, besides "I tell you so"? What a bunch of hypocrites!

Why on earth should free speech be shacked and mutilated for religion? And what does it mean to exercise free speech in a way that respects the religious beliefs and tenets of ALL RELIGIONS! Does that apply to the ones whose Gods require human sacrifice? Religious terrorism? Religious polygamy? The sodomizing and raping of little kids by priests? Should we not criticize and ridicule Mormons for their belief in magic underwear? Should we not speak about religious sects in which you are required to marry and procreate with your cousins or sisters in order to keep the blood line "pure"? Should we not talk against genital mutilation of little girls in Islamic countries?

Why should religion be off limits? On what basis is someone going to say: don't speak bad about my religion? Does this mean that Mr. Ki-moon accepts and respects, the right of countries where sharia law is the norm, to kill anyone who tries to convert to Christianity? He must! He obviously can't speak against it, since that would amount to not respecting the religious beliefs of those people. Does he respect the right of Christians to stone an adulterer or a homosexual to death?

But most importantly would he speak against these horrible crimes, if they were committed under any other pretext than religion? He sure would, that's the job he was entrusted to do. So then why extend such privilege to religion? There is no reason. Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan before him were simply being hypocritical and dogmatic.

I could care less about religious sensitivities. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. Freedom of speech is too precious for us to start curbing it when it steps on someone's toes, for it is then no longer free speech. Limited speech cannot be free speech. To maintain that position is illogical and stupid, and quite cowardly. I would have more respect for the Secretary-General if he came out and said that he does not like free speech period. At least that way he would have the guts to say what he means and not hide behind some arrogant, illogical demand, which only makes me want to trash religious stupidity even harder. So thank you Mr. Ki-moon for inspiring me to write this post!

DIGG ME!