Je ne suis pas Geller
by digby
Never in a million years. I know there are highly respected Very Serious People who believe things like this:
The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.
The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.
(I disagreed with that when it was written about Charlie Hebdo and talked about why, here.)
Yes, you can defend the right without defending the practice. And Pamela Geller should have cleared that up once and for all last night.
Pam Geller only believes in the right to blaspheme one religion. And it isn't hers. I don't think we need to prove our liberal bona fides by bending over backwards for her. I'll defend her right to blaspheme and certainly wouldn't hold her legally liable for inciting violence with this particular "art" exhibit even though it's clearly an act of provocation. I condemn violence across the board. But it would be a moral disgrace to defend Pamela Gellers "practice" of blasphemy. I'll leave that to her fellow fascists.
Update: This piece by Art Goldhammer is well worth a read.
.