Between Iran and a Hambone
Iran threatens to pursue the maker of the film, the
Innocence of Muslims.
"The
government of the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns this inappropriate and
offensive action," First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said.
"Certainly it will search for, track, and pursue this guilty person who
has insulted 1.5 billion Muslims in the world."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-protests-iran-idUSBRE88G0FQ20120917
And now Egypt issues an arrest warrant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/innocence-of-muslims-egypt-terry-jones_n_1893315.html
If the people at
the U.S.A. embassies were nonviolently protesting the militaristic actions of
the U.S.A., the terminator drones, the endless war, not only could I
understand, but the world would at least identify with the sentiment that the
U.S.A. should leave war. But if people
are actually protesting this excuse for a movie, a theory Iran went validated
well then there is a big and fundamental problem. If they were nonviolently protesting war they
would gather empathy from me and the world over. But they're protesting a hambone.
Part of the
offensive film shows Desert George and a girl chewing on a hambone which is,
albeit despicable if made with the intention of offending, but hardly worthy of
violent reaction, especially with the understanding it was made to get that
reaction. The movie is bad enough, but
if it is the catalyst for violent action then increasingly the reactions to the
ridiculousness are much more offensive than the movie itself. In fact such reactions make the movie more
interesting and less despicable. Every
artist and every human should know it is always much noble to create something,
even something despicable, than to react violently to a creation. The reaction to the film, if you could call
it a film, only catalyzes more interest in it.
The filmmaker apparently lied to his cast and sounds like a real
crackpot, but he doesn't matter anymore.
How few people would ever watch this movie doesn't matter anymore. It comes down to a question of the principles
of the First Amendment. If the film is
valid in any way it is for being over the top ridiculous in presenting the
theory that certain people react violently unnecessarily and getting certain
people to react the very way it suggests.
So I'm sorry to
say it, really I am because the movie is unwatchable and I won't watch it no
matter how interested the worldwide reaction to it is. I'm sorry if you think anyone cared about
this film, but the First Amendment is what the U.S.A., I like to think, is all
about. The First Amendment is what enables
freedom of religion in the first place and not-so coincidentally the freedom to
assemble in protest, as well as the freedom to write about anything or create
any art. The First Amendment is what
this is argument is all about. So I implore
anyone who is unfamiliar with the Five Freedoms of the First Amendment to
learn, for they enable humanity and enhance the power of the individual. The measure of the ability for a minority
within a group to practice the First Amendment might as well be a measure of
how developed we are as a collective. It
boils down to elementary First Amendment understanding and Desert George and
the hambone has won every time, but you have to understand why that is. It's not because we like crappy movies or
insulting the prophet, it's because we desire so much to be able to question
our institutions we attempt to allow everything else.
The Five Freedoms
of the First Amendment should be protected above all other rights. Firstly it provides the right to question the
interpretation of god and worship god however one wants, so long as one does so
nonviolently of course. The First
Amendment allows contrarians of any perspective to protest for others or for god,
as long as they do so nonviolently. And
most importantly individuals can question institutions and release information in
the press. The Five Freedoms of the First
Amendment is the most wonderful arrangement of human rights there is. It is a basic formula to keep one's rights
through protest in part, the catch is that everybody gets the rights. If people desire liberty, they have to let
the hambone go.
The First
Amendment is practically all we have left of American exceptionalism, what with
the eleven years of war and corporate exceptionalism having been built up during
that time. The First Amendment is the
liberation that the whole world needs.
Imagine if the whole world had to follow the First Amendment. It would be paradise, a forgiving open
paradise where no one could/would hurt someone for speaking or creating.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).