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."
And now Egypt issues an arrest warrant.
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).