How would you respond to a nude, provocative image of Jesus on NY Times front page?

Thomas Paine, famous author of Common Sense, offered treatise on how we should treat religious opposing views

In the controversy regarding the cartooning of the Prophet Muhammad and the violence that occurred against the publication in France that carried the cartoons, few have asked the question about making fun of a specific religion and whether or not the provocative nature of it is a necessary way to express free speech, as folks continue to discuss the nature of expression and how we communicate ideas.

France has historically led the way with its philosophers, who like kings of congresses set precedents for people to use in developing a path to constitutional freedom.  Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States during the early days of the country, was known to be a fan of Voltaire and Rossaeu, using many of their ideas to formulate his own, even in reference to his development of America's foundation of freedoms, its Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

One man's death changes the world

Franz Ferdinand

While there are those individuals and cultures who may not value a single life, in the course of history one person's contributions can make a real difference, just as the death of an individual man or woman can change the world.


The death of one person can bring about war, move  multitudes and change the course of history. The value of life, some say, must be measured in the course of events and the contributions that are made to those events that impact many other individuals. Some of those people whose death created a legacy of lasting memory were prophets, others were rulers of great nations. They have been young, old and from many nations also.

Nearly one hundred years ago Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire was killed with his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia in June 1914. It is widely observed by history that this significant event initiated the outbreak of World War I. A Serbian nationalist, chafing with other citizens of the region against the domination of Austro-Hungarian empire, killed the Archduke, sparking a conflagration that swept through Europe, brought the Americans into a world conflict and killed millions.



Many people blamed the government of Serbia for the attack, looking to put down those struggling for independence with the incident of the killing of a prominent European leader. Russia supported Serbia, along with its allies Belgium, France, and Great Britain while Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany lined up with Austria-Hungary, and in the process World War I was initiated. While the Archduke had not yet gained the throne, the representation of the empire's power in the region brought the flame of independence to ignite, while the fires fanned throughout the European continent. The death of one man had changed the course of history.



When a zealot becomes a martyr, often the effect is to facilitate the gathering of many people, not just for an immediate event but to foster a belief that is made stronger by the death of a single individual. That is especially true if that individual makes the sacrifice of life for a cause. The sacrifice is the blood of the martyrs that can fuel rage, cement philosophies and make men fight each other to avenge that sacrifice or the beliefs that brought the martyr to die for a cause.



As the Second World War was ending, Palestine was caught up in conflicts between Jews and Arabs. A man by the name of Avraham Stern was an angry man with a hatred for the Arabs. He gathered followers to fight the police in Palestine who were trying to intervene and prevent the Zionists from killing innocent Arabs. Stern was killed by Geoffrey Morton, Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Tel Aviv District, following an episode in which three senior policemen, two Jews and one Briton, were killed. Morton shot Stern, according to his claims, as Stern tried to climb out a window and escape, although many people have considered since that Morton manufactured the story and had actually killed Stern in cold blood. Stern was the martyr, appealing to the desperate refugee factions who had fled the Holocaust only to be faced with Arabs who did not want these strangers to take over their lands. He is said to be the hero of modern Israel's right-wing Likudnik mainstream, with two of his admirers who eventually became prime ministers. These were Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin. 



The Zionist movement had needed a hero, and Stern's legacy has been to continue to foster the notion of refugees continuing to settle in Arab lands, creating an ongoing tension in the region that consistently threatens to engulf the rest of the world. 







The death of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, brought the religion that had flourished to splinter into two main sects, the Shiah that believes that Muhammad wanted his nephew, Ali to secede him and Sunni, the sect of Islam that follows the line of succession beginning with the Prophet's uncle and through that lineage. These two sects are often literally at war with one another, and the consistent tension between the two has prevented the unification of the Muslim world in modern times, following the independence of the Middle Eastern countries.







There are others whose lives have made a difference, including Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, John F. Kennedy and a host of others, but often it is that individual who seems to have a minor role in the events of a time that instead becomes a major player upon death in a way that lasts for generations. As Stalin himself once said, “One man's death is a tragedy,” for it focuses on the intimacy all people have with one another, that can change the course of history.

Should the police spy on all Muslim mosques and groups?

Islamic Institute, mosque and school

Carol Forsloff---“Prudence dictates, and common sense frankly, that the department find out if violence would ricochet here,”Attorney Peter Farrell said in reference to the 9-11 counter-terrorism strategy of spying on Muslims in mosques and other public places.

At a recent hearing Farrell argued that it was fair to target Muslims in mosques, just because they are Muslims and that it is a matter of national security to do so. A struggle that has been going on concerning where spying is appropriate and where it is not was examined by the Associated Press in 2012 when the NYPD intelligence division was found to have eavesdropped on dossiers on dozens of mosques, businesses and student groups.

Peter Farrell, a New York City attorney, maintained at a hearing that Islamic terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon that requires information be gathered in a wide fashion. He said it is important to do so even if there is no prior evidence of extremism or a crime.

Those who are concerned about the police doing surveillance of Muslims in places of worship argue that this is religious profiling and unfairly so.

Legal experts maintain there have been more than 4000 surveillance actions in the past three years that have included mosques.

The argument that it is necessary to target Muslims for surveillance omits the fact that in places like Kenya during the recent mass shooting of hundreds of people in a shopping mall,  Muslims themselves are targets of the extreme groups like Al-Shabab and Al Qaeda, who having been criticized before for killing fellow Muslims, offered those who were identified as Muslims during the mall shootings a test which they had to pass or be shot with the other captives.

A forum on the Internet discusses the concerns about Muslim violence against Christians, as targeting Christians for violence is forbidden by the Prophet Muhammad. A reference is made to a segment on the television show “60 Minutes” which included the letter written by the Prophet that was sent to St. Catherine's Monastery, after a visit made to him in 628 by a delegation from the religious group at St. Catherine's. The following represents the contents of that letter: “The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

The letter with the Prophet Muhammad's seal remains in the archives of St. Catherine's Monastery as a testimony to the fact that Muslims who follow the tenets of their faith in the simple, traditional ways that people do in other faiths are not violent and in fact do not violate the basic law of not committing acts of terror against Christians. This raises the question by Muslim adherents about whether or not it is right and just to target all Muslims for surveillance.

What are the limits of free speech with reference to an anti-Islamvideo?

[caption id="attachment_6526" align="alignleft" width="300"] Judge's tools[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — Many people in the United States echo their rights of free speech as secured by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, however, has on several occasions indicated that the right of freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it puts people at peril.

One of those key decisions was Schenk vs the United States. During World War I, Charles Schenk voiced his opposition to the war by mailing pamphlets to American soldiers and was consequently charged with espionage.  The Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Under what circumstances are the rights of free speech limited?

Justice Oliver Wendell wrote the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court decision. He stated that under ordinary circumstances Schenk would have a right to express his opinion about the war, but freedom of speech depends on circumstances. "The most stringent protection of free speech," Holmes wrote, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Justice Holmes compared that circumstance to living in a nation at war. He went on to explain, "The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Presently the United States is being condemned for a YouTube video in which its producer vilifies Islam in inflammatory language.   The video was independently made, and US officials have explained that America does not concur with the video content and that the country should not be attacked because a private citizen uploaded a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad. A user called Sam Bacile uploaded the film on July 2. The film was dubbed in Arabic and was seen by TV networks in Egypt. After that, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was burned down. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three members of his staff were killed and riots broke out in other Middle Eastern and North African countries. YouTube consequently took down the video in what was described as a temporary measure, resulting from the content of the video. US officials, in the meantime, have condemned the retaliatory attacks but also the video, which is said to have inflamed the mobs to riot.

It is the concern of American officials that the situation in the Middle East has great volatility and that a video that mocks the Prophet Muhammad imperils US citizens and the nation's relationships with countries in the region. Supreme Court decisions such as Schenk vs the United States are often cited as the foundation for restricting the rights of free speech when that free speech can be demonstrated as causing, or tending to cause, violence.