, which gives people the opportunity to avoid a break-down in communication so they can release tension peacefully. Obviously, there is no guarantee that people will use their free speech, but at least they have the opportunity to do so, and that is why a democratic society should NEVER allow any factor to limit free speech. Once you start limiting free speech, you increase the likelihood of a break-down in communications, and thus you WILL see tension mounting in society.

This is precisely what has happened with the influx of Muslim immigrants in many western nations. Because the threat of violence has made Islam a virtual taboo in the media, greater understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims has been blocked. This has led to an increase in tension, and the riots in France are just the beginning of what will happen unless the negative spiral is broken. The ONLY way to peacefully break the spiral is to establish FREE and open communication. The cartoon controversy is a perfect opportunity to do this. It remains to be seen whether people, the media and governments will make use of it.

Kim: What about the argument that having free speech does not give you the right to offend anyone? Some people say that if you use your free speech indiscriminately – or with a deliberate attempt to offend – you are not decreasing tension, you are increasing it. And they will say that the Muslim reaction to the cartoons proves their point.

Jesus: As I said above, having free speech means that you have the right to say absolutely anything—even if it offends other people. It is perfectly true that saying something that offends others can increase tension in the short run. Yet in the long run it is the ONLY opportunity for decreasing tension by building greater understanding.

Let us look at a practical scenario. I exercise my free speech and say something that offends you. Since I am not a bad person, I did not say this deliberately to offend you. I said it because I did not realize that it would offend you, and the cause is that I do not understand you. I do not understand you because I have not communicated with you.

We now have a positive and a negative potential. The ideal outcome is that you exercise YOUR free speech by telling me how you were offended by what I said. When I realize that you were offended, I am naturally concerned. I am willing to modify my behavior to avoid offending you. Yet to do this, I need to understand how you feel, so I respond back with an apology and express my desire to understand you better. You, likewise, have a desire to understand why I said what I said, and thus we engage in an open dialogue that leads us to understand each others viewpoints. This leads to mutual respect, and we can now live as better neighbors than before.

My point is that before the incident, there was little or no communication and thus little understanding. The incident may have increased tension in the short run, but the long-term outcome is a decrease of tension. By freely communicating, we have broken the ice and have created mutual respect. FREE speech has worked for us because we both made use of it freely.

Obviously, there are many less than ideal scenarios. One is that you are offended but refuse to communicate that to me, so you withdraw. Thus, you do not increase your understanding of me and resort to making assumptions. I know you are mad at me, but I don’t know why, so I start making assumptions. We now have the beginning of a negative spiral of mounting tension. Free speech has not worked, but the reason is that we have not been wiling to exercise it. This is not a fault in the principle of free speech but a fault in our use of it.

Another scenario is that you respond to my insult with another insult and so the spiral of tension is created instantly, with insult leading to insult leading to violence, murder and mayhem. This is precisely the pattern you have seen in the Middle East for thousands of years, and as I said

you have a point here