Editor,
Larry Walsh's argument in his letter to the Daily Lobo regarding freedom of speech needs to be better presented.
Where is the clear and present danger that we advocating free speech present, if there is no apparent reason for this exercise? He needs to define which one he wants it to be, because it cannot be both.
His insults are very apparent to me by condescending toward my principle for the freedom of speech, yet he is sympathetic to those who impose their religion with brute force. Those who will not be negotiated with, he'll say, are the ones who are not responsible for their actions.
Walsh advocates this sort of violent behavior by sympathizing with it. I believe negotiation is a useful tool. Just as we can protest our government with messages that are arguably offensive to others, we should be able to always criticize religion.
The reaction to the cartoons is absurd, and that is truly worrisome. Remember Salmon Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, and now the 12 cartoonists - did they get what they deserved for peacefully criticizing? That's for you to decide.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The path to peace is through freedom of speech, not the submission to Allah - I think any Muslim would agree.
Damian Erasmus
UNM student
