Ethical guidance for Arminian theologian Roger Olson:
Roger Olson Mod Tim Reisdorf I am opposed to all "blasphemy laws." However, I support laws that criminalize incitement of violence.
Olson's position is naive and circular. If Muslims wax indignant and go on a rampage, that's proof that the offender incited them to violence. It's an airtight rationalization. If I react violently to something you said, then, by definition, that's the effect of what you said. A Muslim can always excuse murderous rioting on the grounds that "blasphemous" expressions provoked him to commit bloodshed. His very violence is retroactive evidence that the offending statement constitutes incitement to violence. Murderous frenzy becomes self-justifying.
Roger Olson Mod Tim Reisdorf Tim, Nobody that I know is criticizing people who mock and ridicule terrorists. The criticism is rightly aimed at those who target an entire religious tradition even if it does contain among its adherents extremists worthy of mocking and ridicule. Can you see the difference (I hope)?
These aren't generic, vanilla-gray terrorists. These are Muslim terrorists. And they aren't terrorists who just so happen to be Muslim, as if that's incidental to their outlook and conduct.
Moreover, they aren't just "extremists."
Olson takes the typical Leftist elitist position.