September 15, 2010

Molly Norris, the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoonist, is "going ghost."

Her newspaper, Seattle Weekly, reports:
[O]n the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is... moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity... in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.
Terrible. My heart goes out to you, Molly, even though I was always opposed to the "everybody draw Mohammed" approach to protesting the threats against the cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad. I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended. I imagine (and hope) that Molly is drawing her adventures and telling her story in what will be a widely read comic book. She has a charming drawing style and a nice sense of humor — plus the panache of unjust persecution and danger. Good luck!

ADDED: There's a big Metafilter thread about it, which I'm reading after writing that. A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
Skyler said...

PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO BE OFFENDED?!?!?!

Good god, Ann. Their reaction is exactly what makes them deserving.

Skyler said...

We need to stop pussy footing around and protect the people of this country better than we have.

Paco Wové said...

I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended.

Sorry, but this means you don't believe strongly in free speech rights. You kinda, sorta believe in free speech, unless it gets too messy and some poor little brown people (who can't possibly be expected to fulfill the responsibilities of American citizens) get offended.

Carol said...

"think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended."

No one seems to think twice about offending us Catholics. Do I deserve to be offended?

Meade said...

"Their reaction is exactly what makes them deserving."

What about the Muslims who don't react? Do they deserve to be offended?

Rialby said...

This is going to get very ugly before it's over. Many non-Muslim Americans will grab their ankles willingly but enough will not. That's when it will get dangerous.

Saint Croix said...

I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended.

Until Islam quits murdering people for blasphemy, they deserve all the blasphemy they get. If they want respect for their religion, they ought to act like a religion of peace and not a bunch of murderous thugs. And until that day, the prophet can suck it.

Meade said...

"No one seems to think twice about offending us Catholics. Do I deserve to be offended?"

By some people's logic, it depends on your reaction to the offense.

Bender said...

I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others . . . A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself

You mean like you just did?

Trooper York said...

Another milestone for the religion of peace.

Cue the appolgists and excuse makers.

blake said...

Wait, why aren't the journalists screaming about this?

traditionalguy said...

The insane Muslim Murder Machine wins again. The only thing they have that we don't have is guts. If we are determined to fight a faith in a supernatural god with the mere denial that God of the Bible even exists, then we will lose to them. Faith in scripture boldly expressed wins and supplies all of the guts that we need to fight these idiots.

Trooper York said...

Oh and you don't believe in free speech strongly enough.

Paco Wové said...

Do they deserve to be offended?

Maybe I'm just a prickly old curmudgeon, but people do things that offend me quite frequently. Sometimes I am reduced to sputtering rage, I am so offended. Then I suck it up.

Trooper York said...

Oh and you don't believe in free speech strongly enough.

What a bunch of bullshit.

Bender said...

I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others . . .

Did YOU think about how incredibly offensive this statement is before you posted it?

Assuming that you did, apparently your attitude was that it is too damn bad if people don't like what you say.

AND YOU WOULD BE RIGHT.

Ann Althouse said...

"No one seems to think twice about offending us Catholics. Do I deserve to be offended?"

You don't seem to notice when people refrain from offending Catholics. Here's a clue: It's happening *all the time*! Should we have an "Everybody Stop Refraining From Offending Catholics Day" to show you how it would look? No, we can't do that, because we're too dedicated to not hurting the Catholics who aren't demanding proof that the restraint is occurring.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

Certainly there are people who don't deserve to be offended.

But they aren't the ones who are a danger to Norris.

Those who are a danger to Norris deserve to be offended, *extra*.

Peter V. Bella said...

Once again, it is not proper for Moslems to depict the Prophet. They have no right or privilege to deny others to do so. The Moslems should be prosecuted. Ms. Norris should not be persecuted, especially in the land of the free.

Moslems are allowed to describe Jews and Christians in the worst and most horrendous ways with no consequences. Maybe it is time to turn the tide. Maybe Jews and Christians should do unto others as is done to them. Maybe it is time to persecute Moslems for their actions and see how they like it. Of course there would be prosecutions- against Christians and Jews.. When was the last time a Moslem was prosecuted for hate crime? Hmmmmmm?

This touchy feely political correctness has gone too far. Even the guy who burned pages from a Koran lost his job. I thought this was America, the land of free expression. I must have thought wrong. We can burn an American Flag, but not some stupid book.

This sensitivity garbage has gone too far!

WV= insain- Islam

Albatross said...

You don't seem to notice when people refrain from offending Catholics. Here's a clue: It's happening *all the time*!

Wow. People still hate Catholics as much as they used to? So much so that they are always refraining from insulting us?

Makes me feel cozy and warm.

Ann Althouse said...

"Did YOU think about how incredibly offensive this statement is before you posted it?"

I said think about it. Take it into account. Just like you should take into account whether building a mosque near Ground Zero hurts some people. You still have a right. But you still have to make decisions about how you want to live in the world in relationships to other people. You can be a real jerk if you want.

Ann Althouse said...

"Wow. People still hate Catholics as much as they used to? So much so that they are always refraining from insulting us?"

It's not necessarily hate. I don't hate anybody who isn't actively hurting other people, but I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

Bender said...

you still have to make decisions about how you want to live in the world in relationships to other people

What if you want to live in a world where you can peaceably say what you want without threats or fear of someone cutting your head off, literally?

Albatross said...

It's not necessarily hate.

Again, I now feel cozy and warm. Thanks.

I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

Go ahead, say them. I've heard them all already, and I won't threaten anyone with violence.

Paco Wové said...

I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

You realize you're treating your religious readers like children, don't you?

jr565 said...

Paco Wove wrote:
Maybe I'm just a prickly old curmudgeon, but people do things that offend me quite frequently. Sometimes I am reduced to sputtering rage, I am so offended. Then I suck it up.


Maybe those who dont react in violence to the slightest offense are idiots. I'm willing to bet that if Serrano had an art exhibit that exhibited the work, Piss Christ and Christians responded by killing him and decpaitating him, the NEA would probably cease funding art like piss christ.

Peter V. Bella said...

"...but I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it."

As we all do. But, we are a civilized people. We do not threaten death, destruction, and mayhem when our beliefs are insulted- like the Moslems..

dick said...

Refrain from offending Catholics like "mackerel snapppers" or how all priests are child molesters or the Pope is a Nazi? That kind of restraint? Or refrain from offending evangelicals like religion conservative nuts or creationists or family values hypocrites? Happens all the time. And if either group complains they are just called thin skinned and again hypocrites. And the whole conservative movement is tainted with the religious nuts taking over the party and thus we should never vote for them. More refraining there as well?

Bender said...

Go ahead. Say whatever ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry you want to say (why not? everyone else does). We're not going to riot and fire-bomb and kill if you do.

Paco Wové said...

"mackerel snappers"?

what does that even mean?

Alex said...

Obviously Althouse still doesn't get that we are in a WAR with Islam.

A.W. said...

Ann

I will say what i have always said in response to your concern.

You have NEVER offered a viable solution to the problem. I mean justice breyer is talking about banning the burning of korans. No one is talking about securing freedom of speech.

And if they threaten me (i have received no serious threats regarding my involvement, although i suspect i would be arrested and shot in pakistan), i am not going into the witness protection program.

The fact is she is in hiding because our government can't figure out how to affirmatively protect her. So that is all they can do. And they are forcing her to pay for most of it--for THEIR failures. Meanwhile the jackasses in Revolution Islam are largely free men.

Ann Althouse said...

"Refrain from offending Catholics like "mackerel snapppers" or how all priests are child molesters or the Pope is a Nazi? That kind of restraint? Or refrain from offending evangelicals like religion conservative nuts or creationists or family values hypocrites?"

Yeah, you notice the people who don't refrain. You don't notice the people who do. Confirmation bias. No pun intended.

As for me giving my opinion of other people's religious beliefs, I choose not to. The fact that you say you want me to doesn't change my position because: 1. There are more Catholics than just you, 2. There are lots of other people who don't like hearing negative things about religions, and 3. It's not a subject I'm interested in stirring people up about.

Skyler said...

It's not necessarily hate. I don't hate anybody who isn't actively hurting other people, but I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

Ann, I really like your blog and usually what you say, but this is just despicable.

No one, ever, has a right to not be offended. No one, ever, has a right to hack another's head off because they are offended.

What if politicians start getting fans that hack off limbs and heads? Would you condemn anyone that lambasted them with a political cartoon? How is it any different just because a religion is involved.

You're just unbelievable today.

blake said...

Paco--

It's a reference to eating fish, as Catholics were once required to do on Fridays.

wv: hasheedr

How appropriate for a thread about Islam!

Alex said...

It's not necessarily hate. I don't hate anybody who isn't actively hurting other people, but I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

Yet you know that Catholics would not threaten you with death if you said those things. My god, when will you stop deluding yourself about Muslims!!~!!

Synova said...

See now... if roles were reversed we'd be lectured about how our extreme reactions were losing hearts and minds.

How many people would prefer to avoid offending others? Probably most people. But stuff like this happens and people who think that rude behavior should be avoided by civilized people start moving away from that rather than toward it. Why?

Saying it's *rude* to build a mosque in the the shadow of the world trade centers wasn't a convincing argument. Oh, no! So why should it be a convincing argument to say that it's *rude* to burn a Koran?

It's rude to fail to follow simple rules in order to be gracious (and grace does mean showing *undeserved* favor) such as not drawing pictures of Muhammad. Or... there are some Christians who respect Jews by not typing out G-d's name. Simple things. Not a burden. Not submission, just grace.

It's likely that racism fatigue is contributing to this as well. When things seem one sided it seems unfair. When one side gets to decide how everyone else should act, it seems unfair. When all that is necessary is the charge of offense and no argument that someone just *might* be using it to jerk people around or at the least be too thin skinned for reason, that's blatantly unfair.

People prefer graciousness, but they prefer fairness, too.

The answer to the question, "Why was it not enough that the mosque in New York was rude and made people feel bad who did not deserve to feel bad?" will probably answer everything necessary to know about the whole situation.

Call it a theory of everything.

Alex said...

Ann - the issue is not about YOU. This is about the fact that we are at WAR and these cartoons are a weapon in that war. Do you want to win this war or not?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Meade said...

What about the Muslims who don't react? Do they deserve to be offended?


Let's put it this way, you won't see any muslims coming to defend her for fear of being put in the same position she now finds herself in. Islam isn't just a religion and a political movement, it's a mafia.

The Drill SGT said...

Peter V. Bella said...
Once again, it is not proper for Moslems to depict the Prophet.


says who?

there are numerous depictions of Mohammed, up until maybe 1600.

Paco Wové said...

...we're too dedicated to not hurting the Catholics who aren't demanding proof that the restraint is occurring."

Another commenter on another thread wrote something that would be very apt as a comment here; something like "it's not lies, it's just bullshit". This is bullshit, A.

Seriously? All us non-Catholics are walking around in a state of permanent tension, keeping the baby-factory comments bottled up inside, 'cause we're so darned...understanding? WTF? This is one of the weirdest things you've ever posted.

Alex said...

This isn't about being fair to good Muslims, this is about using every weapon in the arsenal to defeat the Islamofascists. Ann obviously believes in fighting with BOTH hands tied behind our backs. Ridicule works.

Pastafarian said...

Now we see why it was "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" and not just "A Few People Draw Mohammed Day". Had there been solidarity, then there would be no target for a fatwa.

Althouse, this politeness argument is bullshit. I've read you long enough to know that you don't concern yourself with what people think of you and whether they take offense at your opinion. Nor should you, unless your opinions are so odious as to offend a reasonable person (Cedarford and Titus come to mind).

I'm not sure how my drawing a picture of Mohammed would offend any reasonable person on the other side of the earth who's never met me and never will. Unless they're a crazy son-of-a-bitch.

You've really disappointed me on this issue, Althouse. You're a liberal, in the classical sense. You're generally a very brave commentator. Your stance here is just not very Althousian.

Alex said...

At least Althouse should admit that she's scared shitless of a fatwa issued against her if she kept in solidarity. But she's a law professor, which means the law means anything that's convenient.

Quayle said...

I'm all for more discretion, more restraint, and more sensitivity to what is sacred to others.

I note that the Mormons got almost none of it when HBO decided to set a scene in a Mormon Temple.

So what it all tells you that the threat of death is a great motivator for greater sensitivity to the threatener.

Pacifism, not as much.

Alex said...

Good god, Ann. Their reaction is exactly what makes them deserving.

If we lived in a sane nation, the NY Times would be publishing a 2-page sized cartoon of Mohammed being lampooned EVERY SINGLE DAY. That's the America we had in 1945.

A.W. said...

Oh, and i wasn't being figurative about her paying for our government's failure. From an article on the subject:

> She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/

So Molly Norris dared to suggest it and couldn't take it back. So she will live in hiding for the rest of her life. i suppose if her mother is dying she can't go to her bedside right?

Of course the best answer is this. Every person in america who threatens her, should be thrown in jail. Every person in a foreign land who does the same, gets a missile up their behinds. And let it be known that will happen. Terrify the terrorists. Tell them, "You will not take our citizens' right of freedom of speech and religion." That is the best chance freedom had. Everyone Draw Mohammed Day was a second best solution, but it was better than NO solution, which is what most people offered.

Alex said...

Look HBO is within their rights to fictionally depict a Mormon temple. You don't see Mormons threatening fatwas against HBO. Remember this is about fear and intimidation, no matter Althouse's protestations. We KNOW what is going on. This is like when the mafia has ensured the silence of the witness.

Alex said...

Of course the best answer is this. Every person in america who threatens her, should be thrown in jail. Every person in a foreign land who does the same, gets a missile up their behinds. And let it be known that will happen. Terrify the terrorists. Tell them, "You will not take our citizens' right of freedom of speech and religion." That is the best chance freedom had. Everyone Draw Mohammed Day was a second best solution, but it was better than NO solution, which is what most people offered.

We once did that around 1945.

Erik said...

This fatwa and others like it are attempts to negate the 1st Amendment. It should therefore be the explicit policy of the United States Government to assasinate any foreigner who publicly threatens to murder, or exhorts others to murder, Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

Synova said...

As for people refraining from offending Christians. There are usually a few at our local science fiction convention who'd never think of being rude about Wicca or various fringe lifestyles but feel free to make crappy remarks about anti-science Christians. And when I say "feel free to" that's what I mean.

You can tell when someone is being rude because they just don't care as opposed to someone who is being rude because they can't comprehend that anyone thinks it's rude.

The guy who sat up on a panel and said he was *glad* Jim Baen was dead knew very well that he was offending.

There is a difference, and people can tell.

No, true enough, they can't tell what people chose not to say. There is no way to know how many other people were glad that Jim Baen was dead but had the decency and grace not to express that in public.

The difference is in what *is* said and how it is said. There is a discernible difference between someone who decides to say something *despite* the offense it will cause, and someone who offends without any thought at all.

tim maguire said...

I really wish people, in this case the good professor and many commenters here, would check their facts. There is no Islamic prohibition against images of the prophet Mohamed.

The prohibition is against ALL representational art. That's why Islamic art is all curlicues. There is nothing specific about the prophet.

By the way, professor, I'm surprised you didn't know that Mohamed appears on the freeze above the justices of the US Supreme Court. Or did you know it and you promote tearing it down? Or are you simply inconsistent on the issue?

Maguro said...

Am I the only one who wonders what the fuck the FBI is up to?

Here they come visit this woman and "insist" that she abandon her life and go into deep cover because of Islamic death threats.

And they also paid a visit to Rev Jones when he was making his noises about burning a Koran. Sat down with him, talked a bit, and after that Jones didn't want to burn a Koran anymore.

What are they telling these people?

In effect, isn't the FBI enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws by making an example out of these people?

Who the hell is going to stand up and speak out against Islamic extremism when law enforcement's response to death threats is to tell you to change your identity and go into hiding?

Whose side is the FBI on?

Saint Croix said...

I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended.

Everybody is bowing to Mecca but you, Ann. Your failure to bow to Mecca is blasphemy. Have you thought about how your blasphemy is offending other people?

Maybe you should just bow to Mecca, so there's no hard feelings and everybody can get along. You don't have to agree. Just keep your opinions to yourself, and keep the peace.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paco Wové said...

After all these years on blogspot, this post has finally caused me to put up one of those little avatar-thingies.

traditionalguy said...

Offending people with speech is not yet a crime punishable in the USA by star chamber rulings from con-men bureaucrats. That is exactly what happens 300 miles north of Madison, Wisconsin. The Saudis are using wealth pushing Wababbism and Sharia law enactments all over the world. The free speech snatchers are coming for you.

Alex said...

Paco - be careful, a fatwa might be issued for depicting the holy Muhammed, may PISS be upon him.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastafarian said...

Speaking of offenses...You know what offends me? American Idol, and any posts about it. It turns out that, in my religion (an obscure and small sect of Pastafarianism), any written mention of American Idol is punishable by death. Or at the very least, a very vigorous wet willy.

So we'd better not see any more of that shit on this blog. I mean, you wouldn't want to offend me.

Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will be a stone in your sling!

Saint Croix said...

It should therefore be the explicit policy of the United States Government to assasinate any foreigner who publicly threatens to murder, or exhorts others to murder, Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

The guy who issued this fatwa, Anwar al-Awlaki, has actually been marked for death by Obama, in April 2010.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anglelyne said...

It's not necessarily hate. I don't hate anybody who isn't actively hurting other people, but I do have a lot of opinions about religious beliefs that would hurt your feelings if I said it.

Oh give it up, Ann. That millions of people every day practice tact and consideration in keeping their negative opinions to themselves is entirely beside the point. That Ann Althouse refrains from offending Catholics or whom-non-Muslim-ever is utterly irrelevant. People say and write nasty anti-Catholic things every day, and nobody gets death threats or has to go into hiding for it. That is the point.

This is not about ideals of civil behavior that we wish everyone would adhere to. We all know goddamned well that nobody, including you, is really so deeply concerned about offending the religious sensibilities of "people who don't deserve to be offended", unless they happen to Muslim, and that is only because Muslims who do deserve to be offended get violent and dangerous. And that is despicable.

Chef Mojo said...

Welly, welly, welly...

Looks like Althouse is pimpin' the heckler veto.

And why not? Things would be so much more pleasant if everyone could just be polite and shut the fuck up, right?

A.W. said...

Pastafarian

HOW DARE YOU!!! you have offended my religion by mocking it with the spaghetti monster reference.

I KEEEL YOU NOW!!!

----

Yes, i am joking. But I mean that is how to get respect these days from the wimps, right? Start acting as batsh-t crazy as the islamofascists. Then maybe they will stop dipping my savior in urine.

I mean if we are going to give up on freedom of speech and worship this way, well the f--k it might as well be my faith, and my ideas that are forced on others, right?

Or, gee, maybe we need to stand up for freedom instead?

Btw, i am offended by everything that has happened to Molly Norris. Who is going to care about that, Ann?

The Drill SGT said...

Every person in a foreign land who does the same, gets a missile up their behinds. And let it be known that will happen. Terrify the terrorists. Tell them, "You will not take our citizens' right of freedom of speech and religion."

Civis Romanus sum: I am a Roman citizen.

with those words, a citizen could walk the breadth of the Empire in 2o AD, if not competely unmolested, at least knowing that if he were harmed, some Centurion would get orders to put some barbarians on stakes :)

John said...

seriously, I want to draw Mohammed.
I have no idea where to start. Can somebody point me to a picture?

Maguro said...

I wonder.

If we were talking about a black cartoonist who was getting death threats from the KKK, would the FBI's advice be "We recommend that you abandon your life, move and go under deep cover for the foreseeable future. Good luck, see ya later."

I mean, I don't know, maybe they tell people who are in danger to do this sort of thing all the time. I never worked in law enforcement. But it seems odd to me.

Erik said...

Saint Croix:
"The guy who issued this fatwa, Anwar al-Awlaki, has actually been marked for death by Obama, in April 2010."

That's good. But was the fatwa the reason? And, if so, was it announced publicly that that was the reason?

The Drill SGT said...

John said...
seriously, I want to draw Mohammed.
I have no idea where to start. Can somebody point me to a picture?


you could look at the icon I selected for the day.

Mohammed, 16th century Persian painting.

Paco Wové said...

"This medieval drawing of Mohommed (on the right) showing his entrails to Dante and Virgil (on the left) is from one of the earliest surviving illustrated manuscripts of the Inferno, dating from the third quarter of the fourteenth century (1350-1375), and currently held in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, England."

Pastafarian said...

Maguro, I realize you probably didn't mean to offend me this deeply, but I'm afraid that your Marvin the Martian avatar is going to have to go.

In my cherished and deeply held set of religious beliefs, Marvin the Martian is a divine prophet. Your crude, cartoonish depiction is a mockery.

I will splay your entrails upon the dunes, raze your house, torch your crops, and salt the earth so that nothing grows there, you son of a motherless dog.

A.W. said...

if you or anyone want to draw mohammed, just make a crappy little stick figure and call it "mohammed." its enough to piss them off. As i always said, art is not the point. Offending the islamofascists is.

Then send it to me. i will publish it. Preferably with your name and town, but without it is better than nothing.

Here's my site: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/

lucid said...

What kind of "religion" is it that issue all believers a license-to-kill someone for drawing cartoons?

Do we really think it is wise to treat such a "religion" with respect?

And shame on Althouse for kowtowing and submitting to threats of violence against free speech.

A.W. said...

Drill Sgt.

I like the way you think.

(wv: laterb. As in "later, B.")

AJ Lynch said...

Blake you made a slight error. Catholics refrained from eating meat on Fridays and many then ate fish but we were not required to eat fish.

I preferred a grilled cheese sandwich and bowl of tomato soup! Still do on a cold winter day.

Erik said...

Oh great, way to go Paco. Now those wacky Islamic rascals are gonna whack off the head of the Chief Librarian of the Bodleian Library. That's gonna sting!

John Cunningham said...

Ann writes--
I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended.

No, you do not believe in free speech. you believe in genteel speech that has no real world consequences, just academic blather in coffee shops.

I think Ann Coulter was on the right track after 9-11, when she said that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their fighters, and convert them. at least the first two make sense.

Paco Wové said...

For the truly drafting-impaired, there's always the medium of emoticons:

Muhammad (((:~{>

Muhammad playing Little Orphan Annie (((8~{>

Muhammad as a pirate (((P~{>

Muhammad as Moshe Dayan (((P~{>

Muhammad on a bad turban day ))):~{>

Muhammad with sand in his eye(((;~{>

Muhammad wearing sunglasses (((B~{>

(taken from here)

Almost Ali said...

Fatwa:

"Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – the radical who has also been cited as inspiring the Fort Hood Tex., massacre and the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S soldiers – singled out artist Molly Norris as a “prime target,” saying her “proper abode is hellfire...”

“A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air.” Link

Saint Croix said...

That's good. But was the fatwa the reason? And, if so, was it announced publicly that that was the reason?

He's threatened to kill lots of people. From wikipedia:

By April 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama approved the targeted killing of al-Awlaki, as officials explained such a step was appropriate for individuals who posed an imminent danger to national security.

It's a big improvement over the days when Khomeini would issue a death threat and nobody in the west did anything about it. Nowadays the Muslims who put out contract kills are in hiding themselves. You can thank George W. Bush for that, I think. Invading two Islamic countries says a lot to assholes in power. The days when the head of a state like Khomeini, or whoever, puts out a kill order in public are probably over.

AJ Lynch said...

These Muslims are nuts - some rich beyatch like Oprah should start a non-profit charity to solicit donations to support this cartoonist so she can live a comfortable and safe lifestyle.

Chef Mojo said...

I will splay your entrails upon the dunes, raze your house, torch your crops, and salt the earth so that nothing grows there, you son of a motherless dog.

Well, it worked on the Carthaginians!

Maguro said...

@Pastafarian - You're quite wrong, I absolutely meant to offend you.

You see, you're obstructing my view of Venus.

I will now obliterate you with my Eludium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

Pastafarian said...

Now you've done it, Paco. Right now, dozens of innocent, non-militant Muslims are reading your comment, and they're becoming so deeply offended that they're having an existential crisis. 3 of them became so enraged that they actually lost control of their bowels.

You heartless bastard.

DADvocate said...

...think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended.

While you're getting hammered for this statement, I'll drive the next nail. A huge point of free speech is to be able to offend others. Nobody grovels over offending Christians because they won't kill you or fly airplanes into buildings.

Christians are undeservedly offended daily because cowards no there will be no consequence. Being a Christian, I realize the value of free speech and that some Christians deserve to be offended while others don't. I live with that for the sake of freedom.

I'm disgusted that Stephen Breyer and so many others are cowards and suck ups to militant Islam. Our country is not dying a thousand deaths due to this cowardice.

Shanna said...

Damn you conflicting edits!!!!

She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

Why would the govenment pay for her? She isn't a witness.

traditionalguy said...

Interestingly the existence of a prophet and leader named Mohammed is in doubt. The Arab writings for the first 70 years of their expansion never mention any such person. So we will never know what to draw...maybe a Yul Brynner image from the King and I would be acceptable.

Nate Whilk said...

When linking to this post, Instapundit wrote, "Blaming the victim is what people do, when they’re scared and don’t want to do anything about it."

I disagree. In my opinion, most liberals WANT radical Islam to triumph just because they hate Xtianity so much (agnostic ex-Catholic here).

At least the men, anyway. In Islam the men have a much better deal! Indisputable power over their women, for one thing. Why shouldn't a liberal man let that happen? They'd love the role of benevolent dictator.

Shanna said...

A huge point of free speech is to be able to offend others.

Exactly. Nobody has to protect anybody's right to say "looks like rain". There is no point in free speech, if we start cuting things out because they are "offensive".

That doesn't mean I think we should all voluntarily be assholes to each other. It's still nice to be polite. But once somebody pulls out a knife, I think you can say whatever offensive thing you want as long as you've got a gun.

Pastafarian said...

Maguro, your mockery of the prophet Marvin is beyond the pale.

I will spit your young on flaming pikes; you will contemplate your blasphemy on the tree of woe.

And I might block your view of Venus, infidel, but I bet you've got a pretty good view of Uranus. (See what I did there? That Uranus humor just never gets old).

orbicularioculi said...

If anyone deserves to be offended it is 7th Century barbarians who kill, maim, terrorize, rape, destroy and steal in the name of Islam. Why do they do it?

They do it because Islam teaches it in the words of Allah and Mohammed in the Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Islam is an intolerant, hateful dual-ethics Political System and religion that treats kafirs (non-Muslims) differently than Muslims.

There is no Golder Rule in Islam and jihad is the reason they continue to kill and terrorize after 1,400 years. Islam has never changed. It is written. Allah is merciful (to Muslims), Allah be praised.

The Drill SGT said...

speaking of free sppech, how about that NJ worker fired for burning a Koran?

flag burning is protected,

bible burning, no big deal.

touch a Koran... priceless

Alex said...

Free speech is not about holding your tongue, but about protecting the MOST offensive speech out there. Does Althouse believe in the Constitution or not?

Alex said...

I just wonder how much longer will Americans tolerate this pro-Islamic crap.

hawkeyedjb said...

... BUT ...

That means: NOT

Paco Wové said...

This makes me wonder: what single image could outrage the greatest percentage of the earth's people? Could you get a trifecta -- enraging Moslems, Christians, and, say, Hindus, all at once? That, at least, might be worth going into hiding for.

Some said...

Unjustified hardly. Some people take their religion deadly serious & she and Ann are surprised by this.

Guess what, don't want to have crazy religious zealots after you, don't draw their ire (i'll be here all day ;)

Guess what Christians used to execute people for perceived blasphemy all the time.

Alex said...

Some = Ritmo? he's working overtime.

A.W. said...

Shanna

> Why would the govenment pay for her? She isn't a witness.

How about because this is all the government's fault. the government is failing to protect us from this. the least they could do is pay to help her hide.

Why should Henry Hill get government money, but not her?

Alex said...

The biggest way for Althouse to generate hits are posts about:

Sarah Palin
Muslims

hawkeyedjb said...

"Guess what, don't want to have crazy religious zealots after you, don't draw their ire"

What if I'm pro-abortion?

What if I'm anti-burqa?

What if I'm atheist?

I am all of the above. Do you recommend I go into hiding? Is that how it works in a free society?

Paco Wové said...

"...don't want to have crazy religious zealots after you, don't draw their ire..."

Would you give the same advice to an abortion clinic?

lucid said...

Angelyne put it beautifully.

Erik said...

Some said:

"Guess what Christians used to execute people for perceived blasphemy all the time."

Yes, they USED TO kill people for blasphemy. But they don't any more. See, that's the difference and, well, it's a pretty important difference. And btw, I'm an atheist.

Some said...

Abortionists I'm sure try to keep a low profile to avoid ending up like Mr. Tiller.

I am not saying you have to listen to all the threats and certainly you do not have to abide by them but poking fun of their main man (Mohammed), is certainly a good way to draw their ire.

Serious zealots have a thing about being poked, they sometimes poke back.

Erik said...

Some said:

"Serious zealots have a thing about being poked, they sometimes poke back."

That statement appears to equate speech that "pokes" a Muslim with the "poke" of being murdered. Please, let us avoid such equivocations in the future.

gus3 said...

"Could you get a trifecta -- enraging Moslems, Christians, and, say, Hindus, all at once?"

Jesus, Mohammed, and Krishna doing the can-can.

Alex said...

I think it's safe to say that "Some" is a Muslim fanatic.

lucid said...

Let's try a little "offense" test of various religions.

The question is--which of the following statements will get you killed by people who claim to be following a "religion?"

Jesus does Mary up the ass.

Moses tongues pig assholes.

Buddha snorts dried shit.

Vishnu licks urinals for kicks.

Mohammad sucks dog cocks in hell.

Maguro said...

Abortionists I'm sure try to keep a low profile to avoid ending up like Mr. Tiller.

No doubt. But does the FBI come over and "insist" that abortionists go under cover and live like fugitives?

I've never heard of such a thing. The only thing that compares is the Salman Rushdie case, but I believe he was actually provided with security, not told to go fend for himself.

bgates said...

Abortionists I'm sure try to keep a low profile

Aside from the website of the nationally known organization that gives the addresses of facilities that provide "Abortion Services", you mean.

former law student said...

Her comic was so cute and inoffensive -- a spool of thread, a coffee cup, come on.

Some said...

Bgates: that is too funny.

Alex: Nope sorry, I distrust Mohammed just a bit more than Moses and Abraham

I just try to save wit for religious types who can talk about it, not call for my head.

Alex said...

Some - so you admit that Muslims issue death threats for even stick-figure drawings of their flying spaghetti monster god, and you cower in fear?

hawkeyedjb said...

"I just try to save wit for religious types who can talk about it, not call for my head."

Self-censorship is the best kind. And the most effective.

pm317 said...

Here is the reality. There is a religious group in this world that gets EASILY offended by everything anyone says of their religion and are willing to KILL people for it. What is wrong with this picture?

Fen said...

I just try to save wit for religious types who can talk about it, not call for my head.

Coward.

GMay said...

Ann Althouse says at the top of every comment section: "I'm big on free speech..."

Well, actually you're not.

Free speech is a teency weency bit more than allowing your commenters to say "fuck you" in the comments section. Of course, this is something you know, so clearly your convictions regarding free speech are just not very strong. at. all.

You're more of a fair-weather free speech kind of gal.

I guess you were a little overdue for one of your epic strikeouts.

Revenant said...

A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself

I would love to live in a world where that sort of response was "surprising".

Palladian said...

I've drawn the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

JAL said...

A.W. @ 9:39 Of course the best answer is this. Every person in america who threatens her, should be thrown in jail. Every person in a foreign land who does the same, gets a missile up their behinds. And let it be known that will happen. Terrify the terrorists. Tell them, "You will not take our citizens' right of freedom of speech and religion." That is the best chance freedom had.

I think A.W.'s on to something here. I think we in the US should be more proactive in protecting our free speech and, for that matter all the other rights which are ours as Americans.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances....

This is a bright line across the world. We need to buff it up where it has grown dim, so others who love it can see it and have hope.

As for overseas threats -- they could be handled other ways, but the point is, despite Justice Breyer's betrayal of one of the most significant human rights there is (and the Constitution he has sworn to uphold?), in America we have the right to say what we think and feel and believe or not in public and private places. If citizens of other countries (or our own) don't like it? Tough. But our rights here are our rights. And we (and Molly Norris and the Florida preacher) should be safe to speak in our own country. Those who would would threaten us for exercising our rights need to know it will cost them. It's not a Miss Manners thing.

gus3 said...
"Could you get a trifecta -- enraging Moslems, Christians, and, say, Hindus, all at once?"

Jesus, Mohammed, and Krishna doing the can-can.


Yawn.

Even the vulgar list doesn't do it. My God doesn't need me to beat or behead you.

And professor -- the majority of posters have it right. You appear to be somewhat muddled about this. Or are not communicating very well today.

Why are you not defending Molly Norris?

Gene said...

I was appalled to hear that in American religious fanatics could force someone into hiding for drawing a cartoon. But after listening Molly Norris being interviewed by radio host Dave Ross it also seems that Norris is not quite as impressive as I had hoped.

At one point Ross asks Norris (not unkindly) if it is a cartoonist's job to "ridicule anything and everything."

Norris answers that it is a cartoonist's job to do things that are "non-PC."

Does that mean, asks Ross, that you would "ridicule the Holocaust?"

Norris is unprepared for that question. "No," she says tentatively, "I mean . . . , " Then firmly. "No."

Ross then points out that this is exactly what some Muslims are complaining about. Norris draws the line at ridiculing the Holocaust. But thinks is okay to ridicule Mohammed.

There is a good answer to this--namely that a principled person would never ridicule the Holocaulst or Mohammed per se--but there is nothing wrong with ridiculing people who use the Holocaust (or Mohammed) as a club to crudely attack people with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, if her interview is any indication, Norris seems not to be aware of such a distinction.

I've never heard of Norris before this incident and something else she said, I suspect, is one reason why. During the interview, Ross offhandedly asked Norris if she made her living as a cartoonist or if she had another job. Norris said she also worked as "a dog walker."

Since the FBI (i.e. the taxpayer) is paying Norris's expenses to go into what amounts to a witness protection program, I'm guessing that being in hiding is a financial step up for her--which is too bad. I'm always glad when people stand up for free speech (since it's everywhere so much under attack these days). I just wish the people standing up (and taking the hits) were a little more formidable than this. It almost seems as if she went into this quite casually, instead of as a fiercely principled stand against religious extremism.

Timon said...

Creeping Sharia. I think we might be forgetting that people are getting killed merely for expressing disagreement with Islam, editorial cartoons being an obvious form of speech in the West, and no more a type of iconography than is a convenience store camera.

Kirk Parker said...

Synova,

"The guy who sat up on a panel and said he was *glad* Jim Baen was dead..."

What the heck???

Kirk Parker said...

Gene, Norris claims the government is not covering any of her expenses.

Kirk Parker said...

AJL,

"I preferred a grilled cheese sandwich and bowl of tomato soup! Still do on a cold winter day."

Wow, does this mean I've been Catholic all these years without knowing it?

Alex said...

The way it's supposed to work in our country is a cartoonist makes a cartoon ridiculing the Holocaust, readers write letters of protest to the editor and the cartoonist gets fired. No threats or violence, but boycotts work. Have Muslims ever tried a boycott instead of death threats/fatwas? Nope, they're too much still in the 11th century medieval mindset.

Sam said...

Anyone who is offended by that cartoon utterly deserves to be offended.

Eric said...

Go ahead. Say whatever ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry you want to say (why not? everyone else does). We're not going to riot and fire-bomb and kill if you do.

That's why Catholics have to put up with "Piss Christ" and elephant dung on pictures of the Virgin Mary while the Muslims can get cartoons removed from books published in the US.

The only conclusion you can draw here is the Catholics are doing it wrong.

Mr. Forward said...

"I do have a lot of opinions about bloggers that would hurt your feelings if I said it."
God

blake said...

For the Muslim perspective, it has nothing to do with drawing Mohammed, any more than Sarah Palin's views have anything to do with why the left reviles her. (See, a twofer!)

I remember reading somewhere that there were shows on TV in the Middle East (Lebanon?) where Mohammed was shown and ridiculed. Doesn't surprise me at all.

It really has nothing to do with Mohammed, when you get down to it.

wv: conyman

Yes, indeedy.

Revenant said...

There is a good answer to this--namely that a principled person would never ridicule the Holocaulst or Mohammed per se

A better answer is that making light of mass murder is much more offensive than drawing a picture of somebody.

The notion that drawing a picture of Mohammed is comparable to mocking the Holocaust is the biggest pile of steaming horseshit I've heard all day.

holdfast said...

Sadly, it really does show that if you want the west to take your grievances seriously you need to kill some folks. Brutally. On TV.

I mean, who cares about some Christian loser whining about Piss Christ - the guy is probably just a loser who can't get laid. Now gun down a dozen people in the DC area, or cut of some heads on TV, and now you're a person to be taken seriously.

The leftist infatuation with Islam is two fold - one part is simple cowardliness and their basic desire to lick the boots of the guy holding the club; the other is that they need Islamicists to say all the nasty things about western civilization and America in particular that they are too gutless to say themselves - ever since the fall of the USSR, the left has needed a new dirty-wish fulfillment proxy for their fantasies. Plus a lot of Muslims are dark skinned, so triple diversity points.

madawaskan said...

Maguro

What are they telling these people?

They could be drawing them pictures.

Or these days showing them photographs.

Look here's a picture of Theo Van Gogh.

Here's a photo Pim Fortuyn.

Wait do you want us to go to the video tapes?!

[wv:diess]

G Joubert said...

Little Bill Daggett: I don't deserve this... to die like this. I was building a house.

Will Munny: Deserving's got nothin' to do with it.

EnigmatiCore said...

Althouse--

"I believe strongly in free speech rights, but I think people should, in deciding how to exercise their rights, think about the effect their speech has on others who don't deserve to be offended."

Excepting, the reason she has to change her name is the effect her speech has had on those who do deserve to be offended.

We need to stop hiding that fact behind those who "do not deserve to be offended", and those who "do not deserve to be offended" need to prove they don't by policing their own a small tad better.

Akiva said...

As I wrote here on Islam's win over America on 9-11 of 2010, free speech is OVER.

When the head of American combat forces, the US president, the FBI and local authorities harrass someone for legal speech, then "legal" no longer has meaning.

The Islamists have won and America trembles in fear of Muslim rage and the response of the Arab street. To utter a word against Islam or to stop them from building wherever and whenever they want is to take your life into your hands - and your government won't help. Ha ha ha.

Why? As I wrote here America's multi-cultural all cultures equal and freedom of religion prevent the THOUGHT that yes, it might indeed be that a religion (or sect of it) can be a problem.

Of course it's a bigger problem when that sect has multi-billionaires financing lobbyists throughout Washington.

Anne, what happens when the government won't enforce the laws because they refuse to acknowledge a problem? The answer is very ugly.

andrew said...

"Ross then points out that this is exactly what some Muslims are complaining about. Norris draws the line at ridiculing the Holocaust. But thinks is okay to ridicule Mohammed."

So what? I think it is okay to ridicule Jesus but not black people being lynched. Chrsitians don't have a problem with that. I think it is okay to ridicule the Buddha but not Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing. Muslims sure don't have a problem with that. I listened to this show. The interviewer stated that the line in America is drawn at the Holocaust. Really? So cartoons ridiculing Emit Till, Rwanda, Darfur, Native American genocide, Bosnian ethnic cleansing, slavery, or the Cambodian killing fields would get a free pass? NOT!

"There is a good answer to this--namely that a principled person would never ridicule the Holocaulst or Mohammed per se--but there is nothing wrong with ridiculing people who use the Holocaust (or Mohammed)"

If you want your Prophet to be respected you may want to stop comparing him to mass murder. I ridicule the Prophet of the person who would compare ridiculing genocide to making fun of a religious icon. I never hear Muslims protest that making fun of the Buddha would be as offensive as making fun of genocide against Muslims. They never compare anti-Jewish cartoons (which appear often in the Islamic media) as being equal to ridiculing murdering millions of Africans or Arabs.... hmmm Very telling.

andrew said...

"The way it's supposed to work in our country is a cartoonist makes a cartoon ridiculing the Holocaust, readers write letters of protest to the editor and the cartoonist gets fired. No threats or violence, but boycotts work. Have Muslims ever tried a boycott instead of death threats/fatwas?"

Hopefully it wouldn't work. In America ridiculing religion and ridiculing murder aren't equal and they shouldn't be. Muslims keep doing this whine: "you will insult Muslims but you won't make fun of the Holocaust". Strangely enough they never say to anti-semities like Nation of Islam "you will insult Jews but you won't make fun of slavery or black people being lynched." I've seen a lot of anti-semitism in the Islamic media but not one cartoon ridiculing Mo, the Crucades, Bosnia ethnic cleansing, Marwa Al-Sherbini, the Pakistan flood victims or the host of tragedies that are sensitive towards them. Do they not notice their own discrepencies?
The Islamic world will publish things about Jews that they would execute you for saying about Muslims. People do not seem to know that amount of hate speech that is tolerated in the Islamic world, as long as it's not towards them.

Dan said...

Perhaps they'd be eying your neck Ann, had your post here been slightly more sympathetic toward Molly's plight; perhaps they are anyway.

rhhardin said...

The Pope is not infallible on matters of meat.

Cedarford said...

"And shame on Althouse for kowtowing and submitting to threats of violence against free speech."

Please. If you want to really, really point out someone who is kowtowing and 60% of Americans slavishly kowtowing to his kowtow on offending Muslims - it isn't Althouse, it isn't some Progressive Jew on SCOTUS that likes flag-burning freedom but thinks the transnationalist community and international law trump the Constitution if "violence is threatened".

They are small fish.

Look at mighty General David Petraeus. And his boss, DOD Secretary Gates. Both said we have an obligation to stifle speech because it "endangers our Heroes".

The only reason there is any support for 100s of billions a year in wars overseas is the idea that we have people fighting Muslim crazies. And that therefore, anyone in uniform is a "Hero".
But as we are not trying to fight Islamoid crazies anymore but "win their hearts" the poor heroes over there could have bad, seething, crazy, offended Muslims try using violence on the "heroes" - and since that would endanger the "Heroes" - Petraeus said we can't offend Muslims. For the "heroes" sake!

Wilson and Lincoln used the same argument to suppress free speech...but it is a little rich that the conquering object of so much adulation...supposedly now there to help the noble, freedom-loving Muslims. Hero troops are there not to fight crazy Muslims bt help them achieve girl's schools and democracy now that the war is over. (And Bush's special friend, the head drug dealer now "agonizes" over any Talibani wife lugging man's ammo belts getting whacked and condemns the US for it).

Petraeus, the Messiah of the Right Wing and people who became heroes for being imprisoned by the Enemy - is about as overhyped as a career officer can be.
We didn't win anything with the vaulted Surge but the right to crawl out of Iraq without swarms of enemy harassing our exit. It's not like any American can walk around without heavy security anywhere outside Kurdistan. They try it they are promptly dead or captured for ransom or slow death.

mwakarama said...

Scare-crow! Alfred Hitchcock!!!
Americans are creators of scare tunnels and frightenning movies...
What is a little cartoon?
Americans live in their own scary creations... fiction or reality.
In the old days of the 'Mafia' - the 'scripts' and 'format' for all these things were written... Americans were scared of the mafias the same way... they are scared of Islam today. We are a small tribe in Africa, our culture is incompatible to Islam - we tell them and they know it. We are farmers of our own rice, maize, potato, cassava, millet, banana, sugar etcetera - we are not scared! threatenning violence even without implementing it is a crime - what is all the nail-bitting nervousness. Islam WILL learn that violence is a weakness... for us we don't have a bomb or Nuks... but our right in our own land MUST be respected GOD or no GOD. People who work or do business with them Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, or what - they are working with organization that 'serve' humanity FIRST.
Catoon in Denmark, now the same Cartoon in America - LOOK! if someone can't live in America, let him/her go back home ( me for one I can't live abroad, I came back home...)I am an African full stop.
Get-out of where you don't want to live...

AllenS said...

They came first for the cartoonists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a cartoonist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

--Remember this Althouse.

mrs whatsit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mrs whatsit said...

Shanna, if she is receiving death threats, then she certainly is a witness.

Or ought to be, if anybody had the guts to catch and prosecute the thugs who are wrecking her life because she hurt their widdle feelings.

Personally, I am mounting a fatwa against Garrison Keillor because of the time he said on Prairie Home Companion, after some Republican won a presidential election, that Christians shouldn't have the right to vote. Oh, and I'm including everybody in the audience who laughed out loud and applauded. I mean really. I believe in free speech and all that yada yada yada, but didn't they think about the effect their speech would have on those who don't deserve to be offended?

Anybody that rude doesn't deserve not to have their heads sawed off.

caplight said...

At east there is on person in the artistic community that has truly take risk and shown courage. Sorry it turned out so bad for her.

HT said...

I'm not sure how my drawing a picture of Mohammed would offend any reasonable person on the other side of the earth who's never met me and never will. Unless they're a crazy son-of-a-bitch.

That's the point though, right? Aren't we talking about a group of people who themselves distort images, philosophies, habits, patterns, icons, and general culture of the so-called West to their own advantage? Their distortions become propaganda for their cause, to recruit and foment anger and hatred. So the people doing that are po'ed because they can't think someone else would be distorting or even critiquing images, habits, patterns inherent in their culture for anything other than propaganda and hatred reasons. They're paranoid that we (Molly) are doing it for the same reasons they are. Yes, they are somewhat crazy.

Many many years ago, you COULD have drawn Mohamed in the west without any fear. Partly that was the lack of the Internet, and partly that was other reasons too, namely the limited existence of these fundamentalists. Everyone was just livin life back then. Or so I tell myself.

Skyler said...

Gene,

That she is a dog walker and part time cartoonist is even more cause for alarm.

This is how terrorism works. Don't you see this, Ann?

This is how less than a dozen terrorists could control entire cities in Iraq when I was there. They march in, and behead a few minor transgressors of whatever they want to feel is important that day. They do it in the street in front of family and neighbors. Then they own the city. No one is willing to stand up to them because they fear they are next and no one will protect them.

That's the only way they succeed. The "offense" is a sham and that you, a law professor, can't understand that is appalling.

Instead of tut tutting and calling for restraint, the president and former president and everyone else in government should support her and join in on draw muhammed day.

Hoosier Daddy said...

PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO BE OFFENDED?!?!?!

Good god, Ann. Their reaction is exactly what makes them deserving.


Tell me about it. I threw up in my mouth when I read that line.

jr565 said...

Andrew wrote:
The Islamic world will publish things about Jews that they would execute you for saying about Muslims. People do not seem to know that amount of hate speech that is tolerated in the Islamic world, as long as it's not towards them.


Not just publish things in Islamic world. Many countries with Sharia have it written into law rules about how to clean yourself if you touch someone that is unclean. Who is unclean? A jew. Jews are listed, in the law itself, as being lower than pigs. Christians can't even prostelytize or carry a bible without fear of being murdered, and in some cases Jews are not allowed in the country. And christians and Jews are people of the book! They view polytheists and atheists as even less worthy of consideration.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HT said...

Ice cream ad banned as "offensive" to Catholics
September 15, 2010 - 11:39am

LONDON (AP) - Britain's advertising watchdog has banned an Italian ice cream ad featuring a pregnant nun, saying it causes offense to Catholics.

The magazine ad for ice cream maker Antonio Federici showed the nun eating a tub of ice cream, with text that read: "Immaculately conceived ... Ice cream is our religion."

The Advertising Standards Authority said Wednesday it has received 10 complaints from magazine readers who said the ad was offensive to Christians. The agency said imagery used to illustrate immaculate conception was likely to be seen as mocking the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

The Italian company said the idea of conception represented the development of their ice cream and the ad aimed to gently satirize religion.

(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

LONDON (AP) - Britain's advertising watchdog has banned an Italian ice cream ad featuring a pregnant nun, saying it causes offense to Catholics.

The magazine ad for ice cream maker Antonio Federici showed the nun eating a tub of ice cream, with text that read: "Immaculately conceived ... Ice cream is our religion."

The Advertising Standards Authority said Wednesday it has received 10 complaints from magazine readers who said the ad was offensive to Christians. The agency said imagery used to illustrate immaculate conception was likely to be seen as mocking the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

The Italian company said the idea of conception represented the development of their ice cream and the ad aimed to gently satirize religion.

(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

By the way, Islam reacting violently to insults to the prophet is nothing new. It goes way to back to the prophet himself, who sent out his assassins to murder his critics. There are storeis in the hadiths where not only does he have them murdered, but then celebrates the murder afterwards. And he (mohammad) is the greatest, most pious of Muslims.

One quck story from the surahs is the death of Asma Bint Warwa and Abu Afak. It started with Abu Afak, an old poet who mocked the prophet. Mohammad said "will no one deal with this rascal for me?"One of his followers killed him. Which then caused Asma bin Warma to condemn the act and insult the prophet.


SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).



So this killing or threatening to kill those who insult the prophet is not relegated to the most extreme of extremists. It's part of the religion.

Pogo said...

Well, it didn't take long for the left to completely dismantle the US.

Our current Bill of Rights:
First Amendment – You have the right to remain silent.

Second Amendment - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be enforced.

Third Amendment – The State can use your property whenever it wants.

Fourth Amendment – The State can take your property whenever it wants.

Fifth Amendment – The State can put you in jail and take your property whenever it wants.

Sixth Amendment – The State can put you in jail whenever it wants.

Seventh Amendment – The State can decide to do with your property whatever it wants.

Eighth Amendment – The State can...well, you get the picture.

Ninth and Tenth Amendments – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the State. Pwned!!1!

TRO said...

"This is not about ideals of civil behavior that we wish everyone would adhere to. We all know goddamned well that nobody, including you, is really so deeply concerned about offending the religious sensibilities of "people who don't deserve to be offended", unless they happen to Muslim, and that is only because Muslims who do deserve to be offended get violent and dangerous. And that is despicable."

Well said, very well said. People attack religion - and by religion I mean Christianity and, specifically Catholicism - because they don't fight back. Oh yeah, they piss and moan about it a bit, and maybe call for a boycott now and then, but otherwise they take it in stride and move on. Muslims, however, riot on good days and blow things up on bad ones and because of that, critics of religion do not attack them. It's cowardliness pure and simple.

But there is also an additional dynamic involved and that is that those who attack Christianity hold back on attacking Islam because Islam is the enemy (both historically and currently) of Christianity. So by defending Islam they have another ally in their war on Christians. (You may not believe this is a religious war and it is true America doesn't fight religious wars, but it IS a religious war to them.)

Of course, most have no clue as to the living hell that is Sharia law - or even what it is at all. All they know is that Christianity is here now - imposing its judgmental will on them (and how dare they) and Islam is so exotic and way over there and nothing to worry about here.

So for these reasons - cowardliness and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy - they are loath to offend Islam while having no problems at all with offending Christians.

Michael said...

"People who don't deserve to be offended"

Perhaps they aren't. Perhaps they are the majority of "peaceful, moderate, Muslims" that don't get involved. Perhaps the great mass of Muslims don't care about the cartoons or slurs against the prophet. Perhaps all this is caused by and supported by academics who have a greater sensitivity than thee or me or the Muslims themselves as to perceived or rather unperceived slights.

Shanna said...

Shanna, if she is receiving death threats, then she certainly is a witness.

But if she were a traditional witness, why is the government not footing the bill, at least initially? Is there someone in the states who is threatening her, or is it just that guy overseas. And, did the FBI tell her about the threats, or the other way around?

I don't disagree that it's ridiculous that she isnt' safe, but I'm just not sure if she fits the technical parameters of witness protection. Is there prescedent for putting someone like this into witsec on the govt dime? I'm just curious about it. I mean, we don't put everybody who has ever been threatend in witness protection, it's a specific thing. I wrote a longer post about it at first but it got eaten.

Moose said...

No, Ann's right. And in retrospect Dr. George Tiller had it coming, ya' know?

Man, this opens up new fronts in inter-faith dialog, dunnit?

TRO said...

"I don't disagree that it's ridiculous that she isnt' safe, but I'm just not sure if she fits the technical parameters of witness protection. Is there prescedent for putting someone like this into witsec on the govt dime? I'm just curious about it."

My understanding is she went into hiding on her own dime and the government is not paying anything. I do imagine they gave her some advice on how to do it though.

traditionalguy said...

TRO...I agree with you on the nature of the religious war Islam has declared upon the earth. Your statement about Sharia Law is the first comment that has acknowledged that Sharia Law is really iron shackles of slavery that has never helped anyone. There is usually a careless attitude here that Sharia is just a few quaint new community rules. If slavery is now unconstitutional , then Sharia Law is also unconstitutional here, as well as its enforcement by overseers using contracts of murder. The most likely reason the US Government does not pay for this cartoonist's protection is to make another bow of non-resistance to the Saudi Sheikh's religion of peacefulness.

AllenS said...

FBI: "Your life is being threatened and we think you should run and hide, because we ain't gonna do anything about it."

mdgiles said...

"traditionalguy said...

Interestingly the existence of a prophet and leader named Mohammed is in doubt. The Arab writings for the first 70 years of their expansion never mention any such person. So we will never know what to draw...maybe a Yul Brynner image from the King and I would be acceptable.
9/15/10 10:18 PM"

As I understand it, Arabic wasn't even a written language until well after the period of the original Muslim expansion. Up until that point Arabic was written in Nabataean Aramaic, the spoken language of Christ's time. Which raises an interesting question. Gabriel supposedly dictated the Koran to Mohamed in Arabic, but his followers couldn't have written it down in that language, at that time. What are the chances that transcribing it to Arabic at a latter date caused errors to enter into the translation.

shoutingthomas said...

On just about every street corner in Manhattan today, you can see a poster for a movie that depicts a Freddie Kruger like monster in a nun's habit.

And, the surprising thing is that this abusive depiction of nuns is commonplace.

Haven't seen any Catholics out on a murder binge as a result.

Michael said...

In Atlanta a couple years back a woman riding her bicycle on the Silver Comet Trail was assaulted, raped and murdered. The police suggested that women shouldn't ride alone and should be vigilant.
See?
Don't tempt the lunatic rapists and certainly don't offend the hair trigger Muslims. Because we can't abridge their rights.
Only yours.

Pogo said...

If women wouldn't wear such skimpy clothes, men wouldn't be tempted.

Welcome to Sharia.

datechguy said...

I have to disagree, I don't care for being offensive to any religion but this is now a first amendment issue, if we don't defend Molly Norris loudly and strongly then not only will we be in defacto Sharia, but we will DESERVE to be, thus this post:

http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/a-national-disgrace-i-defy-you-murderous-islamic-bastards/

And as for the Catholic stuff, nobody is afraid of going after us Catholics because everybody knows we aren't going to cut your head off.

Scott M said...

How can so many people completely miss the fact that other radical/idiots/axe-to-grinders will pick up on the successful intimidation going on? Count on currently marginalized and outer-outer-fringe elements to start ramping up their own agendas asap.

Paul Zrimsek said...

This guy on Metafilter really gets it:

Next up: Everybody Poke a Hornet's Nest With A Stick Day.

Now that we've seen how Everybody Draw Mohammed Day went, let's up the ante with Everybody Equate Muslims With Insects Day.

Anglelyne said...

I was appalled to hear that in American religious fanatics could force someone into hiding for drawing a cartoon. But after listening Molly Norris being interviewed by radio host Dave Ross it also seems that Norris is not quite as impressive as I had hoped.

Maybe if you'd written "too bad" instead of "but" in the above statement I wouldn't have been so appalled by it on first reading. I don't think you meant it that way, but it suggests that one ought to meet a certain standard of "impressive" before having one's free speech rights protected.

There's an issue here that must have much higher priority than Miss Molly's failure to be a rigorous, prestigiously-employed thinker. (To paraphrase that popular Star Trek misquote: "Who are you to mock Islam?" "Who do I have to be?")

Anglelyne said...

andrew: In America ridiculing religion and ridiculing murder aren't equal and they shouldn't be.

Dear God, andrew. No, no, no. In America, "ridiculing religion" and murder are not the same thing. "Ridiculing religion" and "ridiculing murder" are equal as protected speech, regardless of one's personal sensitivities. Making obscene disgusting jokes about lynching is not illegal. You can't get prosecuted for "Holocaust denial" in this country. Yet.

bagoh20 said...

The solution to the problem is a lot more Mollies and a lot less Anns.

Imagine if there were only Mollies: Radical Islamists would be helpless to restrain speech.

Imagine if there were only Anns: Submission.

I am Sparticus!

ALP said...

ANY religion that threatens to harass, main, kill or otherwise harm non-believers has LOST the right to claim offense.

A.W. said...

Bagoh

Well, you know how i feel about EDMD, but let's not be too quick to declare molly a saint. she did back out. obviously out of fear, but she did. so more mollys wouldn't help. more people who carry through helps.

And yes, you are Spartacus.

(um, but there is no I in Spartacus.)

Cedarford said...

Scott M said...
How can so many people completely miss the fact that other radical/idiots/axe-to-grinders will pick up on the successful intimidation going on? Count on currently marginalized and outer-outer-fringe elements to start ramping up their own agendas asap.

======================
Agree. Nothing says you can check 1st Amendment Rights easier and faster than concerning judges and politicians (or the Great Petraeus Himself) to want suppress free speech than the threat of violence or disorder.

They want vociferous free speech, as long as the targets of "outrage" behave meekly. Which is why saying "Ni$$ag" is a firing offense (for a "NI$$ah saying non-black), while saying "mindless Christianist" isn't. Ni$$ahs kill people and burn cities when offended, hence we must be ever so sensitive..when was the last time we saw offended Christianists carrying torches and hauling booze, color TVs and baby diapers out of shattered storefronts.

Muslims have been very smart to see the value in special treatment they could get if they were put in with other "oppressed minorities prone to violence" Western liberals and progressive Jewish transnationalists have demanded for 40 years we bend over backwards to appease.

It was an easy call for the Muslims to emulate black demands for special accomodation. And police and societal allowance of Muslim intimidation, of the sort black thugs openly practice in schools and on streets.

The mystery is why the white, hispanic, Asian middle class has not tried it. Perhaps they lack group identity and cannot say "oppression" without snickering.

But perhaps the 1st to follow the Muslims may be Janet Napolitanos feared "economically destroyed, jobs offshored, live with the illegals -- conservative middle class people"

Anglelyne said...

maguro: In effect, isn't the FBI enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws by making an example out of these people?

Yes.

Whose side is the FBI on?

I think they follow the standard U.S. government guidelines on who matters and who doesn't. (Answer: not yours.)

The Drill SGT: Civis Romanus sum: I am a Roman citizen.

with those words, a citizen could walk the breadth of the Empire in 2o AD, if not competely unmolested, at least knowing that if he were harmed, some Centurion would get orders to put some barbarians on stakes :)


In the compressed temporal format of latter-day empire-cycling, a decade equals a century. So 2 AD was for us 3-5 decades ago. The civis romanus matters not at all in the days of Barack Augustulus.

See Akiva @2:39am and Pogo @9/16/10 7:10am.

wv: decre. A decre went out. Something about the Bill of Rights and globaloid supercession.

Anglelyne said...

JAL: But our rights here are our rights. And we (and Molly Norris and the Florida preacher) should be safe to speak in our own country.

The FBI just called and asked me to have a word with you about this "own country" delusion of yours. They were laughing.

amr said...

I have been standing on corners with my flag and signs for over a year in our area and have been threatened without even attacking Islam. I will not stop because when one can be threatened to not stand up for our rights, the enemy, whoever they may be, wins. Liberty or death is not a nice thought, but I'm not one who wants to live without liberty; but I will not go quietly.

ndspinelli said...

Wow, Ann..you awakened a sleeping giant. I grew up an Italian kid in a Polish town. "Guinea", "Wop", "Dago", is what I was called. I gave back "Pollock". There were a few "Frogs"[French Canadians], and "Commie's[Ukranians]. It was the 50's and 60's and we all got along quite well. You could tell who called you the slur in jest and who had some venom in them. But, it was all out there.

Fast forward to the 1990's. We adopt a son from South America and he is raised in a very Anglo town. A couple kids on the school bus call my son, "Spic." It hurt. The school jumped on it. I calmly asked that they back off. I asked that they not allow that shit said in the classroom..there needs to be decorum. But, on the bus, playground, etc. free speech should reign. I taught my son that for every person who calls you "Spic", there are many more who say it behind your back. Those are the people you need to be able to spot, and those are the people you have to watch. At least the loudmouths were straight w/ you. It was very tough for me to do, and tough on my son. Life is tough!

Almost Ali said...

Given the very existence of this thread, Althouse is getting a bum rap here.

After all, she's not just some anonymous needle in a haystack.

Scott M said...

Paraphrasing, but appropriate nonetheless...

"They will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

The rope, of course, being multiculti pseudo-tolerance and the hanging...well, the hanging is still hanging.

Almost Ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

Personally, I am mounting a fatwa against Garrison Keillor because of the time he said on Prairie Home Companion, after some Republican won a presidential election, that Christians shouldn't have the right to vote.

I thought that was an odd position for Keillor to take, considering his support for all Lutherans, and members of the parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility. Apparently Keillor meant only for Milennialist Christians -- those who believe The Rapture is imminent -- not to vote, because they have no skin in the game.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/11/born-again-christians-shouldnt-vote.html

From the linked PowerLineBlog, a transcript of Keillor's remarks after the fall 2004 election:

We're over it. We've moved on. We're just fine. The election was days ago. Days ago. Much has happened since then. We've practically forgotten about it here [laughter] in our rush to enter into new activities, new frontiers, new projects. I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. [enthusiastic audience applause] Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where there citizenship is, [laughter] is in heaven, it's not here among us in America. If you feel that war in the Middle East is simply prophecy fulfilled, if you believe that tribulation and suffering are just the natural conditions of life, if you believe that higher education is vanity, unnecessary, there is only one book that one need to read, if you feel that unemployment is -[glitch]- dependent on him and drawn you closer to him. [laughter] If you feel -[glitch]- lousy healthcare is a portal to paradise, [applause] then you don't really share our same interests, do you? No, you do not.

Pogo said...

The First Amendment is "going ghost," much as it's become a custom more honored in the breach than the observance.

Avierra said...

Palladian: Your Mohammed drawing is really beautiful. I like the way it all seems to flow, with the lifting of the stone as the central focus, and the colors are spicy, warm and lovely. (Now I want to go have some kababs for lunch :D) Very desert-y, I think.

former law student said...

Nothing says you can check 1st Amendment Rights easier and faster than concerning judges and politicians (or the Great Petraeus Himself) to want suppress free speech than the threat of violence or disorder.


There's a difference between respecting other people's beliefs and rewarding bad behavior. Trying not to offend people is good, trying not to offend people because otherwise they'll cut your head off only empowers the bullies.

Almost Ali said...

Whose side is the FBI on?

Depending on who is counting, there are anywhere from 2 to 10 million Muslims in this country - any one of whom will snap on a moment's notice - particularly following Friday prayers.

Which means you'll need at least two million FBI agents just to protect one cartoonist.

GMay said...

"After all, she's not just some anonymous needle in a haystack."

Again, her convictions just aren't very strong.

Thankfully there are still rough people in this country who will still act on her behalf.

A.W. said...

btw, as far as the Ann is not a needle in a haystack...

That's a fine argument for ann to adopt to avoid personally participating. but she went further and scolded us for participating. Oh, we are bad people, because we value freedom more than inoffensiveness.

i would add that molly norris was pretty much a needle in a haystack until she kicked it all off. seriously, did any of us ever hear of her before then. In a very "Army of Davids" sort of way, it was always about the idea, not the person. that is why she could drop out of it, and it would still get over 100,000 participants on facebook.

c3 said...

This really has been a failure of the secular left. I'm not secular and I'm not a leftist but I do expect them to keep us right of center religionists in check. We, like any group, can too easily impose our worldview on the country and that is not what made America great. (We came to America to escape state-sponsored religion)

But somehow in their love of "everything this is not America" (a perverse response to American exceptionalism) they've ended up expressing deep(?) sympathies for a religion that too often opposes so much they hold dear.

Here's an example of what happens when you are so focused on opposition to your political enemy. Though its a British movie set in a dystopian future England, it well exemplifies what is happening in Britain and the US. This scene presents a wine-loving, art worshipping gay journalist who prizes his 14th century Koran because of its "beauty". He's oblivious to the content of the book and what it says about his life and lifestyle. The Koran is beautiful in itself and because it is not what those in power support. Needless to say there is a previous scene where the Church of England is portrayed as lecherous and power hungry.

(NOTE: The movie is based on a graphic novel written during the Thatcher era. The movie was released during the Blair administration. As far as I know neither administration instituted a dictatorship imposing one state religion or limits on free speech. In fact, I believe the Blair administration allowed sharia courts.)

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Haven't read it all yet, but I'd just like to say that I see AA's point- it is not nice to offend those who mean no harm. I get that, and I'm sorry for the folks that get offended and don't deserve it.

BUT, I do strongly disagree with her conclusion. There are competing interests here; one is to avoid hurt feelings and offense, the other is to stand up to these monsters who would take the rights of expression from us by force.

The interest in standing up to these monsters and showing that we won't be bullied by them vastly outweighs the interest in avoiding hurt feelings. Enormously so; as our very freedoms are at stake in it. The offense truely harms no one; allowing ourselves to be bullied harms us all immensely.

- Lyssa

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Also, when this was debated before, Althouse requested comparative hypos, but never commented on my "Althouse commenters at a dance in a conservative religious town" scenario.

(In short (it was more colorfully described originally), Titus wants to dance with his Indian hubby; townsfolk are offended, a few make threats but most don't. Commenters pair off in same-sex dances to show solidarity and the harmlessness of the offense.)


I'd still really like to hear her response to that one.

- Lyssa

Almost Ali said...

Gmay:

We should talk.

Fatwas are serious business. They're also legal, given our laws protecting freedom of religion.

Almost Ali said...

That's a fine argument for ann to adopt to avoid personally participating.

Disagree.

The mere existence of this thread represents maximum personal participation.

ALP said...

ndspinelli @ 9:26:

"I taught my son that for every person who calls you "Spic", there are many more who say it behind your back. Those are the people you need to be able to spot, and those are the people you have to watch. At least the loudmouths were straight w/ you."
***************

Wise, wise words. Your son is lucky to have such a good teacher for a parent.

I am half Italian on my mother's side, and grew up in very Italian suburbs in western NY state - there were heated controversies when I was a kid over new housing tracts that wanted to fly the Italian flag next to the US flag.

I toss the word "Guido" around with no apologies (also "Kraut" in honor of my German heritage). If you are a young female, reasonably good looking, and out at the clubs in Italian neighborhoods, you've experienced the "Guido Come-on". Used in this context, "Guido" is supposed to be a bit of an insult due to the lameness of the guy's attitude and ham-handed pick-up technique. I've been surprised at how those of non Italian descent are offended when I use the word. We've become so fucking over-sensitive, we can't even make fun of our own fucking ethnic groups! For crying out loud, if black folks can say "Nigger", I'm sure as hell going to say "Guido"!

GMay said...

Almost Ali said: "We should talk."

Yes, let's.

"Fatwas are serious business. They're also legal, given our laws protecting freedom of religion."

Death threats are serious business. Death threats are not constitutionally protected.

What was it you wanted to talk about?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»