August 18, 2009

Yale.

Fail.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 9:13 AM
Tags: , , , , , ,

19 comments:

Michael Haz said...

Fail? Why? There's nothing wrong with propane.

8/18/09, 9:28 AM
Ryan said...

I love how the labels are longer than the post.

8/18/09, 9:49 AM
PJ said...

Isn't it likely that (whatever they may claim) Yale's decision was driven by concern that if some allegedly offended person blew up YUP's offices and killed a dozen people, some smart Yale lawyer would contrive to have Yale held liable? Hitchens is right to say that the bombing would not actually be Yale's fault, but that wouldn't impede American justice if (as would be likely) Yale turned out to be the only deep pocket in sight. It's not that I have any sympathy for Yale here, but I do think this could be an example of the respondeat superior chickens coming home to roost.

8/18/09, 9:55 AM
Big Mike said...

Just when I was thinking that Ivy Leaguers are uniformly dense, along comes YUP getting tons of free advertising for a book that no one otherwise would hear about. Brilliant! YUP and author Jytte Klausen will wind up making some serious money from this little book.

And with luck Klausen will live to spend the royalties.

8/18/09, 10:12 AM
Triangle Man said...

How could they correct the title to more accurately reflect the contents?

"Everything but the cartoons that shook the world"

"Mohammed Cartoon Fail"

"LOLprophets"

8/18/09, 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...

"Isn't it likely that (whatever they may claim) Yale's decision was driven by concern that if some allegedly offended person blew up YUP's offices and killed a dozen people, some smart Yale lawyer would contrive to have Yale held liable?"

No. Let's use Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation is YUP is gutless.

8/18/09, 10:18 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...

The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn't even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism—particularly Muslim religious extremism—that is spreading across our culture.

What does he mean surrender to religious extremism particularly Muslim religious extremism> Has there been a massive uproar of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists etc that I missed out on? Seems to me if you want to show your ‘courage’ just make a movie castigating Christians or better yet, toss some piss and shit on a statue of a Christian saint and call it art. Sorry Chris, it isn’t particularly Muslim religious extremism, it IS Muslim religious extremism that everyone gets weak in the knees when I t comes to confronting.

It’s like those cutesy COEXIST bumper stickers spelled out with religious symbols the crunchy granola types like to plaster on their cars . Problem is the only one that has a problem coexisting starts with an I and ends with a SLAM. The day I see the leftards around the world start treating Christians with the same kid glove treatment they do the jihadists then I’ll accept the steady surrender theory.

8/18/09, 10:28 AM
Scott M said...

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

super-hot-failsauce.

8/18/09, 11:02 AM
Lisa said...

Apparently Yale is being less than honest about this. They said that the experts they consults were unanimous not to publish. At least one person is denying this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/14/publisher-bans-images-muhammad

Shame on Yale for letting the threat of violence get in the way of free speech and academic integrity

8/18/09, 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...

Lisa, I doubt there was any real threat involved, just plain old fear. The loathing (ours), however, is real enough. Then again, maybe Big Mike is right. We shall see, if it actually goes to press.

8/18/09, 11:27 AM
traditionalguy said...

Doesn't Yale know that Mohammed was a plagerist from Jewish and Christian books? No plagerist should be worshipped at Yale. OK,maybe all they did was fear the killers from the Mohammed who claims that they to have a right given from their god to cleanse the world from infidels. The next step is to surrender the Yale campus to Prayer Towers erected for public proclamations of faith in Mohammed.

8/18/09, 12:02 PM
Big Mike said...

@Randy, I'm almost always right. Well except for the time I thought I had made a mistake, but then it turned out I hadn't. ;-)

Ah, the oldies are still the best.

wv: spleast -- the smallest splash.

8/18/09, 12:27 PM
Alex said...

Can't wait to see the minarets constructed on the Yale campus with muezzins on site. Yale will be a Muslim-only zone. Gotta love our surrender monkeys.

8/18/09, 12:58 PM
William said...

I can see the moral quibbles involved in making this decision. The publisher cannot see the moral quibbles involved in publishing torture photos from Abu Ghraib that would inspire Muslims to murder members of our forces in Iraq. The morality and humanity of Yale University Press goes so far and no further.

8/18/09, 1:10 PM
Methadras said...

I find it utterly fascinating as a sociological exercise to witness lefties, liberals and their antipathy towards religion via their long suffering atheism, that doth protest to much against religion and it's mistakes and flaws, readily capitulate to it's demands when the fear of a threat never made hangs heavily in the air. It's like the beaten wife syndrome of not wanted to anger your husband for fear of the threat of a beating that you know will come when you've done nothing wrong.

wv = jewares = pirated jewish software.

8/18/09, 3:52 PM
Revenant said...

Seems to me if you want to show your ‘courage’ just make a movie castigating Christians.

In reality, of course, that pretty much never happens. Heck, most of the movies Christians attack as "anti-Christian" concede the existence of God and/or the divinity of Christ -- Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ, The DaVinci Code, etc. The reality is that Hollywood often makes *heretical* movies (all of the above certainly qualify), but very seldom makes anti-religion films. Look at the way "The Golden Compass" got bowdlerized, for example.

The reality is that it is vastly more difficult to get an pro-atheism movie made than it is a pro-Christian movie. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; atheists are a tiny minority and most of us are used to religious popular entertainment anyway. But it is silly for Christians to pretend that their message isn't heard in Hollywood.

8/18/09, 9:15 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...

In reality, of course, that pretty much never happens. Heck, most of the movies Christians attack as "anti-Christian" concede the existence of God and/or the divinity of Christ .

I wasn't talking about conceding the existance of God, I was talking about treating Islam with kid gloves yet there is little fear in portraying Catholic priests as pedophiles or psychotic killers. Or re-writing the life of Christ that contradicts biblical teaching.

Personally I don't care, I've been a lapsed Catholic for years. I just think its a bit rich that the left including Hollywood falls over themselves in an attempt to show 'respect' to Islam but never would do so for Christianity.

8/19/09, 8:56 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...

The reality is that Hollywood often makes *heretical* movies

Actually Rev, that speaks to my point. Those heretical movies inevitably target Christianity. Maybe when they make a DaVinci Codesque movie about Mohhamed I'll retract but I won't hold my breath.

Hell, they can't even make a terrorist plot to blow up a plane with the usual suspects but rather it's the innocent looking white guy and the flight crew who are in on it (Flightplan)

8/19/09, 9:00 AM
Revenant said...

I wasn't talking about conceding the existance of God, I was talking about treating Islam with kid gloves yet there is little fear in portraying Catholic priests as pedophiles or psychotic killers. Or re-writing the life of Christ that contradicts biblical teaching.

What you actually *said* was "Seems to me if you want to show your ‘courage’ just make a movie castigating Christians". Neither of your examples qualifies as such.

Besides, the whole "if you wanted to show REAL courage you'd attack Islam" line is nonsensical. It is like telling a lion tamer "if you wanted to show REAL courage you'd play Russian Roulette". The fact that you could be taking bigger risks doesn't mean the risks you are taking don't exist.

Actually Rev, that speaks to my point. Those heretical movies inevitably target Christianity.

There are certainly many Christians egotistical enough to think that contradicting Christian dogma is the same as "targeting" Christianity, yes. More sensible Christians realize that there have always been contradictory stories about the life and teachings of Christ; the Gospels are just four of them. It cannot rationally be argued that, for example, "Last Temptation" is somehow "targeting Christianity".

they can't even make a terrorist plot to blow up a plane with the usual suspects

"United 93" was released the year after "Flightplan". But you're right that Hollywood is reluctant to portray Arabs (or any other non-whites) as villains, these days.

8/19/09, 1:06 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)