And as long as I'm disagreeing with Glenn Reynolds, let me say that I disapprove of "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day, which he seems to be promoting. (Hot Air, Dan Savage, and Reason are actively delighted by the idea.)
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.
At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit. Shock is an old artist's move. Epater la bourgeoisie. Shock will get a reaction, and it will make some people mad. They are allowed to get mad. That was the point. Of course, they'll have to control their violent impulses.
People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
UPDATE: More here.
April 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
440 comments:
1 – 200 of 440 Newer› Newest»I married a liberal.
You're no fun at all.
Sorry, I don't think 'artists' get some sort of free pass to do things other people don't. Back off, man -- I'm an artist! I'm trained to handle these delicate subjects! Bah. It's ok for everybody or it's not.
And another thing...
you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything
...how are you hurting them? Offending them, sure, but being offended is not being hurt.
Ann - you're wrong on this one.
There is no law in Islam that prevents NON-MUSLIMS FROM DEPICTING MUHAMMED.
Muslims need to get used to the idea that dhimmis will not live but their laws. This is defensive, not offensive.
I still think the distinction between outrageous speech, and innocuous speech that some people get outraged by anyway, is worth keeping.
Grow a skin, Slaves of God.
VW: nonshat. An obsolete way of making art.
"Draw Mohammed Day" IS a good idea. The time of offended Muslims of such depictions would be better spent denouncing the threats and actions of the extremists who also call themselves Muslims.
"... depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats."
So what?
We cannot now bow down now that a threat has been made.
While it is unfortunate when a person is offended, that is the price of freedom in the United States of America. You don't have a right not to be offended if you live here.
Occasionally, you are going to be offended and part of living in America is understanding that fact. Muslims can either get over it, or they can go live in a country that does not tolerate religious freedom, or freedom of speech, such as Saudi Arabia.
What they can't do is tell me what I can draw or not draw. Say or not say. Think or not think.
I believe Mohammed was a sick child molester - was not a prophet - and I'll say that to anyone who will listen.
And I'll only say it because Muslims think they can threaten us. If they weren't' threatening to murder people, I wouldn't much care about Mohammed. But since they brought it up ... I'm free to express my opinion whether they fucking like it or not.
"In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything ..."
Bullshit. Nobody is being "hurt."
They might have their feelings bruised, or they might be offended, but nobody is being "hurt." Depicting Mohammed causes nobody any physical harm - except those who do harm.
And they should be arrested when they either threaten harm, or do it.
And I disagree with the notion that silent Muslims "aren't doing anything." That's an offensive statement and I'm offended that you would claim it.
They are doing something. They are quietly acquiescing. That is an action.
I have already depicted Mohammed. I do it every time I post a comment on your blog. I do that deliberately.
Muslims need to learn that they will not get respect by threat in this country. They will only get arrested if they threaten people.
And in this country, I'm free to be critical of them and their religion in any way I choose to express myself. And the day it is not possible for me to do that is the day I declare war on this country and everyone leading it.
For a professor who claims to support freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of speech, you sure have a quisling way of showing it Ms. Althouse.
Shame on you for your fucking cowardice.
It's the herd of gazelles approach to free speech. Why should Matt and Trey take all of the risks when it is ultimately everyone's freedom of speech they are defending? The non-violent muslims who may be offended by Everybody Draw Mohammed Day should focus their hurt feelings at their co-religionists who threaten free speech here.
I think that the evil of religion will continue as long as good men keep silent. Good men are now called upon to rise to the defense, including offense against the enemy, of those few brave artists and cartoonists among us who have so far borne the brunt of Islam's wrath.
Martin Luther would have been killed early had it not been for his defenders. There was nobody to defend Jan Hus or Tynsdale or Bruno and the thousands of others who were killed by the Roman Catholic church.
We need a Giuliani to marshal our forces to stamp out the very seeds and sprouts of the evil of religious oppression.
Looks to me like that Revolution Muslim kid is just a run-of-the-mill douche bag.
Can I say that?
Douche bag.
Absolutely appropriate for everyone and anyone to push on those people who are not violent, but allow violent elements to define their religion. If their interest is to be cowards and timid souls against such elements, they can, but they have to also be cowards and timid souls to those of us who do push back.
If they take back their religion and turn it into the peace loving Islam we hear about and a lot of the current problems go away. It would also show they care. Right now I don't think they do. Que Sera, Sera.
Wahabi's Rule is the rule of Islam!!
Douchebag is preferable when used as a slur. Urban dictionary has it as a single word. Motherfucker, sonofabitch are similarly more effective when reduced to a single word.
I agree with Ann.
But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the the process of their learning how to deal with free expression?
Who are you to claim that I'm an "outsider."
I've studied Islam. It's not a religion. It's a cult. It's leader was a child molestor.
That's my opinion.
Does that offend Muslims?
Should I not be free to state my opinion? Should I be quiet about the cult of Islam because it offends the very people who are mesmerized by the cult?
Should we not discuss priestly child molestation because that offends Catholics?
Should we not discuss the Holocaust because that offends neo-Nazi's.
I would imagine if the neo-Nazi's would start making good on some death threats, like the Muslims have done with folks like Theo Van Gogh, then discussions of the Holocaust would be "out of bounds" and "over the top" because it would offend the neo-Nazi's and needlessly hurt their feelings.
Frankly Ann, your thoughts on this topic are juvenile and worse they're dangerous.
If you keep quiet in the face of the Muslim death threats being issued in this country, then you deserve your fate.
Guys like to settle open questions.
No hard feelings.
Women nurture grudges as long as possible.
"I seek to help the world understand that neither the Muslims in general nor the mujahideen including Al Qaeda are abject to peace, but that this peace come with the following conditions: a complete withdrawal of non-Muslim forces from Muslim lands, an ending of the propping up of the apartheid regime of Israel, and a ceasing of the propping up of the brutal dictators we currently have who refuse to rule by divine law," Chesser's douchey e-mail read.
"I also seek to help the world understand that there will be no peace until the above conditions are met. Basically the formula works like this … if you kill us, then we kill you. If you do not kill us then we can have peace. 9/11 had nothing to with freedom or democracy. It had to do with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world by American and other powers."
...how are you hurting them? Offending them, sure, but being offended is not being hurt.
Being offended is a grown-up's way of saying that his "sensibilities" were hurt.
Interesting post, BTW. Not sure where I would stand on this.
I disagree with Teresa.
Matt and Trey created Super Best Friends to take a swipe at the beliefs of all people of faith at once to foce viewers to contrast which among them is the most dangerous.
Groups vied for a share in the special protection Mohammad receives, the most violent won, ridiculously, the gingers.
I reject the comparison made in this post. This isn't like Piss Christ because the Christians never threatened to kill anybody. Although they did seek to kill public funding for for that kind of art, and that strikes me as reasonable. Why should Christians be forced to pay through taxes for so-called art they find offensive? They didn't publish photographs of doctors who performed abortions slain by their fringe element with a clear warning that Piss Christ is very likely to activate that element, which is considerable. Along with Andres Serrano's address, essentially calling open season.
Stop looking for excuses for these assholes. If you're going to assimilate in this society, and it seems clear for the most part that portion of their religion has no desire to, then they're going to have to get used to the idea of living with other people who do not share their peculiar ideas about law, and understand we're not going to tolerate their threats. I say satire the living shit out of them.
I wish I had bookmarked the video of a series of angry young muslins delivering a series of incendiary public speeches using the most brutal unacceptable language imaginable. Throughout the series of speeches an agile male jew flew through the tiers handing out ballots to the audience that listed choices to elect the most extreme speaker. He quietly and hilariously satirized their speeches while they were making them.
The South Park cartoon didn't mock Mohammed or Islam. It mocked the fear of mocking Islam or, for that matter, Tom Cruise. Compare that fear to the festive glee with which Hollywood types participate in the savaging of Jesus and his earthly avatar, Sarah Palin. There's something not right about it, and God bless South Park for making fun of it.....I understand there's a dancer from the dance problem, but there's a difference between mocking a person's faith and mocking the bad deeds that a person's faith lead them to perform. The Church and the Pope should be mocked in every way possible for their handling of the sex abuse cases. I would turn the mockery down a notch, however, when it comes to their funny hats and refusal to ordinate women.....Muslims are entitled to practice their faith with all the devotion they wish. However, when their faith leads them to threaten or actually murder people who take a skeptical view of their faith, they should be painted in dung and dipped in urine.
Can I say that?
Douche bag.
Just don't use the n-word. And don't say anything bad about Mohammed.
Robert said...
"You're no fun at all."
I totally disagree with Robert.
I take the point of "everybody do it" is to provide too large a target, to show that there's no use in targeting individual artist. I don't think it's to join in a collective shock to or assault on the sensibilities of all Muslims. It's an I am Spartacus move.
But I think, and I perceive that Althouse sees this too, that it's likely to turn into a "everybody draw Mohammed" with a bomb on his head, or a 9-year-old in his bed, or in some other shocking configuration, and if that's the case, then the integrity of such a movement is lost to me.
This is a tricky one. I like the statement that free people won't capitulate to threats on their rights to speak and express themselves freely, and that we don't expect only a few to carry the water for us in making that point. But I don't like the likelihood that this will go beyond a statement of support to a childish taunt.
but is actually Santa Clause).
Maybe Joe Biden might spell Claus that way. Most of us don't
"Looks to me like Zachary Adam Chesser is just a run-of-the-mill douche bag."
On the contrary, he's a dangerous potential killer who is acting illegally by issuing death threats designed to terrorize people inside the United States of America.
FoxNews: "But Chesser also had a dark side. He was a "loner," a former classmate said, one who frequently drew pictures of Satanic figures in his notebooks and had just a few friends, most of them male."
We can ignore this ticking time bomb, or we can wait until he explodes and a bunch of people die.
This man is a walking, talking, threat-issuing Muslim terrorist - issuing death threats right here in America. Why haven't the police taken notice?
Where is the fucking FBI? Why has this fucking asshole not been arrested already?
Is Barack Hussein Obama going to enforce any of our fucking laws? Or is there a linkage between Muslim threats and the fact that Barack Obama chose a Muslim name?
Must we always let these ticking time bombs kill innocent people before we'll arrest these fucking pricks?
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
"Not sure where I would stand on this."
Well quelle sur prise!
"Why should Matt and Trey take all of the risks when it is ultimately everyone's freedom of speech they are defending?"
Because they are making something significant that's worth it. It's like the difference between Lenny Bruce doing his "n*gger" routine and every free speech fan shouting "n*gger" over and over again as if they are proving his point or doing the same thing. They are not.
And I didn't say different law applies to artists. Read the post again. We all have the right to spew offensive speech. I'm talking about the choice that we have and how we should make it. Offensive speech is something that you can do, but you don't say everything you can. You have to use your judgment.
After the choice is made, if people say offensive things, I support their free speech rights whether or not I think they exercised good judgment. But with respect to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," we are at the point of thinking about what to do. I am trying to influence that choice.
The next time you post a doodle, Althouse, expect comments like "that's a nice depiction of Mohammed"
See, if Santa Claus in a bear suit can be Mohammed, then anything can be Mohammed.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go drop a Koran in the toilet. (Figuratively, not literally. The next time you take a dump, think about the Koran.)
As a Christian, would I be offended at an "Everybody piss on a Crucifix Day"? Of course I would. And if Christians all over the world (even if they were a small minority of total Christians) were threatening death to anyone who blasphemed their religion, if they were issuing fatwas and stabbing filmmakers and not just opposing offensive speech, but actually trying to censor it, then hopefully I'd see their point.
But Christians live with these kinds of offenses every day. "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" isn't some random thing designed to tick off Muslims. It's a legitimate and (hopefully) non-violent protest to challenge this outrageous creeping sharia law.
Hopefully it will help moderate Muslims to grow a pair and show extremist Muslims that we won't be cowed.
Althouse said: ""Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship."
Except that Piss Christ was not actually censored and certainly not by Christians who threatened anyone with death. What I recall are protests at federal arts Dollars going into the funding of such "art".
Agreed.
How about an everybody piss on a crucifix day.
Yeah, I know that drawing and pissing are two different things, but the point is not giving gratuitous offense, in fact not going on a "crusade" to offend.
Keep Gitmo open, kill all the terrorists we can, show no mercy to those who attack us. But don't rise to the bait of the terrorists who want to make it religion vs. religion, or culture vs. culture.
No need for everybody to draw Mohammed when you can just post the many pictures of him that were used by Islamic artist to remind folks of their history. The banning was not always the case and does not need to be so now. Here is one site: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
FoxNews: "{Zachary Adam Chesser} was definitely sort of weird," the classmate told FoxNews.com. "He was very into violent industrial music, borderline Satanic bands and stuff like that. He had dark undertones in his interests."
Now, I for one could care less if someone listens to Satanic bands or has dark undertones.
But once they start issuing Muslim death threats to terrorize our media networks, then it's time to fucking arrest this guy before he gets himself or anyone else hurt.
If the law won't do its job ... then it's going to be left up to vigilantes to do it.
And we don't want vigilantes to have to start doing the work of our police forces.
Do we?
Ann's point is not without merit. There are plenty of Moslems who aren't going to go all RahmBO at Comedy Central and it's not right to pull their chains to get back at a few Looney Tunes.
That said, Islam seems to have a much thinner skin than any other religion. I remember a theology prof from India making that point quite clearly from his own experience in my undergrad days. Islam needs to catch up to the rest of the world if they want to go nuclear and they seem to be in need of a good Reformation.
Doing something just to annoy every Moslem is, on its face, a stupid idea, but, given the fact that too many Moslems are like the "good Germans" of WWII, it's time we start getting out of the Chamberlainesque dhimmitude promoted by the Lefties which is flying under the guise of PC. That probably means standing up to the Lefties, as much as the Moslems (I love how the usual suspects will go all Alinsky when someone criticizes anything Islamic with a line like, ".. and how much of the Quran do you know?", as if they're experts). Draw, by all means, but don't go all Julius Scleicher.
In context, there was a movie made about Mohammed's life about 40 years ago (Michael Ansara, of all people, did the voiceovers) which only showed him from the back, in silhouette, etc. Some Moslems weren't crazy about the idea, but nobody died, as I recall. So this isn't unreasonable as some might make it.
Meade said...
I married a liberal.
In the immortal words of Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Laurence".
A depiction in the comments at Hot Air: *~@:{(>
I'll go back to lurking now.
Sometimes artists just fucking suck.
FYI--I did not see Bill's post before mine went up. A pissing contest . .
I don't want to say whether I agree with Teresa or Meade because the other one might get hurt fellings.
Ann's confused.
There's something about art that does it,...
"... doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them."
"The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad." (wiki for a start).
People who are outraged are not in the process of trying to tolerate. If someone is outraged I drew a picture of any nature, screw them. They simply needn't look. When I hear denunciations like I hear when people of other beliefs do horrendous things, I'll modify my own outlook.
Ann your attempt to influence met its Dien Bien Phu with this person on this issue. Thanks for effort though. We will put those good intentions to great use on the new Ayatollah Khomeini throughway to Hell.
"Wait that was definitely an eighties sitcom with a monkey"
No you're thinking of "Bedtime for Bonzo", a 1951 movie staring two monkeys.
At the This Flower Looks Like Mohammed Café...
Get your family to a place of safety, then say whatever's on your mind.
Chesser's background offers nothing to suggest that he would recently have eloped and married a Muslim woman he met in college, a woman who has given birth to their baby boy, according to neighbors. While there is no evidence that Chesser became radicalized while at George Mason, there were "dark overtones in his interests" for years, dating back to his years in middle school and high school.
Guys out fornicating with young Muslim women and getting them pregnant should be careful about wanting a tight interpretation of Islamic Law :)
"Except that Piss Christ was not actually censored and certainly not by Christians who threatened anyone with death. What I recall are protests at federal arts Dollars going into the funding of such "art"."
The actual facts of the matter don't concern Ann much. She's all about the hurt feelings.
She's unable to compare and contrast these two situations to see where the extremism lies.
"Shut up," she explains. Don't offend, she exclaims.
The fact is, the Catholic Church did not threaten to kill Robert Maplethorpe for his alleged blasphemy. They announced they would pray for his soul.
No fatwas have been issued to discourage anyone else from dipping their crucifi in urine.
Only Muslims are issuing death threats.
And it's not because they're "offended."
It's because that's how you get power.
Crack just gave me an idea. I think that when art goes political/religious, it has a tendency to suck.
Shorter Ann Althouse:
"I for one welcome our new Muslim overlords."
If burning an American flag were illegal and there was a "Burning an American Flag" Day, you can bet I'd be out there burning an American flag, because I believe the right to burn an American flag is what America is all about.
Likewise, I have issues with people who threaten others in the name of Islam for portraying the Prophet. That Althouse assumes this has to be universally disrespectful to Muslims is disappointing. There are plenty of respectful images of Mohammed which people can post or use as inspiration.
"I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression."
Outrageous? They have no understanding of that concept and apparently neither do you.
And, the Piss Christ was gratuitous - this is necessary and not simply because we decided so. The Islamists made it so, by telling another culture what they will be permitted to express without being killed. The restrictions they try to place on us will only ratchet up as they are appeased. We need to decide if we will accept their oppression or not. So far we have been hinting that we would. That message needs to be reversed and not timidly. It needs to be made clear that threats will backfire. Respect is not possible when one side is telling the other to shut up or die.
Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship.
What censorship?
I think that's exactly the point.
Althouse: ...because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
No, any depiction of the Prophet gets death threats from them. If this were another issue with another group your argument would be reasonable, but not in this case.
There are plenty of respectful images of Mohammed which people can post or use as inspiration.
Name some place where I can find a picture of the dude.
"I don't want to say whether I agree with Teresa or Meade because the other one might get hurt fellings."
I gently and sensitively agree/disagree with Paul Zrimsek. And I hope I don't have to explain by drawing a picture for you.
"But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats."
And millions who, I notice, weren't very vocal in condemning the violence. In fact, any condemnations I heard began with excuses about insulting the prophet.
"Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship."
Seriously, did I miss threats to shoot, kill, and decapitate the "artist" behind that?
"Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy."
Christians who would've lined up to condemn death threats against the artist.
There's a reason South Park and Comedy Central felt safe depicting the Pope, Christ, Buddha....everyone but Muhammad.
"But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the the process of their learning how to deal with free expression?"
By all joining in pissing them off and showing them you can't take down all of us so you'll have to deal with it.
Jason (the commenter) said...
If burning an American flag were illegal and there was a "Burning an American Flag" Day, you can bet I'd be out there burning an American flag, because I believe the right to burn an American flag is what America is all about.
I would grab that flag from you and put out the fire because I believe my freedom to stop you from disrespecting the symbol of my country and the sacrifices of my forbearers is mine only as long as I'm willing to assert it.
First and foremost, these folks are simply gangsters using violence the old fashioned way, very old fashioned. But, it confirms that violence trumps negotiations, "smart" diplomacy, nuance and the other sorts of things spewed by cowards in an effort to avoid the inevitable confrontation.
If violence is not resisted, it will subjugate. One does not resist violence with understanding.
Start with "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." Don't waste your time with diversions.
AllenS: Name some place where I can find a picture of the dude.
Just look at his Wikipedia page.
I agree with Ann... this is not a good idea...
This is a great idea, and I disagree with our host. Muslims are going to have to grow up and realize that living in a free society means having you beliefs blasphemed. If they don't like it, they ought to have a little intraMuslim chat about extremism, terrorism, and tolerance.
My friend Betsy and I don't agree about politics. She is a democrat and I'm not. After trying to discuss politics a few times, we discovered that we both became too heated. It's got nasty. But we like each other. So we mutually agreed to stop talking about politics for the sake of our continuing friendship. It doesn't bother me, we have lots of other things to discuss. But what if Betsy had told me one day that if I ever insulted Obama again she would bash my face in with a tire iron? Now if I continue to maintain our interdiction from political discussions I'm not doing it voluntarily, I'm doing it because I'm oppressed. My rights--my freedom has been taken from me. I have two choices. I can acquiesce to her threat or I can assert my freedom. MY FREEDOM. What I might do for friendship without hesitation I will not do for hate. I AM FREE. Free to speak OR not speak but it is my decision and THAT is why draw Mohammed day is happening. Because too many people are "choosing" not to speak or draw not because of politeness or consideration but because of threat.
Number one -- I am outraged and offended by those who are outraged and offended by drawings of Mohammed, as well as by those who say we should not draw him because it might cause offense. So, doesn't my outrage dictate that you should not say that we should not draw Mohammed?
Number two -- an excellent argument can be made that, just as making a few strokes of a pen or crayon to create an image of Mohammed is offensive, so too is even spelling out the name "Mohammed" offensive. The use of letters to represent Mohammed is no different in any way whatsoever than using a bunch of lines in the form of a person to represent him.
So, to avoid any offense, we should not even be spelling out his name. We should instead be saying something like MHMD.
Of course, that would be as asinine and absurd as not drawing his picture.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
"Not sure where I would stand on this."
Well quelle sur prise!
The beginning of wisdom is the admission of one's ignorance.
Socrates, or thereabouts.
Anyway, at least Ann makes a consistent argument. I can respect that. Taking a stand is not always the most important thing to do, nor is there any shame in being unsure of one's opinion. I'm judging the post on the quality of its merits as an argument. And on that score, it stands up well.
But I think Bag O', and anyone else attempting to draw a distinction between offending Christians with a crucifix in a jar of piss and offending Muslims with violent/sado-masochistic depictions of this prophet or that, I think they have a more difficult case to make. Sure, we find it easier to note violent acts committed by Muslims; but we're on the other side, after all. Perhaps no Christian has ever committed an act of violence on behalf of the insult he felt was done to his faith. But he certainly has acted illiberally and endorsed restrictions on our freedom out of such motivations.
Whether the restriction of freedoms is, in itself, a violent act or not, I leave it to the audience to decide. Either way, the willingness to be offended and react against our freedoms accordingly is something enough folks among both groups share. And that's important. They may disagree on the degree to which they would lash back against our freedoms, but that's a distinction of degree, not kind.
Being motivated by mere offense is always a tricky path to take.
Hey, whatever happens we must not offend Muslims. Because they are very touchy. And its probably racist. And racist is bad. So pushing back against a few murderous Muslims who will kill you if you make a remark of produce a drawing of Mr. M. is a very bad idea. Because we wouldn't want to offend the rest of the Muslims. I think I get it. I think the rest of the Muslims are in a pretty good spot, ridicule wise, don't you?
Meade said:
"I would grab that flag from you and put out the fire because I believe my freedom to stop you from disrespecting the symbol of my country and the sacrifices of my forbearers is mine only as long as I'm willing to assert it."
Sorry, Meade, my turn to disagree with you, and I bet your better half would take my side as well.
Sometimes we must stand there and watch what we hold dear to be desecrated in a now-standard manner of protest, as flag-burning has become. It's an expression of free speech. You might assert yourself, but it would be a mockery to do it under the guise of "freedom".
Somehow that "The American President" speech in the scene near the end of the movie comes to mind. Sorkin strikes again.
Shock is an old artist's move. Epater la bourgeoisie. Shock will get a reaction, and it will make some people mad.
When was the last time anybody was really shocked, for Pete's sake.
Maybe when David Mamet came out as a conservative, I suppose.
Meade: I would grab that flag from you and put out the fire because I believe my freedom to stop you from disrespecting the symbol of my country and the sacrifices of my forbearers is mine only as long as I'm willing to assert it.
You fight for the symbol, I'll fight for what it represents.
I agree with roesch-voltaire and jason (the commenter).
Context is everything; I've got the words right, the same pattern, but there's just no funny there.
Oh, and what Robert said at 12:11. Missed that.
I'm not sure what allows for the "freedom" to restrict another's speech - let alone whether such a freedom exists, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't derive from the offended person's willingness to assert their right to restrict it.
Meade, if the flag were my private property, what would you do?
Property rights.
Free speech.
I think I'm winning here.
Well, I just tried to draw Mohammed in the combox, but Blogger wouldn't let me, changing all of the formatting. Even so, that distorted picture of Mohammed was posted for a short time here, so the offense is already done.
Or willingness to assert "a" right to restrict it, in any event. Seeing as how I'm not convinced this "right" isn't a hypothetical one in the first place.
sorry, kids. matt and trey are not artists. they are cartoonists trying too get you to each their cartoons. in the process they have started believing the bull shit about them being spread about their deep wisdom and political insight.
that being said, I agree with Ann and at the same time disagree with her. shocking the bourgeoise is an old and respected tradition and is what protected Serrano. it does not protect matt and trey.
Presumably I'm safe against criticism/attack from all sides on this issue, since my limited artistic talents preclude me from drawing much more than unrecognizable stick figures.
"I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression..."
This notion that depictions of Mo are tantamount to "outrageous expression" really strikes me as atavistic, and I believe that it is counterproductive to serve as an apologist for those who hold that view.
No one is entitled to respect, and no one group is entitled to more respect than others. The threats, warnings and violence against those who criticize or ridicule Islam are intended to enforce a level of respect for Muslims that no other group enjoys.
That is the real outrage.
If Muslims expect to participate in free societies, they're going to need to grow accustomed to the discomfort that can come with freedom of expression.
As Mark Steyn put it, "The Mo, The Merrier!"
I think this is a wonderful idea. It sends the right message, finally, that death threats in response to art will be meaningless if everyone stands up to be counted.
Sorry, Althouse, but you're wrong on this one on so many levels.
Piss Christ comparison is invalid. No death threats, and the exhibit wasn't censored. Christians bitched and moaned and took non violent action to show their displeasure.
Censorship in the face of threatened violence is easy, and each time it happens, our overall liberty takes a punch in the gut. Every time we give in to or ignore the intimidation tactics employed by Muslims where the prophet's image is concerned, we all stand guilty of enabling it.
This is a tactic to throw it back in their faces with the contempt it deserves.
I think Meade wants you to believe that you can't privately own a symbol, so long as he believes ardently enough in the meaning of that symbol.
Which gets us back to what speech (or communication) is in the first place.
That 12:19 comment was for Beth, BTW.
Ann, I love your blog even when I disagree, like now.
What gives you the right to decide who is allowed to be an offensive artist and who isn't? Who is making something significant?
This is the MSM argument that bloggers are just trash, an arbitrary line between those allowed to decide who has the right to be offended and who doesn't.
Lenny Bruce on race, George Carlin on language, HBO on things sacred to LDS people (to use a personally meaningful example), Comedy Central on offending anyone who they aren't so afraid of they wet the bed at night.
Anyone who defends them being offensive and says I shouldn't offend some group is a hypocrite if they claim to believe in equality under the law.
Is there a legal basis for differentiating those artists from me? Or the value you arbitrarily assign to pissing on Christ and Stone and Parker's work that I don't deserve equally just because you don't know or comprehend the value in my art?
Our actions would have a purpose, solidarity. When one artist does it he is singled out and attacked individually. When we all stand up beside him and say, this is what we accept in America for our freedom, other people not holding sacred what we do, and us not killing them for it. They can only attack our entire society, which is bigger than they are.
We are defending artists like Stone, Parker, Rushdie, van Gogh, and the Danish cartoonists by standing up next to them.
We have the moral authority to do this because we refrain from murdering them all when they do things that offend us.
You can't take that away from me, whether I decide to participate or not in the protest.
Moose has cleared this up. Stone and Parker are not artists, you see. What a relief.
Okay, Moose. If cartooning ("animation" is what we hayseeds call it, btw) is not art, what is it?
Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship.
As a couple others have noted, that detestable art was not censored, nor was anyone murdered over it (or as far as I know, credibly threatened to be murdered). Christianity is denigrated and blasphemed routinely in our culture, without fear of physical retribution, and that's how it ought to be.
Step by step, sharia is happening in the culture formerly known as the West, and that trend will continue until it meets common resistance. This is part of what InstaGlenn means when he says that those without a spine will eventually do the bidding of those who have one.
Sometimes nice just doesn't work. Sometimes you have to choose between being nice, and being free.
We're going to have this conflict as long as the vast sea of personally non-violent Muslims acquiesces to unjustified murder in Allah's name. When there are massive or passionate uprisings by non-violent Muslims against that kind of behavior, then we'll know we're making progress.
In the meantime, the West has to fight for its Enlightenment values for as long as it still has the option to do so. It turns out the price of liberty really is eternal vigilance, in this and in all things.
I agree that artistic expression and satire of any religion is the price of free expression, but must point out that some extreme members of Islam are not the only one who make death threats. Just ask PZ Myers over at Pharyngula about the death threats he received when he compared the Eucharist to a cracker and pledged to desecrate it That said, I intend to post a Persian depiction of Mohammed on my office door as part of my freedom of expression.
Anyone else envisioning Meade in Rick Monday's jersey?
"No, any depiction of the Prophet gets death threats from them."
Them? Them?! Who the hell are you talking about? This is the language of prejudice, and you should be embarrassed by it.
There is a bad subset of Muslims, and there is an immense group of Muslims who are not in it. To lump them all together and treat them the same is an example of the very worse kind of behavior that human beings are prone to.
Clearly Meade has made an idol out of the American flag. I question weather he finds his idol more important than the spirit of America.
I trust everyone can see how this is related to Mohammed and why, for religious purposes, some people wanted his images banned in the first place.
"Because they are making something significant that's worth it."
You're not the arbiter of what is "worth it" Ann. That's only your opinion. Muslims think it's not worth it. That's why death threats against the cartoon have been made.
"Draw Mohammed Day" is worth it because it reinforces for all who would destroy them the God-granted inalienable human rights we enjoy in the United States of America ... freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
That's worth it. As much as any cartoon is "worth it."
"It's like the difference between Lenny Bruce doing his "n*gger" routine and every free speech fan shouting "n*gger" over and over again ... "
That's a specious analogy. We won't be shouting Mohamed over and over and over again for no reason. There is a very good reason to do it: To align ourselves with those who have been censored by death threats and to stop Muslim terrorism.
Beth said...
Meade, if the flag were my private property, what would you do?
Property rights.
Free speech.
I think I'm winning here.
So sue me.
(wv: "amica"
er)
The obvious answer is we should elevate M_tt and Tr_y (musn't blaspheme) to the status of living gods. That would justify murdering the Chesser kid in the street, I guess. Short of that, wide-spread, persistent mockery of violent groups is an excellent idea (c.f. the Freakonomics chapter on Superman v. KKK).
"What gives you the right to decide who is allowed to be an offensive artist and who isn't? Who is making something significant?"
I'm not deciding. I'm framing the issue to show you what the choice is and saying that it is a case of judgment.
The "(maybe)" after Serrano's name showed me not deciding whether "Piss Christ" is significant.
I am asking people to think deeply and clearly about what is going on here. Calm down and think. It's especially important to work through hypotheticals that don't involve Muslims, so you can test your assumptions and conclusions.
If you don't think the "Piss Christ" or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo. That's my challenge. Make a hypo that is the same but without the Muslim element, and seriously test your thinking on the subject.
No knee jerks, okay?
Has there been a single instance since 9/11 of ordinary regular guy muslims showing concern for our sensibilities? None that I can think of. Till that happens who gives a flying you know what about their delicate sensibilities.
Beth said..."Meade, if the flag were my private property, what would you do?"
That's just about exactly what I said when he read the comment to him before he posted it.
"There is a bad subset of Muslims, and there is an immense group of Muslims who are not in it."
That larger group of Muslims will not be offended by our depictions of Mohamed. The larger subset of Muslims in the United States who are not "bad" (as you put it) understand they live in a free country where people are free to express their opinions about Mohammed.
Only the "bad" Muslims (as you call them) will have any more visceral reaction to Draw Mohammed Day than they did to Maplethorpe's work.
You're a quisling, Ann. It's good that it's now out in the open for everyone to see.
In the face of terrorist threats, you've urged people to be silent. To go along. To not make waves.
Cowardice.
I can barely draw a stick figure, so any picture of Mohammed that I produce is sure to offend everyone.
I do wholeheartedly support "Draw Mohammed Day", though. I hope people all over the world create images that are banned under Sharia law as a sign of solidarity with those people forced to live under such regimes.
Ann is not a "quisling". She is just making an argument that you can't defend against.
Some people are apparently quislings to the cause of free and fair inquiry, however.
You can bet this is how it started in Denmark and The Netherlands, with no one wanting to offend anyone, so no one pushed back on this sort of thing.
We're at a crossroads, and I for one am not going to stay silent in the name of Political Correctness while people get death threats in the United States of America for making a cartoon.
It's a hard nut to crack, this one.
Obviously it's tragic to upset the 'good' muslims out there (yeah, they are out there in great numbers, in my opinion).
The reason Althouse is so wrong on this is that part of being a 'good' christian or a 'good' jew or a 'good' muslim is adapting to a multi religious world that does not accomodate your religion.
Althouse's argument works just as well for banning gay sex. My right to speak freely about Muhammed is simply more implicit to the concept of ordered liberty than a gay man's right to have sex (also obviously a serious interest). YOU CANNOT BEAT SPEECH in that contest. It's too essential to just about everything in society.
So the best medicine for each religion is to live in a world where their religion in honored by their religious and not considered very much by the rest. That's really the only way Muslims and Jews and Christians can get along.
Instead of outlawing lobster and bacon and gays and all that, these incompatible (to one extent or another) views become completely separated, and we share a public sphere.
We all must draw Muhammad, unless that violates our views, otherwise, Sharia creeps in, as the truly modern religious accept they don't rule the material world, and Muslims do not accept that.
This is not a minor or silly point; this kind of effect will save lives. There's reason Christians don't go around killing heretics anymore, and this is a BIG PART OF THAT.
I am asking people to think deeply and clearly about what is going on here. Calm down and think.
My calm, thoughtful comment is this: If this so defuses Muslim rage that Stone and Parker don't have to start their cars by remote control, then it's the right thing. And it should have started the day Theo Van Gogh got his first death threat. And next time, the cowards who run Comedy Central or publish books at Yale can say: "Hey, everybody does it."
Them? Them?! Who the hell are you talking about? This is the language of prejudice, and you should be embarrassed by it.
Oh, bullshit, Althouse! The last stand of a lost argument is to bring up semantic aspects of prejudice and racccccissm!
"They" are Muslims. I feel absolutely no need to not paint "them" with a broad brush, because there is no evidence that they have any respect, as a religious culture, for the western canon and our concept of liberty. "Their" silence in the face of "their" more radical elements betrays "their" sympathies. So, yes. I have no inhibitions about insulting "them," as "their" lack of condemnation, without condition, of intimidation tactics against artists is a direct assault on my fundamental liberties.
"I am asking people to think deeply and clearly about what is going on here."
Here is what is going on:
Some Muslims want to take over the United States and destroy it from within. The very first step to doing that is to eliminate free speech in the United States.
The way they hope to achieve that goal is to make some speech off limits - in this case, any depiction of Mohamed - on the grounds that it so offends the conscience that it has no redeeming social value.
Once they have achieved that goal, then they've won. Then, the inalienable rights granted to Americans by God and codified in our Constitution no longer have real meaning.
At that point, the list of banned subjects can be slowly expanded upon, over the course of a hundred years, until at the end, all speech is regulated. All religious activity will be regulated - just like in Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Muhammad.
I've thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that is what is going on, Ann.
You clearly also have thought about it. And you've decided not to even fucking put up a fight.
Cowardice.
BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Althouse is making the argument against causing offense on pragmatic grounds, not on one of whether the right to offend exists.
/via Allahpundit
"Cue the predictable media squealing that “you’ll only antagonize them!” Antagonism, actually, is an idea straight out of the Hirsi Ali playbook: Her point to Anderson Cooper in the clip I posted earlier was that only by sharing the risk of retaliation for blasphemy can the public help protect her, Parker, Stone and other insolent infidels. If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive."
I think your position is a bit confused, Ann.
Everyday, millions of people write the word "God," though in some versions of Judaism it is forbidden to do so.
But no Jew takes offense at a non-Jew writing the name of God.
Muslims are cetainly entitled to their own speech--but they are not entitled to MY speech.
That they are willing to not only take offense but also to assert control over what I might choose to draw is exatly the problem with the religion--it is not a religion that permits of pluralism, but it asks the protections granted to other religions that do permit of pluralism.
There is no need to protect forms of belief that are intolerant of the speech of others. Richard Rorty and Isaiah Berlin have both argued that the acceptance of an extensive pluralism is the fundamental requirement for participation in a liberal society.
Such tolerance is a price of admission to participation and respect from a pluralistic society.
On the issue of the intolerant, I am intolerant. Especially when their intolerance extends dogmatically and theological to what I may say (or draw).
Here's a 'non-hypo' about the American flag, Portland, OR:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Plr3VyISKcg/RgkCYdXuc5I/AAAAAAAAACs/z5Z6l3nVVMM/s1600-h/protester%2Bpoops%2Bon%2BAmerican%2BFlag%2BGI.JPG
No Muslims were harmed in this post.
"Quisling, coined after Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany after they conquered his own country so that he could rule the collaborationist Norwegian government himself ..."
A quisling is a person who joins with a repugnant enemy so they can themselves prosper amongst their new overlords (whoever those overlords are, and however repugnant those overlords may be).
I believe that is precisely what Ann Althouse would do, and is doing.
And that is why I called her a quisling.
It is my opinion that she is a quisling and what she advocates is precisely what a quisling would advocate: That we be silent in the face of these threats.
They're being absurd. So they need absurdity leveled right at them - and in big numbers. This is a war. Sorry you don't get that.
This is the language of prejudice, and you should be embarrassed by it.
Non-violent Eichmann: "I passed by the camps every day on my lunchbreak but had NO IDEA they were exterminating Jews"
"But lookie - gold fillings. Want to buy?"
I would take you seriously, and not as a left wing joke, if you spoke out against the many people who defame Jesus Christ. But you don't so you are just another left wing, nut job.
"I disapprove of what you plan to say, and I will - by means of weaselly distorting your intention, issuing baseless accusations of racism and bigotry against you, and recounting wildly inaccurate representations of past events - defend the right of Muslims to threaten you with death if you dare to say it."
- Ann Althouse (paraphrased)
Personally, I liked the old Voltaire/Hall version better.
The comparison between Piss Christ and generic Mohammad depictions is specious.
"Complaining" and "terror threats" are not on the same rhetorical plane.
"Offensive speech" and "regular speech that lunatics get offended by" are also on different planes of existence. We should keep it that way.
This post was just linked by Hot Air.
"If I'm not mistaken, Althouse is making the argument against causing offense on pragmatic grounds, not on one of whether the right to offend exists."
Yes, you're mistaken.
A group of non-aligned people have decided to take a stand against the suppression of speech by some Muslims who make terrorist threats (since the silence of other Muslims is absolutely deafening on this issue).
Ann has come out against that concept. She does not want anyone to take a stand because there may be some other Muslims who are "innocent bystanders" who might have their feelings hurt if we make our stand.
To her, our principle is not worth hurting their feelings over. To us, it is worth it.
We stand for the proposition that groups should not be allowed to make terrorist threats in order to silence opposition to their aims - whatever their aims are (be they religious or political) and however they want to achieve their aims (be that Sharia or otherwise).
Some Muslims want to take over America and end religious freedom here. That's what their goal is. We're against that. Some Muslims want to control speech in America by making certain speech off limits. They wish to do this not out of any reverance to their Prophet, but as a means to achieve power.
We are not falling for it.
It's significant that we unite to explain to Muslims that they do not live in Saudi Arabia but that they can if they wish.
They live in America and here it is against the law to make terrorist threats even if someone is drawing your Prophet and you don't like that.
I think a point lost here is this:
The non-violent Muslims that Ann is concerned about? They forfeited any right to outrage by enabling the violent Muslims.
First they came for the cartoonists and I did not speak out because I was not a cartoonist.
Then they came for the homos and I did not speak out because I was not a homo.
Then they came for the blogers and I did not speak out because I was not a trade bloger.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me, so I blew their fucking brains out.
WV: gypsy!
Libtard: "If we offend the non-violent Mulsims we risk radicalizing them into becoming violent Muslims".
I say we push them to their limit. If they are truly peaceful, it will show.
edutcher: Actually, when the movie "Mohammad, Messenger of God" that you referred to came out in Washington, there was a terroristic attack in the city, known as the 1977 Hanafi Siege, in which a radio journalist was killed and dozens of other people injured. While the gunmen involved in the attack had multiple motivations, one of their demands was to have the movie destroyed as sacrilegious.
See this Washington Post article for details.
"In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion)."
First, the principle of free speech is founded on the distinction between offense and actual physical harm. We all learned this in kindergarten: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." The outraged Islamic extremists preach exactly the opposite, citing the Prophet's justification for assassinating enemies solely for speaking out against him. That should not be tolerated in any modern society, and least of all in the USA.
Second, by "declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion," the sheepish majority of Muslims are doing far worse than their bloodthirsty co-religionists. They are the ones who enable the evil by doing nothing, and indeed they are the ones who should be parading images of Mohammed to show that their religion doesn't accept the extremists' view (after all, there are many early Islamic depictions of Mohammed -- the notion that he can't be depicted in an image is a later idea and is arguably blasphemous, since Mohammed is a human prophet, not an ineffable deity).
"If their interest is to be cowards and timid souls against such elements, they can, but they have to also be cowards and timid souls to those of us who do push back."
BEAUTIFUL!
Lady Althouse thee be wrongs. Piss Christ is exactly why Mohammed must be drawn. If it is okay to shit on Jesus Christ... it most definitely is equally important to draw Mohammad.
I'm going to draw fucking a 10 year old girl.
Take that multiculturalism.
Oh, Ann - don't be so touchy feely. All these innocent muslims you fret over don't exhibit any touchy feely feelings when their brethren blow others to bits.
At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit. Shock is an old artist's move.
Yeah. And reporting should be left to professional journalists, who understand the value of fact-checking and well-timed opinions.
Everybody dunk a crucifix in urine day would have been a bust because, in the end, Christians never killed anyone for that.
And yeah... it offends Muslims who aren't violent, but maybe the most important message is to those Muslims and not the ones threatening death, arranging riots (months after the fact, when enough Danish flags could be obtained) burning embassies and actually, you know, killing people.
Respect has to go two ways...and it doesn't.
It offends Muslims that you don't wear a burka. Get one on right now, woman!
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship.
I'm going to participate in the Draw Mohammed thing, and not to protest censorship. This is far beyond that.
I'm going to do it to protest a psychopathic death cult trying to intimidate my entire culture into submission to 6th century barbarism. Censorship is small time compared to that.
Its less "Piss Christ" and more "I am Spartacus".
I would hope that the average everyday Muslim is less offended by my drawing Mohammed than they are with other muslims threatening to murder me for doing so.
Please. I have yet to hear a single word of moderation from any so-called moderate Muslim. Their idea of doing us infidels a favor is to warn us ahead of time that someone intends to kill us for our beliefs. If any one of them is offended by Draw Mohammed Day, he should get in touch with Al-Amrikee and tell him to shut his fucking face.
Nobody threatened to kill the creator of "Piss Christ", so your comparison is moot.
Of how about, just to be fair...
We have a draw Christ and piss on the Koran day.
No?
Why not?
You think that those two things just might not be equivalent?
Althouse: Them? Them?! Who the hell are you talking about? This is the language of prejudice, and you should be embarrassed by it.
Glad you realize that.
How about this for a compromise: I'll draw a picture of Ann Althouse protesting me drawing a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head in bed with a nine-year-old.
Then, all bases will be covered.
(and I'll add Meade pulling a burning flag out of Mohammed's hands)
But I think, and I perceive that Althouse sees this too, that it's likely to turn into a "everybody draw Mohammed" with a bomb on his head, or a 9-year-old in his bed, or in some other shocking configuration, and if that's the case, then the integrity of such a movement is lost to me.
But it's ok to have "Piss Christ Day", because you know fuck those motherfucking Christian douchebags right?
I fail the niceness test!
See, the thing is, you're basing your opinion on the idea that there is a majority of "moderate" Muslims who respect other religions the way we do. But so far I've seen little evidence that such a majority exists. If it does, it's as terrified of their radical, blood-thirsty co-religionists as we infidels are (well, as too many of us are). Maybe a show of defiance would actually buck these timid moderate Muslims up and encourage them to speak out against the violence other Muslims are committing. When they see us cringing and backing down, that only encourages them (the moderate Muslims, I must clarify to Ann's fine-tuned sensibilities) to think that the radicals are right after all. Did you ever think of that?
That said, Islam seems to have a much thinner skin than any other religion.
Muslims should grow the fuck up already.
I think my Moe picture theme is going to be "Buddy Mohammed" tagline: Kill the Infidel! With Kindess!
Islam is not compatible with Western society. Things will get worse, not better.
Tyrone Slothrop: I have yet to hear a single word of moderation from any so-called moderate Muslim.
Here. Now you can't say that anymore.
I disagree with anyone who disagrees with people that disagree with Ann.
Jason - how long before those "moderate Muslims" are murdered to silence them?
"But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats."
That's true, but there are other things that also offend Muslims. For example, the many discussions on this blog concerning boobs may in the view of some Muslims contribute to earthquakes. I suppose that's on the lower end of the offense scale.
How about the notion that a woman could be an authority on law? That must offend a lot of Muslims.
So what is the threshold? Is it the number of Muslims who will be offended? One million, five million? Or maybe if it offends the members of CAIR.
Or has someone been appointed to tell us when we should self censor.
Typical comments:
"The non-violent Muslims that Ann is concerned about? They forfeited any right to outrage by enabling the violent Muslims."
"Oh, Ann - don't be so touchy feely. All these innocent muslims you fret over don't exhibit any touchy feely feelings when their brethren blow others to bits."
"Please. I have yet to hear a single word of moderation from any so-called moderate Muslim. Their idea of doing us infidels a favor is to warn us ahead of time that someone intends to kill us for our beliefs."
My answer to you Christians. (I'm assuming you are Christians.) Do you not know that Jesus said; "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
"(and I'll add Meade pulling a burning flag out of Mohammed's hands) "
Thank you.
Meade: So sue me.
What if we don't let go of our flags easily; how far will Meade go? Looks like we have an extremist on the thread, threatening people.
Ann - fortunately I'm not a Christian so that "turn the other cheek" bullshit doesn't apply to me.
Well, if you disagree with the effort you are free to not participate.
While the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, a few are not. It is to those who mean to silence others through force that we must stand up.
When lives are threatened, there MUST be confrontation. We CANNOT be silient.
I will not be intimidated. This is not about offending Muslims, this is about my right to free speech.
▂▃▅▅▅▃▂ ▲◢◤▀◥◣▃ ▍◢◤
▂▅▓▓▅██████▇▅◢██▀ 〓 ★ 〓
◢▓▓▅███■▀████▓▓█◤ ◢◤ ▍◥◣
◢▓▓▆███▀▐ ▊▀▓▀█▓ ▓▲
◢▓▓▆██▀ ▼▍▍▲▌▐▓◥█▓▓██◣
▃ ▓▆███▓ ▍▎▌▍▍▼▍▌▓ █████▅
▐█▓█████▃▼▌▐ ▐ ▌▍▼ ◢█████▓█◣
█▊■██████◣▓ ▌▍▲◥◤ ▅██████▓█▊
◥■ ████████▅▼▀▃▆███████▓▓▼
◢█▲▓████████▆█▀▓▓▓█■▀▓▓▓█▅
███▓▓▀██■▀ ▀■▓▓█▓▓▓▓███
▐██◣▓▓■▀ ▍▎ ▀■▓▓▓▓█■▀
▀■◢▅▂▅▃ ▐ ▍ ▃▅▂▃▅ ▼◢▓██◤
▌ ▀█■▆▓▓▇■█■▀ ▲█▀
▲▀▓◣▀ ◢▍ ▐◣▀ ◢〓◤ ◢■▀
◢▓█◣ ◥〓▌ ▐◥〓◤ ▃▓◢▉
▐▓█▓◣ ◢▍ ▂◣ ◢▓███▋
███▓▓ ▐◣▃▅█▅ ▃▓████
▼██▆▇█▅ ▀██▅▓▓▓████
▀███■▀ ◥▌▀■▇█■▀
███▀▓▓〓▃〓▓▓▀■▀
▀■▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓〓▀
▀■▓▓〓▀
Islam claims to have descended from Judeo-Christian roots. This is like the egg being offended by the chicken. Muslims can go suck one. Islam offends Christ by its very existence, and I stand with Him.
As much as I love you to death Althouse I disagree.
Everyone draw Mohammed NOW!
It is all about ART.
ARt should have no boundries.
How about a day for drawing images of terrorists dressed up as if they were headed to a gay pride parade? Or images of terrorists masturbating? Or basically anything that would really make them come unglued but without really affecting other non-terrorist muslims much.
The "I'm SOOOO offended!" ploy has been used and abused by leftists for so long that my first impulse when hearing it is to whip out my cock and demand that they suck it.
But even so, if someone is genuinely and NEEDLESSLY insulted, I am willing to take a step back and consider their feelings.
Was that the Jesus Card?
My picture of Mohammed is going to have a small hog so there.
Take that Revolution Muzzies.
I'm gonna have a "let's all dress up as Allah Day".
Jason (the commenter) said...
"Looks like we have an extremist on the thread, threatening people."
Jason, extremists don't respect courts of law.
I suggest you settle.
And now the Hog Card.
Ann
You say there are better ways that we as ordinary people can do this. Like what? What specifically?
I frankly don’t see a lot of other things I can do. I mean I guess I could go and try to murder this group threatening Matt and Trey, but within the law, its hard to see what option I have.
So forget May 20th, I will be posting depiction of Mohammed on my blog over this weekend.
Its one thing to say, “this is a bad idea.” But I haven’t seen where you offer any alternative.
And you also think that we should only offend when it is “worth it.” Well, I am sorry, but if it is necessary to offend in order to defend freedom of speech, it is worth it. What could possibly be more valuable? Some silly artistic point? Freedom of speech is part of what makes a nation a democracy.
And all of this goes back to your inability to list any actual alternatives, because right now the only other alternative is to meet violence with violence. I almost think it would be a wise idea to kill the threateners.
And the comparisons to Lenny Bruce, etc. are puzzling. Was he in serious danger of being murdered over this sh--? Were people censoring him out of fear of death? There is a history of Islamic death threats, including theo van gogh and salmon rushdie. The comparison to the piss Christ makes even less sense. My beef with the piss Christ wasn’t that it was made, but that it was government sponsored. I do not want the government in the modern art judging business. In fact, except for projects like Radio Free Europe, I don’t want the government in the speech business at all. And I certainly don’t want them to violate the establishment clause while doing so. To equate an issue of government funding, to an issue about death threats is just strange.
> If you don't think the "Piss Christ" or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo.
Okay, how about the KKK killing any black person who stood up for freedom in the Jim Crow days? I mean the metaphor works. It is something that pisses off terrorists and brings a real threat of death. It also offends a lot of moderate people who also wrong, but not willing to kill.
Now when I say moderate Muslims are also wrong, what I am saying is that if they can’t stand to see Mohammed denigrated by others, then they are wrong. Less wrong than the terrorists, but still wrong.
I mean your notion that we should never even offend Muslims is off base. I mean if we sat down and talked about why we believed what we believed and rejected other faiths, it would be impossible for me to avoid offending most other faiths, particularly Muslims. In the particular case of Islam, I can’t even consider the possibility that Mohammed was talking to God for this simple reason: he had sex with a 9 year old girl. His fourth wife, Aisha, was 6 years old when he married her and 9 when he consummated it. So if God was conversing with him on a regular basis wouldn’t you believe that God would say something like, “Dude, wtf? She is 9! What is wrong with you?” I cannot believe any God worth worshiping wouldn’t make it exceedingly clear that this was wrong, and most likely smite him for it.
Which is not to say the modern Muslim is automatically a bad person, let alone a pedo, but we are talking about the correctness of a faith and I can’t join a faith that makes a pedophile as its primary religious figure.
Anyway here’s my points summed up:
1) you offer no alternatives
2) you don’t think it is “worth it” to defend free speech
3) you think it is possible or even desirable to avoid offending ordinary Muslims.
That is my problem with your argument.
Meade - I have no automatic respect for "courts of law". They are as corrupt as anything.
Curtiss said...
"Was that the Jesus Card?"
lololololol!
Althouse,
One way to show love is to show someone the truth. The truth here is that in this society, Muslims can't control the free expression of non-Muslims through threats. The faster that lesson is learned, the better for all. Christ didn't say, "Thou shalt not offend." Christ's teachings were very offensive to many in his day, to the extent that he was killed for those offenses.
so-called "moderate" Muslims hide behind the violent ones and make excuses for why the death threats are really ok.
My picture of Mohammed is going to be a PIG bottom pulling a train with a bunch of gay bears.
I am really into this.
We need to fight back.
Yeah, well excuse my french, but fuck those muslims who are offended. I'm offended by everything from rap music to jersey shore, and I can't escape from stuff like that because it's in my face 24/7. If you're an American, you have to tolerate stuff that offends you. Tough shit if you don't like it.
The point of "everyone draw Mohammed" is that the reason threats like those to Parker and Stone work is because so few people bother to actually support free speech. They can't kill all of us. Every patriotic American who supports free speech should not only draw Mohammed, they should put him on their blog, their homepage, their bumper, wear a Mohammed t-shirt, put his EVERYWHERE so that threatening anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed no longer has any sting.
Besides which, it will bother those extremist murdering troglodytes the worst, and you know what, they need to be offended. I'm offended by their cutting the heads off of people with whom they disagree. Any Muslim who doesn't speak up and join the fight deserves to be offended as well. Tolerance is a two-way street. They haven't earned the right not to be ridiculed.
The hatred of freedom that characterizes both Islam and Leftism has been forced into the open all over the world.
If "Draw Mohammed Day" helps to expose it further, all the better.
I have never heard a Christian, Jew, or member or any other religion threaten a mocker with death. Only Muslims.
I say go for it on May 20th! Your picture doesn't need to be salacious or gross. Muslims will threaten you with death over much, much less - like a bear suit.
These people are nuts, and any "moderate" Muslims out there should be saying so, every day, loud and clear. The fact that they don't makes them complicit with terrorism.
I did not participate in any crucifix dipping in urine activities because I wasn't aware of any going on, but I certainly would have done it had anyone threatened death to anyone who did it!
I did once go to a rally of sorts that was being held against the rap group NWA, when it was being suggested that their lyrics be censored.
I am a pure-D redneck Fundamentalist Protestant, NASCAR lovin' stone-cold southern hillbilly, but I proudly stood with the rappers that day.
I hate that darn music, but by God, this is the United States of America and those young men have a right to say and sing whatever the heck they feel like.
If the radical Muslims don't like South Park, I suggest they not watch it. If they're going to threaten to kill someone over it, I am delighted to see that they're getting some push back here.
I am happy to do my part in pushing, and if that offends them, they can kiss my dimpled...butt.
As for Jesus' commandment to love our enemies, I think the meaning and application of that are somewhat nuanced.
For example, when Jesus found blasphemers desecrating the temple, He made a whip and chased them out.
He did it out of love, yet the circumstances called for tough love.
And so does this business with some Muslims murdering people over depictions of Mohammed.
Some think liberals are all sensitive about the needs of the muzzie. Well I am somewhat liberal and I say fuck em. They are dangerous.
Group hug.
"I disapprove of what you plan to say, so I will haughtily lecture you on [what I mistakenly presume to be] your own religious beliefs while continuing to defend the right of Muslims to threaten you with death if you dare to say it."
- Ann Althouse (paraphrased)
I still prefer the original Voltaire/Hall version.
And, Professor Althouse, assuming that the "typical" commenters you quoted are Christian, and then throwing down the Jesus card, is seriously lame, not to mention lazy.
AC245 - I think Ann is really saying that she believes engaging in mass "draw allah day" is bad judgment. How can you say she defends the evil douchebags who make the death threats? That's uncalled for.
I mean come on, Althouse already has said she was against the Piss Christ thing as well.
Some people are deeply offended by skirts up to the knee, and your reply to that is what?
No, your rant is just to disguise your own cowardice.
no one has to apologize for mocking anything.
Its called a FREE WORLD and that IS the goal.
Wow. Good post, Ann.
Your example is poor Ann.
The piss Christ "art" was not forbidden, banned, or prevented. People were protesting having to pay for it from public funds grants (and then display it in a public funded institution). That is not censorship, that is protesting choices on public patronage.
Let's chisel off the Mohammed image at the Supreme Court too. Can't be offending Muslims and Christopher Hitchens ta boot.
The problem with drawing Mohammed is the West is buying into the social mores of the middle east. Danes tried to mock this and they almost lost their lives. Theo VanGogh did lose his life. Enough is enough. We cannot tollerate this form of social censorship from Muslim countries. I do not want to necessarily alienate or offend Muslims, but I find their overreaction far more offensive.
So if you want to draw Mohammed, draw away. How about we start with a image of the nine year old child bride Aisha with the fifty six year old Mohammed? Oh wait, times were different then. It is racist or culturally insensitive to bring up things like that, unless we are criticizing Eurpoeans or European Americans.
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"- several reasons not to support this idea" a couple being:
(1) Do unto to others.....
(2) "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day has a quality of early childhood or adolescent oppositionality - i.e. 'you can't tell me what to do...' We think we are exercising our autonomy, however the reality is that we remain under the control of those telling us what to do and not do. Being driven to do the opposite is no more a demonstration of independence as complying with the Islamic threat or demand.
Fantasy Ann Althouse:
My answer to you Muslims. (I'm assuming you are Muslims.) Do you not know that Mohammed said; "I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies"?
The real Ann Althouse:
Will lecture Christians but ignore Muslims, because it is safe. And by the way, isn't grouping all Christians together the stuff of prejudice?
Hypocrite.
Here's an image of "Piss Mohammed." That's art.
Oh the cynic in me - VORTEX HERE WE COME!
marital discord, supreme sensitivity to political correctness (previously not noted), heavy dose of pacifism
good for 400+ posts
"After the choice is made, if people say offensive things, I support their free speech rights whether or not I think they exercised good judgment. But with respect to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," we are at the point of thinking about what to do. I am trying to influence that choice."
The only way to show that you indeed support free speech and the right to offend Islam is to draw cartoons on Muhammad. It's obvious that nothing else works at this point. Nothing save for violence against Islam that is. So the choice is simple:
1. Support Mock Islam day;
2. Surrender to Islamic terror
3. Violence
"In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion)."
No. First of all, IF they actually disagree with the threats, then declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion is harmful - akin to allowing a cancer to remain instead of removing it.
Second of all, try your argument on the Phelpsians. Christians actively despise and disavow Fred Phelps and his evil spawn. Christians counterprotest him, and sometimes churches actually organize those counterprotests. Phelps isn't included in the greater church body - he's not invited to conferences, nobody reputable goes to him for his opinion, etc. He's a crank and to the greatest extent possible in a free country, we've expelled him from our midst. Should we stop all that, and just passively permit him to hurt others and do whatever he wants in our name? For our own sake, and for the people he hurts, we actively oppose him.
If Muslims aren't choosing to the same with their cranks, that's no reason why WE should tolerate said cranks. Draw Mo Day is also pushback against their passivity.
Why should we voluntarily submit to Muslim law in order to protect the feelings of all those peaceful Muslims who can't be bothered to defend our free speech?
Althouse: "My answer to you Christians. (I'm assuming you are Christians.) Do you not know that Jesus said; "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
Do you even believe the bullshit you write?
Was that your answer to the Jews during the Holocaust?
"Love Hitler?" "Turn your cheek to Hitler?" "Smile as you enter the ovens as if you are entering the gates of Heaven?" It's happy-time! you're going to meet God!"
I was created by God to send a message to Christians: "Love your enemy just as Jesus said to, but keep your eye on him. Pray for your enemy's mortal soul, but do not for one second turn your back on him or he will kill your children and enslave your people."
if Alpha thinks this is a good post, god help us.
Hi All –
Let’s see. Has anyone seen Episode 914 – “Bloody Mary”?
I guess Anne’s argument that the writers are “true artists” means that she agrees that it’s within their license to blaspheme the Virgin Mary (who is not a human being – per Catholic beliefs – humans who behave badly as do other persons in all churches and professions and neighborhoods).
The hypocrisy is appalling : Catholic bashing is a cultural sport – especially mocking Holy Mary this way – while Mohammed gets respected…..no…..feared. The argument that they are true artists could not be more ridiculous – they are noisemakers looking for attention, er ‘ratings’, shouting “fire” in empty theaters because they know they will be in trouble if they shout “fire” in a crowded one. They are the worst kind of cowards because they have such gushing, apologetic fans – mostly a lot older than their high school demographic – to place laurels on their heads.
“Bloody Mary” South Park Episode 914, originally aired December 7, 2005, “which is the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Catholic observance related specifically to the Virgin Mary” (Wikipedia).
….Around this time, a statue of the Virgin Mary begins to bleed "out its ass" and people begin to flock around it to find a cure for their diseases. Randy believes it can heal him of his disease.
….Randy has Stan drive him to the church where the statue is, and—after cutting in line, arguing that his "disease" is worse than that of others—he is drenched in the holy blood. He jumps up and declares that he will not drink anymore (ostensibly because the bleeding statue is his "Higher Power"), and abstains from alcohol for five days.
….The new Pope Benedict XVI comes to investigate, and discovers that the blood is not actually coming from the statue's anus, but its vagina. Since "chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time," this is no miracle, and Randy, realizing this, suddenly realizes God did not heal him. He at first declares himself powerless again, and all the other recovering alcoholics follow suit and rush to the bar.
Thankfully, I watched this show with my teenagers and was able to facilitate some excellent critical discussion. South Park provides good cultural fodder – to be sure – and their audience is capable of identifying the arguments being made and evaluating them. However, non-Catholics may not understand the deep, hurtful offense taken at seeing the Holy Mary treated in such a manner. The only thing is that no one is afraid of a Catholic jihad and so it is acceptable.
We knew they were cowards with this “Bloody Mary” episode as they shelved their episode on Mohammed back then. It’s edifying to see their hypocrisy and cowardice exposed again.
It's not OK to offend Muslims because they pose a credible physical threat. But it is OK to offend millions of Christians almost every day without a second thought because they pose no physical threat.
Hypocrisy and cowardice.
Caspar
I'm pretty sure Serrano received death threats for his "Piss Christ" installation.
Radical Islam...the one Far Right group whose rights Liberals will defend to the death, literally.
You make my point. It did not prevent him to offend because he was not afraid. But here we have whole TV networks, newspapers and all kinds of other media outlets afraid to the point where they self-centure themselves. talk to Salman Rushdie who still hiding 20+ years later.
Bowing to terror. Hypocrisy and Cowardice.
I should love, one day, to be directed to a Muslim blog that decried the threats made by the very very extra tiny minority within the minority of Muslims. It would be excellent to read post after post on how this behavior does not comport with the religion of peace and then to scroll the comments to see writer after writer condemning such thuggish behavior. Can someone in need of educating the vile amongst us provide a thread?
the threats made by the very very extra tiny minority within the minority of Muslims.
Ha ha.
I don't think Prof. Althouse is bowing to terror here. I think she is articulating a principled position she holds with respect to all sacred traditions. This has nothing to do with credibility of threats.
On the other hand, I don't recall Prof. Althouse piping in about International Blasphemy Day last September.
Ann, You should well know that there are indeed many Persian paintings of the Prophet on the Planet. Not all Muslims believe such to be blasphemous, although this is little known.
The condemnation (now believed universal and "traditional" has only held sway for last 200 years (of the 14 centuries of Islam) during the time that Wahabbism (a.k.a "Salafism") was able to impose its fundamentalist interpretation on traditional Islam by force through an alliance of the Wahabbi clerics with the might of the House of Saud. The Saudi/Wahabbi regime seized control of Mecca and Medina and imposed its particular "reformation" upon a diverse, traditional Islam, which had thrived since the time of The Prophet beyond its immediate realm, because it began a purge the Islamic belief and liturgy its thereto fore. (And, Arabia became to be sole country named for a family.)
The traditional holiness of the Mecca and Medina was ipso facto extended to all of Arabia by Saudi/Wahabbi diktat, when puritanical Islam became the dominant dogma. Since, Saudi wealth has been able for two hundred years to present this recent "Islam" as Islam, and bribe and influence Western writers and rulers to genuflect to this orthodoxy in word and deed
Our reverential President. instructed in the Wahabbi doctrine as a child, bowed indeed to the Saudi monarch, and manifests hostility toward Israel, and an manifests indifferent to attending Christian services. Albeit, in Chicago he regularly attended the Rev.Wright's nominally Christian church, the substance of Wright's Sunday Sermons were substantively indistinguishable from those of a Wahabbi cleric on any Friday. (NB There have always been so-called "secret" Muslims, even St. Francis of Assisi has been rumored as one.)
Instead of perpetrating a comic prank, offensive to those that are ignorant of the context of the Wahabbi anathema of imagoes of the Prophet. It would be constructive to address the doctrinal source and history of the prohibition and place it in the context of Islamic history and theology, and so give voice to the millions of traditional Muslims that are suppressed to silence by fear intimidation and terrorism.
The obliging silence and oblivion of Western writers and political and religious grants an effective carte blanche to the bowdlerizing Muslim clerics. If an open debate on the substance and scope of Wahabbi theological imperialism occurred it would educate the West toward sensible policy, and give a voice to the traditional Muslims that dare not speak in fear of death. Otherwise, we surrender our freedom to speak and condemn ourselves to silence.
The thing that enrages me about Islamoids is that they are venomously intolerant to Christians, Jews, and atheists in their own lands - yet have the aggressive temerity to lecture us on how we are obligated to extend tolerance and sensitivity of all Islamoids who show "offense" about anything we say or do about Islam not to their tastes.
Yeah, I get the whole thing about graven images being taboo, especially of the Prophet.
I also know from being in the Magic Kingdom those backwards ass Iron Agers don't give one iota of respect or tolerance for someone caught with a Bible or some Sikh expressing a heretical viewpoint (Both offenses will get you tossed in jail, then deported. The US military will end the career of an officer who the Saudis establish committed "an offense to Islam."
One of the best threads I've seen here, Althouse. A welcome distraction from my stack of essays to grade.
You are a bit confused I am afraid. This restriction against anyone drawing Mohammed is of fairly recent origin; only the last couple of centuries. Before that, Muslims commissioned artists to draw Mohammed. There are beautiful Korans in Museums in New York, Paris and London with pictures of Mohammed.
The problem is, if you want to avoid offending Muslims, which Muslims do you want to avoid offending?
For example:
*Having a dog offends some Muslims
*Using toilet paper offends some Muslims
*Eating bread in a nonround loaf offends some Muslims
*Being a female and showing your hair, or even your face, or even your hands in public offends some Muslims
*Having a television or a camera or a painting, even of a plate of fruit, offends some Muslims
*Raising your children as nonMuslims offends some Muslims.
*Being a working female offends some Muslims.
*Women smiling or laughing in public offends some Muslims.
It goes on and on and on. One crazy belief after another. And different Islamic sects disagree with each other. So which one will you choose to not offend? No matter what you do, you will offend some other sect, that will want to have you put to death in response. So which tune will you choose to dance to?
I think before you start making great pronouncements about what will and will not hurt millions of Muslims, you better learn something about Islam and Muslims.
I'm curious as to what your reaction would have been if the creator of the "piss Christ" exhibit had been executed by Christians for his blasphemy. Would you have agreed that all media and artists should refrain from blaspheming Christ? Theo Van Gogh was killed because he offended some Muslims. Do you really believe the best response of the media and creative community is to refrain from offending any Muslims, anywhere? Do you understand that your very existence, as a woman who is not a Muslim, and does not cover herself as some Muslims insist is necessary, offends some Muslims? Where do you draw the line?
I absolutely believe that "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day is a good idea. If more news organizations had reprinted the Danish Mohammed cartoons, perhaps Westergaard would not have to live in hiding, in fear of execution. Sometimes there really is safety in numbers.
An addendum to my comment above regard the attitude of our President toward non-Muslaim religions. When the Dalai Lama visited the White House, our President put him out by side door, and allowed him photographed to the world with the White House refuse.
FYI: Wahabbis believe an abhor Tibetan Buddhists as "demon worshipers."
Althouse: crusty conservative coating, creamy hippie love chick center.
On May 20th I plan to change my facebook profile picture to the cartoon of Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban.
Hi all –
While Rudy Giuliani wasn’t able to tackle the National Endowment of the Arts funding for the Piss Christ exhibit in 1999 – and he tried - he certainly became a hero to many later on – “…[b]y slashing $497,000 in city funding to the Brooklyn Museum and going to court to evict it from the city-owned building.” He hurt them where their funding came from – bye bye….
"If you want to desecrate religion in a disgusting way, if you want to promote racism, if you want to promote anti-Semitism, if you want to promote anti-Catholicism, if you want to promote anti-Islamism, then do it on your own money".
Thus spake New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani on February 17, 2001 in response to photographer Renée Cox's "Yo Mama's Last Supper," in an attack on the Brooklyn Museum of Art's exhibition "Committed to the Image." Much like a similar tirade in 1999 with a controversial and unsuccessful attempt to shut down the "Sensation" exhibition over a painting of Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung, as common an art medium in Africa as paint is in the United States.
By slashing $497,000 in city funding to the Brooklyn Museum and going to court to evict it from the city-owned building.
Source: http://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100064
Don’t you all just love that bit above about elephant dung being….you know….the same as paint in the good old USA. LOL. You’re the bomb, Rudy. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Rudy in 2012 “-)
As I ponder this a bit more Anne, do you realize that you are already offending Muslims to the point that many would want to have you put to death?
After all you have a scandalously improper picture of yourself on your web page.
And you work, as a woman, which should be forbidden according to many Muslims.
And you teach common law, which again is anathema to many Muslims who favor ONLY Sharia law.
So in at least 3 ways, and probably hundreds of other ways, you are committing vile offenses to Islam and Muslims! So will you quit your job and remove your picture from your web page? Just to avoid offending a few Muslims?
Don't be a hypocrite. Walk the walk, or else explain why not.
Post a Comment