This post is in support of freedom of the press and in solidarity with the people of Denmark. The Danes are being subjected to boycotts and threats of violence throughout the Middle East, all because a Danish newspaper published satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, including this one, titled "Censorship":
The complete set of 12 satirical cartoons is posted here. A larger collection of Muhammad drawings is here. I encourage my fellow anti-theocracy bloggers and newspapers to stand with Europe's newspapers and post some of these cartoons.
source: Little Green Footballs.
UPDATE: Among local bloggers, I see that Dan Savage at The Stranger blog already beat me to mentioning this as did Matt Rosenberg on Rosenblog, Andrew's Dad and Medved Fans, Jim Miller and Ron Hebron and Thurston Pundits. Let me know who else I've missed.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2006 10:07 PM | Email ThisWe've already offended them, so, lets offend them more! That'll fix the problem.
I believe in the Danish paper's right to publish whatever they want. But offending them for the sake of offending them is wrong. And as always, it is the few who are causing the violence.
Maybe you should explain why posting these everywhere is a good thing to do. Then I'll consider doing it.
Gerald, LiberalWashington.com
Muslims are offended that pictures of Mohammed were posted? Well I'm offended that many think they have the right to silence offensive religious speech and in my opinion that is a far greater offense.
Gerald, do you think it is hypocritical that the Saudis, for example, will print cartoons depicting Jews as pigs but are offended by offensive cartoons about Mohammed? And if so, why should we care about offending hypocrits?
As far as fixing the problem, this is the solution. We can't allow free speech to be intimidated. This is because the intimidation is the problem, not the offense to Muslims. If the Saudis (the biggest issue in this case) are going to be offended by cartoons published in a *foreign* paper, there are few aspects of Western culture that won't offend them.
Posted by: DP on February 1, 2006 11:17 PMI would argue that we are trying to intimidate them in order for them to stop their freedom of speech of protesting.
Posting these pictures will not defend Danes. Posting them around the internet will not stop the protests, but will likely make them more upset.
It's hard if not impossible to put yourself in the view of a Muslim. Hate speech is illegal in the US, and they think this is hate speech.
I see your point... but it just doesn't seem right somehow.
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald on February 1, 2006 11:27 PMA person in Spokane decides to wave a flag in their backyard of Jesus stomping a baby to death. The people in the neighborhood are furious and are organizing protests and a few of the protesters go too far and start throwing rocks and shatters a few windows.
So... In order to protect free speech we need to plaster this flag all over town.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Gerald on February 1, 2006 11:38 PMI respectfully disagree. I think posting these images shows solidarity with the Danish press who have had violent reprisals for their speech and with the Danish people who are now being boycotted for defending their rights to free speech.
Hate speech is not illegal here. Inciting violence is, but this is not the same thing. These cartoons may indicate that the cartoonists dislike (or even hate) Muslims--which I doubt--but they don't say that Muslims should be attacked or killed. As far as for the Danish, I can't say that I know if hate speech is illegal. I am just following from our own legal tradition which states that cost of prohibitting free speech is greater than the gain from prohibiting hateful or distasteful speech, with which I fully agree.
Posted by: DP on February 1, 2006 11:39 PMThis issue is actually a good test to separate those of us who believe in civil liberties and free speech - with those do-gooder "don't offend anybody" idiots.
If any religion (American Taliban included) can't handle criticism - especially in cartoon form - it should be condemned. I get pretty tired pretty quick when these religious ideologues always try to play the victim card.
Posted by: GarySea on February 2, 2006 12:02 AMI think Horsey is a horse's patoot when it comes to his awful editorial cartoons in the local papers, but I am not going to threaten violence against him or the newspaper publishers. Instead I got tired of him and the sorry columnists like Joni Balderdash and stopped subscribing to the paper. Besides, Gerald, if you look at the 12 cartoons, they pretty much capture the essence of these thugs. If these bullies don't like the way they are portrayed, then they need to change their behavior instead of doing the very things the cartoons depict. If you feel that sorry for them, pack up and go live amongst them. They are always looking for volunteers who are willing to meet Allah ahead of schedule.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 2, 2006 12:13 AMAnd please respond to my analogy, it'll help me understand.
Posted by: Gerald on February 2, 2006 12:25 AMSince when was "hate" speach illegal in the US? I thought we still had freedom of speech here.
Posted by: Mike H on February 2, 2006 12:32 AMDo a little bit of research before you post.
Posted by: Gerald on February 2, 2006 12:49 AMI'm not going to directly respond to your analogy, because I think I have a more direct way to answer.
Consider the situation where certain indecent types of art were made of common and generally respected Christian symbols. I'm sure you can remember at least one example. If this was done in India, for example, and Americans decided to boycott India and make violent threats, I could certainly understand if some of the people of India made copies of the images to show that they couldn't be intimidated. People in Japan might put the images on their blogs to show solidarity with the Indians. Others might just spell it out in words without reproducing the images if they thought that that was sufficient to get the point across. Now these images may be offensive in India and I would expect that the images would not be displayed as popularly in areas where they would offend Christian Indians, but in other areas showing the images would be the same as saying "Hey! Stop trying to intimidate the Indian press and the Indian people! It won't work!"
As far as your blog, if you have a large number of American Muslim readers, I probably wouldn't post the images. I would include a link instead and discuss the controversy in a post. If you don't have many American Muslim readers, I don't see a problem posting the images, because the only ones they will offend are the foreign hypocrits, who in my opinion, deserve to be offended for their acts of intimidation.
Posted by: DP on February 2, 2006 12:52 AMhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17555&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17812&only
It would have been a more damning indictment of Islam if no cartoons were submitted. The cartoons may have been submitted in defiance of Islam or in defiance of stereotypes of Muslims.
The posting of the images is analogous to standing up and saying, "No, I'm Spartacus!" Granted, all that did so were crucified. If Spartacus had published cartoons instead of leading a slave revolt, then he probably would have lived a bit longer. Unfortunately, today it is unknown whether or not cartoonists have a greater life expectancy than the leaders of slave revolts.
Gerald, go back and hide under your bed, although there probably isn't any room under it, with all the US media and democrats already taking refuge there.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 2, 2006 05:14 AMwww.zombietime.com has posted some historical artwork of Mohammed that soundly nails the Islamic hypocrisy. Take a tour over there if you haven't already...
And don't forget; buy Danish!
Posted by: Dan on February 2, 2006 06:17 AMAnd no one has answered my analogy, which tells me that it makes sense and you guys are wrong on this issue.
Posted by: Gerald on February 2, 2006 06:38 AMThat about wraps it up. Quit trolling.
Posted by: Dan on February 2, 2006 06:54 AMGerald once again makes statements he can't back up. Just look at all those good Muslims denouncing violence. Sarcasm Off/
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 07:16 AMCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No where in there does it mention anything about "racial hatred", or any other speach that isn't protected. There is nothing illegal about speaking ill of blacks, Jews, asians, or whomever... it's stupid, yes, but not illegal. Would you care to cite a particular court precedent that says "racial hatred" is unconstitutional? Yes, inciting violence is illegal, but that is different. There is nothing, however, banning private citizens from saying whatever they want about race.
Do a little research before you post.
Posted by: Mike H on February 2, 2006 07:25 AMPlease remind of of how you speak up every time a Islamic newspaper runs an Anti-Semitic, Jew Hating cartoon.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 07:32 AMGerald - I don't think your analogy holds. Behavior that many people would deem silly, but not illegal, in one's own neighborhood is different than an expression of the free press. A better analogy for us would be an offensive op-ed from the KKK (or in reverse, the Black Panthers at their height) that would be published at first for newsworthiness, then reprinted by other papers when the 1st paper took heat for printing it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 2, 2006 07:35 AMAmen
Posted by: Saltherring on February 2, 2006 07:44 AMSwass: No point agueing with you. You're full of hate.
Mike: 2 words: Court Precedent.
Dan: No point agueing with you. You're full of hate.
Eric: Thank you for making a valid arguement. You are right...
So, if the Seattle PI inserted a political cartoon of Jesus stomping on babies heads, everyone got upset and started protesting their offices, and a few people started getting violent...
We should post the cartoon all over town in order to protect freedom of speech?
Posted by: Gerald on February 2, 2006 08:01 AM"I want to post them, and I CAN post them, so I WILL post them. If you want to protest that, go ahead. That way we're all within our rights."
with:
"No point agueing (sic) with you. You're full of hate."
Thank you.
In your scenario, some fringe types would get upset. Might be some protests... some letters to the editor, some cancelled subscriptions.
in the islamic cartoon scenario, those idiots are liable to kill people... maybe several people, over their precious _(*&)#$ Mohammed, now routinely used as the excuse to slaughter thousands every year.
This IS a freedom of speech issue. I, for one, am becoming increasingly sicker of those who, because they are "offended" by my legal activity, or by the words or cartoons drawn... feel that they, two, must be the recipient of some special protections (HHHHmmmm.... I wonder what other category of people feel that way?) so that their delicate sensibilities are not offended.
I am in complete agreement with the now, suddenly growing, movement to "offend" these people. Oddly they seem MUCH more offended by these cartoons then when their brethren slaughter children with a suicide-murderer bombing attack.
And, if they don't like it... tough.
(Please put me in the "filled with hate" column if it makes you feel better.)
Andres Serrano's "Pi## Christ". Was it hateful, yes (to most) was it poor taste, yes (to most) did it denigrate religion, yes. And yet all liberals loved it from a free speech angle. The religious people simply had to suck it up until it blew over.
Same thing with these cartoons.
Posted by: dan on February 2, 2006 08:35 AMNext?
Posted by: jimg on February 2, 2006 08:36 AMSeattle is the hub of the "Perpetually Offended" like you. It must take a lot of energy to look at every through SH*T-colored glasses, huh Gerald?
These cartoons are FAR from hate-speech dude. Lighten up a little Gerald.....it probably takes a John Deere Tractor to pull a pin out of your tight-ass'ed existence. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2006 08:41 AM
Pansy-a$$es like you are the problem....not the solution. Are you related to David Castrati....the KLOWN Prince of Bloggers??? You know, David KLOWNstein....The KLOWN with No Balls.
Seems like you spend most of your life drowning in political correctness.....just like the other LEFTIST PINHEADS that sadly dominate the Seattle landscape.
Do you go down to your local Starbucks every morning and dream up ways to "FEEL" offended??
Perhaps you should stop drinking those $4 Americano's and step up your game to Folger's!! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2006 08:46 AM
A holy book preaching death to infidels isn't fit to line a bird cage. No culture preaching death to westerners deserves my respect.
Thurston Pundits has the cartoon posted now too.
http://thurstonpundits.blogspot.com/
My guess is we'd be pretty safe in only buying a one-way ticket for you Gerald. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2006 08:49 AM
Islam is probably the most worldwide expression of this victim ideology and unless we knock them hard upside the head to snap them out of this point of view this one may engulf the world, for awhile. Victim ideology comes without any apology. They are perfect and justified in everything they do.
What in the hell will they do when Mohammed is show in a cup of pee? Gerald probably still has that picture of the cross swimming in NYC but will wonder why the West provoked them? This was about the point that they can’t even handle a picture of one person!!!!
I now think our reaction to 9-11 is very understated. Look where we are now; Islam continues to roll-Iran & France riots. Even one nuke out of Iran and dozens need to go back. How will they reform on their own? Chirac said as much! Not talks at the UN but a fax to the UN saying taken care of.
What will an unreformed Islam do when they figure they can’t take the world? Right now they think they can! Wake up folks!!! Appeasement will kill the West literally. Gerald I need a sandbag over here come lay down in front of my place.
When the Danes publish cartoons criticizing those in their population who are threatening their very existence, then I say let's support them. This isn't hate speech, it is an opinion. If those being targeted are offended, then so be it. It doesn't give them the right to kill.
Posted by: Janet S on February 2, 2006 08:54 AMRidicule (demonstrating the ridiculousness) is truly an art form best served in cartoons, plays and books. It cuts through the chase. For example the graduating class of new terrorists in Palestine all posing in a group picture wearing their usual facial wrap. What's the point of the class picture if you can't identify the subjects. A father pointing to the picture years from now and proudly exclaiming, "there I am in the third row fourth from the right." He may have been in the coffee shop at the time of the picture, who will know? There is something weird when a face mask is issued by the government as is the case in Palestine. Now that should be ridiculed.
Ridicule is not hate speech, it merely point out the absurd. Obviously, there are those who will find the reflection in the mirror somewhat disturbing. The silence from the Muslims is deafening regarding terrorists. That is disturbing. They rant when ridiculed, but remain quiet when their people commit harm and hatred toward humanity. It is time for the world to ridicule the absurd behavior of the militant Muslims. Only then will they be rendered moot.
Posted by: snuffy on February 2, 2006 08:57 AMPerhaps you can point out a statement I made that was hateful? Perhaps pigs fly.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 09:01 AMOne more thing Gerald.
You left out I'm also a racist. Isn't that the standard Liberal slur when you've nothing else to offer? You're slipping.
By the way, remind me again at your disgust at Anti-Jew cartoons by Islamists.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 09:15 AMOne more thing Gerald.
You left out I'm also a racist. Isn't that the standard Liberal slur when you've got nothing else to offer? You're slipping.
By the way, remind me again at your disgust at Anti-Jew cartoons by Islamists.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 09:15 AMOne more thing Gerald.
You left out I'm also a racist. Isn't that the standard Liberal slur when you've got nothing else to offer? You're slipping.
By the way, remind me again at your disgust at Anti-Jew cartoons by Islamists.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 09:15 AMBut of course I wouldn't know who to write to, because probably not every Arab or muslim is thinking of violence against random strangers. I want to put my blame on the ones who are guilty of this subhumanity, of wishing death on an entire nation because of some ink... but I don't want to commit the same error of guilt-by-association by despising the entire middle east because of these freaks. On the other hand their guilt-by-association is a lot less excusable-- I'm seeing hundreds of images of shouting angry folks and could be justified in thinking the majority are of ill will. Still I don't want to be like them. Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on February 2, 2006 09:23 AM
These same people who are ranting about disrespect have no problem bashing the beliefs of anyone not in their camp. Tell us again, Gerald, why we should care about their "feelings"? I believe the non-extremist Muslims are not over-reacting. The ones who are hollering are the ones who caused the ill will in the first place.
Posted by: Peggy U on February 2, 2006 09:31 AMIsrael has also froze the money it has been providing to Palestine.
The following paragraphs copied from a news article provides some insight as to the cost of misguided madness on the population that lives in fear of its leaders. It seems that the United States has been providing more assistance to the Palestinian then the Palistinian's brethern nations. We are being chastised by the likes of Jimmy Carter who claims that Hamas wants peace. There is a reason why Jimmy only served one term as president.
____________________________________________
Israel froze automatic monthly payments on Wednesday, a week after the election victory of the Islamic militant group Hamas. It had been scheduled to transfer nearly $55 million.
In Brussels, European Union lawmakers endorsed continuing aid to the Palestinians provided a Hamas-led government commits itself to seeking peace with Israel and renounces violence.
U.S. President George W. Bush said the United States could support a Hamas-led government if it abandoned its goal of destroying Israel and disarmed.
Hamas, which has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings since the Palestinian uprising began in 2000, trounced Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's long-dominant Fatah movement in the January 25 parliamentary election.
In a joint statement issued in Islamabad, Muslim allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia urged the world to accept Hamas's victory and "avoid premature judgments and hasty conclusions."
Hamas has urged foreign donors to maintain aid but says it could still find other sources of funding in the Arab world. It has sent a delegation on a tour of Arab countries to urge them to keep the money flowing.
Unemployment in the Palestinian territories runs high, at 22 percent, and half the Palestinian population lives in poverty. In Gaza, many Palestinians live on an average of $2 a day.
Posted by: snuffy on February 2, 2006 09:44 AMFor Geralds benefit
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2001/Intro.asp
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 09:45 AMYou said..."I just thought of an example... Please tell me if this does not fit right.
A person in Spokane decides to wave a flag in their backyard of Jesus stomping a baby to death. The people in the neighborhood are furious and are organizing protests and a few of the protesters go too far and start throwing rocks and shatters a few windows.
So... In order to protect free speech we need to plaster this flag all over town.
Am I missing something?"
Well, yes.
Given the situation that you laid out, the rock throwers could and should be immediately arrested, for they have violated the law. HOWEVER.....any supporter of the man who raised the flag would have every right to plaster up copies of said flag as long as they weren't violating any laws while doing so.
This is how free speech works. You will sometimes hear things you don't like, care for, or that will frankly infuriate you. You can have a group of people dressed in a lot of white linen march through a town and declare their point of view, no matter how vile and depraved that I personally find it. You deal with it, because you also have every right to state your own point of view as loudly and obnoxiously as the other guy.
Ok, so I also said flaws (once again, only IMHO)
Firstly, if you persist in doing something that leaves you wide open for people to post an 'offensive' cartoon of your actions, how insulted should you be? Because lets face the facts. I have looked at all of these offensive cartoons, and every one of them is either dead on or has a strong element of truth. Me thinks that they doth protest too much.
For the second flaw, we have to wonder what exactly gives all these protesting countries any basis to spew hot air and invectitive. How does one decide that you can tell another country to punish a small group of people because they essentially 'said something that hurt my feelings'? Each and every one of them represent some of the most oppressive societies on the planet (yes, there are some that are worse, but these are pretty far up on the list). I love my country. I am proud of my country. Every day, for as long as I can remember, I have listened to and read base lies and vile invecetive about my country spewed out on a regular basis. I'm not saying that occasionally there's not a grain of truth there, or that sometimes the originators of this don't have a point, but I surely don't care to hear people speak of my country like that. The point is, I put the paper down, or turn the tv off, and think to myself, well, they can think whatever they want. That's free speech again.
Let me know if you think I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but in the meanwhile, try these examples out for me.
A man and his very pregnant wife are walking through a mall in Riyadh. She is wearing a hijab, but because of her extreme state of pregnancy, occasionally her ankle is exposed. She is approached by a Muttawa (there's a term you really need to google if it's not familiar) who imediately begans to berate her in a loud voice for showing that flash of ankle. As the husband tries to smooth the situation over, the Muttawa proceeds to strike the woman on the leg with the swagger stick that he is carrying. At this point, the husband hauls off and breaks his jaw. Both are immediately arrested and wisked off to jail. They are finally released and allowed to leave the country when the entire event threatens to become a major diplomatic incident. The leadership that is ultimately in charge of the Muttawa never apologize, and announce that they see nothing wrong with the situation and cite their religious beliefs to support this. In fact, they go so far as to encourage their imans to denounce the couple and their home country in friday prayers, and their state run press to fire off reams of articles filled with firey rhetoric demonizing the couple.
Would the man and wife be wrong to use any and all methods to expose how this society operates and how they were treated? Up to and including dragging the religious factor into it, since the leadership that caused these issues cited that as giving blessing to their actions?
Think carefully, because the above story is true. Don't take my word, do some google about the Canadian ambassador and his wife in Saudi Arabia.
I'm not even going to go into the complete intollerance all of these societies have for any other religions in their own countries. IMHO these people are acting like five year olds in full tantrum mode, using an interpretation (stress on that word) from the Koran to support their supposed grievious insult and further political and religious agendas. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this Gerald, and sorry all for the length of this thing.
Posted by: disgruntled IT guy on February 2, 2006 09:52 AMBut I do think you are missing the point of others doing so....it isn't just around this one instance, but the whole way Islamofascists don't allow any free speech. If you don't cowtow to them (remember Islam means submission, not peace) they will kill you or at least try to. That is wrong and so others are standing up and saying, you can't intimidate or terrorize us because you don't like what we say.
As far as your analogy, our society would work to bring those that caused the riots/damage to justice and if other papers, blogs felt that showing the same photo's would help support that paper then fine....again their right to do so. Those that didn't want to wouldn't and that is again what is good about our society....the one the Islamofascists hate and want to destroy.
Posted by: Dengle on February 2, 2006 09:57 AMThanks for the perspective.
I'm sure our little PINHEADED PAL Gerald will find some obscure way to be less offended by the Muslim produced cartoons.
Gerald is young....only 20 he says.
Perhaps someday his raw emotion will be replaced by THINKING and COMMON SENSE.
Gerald is one of the KLOWNS who loves looking at America thru his SH*T-colored glasses. We must just sit back and take it, right Gerald??
Gerald, do you have any French blood in you?? Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 2, 2006 09:57 AM
I did answer your analogy in the only way possible. The fact that I did not conform to your way of thinking does not mean that I'm wrong or the rest of us are wrong. It only means that I think that your analogy was flawed (because you only thought of it in a local context with only Western values). You also can't prove a negative. To say that since we did not conform to your mindset on this issue and give a counterexample *in your mindset* means that we are wrong is, sadly, misguided.
Posted by: DP on February 2, 2006 09:59 AMDo you think the liberal artist who created displayed the cross in urine should have had a death threat against him and have been forced into hiding in fear of his life?
Well that is EXACTLY what muslims did to these artists. You defending that shows your hypocrisy!
By printing them all over the internet, we ALL become targets and there are too many of us for them to get us all. So they will not be able to intimidate us to curtail our freedom of speech.
It is liberal twits like YOU gerald that defend the cross in urine and get offended when anyone displays the kind of statement to muslims - who by the way, saw off people's heads, something I have yet to see from a Christian.
Posted by: pbj on February 2, 2006 10:07 AMLook for Arla cheeses in the gourmet cheese display of your local market. They make a delicious dill Havartis and good Fontina cheese. Also, why not pick up a case of Carlsburg beer to wash it down with?
Posted by: pbj on February 2, 2006 10:09 AMI spent a year in southeast Riyadh and you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your post.
Muttawa = Religious Police
Christianity is banned in Saudi by the way. Wahhabism is the sanctioned religion
Posted by: NWarty on February 2, 2006 10:20 AMWe are doing far more to offend Moslems than posting pictures of Mohammed. Let me list a few of the things that I recall moslems find very offensive.
- We charge interest to each other.
- We charge interest to Moslems.
- We tax moslems.
- We allow non-moslems to testify against moslems in a court of law.
- We elect our leaders, rather than submitting to a moslem scholar who claims to be the anointed leader.
- We allow people to call God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost the trinity and worship them.
- We also allow the worship of Buddha and other gods, without any kind of retribution.
- We allow moslems to convert to Christianity and other religions without executing them.
- We punish moslems who "honor kill" their sisters and daughters.
- We punish rapists who are moslem and rape little girls wearing swimsuits when it was the little girl's fault for not wearing a burka out of doors.
- We punish rapists who rape women rather than the woman who was raped and injured the rapist during the act.
- We wage war against moslems rather than submit to a global moslem government.
- We write laws, and repeal them, rather than enforce shari'a law (the law found in the Koran).
- We don't execute homosexuals, rapists, murderers, and others who are worthy of death according to islam.
These are just a few of the things that drive radical islamists mad and make them kill us. Do you think we should stop doing these things, Gerald, because we are provoking them?
(If you doubt this is the reason why terrorists are attacking and trying to kill us, you should read the full text of Osama bin Laden's pronouncements. He certainly thinks this is the reason he is trying to kill us.)
Or do you think we should give them the middle finger and tell them to sit down and shut up and leave us the heck alone?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 2, 2006 10:41 AMSimply saying there is a court precedent doesn't mean it exists. So as I asked you earlier... please cite the court precedent. That means give me the exact case you are refering to where a judge said there is no right to "advocate racial hatred".
Posted by: Mike H on February 2, 2006 10:53 AMSo the rest of the townsfolk all start to fly the flag as well, to signify to the group seeking to silence one that they will have to try to silence everyone.
It is exactly the "I am Sparticus" challenge.
It's all about the fact that people who don't accept our laws are making VIOLENT threats to us because we excercise free speech. We stand up and post the controvercial cartoons to protect those receiving the threats.
Complaints are quite fine. Threats are not.
Thank you Stephan, for bringing this up. I was thinking of writing the Times myself, but I gave up subscribing years ago, when the clarifying light of conservatism bonked me on the head.
Posted by: Ex-Moonbat on February 2, 2006 10:58 AMPosted by: Saltherring on February 2, 2006 11:18 AM
It really has to suck to be a Liberal and have to defend this stuff.
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 11:52 AMUnfortunately, it is not possible for Islam to have the equivalent of a Prostetant Reformation. The Reformation was about reforming corruption in the Church hierarchy and leadership, not about correcting the teachings of Christ.
In Islam, the teachings of Allah/Mohammed would have to be corrected. Allah/Mohammed commands Muslims to convert, subjugate or kill the non-believers. This is the official teaching of the Koran, and the Koran is believed to be the unerring and complete word of Allah. If it is unerring and cannot be corrected, it cannot change.
Asking Islam to change the teachings of Allah/Mohammed would be like asking Christians to deny the divinity of Jesus and the truth of the Resurrection.
That is why we are in a World War with Islam for the very survival of civilization as we know it. Unless the PC-crazed governments, and people, of the non-Islamic world wake up and realize this and do what needs to be done, defeat the enemy, we are doomed.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 12:22 PMMy guess is that if Israel was never created, the Muslims of the area would be fighting and killing each other with reckless abandon. Maybe one day they'll wise up and realize their main enemy is themselves.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 2, 2006 12:35 PMwww.faithfreedom.org.
The author of the web site, Dr. Ali Sina (a psueonym because he is under constant death threats), is an Iranian who was brought up Muslim. When he actually read the Koran, he determined that this madness was not for him. His family managed to escape from Iran and come to America, where he now devotes his life to educating people about Islam. His goal is to convert as many Muslims as possible away from Islam to anything else, it doesn't matter what, because Islam is the only so called religion in the world that commands its followers to convert of kill the non-believers.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn if some of them are offennnnnded by some cartoons that seem to be right on. No one has a right to not be offended. The rest of the world needs to stand up to these thugs and do what it takes to protect what's left of our freedoms, because they are damn sure out to conquer us by whatever means they can.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 12:43 PMI apprpeciate your optimism, but please, go to www.faithfreedom.org and spend a weekend there reading about Islam. Start with the Read Me First link, and then the Letter to Mankind. Then browse around and find out what this is really all about. Believe me, there is no hope for a reformation within Islam.
I know all about the Sunni/Shi'ite split over the issue of the return of the 12th Imam -- Mahdi (sp?) I think it is called -- and the Shi'ite belief in this (faithfreedom.org has a complete history of how this came about). In fact, the President of Iran is a fanatic believer in this, and thinks it is literally imminent. But there needs to be more turmoil in the world before the return. What better way to create turmoil than to nuke Israel? This is truly scary.
The Sunni and Shi'ite sects might disagree, and even fight each other over the return of the 12th Imam, but they agree completely with the Koran's commandments to convert or kill the infidels. To change these commandments would require changing the immutable word of Allah. Believe me, this ain't goin' a happen!!
Muslims can't get along with anyone, anywhere in the world, including with each other.
Posted by: ajday on February 2, 2006 01:07 PMOf course, if the ragheads get REALLY crazy, we can stick a nuke up their butts!
Posted by: Libertarian on February 2, 2006 01:23 PMThe reason is world conquest, and the why is because the Koran commands it.
The founder of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) said something to the effect that Islam isn't meant to be just another religion, but the ONLY religion in the world.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 01:24 PMCorrection: The what is world conquest, the why is because the Koran commands it.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 02:24 PM"Live and let live" only applies to those who are willing to do that. When a religion is not willing to let you live unless you convert to it, your premise is falsified. Islam is not willing to let you live unless you convert to it. In fact, the Koran commands that Muslims KILL APOSTATES!! How does that satisfy the "live and let live" premise?
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 02:30 PM"Of course, if the ragheads get REALLY crazy, we can stick a nuke up their butts!"
That's a quote from my last entry above. Obvioulsy, if the other guy doesn't want to live and let live, then we have to take action to see that he doesn't cause us trouble.
Bush's big mistake was NOT putting a nuke on the location where we thought Osama was on Sept. 12, 2001. Brute force and the fear of total destruction can have a "come to Jesus" effect on people. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation for a cheap shot with the "come to Jesus" bit!)
Posted by: Libertarian on February 2, 2006 02:38 PMI really do appreciate the dialogue. My point wasn't whether or not the enemy does or doesn't want to live and let live. My point is that the enemy's holy book, the Koran, specifically PROHIBITS it. It COMMANDS that followers convert or kill the infidels. This isn't a matter of choice. It is a matter of commands from Allah. Therefore, reconciliation with this band of thugs IS NOT POSSIBLE!!
BTW: In politics and economics, I am libertarian. Specifically of the Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises (Austrian Economics kind) kind. I assume you know what that means.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 03:07 PMThe quote you meant to repeat is this:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad, Co-Founder of the Council on Americain Islamic Relations (CAIR) (e.g. the fifth column)
This is a true quote that can be reviewed here:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/AhmadStateScanned.pdf
Posted by: pbj on February 2, 2006 03:21 PMI am offended by pictures of the REV. Jesse Jackson and the REV Al Sharpton but not quite enough to declare a jihad. (altho I come close sometimes)
Posted by: John425 on February 2, 2006 03:22 PMIf I were in dire need, I would hope to be surrounded by people who believe helping others is the highest calling, and selfishness the basest of desires.
All religions do not resemble Islam. Do not let people tell you so!
Christianity has at its core a message of mercy and justice and forgiveness and service. It wasn't because Christianity was bad that we had the dark ages in Europe. It was because we had bad people keeping the Christian message from the people. Note what has happened since the Bible has been published freely and distributed freely! The Christian religion has had a flowering and growth unparallelled in any religion in the history of the world.
Remember that in the US, we wouldn't even be talking about freedom of speech and religion and thought if it weren't for the Christian religion to tell us these things are good. We would still be under a dictator in one shape or another, with the blacks and others enslaved.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 2, 2006 03:29 PMIn many ways this makes me think of the brouhaha over Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian".
How about street protests against suicide bombers killing people at weddings or funerals at mosques? Nah, that's not blasphemous enough.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 2, 2006 04:06 PMGreg M. - I agree with your statement, "Tolerance is a crucial component of a free society, and this cannot be threatened, internally or externally" up to a certain point. Tolerance does NOT include accepting the actions of an enemy whose purpose is to destroy you. I will NEVER EVER tolerate the behavior of ANYONE who is trying to destroy my life!!!!! And that is precisely what Islam commands.
(Discussing hate speech, swassociates wrote this: "Perhaps pigs fly." To Gerald and to pig-phobic Islam, that's hate speech. Get ready for jihad, SoundPolitics. Heads will roll.)
Posted by: sandalista on February 2, 2006 04:36 PMI'm with ya.
Posted by: Greg M on February 2, 2006 04:51 PMI'm going to paraphrase Bush on this one: the Islamic religion has been hijacked by the extremists. The Koran has been hijacked by extremists. People of Muslim faith all over the world cringe at how their religion has been portrayed due to the Fundamentalists who have concocted a different religion than the one the Koran is about.
Time and again you will not find in the Koran anything that backs up the positions of the radicals. The personal freedoms they restrict, the subjugation of women, the clothing one wears. Interpretations by radicals have dismissed the modern world we live in and condemned societies to squalor and economic deficit. Regular Muslims around the world do not partake in this brand of "Islam".
I think it is important to make this distinction.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 2, 2006 05:06 PMYou suffer from too much political correctness and too little knowledge of Islam. Those Muslims who "do not partake in this brand of Islam" are not true Muslims.
The so called extremists have not hijacked Islam. They are actually practicing it as Mohammed did.
The Koran is not the only holy book of Islam. The Hadiths, acually Ahadith, are a collection of works alleging to be the sayings of Mohammed. The Sunnah (actually I have seen this with multiple spellings) allegedly represent contemporary biographies of Mohammed (even the oldest extant versions are some 200+ years after Mohammed). The three sets of documents -- Koran, Hadiths and the Sunnah -- represent the holy books of Islam. In their entirity, these works do in fact back up the actions of what you call the "radicals."
I agree that Islam has "condemned societies to squalor and economic deficit," but there is no other possible outcome from following the Koran and its related Sharia law. This kind of squalor is built into the religious dogma.
I encourage you again to go to
www.faithfreedoml.org
and get educated on what Islam is all about. Those Muslims who do not buy into this garbage (like Dr. Ali Sina) are not true Muslims.
If you want to paraphrase Bush, I would say to the Muslim community, "Either your are with us, or you are against us." And if you are against us, we will be happy to send you to Paradise. BTW: For entry into Paradise, women need not apply.
Posted by: TH on February 2, 2006 06:08 PMOK, I'm not being arrogant and judgemental here, but I need to ask you a question. Are you advocating some sort of first strike against radical Islamic targets in order to pre-empt terrorist activity in the US and elsewhere? If you are, I don't have a problem with it. It's as valid an opinion as any here. From what I've read, I think you're leaning this way, and I wanted to see if I understood you.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 3, 2006 08:28 AMits not cos theyre tolerant, its cos they dont actually care.the few who do, will complain but they also realise they are a minority. all true muslims love prophet mohammed (pbuh) more than nething else. if sum1 were was offensive 2 ur mum, lets say, or sum1 else who u love dearly,i doubt ud be very happy
Posted by: mk on February 3, 2006 10:13 AMits not cos theyre tolerant, its cos they dont actually care.the few who do, will complain but they also realise they are a minority. all true muslims love prophet mohammed (pbuh) more than nething else. if sum1 were was offensive 2 ur mum, lets say, or sum1 else who u love dearly,i doubt ud be very happy
Posted by: mk on February 3, 2006 10:13 AMwashington@mofa.gov.qa
Told them they can stick it up their Al-Jazeera.
Posted by: john425 on February 3, 2006 11:14 AMDid you anonymize your IP address? Their assassins can track you down from it.
Posted by: pbj on February 3, 2006 11:19 AMIn the end I know that God wins, who I believe to be the God of love and justice, the God of Jesus.
Posted by: Greg M on February 3, 2006 11:40 AMPosted by: Jay on February 3, 2006 11:49 AM
Posted by: David K. on February 3, 2006 12:00 PM
Islam will not conquer the "infidel," and the sooner the extremists realize that the better the world will be.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 3, 2006 12:45 PMThanks for the civil dialogue. I would like to see more of it.
Actually, I do not advocate pre-emptive strikes. It constitutes a violation of my libertarian principle of not initiating acts of aggression against innocent people/states peacefully minding their own business. However, Iran in my view does NOT fall into the category of an innocent state peacefully minding its own business. It is the most active state supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Through that mechanism, it has already initiated acts of aggression against others, and it has made quite clear its intent is to aggress against Israel with nukes if it can. Of course, Iran's Prez is also a 12th Imam fanatic, which means he would have no qualms about carrying out that threat. So, I think it is well within the rights of Israel and the U.S. to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a world disaster initiated by Iran.
I would also advocate Israel's right to obliterate Gaza, if necessary. This would not be pre-emptive. It would be just another round in an ongoing conflict.
The Israelis have nukes of their own, and they will use them to their advantage, not ours. In my view, the saber-rattling by Iran is an invitation for Iran to get its butt kicked by the Israelis. The unfortunate point is that our forces are literally standing between Israel and Iran right now. I care not one whit for Iran, but I would like to see us at least get out of the way before Israel drops a nuke on Tehran.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 3, 2006 01:29 PMI reiterate: This is a necessary refresher course in what we are dealing with! Please, if you haven't, check this site out. Remember Theo Van Gogh, and ask yourself if you don't think we need to put a lid on these people - and NOW! This particular site, I believe, comes out of London. London has paid the price for its tolerance.
By the way, we have our own element of this in our neck of the woods. Remember when Daniel Pipes came to speak at UW? Remember the group (led by Jeff (Jaffar) Siddiqui) who wanted to censor him? This is what we can not let happen here! If these people cannot reciprocate what they demand of the rest of us, then they have no business asking for special treatment.
Posted by: Peggy U on February 3, 2006 01:41 PMWasn't the personal life of "the Prophet" extremely sordid? For example; marrying an eight year old girl, forcing his brother to divorce his wife so he could marry her himself and the list goes on. I heard this on talk radio and if it's untrue then I would be glad to hear it.
Posted by: ajday on February 3, 2006 01:50 PMI agree it might be desirable for the U.S. to be less involved in the Middle East. The practical reality is that we are there, like it or not. I too would prefer that we were out of the way when the nukes start flying, but if that is not going to happen, then we must assist in whatever pre-emptive actions that might take place.
Unfortunately, the best alternative solution to the problem of Iran is not even being examined, and that is to support freedom-loving Iranian exiles working with those within Iran who would like to overthrow the Mullahs in Tehran. We really should be encouraging and helping the freedom-loving Iranians to help themselves.
Posted by: TH on February 3, 2006 02:14 PMNo, I don't see much chance for what we call democracy in the Middle East. You are quite right, they have no experience with it, but it is also totally inconsistent with Sharia Law. As long as Islam prevails, there will be no self-government in the Middle East. Mohammed was a tyrant, not a Prime Minister.
We have invested a great deal in Iraq, on the assumption that a democratically elected government would cause others in the region to want one too. The problem is the majority party is Islamic (Shi'ite). Also, there are two mutually exclusive provisions in its constitution:
From www.washingtonpost.com, October 12, 2005.
The following ... was translated from the Arabic by the United Nation's Office for Constitutional Support, and the translation was approved by the Iraqi government.
"Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established."
A and B are mutually exclusive, and B is mutually exclusive with the statement beginning with "First: ..."
They will eventually use democracy to eliminate democracy and install Islamic Law, just as is currently happening in Gaza.
That said, Iran is really different. If the Mullacracy can be overthrown, there is hope. Here is a partial list of the whys:
1. Iran used to be Persia.
2. The religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism, not Islam.
3. The demographics of Iran -- young, pro-western and freedom-loving -- favor a future government where Islam is not the predominant religion.
4. There used to be a substantial Jewish population in Persia that still has roots. Of course, under Mullacracy, they have been converted, killed or driven out of Iran.
5. But there remains a substantial non-Muslim Arab population, I think in the southwestern region. I would have to go check that, but the where is not relevant right now.
All in all, if we could effect a regime change in Iran, with the help of those inside Iran, there is a chance for a pro-Western democracy.
But, TIME IS SHORT. Iran's so called "peaceful" nuclear capability has already been turned over to the military. What other Western democracy do you know that uses the military to operate its domestic power generating plants?
An attack against Iran's nuke capabilities could create a backlash among the currently pro-Western population. The stakes are high, there is no room to bluff, and the pot seems to be civilization as we know it.
Posted by: TH on February 4, 2006 09:35 AMIn the end, cowardice is the hallmark of modern leftism...democrat party included.
Posted by: Cartman on February 5, 2006 10:47 PMalthough i am a muslem but i wanna tell to other muslem if u can not tolorate this kind of freedom and picture u r free to not to see them
peace Posted by: mehdi on February 7, 2006 03:41 AM
I ask those who are doing this it is not reasonalbe to touch and discuss the religions reservations of muslim in such a way.
" Allah is one and Muhammad is massanger of Allah.
Posted by: Muhammad Sibghatullah on February 7, 2006 09:54 AMSorry bud, but not only is there no evidence of your assertion. Quite to the contrary, there is bucket-loads of evidence that yours is a death cult.
The sooner you people show with your actions that you are civilized, the sooner cartoons like these will become irrelevant.
I won't hold my breath....
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 7, 2006 11:48 AMTo the contrary, boycotts, publishing their own nasty cartoons, protesting, and even burning flags is what we should be encouraging angry people to do - as a legitimate alternative to beheading, burning buildings, kidnapping, and the like.
After all, how many folks reading this are drinking French wines? Not I. Not since about November 2002. And I'm not alone - tourism to France from the U.S. has plummeted since they dissed us.
It took radical Danish imams four months of hard work to gain any traction on this protest, and the fact is that outside of Gaza, where Hamas and Fatah have their own agenda, and Syria, with its own need for distractions, this has not been nearly as bad as it could have been. Most of these protests (outside Gaza, West Bank and Syria) are pulling in a few hundred or a few thousand protesters at best. Compare that to the protests in Lebanon demanding Syria withdraw, drawing in the six figures.
Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani in Iraq has condemned the cartoons, which is to be expected, but has kept things very low key. A Jordanian newspaper published the cartoons (granted, its editor got fired and then arrested).
Moderate voices in the Middle East are (faintly) being heard, and should not be gratuitously offended. Re-publishing the cartoons as an "in your face" gesture is the wrong response. The point of re-publishing the cartoons should NOT be for any other reason than that it is necessary in order to fairly report the story. Where it is necessary, then it should be done - assuming there are still any competent journalists out there.
If you want to express solidarity with Denmark, book your next vacation there, buy Danish products, and send a nice email or Valentine's Day card to the Danish ambassador.
Posted by: Ann on February 9, 2006 08:36 PMHmmm, very revealing!
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 13, 2006 08:27 PMI don't agree with the Muhammad cartoon's publishing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom of speech, but should racism be considered as freedom of speech?
I think it's important to denounce unnecessary violence, killing of innocents, hatred speach and abuse of women. However, getting at the "bad guys" is one thing, deliberatly attacking the God of a whole religious group is another. By doing so, were not only offending the ones we believe deserve to be criticize, we tarnish also the religion, culture, identity of a great number of innocents.
Hasn't it occured to you that these cartoons may pass around the message that "all" muslims are "evil" and encourage hatred behavior towards innocent muslims. There's no "good muslims" cartoons to counterbalance the Muhammad ones.
Why not chose a Taliban, Oussama, whatever, instead of their God ?...
Posted by: SC on February 19, 2006 08:21 PM2. Muhammad ain't god - he is purported to be a prophet.
3. These cartoon do not imply that "all" muslims are "evil", nor do they encourage anything but thought. That some people would see them in that way suggests an ulterior motive.
4. The sooner (Islamic) people show with your actions that you are civilized, the sooner cartoons like these will become irrelevant. It is as true and relevant as the first time I said it.
5. Perhaps there's no "good muslims" cartoons for a reason.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 19, 2006 09:21 PM2. God or Prophet, the muslims still see him as a spiritual figure.
3. To you, it might encourage thought, but you cannot control what others will make of it. It's not your fault, I know, but still, we have a share of responsibility into this.
4. Again, I have nothing against denouncing what some muslims do, just choose your "symbol" more appropriatly so it targets the "bad guys" only. By the way, I'm Christian.
5. Perhaps you are a "religionist" ...
Posted by: SC on February 20, 2006 08:09 PMThere is no intersection between racism, or religionism (sic). They are two completely different terms. It would be akin to me asking, "Are you a Protestant or a pomegranate?" How you can possibly place them on a parallel track is beyond me.
Saying "God or Prophet" and capitalizing the words in the manner that you have displays a clear implication that you regard them as synonymous (even after being informed that they are not). You can if you want, but frankly I don't understand why you would want to compound one wrong assertion with another equally wrong one ;'} The central point remains that, according to you, criticism of Muhammad is out of bounds. Why? Why should he be exempt when all others are "fair game"?
The answer is, of course, he (as well as other elements of Islamic faith) isn't out of bounds for criticism and shouldn't be.
The fact of the matter is, the horrific deeds done by the elements of Islam that are so inclined do so in the name of their prophet Muhammad. Radical Islam wraps themselves inextricably in their Mohammedan faith. This makes the cartoon of Muhammad with the bomb on his head entirely appropriate. If there is any outrage from any Islamists, it should be outrage that their religion is being hijacked by these terrorists! The sad truth is that you do not hear any such outrage - because there is none. What we do hear is the manufactured outrage by malcontents and terrorist sympathisers pi$$ing & moaning (and destroying things and hurting people) that they don't get enough respect. As my pappy used to say - keep it up and I'll give you something to cry about!
One more time - as long as these cretins continue to display their barbaric behavior, thinking people will continue to regard them as barbarians. When the moderate Moslems decide that enough is enough and denounce their idiot counterparts, when they stand up and say, "No longer will we allow these monsters to define our faith", the salience of those cartoons will decline, and will die of their own accord.
Until then the cartoons serve a useful purpose and I applaud them…..
The main problem with your proposal is that there aren't thousands of people that follow the teachings of Christ stepping on the heads of babies. There are however lots of people following the teachings of Muhamed that strap themselves with bombs and blow things up. Posted by: buckeye85 on February 22, 2006 11:33 AM
Posted by: imtiaz alam pakistani on March 2, 2006 10:07 PM