• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There are times when telling just part of the truth is effectively a lie.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

If you’re gonna whine, it’s time to resign!

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

How stupid are these people?

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Shades of 2003

Shades of 2003

by John Cole|  April 24, 20108:58 am| 115 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Religion

FacebookTweetEmail

Dodd Harris is a good man and wrote a blog that stayed on my blogroll some 3-4 years after it died in the hopes it would restart, but this whole idea of everyone drawing Mohammad as an act of defiance just sounds so warblogger circa 2003-2004. Which isn’t surprising, because the idea started with the glibertarians at Reason.

But what is it going to accomplish? Can you imagine what would happen if some relatively unknown magazine in Saudi Arabia joke reached out to its readership for them to submit derisive jokes about the trinity?

Nothing. Well, nothing, that is, until some fanatic like Tony Perkins or that idiot at the Catholic League or someone at the NRO got win of it, and then they would whip up the already clearly fanatical people in the US that listen to those bozos. But would it really accomplish anything? Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

*** Update ***

Read this profile of the jackass who made the threats, and you can understand why breaking out the crayons right now is so compelling.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Lowden Plan Medical Chicken Calculator
Next Post: Public Safety, For One »

Reader Interactions

115Comments

  1. 1.

    August J. Pollak

    April 24, 2010 at 9:02 am

    It’s going to accomplish what every thing suggested by these types of people post-9/11 is going to accomplish- give them a chubby while someone else goes off and dies for them.

    Maybe if we wanna get really tough with the terrorists, we can change the background colors of our websites again.

  2. 2.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Because they’re Moooslims and they’re baaaaddd?*

    *Bad = not wanting to submit to the Great Murkan Overlords.

  3. 3.

    MattF

    April 24, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Because our God is Bigger Than Theirs.

  4. 4.

    Joe Bauers

    April 24, 2010 at 9:12 am

    It seems to be a central feature of right-leaning types – the desire to piss other people off as a goal in its own right. Driving a Hummer or using incandescent light bulbs just because you imagine it pisses off environmentalists. I just did a Google search on “how to annoy liberals” – 694,000 hits. Clearly this is something to which they give a lot of thought.

  5. 5.

    Mike E

    April 24, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Because projection is their game–anger, their currency.

  6. 6.

    MMonides

    April 24, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Because pissing someone off who isn’t a white, male, christian, “straight” conservative is the only policy choice and and the only tactic the Right has demonstrated for the past decade, if not more.

  7. 7.

    KCinDC

    April 24, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Pissing of liberals is the first plank in the Republican platform. It takes precedence over everything else. If Republicans heard that liberals were offended by men wearing dresses, Erick Erickson and company would be in ball gowns within the hour.

  8. 8.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    . . . Because people are, in general, assholes?

    See, e.g., all of human history.

  9. 9.

    superking

    April 24, 2010 at 9:20 am

    The thing I don’t get is that, if I remember correctly, the problem with the Dutch (Danish?) cartoons was that one showed Mohammed and his head was made of a bomb. It wasn’t the depiction of Mohammed at all, but the suggestion that he was a suicide bomber that pissed people off. I can get that. There is no reason, however, for Comedy Central to censor South Park on threat from a bunch of jackasses who live in Brooklyn. Comedy Central and South Park are not responsible for the actions of those idiots. If they actually tried to do something, they should have been arrested for conspiracy.

    So, Comedy Central is stupid. The people in Brooklyn are stupid. And people who think that this is merely about the image of Mohammed are stupid.

  10. 10.

    Cat Lady

    April 24, 2010 at 9:20 am

    It’s the Clash of Civilizations writ small. Patriotic keyboard kommando awesome sauce pixels v. Islamofascist jihadi false god loving pixels.

  11. 11.

    WereBear

    April 24, 2010 at 9:21 am

    It’s an offshoot of “You’re wrong, and I’ll show you!” Of course, it’s a thirteen year old emotional level, which also explains their grip on sexuality, foreign policy, and finances.

    Religion is a respected target for satire, just like everything else. But it’s petulant and childish to solicit it for… what?

    Petulant, childish, reasons?

  12. 12.

    frankdawg

    April 24, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Some asshole in VA would have his pick-em-up truck gate painted with “Alls I needs ta no about Islam I lert from their cartoons”

    BTW – for the record “their” god & is the same one as the Jewish & Christian one, they just use one of its aliases. Apparently it got around a lot & either need to hide from the law or bill collectors or angry virgins because it changed its name about 100 times in the OT.

  13. 13.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Also, too, one should note that drawing Mohammed as a form of pseudo-activism is not just a Christian “right wing” thing; I would imagine that there would be atheists and/or anti-theists who are self-described liberals doing it as well.

  14. 14.

    JC

    April 24, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Because you are an idiot.

    If people start satirizing Mohammed everywhere (Like South Park does on Jesus, Budda, Scientology, etc..) then they can’t threaten violence to censor us. It’s like trying to stop a sex tape once it’s released. But, if only South Park or someone like a salman rushdie does it, that person does have a big target on their back.

    Is that really hard to comprehend????

    That’s why you will always be a fucking idiot and you still think the first George Bush was an honorable man.

    Did you forget the Casper Weinberger pardon?????

  15. 15.

    grits

    April 24, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    I dunno. Best ask Dennis G. since he has devoted himself to doing just that this month.

  16. 16.

    BH

    April 24, 2010 at 9:31 am

    John can’t have it both ways. If you have absolutely no use for religion and view it as primitive mythology (as I believe he does), then all the arbitrary rules of these religions can be subject to ridicule and rejection. Restrictions on eating pork and shellfish, restrictions on drawings of the prophet, and diminishing the value of women are all silly superstitions, and sometimes the best way to get that point across is to confront them head on.

  17. 17.

    toujoursdan

    April 24, 2010 at 9:31 am

    There is a quirky TV series on BBC Two called “Muslim Driving School” (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8fLjLn5UA for a few episodes.)

    I wish everyone would watch it, because you quickly realize that most Muslims are just like you and I and are mostly concerned about getting through life. And even the scaaary ones who wear niqabs and burqas are modernizing and Westernizing fairly quickly.

  18. 18.

    John Quixote

    April 24, 2010 at 9:37 am

    @superking:

    And people who think that this is merely about the image of Mohammed are stupid.

    I’m still trying to figure out why a name was censored.
    Reminds me of this.

  19. 19.

    am

    April 24, 2010 at 9:37 am

    But being decent and respectful is so much less satisfying in the short term…

  20. 20.

    JGabriel

    April 24, 2010 at 9:39 am

    John Cole:

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Not we – Conservatives. Remember, this is a movement that conflates all nonmembers – liberals, progressives, sociaIists, anarchists, leftists, any religious extremists who are not “Judeo-Christian”, intellectual (but not financial) elites, poor people, and failed Republican presidents – into a single ideology, and then markets its primary political platform as pissing off “liberals”.

    In other words, they must make the effort to actively anger anyone not in their tribe because: that’s the platform they run on and advocate.

    .

  21. 21.

    superking

    April 24, 2010 at 9:44 am

    @John Quixote

    Yeah, I can’t figure that out either. It was weird, and I was hoping Matt and Trey were just taking the whole censorship thing as far as possible to point out the absurdity of it, but I don’t think that’s what happened.

  22. 22.

    toujoursdan

    April 24, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Well of course once you realize that doing this isn’t going to cause even one Muslim (or any other group of people) to question their religion(/beliefs/non beliefs), the question becomes “What it does for the people who cause the anger?”.

    It makes people feel superior. And our political and social discourse today is all about scoring points and being better than those clueless losers over there, instead of realizing that we’re all clueless losers in one way or another.

  23. 23.

    JGabriel

    April 24, 2010 at 9:47 am

    SGEW:

    … not just a Christian “right wing” thing; I would imagine that there would be atheists and/or anti-theists who are self-described liberals doing it as well.

    Yes, but they do not make it an active platform to piss off outside groups. The right wing does.

    .

  24. 24.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Hmmm. WordPress seems to be eating my comments. Did I err?

  25. 25.

    jwb

    April 24, 2010 at 9:52 am

    @WereBear: You’re wrong. They are not even at the 13-year old level. They are still in the toddler stage.

  26. 26.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 9:55 am

    [Ok, trying to post this again, stripping out the links. FYWP! What am I doing wrong?]

    @JC: You raise a very valid point on the deweaponizing power of satire, as well as the diffusion of the threat (the “I am Spartacus!” defense).

    However, this statement of yours . . .

    If people start satirizing Mohammed everywhere ([l]ike South Park does on Jesus, Budda [sic], Scientology, etc..) then they can’t threaten violence to censor us.

    . . . only works if the satire is: a) legitimately satire and not the kind of thing that Franklin Graham says, which also requires that it is b) entirely secular. Note well that in your own formulation the satire must also extend to Jesus, Buddha, Scientology, etc.

    You’re overlooking the unassailable fact that the majority of American and European “satire” directed at Islam (and not just Sunni iconoclasts) is grounded in Christian supremacist beliefs, European/American exceptionalism, raw tribalism, and straight up racism. It is not just a pure Free Speech issue (beyond the simple point that just because one has a constitutional right to be an asshole doesn’t mean that you have a duty to be one).

    [Hope this doesn’t suddenly pop up in the thread several times.]

  27. 27.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 9:56 am

    @JGabriel:

    . . . they do not make it an active platform to piss off outside groups.

    Some otherwise “left-wing” atheists do, in that the “outside group” includes all theistic religions.

  28. 28.

    RSR

    April 24, 2010 at 9:58 am

    >>Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    It’s sort of like ‘beer muscles’ but it’s ‘blog muscles’ in these cases.

    They’re drunk with the ‘power’ derived from their keyboards. (it’s sounds even better if you say ‘power’ with a Darth Vader inflection)

  29. 29.

    Lord Omlette

    April 24, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Ryan Estrada is trying to do the exact opposite, but I don’t know if he’s had any luck yet:

    http://www.ryanestrada.com/2010/04/22/blog/muhammad/

  30. 30.

    Citizen_X

    April 24, 2010 at 10:05 am

    what would happen if some relatively unknown magazine in Saudi Arabia joke reached out to its readership for them to submit derisive jokes about the trinity?

    I would respect the glibertarians more if they were the people to do this; to realize, “Yeah, let’s make a point of pissing off the religious nuts in our own backyard, the Christianists!” Or at least to launch that effort as the same time as the “Can You Draw Mohammed?” contest.

    Otherwise, yes, it just looks like more tribalism, and eleventh-century middle eastern tribalism at that.

    ETA: as pointed out below, South Park actually does just that, satirize and mock everybody. So I can respect it when they do it.

  31. 31.

    Violet

    April 24, 2010 at 10:05 am

    @superking:

    The thing I don’t get is that, if I remember correctly, the problem with the Dutch (Danish?) cartoons was that one showed Mohammed and his head was made of a bomb. It wasn’t the depiction of Mohammed at all, but the suggestion that he was a suicide bomber that pissed people off.

    It may have started with that, but it morphed into “no depictions of Mohammad (peace be upon him) at all.” I don’t know what the actual teachings of Islam are regarding showing his image, but it seems kind of silly for people who aren’t members of a religion to have to abide by the rules of a religion they don’t follow. And when the rules of one religion bump up against the secular laws of the state, that’s where the problems start.

    I’m not for actively trying to piss people off, but I’ve certainly got Christian friends who aren’t amused by how South Park depicts Christians. Ditto for my Mormon co-workers. But they roll their eyes and deal with it. Treating Muslims any differently is hypocritical on Comedy Central’s part and wrong, imho.

    This “Draw Mohammad Day” would be a lot more effective if it was “Draw religious figures Day” and they shows all sorts of religious figures, not just one.

  32. 32.

    James Joyner

    April 24, 2010 at 10:06 am

    I’m not sure that these sort of protests change anything but I don’t have any problem with them, either. They may be a somewhat empty gesture but they’re an attempt to show solidarity against the a-holes who are killing people and threatening to kill people over f-ing cartoons.

    I actually agree with GWB’s much derided claim that Islam is, like most of the major theologies, a “religion of peace.” But giving an emphatic FU to the fanatics is fine with me.

  33. 33.

    John Quixote

    April 24, 2010 at 10:07 am

    @superking: Viacom bleeped out Mohammed’s name and cut Kyle’s “I learned something today” speech, which didn’t contain any images of Mohammed or his name.

    It’s good to know a small group of jerk-offs in Queens can force our Titans Of Industry to crap themselves. And I doubt those morons in Queens could even blow up a mailbox.

    I could give a crap about censoring his image. Viacom did it before. I knew they would do it again. That wasn’t surprising.

    Why was a name censored?

  34. 34.

    RSA

    April 24, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Wasn’t the final, censored chapter of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People titled “Poke them in the eye with a sharp stick”?

  35. 35.

    jayackroyd

    April 24, 2010 at 10:17 am

    What is irksome is that they are intentionally missing the point, and turning this from making fun of all teh crazee supernatural beliefs (“Mormon. That was the correct answer. Mormon.> to just the one they don’t want to satirize, but to attack as evil.

    If they wanted to support Trey and Matt, they would have a cartoon contest making fun of all teh crazee.

  36. 36.

    JG

    April 24, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Well, it seems important to note that tweaking a relatively small number of infantile Muslims who threaten death to those who depict Muhammad isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It may not be the most mature and sophisticated response (although far more mature than threatening the South Park guys with death) but the opposite response, where their ridiculous threats are actually taken seriously is far worse.

    Revolution Muslim both warned the South Park creators of violent retaliation and posted the addresses of their production offices and the Comedy Central offices online. Tweaking people like this, who so clearly deserve to not be taken seriously, isn’t something I am going to get worked up about. Now if some people decide this is an opportunity to shit on the entire religion as a whole that’s a different story.

  37. 37.

    mr. whipple

    April 24, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Because every so often one gets the urge to walk into the neighbor’s house and crap on their dining room table. Just because one can.

  38. 38.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 10:20 am

    @James Joyner:

    I actually agree with GWB’s much derided claim that Islam is, like most of the major theologies, a “religion of peace.”

    People on the left really ought to give George W. Bush more credit for that (but we’ve had that discussion here before, and John Cole is definitely not someone who derides GWB for it).

    More to the point:

    . . . they’re an attempt to show solidarity against the a-holes who are killing people and threatening to kill people over f-ing cartoons.

    Sure. But what about the secondary consideration of these “protests” serving as a vehicle for Christian supremacists, racists, and demagogues? What is the line between South Park and Franklin Graham?

  39. 39.

    Bring Em Young

    April 24, 2010 at 10:25 am

    My brother lives in Salt Lake City. That whole be fruitful and multiply business? Doesn’t it mean spilling one’s seed is doing the Lord’s work? Anybody got Glenn Beck’s e-mail address. Maybe if we hacked the “Gold Now” customer list it would be more effective.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/why_mormons_arent_christians/

  40. 40.

    Michael

    April 24, 2010 at 10:25 am

    The early Soviets were right about their drive to crush all religion. Its a shame that their views and methods were rejected.

  41. 41.

    JGabriel

    April 24, 2010 at 10:36 am

    @SGEW:

    What is the line between South Park and Franklin Graham?

    With respect to its ridicule, South Park has an all-comers policy.

    Franklin Graham does not; he is singularly discriminating.

    .

  42. 42.

    SRW1

    April 24, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Because we’re No 1, baby. Numero Uno, you understand? And that means WE CAN, damn it!

  43. 43.

    JR in WV

    April 24, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Hi:

    I saw a pretty good piece about the haters’ teabag network linked to at HuffPo this morning:

    http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

    Check it out, and pass it on!

    JR
    Check it out

  44. 44.

    Redshirt

    April 24, 2010 at 10:44 am

    As said many times, South Park is an equal opportunity offender and clearly are not out to specifically mock any particular religion, well, except maybe Scientology, but, I mean – c’mon!

    Redneck racists mocking Muslims is an entirely different matter.

    But for me, I would show and draw an image of Muhammed with no problem, and I respect anyone else who does so out of a spirit of true free speech – i.e. I am not religious and will not necessarily be held to their conventions. That said, I would certainly respect other religious conventions out of a spirit of genuine respect – for instance, I would certainly take off my shows when entering a mosque and would strive to follow every other protocol asked of me.

    I had a real dilemma with this issue at Ulluru in Australia; I did not hike up the rock, though I would have loved to. However, there were signs on parts of the rock asking for no photos to be taken out of respect for tribal wishes. I didn’t always respect this request.

    Oddly enough, my camera went immediately on the fritz, until magically fixing a day later. No joking. I take this at face value as a hilarious co-incidence.

  45. 45.

    Linda Featheringill

    April 24, 2010 at 10:46 am

    @SGEW:
    . . . Because people are, in general, assholes?

    See, e.g., all of human history.

    Hee-hee. Very good. You get my vote for winner of this thread.

  46. 46.

    MikeJ

    April 24, 2010 at 10:55 am

    It’s my hope that if we just ignore them they’ll go away. That’s Reason (sic) magazine, South Park, and Islam.

  47. 47.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    So I supposed pointing out how Israel’s settlement-building is a racist apartheid policy shouldn’t be done because it will piss off some Jews, right?

    And don’t mention the Catholic preisthood’s epidemic of child-rape, as Bill Donohue and other conservative Catholics will get angry, and you don’t want to piss them off.

    The whole point is to show the double-standard applied to Islam because of the threats of violence from Islamists. You’ll notice that no Mormons rioted after the South Park episode that skewered Joseph Smith (“dumb dumb dumb dumd dumb!”) and that’s because Mormonism, while it’s seems utterly absurd to this atheist, is not a violent creed bent on conquest. Islam is.

  48. 48.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 11:01 am

    …and before the PC brigade here starts telling me about bloodthirsty Mormons, yes, I’m well aware of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Let me know the last time an organized group of Mormons engaged in acts of violence….

    *crickets*

    How about Muslims? That’s easy: yesterday:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iraq

  49. 49.

    Bob In Pacifica

    April 24, 2010 at 11:01 am

    And speaking of the Trinity, these three godheads walk into a bar owned by Mohammed. Mary Magdalene is sitting at the end of the bar nursing a gin and tonic while her pit bull is sitting there growling at anyone who tries to approach her…

  50. 50.

    frankdawg

    April 24, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Every time I read someone trying to dredge up something for which the left does not give Boy George enough credit for I am reminded of the moving eulogy that Nicholson gave:
    “It’s true boss Grissom was a murder and a fiend but on the other hand he had a beautiful singing voice.”

    W stoked the flames of hate as hard as he could over and over; why should one sane comment erase all that?

  51. 51.

    JGabriel

    April 24, 2010 at 11:08 am

    @New Yorker:

    Let me know the last time an organized group of Mormons engaged in acts of violence…

    The Osmonds. They murdered music.

    It’s probably not the most recent instance, just the first that came to mind.

    .

  52. 52.

    salacious crumb

    April 24, 2010 at 11:12 am

    The way I see it, we all have the right to say the N word to our hearts content, but that doesnt mean we should say it. I see the Mohammed controversy that way. For Muslims, he is revered figure and while in the West, we see no harm on making fun of religious figures and deities (we have gotten well past the point of not really adhering to any religion), Muslims do not share that enthusiasm. There is struggle going on within Islam and perhaps someday they may come to the understanding that satirical depiction of their Prophet is ok, but until that time comes, we should let sleeping dogs lie.

  53. 53.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 11:14 am

    @New Yorker:

    Yes, all those Muslims are pretty horrible violent people. Maybe we good non-Muslims should invade a Muslim country and teach them a non-violent lesson.

  54. 54.

    Sirkowski

    April 24, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I’ve already drawn a comic about pigs called Moses & Mohammed. Been there, done that, original charactersdonotsteal

  55. 55.

    CT

    April 24, 2010 at 11:23 am

    The South Park mormon episode also ended, in typical fashion, by pointing out that the real villains were the people who make fun of mormons. Just like the episodes about racism, homophobia, etc. Sure they’re bad, but you’re worse for talking about it!

    The show isn’t an equal opportunity offender, I’m sorry. They consistently use kid gloves when it comes to conservatives. Matt and Trey are a couple of celebrities who use their fame to push their mostly republican ideals while simultaneously mocking other celebrities who use their fame to push liberal ideals. They’re hypocrites to the highest degree and they’re just like Beck or Rush in that if they don’t like something, it must the fault of liberals, facts be damned. I’ll never forget the drug episode were they blamed the “you’re with the terrorists if smoke weed” ads on “ultra-liberals.” The ads were from the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy. Who was the President at the time? George W. Bush. Who proudly announced that ad campaign? John Ashcroft.

    I have no problem with a right-leaning comedy show, but I don’t understand why liberals are constantly pretending that they’re on our side, or at least calling it down the middle. They’re not.

  56. 56.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 11:24 am

    @salacious crumb:

    The analogy is off a bit. Did John Mayer end up stabbed to death like Theo Van Gogh or in hiding like Salman Rushdie after his idiotic comments that included the “n”-word? How about Michael Richards?

    That’s the difference.

    @Svensker:

    Way to completely miss the point, genius.

  57. 57.

    bemused

    April 24, 2010 at 11:27 am

    @JR in WV:
    That was a great piece. I can see teaparty supporters’/media heads exploding if they envisioned these events with all non-white equivalent players.

  58. 58.

    aimai

    April 24, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Can we not pretend that people aren’t killed in this country for holding views that don’t accord with the two religious beliefs of the far right *all the fucking time?* That would be the “second amendment” and “jesus hates abortions.” This violence against “non believers” or violators of some iconic rule, or rule about icons, is endemic in this country. The bombings of abortion clinics–which in my state killed or maimed workers there?–the killing of Dr. Tiller and other women’s doctors? The shooting up of the Holocaust museum? If you don’t think Manzi–one of their own–hasn’t received death threats over his god damned book review of Mark Levin you have been missing what is going on in this country.

    Right now Oklahoma is trying to create a state militia in order to fight back against the totally illusory and nutty belief that Obama is going to take their guns. To my mind that’s ten million times more dangerous to American citizens and American freedom than what some imam says somewhere about how offended he is by depictions of his major religious figure.

    aimai

  59. 59.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    April 24, 2010 at 11:35 am

    OT

    Deep thoughts of the Wasilla Wingnut on her sojourn to Eugene, OR.

    She said she looked up Lane County on the Internet and found an article that described the residents as a bunch of Nike-wearing, granola-eating hippies.

    “I’m reading that, and I’m saying, ‘Ooh, I feel so culturally profiled.’ How intolerant,” Palin said.

    “I love my Nikes. … I eat granola. I eat a lot of organic food. I have to shoot and catch a lot of my organic food before I eat it.”

    I say we admit our mistake and give back Alaska to the Russkies.

  60. 60.

    Allan

    April 24, 2010 at 11:41 am

    @JR in WV: If you liked that but are not familiar with Tim Wise, you’ll want to check out his other writing. Start with “White Like Me.” He also has a website where he blogs.

  61. 61.

    Ben JB

    April 24, 2010 at 11:43 am

    @New Yorker: There’s a slight problem with your analogies: there’s no Jewish command in either the Torah or the Talmud that says Jews should build settlements (or even actually be in Israel–which is why some Orthodox groups don’t support Israel’s right to exist); likewise, I’m not aware of any Mormon commands to refrain from depictions of Joseph Smith, et al.

    But there is such an idea in Islam–it’s not Koranic, but in the commentary that some groups follow (mostly Sunni, I think), there’s a strong injunction against depictions of Mohammed.

    So, telling the Israelis not to build settlements is a political matter; telling some Muslims that you’re going to keep drawing Mohammed is a religious issue.

    A better analogy would probably be when PZ Myers desecrated the host. That’s an intentional insult to someone’s religion. So did you have a problem with that?

  62. 62.

    John Cole

    April 24, 2010 at 11:45 am

    John can’t have it both ways. If you have absolutely no use for religion and view it as primitive mythology (as I believe he does), then all the arbitrary rules of these religions can be subject to ridicule and rejection.

    Just because I have no use for religion doesn’t mean I need to spend my time taunting those who do lest I be accused of “having it both ways.” I have no use for SUV’s and the like, but I don’t go egg my neighbor’s behometh every morning, either.

  63. 63.

    DBrown

    April 24, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Don’t know if this was covered but Christians fought bitterly (with many killings and numerous small wars) over making images of God (icons) and it tore the (then) Christian world apart (note the two branches to this day.) While the issue for Muslims is identical (for God) but not the profit – depends on the sect.

    So we in the West aren’t all that different and were very violent on this issue for centuries. The Jewish faith also does not permit icons, by the way.

  64. 64.

    Ash Can

    April 24, 2010 at 11:50 am

    ::yawn:: Bigoted troll is bigoted. And a troll. SSDD.

    Seriously, though, don’t kid yourselves that fatwas and bloodshed wouldn’t ensue here if (as is the case in some ME countries) religious extremists were in charge of the entire government here. You think Tony Perkins or Bill Donohue wouldn’t issue official death threats/sentences if they had the legal authority? All you have to do is remember how people spazzed out over the art installation depicting a crucifix in a jar of urine to understand how close radical Christianity is to radical Islam. All it takes is some systematic shit-stirring to get the hoi-polloi to take up arms.

  65. 65.

    DBrown

    April 24, 2010 at 11:57 am

    @DBrown: Oops, too quick there but maybe they are more like Christians when it does concern profits but I really meant, prophet … .

  66. 66.

    chuck

    April 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Ask the guys who put out a fatwah on George Tiller.

  67. 67.

    burnspbesq

    April 24, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Not exactly on topic, although it’s likely to piss some people off.

    http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20100423/116bc1c7-cdde-4c3f-b367-2adea522067e

  68. 68.

    burnspbesq

    April 24, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    @Michael:

    The early Soviets were right about their drive to crush all religion. Its a shame that their views and methods were rejected.

    Your comment is rejected for missing the deadline. All anti-religious sentiments were due last Tuesday. You snooze, you lose.

  69. 69.

    Lupin

    April 24, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    This archive site might be of interest:

    http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

    The published e-mails are worth a read.

  70. 70.

    DBrown

    April 24, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Speaking of insane, criminal nutjobs, our current crop of loons in Oklahoma just got their antiabortion bill vetoed by the (rather sane (how did that happen?)) Gov. Henry.

    Here was one part of the bill (you need to read about it to believe how crazy these people are):

    A woman is raped and before she can get an abortion, she must have someone do this:

    “Under the ultrasound bill, doctors would have been required to use a vaginal probe in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound …” so the woman would be forced to listen as the doctor gave a detailed discrption of the fetus while having someone insert a probe up her vaginal and all after being raped!

    Talk about monsters that give a bad name to monsters – only in okeeland.

  71. 71.

    Legalize

    April 24, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Dude. These are assholes threatening physical harm because a stupid cartoon on Comedy Central made them all butt-hurt over an insult to their stupid backward fucking superstition.

    Fuck. Them.

    We spend a ton of time mocking the backward right-wing Xstian temper tantrum. Deservedly. Things don’t change just because the temper tantrum is coming from a twat from Brooklyn who loves him some Mohamed.

  72. 72.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    Because all religion is bunk.

    Because any view by any religion that their faith must be respected by either believers or non-believers is bunk.

    Because the principles of the First Amendment are ultimately a human right that transcends the demands that any society must obey, listen to, respect or pretend to give credence to the beliefs of any particular religion.

    The most basic human right is the right to be pissed off about meaningless shit. You then have the responsibility to deal with it.

    There is, of course, the practical matter. So I guess Comedy Central should have censored the South Park episode, but preceded the show with a disclaimer: “We are deleting any scenes which show the Prophet in deference to the sensibilities of a small number of primitive fools who might threaten violence because we don’t acknowledge their ridiculous mythology.”

    @ SGEW:

    You’re overlooking the unassailable fact that the majority of American and European “satire” directed at Islam (and not just Sunni iconoclasts) is grounded in Christian supremacist beliefs, European/American exceptionalism, raw tribalism, and straight up racism.

    And so? This reminds me a bit of the Catholics who try to deflect criticism of child raping priests by invoking the sordid history of anti-Catholic bigotry.

  73. 73.

    bemused

    April 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    @DBrown:
    That just reeks of punishment for the victim. What’s next…forcing the victim to give birth & then stone her to death?

  74. 74.

    toujoursdan

    April 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Via John’s update

    Chesser’s interests — hardcore industrial music, Goth and Satanic materials — appear to have translated “pretty well to violent extremism,” the classmate said. Chesser lives with his mother, brother, wife and son in Centreville. His parents are divorced, but they maintain an amicable relationship. His involvement in Revolution Muslim is largely unknown in his hometown, neighbors told FoxNews.com…”I am so shocked. I really think he had to have been brainwashed into something like that. Zac was a very nice boy. I would never have even associated him with something like this, to do anything harmful.”

    So we’re not talking about “Muslims” here, but an American convert who already had violent tendencies that he merely translated over to his new belief system.

    This certainly explains why the group of New York Muslims interviewed by the BBC on the World Service yesterday said that the anger over this was ridiculous.

  75. 75.

    Paris

    April 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    If you want to be an asshole, why not just burn an American flag?

  76. 76.

    mapaghimagisk

    April 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I’ve been all over the map on this. On one hand, I was all set to whip of a cartoon that had the whole ‘Will the Real Mohammad please stand up’ or something like that. That’ll show ’em!

    But then there I am, pissing off a lot of people who didn’t threaten me with violence, and probably wouldn’t hold it against me too much if I did. This was kinda pointed out by Aasif Mandvi on the Daily Show — I especially liked how the group in New York’s response was “So 12th century” I think that might be a bigger dig that I got. And his suit was hilarious.

    But I think Stewart kind of missed, and reading this thread only reminded me of other examples. See, Stewart says he didn’t even want to say GFY because he considers Fox and such to be competitors…nemisi or something.

    Wasn’t Michelle Malkin and friends all about putting up names and addresses and whining about “Its a shame no one will eliminate this problem?” and Sarah Palin is all about ‘reloading’? Was the finer distinction for Stewart that the Revolution Muslim was threatening a direct hand rather than just spoonfeeding means and motive?

    And there is George Tiller. Will we ever reach a point where scraping a glob of cells does the same damage as drawing a funny cartoon of Mohammad?

  77. 77.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    @toujoursdan:

    So we’re not talking about “Muslims” here, but an American convert who already had violent tendencies that he merely translated over to his new belief system.

    So a convert isn’t really an authentic [insert name of your preferred religion here]? Interesting.

    And “hardcore industrial music, Goth and Satanic materials” translates into “violent tendencies.” You have got to be kidding me.

    I’m waiting for some wingnut to suggest that the guy got unhinged because his parents were divorced, obviously demonstrating signs of godlessness right there.

  78. 78.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    @Ben JB:

    I see your point, and I should mention that I do not go out of my way to try to offend the religious sensibilities of people. For example, I despise the Catholic Church and all it has done from the child-rape epidemic to the support of fascism to enabling the AIDS epidemic in Africa, but I took my hat off and spoke in whispers when I visited St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna.

    But I think John has things exactly backwards here. Is the depiction of Muhammad offensive to Sunni (not Shi’ite) Muslims? Yes. But what should be far more offensive to anyone who believes in the values of secularism and pluralism is the idea that offense should be countered with violence.

    I’m not going to draw Muhammad, but anyone should be allowed to do so without fear of reprisals. Pointing out examples of Christian violence (like some have done in this thread) is not an argument against the points I and others have made.

  79. 79.

    glennn

    April 24, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    With all due respect, I think Mr. Cole you miss the point. How is it not condescending to Sunni Muslims (Shi’a don’t have a problem with depictions of Muhammed) to say that “oh you are so sensitive to possible slights that alone of all religions in the U.S. your religious leader cannot be depicted or attacked? We recognize that Catholics and Buddhists and Mormons and Zoroastrians and Bahai are all mature enough to be able to handle having their religious figures criticized or depicted in satirical fashion because they recognize they live in a country with a tradition and love of free discourse and political/religious argument but you alone are delicate flowers who can’t handle it?”

    The cartoonist who came up with Let’s all Draw Muhammed Day was not poking Muslims with a sharp stick. She was poking violent people who threaten violence to defend their fetishized version of Muhammed with a sharp stick. And those people should be poked with a sharp stick until they realize threatening violence to shut down satire gets them nowhere.

    And, for Godwin fans, was it juvenile for the King of Denmark to wear a yellow star the day after the Germans ordered all the Jews in Denmark to wear yellow stars?

  80. 80.

    Teemu

    April 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Can you imagine what would happen if some relatively unknown magazine in Saudi Arabia joke reached out to its readership for them to submit derisive jokes about the trinity?

    …or submit something Westboro Baptist-ish. Virginians got angry about that Westboros vs. miners incident, so I guess glibertarians should support!!! free speech!!! by holding a competition of coming up with the cruelest and most offending joke re: dead miners.

    But would it really accomplish anything? Why do we have to actively try to piss people off?

    “Come on buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.”

  81. 81.

    Dodd

    April 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    I appreciate the compliment, John. And, yes, the nutbag who sparked all this is a factor. But it’s not my way to play hide-the-ball. My reasons are as stated: It’s past time we stopped bending over to placate barbarism and started making fun of it. Derision can be a powerful force.

    As you may recall, I’m not religious (Christian or otherwise). My position would be the same if Fred Phelps and his 2,844 cousins were routinely allowed to get away with murder (literally or figuratively) rather than risk their wrath. In either type of case, the worst thing we can do is what we seem to be most likely to do: Take them seriously on their own terms.

  82. 82.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    April 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Well, Sullivan posted a link to actual Islamic images of Muhammed, which goes to show you that modern Sunni fundamentalism != the entire spatial and temporal history of Islam. Some of the illustrations he linked to were actually quite beautiful.

    I think that many people (even Muslims!) are being ignorant of the spatial and temporal diversity of Islam, and allowing modern Sunni fundies to define what normative Islam is isn’t a good thing.

    *And many of the illuminated Muhammed manuscripts were from the very Sunni Ottoman Empire.

  83. 83.

    BH

    April 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @John Cole:

    Just because I have no use for religion doesn’t mean I need to spend my time taunting those who do lest I be accused of “having it both ways.” I have no use for SUV’s and the like, but I don’t go egg my neighbor’s behometh every morning, either.

    No one is throwing eggs here, and no one is being attacked. To correct your analogy, the SUV owners would have mandated that you can’t write the word “egg” because their ancient text tells them to kill you if you do. It’s an arbitrary, silly rule, based on nothing but mythology. By writing a blog post containing the word “egg,” you would not be attacking them, you would just be implicitly stating that they cannot dictate how you can and cannot express yourself.

    I’ll grant that the tactics in question are silly, but it’s just attacking silliness with more silliness.

  84. 84.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Ahem.

    @Brachiator:

    This reminds me a bit of the Catholics who try to deflect criticism of child raping priests by invoking the sordid history of anti-Catholic bigotry.

    1) Iconoclastic intolerance is a religious tenet for a rather small minority of Sunnis. Sexually abusing minors is not a religious tenet of the Catholic church.

    2) Catholics are no longer a vulnerable minority, and are now part of the dominant power hierarchy. Count the Supreme Court Justices. Contrast this with Muslims (never mind the disconnect between Muslims in total and the specific sect at issue here).

    3) Context is complicated. Let’s use the analogy of, say, racist jokes (“Chris Rock says XYZ, how come I can’t?” etc.). Who is the speaker and who is spoken to? Let’s say that an ethnically ambiguous, card carrying atheist makes an anti-religious joke within the context of an argument for rationalism ( e.g., Jesus and Mo). Now say that Franklin Graham, or a Republican congressional candidate, or Sarah Palin makes the same joke while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast. Is there a difference to you? Should there be?

  85. 85.

    Nemo_N

    April 24, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    The problem is; I’m sure there are Muslims who don’t like portrayals of Muhammad yet are not out there threatening people into complying with this belief. Rallying for a “Draw Muhammad” might very well alienate people like these.

    I think the idea of finding images offensive is silly, but not something to be actively being an asshole about since personal beliefs are, well, personal. And I always try reasoning with people who don’t make threats. This whole “LET’S DRAW MUHAMMAD” does get in the way.

  86. 86.

    toujoursdan

    April 24, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    @Brachiator:

    I’m saying there are nut cases in every identifiable group of people. They don’t speak for everyone in the group. That has been my consistent statement every time these posts come up.

    Are all Americans responsible for GW Bush’s idiocy? Should I assume that all Americans are violent, ignorant, knuckledragging, navel gazing, exceptionalists because the loud mouths are? When I meet Americans should that be my first impression of you all? (A few of my Canadian friends think so, and I am the one who is put in the rôle of disagreeing.)

    If you read the entire article it seems to me that this is just one more person using a religion/ideology as a cover for his personal issues. That wouldn’t go away, even if you eliminate all religion, which isn’t going to happen anyway. Millions of years of evolution made us tribal beings, and we will just substitute something else – nationality, ethnicity, language, colour, whatever.

    If you heard the BBC story yesterday you’d know that not all Muslims believe that drawing Muhammad is forbidden. They are split on this issue, like almost everything else.

  87. 87.

    mapaghimagisk

    April 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    @Nemo_N:

    Your mentioning of “Lets draw Mohammad” made me think of something.

    Dude, but you have to admit that a dot to dot puzzle would rock. See, cuz its not us drawing him, its getting other people to draw him!

    Oh nevermind. I haven’t had enough coffee yet.

  88. 88.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    April 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    It should be pointed out (maybe a bona fide historian could correct me) that many of those medieval Persian illuminated manuscripts of Muhammed date before the Iranian state became Shi’ite.

  89. 89.

    glennn

    April 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Muslims in the U.S. are generally not in a position of power. Realistically, satirists probably have more to fear, at least economically, from attacking Christians and Jews, then from attacking Muslims. But this fails to understand the unique problem posed by the threat of assassination. Muslims in Denmark were not politically powerful, but the Danish cartoonists had to go into hiding. And Salman Rushdie had how many years of police protection?

    At recent international conferences there has been a movement to place limits on speech that offends religious sentiments. Comedy Central’s willingness to simply cave to threats of violence and censor satire is excellent precedence for future networks to cave in to threats from other religious groups.

    So how to push back? By saying it is wrong to condemn people to death for depicting a religious figure but because they clearly feel so strongly about this you won’t depict a religious figure? Doesn’t this validate the world view that being offended is a basis for stopping speech?

    Depictions of Muhammed don’t have to be vituperative or hostile. But if simply depicting a religious figure itself becomes out of bounds then what happens to the scope of speech in this country?

    I

  90. 90.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    @SGEW:

    Iconoclastic intolerance is a religious tenet for a rather small minority of Sunnis. Sexually abusing minors is not a religious tenet of the Catholic church.

    Protecting child raping priests for the “larger good” was, and still may be, a practical policy of the Catholic Church. Bishops and cardinals have invoked a Church principle that lying, obfuscation and deliberately misleading authorities is permissible if it will help defend the Church, a goal more important than the harm done to victims of pedophile priests.

    And what might be a religious tenet of the Church is irrelevant to my point that Church officials have accused people who have criticized the Church about child raping priests of being religious bigots who have singled out priests instead of going after, say, the Boy Scouts.

    Catholics are no longer a vulnerable minority, and are now part of the dominant power hierarchy. Count the Supreme Court Justices. Contrast this with Muslims (never mind the disconnect between Muslims in total and the specific sect at issue here).

    Which is relevant, how? A religion can’t be mocked unless it is the religion of the majority?

    You originally suggested that there was a problem here because … ” the majority of American and European “satire” directed at Islam .. is grounded in Christian supremacist beliefs.” Now you’re jumping from historical background to mere numbers or position in the “power hierarchy,” and perhaps some hazy notion that Muslims should be folded some kind of “protected class” that would then make their religious beliefs immune from mockery.

    Context is complicated. Let’s use the analogy of, say, racist jokes (“Chris Rock says XYZ, how come I can’t?” etc.).

    Yeah, context is complicated but so what? I live in California and sometimes interact with movie folk. I had an argument with someone who defended Spike Lee’s criticisms of Quentin Tarantino for writing racist dialog. I asked why it was OK for a white producer to hire a black writer to script the same kind of stuff that Tarantino comes up with.

    And the deference about the N-word is ultimately grounded in racist condescension. The assumption is some black people might be unable to control themselves if they here a non-black person utter the word.

    Now say that Franklin Graham, or a Republican congressional candidate, or Sarah Palin makes the same joke while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast. Is there a difference to you? Should there be?

    Yes, there is a difference to me. Political speech is the most sacred, the most deserving of First Amendment protection, especially when uttered by people I totally despise.

    The counter to political speech is more speech, not a demand to STFU.

    This is why I am a furious agnostic (I don’t say that there is no God, I say that I don’t care) and near absolutist with respect to the First Amendment. This probably makes me a bad liberal. Thank God.

  91. 91.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    @Brachiator:

    Amen.

  92. 92.

    burnspbesq

    April 24, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    @Brachiator:

    Protecting child raping priests for the “larger good” was, and still may be, a practical policy of the Catholic Church Vatican hierarchy.

    Fixed. Don’t conflate the two. By their actions in this matter, the bishops have forfeited their moral authority, and no longer speak for the faithful. Any thoughtful Catholic will tell you this.

  93. 93.

    burnspbesq

    April 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    @Brachiator:

    near absolutist with respect to the First Amendment.

    Really? You seem a bit squishy on the Exercise Clause.

  94. 94.

    Ed Marshall

    April 24, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    It’s really the intent that pisses people off.

    I remember seeing footage of an Arab League summit in Cairo where they were discussing the last chetto-stained adventure in drawing Mohammad. They were passing around the pictures and someone had photocopied a shitload of them and I’m sure every last person handling and viewing the thing was a Muslim. They weren’t afraid of sinning (given the way they handled the material and even reproduced it), they were pissed at the *intent* of the idiocy.

    It’s roughly equivalent to walking into an observant Jews room on shabas and turning off all the lights and electronics so they have to sit in the dark for a joke. It’s not funny.

  95. 95.

    licensed to kill time

    April 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Here’s a real simplified Q & A on the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad from the BBC. Note there is a difference between what’s in the Koran and Islamic tradition.

    I was going to write a whole thing about the intention behind a cartoon or work of art being the relevant factor, but I see Ed Marshall beat me to it!

  96. 96.

    JUST A NORMAL GUY (THE ORIGINAL)

    April 24, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    WELL THEIR’S SOME FACTS THAT ARE UNDESPUTED:
    1. THE MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE, BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA
    2. MUSLIM’S AROUND THE WORLD HAVE IT SO EASY. WELL SOMETIMES I WISH I WAS EVEN A MUSLIM [FOREGIVE ME LORD]

  97. 97.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Oh, hey. Ok, this may take a bit [tl;dr on a lazy Saturday afternoon! fun]

    @Brachiator:

    Protecting child raping priests for the “larger good” was, and still may be, a practical policy of the Catholic Church.

    Again, practical policy is not a religious tenet. I was heading towards a discussion of criticisms of sincerely held religious beliefs, not of the pragmatic policies of an religious organization: a better analogy for your argument might be criticism of infant genital mutilation, perhaps (e.g., if defenders of it invoked historical bigotry practiced against their religious practices). This is a much trickier question (multiculturalism vs. rights, etc.). However, the Catholic church scandal is, for me, a red herring in religious free speech issues (and the red herrings that they dangle themselves (i.e., invoking historical anti-Catholic bigotry) should be mostly ignored in this discussion).

    . . . [Y]ou’re jumping from historical background to mere numbers or position in the “power hierarchy,” and perhaps some hazy notion that Muslims should be folded some kind of “protected class” that would then make their religious beliefs immune from mockery.

    Firstly, I wasn’t making a historical argument: I was speaking of the current context. Secondly, I believe that there is far more to power dynamics than “mere numbers” (e.g., women are the majority population) or “position” (e.g., black president). Thirdly, I was not making any argument towards giving any legal protection (“protected class”) or special immunization from mockery. That would be against my principles, not to mention unconstitutional. I was speaking more of treading carefully when it is such a delicate subject. Yes, delicate! To wit:

    . . . context is complicated but so what?

    Yikes. So what? I don’t want to read too much into that. Let’s just say that, from my point of view, there aren’t any simple, hard answers to any of this (“ultimately grounded,” etc.), especially when it comes to race and religion.

    Here’s the broader context: Muslims (citizens and otherwise) have specifically (and recently!) suffered from religiously targeted suspicion and detention by our government; we’re involved in two (or three) military occupations of primarily Muslim nations; there is a widely held belief that there is an outright religious war between Christianity and Islam; a significant proportion of the U.S. population (a plurality, perhaps – maybe even a majority) are straight up Christian supremacists (I don’t think that this is hyperbole); and racism racism racism. Add into this the ever-changing (and incredibly diverse) global Islamic reformation (or schism, or modernization, or whatever the hell it is), the pro-rationalism goal itself, and the personal responsibility of entertainers in the post modern world. That’s a lot of context! And I think that it’s important!

    Let’s play out the Tarantino example. What if Tarantino’s racially charged material was later used as propoganda by white supremacists, and those supremacists were actually the majority of the population? And then someone made new material, not substantively different from the original Tarantino work, that was made explicitly by the Klan? Isn’t that important context? Shouldn’t you care?

    Finally, I agree that there should be no “demand to STFU.” I’m a card carrying ACLU member too (literally). I never said “can’t.” I’m only talking about “should.” As in “you have the right to be an asshole, but you probably shouldn’t be.”

    And by the way:

    Political speech is the most sacred, the most deserving of First Amendment protection . . .

    This is funny, in this context.

  98. 98.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    @Dodd:

    My reasons are as stated: It’s past time we stopped bending over to placate barbarism and started making fun of it. Derision can be a powerful force.

    Yes, I understand what you’re saying and don’t disagree with it. But — and this is a big but — we are bombing the shit out of Muslim countries and torturing Muslims in secret prisons, while threatening to bomb yet another Muslim country, while supporting the brutal oppression of Muslims in yet another. This puts a slightly different slant on things. Were we sitting here all by our lonesomes, minding our own business, and being nice as pie to all, and some “barbarian” came and got all up in our shit, then, hell yeah, deride the barbarian. However, since we’re sitting here with blood all over our hands and the unanswered screams of the tortured echoing in our ears, it’s a little hard to get all righteous about those awful barbarians and how uppity and sensitive they are.

    There’s this Jesus thing (sorry, sorry) about a mote in the barbarian’s eye and a log in your own…

  99. 99.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Protecting child raping priests for the “larger good” was, and still may be, a practical policy of the Catholic Church Vatican hierarchy.

    Fixed. Don’t conflate the two. By their actions in this matter, the bishops have forfeited their moral authority, and no longer speak for the faithful. Any thoughtful Catholic will tell you this.

    The bishops and cardinals still have the power. Moral authority doesn’t really matter.

    I mentioned in another thread how I became alienated from a good friend who flat out told me that she could never criticize the Church no matter what they did, because her personal connection to the Church, her need to attend and do whatever Catholics do, was more important to her than the crimes of any priest.

    I’ve heard variations of this from other Catholics. The faithful have a problem.

    And by the way, I don’t lay the burden of child raping priests solely on Catholics. I have utter contempt for the leaders and the faithful of other religions who keep quiet about child raping priests because it’s not their members who were victimized or, worse, because they believe that playing some larger game of respecting all the faiths is more important than prosecuting pedophiles and their protectors.

    RE: near absolutist with respect to the First Amendment.

    Really? You seem a bit squishy on the Exercise Clause.

    You gotta come up with something better than this weak stuff.

  100. 100.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    @Svensker:

    This puts a slightly different slant on things. Were we sitting here all by our lonesomes, minding our own business, and being nice as pie to all, and some “barbarian” came and got all up in our shit, then, hell yeah, deride the barbarian.

    Gee, that sounds a lot like Denmark.

  101. 101.

    Dodd

    April 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @New Yorker:

    Gee, that sounds a lot like Denmark.

    This was much the same as my thought. Calling for the death of Danish cartoonists and silly TV show creators seems remote from secret prisons.

    Derision it is.

  102. 102.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @Dodd:

    In addition, if American imperial crimes were really the source of such anger and violence, then we’d have Nicaraguan and Chilean suicide bombers here blowing us up for things like the Pinochet coup or support for Somoza and the Contras.

    But Nicaraguans and Chileans aren’t Muslims.

    People need to stop averting their eyes to the real motivation behind Islamic violence. It’s the tenets of Islam itself.

  103. 103.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @New Yorker:

    People need to stop averting their eyes to the real motivation behind Islamic violence. It’s the tenets of Islam itself.

    What’s your posting name over at Glenn Greenwald’s place? I recognize the words but I don’t remember the handle.

    Or maybe all educated bigotry sounds the same.

  104. 104.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    @Dodd:

    Gee, that sounds a lot like Denmark.

    You may recall that Denmark was a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq.

    Not saying that two wrongs make a right, but I see a great deal of outrage over Theo’s death in Denmark at the hands of Islamists, and very little outrage at the death of thousands of nameless Muslim Iraqis at the hands of the non-Muslim Coalition. But Islam is a violent religion and we Westerners are just peaceful innocents.

  105. 105.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    @New Yorker:

    People need to stop averting their eyes to the real motivation behind Islamic violence. It’s the tenets of Islam itself.

    Honest questions:

    1) Do you agree with the following statement by Franklin Graham?

    “We’re not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.”

    2) Do you agree with the Pentagon’s decision to disinvite Graham from speaking at the Army’s National Day of Prayer event?

    3) If the “real motivation behind Islamic violence” are the tenets of the religion itself, what possible mitigation strategy can you envision? Do you believe that there is any chance for progress? Or do you forsee nothing but more violence?

    4) If Islam is, in your opinion, uniquely violent, should our laws reflect this?

  106. 106.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    @SGEW:

    Again, practical policy is not a religious tenet. I was heading towards a discussion of criticisms of sincerely held religious beliefs, not of the pragmatic policies of an religious organization.

    That a belief is deeply held is not a test of whether or not it should be immune from criticism. As an aside, one cannot always easily separate religious tenets and practical policy. That the Church must be defended even when it offends is a deeply held belief of the Catholic leadership. It is built into the theology.

    I was speaking more of treading carefully when it is such a delicate subject.

    The subject is not that delicate. It’s a question of the degree to which we accommodate ignorance and religious superstition. Remember that from my perspective, all religion is bunk. Your religion (or lack thereof) doesn’t become magically worthy of respect just because of any consideration of power dynamics.

    RE: . . . context is complicated but so what?

    Yikes. So what? I don’t want to read too much into that.

    Read into it what you will. Or ask what I mean by this.

    I agree with you that there aren’t often simple, hard answers to many issues, especially when it comes to race and religion. But a lot of the complication arises because people believe stupid shit and expect others to pretend that it’s not stupid shit.

    Here’s the broader context

    I neither agree with your depiction of “the broader context” nor think that it is as important as you suggest. And what the hell is “the personal responsibility of entertainers in the post modern world supposed” to mean? Are we waiting on a different world to emerge before people can tell “Yo mamma” jokes again? Switch the dial from NPR once in a while.

    And by the way, one of the issues that I have with your “context” – You note that “there is a widely held belief that there is an outright religious war between Christianity and Islam.” I acknowledge this, but don’t give a rat’s ass about either Christianity nor Islam and would be happy if both religions quietly disappeared. Why should I accommodate the delusions of either group? And what do the Hindus and Buddhists think about all this? Where do the wiccans weigh in.

    Let’s play out the Tarantino example. What if Tarantino’s racially charged material was later used as propoganda by white supremacists, and those supremacists were actually the majority of the population? And then someone made new material, not substantively different from the original Tarantino work, that was made explicitly by the Klan? Isn’t that important context? Shouldn’t you care?

    A hypothetical is not context. Tarantino’s work already exists, as do a multitude of reactions to it, mainly positive. Are we supposed to suppress Pulp Fiction lest it be used by racist crackers? And in the real world, Tarantino’s dialog, especially as mouthed by Samuel L Jackson, seemed to increase the love, admiration and respect that some movie geeks hold for Jackson, to such a degree that they cheered when they saw him cast as a Jedi in the later Star Wars films (too bad his role ended up, like the rest of the movie, to be craptastic).

    Finally, I agree that there should be no “demand to STFU.” I’m a card carrying ACLU member too (literally). I never said “can’t.” I’m only talking about “should.” As in “you have the right to be an asshole, but you probably shouldn’t be.”

    Odd that an ACLU member would say that a right should not be exercised. Aren’t you the same people who defend rights of Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods?

    And by the way, I’ve contributed to the ACLU. I don’t wanna be a member of their club. It’s that Marxist thing in me. You know, as in Groucho.

    RE: Political speech is the most sacred, the most deserving of First Amendment protection . . .

    This is funny, in this context.

    That’s exactly why I deliberately chose the words, to underscore the degree to which I hold some things to be higher than any religion.

    If I worship anywhere it is at the Church of Woody Guthrie, whose guitar bore the label, This Machine Kills Fascists, and Bob Marley, who sang All I ever had, Redemption Songs.

    Free expression is risky. The alternative never works out right, no matter how well-intentioned the calls for censorship might appear on the surface.

    I understand what you say, and respect it. I just don’t agree with some of your conclusions.

    And now, to lunch.

  107. 107.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    @SGEW:

    1) No, I don’t agree with Graham. I am an atheist, and I don’t believe God exists, and Graham is a demagogue and buffoon. I would agree that Islam is an evil and wicked religion, but I believe that about practically all religions (I’ll leave aside REAL religions of peace like Jainism and Quakerism).

    2) Yes, I agree with it. I don’t want any religious loons endorsed by the military of our secular republic.

    3) I think there is a chance for real progress when Muslims themselves decide that they don’t want to take their scriptures literally any longer. You’ll notice that most Christians and Jews don’t take their scriptures literally any longer, mostly as a reaction against centuries of religious violence and persecution. Of course, those that do (West Bank settlers, people who shoot abortion doctors) are still capable of pointless violence.

    I hate to say it, but it might take enormous bloodshed for Islam to finally become reformed. Think the 30-Years War.

    4) I don’t think Islam is uniquely violent (see my comments on Judaism and Christianity above). I think it’s uniquely unreformed. Islam today is like the Christianity of the middle ages that gave us the Crusades and the Inquisition.

    I don’t think our laws need to reflect anything other than what they already reflect: a separation of church and state and a guarantee that I can say any damn thing I want about a seventh-century Arabian merchant who claimed to be a prophet of God.

  108. 108.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    @Svensker:

    That’s the best you can come up with? “Educated Bigotry”? I so glad we’ve got a moral and intellectual cripple like yourself to speak on behalf of all the sub-human brown people who like to riot and murder over any perceived slight. I know we can’t expect them to act civilized when their feelings are hurt.

    Also, please show we where I said the west is peaceful. You might want to read what I actually write. You also might want to read the Koran so you sound like less of a goddamned imbecile when talking about Islam.

  109. 109.

    New Yorker

    April 24, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    I’d also like to add that the PC left can call me a bigot all they want for pointing out the obvious that Islam is a violent creed. It’s nothing new, as my wingnut uncle called me a bigot for suggesting that Joseph Ratzinger belongs in prison for covering up the systematic rape of children.

    I guess reality is too tough to bear for some people.

  110. 110.

    Svensker

    April 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    @New Yorker:

    You’re welcome.

  111. 111.

    SGEW

    April 24, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    @Brachiator:

    Aren’t you the same people who defend rights of Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods?

    Y’see, we’re having a small failure in communications. We both agree that people have the right to say offensive things. But I think that we can also safely agree that it would be better, in general, if less people were, for example, Nazis. Again: I’m not calling for censorship. People are free to say what they like, no matter how shitty. But if I’m at a party and someone makes a homophobic joke, I’ll call them out on it. When Rush Limbaugh says explicitly racist things on the radio, I think it’s awful, and I strongly criticize it. A Republican memo goes out telling a female candidate to “get out of the House and back into the kitchen,” and I join others in condemning it. Is that censorship? Is that suppression? Does expressed disapproval equal a restriction on free speech? How pure does one get?

    Now, is anti-Islamic rhetoric (see, e.g., commenter @New Yorker, above) as objectionable as explicit racism, sexism, or homophobia? I certainly don’t think so, myself. But it is in the same categorical territory: a territory that is fraught with cultural assumptions and misunderstandings, capability for personal hurt, and real world consequences. A territory in which I think that context is very, very important.

    Do you really not recognize a socially relevant difference between Americans and Western Europeans, on the one hand, ridiculing the notion of theism in general and, on the other hand, specifically ridiculing Islam? The context of war, torture, oppression, and sectarian religious triumphalism isn’t important enough? Is there a difference between New Yorker, an atheist, calling Islam “a wicked and evil religion,” and Franklin Graham saying the very same thing? Is that context important? I think so. I think the other considerations are important too.

    Anyway, I guess I’m just saying that it’s complicated, and that I think it’s something to think about. I think. Even if I’m not expressing myself very clearly (or concisely!).

    Enjoy your lunch. :|

  112. 112.

    Zach

    April 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    The bit on the Daily Show about this was spot on. “This offends me, but it offends me more that people are threatening murder over it,” etc. Making a fetish out of publishing the image everywhere misses the fact that it actually does offend a good number of folks who aren’t responding with threats of murder. I have a right to walk around some Catholic charity taking the lord’s name in vain or extolling the virtues of birth control or whatever, but it doesn’t make it a reasonable thing to do.

  113. 113.

    giantslor

    April 24, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    I totally support this. Note: I am a liberal, progressive atheist.

    You’d expect an atheist to support this, of course. But I’d like to think I’d support it even if I weren’t an atheist. As a liberal, I support free speech, and abhor its suppression, expecially on threat of violence, and especially by anti-liberal forces. Fundamentalist Islam has many of the worst traits of full-bore American conservatism: The social and cultural puritanism, the reliance on violence or threats thereof, the anti-intellectualism, the irrationalism. Mocking these fuckheads’ idiotic beliefs should not just be our right, but the duty of all right-thinking people.

  114. 114.

    Gregory

    April 24, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    @Dodd:

    It’s past time we stopped bending over to placate barbarism

    Posting drawings on the Internet? Yeah, that’ll show ’em!

    ETA: BTW, Dodd, I for one am disappointed in you. Going from your full-throated support of every bullshit rationale for the war in Iraq to merely advocating posting rude drawings mocking Islam is pretty weak sauce.

  115. 115.

    Brachiator

    April 24, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    @SGEW:

    Y’see, we’re having a small failure in communications. We both agree that people have the right to say offensive things.

    First, let me walk this back from Nazis and other irrelevancies. The bottom line is this: Many Muslims think that any depiction of the Prophet is an insult to Islam, and that insults to Islam should be prohibited and sometimes even punished. I understand this, but ultimately reject it. I hold freedom of speech to be a higher value.

    By the way, the volume of Larry Gonick’s excellent Cartoon History of the Universe which deals with the rise of Islam does not depict the Prophet and gives a brief explanation of why this is not done. I have absolutely no problem with Gonick’s decision, but I would not have cared had he chosen to go the other way.

    Also, I agree with you with respect to someone telling a homophobic joke and with Limbaugh, but I give wider latitude to Republican boneheads who would tell a female candidate to “get out of the House and back into the kitchen” or who would sling much other mud, especially because this crap swings both ways and I expect my preferred candidates to be able to deal with this stuff and to turn it back on the mudslingers (see much of Obama’s presidential run to see how deftly this can be done).

    I recall here how the Obama campaign took Team Clinton to task for some unsavory racially tinged nonsense coming from Clinton surrogates and how Hillary Clinton tried to get schoolmarmish, condescendingly lecturing Obama that politics was tough and if he didn’t have thick enough skin, then maybe he just wasn’t commander-in-Chiefish enough. And then she later had the gall to later complain about how she was hobbled by sexism not coming from Obama, but which he had to condemn. I call bull pucky on this, along with Sarah Palin whining about sexism while fanning all kinds of soft bigotry with a smile and a twinkle. Also, too.

    Now, is anti-Islamic rhetoric (see, e.g., commenter @New Yorker, above) as objectionable as explicit racism, sexism, or homophobia?

    I don’t quite see that New Yorker was spewing anti-Islamic rhetoric, nor do I see it necessary to try to rank his (or her) verbiage on an Objectionabatron. By the way, I don’t agree with all that New Yorker had to say, particularly the part about Jainism and Quakerism somehow being OK because they are religions of peace. All religion is bunk. All fundamentalism is double bunk. Bunk beds. Hell, an entire bedroom set.

    Do you really not recognize a socially relevant difference between Americans and Western Europeans, on the one hand, ridiculing the notion of theism in general and, on the other hand, specifically ridiculing Islam?

    Nope. And I don’t just ridicule the notion of theism in general, I mock every religion in particular.

    The context of war, torture, oppression, and sectarian religious triumphalism isn’t important enough?

    Nope. In fact, it might even make mocking religion even more necessary.

    Is there a difference between New Yorker, an atheist, calling Islam “a wicked and evil religion,” and Franklin Graham saying the very same thing?

    The huge difference is that New Yorker went on to say that all religions were pretty much ridiculous. Graham said that his religion is better than Islam, that he’s in tight with the real deity while Muslims have some phoney balonney Supreme Being. Christians have genuine Louis Vitton Jesus, while Muslims presumably have a knockoff. Graham is a fool.

    Anyway, I guess I’m just saying that it’s complicated, and that I think it’s something to think about. I think. Even if I’m not expressing myself very clearly (or concisely!).

    As I noted, I agree that it’s complicated, and I appreciate the time that you have taken to lay out your position. Ultimately, I think that you gain more in tending toward free speech than you gain by trying to tiptoe around trying to consider context and avoiding hurt feelings.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - Serengeti Day 3, Round 2 5
Image by Albatrossity (7/19/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • The Audacity of Krope on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 11:10pm)
  • Kayla Rudbek on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 11:09pm)
  • Sure Lurkalot on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 11:06pm)
  • RevRick on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 11:06pm)
  • Doug R on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 11:06pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!