Patterico's Pontifications

I can tell you the difference between the two, the one on the right is better composed.

Alan Kellogg (5cc985) — 8/8/2007 @ 11:46 pm

It does indeed tell the story.

And I agree with you, Alan. The Bible is at least chronological. The Koran is all over the place.

Heck, it’s like a book of affirmations or something.

Very dangerous affirmations.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/8/2007 @ 11:59 pm

I think the difference is the book on the left was stolen.

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:06 am

You’re correct. That was a difference and he should have been charged with mischief (or vandalism as you refer to it), placed on probation, and had a criminal record.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:08 am

Or deported, seeing as he was an immigrant.

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:27 am

What was his exact immigration status, alphie? What stage of immigration? Legal or illegal?

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:29 am

Isn’t it ironic that most Muslim societies are “in the toilet” relative to the Christian countries. It is also ironic that after leaving their Islamic hell-holes, Muslims move to the west and demand that Western world adapt the framework of their failed Islamic societies – such as denying people the freedom of speech.

Perfect Order (b6ec8c) — 8/9/2007 @ 2:21 am

Hmm, if I were to compose a piece of provocative art involving the Koran it would be:

A pretty girl in a revealing bikini;
Lounging on a deck chair in full view of anyone who cared to look;
Nibbling on a roumaki;
With a pitcher of Sangria and half-empty wine glass next to her;
While holding an open Koran with her left hand.

Where are you, Maxwell Parrish?

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 4:22 am

P.S. Have camera, deck chair, roumaki, Sangria and Koran. Seeking pretty girl. All interested applicants will be screened by assistant devil’s advocate c/o this comment thread. Reasonable reimbursement for purchase of bikini if selected. 😉

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 4:37 am

I don’t get it.

On the right is the equivalent of what gets supported by the NEA and is protected by the First Amendment.

On the left is something that leads to riots and deaths around the world when rumored to have occurred in Gitmo.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:26 am

Just between you and me, MD in Philly, the riots and deaths make more sense than the NEA grant. I would even say that people willing to kill and die to protect their sacred objects and the traditions of their forefathers is more admirable than people paying blasphemers to desecrate them.

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:50 am

Remember when that jerk got the NEA grant for his artwork showing a cross and a picture of christ submerged in ajar of urine? and the liberals hailed it as art but when someone flushes a copy of the koran they called it a hate crime LIBERALS CAN BE SUCH JERKS

krazy kagu (3e8790) — 8/9/2007 @ 11:51 am

I’m with South Park on this one.

Russell (a32796) — 8/9/2007 @ 11:57 am

P.S. Have camera, deck chair, roumaki, Sangria and Koran. Seeking pretty girl. All interested applicants will be screened by assistant devil’s advocate c/o this comment thread. Reasonable reimbursement for purchase of bikini if selected.

Comment by nk — 8/9/2007 @ 4:37 am

I am so telling your wife…

Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:21 pm

I already asked her. She won’t do it.

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:45 pm

One on the left = stolen Koran, flushed with intent to offend specific Muslim individuals.

One on the right = not stolen, created by artist with intent to shock/sell/offend Christians who happen by the exhibit (or hear about it some other way).

Little intellectually dishonest of the cartoonist to suggest the only difference is the religion, isn’t it?

My position is that the act of stealing and flushing a Bible in order to target Christians is no different than the act of stealing and flushing a Koran in order to target Muslims. Either neither is a hate crime, or both are.

There is a lot of people around here complaining about how it would be “if it were the other way around.” Well, let’s have it: can anybody show me where a crime was committed in order to target Christians on the basis of their Christianity, yet it wasn’t prosecuted as a hate crime? Because until you can demonstrate that the prosecution of hate crimes is happening in a one-sided fashion, all you’re doing is whining about a non-issue.

Tom (5c26ba) — 8/9/2007 @ 12:49 pm

Well, let’s have it: can anybody show me where a crime was committed in order to target Christians on the basis of their Christianity, yet it wasn’t prosecuted as a hate crime? Because until you can demonstrate that the prosecution of hate crimes is happening in a one-sided fashion, all you’re doing is whining about a non-issue.

OK, Tom, I have an idea:

Since you think it’s intellectual dishonesty, there is no difference and its a non-issue, let’s put that to the test:

How about you purchase a copy of the Koran, stick it in a jar of urine or a toilet, and see if the NEA will give you a grant to display it as art in a museum intent to shock/sell/offend Muslims who happen by the exhibit (or hear about it some other way).

A bit different when you’re involved personally, isn’t it?

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 1:13 pm

“Art” is creative, Paul.

If you just want to make a lame copy of what has been successful in the past, may I suggest a career in TV or the movies?

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 1:41 pm

Paul, I’m not sure what your point is, but even though I wouldn’t be committing a hate crime with the creation of said “art,” I personally wouldn’t seek to offend anybody on the basis of their religion. And in general, I think that “shock art” is lame and over-done.

But in order for that to be a “hate crime,” there’d actually have to be a “crime,” you know? Please tell me you see the difference.

Tom (fb501b) — 8/9/2007 @ 1:48 pm

Tom, the point of the cartoon is that there is a difference in how practitioners of the two different religions act in the face of desecration. One religion simply denounces it. The other has members committing acts of violence and destruction.

I proposed the test to illustrate that difference.

If you think there is no difference between the two in the cartoon, that is why you didn’t grasp my point.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 2:31 pm

I can hear a jackass braying in the distance again. Hmnn. Maybe buzz was wrong, and it isn’t the wind.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 2:32 pm

Tom, it is not “targeting” that makes either a hate crime, it is intimidation that makes something a hate crime.

Telling you that I don’t like you is free speech, telling you that I’m going to harm you because of your race, ethnicity, creed, nat’l origin etc. is a hate crime.

That’s why neither of the the acts depicted are hate crimes – if the Koran/Bible is stolen, then its just petty theft.

Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/9/2007 @ 2:42 pm

true – the fact that it’s stolen has little to do with the so-called ‘offense.’ It’s just a book with printed words.

Seems to point out how weak the religion is, that it must get so upset when pieces of paper cause riots. Submerging a crucifix in urine shames the artist, not the crucifix.

steve miller (37a105) — 8/9/2007 @ 2:53 pm

steve,

You guys are trying to defend an immigrunt who stole a religious book and then crapped on it.

It’s not glory that the neocons are covered in this time.

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:15 pm

Paul,

…the point of the cartoon is that there is a difference in how practitioners of the two different religions act in the face of desecration. One religion simply denounces it. The other has members committing acts of violence and destruction.

No, that may be YOUR point, or an interesting side point, but the cartoonist’s point is that for some reason, only desecration of a Koran is considered a “hate crime,” not the desecration of a Bible. Patterico seems to assert the same. However, I disagree. At this point, nobody has demonstrated that only Muslims receive “hate crime” protection for religiously-based crimes.

If you’d like to open a discussion about how extremist Muslims react violently to such things compared to fundamentalist Christians, I won’t argue with you there. But that’s a side issue–not the one that is the subject of this post.

Tom (5c26ba) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:18 pm

Robin,

…That’s why neither of the the acts depicted are hate crimes – if the Koran/Bible is stolen, then its just petty theft.

You may well be correct. I would expect him to be cleared of the “hate crime” charge if so. However, whether or not flushing a holy book isn’t the point of this cartoon–rather, the commentary seems to be a supposed discrepancy between how society responds to the treatment of Bibles and the treatment of Korans. (Nevermind that the two situations to which the cartoonist alludes are not comparable.) Nonetheless, it is a discrepancy which, as of yet, only seems to exist in peoples’ minds.

Tom (9f2a33) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:23 pm

Tom, the intimidation factor because of the threat of violence and destruction is why one is considered a hate crime and the other is not. Also, one religion is given elevated status of the Enlightened Ones, while the other is denounced and ridiculed in art and television.

That’s why one is considered a hate crime and the other is not.

This isn’t a side issue…its part of the whole picture.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:28 pm

Nonetheless, it is a discrepancy which, as of yet, only seems to exist in peoples’ minds.

Tom, if that discrepancy only exists in people’s minds, then how come we don’t see NEA-funded shocking artistic displays of any Muslim artifacts or holy books?

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:32 pm

That we tolerate and even support with tax dollars the desecration of Christian symbols while punishing as hate crimes the desecration of Muslim symbols is not a side issue — it is the showing of our soft underbelly.

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:34 pm

I heard that braying again. Does anybody else hear it?

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:34 pm

Tom – How about the countless number of Christian churches that have been the victims of arson. How many of those wound up with a hate crime charge attached?

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:37 pm

Tom, the difference is only in people’s minds? Evidently you don’t read much in terms of current events.

Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/9/2007 @ 3:57 pm

standing ready to screen hot koranbabes!

assistant devil's advocate (70e563) — 8/9/2007 @ 4:03 pm

ADA, my picture this includes you in an expensive smoking jacket, sipping a cool adult beverage in an expensive hotel suite while performing the screening process.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 4:35 pm

“art is Dead”, killed by groupthink poetry.

syn (7faf4d) — 8/9/2007 @ 4:39 pm

Paul,

Tom, the intimidation factor because of the threat of violence and destruction is why one is considered a hate crime and the other is not.

Sez who? Hate crimes are defined by the legal criteria that is met under the law, not at random.

How about the countless number of Christian churches that have been the victims of arson. How many of those wound up with a hate crime charge attached?

I’d love to check on that. How many of these countless arsons were committed following the passage of said hate crime legislation in 1969? Let’s get specific: of these arsons of which you speak, which were (a)committed after hate crimes legislation was enacted in 1969, and (b) NOT prosecuted as a hate crime?

I’d like to nail this down good and tight, because I think your sense that hate crimes aren’t prosecuted as much on behalf of Christianity is not actually the case.

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:10 pm

Tom, answer the question:

Nonetheless, it is a discrepancy which, as of yet, only seems to exist in peoples’ minds.

If that discrepancy only exists in people’s minds, then how come we don’t see NEA-funded shocking artistic displays of any Muslim artifacts or holy books?

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:15 pm

I’d like to nail this down good and tight, because I think your sense that hate crimes aren’t prosecuted as much on behalf of Christianity is not actually the case.

Then answer my question.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:17 pm

Tom – Here is a link .link to one man, with an expressed contempt for organized religion, who was charged with AT LEAST 26 arsons, with no hate crimes attachment. Also note that this occurred in the Southern District of Indiana, one of the more conservative jurisdictions. Now, tell me how these are comparable. Please.

Since the school was the victim in the Koran case, how can it be anything other than a thought crime to add a hate crime charge to the theft of the Koran, when the hate was not directed at the victim of the underlying crime.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:33 pm

Paul, certainly:

If that discrepancy only exists in people’s minds, then how come we don’t see NEA-funded shocking artistic displays of any Muslim artifacts or holy books?

As I am not a modern artist, I can only speculate, but I see two serious answers to your question:

First, we’re talking about the creation of art here, not the creation of a fair, “I get one so you get one” system of parental dessert distribution. To generalize, this type of modern art is typically created by artists who are into doing their own thing and making unique statements–not simply copying what others did 18 years ago.
The “artistic statement” of a crucifix dipped in urine in a predominantly Christian nation is radically different from that of a Koran in the toilet, in a post-9/11 Christian nation. (Having said that, that would still make for interesting artistic commentary, if you’re into that sort of thing.)
To me, those seem to be the best reasons from an artistic perspective, but what you really want me to say is that all the modern artists are too scared of creating art like this because of violent retribution from Muslim extremists. To what extent this is the case, I have no idea–you’d have to ask a modern artist.

Back to the “discrepancy” of which I spoke (#26), it’s really quite simple: who can show me a crime committed against a Christian/church/group of Christians that should have been prosecuted as a “hate crime” but wasn’t?

If incidents like these don’t actually happen, well…we’re talking about a “discrepancy which, as of yet, only seems to exist in peoples’ minds.”

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:42 pm

Were the Danish Cartoons hate crime? Or Art?
Irrespective of that, wasn’t the muslim community
a little over the top in their denunciation? And if not, why not?

Paul from FL (ae01cb) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:53 pm

Tom – I just posted a link to 26 examples. Is that not enough for you?

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:55 pm

I’d like to see a link to some cases of crimes being prosecuted as anti-Christian hate crimes. It didn’t happen here.

Pablo (99243e) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:06 pm

JD, thanks for the link. Wow…you couldn’t have picked a better example to make me shut the hell up, could you have? I guess that’s what you were talking about, Paul.

Well, I apologize for giving you guys such grief. Next to myriad church fires set by a satanist, a flushed Koran belonging to a third party is a damn kid’s party, complete with dancing clown (me).

If this is indicative of a broader trend (that anti-Christian crimes aren’t prosecuted as hate crimes), that’s really unfortunate. (This is especially palpable as I head off to seminary this fall…yikes.) My answer, by the way, is not to kill hate crimes legislation outright, but to simply apply it more equitably. Why the state of Indiana didn’t prosecute these crimes under hate crimes legislation is absolutely mind-boggling.

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:08 pm

PS: I was writing #40 while JD was posting the link. What’s funny is how perfectly the link answers the question I appear to be asking afterwards.

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:10 pm

Tom – This is but one example. Look up arsons at Christian churches across the country. This is far from an isolated incident.

This just happened to be the only one I was aware of, since I live in Indianapolis. I am proffering an educated guess that there are many more just like it, maybe not 26 by an individual. But, for purposes of comparison, 1 burnt church to 1 deuced Koran should suffice.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:16 pm

Were the Danish Cartoons hate crime? Or Art? Irrespective of that, wasn’t the muslim community
a little over the top in their denunciation? And if not, why not?

Well, I could see a valid argument for both sides: you could say they were art because they were created by, well, artists. You could also say that since they were political cartoons, which editorialize by nature, that these were editorial statements, which are supposed to meet a different criteria than the “anything goes” criteria of art.

Given that context, I’m not sure that I blame Muslims for decrying those cartoons any more than I would blame those Christians who decried the “Piss-Christ” piece here. I don’t think it’s my place to tell others what they should and should not be offended at. (However, I don’t mind regulating what you’re allowed to DO when you get offended.)

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:18 pm

Tom – Frankly, I do not think that Christians would qualify as a protected class in hate crimes legislation. There may be examples of it out there, but I have not seen them.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:18 pm

Well, I apologize for giving you guys such grief.

Tom, no problem.

That’s what a good discussion thread does–everybody learns something.

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:19 pm

JD,

I am proffering an educated guess that there are many more just like it, maybe not 26 by an individual.

See, and my question would be, exactly why the hell would this be the case? Perhaps liberals are more inclined to prosecute on behalf of minorities (and not majority groups), while conservatives are simply disinclined to prosecute crimes as hate crimes at all…? That would be an interesting question to explore, if it could be determined that Christians, for example, are getting the short end of the stick.

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:23 pm

JD, the legislation is not written with regards to specific religions, just “religion.” See this.

Tom (385ec8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:24 pm

alphie, JUST like you to disappear from a thread when you’re asked to back up your trolling gibberish:

Or deported, seeing as he was an immigrant.

Comment by alphie — 8/9/2007 @ 12:27 am

What was his exact immigration status, alphie? What stage of immigration? Legal or illegal?

Comment by Christoph — 8/9/2007 @ 12:29 am

… and nary a word in response to that since them — just more trolling.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:27 pm

Oh, I know you’re ON the thread… not addressing substance, offering nonsense… just like usual.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:28 pm

That would be an interesting question to explore, if it could be determined that Christians, for example, are getting the short end of the stick.

It’s been explored in depth, and the discrepancy is not limited to hate crimes. For example, David Limbaugh in his book Persecution writes about a California public school that forced seventh grade students to pretend they were Muslims, pray in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, and chant “praise to Allah, Lord of Creation.”

Forced them.

Christian prayer has long been banned in public schools, under the mythical ‘separation of church and state.’

Paul (a47125) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:35 pm

How am I supposed to the immigration status of the Conservative Crapper, Christoph?

Perhaps you could point me to that info?

Two types of people want to deface the Koran:

1. Religious fanatics who believe in a non-Muslim religion.
2. Freedom of speech advocates.

How do we tell the difference between the two?

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:37 pm

I was commenting “tongue in cheek” when I said “I don’t get it” previously, but I really don’t get some of the comments in this thread.

1. The picture on the right is reminiscent of the “work” titled “Piss Christ”, which was the Crucifix in a jar of urine as previously pointwed out. This was supported with tax payer dollars and hailed as a piece of art and protected under First Amendment Rights.

2. I am unaware of the details of the purported hate crime referred to on the left, but I think I can comment anyway in this situation.
a. “You guys are trying to defend an immigrunt who stole a religious book and then crapped on it.
It’s not glory that the neocons are covered in this time.”-Comment by alphie —
Alphie, I’m not sure what you are driving at. There seems to be a lot of comment on the disparity of the two situations. No one is saying the person who is responsible for the act on the left is to be defended, and actually no one here is defending the person responsible for the right, either.
b. ” One on the left = stolen Koran, flushed with intent to offend specific Muslim individuals.
One on the right = not stolen, created by artist with intent to shock/sell/offend Christians who happen by the exhibit (or hear about it some other way).
Little intellectually dishonest of the cartoonist to suggest the only difference is the religion, isn’t it?”- Tom
Tom- Yes, very little intellectual dishonesty putting the two side by side. Unless there is an implied threat of harm, what difference does it make if intended for a specific or general audience?

I don’t like hate crimes legislation at all. If someone does a crime they should be punished appropriately. If it is a particularly horrendous crime fueled by racism, etc., the punishment should be severe because of the nature of the crime.

The fact that the item on the right was treated as protected speech and the item on the left was treated as criminally reprehensible, as it appears from the discussion, is ipso facto evidence that the two are not accorded the same protection. If the Koran was stolen, punish the theft. If there was an accompanying direct threat, prosecute that.

Worldwide there are many countries where it is against the law to even have a Bible, let alone talk about it in public or to change one’s religious identification and become a Christian. I’m pretty sure there are no countries that have similar laws against the Koran (unless it would be a totalitarian country forbidding all religion).

nk- I understand your point and agree that there is nothing honorable in paying blasphemers to blaspheme, which is what we object to.
To a Christian or Jew to kill or even to die for sacred objects/traditions doesn’t make sense, because we are not to hold any object as that sacred. Dieing for the faith happens regularly throughout the world, but it is because of faith in Jesus, not objects or traditions.

3. I am so telling your wife. – Scott Jacobs
I already asked her. She won’t do it. – nk

Hilarious

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:40 pm

Two types of people want to deface the Koran:

1. Religious fanatics who believe in a non-Muslim religion.
2. Freedom of speech advocates. – alphie

How about a third type, people who resent widespread terrorism done in the name of Allah? It would be a little unfair, as many Muslims don’t like the terrorists either.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:47 pm

Tom – The rationale described in comment #50 actually sounds pretty good to me. It rings true. Maybe WLS could shed some light on this.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 6:50 pm

ADA, my picture this includes you in an expensive smoking jacket, sipping a cool adult beverage in an expensive hotel suite while performing the screening process.

No way I’m springing for that. He does it on my deck and drinks Pilsner Urquell or Jameson’s. He can wear his smoking jacket if he has one.

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:04 pm

Why exactly are we bestowing this honor on ADA?

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:07 pm

alphie,

You said:

Or deported, seeing as he was an immigrant.

and:

You guys are trying to defend an immigrunt who stole a religious book and then crapped on it.

You purposely and intentionally ignored my question:

What was his exact immigration status, alphie? What stage of immigration? Legal or illegal?

I pointed out this omission to you. Then — acting in your capacity as staunch conservative Republican lying troll — you attempted to deflect my question.

His immigration status obviously matters.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:16 pm

Re #50, hate crimes, etc.

President Bush expressed the view that those who committed murder by pulling the man behind a truck were going to be executed, “how much more punishment can you give than that”.

I personally have never heard conservatives complain that they were the victims of hate crimes and nothing was done. “The conservative view” is all crimes should be punished equally as long as the victim is human, type of human doesn’t make a difference. Of course, the extenuating circumstances of a crime weigh in (exceptional cruely to an older person, for example).

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:19 pm

Why exactly are we bestowing this honor on ADA?

His credentials are impeccable but you’ll have to scroll back through a couple of years of comments to see it.

nk (48899d) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:29 pm

Christoph,

If you would point out where we can check his immigration status, I’d be happy to do so.

I assume he isn’t an American citizen yet, because the press called him an “immigrant.”

I wasn’t aware that the “export the criminal immigrants” campaign distinguished between various immigration statuses(stati?).

Md,

How about a third type, people who resent widespread terrorism done in the name of Allah?

What?

How is that any different than (1), religious fanatics that hate Islam?

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:47 pm

I wasn’t aware that the “export the criminal immigrants” campaign distinguished between various immigration statuses(stati?).

BE AWARE.

First sentence.

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 7:54 pm

MD in Philly – Simple sentence construction is insufficient for some to understand things. The concept of someone, possibly a Muslim, resenting terrorism done in the name of Allah, who at the same time, is not a zealot and does not hate Islam is too complex of an idea.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:03 pm

I wasn’t aware that the “export the criminal immigrants” campaign distinguished between various immigration statuses(stati?).
— alphie

Here’s the first sentence in explanation of Patterico’s “Deport the Criminals First” series:

[“Deport the Criminals First” is a new recurring feature on this blog, highlighting crimes committed by illegal immigrants — with a special focus on repeat offenders. {Christoph: Not legal immigrants who commit a first offense of vandalism} I argue that, instead of arresting illegal immigrants who work hard for a living, we should use our limited immigration enforcement resources to target illegal immigrants who commit crimes in this country — especially violent crimes {Christoph: Not first offenses of minor crimes from legal immigrants, you disingenuous faux-conservative Republican lying troll.}]

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:05 pm

Hmmm,

I thought I saw Terapon Adhahn listed here a few weeks ago.

Considering Adhahn was serving in the U.S.Army when he committed his first “depotable” crime, I’ll bet his immigration status was futher along than the Kosher Krapper’s

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:09 pm

Do you not notice a qualitative difference between the offenses?

Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:13 pm

I don’t know, Christoph,

Stanislav Shmulevich seems to be one deeply disturbed individual to me.

Y’all got any room for him up in Canada?

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:19 pm

Christoph – Never let it be said that scale and proportionality are not lost on trolls.

Nuance.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:29 pm

Well, JD,

I seem to recall deportations were advocated for some immigrants who had only committed the crime of driving while intoxicated.

A crime that both our current President and Vice-President have committed…several times.

Scale and proportionality?

alphie (015011) — 8/9/2007 @ 8:39 pm

Christoph – Never let it be said that the trolls are not relentless in their desire to show off their BDS.

JD (06a9d8) — 8/9/2007 @ 9:16 pm

Well, Alphie, since deportation is the proper response for an illegal immigrant who was caught driving while intoxicated, what is wrong with that? Scale and proportionality only applies when the crimes you are scaling and proportioning are similar. Our current President and Vice-President are not illegal immigrants, are they? And, neither would you be deported if you were caught driving while intoxicated, even if some of us were to wish that upon you….

When you try to use logic, at least act like you have a clue.

reff (f3109d) — 8/9/2007 @ 10:26 pm

#2,

Picture composition.

Alan Kellogg (c84b3b) — 8/9/2007 @ 10:54 pm

I seem to recall deportations were advocated for some illegal immigrants who had only committed the crime of driving while intoxicated.

There. Fixed that for you, alpo.

Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:46 am

It seems that there isn’t any ‘hate crime’ here, unless you consider some crimes are done out of love or something.

What this is is the desperate desire to appear to be ‘balanced’ to those who follow Mahomet. But there is no such desire to appear to be so balanced to practitioners or other religions, or even the non-religious. (What would happen if I put a question mark in the toilet? Would I be punished for hate crimes against agnostics?)

It’s pretty clear that putting paper in a toilet isn’t much of a crime. If the book’s stolen, then let the alleged perpetrator be punished for petty theft. What’s a book worth? $10-15 at the most? The book’s out of copyright, so it’s really not something special.

steve miller (37a105) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:23 am

steve – That has always been my functional problem with hate crimes. What crime is done out of love for the victim?

JD (707046) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:45 am

JD-

Thank you for your reassurance. I have rarely encountered such an unwillingness to acknowledge logic, really.

If I say that the Earth is a planet with one moon, will alphie find a way to disagree with me there, also?

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:57 pm

If I say that the Earth is a planet with one moon, will alphie find a way to disagree with me there, also?

Really, MD in Philly, and you an educated man. Don’t you know that all we know about our solar system is what the Rovian mind-control machine allows us to? Did you know that there’s a planet named Gor (aka The CounterEarth) on the exact same orbit as the Earth but on the other side of the sun? The government has been keeping it secret from us. Only one person, John Norman, has dared write about it but he has been marginalized as a softcore, sado-masochistic pornographer with the writing ability of a fifth-grader writing “What I did on my summer vacation.” He does have a large following … of whom alphie may be one.

nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:23 pm

There’s no PROOF of that. The government says we reached the moon, just like they say fire can melt steel, but it was the Republicans in NASA, the same ones who are now correcting data in an effort to discredit the fact of global warming, that made the claim.

Bush is a moron. I’m a conservative. And I never lie.

not really alphie (Christoph, actually) (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:28 pm

Of course I know about Gor. (Where do you think Gortex comes from, synthetic cotton plants?) That doesn’t mean Earth doesn’t have one, and only one, moon.

Next thing you know, nk, you’ll try to tell me that Pluto is not really a planet after all.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:32 pm

Cut that out, alph-oph.

Mixing truth and sarcasm is bound to cause trouble.

So, global warming is caused by repositioning thermometers to hotter local environs, such as next to air conditioner exhaust fans and 1998 was not the hottest year on record, after all? Didn’t some NASA official get raked over the coals by his colleagues recently for downplaying the seriousness of global warming (or do I have that wrong)? Someones got some ‘splaining and ‘pologizing to do.

I missed the claim that 1998 was the hottest year. I would have known it that was wrong. I have heard my grandmother tell of it being so hot back in the 1930’s she kept her youngest child cool by sitting her in a bassinet between two hanging wet sheets.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:51 pm

Next thing you know, nk, you’ll try to tell me that Pluto is not really a planet after all.

There you go again, MD in Philly. Denying that the universe exists by consensus.

nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:55 pm

The commenters on this thread better watch out. You’re dangerously close to promulgating conspiracy theories and I’ll have to report you to my friends at Area 51 in Roswell.

DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:04 pm

The commenters on this thread better watch out. You’re dangerously close to promulgating conspiracy theories and I’ll have to report you to my friends at Area 51 in Roswell.

Could you, please? We have been trying to infiltrate that place for decades. The homing device that my Altairian friends have implanted in my skull will bring select commando teams immediately.

(Aw crap. This is just the same as trolling, isn’t it? I’m stopping. Just after this one. 😉 )

nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:15 pm

No, nk, it’s not the same as trolling. Such comments are meant to be light-hearted and enjoyable, not so with trolling, though some do find trolling comical.

Besides, since Klingons don’t understand humor they get really thrown off when reading this thread.

DRJ, I’ve never promulgated a conspiracy theory in my life, but are you confused in your geography? I thought Area 51 was in Nevada, and Roswell was in New Mexico. (Or is there a pub called “Area 51” in Roswell, N.M.?)

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/11/2007 @ 3:47 am

I thought Area 51 was in Nevada, and Roswell was in New Mexico.

MD, that’s what they want you to think! Diabolical, ain’t it?

Pablo (99243e) — 8/11/2007 @ 4:54 am

If I say that the Earth is a planet with one moon, will alphie find a way to disagree with me there, also?

alphie is like Baghdad Bob. Deny everything.

Paul (a47125) — 8/11/2007 @ 5:33 am

#60 “why, exactly, are we bestowing this honor on ada?”

because i’m the most qualified.

#59: i don’t own a smoking jacket. i dress like a homeless derelict, ever since i bailed out of the justice industry in 11/95. i swill my fair share of pilsner urquell and other fine brews/distillates. i’ve already identified one hot koranbabe, but i don’t know if you’re ready for osama bin laden’s amazingly hot niece. i would be pleased to don a turban and smoke from a hookah before banging her.

assistant devil's advocate (e094ce) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:06 pm

MD,

You’re right. I have my secret conspiracy locations mixed up. Either that or, as Pablo suggests, I’m messing with your mind.

DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:13 pm

“i would be pleased to don a turban and smoke from a hookah before banging her.”

Any more questions about ada’s qualifications?

nk (119c34) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:13 pm

DRJ-

Please, my mind has been messed with enough already…

I do believe Paul has struck on a brilliant idea, however-

What about a “Baghdad Bob” award given yearly for the journalist or columnist who warps reality in the most atrocious, flagrant, intellectually dishonest, or otherwise ridiculous manner. In fact, perhaps rather than keep the idea to P2 alone, TTLB or Powerline could promote it whil P2 maintains a ceremonially presence.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/12/2007 @ 10:44 am

I like your Baghdad Bob idea, MD, and perhaps Patterico (in his role as LA Times’ watchdog) will use it someday. But there already is an “award given yearly for the journalist or columnist who warps reality in the most atrocious, flagrant, intellectually dishonest, or otherwise ridiculous manner.” It’s called the Pulitzer Prize.

DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/12/2007 @ 10:54 am

“award given yearly for the journalist or columnist who warps reality in the most atrocious, flagrant, intellectually dishonest, or otherwise ridiculous manner.” It’s called the Pulitzer Prize.

LMAO!

Paul (f54101) — 8/12/2007 @ 12:56 pm

you see, both books have thier fanatics. Bush is advancing his “christian beliefs” of freedom and democracy when he goes and exploits the middle east for its oil and kills millions of people doing it. People with the Quran on the other hand are crazy fanatics because they blow them selves up in order to ward of invaders and exploiters. either way innocent civilians dead, but who does the worser evil? the man in the suit who claims a Yale Univeristy education, or the barbaric middle eastern who is only acting on insticts of self defence.

TJmax (42ab10) — 2/18/2008 @ 7:52 am

Alright let’s face it, Christianity has proved time and time again that it is the one true religion. I don’t mean to blow all others away (everyone has a right to their own opinion, even though they’re wrong)but let’s study this a second…
Jews (Don’t claim Jesus as Lord)
Muslims (Bomb everything)
Hindus (Retarded)
Buddists (… No Comment)
And Catholics (Touch little boys and Inspired Michael Jackson to do the same)
I think I proved my point to all those who think even remotely Low of us Christians, If you have a single argument, PLEASE comment back, I could use the laugh.

Jay Graham (46c47e) — 4/2/2008 @ 4:26 am

ISLAM rocks
what the fuck do u mean by muslims bomb. islam is a true religion. every one know that but u dont want 2 say it. we have prove 4 everthing but u guys dont. islam means peace in arabic, if u have problem with that u need 2 deal with it and get life. time will prove that islam is the right religion just wait and see.

see u in hell

unknow (a62eae) — 9/28/2008 @ 2:31 pm

8/8/2007

A Picture of Two Holy Books in Toilets Says a Thousand Words

98 Responses to “A Picture of Two Holy Books in Toilets Says a Thousand Words”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out