Patterico's Pontifications

5/14/2010

“Due to Security Reasons, We Will Stop”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:51 pm



Lars Vilks is a cartoonist who drew Mohammed as a dog. This sort of thing really upsets the radical Islamists — to the point where there was a plot to murder him. Therefore, let us look at the cartoon, to see what offended them so:

Mohammed as Dog

You may have read that Vilks was recently attacked while giving a university lecture with an admittedly provocative film that, as Ace explains, “juxtaposed pictures of Mohammad (?) and praying Muslims with gay fetish shots.” Being a tolerant community committed to free speech, the university shut down the lecture and told him never to return. Today, Hot Air links the full video of the incident:

Allahpundit provides the commentary:

Don’t skip it. Force yourself through it, because it happens to be one of the most genuinely depressing clips ever posted on Hot Air. Everything about this is an utter, unmitigated disgrace — the attack on Vilks, the excruciating passivity of most of the crowd, the sheer thuggery of these shrieking, lunatic, barbarian bastards, and of course the killer moment at around 8:45 when they win.

And when they win, the announcer says the words that form the post title: “Due to Security Reasons, We Will Stop.”

I won’t.

Mohammed Cartoons

As Mark Goldblatt, quoted by Allah, says:

Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam. Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough. But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”

Sign me up.

71 Responses to ““Due to Security Reasons, We Will Stop””

  1. Lars Vilks, pbuh.

    Ed from SFV (f0e1cb)

  2. I didn’t see much if anything from the left on the David Horowitz incident at UCSD when I was poking around today. Funny how that works.

    I’ll bet there was not much coverage of this from the left either. Did anybody see anything?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  3. But it doesn’t just offend the radicals.

    That you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do.

    Beldar (fe1f99)

  4. daleyrocks, I did a search on “Lars Vilks Uppsala University” earlier and noticed that there was something on the Huffington Post about this. I didn’t go read it because, well, I would have to read the Huffington Post. If you are brave enough to read it I would be happy to hear what they had to say.

    JVW (08e86a)

  5. So Patterico, you want to sign up for World War III over this, added with Obama signing up the CIA to bomb Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. when Yemen says NO. It should not take long after that that we shall have your war. Folks it is time, hope you are all ready for Islam clashes with Western World brought to you by Fox news and MSNBC.

    Sanmon (319c0c)

  6. Um. Someone is behind on their medication?

    Eric Blair (96ace0)

  7. Having read The Strong Horse by Lee Smith, I wonder if this behavior has more to do with culture than religion.

    I might agree that the film was objectionable on several levels, at least what little was seen.

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  8. JVW – If all you noticed in your search was Huff Po, I think that supports my point.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  9. “So Patterico, you want to sign up for World War III over this”

    Sanmon – I declare a FATHEAD upon you!

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  10. Well, my need for aggravation must be at its peak because I did click over to Arianna’s Vanity Site to see what her minions had to say. The post is just the short video (3 minute version) followed by the AP report of the fracas. Reactions from the commentators was along the following lines, just about what any of us would expect:

    1. All religions are awful and violent.
    2. It’s really just a few Muslims who are giving Islam a bad name.
    3. The film really was offensive and shouldn’t have been aired.
    4. Muslims suck and should be kicked out of Western society (as you can imagine, these sorts of comments sparked a lot of protest from the good Huffington Post progressives).

    That was five minutes of my life that I will never get back.

    JVW (08e86a)

  11. We appreciate it, JVW.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  12. But it doesn’t just offend the radicals.

    That you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do.

    Indeed — and obviously I am not just luxuriating in a right to free speech because I can.

    I am standing up for free speech because I have to.

    I may not agree with the guy’s film, but if you have me take sides between him and the savages I see on that video, it’s an easy call.

    Hey, savages? Fuck you!

    Patterico (157cfd)

  13. Beldar, I have Muslim friends. I respect them.

    I have Christian friends. I respect them.

    South Park respects nothing but comedy. They mock Jesus and Moses and Mohammed. It is funny. Only one group lacks a sense of humor.

    Fuck them.

    Patterico (157cfd)

  14. i think COL West pretty much nails the issue.

    until the muslims learn how to live peacefully, politely and in the 21st century with everyone else, they can go fuck themselves.

    islam IS the problem.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  15. Depictions of Muhammad are forbidden; therefore, there has never been an official depiction of the prophet; therefore, How do they know that ANY of these depictions are of the prophet? Just because the artist says so?

    Talk about taking something on faith!

    Icy Texan (82fda8)

  16. #7 Arizona Bob:

    I wonder if this behavior has more to do with culture than religion.

    The religion is as much a result of the culture as it is the charisma of the murderous pedophile in chief. For further reading, I would highly recommend Pryce-Jones’ <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Circle-Interpretation-Arabs/dp/1566634407The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs, which does a good job of exploring the culture.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  17. Huh, imagine there are ‘”>’ between the 7 and the T up there and that should turn into a link like this: The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  18. Comments by Beldar, Patterico

    Yes, judgement calls on what battle to fight where and when need to be made. There is the issue as to what battles will lead to winning the war (figuratively, the war of ideas I’m talking about).

    I would be happier fighting the free speech battles on issues like Horowitz’s talk and such where the radical Islamists have trouble accepting truth, rather than their outrage on mocking their religion.

    MD in Philly (ea3785)

  19. “I would be happier fighting the free speech battles on issues like Horowitz’s talk and such where the radical Islamists have trouble accepting truth, rather than their outrage on mocking their religion.”

    But don’t you see? If you fight the battle only on comfortable ground, you give up any ground that is uncomfortable.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  20. Patterico, how do the nutjobs know that the dog-man is supposed to be Mohammed? It reminds me of the old TV show, The Addams Family, where they hired Picasso to teach Morticia art. Sam Picasso.

    Anthing that makes islamofascists look Nutty Deluxe is fine by me. Considering how the Left defends anti-Christian art, they should be on board too.

    Unless some animals are more equal than others.

    Eric Blair (1e04df)

  21. Join me at GM’s Place on the 20th when I post my rendition of Mo. International Draw Mohammad Day. May it become a national Holiday.

    GM Roper (6afe02)

  22. IT, you got there first. Sorry about repeating your point.

    Eric Blair (1e04df)

  23. Thank goodness these moderate muslims didn’t torch the place.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  24. Well,
    Glad see someone has finally got it. We’ve spent the past 25 years being so sophisticated that we have let the Muslim scum inculcate it’s way into our life. We stupidly hand over freedoms and rights won with the blood of a decent people.
    Given a chance and hidden away, every mosque will produce it’s own breed of murders, liars and theives.
    However,
    The victory in this fight will not come in a Desert Storm. It will come in a nasty, horrific total war. We have been sold that we can win a war by just killing the war fighters, disabling their infrastructure and then rebuilding it. This enemy views it’s battle over a centuries long time scale. They have learned that their best allies are our liberal, insulated academia. And they are setting about to use it against us.
    Lan Astaslem
    Death to Islam

    pitchforksntorches (888cb1)

  25. “But don’t you see? If you fight the battle only on comfortable ground, you give up any ground that is uncomfortable.”
    Comment by Patterico

    Well, I’m not sure if it is an issue of “mere” comfort. I think the level of public discourse overall is disrespectful and dishonest. I’m not saying the law should institute new and “higher” standards of acceptable speech, but I’d love to see where society would simply turn away from “Piss Christ” as well as things mocking Islam and it would dry up, at least as much as possible. I would not support any government intervention on censoring political cartoons, but I would love to see people show self-restraint on popularizing stuff based on lies.

    I’m not going to protest on behalf of artists that mock Christianity and don’t see why I should support artists that mock Islam. If you ask me to stand against protests that are violent and disrespectful, on one level I can see that and agree, but I’m not sure how far I’ll get trying to support the disrespectful against the more disrespectful. Would I ban groups that refuse to allow others to speak? I guess so, but I would like to make that distinct from supporting “the right” to make “blasphemous art”.

    I don’t know if it would be good to outlaw pro-Nazi demonstrations, but on the other hand I have a real hard time supporting the “right” to be anti-Semitic and deny the Holocaust.

    MD in Philly (ea3785)

  26. It’s the dog depicted in that cartoon that should be offended.

    Old Coot (f722a6)

  27. My observations FWIW ….

    1) It is clear the Muslims are hysterical to the point of brain washed. The one young man who could not open his eyes to a video, behaving as-if his eyes were burned out, points to this pathology.
    2) The film-maker clearly is an imbecile and provacateur but well within his rights to do so. Much like piss Christ and all the Left hysteria that is anti-Christian/Catholic
    3) I find interesting how what is traditionally the European left (starting with our Dutch and French frems) are turning their snouts on Muslims in their most snotty passive aggressive way. The US Left will eventually catch up.
    4) Educators are cowards when forced to stand up to violence. They always back down. It is why Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Amin, et al were able to march them to their deaths with nary a peep.
    5) I want to see the video. I always liked the Techno music in Europe even if the scene was gay and druggie.
    6) F* Muhammed and this “religion of peace.” He was a druggie and child predator. Fact a billion people think the books written about him are words from god is as idiotic as folks thinking the same of other religions. Just books with concepts — some concepts better than others.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  28. “But don’t you see? If you fight the battle only on comfortable ground, you give up any ground that is uncomfortable.”
    Comment by Patterico

    …. is the same line of reasoning as when some of us attack Cocktail Party Republicans for their passive stance when debating Liberals. For letting those same liberals, lie and distort to score points.

    Not sure why with Muslims nuts we need to confront and get in attack mode but with Liberals we must be uber alles.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  29. I’m in too, homie.

    May 20th-Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

    It’s still on like Megatron.

    KingShamus (fb8597)

  30. “I find interesting how what is traditionally the European left (starting with our Dutch and French frems) are turning their snouts on Muslims in their most snotty passive aggressive way.”

    Heavensent – Got any examples?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  31. When will MOMA announce the opening of the “Piss Mohammad” exhibit?

    ropelight (3e6ada)

  32. radical Islamists

    Based on the history of Islam’s founder, Mohammed, using the phrase “radical Islamists” is somewhat analogous to saying “radical Nazis” or “radical Communists.” IOW, the belief system originates from the essence of extremism, the essence of radicalism.

    I have Muslim friends. I respect them.

    In light of the background of their prophet Mohammed, I’d have a difficult time respecting them just as I would have a tough time respecting a person wedded to Nazism or Communism. I certainly wouldn’t trust the basic wisdom or sense of right or wrong of anyone who’d crack open a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Mao’s Little Red Book and not be turned off.

    While there may be some good things in an inherently corrupt/ruthless theology or ideology, the appropriate sarcastic response would be “at least Hitler [or insert name of another fanatic/extremist] kept the trains running on time.” Or “and other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

    There is something not right — defective, if you will — about a person who aligns him or herself with a theology pinned to a figure as fanatical and bloodthirsty as Mohammed.

    Mark (411533)

  33. You know how people try to sell pieces of toast on ebay that they claim has the image of the virgin Mary on it? I wonder if ebay would let an auction go through if it was for a piec of toast that had the image of the Prophet Muhammed on it?

    Sean P (6f6c60)

  34. Do muslims believe in a giant Mother Plane and Mother Wheel or is that just the racist Nation of Islam bowtie dudes?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  35. I do not usually support going out of one’s way to offend others and do believe in living by the “Golden Rule”. Tolerance, however, is a two way street. These Muslims demand that respect be shown to themselves and to their prophet, while showing none to those not of their faith.

    Free and open societies require constant – and consistent – defense. Religious/cultural bullies have no more right to not be offended than others and their wild-eyed, fanatical tactics need to be nipped in the bud at the first opportunity… consistently and without fail. The Swedes and other Europeans are not up to the challenge and their viability as free, open, Western societies is very much in doubt.

    Let’s hope we are up to the challenge.

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  36. Folks it is time, hope you are all ready for Islam clashes with Western World brought to you by Fox news and MSNBC.

    Comment by Sanmon

    Yes, that Fox News pilot on 9/11 was really skilled. I guess the other pilot was MSNBC although, considering MSNBC, it was probably the guy on United 93 since it augured in.

    When the “Muslim World” can print more books than the island of Tobago,maybe I will take them seriously as moderns. Spain publishes more books each year than all the books ever published in the history of Islam by Muslim countries.

    What we call Islamist is really a cultural rage by a “shame-honor society” at the fact that they are backwards and live like the west lived in 1300. Part of the problem is that they decided early, when they were actually ahead or even in culture with the west, to ignore all developments from the west. They considered Islam to be the ultimate, a bit like the Chinese did about the same time. They were awakened to the fallacy when Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798. The Ottoman cavalry were slaughtered by cannon and the Muslim world began that inferiority complex that we see today.

    The terrorists can use cell phones and the internet but they could never invent them. The 9/11 guys had to come to the US to learn to fly airliners because there is no such school in the Muslim world. They have nothing we want but oil and they had nothing to do with that discovery, either.

    The Persians were actually progressing under the Shah. All that stopped in 1979. They marched 13 year old boys through mine fields to clear them in the Iran-Iraq War.

    I recommend the Ajami interviews on NRO’s web site as he is the most knowledgeable after Bernard Lewis. I would also recommend Lewis’s book on “What went wrong” and, of course, “The Closed Circle.”

    They really do not think like we do. I wonder if those girls demonstrating at the film have had their clitoridectomy yet. Maybe that’s why they are so pissed.

    Mike K (82f374)

  37. Remember, this is not about Islam, it’s about the West. A weak West that has no courage of its convictions and does not have the will or fortitude to stand up for its principles has no chance in a struggle against a confident, predatory Islam.

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  38. They really do not think like we do.
    Comment by Mike K

    I agree with you. Islamist may not be as sophisticated but since 10 years old many have learned how to mix fertilizer material into fairly powerful IED’s. We do not lose our Service Members due to well planed out attacks against them. We lose our Service Members as they preform logistics operations in the movement of troops and supplies. In this country we have an easy infrastructure available to attack.

    My reference to Fox and MSNBC was sarcasm. The fact of the matter is you will not have to watch the news to understand how a infrastructure attack will affect you. You will just have to open your food supply cabinet. It is easy to slow down a Technology driven economy when you turn down the power.

    Sanmon (319c0c)

  39. Trouble is, Beldar, first you withhold the offensive drawings, and then they build a temple on Ground Zero. What next?

    Oh, I see now. Now they have firebombed Vilks’ home.

    What next?

    Patricia (160852)

  40. I recommend the Ajami interviews on NRO’s web site as he is the most knowledgeable after Bernard Lewis.

    And I recommend Andrew McCarthy’s takedown of Ajami -> there may be moderate Muslims, but there is no “moderate” Islam

    Horatio (55069c)

  41. Exactly, Patricia. Fight fire with fire. And our politicians don’t seem to have the “fire” in them to do it. I am sick of them making excuses for the bad guys.

    Calming down now, before I really get going.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  42. What next? Look at the furor over Switzerland’s decision to ban anymore minarets. It’s subsequently thrown the cities into chaos and even more friction. But the Swiss and most of Europe are now attempting to undo what can’t be undone because they waited to long, and sought to be the multi-culti ambassadors and refused to see what was happening before it was too late.

    The WaPo is reporting today that Lars Vilks’s home in Sweden was firebombed last night. Freedom of speech is not welcome, wanted, nor understood by radical Islam. Nor, apparently, by American universities. (although they like to pretend otherwise).

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  43. Our politicians and career bureaucrats in the State Dept. and Dept. of Homeland Security can’t even stop THEMSELVES from damaging our nation…

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmIyYjhhMjQ3YTgwNTRjMjBiZTAzOGMzMmRjMjAxNTQ=

    If one was a suspicious sort, one might suspect a willingness to cooperate with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  44. They really do not think like we do. I wonder if those girls demonstrating at the film have had their clitoridectomy yet. Maybe that’s why they are so pissed.

    Well there’s some grim humor there, Mike K. Tangentially and tragically, as I read, the American Academy of Pediatrics has already started down the slippery slope of appeasement to Islam by condoning American doctors to give the ritual “nick” on young girls.

    They explain: Dr. Friedman Ross said that the committee members “oppose all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

    They jusitfy: The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo mutilation.

    They ignore the strenuous objections: Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, said she was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope that we put physicians on” with the new policy statement. “How much blood will parents be satisfied with?”

    She added: “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.”

    And the inevitable rolling over: A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

    Further, in the interest of sensitivity and not offending those who are the greatest offenders, the NYT does not mention Islam at all in the article, just the countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan…who have what in common?

    This is hideous and horrible, and yet it’s common knowledge that when a country attempts to appease another and ends up compromising their own principles as a result, it weakens the moral/ethical fabric, and subsequently cracks open the door. That’s the beginning.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  45. Dana, unfortunately a lot of people today really do not understand what appeasement is, and how in the last century it gradually led to one of the most black times in recorded human history–Adolf Hitler’s Reich. Many people do not “get” this because the high schools and universities in the country no longer bother to teach real “history.”

    Meanwhile, if any of you politically minded yet arty folks have pillows you are planning to needlepoint someday, here is a saying for you to consider committing to yarn:

    ——What you tolerate you get more of——

    elissa (c08e13)

  46. Dana – When I read that article I wondered what the Femogynist sites had to say about it.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  47. But the Swiss and most of Europe are now attempting to undo what can’t be undone because they waited to long, and sought to be the multi-culti ambassadors and refused to see what was happening before it was too late.

    I agree about most of Europe but still have hope for France and the Swiss. The Swiss because they still allow (and require) their entire population to be armed and ready in case of need, and the French because of Sarko’s refusal to allow moral relativism as an explanation of the Muslim immigrant’s refusal to assimilate. Neither country will go down without a fight, but you can kiss the Dutch, Germany and Britain goodbye in short order.

    Dmac (21311c)

  48. “37.Remember, this is not about Islam, it’s about the West. A weak West that has no courage of its convictions and does not have the will or fortitude to stand up for its principles has no chance in a struggle against a confident, predatory Islam.”

    Or anything else, for that matter. Excellent point.

    Sean P (6f6c60)

  49. “Well, I’m not sure if it is an issue of “mere” comfort. I think the level of public discourse overall is disrespectful and dishonest. I’m not saying the law should institute new and “higher” standards of acceptable speech, but I’d love to see where society would simply turn away from “Piss Christ” as well as things mocking Islam and it would dry up, at least as much as possible. I would not support any government intervention on censoring political cartoons, but I would love to see people show self-restraint on popularizing stuff based on lies.”

    I get what you’re saying — and Beldar is probably right in one sense: it’s probably not justified to do absolutely anything that offends the radicals, because you could be offending non-radicals. There is a balance to be struck there .

    At the same time, as much as “Piss Christ” offended me, I would start posting images of it in support of Serrano if he encountered the same kind of violent backlash that Vilks has encountered. At that point, my intent is not to offend, but to stand up for free speech.

    “I don’t know if it would be good to outlaw pro-Nazi demonstrations, but on the other hand I have a real hard time supporting the ‘right’ to be anti-Semitic and deny the Holocaust.”

    I don’t. When we pick and choose who has the right to free speech based on its content, then nobody has free speech.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  50. Dmac, sadly the Swiss are suffering from too much contact with liberal Europe and are on the verge of ending their armed reservist system.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. #48., Unfortunately it is about the predatory, perverse culture that is islam, AND a “west”, that in many of its manifestations has abandoned its linchpins of what is good and proper and what is not as “old fashioned”.

    The “west” generally respects others views, and has built a culture, including its laws, around that. islam is using that framework against many of us to further its world view, one that has not changed very much since the times of their murderous pedophile example-in-chief.

    We of the “west” do indeed “respect” their views at our own peril. islam now has enough of a foothold that successfully resisting its encroachment will be unpleasant. Resist we must, unpleasant or not. Western culture is worth the struggle.

    Gird your loins.

    Gabby (7f03bd)

  52. When we pick and choose who has the right to free speech based on its content, then nobody has free speech.

    Absolutely. However, we are free to protest and express our outrage against government sponsorship and payment using taxpayer’s money ($15,000 to the artist Serrano for Piss Christ)to “artists” producing crap like this. The “artist” certainly has every right to offend with his visual vomit and I would never want to take that away from him, but whether the government has the right to use my money support him as they pick and choose and determine for the masses what qualifies as “art”, is certainly worth the fight.

    With regard to the pro-Nazi demonstrations, I keep hearing that’s essentially already taking place in AZ (/sarc)… Seriously, if we deny them the right to that freedom, then the right of the KKK to march should be denied. If the KKK is denied their right to march and be heard, then what would be the next group to be singled out? Slippery slope indeed. As despicable as it may be, they are guaranteed that right. The best way to counteract these sorts would be to get the media to shun them as well as the public, and collectively decide NOT to give them very thing they want and need to motivate them to the next march: acknowledgment and attention.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  53. Heavensent – Got any examples?

    The video itself. Plenty of typical Lefty EU folks are turning thier back on “multiculturalism.”

    Van Goh’s whatever grandson is a great example.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  54. I don’t. When we pick and choose who has the right to free speech based on its content, then nobody has free speech.
    Comments by Patterico, (+Dana)

    Well, I understand your point, and I “cannot disagree” with you. I guess I agree that once you cut off free speech somewhere, then it can be cut off anywhere.

    But we do make regulations on what is acceptable in some forms of expression. We do not tolerate, legally, child porn, or any “porn” in certain locations. Some ideas are no better than “mind pornography”. Again, how would one decide what is and what isn’t would be the problem, I know.

    I guess I see personal and civic life to be more the interplay of rights and responsibilities, and at times the answer to a problem may not be appealing to rights, but to responsibilities. I think there is a responsibility to give those you disagree with the opportunity to present their views and opinions. So, I would be happy to protest the “shouting down” of speakers as the failure of those doing the shouting down.

    Now, whether that distinction is of any real significance or just hand waving, I’m not sure. For example, if a soldier fights to preserve “freedom of speech”, does that necessarily mean he is fighting for someone to have the opportunity to popularize views that are offensive and destructive? I don’t think so, but does that mean anything?

    MD in Philly (ea3785)

  55. Geert Wilders, Fjordman, and Lawrence Auster are correct – it is time to stop all Muslim immigration to the West given that Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and democratic societies.

    I refer you to Wilder’s movie “Fitna” for which the Dutch government is criminally prosecuting him. Fjordman, the pseudonym for a Norwegian blogger, has written extensively on the subject. Auster gave a great speech “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America,” at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Feb 2009. You can also view a video of Auster speaking on the problem – Islam and the West…Can They Co-Exist

    These men embody Charles Martel in the 21st Century and are refighting the Battle of Tours.

    Horatio (55069c)

  56. Patterico wrote,

    Beldar, I have Muslim friends. I respect them.

    I have Christian friends. I respect them.

    South Park respects nothing but comedy. They mock Jesus and Moses and Mohammed. It is funny. Only one group lacks a sense of humor.

    Fuck them.

    You ignore my point, my good friend: Your return fire isn’t only hitting its intended target. Your Muslim friends (and Muslims who you don’t know but who will see this, fairly enough, as your having gone out of your way to get their attention) are likely to take offense, even though you only intended to offend your Muslim enemies.

    That’s not a smart strategy for keeping your Muslim friends or making new ones, even if it does provoke the intended outrage among your Muslim enemies (or the intended approval among some other Americans who are similarly appalled by the excesses of your Muslim enemies).

    This is in as poor taste as the “piss Christ” art and its genre. One can recognize, simultaneously and with no cognitive dissonance, that (a) it’s in very bad taste and offensive (to anyone, but especially to Muslim believers of any sort), and (b) it’s protected speech under the First Amendment. (Indeed, it’s only the offensive speech that’s likely to need protection.) And beyond First Amendment concerns of government-sponsored suppression of ideas, I would agree that as an issue of personal morality and decency, it’s hateful and inappropriate for American lefties to align themselves with Muslims who’d commit violence upon those who publish stuff deliberately intended to mock Mohammed and Islam.

    But that still isn’t enough reason — for me, anyway — to adopt and republish speech that is indeed tasteless and calculated to offend all Muslims, friend or enemy, radical or assimilated, peaceful or violent. You don’t have to be a Leftie, and you don’t have to join them in trying to suppress someone else’s speech, in order to recognize that these cartoons and images are indeed likely to be offensive to essentially all Muslims, and to make a personal decision not to join in republishing (and thereby effectively endorsing) that offensive speech.

    Beldar (fe1f99)

  57. Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

    A couple of things bother me. One, any woman with a hyphenated last name is probably a lefty and better than 50% chance she is an angry one. Hillary lacks the hyphen (no not hymen) but in all other respects is an example.

    Two, why are Jews so widely represented in the appeasement circles ? If anyone has learned a lesson, it should be Jews. It’s like the old man who had been in a concentration camp and was asked for his comment on the Nazis. He said,”If someone says they want to kill you, believe them.”

    Even in Israel, there is a large (although smaller these days) appeasement party that seems to be desperate to deny the intentions of the Palestinians.

    Mike K (82f374)

  58. I wonder if the following writer, Bruce Maiman, even knows the history of Mohammed? Until not too long ago, I know I didn’t.

    Prior to that, I fell for the big-hugs sentiments of, among others, George W Bush, who claimed back in 2001 that Islam was a “religion of peace.” I naively assumed that a major religion like Islam couldn’t possibly be resting on the foundation of a figure as reprehensible as Mohammed. IOW, I assumed that the average person — who wasn’t a stereotypical cultist — would display a bit of good sense and discernment when gravitating towards a theology.

    When Maiman claims that Jihadwatch’s Robert Spencer is incorrect to state that “the bombings by terrorists are justified on the basis of Islamic theology,” I want to ask Maiman: And how the hell do you square that with the history of Islam’s founder?!

    I’ve rarely observed anyone, supporters and critics of Islam alike, delve into the truly ruthless, bloodthirsty nature of Mohammed. So when Maiman attempts to create some type of moral equivalency between Mohammed and Christ, I bet that’s a sign of both his ignorance and foolishness. Or the characteristics of a person rooted in typical, 100%-secular, 100%-humanist Western liberalism. A person of the left who finds the subject of religion in general to be dull, archaic and full of quaint superstition. IOW, leftism is Maiman’s religion, and he therefore can’t be bothered with the details of Mohammed and Christ, etc, etc.

    examiner.com, Bruce Maiman, May 15, 2010:

    You may have heard about the plans for construction of a mosque and Muslim community center just two blocks from Ground Zero—a 13-story, $100-million-dollar facility.

    As you can imagine, the issue is prompting reaction both on the street and in the blogosphere. The issue has a clear battle line: Opponents call it “disrespectful,” and a “slap in the face.” Supporters argue that all Muslims shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists and that the facility is intended to bring about a new discourse in the relationship between the United States, New York City and the Muslim world.

    As is often the case when Islam is involved, a significant amount of the opposition seems steeped in gross generalizations and misunderstandings about that part of the world and about the religion itself. Some see Islam, as one internet commenter wrote, as “no different than the KKK or skinheads…their philosophy and methods are very similar.”

    “Why not just put up a flashing neon sign saying, ‘Terrorists Welcome!'” wrote another.

    This attitude seems to come from a view that believes Islam is bad; all Muslims are terrorists.

    …There is, of course, no question that there are radical extremists who hate the United States and the West, and who have hijacked the Islamic faith in pursuit of their desire to restore a 7th Century hegemony as in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. But that doesn’t make the majority of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims…bad people with murderous intent toward people of the United States and our way of life. That is a spectacularly uninformed perspective.

    That argument would certainly have merit if the people building the mosque and community center were radical Islamic terrorists. They’re not…

    [A]s Robert Spencer does over at JihadWatch when he writes that “the bombings by terrorists are justified on the basis of Islamic theology.” No they’re not; the bombings are justified by terrorists on the basis of their interpretation of Islamic theology, which the vast majority of Muslims will tell you is a gross misinterpretation of Islamic theology.

    Why do we continue to conflate the intent of a particular faith with the criminal acts of a few? Isn’t this the same argument made in defense of Christians when critics say they’re all a bunch of religious fanatics or that all Catholic priests child molesters? Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Mark (411533)

  59. The setting most definitely can make a difference, oh learned Beldar. To me, if we won’t defend speech of any type in an academic setting, we won’t defend speech at all.

    This particular presentation was vile, imo. Yet it led to some great truths, did it not? Isn’t that the entire point, ostensibly anyway, of academe? The West must protect such.

    Ed from SFV (f0e1cb)

  60. When I read that article I wondered what the Femogynist sites had to say about it.

    daley @ 46,

    Amanda Marcotte continues to give me motive to mock so called “feminists”,

    I have to say that I don’t really see the problem with the American Academy of Pediatrics advising doctors to offer a “ritual nick” in lieu of the more serious forms of female circumcision that are often on offer in some other parts of the world. The practice is something that is done in modern places that want to have a link to tradition without actually doing any real harm to little girls, from what I understand. All they do is prick your genitals, or make a small cut that heals over, but nothing is removed. You’re basically scratching the girl. It’s not awesome—and from what I understand, in some places they just wave the razor over the girl’s genitals but don’t touch her at all—but comparing it to more severe forms of female circumcision troubles me.

    Her rationales include male circucision being a tradition in the West, and of course an inevitable and pathetic attempt to equate female circumcision with the Western misogyny of…marriage.

    And it’s not like Western culture is so free of blatantly misogynist traditions, either. Part of me wishes that we had a two minute nicking at the doctor instead of the entire painfully misogynist wedding tradition that persists in the name of tradition. Everything from white gowns to bouquet tosses to the father “giving” the bride away—all about reducing women to objects that exist strictly to fuck and marry men, if not suggesting that we’re male property. But people hang onto it, because it’s tradition.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  61. Dana – Thanks. I think it was Cassy Fiano or one of the other Green Room writers at Hot Air who just coined the term “Femogynists” to refer to people such as Amanda. I liked it.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  62. Dana,

    Amanda Marcotte could be one of Mark Steyn’s Secular Muslims:

    As to Andy’s musings on the contradictions of being a “secular Muslim”, that’s actually a pretty good term for the executives of Comedy Central, the publishers at Yale University Press, the custodians at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Academy of Pediatricians, etc. They don’t go to Friday prayers (yet) but they accept that the strictures of Islamic law are now universal – no pix of the Prophet, a little bit of FGM never hurt anyone, etc. “Secular Muslim” seems as useful a term as any.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  63. DRJ – I just think of her as a useful idiot and an oozing gob of hate.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  64. After looking at a few pics of sweet Amanda, I sense some bitterness at play… not making fun… just sayin’…

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2439171662_b94efb8419.jpg

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  65. daley, I agree it’s a great and fitting term. Marcotte and friends are aptly described in Dr. Chesler’s insightful Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. Marcotte is blind to this of course.

    DRJ, “secular Muslims” is about right. No will to stand, fight and protect. Just a sad surrendering to what they see as, I guess, the inevitable. Today Steyn addresses in a great essay (read the whole thing), the essence of the decision by the American Pediatrics group,

    Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

    The AAP thinks you can hop on the sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the “ritual nick” we’re performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  66. oops. Steyn link.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  67. She could surround herself with cases of Amstel and it wouldn’t be enough… again… just sayin’…

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  68. She could be sitting next to the front door of the Amstel brewery and it wouldn’t be enough.

    There… I said it…

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  69. But she may have a pleasing personality…

    No?

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2186 secs.