« Rand Paul & 1st Amendment Freedom of Association | Main | Olbermann Bible Bungle »

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e75ed53ef0133ee6aecb7970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrorists Won on Draw Muhammad Day:

Comments

Tyler Overman

You said, "While people seek a relationship with God, animals don’t. It’s one of the things that separate humans from animals."

Are you referring to talking donkeys and snakes, or animals that have actually existed?

JDS

Tommy,
You make an "unjustified" leap when you say..."Particularly disturbing was watching Christians taking part in the intentional desecration of another’s religious symbol."
Simply drawing Muhammed does NOT desecrate Islam or any Islamic symbol. You, and any Muslim who are so easily offended should have learned the wisdom of the old saying, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names/words can never hurt me." (Much unlike the Muslim extremists who definitely hurt the Danish cartoonist a few years back)

I googled "Draw Muhammed Day" and found this...

"Some Muslims consider any depiction of Muhammad to be blasphemous, though Islamic scholar Babak Rahimi, who teaches at the University of California San Diego, says: "It is a well-known fact that aesthetic depictions of the prophet have been and remain a major cultural feature of Muslim societies around the world."

Tommy De Seno

JDS - I don't think it's a leap at all. I addressed that in the first column.

It doesn't matter that I don't understand how a depiciton of Muhammad is insulting - it matters to them.

Then I go into the cost benefit analysis - I get nothing out of drawing it, and they perceive a harm from it. That weighs heavily in favor of not doing it for me.

Lastly - I don't hold that anyone should bow to spurrious claims of arguable insults - but this isn't one. Since it's widely held by about a billion Muslins, I have no problem respecting it.

They might not know how I can be insulted by putting a crucifix in a jar or urine (as one reader suggested to me), but I hope they respect my religion enough not to do it.

JDS

"Lastly - I don't hold that anyone should bow to spurrious claims of arguable insults - but this isn't one."
Says who? Islamic scholar Babak Rahimi, who teaches at the University of California San Diego, disagrees with you(see my first comment). If any Muslim thinks it is blasphemous to draw Muhammed, then by all means, don't draw Muhammed. But don't infringe on my right to draw Muhammed if I so desire, even though, like you said, I gain nothing from it. Nothing monetarily that is, but all people gain when freedom exists, freedom of speech in this case. How ironic that I just commended you on your last column on Rand Paul's freedom of speech/association...how quickly you forget!

Bevaboo

Uh, JDS, I totally understand where Tommy's coming from here, and I really respect him for his belief and adherence to Christ's commands. Here's a link to Matthew 7, AKA the Sermon on the Mount, very important to us Christians.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207&version=NIV In particular, verse 12, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." That's a tough one to do sometimes, but it's what we've been commanded to do.

I agree with Tommy. A Christian would not take part in Draw Muhammad Day, because our God came to Earth and told us directly not to do that. Period. I cringe when I see or hear about artists or musicians insulting my religion. Why in the world would I purposely hurt someone else like that? Particularly if I'm insulting way more people than just a few hundred/thousand terrorists?

Tommy isn't saying that we should selectively enforce the 1st amendment. He's saying that just having the legal right to do something doesn't mean that, morally, it's a good choice. My grandfather had the legal right to get married 5 different times to 5 different women, and he did. Classic serial monogamist. That doesn't make it morally right.

JDS

Bevaboo,
Not sure why you needed to post another link to Matt. 7, I understood it the first time when Tommy posted it in his final paragraph. And as a Christian I agree with it, but I interpret it to mean that others have the free speech right to blaspheme against Christ and Christianity just like I have the right to draw Muhammed. You (and Tommy) need to practice what you preach. You, just like Tommy, make an "unjustified" leap when you asked this question...
"Why in the world would I purposely hurt someone else like that?" That's exactly the point of this "Draw Muhammed Day"...drawing Muhammed does NOT hurt anyone(perhaps you didn't read my first post, Sticks and Stones?). It is the radical Islamists who killed the Danish cartoonist that hurt someone.

JDS

Tommy and Bevaboo,
Here's the link and first/last paragraphs of another article on this topic...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37153

State Department Endorses Islamic Law
by Robert Spencer

05/25/2010

Last Thursday was “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” and Muslims, predictably, are outraged. Thousands of Pakistanis demonstrated against the drawings of Muhammad, and the Pakistani government shut down access to Facebook and YouTube to prevent its citizens from seeing the offending images. (Interestingly enough, images of beheadings and suicide bombings have never given rise to similar acts of censorship anywhere in the Islamic world.)

That's why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not a stunt, not a joke, not a raspberry to anyone, not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech. The State Department should be explaining what I am explaining now. Instead, they bowed no less unmistakably than did Obama to the Saudi King.

JDS

And here's another article that should be required reading for Tommy/Beva and their ilk...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/dhimmicrats_on_the_march.html

May 25, 2010
Dhimmicrats on the March?
By Ken Blackwell

What's a dhimmicrat, you say? It's not the same thing as a Democrat. A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations.
.....
What is dhimmitude, anyway? It's the status -- or lack of status-- that is accorded to non-believers in Muslim-dominant countries. Dhimmis get to pay special taxes for not being Muslim. They get to be excluded from many educational and professional opportunities. They get to have their churches burned and their communities attacked. If you want to know more about what life is like under dhimmitude, just ask the Copts of Egypt. But ask these hardy Christians here. Don't ask them there.

Bevaboo

You aren't really reading what we're saying, are ya, JDS-boy? I'm not denying anyone their right to draw whatever they please, nor is Tommy. We're just saying that it's not morally right to purposely insult someone's belief system no matter what foot the shoe is on. It was wrong when Christians did it during the Crusades, it was wrong during the European religious wars, and it's wrong now that the Muslims are doing it. A true, practicing Christian doesn't believe that one *should* exercise their freedom of speech simply because one can.

I'm grateful that (at least for now), I can continue to be a Christian with legal impunity in this country, though I am mentally preparing for a day when I can't. And if someday I will be persecuted for my beliefs, I am willing to die for them. I don't hate anyone for believing differently than I do; God gave us all minds of our own, and he will judge and punish or reward when the time comes. That's not part of my job description.

You say you're a Christian, but do you even understand what Jesus really meant when he spoke those words? It doesn't appear that you're adhering to them. Every Christian's goal should be that everyone who will allow himself to be saved should be. That's why I still pray for the ex-boyfriend who blacked my eye. I especially pray for his wife, lol.

BTW, didn't look at your link, because I'm aware that injustices towards Christians exist all over the world, not just in Muslim countries. North Korea, for example. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53863 Even here in the US. http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newssummpopup.php?newscode=11815 I don't have to pay extra taxes for my faith (yet), so it doesn't cost me financially, but it does cost me socially. My own family treats me with a bit of distrust/disdain, people laugh at my Jesus bumper sticker/T-shirts, I can't always go to the movie everyone wants to see, etc. These are my choices.

Let me put it this way, I'm putting Jesus' words into action, and behaving toward others as I want them to behave toward me. I'm not selective in which of God's commands I will obey and which I won't, which is why I'm exhorting my fellow Christians not to sin by disobeying Jesus.

Hee hee... You called me one of Tommy's 'ilk'. That is a rock-solid compliment. Thank you! I've felt for years now that he is a man truly committed to following Christ, and I admire his walk. Man, I gotta be doing something right!

Tommy De Seno

JDS to sum up what Bev and I are saying, given the choice of exceptionalism in communication and inadequate communication, we'll take excellence.

I've not once in 3 columns on the subject ever said anyone should be prohibited from drawing Muhammad.

I've said they should choose not to.

Aoirthoir An Broc

" They got multitudes of Americans to act exactly as they do."

Nope. See, multitudes of Americans didn't go around 1. threatening people for drawing, following our religions or blaspheming according to OUR beliefts, and 2. multitudes of Americans didn't go around killing hundreds of people. Nice try though there sherlock.

"Particularly disturbing was watching Christians taking part in the intentional desecration of another’s religious symbol."

Ok, like THAT hasn't gone on before with you monotheists.

"Al-Qaeda went after symbols – the World Trade Center; the Pentagon. The Taliban ordered the destruction of Buddhist symbols in Afghanistan. "

Ok let's see where this is going....

"We Americans knew as those things happened that the destruction of symbols is a low form of speech. When we think of the higher forms of communication be it prose, poetry or art, the intentional defiling of what someone else holds dear is as low as speech can be delivered."

Aha. Except you are wrong. See, by CREATING art we are NOT destroying existing things. Muslims around the world can still go around NOT drawing muhammed all they want. They can go around NOT idolizing him (uh huh...). But those tings the Taliban destroyed are either gone forever (the buddhist statues) or rebuilt at great cost. DRAWING something in NO way compares to this destruction. So you get a second star of fail little Johnny.

"The purpose of criticism is persuasion. "

See, YOU don't get to tell ME why *I* criticize something.

"No one has ever been persuaded by first being insulted."

Tell that to the Muslims and other faithless monotheists who keep insulting pagans by, Oh I don't know, MURDERING our adherents when we refuse to convert to your evil religions.

" You might convince me Wall Street needs correction by showing me bundled sub-prime mortgages, but knocking down a Wall Street building won’t convince me."

Uh huh. But is it ok to draw a picture of a wall street building crashing down to represent the theft and greed at the hands of wall street, and to represent the crash of the stock market? See, DRAWING is in NO WAY the same as destroying property. So that is your third star, pretty Peggie Sue.

"There are sects of Muslims who wish to kill or convert us religiously and impose Sharia Law upon us politically. But there are millions of Muslims, several million right here in America, who don’t. Why turn them into collateral damage?"

I call hogwash! Once again you are trying to compare real PHYSICAL hurts with feigned emotional hurts. This is what we call BAIT AND SWITCH. Another star.

"I’m all for killing Islamo-fascists where they stand. But I want to get along with peaceful American Muslims."

See, this is where we differ and now I know why you would support groups that feel that NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO PROTEST murderous threats in the manner the THREATENED decide. I am opposed to just killing Islamo-fascists where they stand. See, I believe in a little thing called DUE PROCESS, the COURT system, the right to a TRIAL BY JURY and other such ABSOLUTELY NEEDFUL PROTECTIONS for freedom, EVEN the freedom of those I disagree with.

"I take my queue from our American military. While they kill the enemy, the do all they can to eliminate innocent collateral damage."

Drawings =/= collateral damage.

"Am I not obligated to renounce the terrorists while at the same time being respectful to the non-belligerents, just as our military does?"

No I am not obligated. The difference is I am making DRAWINGS. The military has to be careful becaue they MIGHT be shooting at people. BIG BIG Difference. Not that I expect a monotheist to understand that.

"It wasn’t surprising that Atheists jumped aboard “Draw Muhammad Day” to desecrate a religious symbol. Atheists, unlike Agnostics, are America’s lesser-minded."

Ok so here is your argument, which is interestingly the very same as that of the muslims, MUSLIMS are NOT allowed to be insulted, but EVERYONE ELSE IS. There's no accounting for those atheists that REFUSED to partake in this, for the same reasons you chose, or reasons of their own. Instead you are going to GLOAT in your monotheistic privilege and lump all atheists together, the VERY THING YOU DEMAND WE NOT DO TO MUSLIMS.

But as I have said over and over, this doesn't apply to muslims or their supporters in this row, only to EVERYONE ELSE.

"While people seek a relationship with God, animals don’t. It’s one of the things that separate humans from animals."

By the holy gods and goddesses, the queen of heaven, the all father, the nature spirits and everything that is righteous, your monotheistic privilege just doesn't stop, and your highly insulting commentary about other's religions is unrelenting, all while you demand WE NOT "insult" religions YOU deem uninsultable.

I got news for you bub, animals DO have a relationship with the gods. Even your Jesus said so. "Consider the Sparrows of the field, they toil not, neither do they build, but your heavenly father takes care of them." It's also interesting that PLANTS have a relationship with the gods as well, eve according to your Jesus, because he said the SAME EXACT THING about the lillies of the field.

"Atheists certainly acted like animals on Draw Muhammad Day."

Muslims must never be insulted. But let's insult ALL atheists on what a FEW did. Even if we were to believe what those FEW did was wrong, your hypocritically practicing the very thing you demand we not practice. So guess what, you get ZERO say in what we do, when WE act like YOU.

"Christians make up 80% of America and therefore have a particular responsibility to be exemplary in the eyes of the world. "

Yes they do make up the majority. No they don't have to be exemplary. Of course you won't say that same thing about Muslims either. Understand this, YOU don't get to tell other Christians, or those of other faiths, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, and such HOW they live their faith. PERIOD bucko!

"I hoped that rather than take part in Draw Muhammad day, my fellow Christians would hearken back to the recent past when two of our symbols were famously under attack: When the artist Serrano photographed a crucifix in a jar of his own urine and called it Piss Christ, and when the artist Ofili painted the Blessed Mother Mary surrounded by pornography and covered in elephant dung."

They did hearken back to that, by NOT THREATENING MURDER when these things were done, and NOT carrying OUT murder. But that's a little fact you are just going to ignore.

"But we Americans are much further down the road of intelligent discourse to be stuck on whether one “may” desecrate religious symbols and be protected by the first Amendment. "

Um, what discourse we are having is that DRAWING is NOT comparable to murder. Also YOU don't get to determine if MY art is desecration. Why? Because I am NOT of your religion, so your religious laws DO NOT apply to me. IF we are going to go that route, your religion is ALREADY EVERY DAY desecrating paganism. You do not worship the moon, you do not worship the sun, you do not honor the All Father, you do not praise the Queen of Heaven. In fact you DENY they DESERVE to be worshipped. THAT is desecrating. But in your monotheistic privilege, you are not going to STOP that desecration and we ALL KNOW it.

"Yet many Christians spent “Draw Muhammad Day” spinning their wheels in the philosophical mud of an argument long ago won"

Nope. See, the battle is fought with EACH infringement upon our rights. BEING MURDERED is the MOST SIGNIFICANT INFRINGEMENT a human being can face. UNDERSTAND that.

"But the 1st Amendment doesn’t say that you should, "

WRONG. The entire point of the free speech, religion, press and other clauses is that you MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD live free. I most certainly SHOULD live as *I* choose and NOT as another. I WONT be cajoled into bending the knee because I live in a FREE land. An opportunity my predecessors that were MURDERED by the TENS OF THOUSANDS by muslims, did not have.

"Yet straight to the gutter some went on Draw Muhammad Day, desecrating a religious symbol not because they should, but because they could. "

EXACTLY.

"Hitler could, but he shouldn’t have. He became no less reprehensible simple because he could."

Hitler MURDERED people. STOP comparing MURDER to DRAWING. They are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Your claim OFFENDS my religion which has SENSE ENOUGH to KNOW the difference. But, though you are desecrating my religion, by claiming that murder and drawing are the same, you absolutely WONT stop, will you? We all know the answer, you monotheistic hypocrit.

"Also disappointing was the Muhammad drawings done by those politically identifying as conservatives. Two very important tenants of American conservatism suffered a knock-out on Draw Muhammad Day. One is respect for religion, which goes without saying was lost on those drawing Muhammad. "

Sorry but respect for other's religions has never been a major tenet of conservatism. In fact it's typically the other way around. But what conservatism often does stand for is the RIGHT to disagree. They expressed that RIGHT that day.

"On Draw Muhammad Day, people could have used their 1st Amendment right to ..."

WRONG. YOU do NOT get to tell me what I get to use my first amendment right to do.

"Instead of using that right to draw distinctions between us and them through masterful communication, "

Hmm I agree with you here. Here is the distinction, WE believe that people should NOT be murdered for drawing. WE believe that the religious rules of a religion OF WHICH WE ARE NOT MEMBERS, have ZERO SAY in how we live, and ZERO determination in what is sacred to us. So yes, we used this day to draw a distinction between those who value freedom for EVERYONE and those who value freedom to ONLY LIVE like them.

"Draw Muhammad Day revealed a distinction between professional journalists, who did not take part, and Internet hacks."

Right, it's not their job to participate in my protests. Just as journalists REPORT on protests at political conventions, but are not there to participate, so too in this case. NO different.

"Aside from the Terrorist win by making Christians temporarily act like them,"

WRONG. Once again you need to be schooled that DRAWING is in NO WAY similar to MURDERS or THREATS of murder. What is this, preschool? By the gods, how is it that you people CANNOT UNDERSTAND that SIMPLE fact?

"The irony lost on the Muhammad drawing Christians is that South Park is decidedly, purposely anti-Christian."

Nope. It is decidedly anti-EVERYTHING. But that's a little fact you will leave out because it is inconvenient to your argument.

"Parker and Stone’s laughter is drowned out by that of Bill Maher"

Yes so Bill Maher will have something to say, BY the gods we must never act if HE will make commentary on our actions. You have more faith in Bill Maher than in your deity, it's amazing.

"Better to be a true Christian and follow the book of Matthew, 7:12 – “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.”"

See that's EXACTLY what the TRUE christians protesting these threats of murder did. They did unto those that make threats what they would want done if they made such threats, THEY DIDN'T threaten in kind. See how that works? Simple math really.

Newseditorial

I think I need an aspirin after reading this article. My G-d, I just wasted 5 freaking minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Then, of course, two more to comment. LOL

You basically call atheists animals while you preach about how we should bend over backwards to protect the precious religious feelings of Muslims. Which is of course complete hypocrisy, but here's what I think.

I have zero respect for Mo, if I did, I would just become a Muslim. My G-d is freedom of speech, you have just insulted my G-d. Take it back!! :)

JDS

Tommy,
You replied to me..."I've not once in 3 columns on the subject ever said anyone should be prohibited from drawing Muhammad."...and I have not once in several comments here accused you of such. In comment #1, I accused you of this..."You make an "unjustified" leap when you say..."Particularly disturbing was watching Christians taking part in the intentional desecration of another’s religious symbol."
Simply drawing Muhammed does NOT desecrate Islam or any Islamic symbol."
And then I quoted an Islamist scholar who agrees with me in my accusation.
And then I disagreed with your statement..."Lastly - I don't hold that anyone should bow to spurrious claims of arguable insults - but this isn't one."
This most certainly is a spurious claim of an insult....drawing Muhammed does NOT injure anyone; retaliating against cartoonists who do draw Muhammed DOES most certainly injure, even kill people!
You're on the unjustified wrong side of this issue, Tommy, as Mr. Spencer says in his Human Events article..."That's why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not a stunt, not a joke, not a raspberry to anyone, not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today"
As Mr Blackwell says in his American Thinker article, you're a dhimmicrat. And even though you profess to support freedom of speech, if you're not with us in this foremost battleground in the defense of freedom of speech, then you're against us and against freedom of speech.

Tommy De Seno

JDS you argued a few posts above: "I have the right to draw Muhammed." I took that to mean you were suggesting that I said you don't have that right.

There are between 800 million and 1 billion Muslims in the world. I'm not surprised you could find a quote from 1 that says Muhammad images are not offensive. The problem for him is that the other billion say that it is. I think I'm going to go with the numbers since they are so overwhelming.

JDS you also assert as you have serveral times, that the drawing isn't harmful. But then you quote Spencer in stating that the cartoons are a "battleground." And what do men do on a battleground - harmlessly tickle one another? He described it as a battleground because he knows it does hurt them, just as Piss Christ hurt me.

I'm taken aback, even insulted, you would describe me as Dhimmi, and say I don't support free speech (the end of yoru last post). For the nth time - I support your right to draw Muhammad - so I support free speech.

But I reserve he right to judge your speech. If it's religious sacrilege, it's low and unimpressive (that there would be my free speech).

By the way - Dhimmi is to be submissive to Islam. It is the Islamist that went after our symbols, the Islamist who committed sacrilege against the Buddhists, and YOU who supports sacrilege in this case.

I oppose it in all cases.

Which one of us is Dhimmi?

JDS

Tommy,
I called you a "dhimmicrat" as defined in Blackwell's AT article..."A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations." By supporting this unjustified Muslim/sharia law against drawing Muhammed, you are the dhimmicrat, not I.
And just to clarify, I support free speech; sometimes that free speech will be something I, or others, consider sacrilegious; I still have to support free speech, even if I don't like that speech. So don't be insulted, just be informed that you don't really support free speech. If you did you would be like Spencer says in his Human Events article...
"That's why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not a stunt, not a joke, not a raspberry to anyone, not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech."
Note well, Tommy, Spencer does NOT (as you wrongly suggest) say that the drawings of Muhammed are harmful, in fact he says exactly the opposite. Just because a Muslim is insulted by a drawing of Muhammed, doesn't mean the drawing is harmful. This is the whole point that you are missing! You do realize that radical Muslims killed the Danish cartoonist who published the first Muhammed drawing a few years ago? And because of this, Comedy Central was cowed into censoring the South Park cartoon with Muhammed. Now that's an assault on Free Speech...you are on the wrong side of this issue!

Bevaboo

My impression of JDS - No matter how many times something is explained, stick your fingers in your ears and scream to the top of your lungs, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" And then follow it up with more of the same accusations. Never mind, lol.

JDS

Bev,
You accuse me of doing the exact same thing you are doing. I stopped responding to you when I found out you were a woman and that you didn't feel like you had to bother reading what I had posted, your exact words...
"BTW, didn't look at your link, because I'm aware that injustices towards Christians exist all over the world, not just in Muslim countries."
...of course my link didn't have anything to do with the fact that injustices towards Christians exist all over the world, but don't let the facts get in the way of how you act or what you believe.
Since you accuse me of making the same accusations over and over again, here's some new ones. You're not as good of a Christian as you think you are. You don't treat others like you would like to be treated and you judge people without knowing what is in their hearts. And more importantly, since this is not really about whether someone is a Christian or not, you really don't seem to have a very logical or rational way of discussing an issue. From the very start you have missed the point of what I was saying and you NEVER addressed anything I posted. For that very reason I stopped replying to you but since you returned with this latest gratuitous attack on me, I thought it was only fair to point out to you your rather egregious deficiencies.

ruthie

So Tom, your pal Pam Geller, what she did with the buses, that's probably okay, right? The terrorsts didn't win there, right? That wasn't Muslim baiting. I'm sure you can slither your way into that

ferragamo shoes


the information of this post is very relevant
for what i am looking for, thank you so much for sharing this one

The comments to this entry are closed.

RightyBlogs Headlines