THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
Hitch's article, the subject of my last post, called a spade a spade by calling Pat Buchanan a "religious bigot."
Want to know why this label is justified? Consider the following article, written by Pitchfork Pat today:
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Muhammad to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons – or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Muhammad, including a lampoon of the prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Muhammad is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded. The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on Page 1, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Muhammad doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shiite sector of Iraq (nor should he be, Pat. One need not have to be prepared to take up arms to defend one's right to express one's self). Innocents (rioters? murderers?) will pay the price of his heroism (but not the price of Muslim barbarity, even though Islam supposedly forbids violence in response to this sort of thing, and permits only "demonstrations").
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view." (defending the 1st Amendment is "neutral ground"?)
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow. (Bad)
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about – the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war? (Yes - absolutely. Freedom of the press means nothing unless it includes the right to offend, to criticize, to provoke, to challenge. It was the Muslims that "started" the religious war, not the Danes, whom Pat believes are godless secularists).
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? (One of the lessons we've learned from that over-a-century-year-old event is that is not worth STARTING a war over religious insults; what we see as a lesson, Pat sees as a failure to learn - this thinking is indeed the hallmark of a reactionary bigot). Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? (Yes, they did - they learned that freedom of speech is literally worth dying for. What Pat learned from this episode is that it is acceptable for a state to support efforts to kill people who criticize another's God).Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers (Jerry Falwell, whom Pat vigorously supports) in the United States called Muhammad a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? (Answer: freedom can include the right to be irresponsible). Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests. (Pat knows that these people are no "friends" of the West and are chomping at the bit for excuses to back out of our "friendship.")
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors (here, though, the censorship is not of opinion - it is of defamatory and libelous remarks, and the censorship comes as punishment as the result of a judicial proceeding in which the person claiming libel - i.e. the person who claimed the Holocaust happened - must prove that the Holocaust denier's claims are false. Some burden). British "historian" David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison (as defendants do in libel cases there) awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria (actually, it was for much, much more than for speeches he made in Austria). Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press. (Ummmm, no Pat. To the extent the European press endorses such things, it is out of a sense of faux guilt. Also, Pat is saying that the Europeans are hypocrites because their publishers published the Danish cartoons with impunity, but Holcaust deniers are punished. He has not said that PUBLISHERS that have denied the Holocaust have been silenced, persecuted, or jailed. Is the reason why these publishers have not been silenced - could it be - because there actually is some kind of freedom of the press (in an amount that is greater than the amount of freedom of speech given to individuals generally) in Europe?
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond (out of a bow to political correctness, not because Republicans were genuinely offended). Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched (really? I missed the noose) for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling. (how riotous! get it - riotous!)
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks (can't have such obigotory laws, now, can we, Pat?) But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols – from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum. (Oh, so Pat is in favor of speech codes - as long as the codes prevent mockery of religion. What a "discriminating" bigot he is).
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
*******************************************************************************
What an utterly reductive worldview. Language that mocks religion=bad; language that mocks anything else=good. Freedom of religion does not include the right to abridge freedom of speech. If it did, the 1st Amendment would contain an additional clause. Or, as Justice Kennedy once said, "An institution does not violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment by embracing the free speech clause of that amendment."
Word of the day: spying+lying=spyling
Favorite dance floor song of bigots="Gettin' biggy wit' it"
Favorite bumper stickers= "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church"; "Meet the Fuckers" (words surrounded by images of Bush and Cheney); "Having trouble vomiting lately?" (words next to arrow pointing to George Bush
New Congressional/White House nicknames:
Sam Brownback=Sam Brownshirt; Sam Brownback Mountain
Lynne Cheney=Lon Cheney
Alberto Gonzales=Bleaty Gonzales; Attorney Genitorture
Kenneth Tomlinson=Kenneth Vomitson
Senator Crapo (R-ID) = Senator Crapo
Jim Bunning= Jim Brown Bunny
Want to know why this label is justified? Consider the following article, written by Pitchfork Pat today:
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Muhammad to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons – or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Muhammad, including a lampoon of the prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Muhammad is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded. The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on Page 1, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Muhammad doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shiite sector of Iraq (nor should he be, Pat. One need not have to be prepared to take up arms to defend one's right to express one's self). Innocents (rioters? murderers?) will pay the price of his heroism (but not the price of Muslim barbarity, even though Islam supposedly forbids violence in response to this sort of thing, and permits only "demonstrations").
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view." (defending the 1st Amendment is "neutral ground"?)
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow. (Bad)
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about – the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war? (Yes - absolutely. Freedom of the press means nothing unless it includes the right to offend, to criticize, to provoke, to challenge. It was the Muslims that "started" the religious war, not the Danes, whom Pat believes are godless secularists).
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? (One of the lessons we've learned from that over-a-century-year-old event is that is not worth STARTING a war over religious insults; what we see as a lesson, Pat sees as a failure to learn - this thinking is indeed the hallmark of a reactionary bigot). Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? (Yes, they did - they learned that freedom of speech is literally worth dying for. What Pat learned from this episode is that it is acceptable for a state to support efforts to kill people who criticize another's God).Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers (Jerry Falwell, whom Pat vigorously supports) in the United States called Muhammad a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? (Answer: freedom can include the right to be irresponsible). Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests. (Pat knows that these people are no "friends" of the West and are chomping at the bit for excuses to back out of our "friendship.")
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors (here, though, the censorship is not of opinion - it is of defamatory and libelous remarks, and the censorship comes as punishment as the result of a judicial proceeding in which the person claiming libel - i.e. the person who claimed the Holocaust happened - must prove that the Holocaust denier's claims are false. Some burden). British "historian" David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison (as defendants do in libel cases there) awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria (actually, it was for much, much more than for speeches he made in Austria). Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press. (Ummmm, no Pat. To the extent the European press endorses such things, it is out of a sense of faux guilt. Also, Pat is saying that the Europeans are hypocrites because their publishers published the Danish cartoons with impunity, but Holcaust deniers are punished. He has not said that PUBLISHERS that have denied the Holocaust have been silenced, persecuted, or jailed. Is the reason why these publishers have not been silenced - could it be - because there actually is some kind of freedom of the press (in an amount that is greater than the amount of freedom of speech given to individuals generally) in Europe?
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond (out of a bow to political correctness, not because Republicans were genuinely offended). Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched (really? I missed the noose) for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling. (how riotous! get it - riotous!)
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks (can't have such obigotory laws, now, can we, Pat?) But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols – from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum. (Oh, so Pat is in favor of speech codes - as long as the codes prevent mockery of religion. What a "discriminating" bigot he is).
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
*******************************************************************************
What an utterly reductive worldview. Language that mocks religion=bad; language that mocks anything else=good. Freedom of religion does not include the right to abridge freedom of speech. If it did, the 1st Amendment would contain an additional clause. Or, as Justice Kennedy once said, "An institution does not violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment by embracing the free speech clause of that amendment."
Word of the day: spying+lying=spyling
Favorite dance floor song of bigots="Gettin' biggy wit' it"
Favorite bumper stickers= "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church"; "Meet the Fuckers" (words surrounded by images of Bush and Cheney); "Having trouble vomiting lately?" (words next to arrow pointing to George Bush
New Congressional/White House nicknames:
Sam Brownback=Sam Brownshirt; Sam Brownback Mountain
Lynne Cheney=Lon Cheney
Alberto Gonzales=Bleaty Gonzales; Attorney Genitorture
Kenneth Tomlinson=Kenneth Vomitson
Senator Crapo (R-ID) = Senator Crapo
Jim Bunning= Jim Brown Bunny
posted by EnterCenter at 8:21 AM
3 Comments:
HAHAHA, Ableato...hahahaha...
You kill me!
Btw, I wanted to add that Pat Robertson is a hatriot.
My friend (who has the blog) believes exactly what Pat Roberston wrote. In other words: freedom of speech, as long as you don't upset a religion.
I see no reason to draw such arbitrary lines, ESPECIALLY since religion, society, and government are so intricately connected for the Muslims. I had over an hour long argument with her yesterday, and was exasperated when she said it's okay to question the Holocaust, but somehow not okay to publish the cartoons. EXCUSE ME, but I find alll that extremely offensive. I say, let the Holocaust be questioned, but in turn, let the cartoons be published.
The truth of the anti-freedom fighters has been revealed.
One more thing...I wrote this on my friend's blog.
There is no reason why freedom of speech shouldn't apply to religion. In the first amendment, it doesn't say "freedom of the press, except when the press discusses religion."
There is no natural line to be drawn, distinguishing speech about religion, even about Mohammed. I realize you say he was a human being, and it's wrong to attack a human being. The problem is, he's more than a human being. He's the human representative of Islam. And he's been dead for hundreds of years, and has come to be an idea more than an actual human. (just like Jesus, Abraham, David, etc)
I see no reason why it should be considered "libel," according to even a "natural law" definition of libel, to criticize or parody or even say false facts about a human being who has become an idea.
And even assuming it would be considered "libel," the cartoons were clearly not stating facts, rather, they were expressing an opinion. And libel and defamation laws don't reach opinions.
It may have been uncouth, calculated, manipulative, and even pre-planned to publish the images of Islam. So what?
Either you have free speech, including the freedom to be insensitive or blasphemous, or you don't. Period.
Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. Even in Islam, there are different interpretations of what the Koran means. Now spread that across all the religions of the world. If things are to be censored as attacking sensibilities, then whose sensibilities?
And you cannot say it was so glaringly obvious that the toons were offensive. I was not offended to see the image of Mohammed displayed. In fact, I am not offended when someone says or types "God" instead of "The Lord" or "Hashem." Doing that is considered just as blasphemous to Jews as displaying Mohammed's image. And yet you see this done routinely by non-jews and no one raises a stink.
So nothing in this world is glaringly obvious. And it seems clear to me that living in a world of fear that what is said can result in your death...it does not benefit a free society.
Post a Comment
<< Home