(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

and people wonder why i think they're batshit?

While Muslim religious extremists are rioting in the streets of Beirut, Gaza City and Kabul, Scandinavian embassies are being torched and Jordanians are deprived of their Danish feta over cartoons that were never actually published in any legitimate newspaper, the right-wing blogosphere has been staging its own "blogburst": the act of reproducing the offending depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

i'm sorry. i thought it was defending freedom of speech from murderous religious fanatics. silly me. damn, us right-wingers got nerve.

and the batshit is nicely countered by a fellow canuck here.

and powerline, as always, calls it like it is.

h/t's to Glenn Reynolds

it would be nice if Hollywood, that so-called bastion of all things free and honorable, could weigh in with their support of free speech and against murdering extremism. guess they're too busy bashing the President to find the time. musta been the reason why they didn't speak in outrage when vanGogh was murdered too. well, you know, it's rough bein' so busy. they probably didn't know his agent anyway.

Glenn also shares an email from a reader, and Glenn's thoughts on same, that pretty much sums it all up for me.

And reader Michael McDowell isn't having any of it:

Zerbisias condemns those Westerners who "claim to be morally superior." Well that is absolute horseshit. I am tired of being told not to judge other cultures through my "American lens" because I don’t understand their circumstances. I believe in equal rights without regard to race, religion, color, gender or country or origin. I believe in the freedom of homosexuals to marry and live freely in society. I believe in freedom of expression, and speech, and the free exchange of ideas. I believe in kindness, compassion, consideration, and that dogs make life better. I don’t "claim to be morally superior" to those ass-hat murderers; I am morally superior.

Indeed. You'd expect lefties like Zerbisias to side with people like McDowell, and Zeyad, over a bunch of sexist, homophobic theocrats -- but that would require that they side with America, too. Which is right out.

Comments

[lvp3.livejournal.com]

it would be nice if Hollywood, that so-called bastion of all things free and honorable, could weigh in with their support of free speech and against murdering extremism. guess they're too busy bashing the President to find the time. musta been the reason why they didn't speak in outrage when vanGogh was murdered too. well, you know, it's rough bein' so busy. they probably didn't know his agent anyway.

First: LOL

Second: They're all about free-speech when they want to show movies that are "risky" or push the limit, etc. But not when someone draws a cartoon.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

well, they're all about "risky" and pushing the limit when it serves their personal interests, which is human nature i know. but the problem is that they aren't doing it to be altruistic, they are doing it to serve their political agenda, and like Glenn said, you can't side against the poor, misunderstood Islamic terrorists because then you're siding with Bush. except for the not part.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

interestingly this reaction is no different than Pat Robertson being an idiot. What is different is how the followers react, and what is accepted by world governments.

I hadn't seen this before to know some of the back story...

The response to all this is rife with both no respect and radical reaction on both sides... instead of finding a subtle way to challenge the self censoring about Islam, lets take it's most holy man [that we KNOW Muslim's will not depict] and make him into a caricature, because we can. Can you see no respect there? Christians for the most part have gotten used to this treatment, but that doesn't make it right. However, this is what comes OUT of an individual, and in many countries in this world that speech is protected.

Did anyone not expect a reaction? Are we FORCING Muslims to accept this disrespect by printing it everywhere? Just because it is within our faiths to ignore disrespect?

For me this points to a really serious flaw between the secular world and the religious one, esp with Islam. There is no moderating influence, there is no bridge, no one that those theocracies or near theocracies trust or respect. There isn't much belief in the UN on either side... and so who can go to the Muslim Governments and say "These countries are free, these were drawn by individuals from them, and this is the perception they have of us, don't we need to change that?" Who can go to the world press and say "There are some things that would anger all Muslims everywhere, was that what you were trying to do? Are there not better ways to make the same point without causing a meltdown?" :shrug: guess I should wish for a pony too...

The thing lost for me is that Freedom of Speech is not only a freedom, but a responsibility as well...

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

the problem that i have, however, is that it's legitimate criticism, based in fact. my sympathy factor is in the negative numbers. if they want us to treat their beliefs with respect, they need to stop murdering people.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

if they want us to treat their beliefs with respect, they need to stop murdering people.

that only works if "they" are a monolithic entity. if they are not, then you paint the mild mannered next door neighbor with the same brush as you paint a terrorist on the other side of the earth. you are also asking that neighbor to accept a blasphemous cartoon, and not be upset. This I think is where a moderating influence is needed to explain how the idea of rule of law cuts both ways. I know people here, with the first amendment as a birthright, who still don't get that. How much more difficult will a Muslim immigrant in Denmark have it to understand this whole free speech thing.

I guess the need I see is to, in a well explained way, change the question to be about Freedom of Speech, and not about The Prophet [or religion]. You and I process this difference, but many do not, unless it is explicit. What most people are seeing in The Dane press now is "we piss off everyone equally" instead of "we say what we wish to say, and that is protected for everyone."

The reason I am focusing on the majority of non-radicalized Muslims, is that it is they who either embrace democracy and freedoms, or feel pushed out to become the next wave of radicals...

dunno, perhaps I'm being to fuzzy about this...

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i, honestly, don't care what they're seeing. they, those that follow Sharia, are expecting me [the world at large] to care about images of Mohammed and how they find that offensive when they are actively preaching to their followers to bring about my death? they, can fuck off. my sympathy factor is in the negative numbers and i have no wish to dissemble.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

my point is that "they" are not preaching to bring about your death, only a very small group of radicals are. Like the aryan nation does not represent my view in any way. Do I have to take responsibility for what they say?
I agree to disagree, fwiw

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

yes, and i'm agreeing that it's specifically those following Sharia not every Muslim living.