Just because Bruce, Nick and I write for the same blog doesn’t mean we always agree. Nor does it mean that we always approve of the others’ posts. To be sure, there are times when we coordinate — or share a draft with one another before publishing it, but more often than not (like in about 97.43% of the time), each just posts his piece without consulting the others.
Not a good idea to gratuitously offend tens of millions of people (think depictions of Christ in urine or dung, or blackface displays). All it accomplishes is showing how shallow and unimaginative the purveyor is.
Put some thought into it. There’s got to be a better way to respond to hate than by fanning the flames of a pretext it uses to thrive on.
Since this story broke, I chanced upon Ann Althouse’s take and agree wholeheartedly with this Badger State blogress diva:
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren’t doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
I don’t like the in-your-face message that we don’t care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the “Piss Christ” controversy, I wouldn’t have supported an “Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day” to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.
I agree. Read the whole thing.