GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

When the Response to Offense is Physical Violence

May 11, 2010 by ColoradoPatriot

Okay. Check out this video:

(From VerumSerum by way of NRO)

It’s the aftermath of somebody attacking the Swedish artist who drew this picture. (Natch, I use the term “artist” loosely. No, I couldn’t do better—we’ll see in nine days—but you don’t have to be good to have your own opinion. After all, look at Keith Olbermann.)

What we have here is an observant of the Religion of Peace attacking somone for having drawn a (crappy, albeit) picture of the Prophet Muhammed. I echo blogger John Sexton’s characterization of the audience’s reaction as being a good source for the “creeps”: Chants of “Allahu Ackbar”.

While I understand and respect that my Occidental colleague and many commenters passionately disagree with Bruce and me about the event (and they have a very good argument), this sort of nonesense demonstrates precisely why I support it.

That the offense of a religion (in the year 2010, need I remind you?) results in physical violence is the clearest sign that this sect needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and apparently head-butting) if necessary, into the 21st Century (or at least the 19th). That may sound insensitive of me to say, but I’d rank it below heat-butting somebody, and definitely not even in the same solar system as a suicide bomber.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Filed Under: Religion Of Peace

Comments

  1. Elephant in the Room says

    May 11, 2010 at 11:57 pm - May 11, 2010

    If you’re a non-American Muslim and you want to become an American, you should be asked the following question: Do you support the rights of all Americans to insult the Prophet Mohammed? If the answer is No, then you should not be allowed into this country. Period. And yes, I am a Christian and I support the rights of all Americans to insult Jesus. My Savior is Good enough to love you anyway.

  2. Charles says

    May 12, 2010 at 12:04 am - May 12, 2010

    ” . . . this sect needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and apparently head-butting) if necessary, into the 21st Century.”

    A similar, but much more “insensitive”, sentiment was expressed by Ann Coulter when she said something shortly after 9/11 along the lines of:

    “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

    While her comment was way over the top, I couldn’t help but laugh as there is a lot of truth to it.

    Islam does need to be brought into the modern, secular world; or it needs to perish.

  3. Wesley M. says

    May 12, 2010 at 1:03 am - May 12, 2010

    I wasn’t a fan of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” until Molly Norris backed out of it, whether because of actual threats or just criticism or who really knows what at this point. I don’t think even she really knows, judging by the comments she’s been leaving on various blogs.

    Thing is, to my mind, the very public message that she sent (that even those who stand up to threats against freedom of expression can be intimidated from their stand, and quite easily) upped the stakes tremendously. She single-handedly made it that much harder for the next person to stand up against this kind of intimidation, and however good the original arguments were against “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” (and I thought they were good enough to be convinced by them), I think that Molly herself changed the situation. Letting “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” fade away now will just be seen as our backing down and, again, make it that much harder for the next group of people who will have to stand up against this very same threat.

    Oh, and Nick? I promise you that my drawing will be even worse, artistically speaking, than yours.

  4. Throbert McGee says

    May 12, 2010 at 6:41 am - May 12, 2010

    As I posted at the very bottom of that “Group Blogs Gratuitously Offending” thread:

    Here’s a Far Side cartoon from way back in the ’80s, where the accursed kaafir Gary Larson, shoe be upon him, portrayed Mo-Ho as a dorky looking guy with male pattern baldness and a big schnozz. I think that if EDMD turns out to be characterized by this sort of gentle joking, then there’s a better chance that some moderate Muslims will actually defend the concept.

  5. Throbert McGee says

    May 12, 2010 at 7:04 am - May 12, 2010

    It’s also worth recalling that, minus the Allahu akbar‘s, what we see in the video is more or less exactly how Parisian ballet enthusiasts reacted to the opening of Stravinsky’s Le sacre du printemps in 1913!

    So, in other words, these particular Muslims, although certainly uncouth, aren’t significantly more savage than the Frawnch were just a century ago. And look how far the froggies have come! 😀

  6. Delusional Bill says

    May 12, 2010 at 9:20 am - May 12, 2010

    They came for the guy down the street and I said nothing…
    They came for my neighbor and I said nothing…
    They came for my sister and I said nothing…
    They came for me…

    Gay, Straight, Jew, Gentile, Zoroastrian, Muslim or Cabbage Head Doll Worshipers…. When you allow one to stifle a right you undermine ALL rights.

  7. heliotrope says

    May 12, 2010 at 9:26 am - May 12, 2010

    These guys act like government union people who have just been told their benefits are going to be cut to save the economy and the nation.

  8. ThatGayConservative says

    May 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm - May 12, 2010

    Or any union members, for that matter.

  9. Houndentenor says

    May 12, 2010 at 9:00 pm - May 12, 2010

    Nothing to add except props to Throbert for referencing Le Sacre du Printemps!

  10. ILoveCapitalism says

    May 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm - May 12, 2010

    Those guys who hit Vilks and the cops – Were they good Muslims? Other adjectives: were they real Muslims? mainstream Muslims? “moderate” Muslims?

    If they were: then something is freaking wrong with Islam and no, not something that we should accommodate or be particularly considerate of.

    If, as I believe, they were not: then real / mainstream / moderate Muslims must be something different. As in, mature human beings. People reasonable enough and mature enough to NOT be “hurt” if anyone rips on Mohammed – or even just draws him.

    Either way, EDMD is a good idea.

  11. Classical Liberal Dave says

    May 13, 2010 at 5:46 am - May 13, 2010

    Some background on Vilks’ drawing may be in order.

    From Zombie’s report on Pajama’s Media:

    In the nation of Sweden there is a contemporary urban folk custom of placing in the center of “roundabouts” (the circular traffic islands in the middle of major intersections) whimsical homemade sculptures representing pet dogs. The sculptures, which are fairly commonplace in Sweden, are called “roundabout dogs” (rondellhund in Swedish). In the summer of 2007, Swedish artist Lars Vilks made some paintings of Mohammed as a roundabout dog; after they were rejected by two art galleries wary of controversy, a sketch based on one of the paintings ended up being published in a small local Swedish newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda. Incredibly, this ignited an international furor, with protests, diplomatic quarrels, and threats of violence.

    This report is at http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/11/fatwa-headbutt-swedish-roundabout-dog-mohammed-cartoonist-lars-vilks-attacked/

    That the offense of a religion (in the year 2010, need I remind you?) results in physical violence is the clearest sign that this sect needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and apparently head-butting) if necessary, into the 21st Century (or at least the 19th). That may sound insensitive of me to say, but I’d rank it below heat-butting somebody, and definitely not even in the same solar system as a suicide bomber.

    Anyone who finds that insensitive is, frankly, nuts. Having said so, I am going to be even more insensitive and say that events like the attack on Vilks indicate this sect may need to be destroyed.

    I thought EDMD was a good idea. But I now think we’ve gotten to the point where such measures aren’t nearly enough. Also from Zombie’s report:

    To its eternal shame, in the BBC’s coverage of this incident they refer to Mohammed (as they are required to refer to Mohammed as part of the BBC’s style guidelines) as “the Prophet Muhammad”, with the epithet “Prophet” preceding his name in each instance. Does the BBC similarly refer to Jesus Christ as “The Messiah” or “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” or even “Jesus the Christ”? No.

    Are events like EDMD going to knock some sense into the cowards at the BBC? Will they deter the barbarians who shouted ‘Allahu Ackbar’ as police went after Vilks’ attacker? I don’t think so.

  12. Black Sabbath says

    May 13, 2010 at 9:07 am - May 13, 2010

    Islam is too dangerous to be allowed into a society. When you see it, you have to do everything legal within your power to get rid of it. At this time, you don’t face threats of violence, fear, outright hatred, intimidation, and lies by ANY other religion other than Islam. Forget when the Progressive Liberal media goes on about Catholics and Christians. They’re screwed up but they are no threat. Islam, however, has open warfare against gays, women, minorities, every single other religion, freedom, individualism, Capitalism, Democracy, and logic.

  13. ILoveCapitalism says

    May 13, 2010 at 10:17 am - May 13, 2010

    Does the BBC similarly refer to Jesus Christ as “The Messiah” or “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” or even “Jesus the Christ”? No.

    With respect, I don’t recognize that as a strong point. “Christ” is a Christian religious title, not Jesus’ family name. So, saying “Jesus Christ” is already like saying “the Prophet Mohammed”. I.e., a shorthand way of saying “We mean the Jesus featured in the Christian religion” as distinct from your Hispanic neighbor’s son, and “We mean the Mohammed featured in the Muslim religion” as distinct from your Pakistani neighbor’s son. I have no problem with either.

  14. Throbert McGee says

    May 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm - May 13, 2010

    ILC — strictly speaking, secular media should probably refer to JC as “Jesus the Nazarene,” thereby clearly distinguishing him from your Mexican neighbor without using the honorific title “Christ.” On the other hand, “Christ” is very widely interpreted as a pseudo-surname rather than as an epithet synonymous with “the Messiah,” and there’s not much that can be done about it at this late date.

    With regard to MoHo, his identity could be adequately specified by saying “Muhammad, the founding prophet of Islam” on first reference, and just “Muhammad” after that — as opposed to using “Prophet” with a capital “P” on each and every reference, if that is indeed the BBC style, as Zombie asserts.

  15. ILoveCapitalism says

    May 13, 2010 at 7:45 pm - May 13, 2010

    “Christ” is very widely interpreted as a pseudo-surname

    …which is a fault of those people or perhaps of the education system, not of the Beeb;

    …rather than as an epithet synonymous with “the Messiah,”

    … which you agree it is in fact.

  16. Classical Liberal Dave says

    May 15, 2010 at 6:31 am - May 15, 2010

    With respect, I don’t recognize that as a strong point. “Christ” is a Christian religious title, not Jesus’ family name. So, saying “Jesus Christ” is already like saying “the Prophet Mohammed”.

    ILC, I’m afraid you’re not following the point here.

    Zombie’s point — and mine in quoting her — is that the BBC does not use the term “Christ” in referring to Jesus while they use the word “Prophet” to label Mohammed.

  17. Classical Liberal Dave says

    May 15, 2010 at 6:35 am - May 15, 2010

    “Christ” is very widely interpreted as a pseudo-surname rather than as an epithet synonymous with “the Messiah,”

    It can’t be that widely so interpreted, Throbert, as I have never heard of this before! Is “Buddha” widely interpreted as a nickname for Siddhartha Guatama?

    and there’s not much that can be done about it at this late date.

    It’s never too late to correct a mistake. Especially one that can only be made by the historically (and linguistically) ignorant.

  18. ILoveCapitalism says

    May 15, 2010 at 12:11 pm - May 15, 2010

    you’re not following the point here

    Right, CLD. I went by your Zombie quote:

    Does the BBC similarly refer to Jesus Christ as “The Messiah” or “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” or even “Jesus the Christ”? No.

    The implication seemed to be that the BBC uses “Jesus Christ” normally, and Zombie just didn’t think that that was dressed up enough – i.e., not as good as “the Prophet Mohammed”. But if the BBC fails even to use “Jesus Christ”, while actively using “the Prophet Mohommed”, then yes, at that point they are giving special treatment to Islam, which is a bit shameful. Thank you for clearing it up.

Categories

Archives