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)
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.
” . . . 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.
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.
As I posted at the very bottom of that “Group Blogs Gratuitously Offending” thread:
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! 😀
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.
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.
Or any union members, for that matter.
Nothing to add except props to Throbert for referencing Le Sacre du Printemps!
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.
Some background on Vilks’ drawing may be in order.
From Zombie’s report on Pajama’s Media:
This report is at http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/11/fatwa-headbutt-swedish-roundabout-dog-mohammed-cartoonist-lars-vilks-attacked/
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
…which is a fault of those people or perhaps of the education system, not of the Beeb;
… which you agree it is in fact.
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.
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?
It’s never too late to correct a mistake. Especially one that can only be made by the historically (and linguistically) ignorant.
Right, CLD. I went by your Zombie quote:
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.