The Nature of Defiance

 

MuhammadThere is an argument about Pamela Geller’s cartoon contest, favored by Bill O’Reilly as well as by many garden variety liberal pundits, that goes like this:

Of course the right to free speech is sacred and the murderers who wish to infringe on that right are vile criminals. Our vigor in the defense of free speech, however, (equally obviously) does not mean that we agree with the speech we are defending. The cartoons that Geller assembled are insulting to 1.5 billion, predominantly peaceful Muslims around the world. We can judge Geller offensive or (as Bill O’Reilly does) “stupid” for deliberately mocking the religion of the benign majority just in order to taunt the violent minority.

I can embellish this argument.

As anyone who grew up in the sixties or before remembers, the freedom of speech “acid test” of that era related to a march which the American neo-Nazis made through Skokie, Illinois – a predominantly Jewish community – in 1978. At that time the American Civil Liberties Union (a far cry from the ACLU of today) took up the defense of the Nazis (who were initially prohibited from marching) based on their First Amendment rights.

This triumph of free speech was accompanied by essentially widespread condemnation of the march itself. Indeed, it was because the Nazis accrued such universal opprobrium that the defense of their right to speak was so powerful.

So, for the opponents to Geller’s activities, the claim is that there is no tension between a defense of free speech and an opposition to the content of the speech being defended. The cartoons of the Geller event are offensive and it is honorable and rational to oppose them.

This seems eminently sensible.

It also completely misses the point.

When the editors of Charlie Hebdo (and other publications around Europe such as the Danish Jyllands-Posten) published cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed, it is fair to say that they were doing so in spite of the threats of Islamist savages to extract bloody revenge.

However, when the Charlie Hebdo editors and cartoonists were killed, there followed a publication of the paper the circulation of which topped 7 million (compared to the paper’s previous average of 60,000). In addition, spontaneous protests erupted all over Europe with hundreds of thousands spilling into the street holding up their pens in defiance.

Here is the key.

The protestors and the buyers of the magazine were not standing up to insult peaceful Islam in spite of the threat from the murderers. Rather, they were standing up in spite of the insult to peaceful Islam because ofthe threat from the murderers. The very essence of the protests was, and is, defiance.

So too with Geller.

Geller is not out to test Americans’ First Amendment rights. She is asserting that society should not and cannot live in fear of barbarians.

The most trenchant argument one can make about Geller is that, as noble and courageous as her activities are, they are not likely to be very effective. Perhaps if everyone in the West wore T-shirts with the Charlie Hebdo cover (or other cartoons) on them it would instigate some kind of sea change. But even that is doubtful. It might make the murderers’ target more diffuse – “they can’t kill us all, you know” – but there would likely be murder nonetheless. They destroyed the World Trade Center after all. Surely they could identify a recognizable symbol for their impotent rage.

The problem with savages is, of course, that they are savages. Imagine if, instead of one of the world’s “great religions” we were dealing with a population of aliens (as in the aliens that Sigourney Weaver battled) who had no capacity for reason as we know it. And imagine that these aliens were predominantly peaceful, working and living alongside human beings, but that they became uncontrollably enraged whenever the Empire Today jingle was played – dismembering every human in sight whenever they heard it.

You might just take it as common sense prudence not to invite any aliens into your living room when the TV was on. You would probably not hold a contest for the best rendering of the Empire Today jingle just to be in their faces (if we can call them their faces) about it.

But Islam does, at some level, respond to reason. It must. If it does not, we are all lost.

A chilling remark is made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. Talking about her upbringing in a relatively peaceful Islamic society in Kenya, she comments on the fatwa that the Ayatollah Khomeini placed on the writer Salman Rushdie in February of 1989 after he published Satanic Verses.

I didn’t ask if this was right or what it had to do with me as an expatriate Somali in Kenya. I simply agreed. Everyone in my community believed that Rushdie had to die; after all, he had insulted the Prophet.

Hirsi Ali’s casual acceptance, as a young girl, of the proclamation of the clerical leaders of Islam that Rushdie must die emphasizes the depth of the problem. Even with a relatively few maniacal killers out there on the loose, when the spiritual leaders of a faith numbering over a billion can agree that people like Rushdie, people like Geller, and people like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo – citizens all of Western countries – are to be sentenced to death for their beliefs and their “heretical” actions, then coexistence cannot continue for long.

Indeed, if there is to be a long-term solution to the problem of radical Islam in the world, the lynchpin of that solution must be the influential clerics. Until such time as the West forces the countries of the Middle East to compel those clerics to come together in some kind of ecumenical council and publicly disavow, with theological justifications, the practice of condemning people to death for the crimes of freedom of thought and expression, there will be no lasting accommodation with the West.

It is apparent on the most casual inspection that Western values and Islamic theology as practiced by the religion’s leaders are in irreconcilable conflict. We must insist that it is the latter that yield. Otherwise, we are condemned to spend eternity trapped on this planet with a madman at our throats.

As for Geller, she may or may not understand the solution. But she clearly perceives the problem. And she deserves our support for her courage.

There are 215 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Since when are cartoonists forbidden from drawing Wolverine?

    That is Wolverine, isn’t it?

    Sure looks like Wolverine to me…

    • #1
  2. Ricochet Moderator
    Ricochet
    @OldBathos

    The people loudest in condemnation of Gellar have never protested the far worse insults to Christian denominations.  The annual “hunky Jesus” mock beauty contest in San Francisco on Easter Sunday is far worse than anything Charley Hebdo or Pan Gellar ever did.

    Rule of thumb for evaluating media critics of Geller:  Show me the columns you wrote in the past condemning ANY outrage against Christian of Jewish sensibilities or STFU.

    It is the not the insult to religion they object to.  It is the fact that violent Islam like Soviet Communism is the kind of threat that forces us to choose sides, a conflict that has to be denied and ignored as long as possible.  That kind of conflict is a mortal threat to the usual state of narcissism where liberals live.  They prefer believing that they not bound by moral demands imposed by religious or cultural heritage and they deny duties that arise from tacky concepts like ‘patriotism’.

    If there is a real, warlike threat, society imposes a duty of loyalty that is far more frightening to the narcissist than anything the enemy might do.

    Recall how uncomfortable many liberals were after 9/11.  They groped to find root causes and American sins rather than simply admit that an implacable enemy unjustly attacked our people.

    So now we watch lefty kabuki about not antagonizing Islam because they are desperate to pretend they cannot be bound by the most fundamental kind of human loyalties to their own nation.

    • #2
  3. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @Manny

    Here’s where I think you’re wrong.  There’s a place and medium for having a reasonable discussion on the nature of Islam and it’s prophet.  A cartoon is not one of them.  A cartoon does not advance anything in depth.  If anything it chracterizes in such a way that even people that agree would say that’s not accurate or in depth.  It’s a two dimensional, third grade means of argumentation.  A cartoon only provacates.  There’s no discussion possible.

    And I’m one that believes Islam is inherently malevolent.

    • #3
  4. Michael Stopa Contributor
    Michael Stopa
    @MichaelStopa

    Manny:Here’s where I think you’re wrong. There’s a place and medium for having a reasonable discussion on the nature of Islam and it’s prophet. A cartoon is not one of them. A cartoon does not advance anything in depth. If anything it chracterizes in such a way that even people that agree would say that’s not accurate or in depth. It’s a two dimensional, third grade means of argumentation. A cartoon only provacates. There’s no discussion possible.

    And I’m one that believes Islam is inherently malevolent.

    What do you think of thousands of Europeans holding up a pen (presumably the pen that drew just such cartoons) in response to the Charlie Hebdo killings? Were they wrong? Were they merely provocative? The whole point is not to have a reasonable discussion of Islam. The point is to defy the killers.

    • #4
  5. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Michael Stopa:

    Manny:Here’s where I think you’re wrong. There’s a place and medium for having a reasonable discussion on the nature of Islam and it’s prophet. A cartoon is not one of them. A cartoon does not advance anything in depth. If anything it chracterizes in such a way that even people that agree would say that’s not accurate or in depth. It’s a two dimensional, third grade means of argumentation. A cartoon only provacates. There’s no discussion possible.

    And I’m one that believes Islam is inherently malevolent.

    What do you think of thousands of Europeans holding up a pen (presumably the pen that drew just such cartoons) in response to the Charlie Hebdo killings? Were they wrong? Were they merely provocative? The whole point is not to have a reasonable discussion of Islam. The point is to defy the killers.

    Yes. The purpose of the contest was not to argue about the nature of Islam.  It was to argue about the nature (and limits) of freedom.

    • #5
  6. user_966256 Member
    user_966256
    @BobThompson

    Manny:Here’s where I think you’re wrong. There’s a place and medium for having a reasonable discussion on the nature of Islam and it’s prophet. A cartoon is not one of them. A cartoon does not advance anything in depth. If anything it chracterizes in such a way that even people that agree would say that’s not accurate or in depth. It’s a two dimensional, third grade means of argumentation. A cartoon only provacates. There’s no discussion possible.

    And I’m one that believes Islam is inherently malevolent.

    I don’t want to have a discussion on the nature of Islam and its prophet. I want Muslims to have that discussion amongst themselves. Defiance as described in this post is a way of demonstrating support for the Muslim population that shows a willingness to engage in needed reforms.

    And we need to be clear that reforms are required in both the religious and the governing components of Islamic culture. Without this the defiance must continue.

    • #6
  7. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Michael Stopa I have a question to pose  (note: –  I blame the terrorists for the Texas attack alone, so please don’t see this inquiry as detracting from that):

    I’m interested in whether the analysis should be in any way different (although the conclusion the same in favor of the right to speak, draw, etc.) depending upon the one doing the drawing.

    Charlie Hebdo, Jyllands-Posten and South Park actually draw cartoons on all subjects on a regular basis.  It’s the language they speak, so when the topic of Muhammad comes up, they are expected to draw him.

    Pamela Geller seems to have done this for nothing more than to test the will of the savages (they acted as I assume she predicted).  That it was an art show appears to me to be a pretext.  I’ve followed (and admired) Pam’s work for years so I know she is no art afficionado nor a collector of Muhammad portraits.

    We fight when necessary.  Was this one necessary?  It has a feel of being fabricated this time.

    It feels easier to support Hebdo and the others who truly were not looking for a fight but going on with their business.

    I suppose if someone were to walk through the section of Baltimore with the most Black people right now yelling “I hate ni@@ers” we would have to support their right to free speech and physically defend them when violence is directed toward them.

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    • #7
  8. Howellis Inactive
    Howellis
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Manny:Here’s where I think you’re wrong. There’s a place and medium for having a reasonable discussion on the nature of Islam and it’s prophet. A cartoon is not one of them. A cartoon does not advance anything in depth. If anything it chracterizes in such a way that even people that agree would say that’s not accurate or in depth. It’s a two dimensional, third grade means of argumentation. A cartoon only provacates. There’s no discussion possible.

    And I’m one that believes Islam is inherently malevolent.

    I agree that a cartoon can provoke, but what sort of people respond to the mild provocation of a cartoon with murder? And is the proper response to that threat to discourage cartoons critical of Islam? And if so, what else should be sacrificed to the threats of murder made by the world’s worst people?

    I don’t like gratuitous insults of religions, but Islam as practiced by the ayatollahs, ISIS, and the rest of the jihadis is crying out to be mocked. And head choppers like Anjem Choudary are begging for a dose of their own medicine.

    • #8
  9. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    This is the same culture that sanitizes video of Americans choosing between burning to death or jumping off the WTC.

    We are in a slow, sporadic war and people still believe it will go away. Pam Gellar believes we need to wake up the populace. I fear my country has forgotten how to get the necessary anger at atrocity to defend themselves and their families.

    It seems our political establishment and their front office, the media, have decided they do not like Christians and Jews either, and find ISIS a decent fellow progressive traveler with the same adversaries. Hostility to specific religions is the issue here, not freedom of speech.

    • #9
  10. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary.  In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    • #10
  11. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest.  If you are suggesting more such contests then let’s not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion.  We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a Kristallnacht toward all things Muslim.

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here.   A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    • #11
  12. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then lets not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    When the Muslim community accepts the concept that non-Muslims in this country are under no obligation to either respect or obey the strictures of their particular religion, I’ll be more than happy to concern myself with their further assimilation.

    • #12
  13. user_423610 Member
    user_423610
    @Spencer3861

    Thanks, I agree. The only purpose of the cartoons is to insult and provoke. While I completely agree that it is “protected speech “, there can be better uses of free speech.

    • #13
  14. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then lets not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    When the Muslim community accepts the concept that non-Muslims in this country are under no obligation to either respect…

    And we will convince the non-violent ones of that concept by further disrespect?

    • #14
  15. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Tommy De Seno:I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then let’s not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a Kristallnacht toward all things Muslim.

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    Really? You think if we start publishing images of Mohammed, the logical endpoint is wanton destruction of Muslim lives and property?

    The jihadist groups, and even their “moderate” Muslim supporters, are telling us we need to adhere to sharia’s prohibition (of questionable historicity) against drawing images of Mohammed. Well, I don’t live under sharia and I don’t plan to. I don’t intend to end up like the non-Muslim women in France who wear burkhas when the go out, so as not to offend. If the only way to establish that sharia does not apply to us is to draw Mohammed cartoons, then unfortunately that is the route we need to take.

    And we need to spread the risk. Consider Molly Norris, a liberal who tried to stand for free speech, inadvertently got on the wrong side of the jihadists, and has now been in hiding for four years. Her career is over  and her life is upended.Jihadists may be able to target a few people or a few dozen. But they can’t target a few thousand or a few million. The more people who exercise their rights, the harder it is for the jihadists to take them away.

    • #15
  16. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Son of Spengler:

    Tommy De Seno:I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then let’s not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a Kristallnacht toward all things Muslim.

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    Really? You think if we start publishing images of Mohammed, the logical endpoint is wanton destruction of Muslim lives and property?

    The jihadist groups, and even their “moderate” Muslim supporters, are telling us we need to adhere to sharia’s prohibition (of questionable historicity) against drawing images of Mohammed. Well, I don’t live under sharia and I don’t plan to. I don’t intend to end up like the non-Muslim women in France who wear burkhas when the go out, so as not to offend. If the only way to establish that sharia does not apply to us is to draw Mohammed cartoons, then unfortunately that is the route we need to take.

    And we need to spread the risk. Consider Molly Norris, a liberal who tried to stand for free speech, inadvertently got on the wrong side of the jihadists, and has now been in hiding for four years. Her career is over and her life is upended.Jihadists may be able to target a few people or a few dozen. But they can’t target a few thousand or a few million. The more people who exercise their rights, the harder it is for the jihadists to take them away.

    But you still run down the moderate Muslims who support us by drawing Muhammad, no?

    • #16
  17. Ricochet Thatcher
    Ricochet
    @ToryWarWriter

    So what?

    • #17
  18. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then lets not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    When the Muslim community accepts the concept that non-Muslims in this country are under no obligation to either respect…

    And we will convince the non-violent ones of that concept by further disrespect?

    It must have been hurtful when your Protestant childhood friends ate meat on Friday.  Too many mackerel snapper taunts have left you uassimilated.

    • #18
  19. user_348375 Inactive
    user_348375
    @TrinityWaters

    Spencer3861:Thanks, I agree.The only purpose of the cartoons is to insult and provoke.While I completely agree that it is “protected speech “, there can be better uses of free speech.

    Nice use of scare quotes.  I guess we’ll all just consult you before we speak?

    • #19
  20. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then lets not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    When the Muslim community accepts the concept that non-Muslims in this country are under no obligation to either respect…

    And we will convince the non-violent ones of that concept by further disrespect?

    It must have been hurtful when your Protestant childhood friends ate meat on Friday.

    It is not considered sacrilegious to my religion to see other people eat meat on Friday, so I don’t follow you.

    • #20
  21. Ricochet Thatcher
    Ricochet
    @ToryWarWriter

    And we will convince the non-violent ones of that concept by further disrespect?

    –Yes.  They must understand that we stand by our principles.  No matter what.  If we don’t they will have no respect for our principles.  As why should they?

    • #21
  22. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Tommy De Seno:But you still run down the moderate Muslims who support us by drawing Muhammad, no?

    Free expression is a bedrock principle of this country and its freedoms. So is religious freedom. Not giving offense is a secondary principle. American Muslims who are committed to this country’s freedoms will say, “I don’t endorse this, but I will defend it because free speech is that important.” We don’t calibrate our freedoms to the sensitivities of one interest group or another.

    Can you please clarify who you mean by “us”? Are you talking about worldwide Muslim support for the US, or American Muslim support for those of us on the right?

    • #22
  23. Ricochet Thatcher
    Ricochet
    @ToryWarWriter

    To  all those here, what place do atheists fit in to your tolerance schemes?

    By there very being atheists disrespect all religions.  Their presence is irreconcilable with Islam?

    We should look to Attaturk for solutions.  Though my apologies to Shriners.

    • #23
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Manny:

     A cartoon only provacates. There’s no discussion possible.

    In that case we should ban cartoons.

    • #24
  25. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    It must have been hurtful when your Protestant childhood friends ate meat on Friday.

    It is not considered sacrilegious to my religion to see other people eat meat on Friday, so I don’t follow you.

    You mean you didn’t believe that people from other religions had to abide by the practices of your religion?  What a concept!

    • #25
  26. Dex Quire Inactive
    Dex Quire
    @DexQuire

    Michael, just as a heads up, a lot of this discussion has gone on, over at a recent thread posted by Tommy de Seno (though he is somewhat on the other side of your argument as he slightly indicates here). In any case, these opportunities to post on this subject help me refine my ideas.

    Like you, I think Pam Geller got it right. She is the messenger and the reactions against her are classic ‘shoot the messenger’ reactions. It’s not about drawings or hate speech or hating Muslims….

    The jihad murderers are already provoked, irritated, angry, amped-up, ready to explode—whatever. All America did was lie flat on the western hemisphere on 9/11 and 3000 of us were murdered. Jihad murder poses the biggest threat to the free world today. They want to circumscribe all our freedoms and have us submit to their version of Allah’s wishes. That this has become the central issue of our age infuriates the left; just when gay and transgender rights, anti-capitalism, minimum wage, global warming were set to take the world by storm, these extremely earnest fundamentalist murderers show up to wreck the party.

    ….Continued

    • #26
  27. Dex Quire Inactive
    Dex Quire
    @DexQuire

    …Continued from previous
    What we need but do not yet have is something like your ecumenical council or a world-wide united Muslim council that would lead the world in condemning the jihad murderers. This council would be the first call entity for journalists and politicians and they would lead the world in their pronouncements condemning specific terrorist acts. They would stand fast knowing that the odd fringe group (all Muslims should be deported, blown up, forcibly converted, the very terrorists themselves, etc..) might attach to them. Their aims would be singular and problem-solving, within a given time frame (so they could go back to fighting peacefully among themselves as other religions do).

    Free speech aside (I’m lovin’ that phrase lately), why the president would stand before the world and say, the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam is beyond me. Why didn’t he just say: you, world, have no leadership. Or I formally bestow on you, the next generation, the gift of Islamic terror. The guy is fatuous beyond all reckoning. But that is another subject.

    • #27
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Basil Fawlty:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Does it lessen our commitment to free speech if afterward we offer to them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary?

    Offering them the idea that what they did wasn’t necessary will simply confirm them in their belief that it was necessary. In other words, that what they did worked and is likely to work again.

    I protest. If you are suggesting more such contests then lets not pretend at the same time we are hoping for assimilation of Muslims, to get them to accept Americanism.

    The ones we are seeking to change won’t and the ones on our side will turn away if we cavalierly attack their religion. We would have no reason to stop there and end up with a

    I prefer to see Pam’s show as a nudge to our government and media about ISIS being here. A useful aberration of our usual acceptance of all religions, but not advisable as a policy to attack a religion whom we are trying to coax to our side.

    When the Muslim community accepts the concept that non-Muslims in this country are under no obligation to either respect…

    And we will convince the non-violent ones of that concept by further disrespect?

    It must have been hurtful when your Protestant childhood friends ate meat on Friday. Too many mackerel snapper taunts have left you unassimilated.

    • #28
  29. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Michael Stopa:But Islam does, at some level, respond to reason. It must. If it does not, we are all lost.

    I don’t know whether or not Muslims will respond to reason by “reforming Islam,” which in this context means rejecting the idea of violence against “blasphemers.”  But if they do not, we are not all lost.

    Rather, if Muslims do not reform, we will be engaged in a long-term conflict of civilizations with the Muslim world — which seems to describe the relationship between Christian and/or Western Civilization and the Muslim world since the time of Mohammed.

    I am hopeful for Muslim reform, but would not bet on it.

    • #29
  30. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Son of Spengler:

    Tommy De Seno:But you still run down the moderate Muslims who support us by drawing Muhammad, no?

    American Muslims who are committed to this country’s freedoms will say, “I don’t endorse this, but I will defend it because free speech is that important.”

    This fellow seems to have done what you ask.

    How many times will we go out of our way to insult his religion?

    Has he not earned enough respect to at least not have us draw Muhammad for the sole purpose of being disrespectful (like Geller, unlike South Park)?

    I think he’s earned at least that.

    Cpl.Kahn.2

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.