Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

you do like to lay it on thick dont you eric?

ok…fine…as an artist i’ll bite….

yes…it is wrong for democrats to cry censorship of “PissChrist” and not of these cartoons. it’s a double-standard. a rather bold one which is why it caught your attention…

and Muslim doctrine says there can be NO depiction of Mohammed, as it’s sacreligious….fine.

and there are plenty of christians who felt that “PissChrist” was sacreligious, as they felt the “Last Temptation of Christ” was sacreligious…

although they have no problem making him into bumper stickers, candles, air fresheners, pens, lamps, action-figures, coloring books, etc…..

you wanna start yelling double-standard…let’s start there.

as for your NEA funding slam….i am against the NEA…and I am an artist. Mostly because i find that Private Investors are much more open minded than the NEA, and if they are willing to help me pursue my work, then great. Screw the NEA. But I do find it amazing that the people who scream the most about the NEA funding are big rednecks like yourself who wouldn’t know culture if it bit you in the ass.

And no…PissChrist is not culture…although it is a well taken photograph. I disagree with the content, but technically it’s well done.

alright…i’ve said my piece….you may now rant about something which will make me hate you more.

Do you write to show “the left” your and “the right’s” point of view? After reading your writings here, I’ve come to the conclusion that you only want to create more animosity between liberals and conservatives. Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?

The problem isn’t with religion. It’s economical. The West, which includes the USA, UK, much of Europe, Russia, and Australia, is made up of first world nations. The Muslim world, which includes much of Africa and the Middle East, is made up of third world nations. In the Muslim world, few people have access to education. In the Muslim world, few people have access to hope. Our world represents everything they don’t have.

It’s easy to tell poorly educated Muslims, many of whom cannot read, that the US is responsible for their plight. How are they to know the difference? They have little knowledge of Western civilization. Go ahead and ask someone in Afghanistan or Somalia who George Washington is.

Those who are calling for an end to these cartoons and depictions of the Muslim world are doing so because these depictions don’t have the desired affect. The desired affect is to show the Muslim world how the West views them.

A cross in a jar of urine doesn’t result in violence in the US because we’re educated people. We’ll think about the message behind the “art”.

It’s a toss-up as to whether Carter was more damaging to American interests while in office or now as a former president. I can’t think of anything kind to say about the peanut pundit.

“Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?”

uh, joseph…i hate to break it to ya, but eric really does believe that.

Eric you have outdone yourself this time! Wow!

Okay first of all what freakin’ liberals? Where are you seeing liberals who don’t see the erroneousness of the arabic hyper-reactionism to what most would describe as a ‘damn’ cartoon? Where are they I’d like to meet some.

Eric this is not your most insane post but close, it’s close. We don’t know there is an Islamic fundamentalist problem??? Um yeah we do Eric.

See the violent reaction is typical of those who are bent on theocratic rule and this was a definative stunt to justify their position. I mean would any other religion do this? Only the catholics when they had a theocracy going did they do such violent (and most would say infantile) protest of something as inane as essentially newspaper illustration.

Now granted the Danish paper was pushing their buttons and yup! sparked a reaction but the reaction is of those bent on theocratic rule, separation from the west, and religious conquest. The Catholic Church used violence to justify and uphold their totallitarian regeim—this is similar.

The illustrations were in many ways dead on, in terms of their religion which was founded by a pirate/spoil-plunderer/despot/mass murderer so it was a case of saying the blatently obvious to anyone who knows anything about Islam and it’s genuine historical foundations.

But I don’t think that liberals in the US in any way are playing extreme apologetics with this. WE know they’re nuts we tried to tell you that before you neo-cons went and liberated them—yeesh.

First thing you saw in the media was a parade of them marching down Iraqi streets banging themselves in the heads with swords and slapping themselves silly with chains on the back. My thoughts were “Gee George glad you liberated ‘em—they really seem like a nice bunch”. And by gum they’ve lived up to the expectation. Those people are nuts we know that.

TRY reading about what the lives of women are like in Islamic Bangladesh if you want a real horror story. Bush hasn’t mentioned the phrase “honor killing” once to my recollection. We should be creating Visas for those women—there is some sad stuff in the Islamic world all created by totalitarian Islam itself.

I think the right is working harder to understand them and are growing to like them but same token, I think we Dems upon gaining information on their back-asswardsness and social attitudes despise Islam even moreso for what it institutionalizes.

Joseph it’s not Muslims, Musim is a sociological term the ones who went stir crazy were the extreme Islamists. You can’t claim the dumbness factor it’s clearly the culture factor.

Okay in the Southern United states when there were lynchings of blacks that was not a dumbness factor that was a cultural and cultural belief/tradition factor. In the Us today there are just as many dull-witted individuals probably but the culture has changed. Do you see what I’m saying. the number of lynching have ceased A) because the US government put their foot down and B) because the society as a whole frowns on such abhorrent racism.

the dumbness factor sadly isn’t it.

Now I’ve also heard that they were being used as pawns, but truth be told to burn buildings in protest or to join in is a choice too.

They weren’t looking for civil rights or they would have had civil discourse as a reaction—this was fundamentalist Islam’s reaction. They want conquest, they want dominion.

The race riots of the blacks in the 1970’s wasn’t them calling for civil rights that was hatred of whites and wanting dominion of their own. Yes there was degradation, oppression, demoralization, almost total poverty rates, No change but ultimately what burst was hate of whites. That was after three sufferable centuries of devestating oppression. BUT Islam is NOT oppressed not in Europe, Not in Asia, Not in the middle east (w/ exception to Israel where they want total dominion). They as a religion are not oppressed or repressed anywhere not even in the US. What was this s**t about then? What is that hate going after? I’ll tell ya’ it’s dominion and conquest and that’s the religion in a nutshell.

Being from the Boston area, I have a very experienced based view on liberalism within the local media, politics, and the union I happen to belong to. Eric, you’re pretty close to the mark. I’m a bassist of 18 years, and happen to be a conservative myself. 9 out of 10 musicians I play with consider me anything from a curious oddity to a downright traitor because they can’t wrap their heads around the fact that one can be an artist and a conservative at the same time.
The Boston Globe, in support of piss christ and poo mary, and my tax dollars they garnered via the NEA printed numerous editorials(their perfect right to do so of course), and IF memory serves me correctly printed the pictures as well.
(also their right) Yet, in the spirit of “respect to all religions” didnt reprint, OR even take a stand for free speech. Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, and a glowing example of why Dems haven’t won the governorship here in quite some time.
I’ve learned one thing as a Boston artist…
Liberals ONLY celebrate the free speech of other Liberals.

Eric actually Carter is wrong in calling Neo-cons fundamentalists because you actually have to technically be fundamental of something (or fundamentally anything), with republicans it’s pretty damn mutt & Jeff the only uniting factors are hatred of those “damn liberals” and reward the rich.

Carter was off-mark Eric, you’re right.

The hypocrisy is based on fear.

goodkingned,

It’s a toss-up as to whether Carter was more damaging to American interests while in office or now as a former president. I can’t think of anything kind to say about the peanut pundit.

Three words — Habitat for Humanity.

Eric,

There’s a big difference between a private corporation (CNN) choosing not to show something and the Government (NEA) censoring something. CNN, as a private company, can “censor” whatever it wants. But the NEA — a government institution — should not base its funding of art project upon some random person’s objection to the religious content thereof. It’s called “Separation of Church and State”, not “Separation of Church and Corporation”.

So, if an American artist wanted to depict Mohammed in a jar of urine, or whatever, and had legitimate reason to request NEA funding, then the NEA would be required to fund it despite any objection that some may have to the content.

Do you really not understand the difference here?, Eric? Do I need to teach an online Government 101 class to explain the difference between private corporations and government entities?

Oh, and for the record, whether it’s done by CNN, an artist with NEA funding, or a Danish newspaper, it’s still a stupid thing to do. They have every right to do it, but legal don’t equal smart.

Bob Kelley,

Liberals ONLY celebrate the free speech of other Liberals.

Unfortunately, that is the case for most of them. It’s also the case that most Conservatives only celebrate free speech of other Conservatives.

A newspaper that would show images (when they make the news) offensive to Christians but would not do the same for images offensive to Muslims is being hypocritical. Personally, I don’t think that the newspaper should show either, out of respect for their readers. But, as an advocate of free speech, I must defend their right to show both, neither, or any combination in between.

It seems that Respect has fallen victim to the same political divide that Free Speech has. For a long time, people on the Left have been willing to insult Christianity without regard for those of us who hold the faith. And now many on the Right are showing the same lack of respect when addressing issues about Islam.

It’s sad that being Liberal or Conservative has become more important to people than being American, and being Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever has become more important than being Human.

Is it just me or is it odd to hear wingnuts talk about how we need to avoid being a wimp vis a vis these cartoon riots? What kind of understanding could the right possibly engender with their long record of ‘religious autocracy’?

I’m wondering when a wignut artist will apply for an NEA grant to produce some Serrano-like ‘works of art’. Perhaps Teddy in a jar of booze? Or maybe they might go the Scooter Libby route…

I’m pretty sure that cartoons merely depicting Mohammed is no big deal.

To you and me, it’s no big deal. To an observant Muslim, it’s blasphemy. Do you see the difference? Or are you telling them that their religion is wrong because it doesn’t make sense to you?

Also, well said, Rob Cottrell.

Rob,
I wonder if you were upset with Clear Channel when they (a private corporation) and other private corporations decided to suspend Dixie Chicks songs and boycott their album sales after Natalie’s anti-Bush comments several years ago.

The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.

On another point, I agree with you. Carter’s one-and-only positive contribution to our country is his work with Habitat for Humanity. I must give credit where credit is due. He should stick to that. Thinking Carter has any useful insight on muslim or middle-eastern affairs is a gross overstatement of his abilities.

I do think that the biggest part of any hate-based violence (racism, islamo-fascist rioting - both in France a few months ago and the current unrest, etc.) is lack of education.

Although I hate to bring attention to “AAA”, I must opine:
“But I don’t think that liberals in the US in any way are playing extreme apologetics with this. WE know they’re nuts we tried to tell you that before you neo-cons went and liberated them—yeesh.”
That is the epitomy of the left’s argument against Iraq. Despite the attempts of redirection and abandonment of logic, reason and previous statements and actions of past democratic leaders, the left’s basic premise for opposition ot the efforts in Iraq is simply “they are not ready or capable to be free”. Whether they are “too crazy”, too stupid, too primative or whatever. They do not deserve to be free, so it’s OK to ignore their plight. If you think about it, it’s not unlike their opinion of most Americans….let us (the government) take care of you, because you can’t take care of yourselves. We’ll tell you can and cannot believe in. We’ll tell you (in public schools) what you need to know. blah-blah-blah.

The left does not know how to solve problems. All they can do is try to find something to scare us, point to who’s responsible for it (usually, it’s GW) and try to rally opposition without offeriing alternative solutions.

Rich,

I wonder if you were upset with Clear Channel when they (a private corporation) and other private corporations decided to suspend Dixie Chicks songs and boycott their album sales after Natalie’s anti-Bush comments several years ago.

Yes, I was upset with Clear Channel (mainly because I enjoy listening to the Dixie Chicks), but it was their right to boycott. It was also my right to boycott Clear Channel for doing so, and go buy a Dixie Chicks album in support (which I did, and am listening to right now). :-)

But, legally speaking, they did nothing wrong. It wasn’t about whether Clear Channel upset me by doing it. Their rights aren’t increased or decreased based upon my feelings on the matter.

The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.

And I agree with that — the “liberal media” is being hypocritical. My point is that the hypocracy isn’t limited to the Liberals. The same people who attacked the media for showing pictures of the Saviour in urine are standing up in support of the media publishing offensive pictures of Mohammed. As usual, both sides traded stances when there was some political gain to be had from it.

On another point, I agree with you. Carter’s one-and-only positive contribution to our country is his work with Habitat for Humanity. I must give credit where credit is due. He should stick to that. Thinking Carter has any useful insight on muslim or middle-eastern affairs is a gross overstatement of his abilities.

Carter’s done other positive things, too. But he certainly made a horrible President. (I’ll be the second one to admit that, as Carter himself was the first.) And he does have useful insights on the Middle East conflict, but they’re so wrapped up in partisan politics as to be more harm than good right now. Ironically, President Bush has the same problem.

I do think that the biggest part of any hate-based violence (racism, islamo-fascist rioting - both in France a few months ago and the current unrest, etc.) is lack of education.

Absolutely true. But what a lot of people miss is that, underneath the hate-based violence, there are usually legitimate concerns that never get heard.

The left does not know how to solve problems. All they can do is try to find something to scare us, point to who’s responsible for it (usually, it’s GW) and try to rally opposition without offeriing alternative solutions.

Neither the Left nor the Right really knows how to solve anything, because extremism never solves problems — it just creates more. The answers to most of our country’s problems get trampled in the isle in the mad rush to prove the other Party wrong. Most of the issues in this country boil down to two major problems — Democrats and Republicans.

Eric:

Thanks for being a uniter.

“The tragic truth is that the left still does not believe there is an ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ problem. “

—Yes, they do. They just happen to believe its leadership is laughing its ass off somewhere in a cave in Pakistan, because your beloved Republican leadership thought it best to invade Iraq instead.

Liberals 1, Hypocritical conservatives 0.

First of all, if your religion, whether it’s Islam or Socialism, can’t withstand a few cartoons, you need a new religion. Apperently, Islam is not much of a religion. Ironic, since Islamists so often ally with Socialists. We all know, Socialism ALWAYS fails. I wonder if Islam will go the same route? These cartoons allow us to see the real Islam, in all it’s bloodthirsty glory.

There is nothing more fun than watching the Socialists wrap themselves into pretzels by saying that we should respect Islam, while they have spent the last 40 years doing everything they can to insult Christians and Jews whenever possible. This situation reveals all about them as well, and soon all the folks in the middle will even notice, Islam and Socialist are just new and different words for hypocrite.

Neither the Left nor the Right really knows how to solve anything, because extremism never solves problems — it just creates more. The answers to most of our country’s problems get trampled in the isle in the mad rush to prove the other Party wrong. Most of the issues in this country boil down to two major problems — Democrats and Republicans.

Rob, extremely well said. I’m on the opposite side of most issues from where you are but I wish more people (on both sides) would wake up to this idea. IMO it is the single biggest problem in the government today. 2 parties, both playing “devil’s advocate” on every issue. Disagreeing jsut to disagree. Instead of working together to come to an agreement.

It’s disappointing and it is only getting worse.

Rob C-

You sound like a libertarian, at least in the making. The two biggest problems facing the United States at this time in history are Republicans who want to protect our freedoms, even if it means taking away some them in the process, and Democrats who want so badly to regain their lost power that they will do or say anything that might give them an edge, and both want too much involvement in my personal life to make me comfortable.

Neither side is pure and clean, they are both dirty as mud. And that, dear friends, leaves us with few alternatives at the ballot box. We have come to the point where the two major parties have abandoned the concept of public service and are only intent on getting and keeping power.

There are some in government, on both sides, who are trying to look out for the country. Unfortunately, they are boxed in by the majority and especially the ones who hold the power within the parties. When toeing the “party line” becomes more important than what is good for the country, we have lost all of the good things that have made this country great.

Me, I gave up on D and R a long time ago. I am a Libertarian by necessity, not because I totally agree with the total philosophy but because it is closer to what I see as important than the others.

Eric, Eric, Eric…
Don’t you get it? Free speech includes the right not to say things. If CNN doesn’t want to show the cartoons in question, that is their fundamental right. You might think they’re wrong, but they have the freedom to entirely disregard your opinion.

We also have the freedom to combine opinions that others might think incompatible or uncharacteristic of us. For example, we believe the riots, however insensitive the comments that started them, are unjustified, and symptomatic of a problem. We also believe that those people who made the comments should not be forced to limit their expression for the rioter’s sake.

So what do we believe? We believe that those people must be brought to understand where the limits are in what they can demand of us. We freely choose not to offend them. And freely choose to defend the rights of expression for those who did.

Eric and Rich,

This incident and this article are both highlighting many things.
1) The Middle East and the West are not even close to being on the same page.
2) Our intrinsic values clash with their religous values.
3) Our focus on Western importance of “Freedom of the Press” turned this from an insult from just the Danish press into an international insult to their religion.
4) The Islamic Fundamentalists are using this incident to rally more into the anti-West fold.
5)Because we don’t see the harm, “It’s only a cartoon”, we feel they are getting “carried away”, once again displaying the arrogance of the west and further angering the people in the Middle East.
6) This could be a trigger for major events between the West and Middle East.
7)Eric still grasps at straws every chance he gets.
8)Eric loves to twist facts and create reality.
9)He’ll always find someone to jump off the reality cliff with him.

Rich,

“The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.”

Did it ever occur to you, that by protesting the exibition of these “works of art” (and I use that very loosely), you just bring more attention to the “artist” (another a loose term), and that the media’s coverage was more about the outrage than it was about the “artist”?
With the internet I am sure that anybody that was interested in seeing the offending caricatures, has already seen them.
Is it nescessary to print them again, just to spit in the eye of those that might be offended?

Eric,

Do you have any liberal friends?

Joseph Ragsdale,

It’s easy to tell poorly educated Muslims, many of whom cannot read, that the US is responsible for their plight. How are they to know the difference? They have little knowledge of Western civilization. Go ahead and ask someone in Afghanistan or Somalia who George Washington is.

Woa. Many of westerneers have as little knowledge of Muslims civilization too. Go ahead and ask someone in America or Europe who’s Egypt current leader? I think lack of knowledge is well shared on both side.

Those who are calling for an end to these cartoons and depictions of the Muslim world are doing so because these depictions don’t have the desired affect. The desired affect is to show the Muslim world how the West views them. A cross in a jar of urine doesn’t result in violence in the US because we’re educated people.

So you mean that West views of Muslim world is not muslims = terrorists but muslims = uneducated people? I wonder which point of view is less offensive and which one is less oversimplified…

The West didn’t wait for these cartoons to establish long ago an oversimplified link between islam and terrorism. This link was often made already just after first Palestinian territories occupation, expanded into europe and tchecheny during the 90’ but it came really global after 9/11.
Unfortunatelly, the moderate muslims world failed so far to figthback this link. They failed to massivelly express disgust after 9/11, beheaders and usual human bombers. This have contribute largely to the violent image of islam worldwide as well as cartoons…

After all, just a few condemn the rioters violence but many found very offensive that we may find islam violent. Ironic, isn’t it?

I don’t know that I ever heard eric specifically refute the claim that he gets paid to write these articles. Curious.

Funny thing is, usually when I read the displayed portions of articles on the Watchblog homepage, I can’t necessarily tell who the authors are until I’m done with the first paragraph and read who in fact wrote it. I read the first sentence of this and didn’t even have to scroll down to know this was vintage eric.

The behavior his side is so willing to decry in Muslims is different only in degree from the behavior of their Christian fundamental base. Wasn’t it recently the case that some guy from Focus on the Family or some similar nutjob organization got a television show preemptively cancelled because it depicted a priest with a drug problem having conversations with jesus?

I know, I know — not the same as having riots and mob murders. But it’s not categorically different, just a difference of degree. It still amounts to outraged theocrats attempting to silence viewpoints that they don’t like. At bottom, they’re pretty similar.

And, for the record, I’ve not heard a single liberal yet defend the actions of the Muslim mobs. Not to say there might not be a few, but I haven’t heard it.

John Back,

You sound like a libertarian, at least in the making.

And you sound like someone who likes to put people into tidy little boxes with labels on them. :-)

(Reminds me of Mel Brooks: “You look like the piss boy!” “And you look like a bucket of shit!”)

I try to avoid labels whenever possible. There’s such a broad spectrum out there that it seems wrong to lump certain people in the same category (like George W. Bush and John McCain, or Teddy Kennedy and Evan Bayh). I hate seeing people dismiss perfectly valid arguments simply because they think the speaker is a “liberal” or a “conservative”.

How, but with violence, can the Muslim world expect to enforce a Muslim rule ,i.e., NO IMAGES OF MUHAMMED, on non-Muslims? This is really what is being attempted here. To do so is extreme arrogance in my opinion.
Do they, Muslims, have any regard for or even recognize the 10 commandments?

Having “rights” carries with it the overall responsibility to exercise them in a manner that demonstrates that you have both the character and compassion to realize the impact of those rights on others and, the message it sends about you.

If Christ in a jar of urine is freedom of speech so is Mohammed with a bomb for a turbin. I find both distastful and disrespectful of both religions.
While I don’t agree with anything that the Muslims beleive, I do respect their right to believe it. Even though they don’t respect my right to believe what Baptist teach.
I do find it interesting though that the left is screaming for tolorance of the Muslim religion while they practice intolorance of the Christian. But it’s not the only double stanard they have.

Rob C-

I don’t put labels on people for any reason. I let their words speak for them. I only meant that your words are quite close to the libertarian point of view. And, I am able to separate out individuals from groups. I believe I made that clear. If not, I will repeat it: there are people on both sides who are honestly interested in the good of the country. Unfortunately, they get boxed in by the power structure and wind up being ineffective.

I have read some dumb comments on this message list and I have read some thoughtful and smart comments. And I have to admit that it has been on both sides.
First I would like to say, I have heard no one tell the newpapers involved that they were wrong. Don’t know what sources you are looking at that somehow the “liberals” (ooooh bad word) are defending this extreme reaction. If you can point us to some news sources that say, “the free press should not have printed offensive cartoons in their newspaper” or some Big time Liberal saying that.
I find it very curious that until today we had not heard from American Muslims. I think that they have a unique view in that many of them are born into this culture and understand the editorial cartoon in a different context than say, a muslim that lives in a country where there is no freedom of the press. Those muslims from those countries where there is no freedom of the press honestly believe that the Danish gov’t approves of those cartoons and has the ability to shut down that newspaper if they want to. Those muslims do not understand that our gov’ts really do not have that power.
This is another thing that bothered me until today and I saw in the news the following- it does not say in the Koran that you cannot make images of the Prophet Mohammed. So where did that come from? It seems that the most extreme teaching of Kawariri (sp?) said that there should be no depictions of the prophet. I know that just as we had monks that copied our biblical texts with rich drawings in the margins, the same was happening in Persia, and they did depict the prophet either in beautiful drawings accompanying the text or in the margins.
I would hope that our american muslims could reach out to their brethren in other countries and have a dampening effect on the anger out there. And I would hope that we could now see that maybe to win the hearts of the muslim people they need education, now. Not later.
I would also like to see our foreign aid go to positive activities for the young men full of testosterone in those countries, something like soccer teams and games. Those young men have nothing to do with their time and energy and so when incited into violence, find an outlet for those energies. If it was re-directed into sports, perhaps we could live a less worried life that muslims were not joining al Qaeda and were joining in sports instead.
Just a novel idea, instead of bashing stupid conservatives or stupid liberals…just a thought…

John Back,

Sorry ‘bout that. I think I’ve had one too many people on this ‘blog try to categorize me, so they can determine whose opinions I’m holding (other than my own). I’ve been called a “right wing freak” and a “left wing commie” on several occasions here. (In fact, I was once called BOTH in response to the SAME POST!) :-)

Look,

guys I have seen marines blown up, shoot at trying to save and give freedom to these people could muslims. They don’t care who gets in there way they want what they want and they will die getting it.

This mohammed they think the world of was nothen but a killer and raped who he wanted to.HE MARRIED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. He went from land to land killing, burning homes and familys and he mad up this ali becouse the romans were in power and he wanted a piece. So he made up this hole thing,HE WAS A KILLER!

LAST THING, if you think IRAN has nothing to do with adding fuel to the fire you are wrong.

There’s definitely a double standard with the libs on this political cartoon issue. Look at the ACLU, they defended the artist’s right for the Virgin Mary in dung; however, they are not for the Danish press to print this. What about their right to free press and speech?! Total hypocracy. And, this is just one example; a very big example, but just one of many…

rah,

Plese tell me what you expect the American Civil Liberties Union to do for a Danish newspaper? Can you tell me anything concrete and reasonable? Or do you just want to take potshots at your enemies?

rahdigly,

You are absolutely right that the “libs” have a double-standard here. But do you not also see the double-standard from the Right as well? The Right was horribly upset by the Virgin Mary in dung and Christ in urine, but apparently has no problem with these depictions of Mohammed. The messages I’m getting here from many Republicans is “Be respectful of MY religion, and piss on anyone else’s.”

The two parties have completely switched sides on the issue.

To follow up, the ACLU acts to support individuals and groups when the government has overreached (compared to their understanding of the Constitution). Even if they had a role to play in Denmark (which they don’t), there’s nothing for them to protest in Denmark; the Danish government is showing full respect for press freedoms. It’s individuals that are causing the problems, and that’s outside the ACLU’s charter.

The only role the ACLU plays in this debate so far is to be an innocent punching bag for you.

Why do animal rights activists toss red paint on old ladies wearing furs, but leave bikers in leather coats alone?

When you answer that question, you know why people feel free to attack Western values and not the others.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy in most protestors, and a good share of cowardice.

People on this blog like to compare Bush to Hitler. They do this because they know they are not telling the truth. If we really had a dictatorship, they would be hiding in their houses or mouthing pro-government slogans.

Re lynching somebody mentioned. More people were killed in the violence relating to these cartoons than were lynched in the twenty years between 1950 and 1970. Some perspective from the Tuskegee Institute.

Lawnboy,
“Plese tell me what you expect the American Civil Liberties Union to do for a Danish newspaper? Can you tell me anything concrete and reasonable? Or do you just want to take potshots at your enemies?”

They don’t have to go to Denmark to defend them; they can defend the newspapers here in the US that won’t run them. Heck, there’s only a handful (throughout the entire Nation) that do run them. The NY Times won’t dare run it; however, they ran the Virgin Mary in elephant dung YESTERDAY!!!!

Why can’t the ACLU step in a defend the newspapers right to run it? They did it for the Virgin Mary!!!!!

The bottom line is, the press and the politically correct (PC) crowd are a bunch of cowards. They only take a stand when they know the outcome won’t be severe, or when the law will protect them. In this case, the islamofascists are too (oooo) volatile and there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.

To all the libs out there,
there’s a HUGE difference between the response of Muslims to the cartoons and conservative Christians to “Piss Christ.” I’m an Evangelical Christian, and there is NO cartoon out there, no matter how offensive, that would make me want to riot, burn down buildings, take hostages, slit throats, etc. We usually believe in freedom of speech. If someone presents a piece of art that offends me, I might peacefully protest, write letters, arrange a boycott, pray for the perpetrators, etc. I also might not want my tax dollars to support art that offends me; actually, I don’t believe in government sponsored art at all. That’s how civilized people behave. Unfortunately, many libs and Muslim apologists (but not all) are making excuses for these barbarians—“Oh, but you have to see, those cartoons are REALLY offensive to Muslims.” By doing so, they are tacitly admitting a belief that Muslims are like children, not to be held responsible for their actions. They’re not children, and it’s high time the world started holding them accountable. This moral equivalency game is getting pretty old.
Okay, done with my rant.

To all the libs out there,
there’s a HUGE difference between the response of Muslims to the cartoons and conservative Christians to “Piss Christ.” I’m an Evangelical Christian, and there is NO cartoon out there, no matter how offensive, that would make me want to riot, burn down buildings, take hostages, slit throats, etc. We usually believe in freedom of speech. If someone presents a piece of art that offends me, I might peacefully protest, write letters, arrange a boycott, pray for the perpetrators, etc. I also might not want my tax dollars to support art that offends me; actually, I don’t believe in government sponsored art at all. That’s how civilized people behave. Unfortunately, many libs and Muslim apologists (but not all) are making excuses for these barbarians—“Oh, but you have to see, those cartoons are REALLY offensive to Muslims.” By doing so, they are tacitly admitting a belief that Muslims are like children, not to be held responsible for their actions. They’re not children, and it’s high time the world started holding them accountable. This moral equivalency game is getting pretty old.
Okay, done with my rant.

rah,

The reason that ACLU isn’t involved here is that the newspapers decision not to show the cartoons isn’t based on gevernment censorship. They aren’t showing it for other reasons (safety, propriety, whatever).

If the NY Times weren’t showing it because the city, state, or federal government were prohibiting it, either the ACLU would be all over the case or you’d have a point. Since that’s not the case, you have no point.

Maybe the NYTimes editors are being hypocrites - I can’t say because I don’t know their reasons for not showing the cartoons. However, the ACLU is doing exactly what should reasonably be expected of them.

In what respect do you expect the ACLU to defend newspapers here? There is no legal action pending against them regarding the cartoons, so it’s not really clear what kind of “defense” you are thinking of.

“In this case, the islamofascists are too (oooo) volatile and there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

Probably because they’re sandpigs, right Rah?

Jack,

It looks to me that you’re the one in your house hiding and mouthing pro-government phrases.

keithb,

As you may know if you spend time around here, I’m pretty liberal, but I largely agree with you.

While I understand that the cartoons are offensive, I don’t think that the offense justifies the reaction, and I don’t excuse the rioting because of the offense.

The relationship between religion and society is much different in the West than it is in most of the muslim world. I, for one, am very glad that the western world went through the enlightenment and came to realize that theocracy is not the answer.

“there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

From salon.com this morning:

“The Moroccan street: No to violence, no to Western disrespect

From taxi drivers to professors, Moroccans weigh in on the cartoon controversy.

…

In the past few days, I’ve talked to a variety of Moroccans whose views stretch from conservative to liberal. They are tradesmen, academics, officials, students and journalists. The consensus, contrary to the apocalypse on television, is that the cartoons are highly disrespectful, but violence is neither warranted nor part of Islam. The consensus has become a unifying force.”

Man, those sandpigs and their decision that “violence is neither warranted nor part of Islam.”

Stupid sandpigs.

Jeez

That is a clever comeback. I generally support the President, so yes I am usually on the postive side. But I also don’t pretend I live in a police state where nobody can say negative things. I always find it ironic we hear so much from people who say they can’t talk.

You have to admit that I am right about the bikers and right about the hypocrisy. You obviously fear no police state in voicing an opinion.

The Economist summed up the courage of many free speech advocates in the cartoon case with a variation on Voltaire, “I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.”

First off, let me just say, well said on the part of Keithb. Nice post.

Ok, now, to all you ACLU apologists, they can certainly speak out against this, they’re just scared just like the newspapers are. It’s hypocrisy to the utmost. The NY Times won’t touch this cartoon b/c of “poor taste” with religion; however, they just re-ran the Virgin Mary dung yesterday. It’s total cowardice on the part of the NY Times, La Times, Washington Post, etc. They’re only brave when it comes Christianity it seems. Have some backbone and stand up for what is right, not for what gets publicity.

And, to all those who want to get on the right with this issue, first attack the left who is totally caught in hypocracy with this one. The right didn’t riot and burn flags to protest. The left totally needs to stand up for freedom of speech, like they do when it comes to Christianity. Period.

Here ya go, Max:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=22037
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=22097;
How do you like your crow, boiled or fried?

squared,
“From salon.com this morning:

“The Moroccan street: No to violence, no to Western disrespect”

I say good for Morroco, it’s good to know that some muslims are speaking out against violence. If only the muslims throughout the middleast and Europe can follow Morroco’s lead, that would be a step in the right direction. Don’t you think?!

And, finding one paper in one country proved my point, by the way. The fact is squared, there’s just not enough influence from the moderates to get a hold of the crazy “sandpigs” - I mean, “Hitler in headscarves”. Sorry, I forgot how sensitive you were with names. :o)

rah,

I’m really curious how you’ve made your decision on the ACLU motivation here. You’ve decided that they’re scared, but I would bet you’re not in any meetings. So how do you know? Or have you just decided that it’s ok to make things up about groups you don’t like?

The issues involved here have nothing to do with the issues that the ACLU works on. Just because you want to beat up on them doesn’t mean you have any logical basis upon which to do so.

Sure, they could say something, but what would they say? They could also put out a press release on the officiating at the Super Bowl, the latest episode of American Idol, and the latest version of the iPod nano.

They don’t issue press releases on those issues because none of those issues involve protecting Americans from governmental violations of the First Amendment. Just like this.

Jack,

If you wish to single out a few indiviuals for cowardice actions why don’t you look at yourself. Gloating and boasting over how were winning a war that we’re actually losing and not even being over there fighting for the cause is a hypocrisy that can only be created by intentional ignorance. If you’re to old to join Uncle Sam why don’t you become a private contractor?

Rah,

I think you’re missing something here. The ACLU acts and handles legal defense when citizens of the United States have their civil liberties infringed. That simply is not the case here.

Of course, the ACLU CAN speak out on this issue, anyone CAN speak out about it, but there is no reason for them to. The Wisconsin Dairy Council COULD speak up about it too, but, like the ACLU, have no reason to.

Damned Wisconsin Dairy Council cowards! All you WDC apologists need to sack up and take a stand against Islam!

Moreover, if you think publicity has somethign to do with the motives of the press, in what parallel universe do you live in where this issue isn’t getting publicity?

But I do enjoy when you say “period”. Almost as good as when you used to say the score between you and liberals. Funny.

JACK!

Holy crap! Are you angry because we don’t fit neatly into your made-up stereotype??? Who the F**K is defending the extremist Islamic protestors? Who on this thread is throwing red paint on little old ladies in fur in their time off? Where are you getting this stereotype of what liberals are? I have never heard Bush compared to Hitler on this site. Are there any libs who would like to call Bush Hitler so we could have this just once, for Jack’s sake he needs a day brightener to reinforce his Limbaugh-esque presumption.

And the lynching stuff; well given that as far as I know only a Dutch photographer was beaten mistakenly thinking he was a Dane—Um you are wrong, there were lynchings up until 1962 (the last documented one happened in Indiana—not to say there weren’t others). In the fifties there were numerous Klan actions that resulted in murders as well. One over a black teen who reportedly whistled at a female storeclerk.

—Keith B.

Who is doing this apologism? You are so expecting us to have these replies, you are blinded by the facts that we know full well that those radicals are bonkers—jeez pray for the ability to pay attention!

Yes you wouldn’t burn buildings and the like as a Christian. The problem is crazy-ass Islam and what it stands for yes we know.

—Dom, Muhammad married a nine year old.

—RAHDIGLY YOU MORON!

“American” Civil liberties Union—“AMERICAN”—AMERICAN Diggly, over there THOSE ARE DANES YOU BUFOON! Why would they react??????????? HELLO!

Jack,

You have to admit that I am right about the bikers and right about the hypocrisy. You obviously fear no police state in voicing an opinion.

Actually, I just asked a couple of animal rights activists about your “biker” theory. They claim that the main reason they don’t target bikers is because they’re not out to attack the “lunatic fringe” — they’re attacking animal products in the mainstream. That’s why they go after little old ladies, celebrities, and Old Navy. Attacking the Hell’s Angels won’t get them the press they want. Of course, I can’t speak to the truthfulness of the statement, but I thought it best to go to the source for an answer.

As for your theory about why people are willing to attack Western values… I can’t speak for everyone, but I focus my criticisms on the United States for one reason — because it’s the only country that’s doing anything in MY name. What the U.S. does, right or wrong, is more important to me than what ANY other country does, because I live in the U.S., so I am partially responsible for whatever the U.S. does. Even if dictators in Third-World-istan are sauteing babies in butter, they didn’t come to power through my vote, and they aren’t doing it using my tax dollars. I focus my attention on the problems that I have some control over.

The alternative, of course, is to complain about what other countries do wrong, while ignoring what my country does wrong. That may work for politicians in Washington, but it doesn’t work for me.

keithb,

Those articles are from Lebanon. Max said that no Democrats (you know, Americans) defended the behavior.

Please try again.

Lawnboy,

They could certainly speak out on all other religious issues, but not this one. They are the ones that challenge everything from Christmas displays in public to removing crosses from grave sites. They’ve posted these issues in the past on their website, yet they won’t give their point of view on this religious situation. Why? Have you been to their meetings to know why they don’t?! We both have nothing else to go on except assumption, facts and just overall, gut feeling.

I believe they are cowards b/c they defended the “Piss Christ” and “Virgin Mary dung” yet they won’t even come close to speaking out on the islamic prophet cartoons. They won’t touch it. Again, why???!!!

I also believe that (most) of the newspapers are a bunch of cowards for not printing this. Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

Excellent article Eric.

As a graduate from the Naval Academy I’m usually proud of that accomplishment until Carter is brought up. (Of course my West Point friends like to bring him up all the time.) He trashed our military in 4 years what it took Clinton 8 years to accomplish. I’m sure that’s a private dig from Carter to Clinton every time they get together.

Although I’m certainly not a psychologist, I did certainly have the Academy experience. It’s my utmost belief that Jimmy had a very rough Plebe Year … and a Naval career in general. It was so much so that he suffered emotional and mental setbacks. Some get so depressed they kill themselves. But he barely held on and stuck with academics (classes offered a vacation from other pro-American activities one might experience in the U.S. military). Some charity neurons still survived the chemical imbalance in his brain. But his bad naval experience coupled with his current senility (reference the rabble rousing … at a funeral for God’s sake) is leading to his embarrassing last stretch. I expect a tea party with his closest buddies (Castro, Chavez) any day now.

rahdigly,

Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

Because they’re catering to a customer base which is mostly left-wing, politically-motivated hypocrites. You know, the same way Fox News caters to right-wing, politically-motivated hypocrites. It’s nothing new.

The right thing for them to do would be to run neither, and more consistently show respect for the beliefs of others. But, when politics are involved, respect goes right out the window.

Now please answer a question for me. After years of bad behavior by the “liberal press” (publishing things like the “Piss Christ” and “Virgin Mary dung”), some of them finally do something right and choose NOT to publish religiously offensive material. Isn’t this something we should ENCOURAGE? Isn’t the idea to reward GOOD behavior and punish BAD behavior? If showing these things was bad before, shouldn’t the “religious right” be rejoicing that the liberal media finally got something right?

Again, I’m fully willing to admit that the NY Times has a double-standard. Are you willing to admit the same of the right-wing press?

Rah,

You know what? Never mind. We’ve explained this to you enough. You’re right. The ACLU is a bunch of cowards. They should totally take up the banner of a Danish newspaper for conduct in Denmark. And they should be suing the Iranian government for its prominent displays involving symbols of Islam.

And, just to take it to the next level of nonsense, let’s not forget that they should be suing God for allowing bad things to happen to good people. And where were they that time I got a public urination ticket in the Czech Republic?

One reason: cowardice. Period.

They are the ones that challenge everything from Christmas displays in public to removing crosses from grave sites.

Yes, they speak out when individual religions are promoted directly or indirectly by the government. That’s their job. Those are cases that involve their charter. This case doesn’t.

yet they won’t give their point of view on this religious situation. Why? Have you been to their meetings to know why they don’t?! We both have nothing else to go on except assumption, facts and just overall, gut feeling.

No, I’m also using the ACLU’s self definition.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

This issue has nothing to do with their mission. This isn’t my assumption or gut feeling. This is a fact based on evidence.

Again, why???!!!

Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

No. For two reasons:

• I already told you what I think about the NYTimes reaction in this thread
• I don’t appreciate you yelling at me, demanding that I answer your questions that I’ve already answered. When you can show others a bit of respect, I’ll answer your question. The more exclamation points you put on your demands, the less of a response you’ll get. Further, when your question includes a slander, you show that you don’t care what I or anyone else thinks; why the hell should I tell you anything?

I wonder if the artist of these cartoons thought it would create such a stir. I bet he or she is dumbfounded.

Rahdigly,

If the ACLU were to counter-sue who would be the claimant? No rights were infringed upon—CNN and others did not show the cartoon because like everything else they cater to advertizers. They don’t want to come off as too left or too right and this is a hotbutton, which summarily is why with punditry shows they usually have left and right represented (whether that accurately represents the two parties is up for dispute).

Folks-
Let’s put it out there:
1)A legitimate gripe can be the motivation for an illegimate, or even counterproductive reaction. The Rioters likely gave license to those who fear and hate Muslims to do it further.

2)But the same applies on the other side of things. We are responsible for our responses, and if we choose to disrespect other people’s beliefs, we shouldn’t expect cooperation and respect in return.

3)We all have our choices, and in this country, the freedom to make them as we see fit. Some conservatives choose to see not reprinting the cartoons as evidence that they allow the Muslim fanatics to censor them, but seeing as how we live in a free society, even if the choice is made out of fear, it is still the free choice of those involved. I myself think that this a choice that can be made out of respect and expedience: Either you don’t want to offend people, or you just don’t want the trouble.

Personally, If I wouldn’t publish them on my blog. I have nothing to prove, and no malice towards those who peacefully object to the representation of Mohammed’s features in a work of art. They probably have the better idea, as these rioters have made it forbidden fruit.

Ahhh the angst!!

Interesting that an Iranian newspaper, Hamshari, plans to run an international competition seeking cartoons about the Holocaust. Their stated aim is to see how tolerant people will be about these cartoons.

So…..in essence, they are saying that two wrongs might just make a right? Or that since the Danish paper ran intolerant cartoons, they will do so as well, committing the same kind of offense that they are decrying?

If and when these pictures are run, there will undoubtedly be those against them, but there will be no riots, deaths, or threats. That will easily identify the difference between the Islamic radicals and the rest of us.

Interesting also that Danish flags are so easily available in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. A Danish flag would be difficult to get in the United States, but in the Middle East, I doubt there is a ‘Flags-R-Us’ anywhere within walking distance. Gives some credence to the notion that this is a precipitated action.

We all know the feeling. We get angry about something with someone, but its not enough just yet….so we wait…and wait, and voila!!! A minor thing happens and we UNLOAD on them. Its really just holding a grudge and then unveiling it at the first opportunity, whether the opportunity called for such action or not.

In this case, the Islamic radicals fueling this are 100% wrong. Is there anyone….anyone at all…who will disagree with that?

Digly,

This is why it’s difficult to have any respect for you; you constantly move the goalposts, and you do it evey time you’re confronted with evidence.

You said, “there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

I provided evidence that this is not the case.

You replied, “finding one paper in one country proved my point.”

No, it COMPLETELY REBUTS your point. Salon is the second place I look at for news evey day, and JUST THIS MORNING, they had THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE that completely refutes your argument. The average Moroccan, a nation that is virtually 100% Muslim, is specifically refuting violence and extremism. It is not my job to provide you an exhaustive list - if you had ANY intellectual honesty, you’d say, “Damn, ok, things might not be quite as bad as I thought.”

You did the same thing in the cartoons thread. You asked why I didn’t support Catholics against “Piss Christ.” I explained that I _did_ support them. You replied, “Well, why didn’t they protest?” See, you just moved the goalposts.

The fact seems clear that no evidence whatsoever will sway you on any issue, because you won’t even look at it. Stephen King, sage of our time, had it right: an asshole is someone who refuses to accept the world around them.

a simple note about Jimmy Carter:

Habitat for Humanity

Dayton Peace Accords -1995

Camp David Peace Accords - 1978

halt in N. Korea’s nuclear program - 1995

Why bust the guys balls ‘cause you don’t agree with him?

views,

But I do find it amazing that the people who scream the most about the NEA funding are big rednecks like yourself who wouldn’t know culture if it bit you in the ass.

And no…PissChrist is not culture…although it is a well taken photograph. I disagree with the content, but technically it’s well done.

alright…i’ve said my piece….you may now rant about something which will make me hate you more.

Sort of a geeky redneck I guess. Actually, you probably need to broaden your views a bit on who has culture and who doesn’t.

I thought the left didn’t hate?

Joseph Ragsdale,

After reading your writings here, I’ve come to the conclusion that you only want to create more animosity between liberals and conservatives. Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?

I’m not sure what your point is because the left has been blaming Bush for 9/11… so is that a bad position to take?

The problem isn’t with religion. It’s economical.

Uh, huh. Poverty is to blame? Please— do some research. Poverty doesn’t create hate. Poverty is not an indicator of terrorism. But ideas are. WOW! What a concept! Ideas cause hate? Say it aint so.

You are proving my premise. There is no Islamic threat in liberal minds because it’s not a problem of religion… it’s poverty. Poverty no doubt created by our wealth. Isn’t that right Joseph? They have so little because we are greedy and selfish? Therefore they are uneducated and naturally turn toward terrorism and burning embassies because we are rich?

JOEBAGODONUTS

Exactly my point about Islam wanting dominion, the Danes print offensive material so in retalliation they attack the Jews because they want that dominion in that region—this is all cock and bull to get what they desire. That’s proof that it’s not about the cartoons or the Danish illustration it’s being used to get what radical Islam in that region really wants, conquest and control.

AAA troll,

Eric you have outdone yourself this time! Wow!

You’re welcome. Enjoy.

Okay first of all what freakin’ liberals?

Just look at the comments… Joseph for one. There is no problem. Jimmy Carter for another.

Okay in the Southern United states when there were lynchings of blacks that was not a dumbness factor that was a cultural and cultural belief/tradition factor.

See, we agree on something here. This is something I’ve said myself that Islamofascism is alot like the Klu Klux Klan in the south at it’s height. In fact there are anti-semitic similarities galore.

The hatred and willingness to kill for the cause are exactly the same.

Bob Kelley,

Right on. I play the guitar myself and it can be fun to see the reaction when politics comes up in this kind of crowd. If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.

If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.

Funny. Very funny.

Good one, AAA the Troll……you know they(Muslims)are crazy, so why are we liberating them?Well uh, how else are you going to accomplish educating the uneducated unless you bring them democracy.You just claimed they hate us because they are poor and uneducated…so tell us…how would YOU educate them without democracy?(yeeesh)

The ACLU is run by Muslims.

My guess, Eric, is if you encountering venom and hatred, it’s likely because once you’ve told the liberals what they think, they’re a little irritated.

If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.



I’ve actually seen such situations with those reactions as well as the reverse, I don’t think either side has a monopoly on sputtering idiots or on inquisitive thoughtfull people.

Could anyone explain to me how these empoverished people living in third world countries have access to so many Danish flags???? I am pretty sure I would have a hard time finding one in the states, but they seem to be burning all over Afganistan. Some of the banners people carry looked like they were made at Kinkos… These are not random uprising, but extrememly well organized well planned and well executed protests designed to destablize the region and show the power of the clerics in the churches.

Rob,

So, if an American artist wanted to depict Mohammed in a jar of urine, or whatever, and had legitimate reason to request NEA funding, then the NEA would be required to fund it despite any objection that some may have to the content.

Do you really not understand the difference here?, Eric? Do I need to teach an online Government 101 class to explain the difference between private corporations and government entities?

No, I disagree. It appears to be you who does not understand this issue. The left says not funding ‘works of art’ like the Piss Christ is censorship. The NEA is not required to fund any particular artist, or even all artists who meet basic criteria. NEA funding is not a right. Ask yourself, does every artist get funded? No, someone makes a value judgement about what is worthy art to be funded and what is not. Therefore NEA grants are not an issue of ‘rights’. Because an NEA grant is not an entitlement like Social Security which must be provided to every American who qualifies, it is a discriminatory privilege.

Who decided what an artist is? Who decides what is worthy art?

In the first place the government should not be in the business of funding art in this manner. As an artist I should not be discriminated against because the NEA decides what I do is not art. So when we are talking about the public funding of art we are talking about a frivolous excuse for state socialism in art.

Unless government is commissioning a statue, or a mural, it should stay out of the art funding business.

Eric,

Unless government is commissioning a statue, or a mural, it should stay out of the art funding business.

That is another argument entirely. You might be surprised that I’d agree with you on it, too…

… however, since the Government IS in the business of funding art, it has to abide by certain rules. One of those is “Separation of Church and State”… the Government shouldn’t be basing its decision on religious objections. If the government decided not to fund “Piss Christ” for other reasons, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the Government choosing what to fund and what not to based upon religious objections would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Now, as for the artistic value of the “Piss Christ”, I consider it on par with the Mohammed bomb-turban cartoon — they’re both tasteless. But CNN’s decision not to show the cartoon was a free choice on their part. It was most definitely NOT censorship.

LawnBoy, Yossarian,

My guess, Eric, is if you encountering venom and hatred, it’s likely because once you’ve told the liberals what they think, they’re a little irritated.

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Liberal’s learn you are a conservative and the next sentence out of their mouths are that, “Condi Rice is the devil.” Where does that come from?

Stephen,

2)But the same applies on the other side of things. We are responsible for our responses, and if we choose to disrespect other people’s beliefs, we shouldn’t expect cooperation and respect in return.

Part of my point about Bush NOT being divisive. Just look at what happens to Bush when he goes to Corretta King’s funeral. Is Bush’s attendence divisive? Yet, the left woudl say it was, despite the fact that it is the left who cannot let the opportunity to be mean and nasty go by even at someone funeral.

It is interesting that these same countries that promise free press do not include any hate speech. Articles in Austrian newspapers that deny the halocost ever took place are currently in court with the writer facing 10 years in prison for the statement. Every group has their scared cow that you do not make fun of or dengrate. The UK is kicking clerics out of their country for encited hate speech. For americans it is a race issue. Comics and comedy that play to black stereo types can receive the same level of attention. The difference is that we typically do not encite rioting and street violence anymore. We have other channels to address our problems. A question that we have to ask is whether this is just an organized stage show for the media. If it was not covered would it still happen. If we take away the cameras does the show goes away. While I refuse to blame the media for the actions of others (except for creating the liberal mindset permiating our culture) it seems like the do it for the cameras.

Eric,

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Wow! I’m not sure where you’re located, but the political climate there is MUCH different than it is here. I’m not even a liberal, but as soon as I mention in public that I was opposed to the Iraq war, I have half-a-dozen people telling me I’m in bed with the terrorists! I’ve seen more abusiveness from Conservatives than I’ve EVER gotten from Liberals. (And, believe me, I’ve debated both quite frequently.)

Eric,

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Wow! I’m not sure where you’re located, but the political climate there is MUCH different than it is here. I’m not even a liberal, but as soon as I mention in public that I was opposed to the Iraq war, I have half-a-dozen people telling me I’m in bed with the terrorists! I’ve seen more abusiveness from Conservatives than I’ve EVER gotten from Liberals. (And, believe me, I’ve debated both quite frequently.)

Eric trolls. He doesn’t write thought provoking articles like an adult, he writes spitballs to aim at Liberals like a mean-spirited child.
Since this particular spitball was soaked in urine, I intend to stay well away from it.

S. Jew,

I didn’t make the case that they burned down the embassy and other acts of extremism because they were “poor and/or uneducated” I said the culprit was the religion and the culture that seeks dominion and has to foment hate and hostility to get that. In other words hate is being used as a tool to unite Islam.

How would I educate them (as if i said this was the culprit) without invading them, hmmm. I think the only way to change the religion and social attitudes has to come from within. We don’t have to go in and educate anyone. The real way to do it is working diplomatically to bring them closer to the west and little by little cull back the extremism. But see theiy are using all of these things to create divisions with the west. The west would mean a lack of power to the theocracies as they would have to give up the extremism that put them in place to be able to negotiate. they do not want to moderate themselves to do so would be the end of their Islamic empire so they foster hate (whether by wahabism or other things) to bring Islam under their tent hating the west. The west is theocracy’s enemy as it gains them no extremist control of which they want to maintain.

How do we change it, right? Well first get out of Israel tis is a stumbling block open more trade hence better negotiations (once they show a weakness in their tyrranical reign—Katami would have been a great entrance point) we bring them into the concensus west and make them to some extent accountable to what their new trade partners and neighbors think of their stances. I don’t care if the mainstream of their countries remain dumb, whatever education is a forced means of doing this what has to happen is we need to make them responsible to garner more trade opportunities. this type of thing has worked before, look at China currently but it is not an overnight thing—it never is. So I hope that answers your question.

I just tried to buy a Danish flag at Flag/ print shop They do not hace any, And they never had any in stock in the 15 years in Business. So where did all those happy 15 year old Muslim kids get them.. HMMMM! Also Jimmy Carter Good fund raiser horrible Pres.

Free speech is Free Speech.
Closed minds are closed minds.
Never the two shall meet.

Crappy post, examples closed mind thinking.
Close of response. (not worth effort to Haiku)

Let the spit fly.

philpz:
“I just tried to buy a Danish flag at Flag/ print shop They do not hace any, And they never had any in stock in the 15 years in Business. So where did all those happy 15 year old Muslim kids get them.. HMMMM!”

Hmmm! I just searched for Danish flags online and found them at flags-online.co.uk - cost: 7.95 Euros (about 10 dollars U.S.). I could buy them using credit card, paypal or by check. They had some in stock, and I could return them and get a full refund if I was not satisfied with my order.

Is anyone forgetting the Dutch filmaker Van Gohg (relative of vincent) who was killed b/c he made a move critical about the way muslim men treated muslim women. How about “Satanic Versus” by Salaman Rushdi… What about the rioting in France b/c the cops chased car thieves….

Maybe people will start to see the truth about the “Religion of Peace”…

(oh yes honor killings are protected by the us constitution too, you just have to read between the lines!)

Oh and by the way the poor and uneducated argument is becoming quite old… In Saudi Arabia every man gets to go to college and what do the get to study ISLAM.

So the country chooses to have a couple of million experts on Islam and not one to open a spigot to control oil… Actually that job is beneath them lets bring in a philipino christian to do that.

Sorry it took so long to respond to Max, Lawnboy, and AAA Troll. To Lawnboy, it is true that the links I gave were to Lebanese writers. It’s also true that the viewpoint that they’re expressing is common from the Left: the West has oppressed the Arab/Muslim world, so obviously we can’t expect them to behave better than savages. In response to your claim that NO democrat has excused the violence, would you consider Pres. Clinton prominent enough for you? Here’s the link: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19013_Clinton-_Totally_Outrageous_Cartoons_Against_Islam&only Here’s a major problem with the Left, namely moral equivalency. “Sure, the Muslims are rioting, beheading, buring down building, etc., but on the other hand, someone printed AN OFFENSIVE CARTOON!”
In response to AAA Troll, I’m really glad that you can tell the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists. The first group will try to persuade you, gather together with like minds to change laws, and pray for their opponents. The second group prays OVER people who disagree with them, shouting “God is great!” while they behead them. If you can tell the difference between these two groups, I wish you’d let Pres. Carter know, since one of the main themes of his new book blurs the difference between the two. Again, that moral equivalency game. To the degree you don’t indulge in this, I applaud you.

I’m starting to think that the “critique the messege and not the messenger” is a bunch of crap. Eric’s whole article has no critique over an argument, but, rather, he writes an article that attacks people personally with no substance behind it. There is no message I can critique except the hate that is expressed by the messenger.

Keithb,

In the quote you linked to, Clinton said that the cartoons were outrageous and appalling. He didn’t say that the reaction was justified. Your characterization of his comments as examples of Sure, the Muslims are rioting, beheading, buring down building, etc., but on the other hand, someone printed AN OFFENSIVE CARTOON! isn’t at all supported by the link.

Jeez,

There is no message I can critique except the hate that is expressed by the messenger.

Even if it’s a message of hate, it’s still a message….

Aderienne……… Yeah your right. Do you think all those Muslims ordered their flags? Yeah i am sure they have credit cards in Iran and pay pal. Also i said a local store, You can get anything off the computer you want? My point is that i highely doubt those protesters ordered theirs..

So obviously the point of this artice is:

Current event + Private coporation censorship + compare to government decision + blame liberals for everything =profit?

Phillipz,

A lot of the flags look homemade to me.

Lawnboy, uh, yes it is. When someone focuses on the offensiveness of the cartoons, yet make no mention of the violence being perpetrated, in my book that’s making excuses. I don’t care HOW offensive a cartoon is to anyone, no matter what their viewpoint. That’s no excuse for the violence. I’m glad you agree with me. Is that what you hear from Clinton’s speech? I stand by my quote.

Keithb,

I think you’re reading a lot more into Clinton’s meaning than is justified by the small quote given.

He didn’t rail against use of steroids in athletics in the quote we’ve been given, but we can’t assume that he thinks it’s ok. Similarly, we can’t turn the lack of reporting of his saying something as proof that he believes the opposite.

Philipz, you think it would be hard for one politically motivated person to buy a bunch of flags online with a credit card and pay a bit extra to get them quickly? I think it would be so easy.

Lawnboy:
“A lot of the flags look homemade to me.”

Could be. Piece of red cloth, can of white paint, presto, instant Danish Flag.

The subject in his speech is not steroids, but the cartoons which have supposedly provoked Muslims worldwide into violence. He rails against the cartoons, (again, making them morally equivalent to anti-Semitic cartoons), yet never mentions the violence. When someone gets caught being a mass murderer, suddenly a bunch of Lefties come forward to spin sob stories about how he was abused as a child. Why do they do this? To make excuses for the murderer. Don’t think I’m reading anything into this. Nice try, though.

KeithB-
Never give total trust to a quote in ellipsis, especially when the flow of thought is so broken.

That said, the notion that we shouldn’t trade anti-semitism for anti-arabism makes perfect sense. It doesn’t help the cause of western society if what the average real world arab or muslim sees from our media is a bunch of racist and sectarian stereotypes.

I don’t advocate censorship to achieve this, but I’d tell every one of you that this “I tell it like it is because I’m politically incorrect” is bullshit. You can be wise or foolish while offending somebody. You don’t have to be right. If we want respect, if we’re demanding it, we should give it, even if that seems to leave us vulnerable. We can stand firm in the face of their hatred and ignorance, and not be swayed. As for that EU stuff? I agree, they’re taking the wrong route. They must respect our values, and earn respect for theirs under a free system. In America, nobody can demand respect of you, and that’s the way it should be.

As for the NEA thing, I don’t mind people being offended by a person’s art, I mind people using that offense as a weapon against government funding of the arts. Government have long been patrons of the arts, and though I personally wouldn’t find a jar of urine with a cross in it artistic, I would say that if that’s the way a person chooses to express themselves, that’s them. If urine filled cross jars were everything about this program, I’d be concerned, but there are other works of art that likely never get the publicity of that one, which balance it out.

Maybe the problem is, conservatives no longer value art as much if its not some kind of commodity. If they want art to carry their meaning, they should encourage more artistic talent among their own.

My response to artI don’t like: create other art that disagrees and makes up its own damn mind.

Rob

Thanks for the decent response.

I seem to have really annoyed AAA, who must be new to blogging if he has not seen Bush compared to Hitler (or a chimp, or a fascist, or an … )

I am not sure that is really the motive for the animal rights folks. Old ladies in fur are probably less common than people in leather. Many people wear leather coats with impunity.

I also disagree about the publicity thing. I am convinced that if a group of PETA activists threw red paint on a bunch of Hells Angels, there would be plenty of press, although I believe the report would start, “among the injured were …”

BTW AAA

I was counting Muslims killed in the riots in Afghanistan. I read the reports of several deaths. Like many protests, they are more dangerous to the people nearby than the ostensible object of their ire.

And I didn’t bring up the lynching thing. I was just adding in some statistics because someone else brought it up.

I have noticed an interesting pattern when I write. I can write all kinds of outrageous things. Sometimes I am surprised that something I think is provocative gets no response, but if I make fun of protestors I get a really vitriolic reaction. Does the act of protest put you above criticism of ridicule? Maybe the protestors own fur coats.

Stephen, good point about the ellipsis. I’ll make a deal with you. You show me the quote to show that I’m wrong (in other words, Clinton railing against the violence more than against the cartoons), and I’ll admit it. The problem with this is that this behavior is very much in sync with the mindset of the Left, as I pointed out before. If Ann Coulter supposedly made a quote like this, I would be sceptical of it as well. Until you prove me wrong, I’ll stand by the quote, and I still claim that Max and Lawnboy were wrong.

Nice try, though.

I respond to a quote by saying that we should actually look at the quote and not make up meanings to the quote that are not contained anywhere in the quote, and all I get is a “Nice try”?

Wow. Tough roo