The Poet Versus the Prophet

On standing up to totalitarian Islam

I got to know the poet Allen Ginsberg towards the end of his life. Not very well, just a nodding acquaintance, but after he died I attended a memorial in his honor at the City University Graduate School. At that service, his personal assistant related a story about Ginsberg’s reaction to the death sentence pronounced on the novelist Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. Rushdie’s “crime,” you’ll recall, was writing a provocative, perhaps even blasphemous novel inspired by the life of Muhammad called The Satanic Verses.

Though I might be screwing up a few details, the gist of the story was as follows: Soon after news of the fatwa broke, Ginsberg and his assistant climbed into the back seat of a taxi in Manhattan. After a glance at the cab driver’s name, Ginsberg politely inquired if he was a Muslim. When the cabbie replied that he was, Ginsberg asked him what he thought about the death sentence on Rushdie. The cabbie answered that he thought that Rushdie’s book was disrespectful of Islam, and that the Ayatollah had every right to do what he had done. At this point, according to his assistant, Ginsberg, one of the gentlest men ever to walk the planet, flew into a rage, screaming at the cabbie as he continued to drive, “Then I shit on your religion! Do you hear me? I shit on Islam! I shit on Muhammad! Do you hear? I shit on Muhammad!” Ginsberg demanded that the cabbie pull over. The cabbie complied, and, without paying the fare, Ginsberg and his assistant climbed out. He was still screaming at the cabbie as the car drove off.

I’ve had a couple of weeks now to think about Ginsberg cursing out that cabbie, and cursing out Islam and Muhammad. You see, I live in Manhattan, three blocks from Times Square. As near as I can determine, I was walking with a friend about thirty feet from the car bomb on May 1st right around the time it was supposed to detonate. Except for the technical incompetence of a Muslim dirtbag named Faisal Shahzad, I and my friend would likely be dead now. Note the phrase: “Muslim dirtbag.” Neither term by itself accounts for the terrorist act he attempted to perpetrate; both terms, however, are equally complicit in it. It might have been a crapshoot of nature and nurture that wrought a specimen like Shahzad, but it was Islam that inspired him, that gave his fecal stain of a life its depth and its justification. Why is that so difficult to admit?

Let me ask the question another way: Where’s the rage? Why won’t anyone say in public what Ginsberg said in the back seat of that cab? If Islam justifies, or is understood by millions of Muslims to justify, setting off a bomb in Times Square, then I shit on Islam.

There are times for interfaith dialogue, for mutual respect and compassion. This isn’t one of them. Shahzad’s car bomb was parked in front of the offices of Viacom, the parent company of the Comedy Central, which airs the program South Park. Last month, the creators of South Park decided to poke fun at the Prophet Muhammad—just as they’d poked fun at Moses and Jesus many times in the past. Death threats followed. It’s too early to connect the Times Square bomb plot to the South Park blasphemy, but police have not ruled it out.

If Shahzad was offended by an animated cartoon and decided to defend the Prophet’s name by killing hundreds of civilians—mothers with their babies in strollers, wide-eyed teenagers in tour groups, husbands and wives out for a night on the town—then I’ll say, along with the poet, I shit on Muhammad.

Americans characterize our collective deference towards the feelings of Muslims as “political correctness.” The phrase may be apt with respect to certain ethnic and religious minorities, but our tip-toeing around Islamic sensibilities is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned cowardice. MSNBC stooge Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, repeatedly slandered Mormonism during the 2008 presidential campaign as a sidebar to his creepily obsessive verbal jihad against then-candidate Mitt Romney. But when asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would insult Muhammad the way he’d insulted Joseph Smith, O’Donnell replied with rare candor: “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the... that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.... Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.”

That’s the problem in a nutshell. But it’s not just O’Donnell’s problem. It’s our problem. America’s problem. The West’s problem. We lack the moral courage to walk the walk, to put our individual lives on the line in order to defend the principles of free thought and free expression—the very principles that allowed the Judeo-Christian West to leave the Islamic East in the dust, literally and figuratively, three centuries ago.

When Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered for producing a short movie critical of Islam’s treatment of women in 2004, where were the public screenings of the film? When Muslims in several countries rioted against pen and ink images of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper in 2005, where were the public billboards of those sketches? And when the creators of South Park trotted out the Prophet in a ridiculous bear costume, and received death threats in return, where were the mass-produced tee shirts of that image?

I’ll take a size-medium, cotton if possible, and I’ll wear it in Times Square.

Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam. Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough. But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”

Mark Goldblatt’s new novel, Sloth, has nothing to do with Islam, but he is pleased to announce that the cover image of a cockroach is in fact Muhammad. You can tell because his antennae form the letter “M.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I shit on Muhammad

    Agreed. In fact, that reminds me: when is the Mohammed image contest? Can I still submit one? I've been insanely busy but we've just passed a deadline and I will have time this weekend to try and come up with something.

  • MatTrue||

    Free Speech Tolerance Day is May 20. I started mine last night.

  • pmains||

    May 20th. I don't know that it's a contest or that there's anyone to submit this to. Just an "Everyone Draw Muhammed" day.

  • ||

    I personally feel we should all draw respectable pictures of Muhammad. That way anyone who objects, we will know where they stand. It's a waste of time to get offended because someone draws a disrespectful picture of your prophet, but not entirely unreasonable. However if you get offended because it is against your religion to depict the prophet, then there is no way around it: you are trying to force your religion on the rest of us.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    It is pretty hard to force yourself to picture "respectably" someone whom you don't really respect.

    But I can see your point. In theory, Islam forbids picturing living beings at all, because "angels" are forbidden from visiting "places" where "pictures" of living beings are present. It negates the prayers or what ... that is the logic which the Taliban used when destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas, which have actually been protected by the local Muslims for more than a millenium.

  • ||

    well it doesn't have to be a glorious picture with a glowing aura around him. Just a picture of a 7th century Arab or a smiley face with a beard and turban that says it's Muhammad. Because all religions get offended (if you are the type of person who gets offended) when you draw a pornographic picture of their main figure. Even if you take terrorists out of the picture (which no other religion does no matter how offensive something is), the reactions to people merely drawing a picture of Muhammad are like Christians flipping out every time a non Christian said "Oh my God," because our religion prohibits it.

  • Sudden||

    Thing is, none of the christian folk started planting explosives in front of the art studio depicting the Virgin Mary covered in Dung.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Doesn't fit the Blame Teh Teabaggers template, Sudden.

    Keith Olbermann swears by it!

  • ||

    Yah, but Christians don't threaten to kill you for it.

  • ||

    Ahhh, the good old days! Blasphemy has it's benefits.

  • ||

    Here, how's this: "Ayn Rand was a psychotic freak, her followers are douchebags."

  • ||

    Good to know that this never happened.

  • ||

    Yeah, and tens of thousands of Christians have been out in the streets cheering on the righteousness of the death threats against the guy. Seriously, are you comparing a couple of death threats issuing forth from lone wackos to the shit we see happening in the Muslim world?

  • ||

    Crawdad, seeing as some morons in Saudi Arabia burning the US flag can't hurt me, whereas a lone Christian whacko with a gun could totally kill me, yes.

    In fact I'd argue that the Christians are more dangerous, because they are more powerful.

  • ||

    Atheist, there will always be wackos and extremists following every creed, both religious AND secular. Christians, environmentalists, Muslims - there will be, and have been, people willing to kill for whatever they believe in. The point of this article isn't to condemn these acts of violence, that should be assumed. It is to condemn the mass support these acts receive in the Muslim community, and to stand up for free speech and expression for people who are not of Muslim faith.

    And yes, those flag burners in Saudi Arabia, and people of their mindset, can and have hurt the people of the United States. I can't believe you've forgotten.

  • ||

    Athiest,
    First, morons from Saudia Arabia have already managed to kill about 3000 of us.

    Second, it's not the lone morons that are the problem. It's the millions that offer support to those morons.

    Third, listening to these "Christians do it too" defenses is like hearing "You know, in theory, any breed of dog might bite when provoked" when the problem is, you're being mauled by a pack of pit bulls.

  • ||

    See, Swami and Mitch, I understand you're afraid of Muslims, I understand you hate Muslims and I understand you want to commit violence against them. What I'm explaining is that Christians are exactly, exactly as dangerous to Americans as Muslims are. They are more dangerous, in fact, because they are stronger and they have more weapons.

  • joe||

    atheist, please post some links to news articles about Christians trying to kill large groups of people in the name of their religion. And some links documenting all of the Christian terrorist training camps. Also, way to put words into the mouths of Swami and Mitch. You obviously know more about them than they do themselves, and thanks to your great insight we can all know without a doubt that they "want to commit violence against" Muslims.

  • ||

    atheist:

    Please read the Quran from end to end. Then read the Hadith from end to end. Then compare the life of Jesus with Muhammad. Then study the history of slavery, racism and imperial conquests after the birth of Islam.

    Note how the first large-scale examples of national conquests, of organized mass terror on unarmed civilians, arson, rape, murder and enslavement take place on a barbaric scale as Islamic armies move across the Middle East, India and Africa to conquer territories in the name of Islam.

    Try to learn what was destroyed and how the non-Muslims were brutally subjugated.

    Study the laws in the Islamic majority nations and compare them with the laws in Christian majority nations.

    When you have truly grasped the history of Quranic practice, of the implementation of the Hadith, and when you have done an accurate and unbiased comparitive analysis of the history of Islam and its effects on all the lands it conquered, only then, will you be able to comprehend the whole truth.

    Until then, please stop speculating and please stop forcing your speculations on others.

    No one who has studied the history of Islam in any depth could ever agree with you.

    So please, stop iinsulting the intelligence of those of us who have taken the trouble of seriously engaging in such scholarship and analysis.

    Organized Islam is the most dangerous threat to the preservation and advance of world civilization.

    Please do not try to (foolishly) distract from this very important message.

  • ||

    atheist:

    Please read the Quran from end to end. Then read the Hadith from end to end. Then compare the life of Jesus with Muhammad. Then study the history of slavery, racism and imperial conquests after the birth of Islam.

    Note how the first large-scale examples of national conquests, of organized mass terror on unarmed civilians, arson, rape, murder and enslavement take place on a barbaric scale as Islamic armies move across the Middle East, India and Africa to conquer territories in the name of Islam.

    Try to learn what was destroyed and how the non-Muslims were brutally subjugated.

    Study the laws in the Islamic majority nations and compare them with the laws in Christian majority nations.

    When you have truly grasped the history of Quranic practice, of the implementation of the Hadith, and when you have done an accurate and unbiased comparitive analysis of the history of Islam and its effects on all the lands it conquered, only then, will you be able to comprehend the whole truth.

    Until then, please stop speculating and please stop forcing your speculations on others.

    No one who has studied the history of Islam in any depth could ever agree with you.

    So please, stop iinsulting the intelligence of those of us who have taken the trouble of seriously engaging in such scholarship and analysis.

    Organized Islam is the most dangerous threat to the preservation and advance of world civilization.

    Please do not try to (foolishly) distract from this very important message.

  • ||

    What nonsense. The majority of the U.S. population are Christians of one sort or another. If Christians were such a danger, we would have been a theocracy long ago.

    Your notion that Islam and Christianity are identically bad is ridiculous. Religions exist along a spectrum from relatively benign to extremely evil. Yet you seem to be one of those who blithely assume that all religions are alike. If you are an atheist, you believe in using your intelligence, don't you? And that means you have to recognize distinctions between distinct things. Suppose for the sake of discussion that, as you believe, all religions are in fact false. It STILL really does matter, even to atheists, if the founder of one religion (Muhammad) says, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, then kill him," while the founder of another religion (JC) says, "Love your enemy." It really does make a difference that whereas JC is reputed to have said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" [i.e., distinguish between the state and religion], Muhammad, by contrast, BECAME a Caesar, as it were, he became the ruler of a theocratic state. Because the tales Christians believe of JC repute him to have said "my kingdom is not of this world," and show him telling the disciples that one who would be great would not lord it over others, but would serve them and wash their feet as JC did -- because of such statements and many others in the New Testament, there has always been in the Christian world an assumption, which it took over 1500 years for the Christian world to just begin to understand and begin to institutionalize correctly: the assumption that religion and state must in some way be divided. However, from the very beginning of the Christianized Roman Empire, Christendom tended to divide into two realms -- religious and secular -- that struggled at the poorly defined boundary between them, so that sometimes the religious forces took over functions that should have been the State's, while sometimes the State took over functions that should have been left to private religion. But through the history of Christianity, some sort of twofoldness, however inadequate, of religion and state almost always existed. That twofoldness was "sinned" against frequently by both religious and state authorities. But they always had at least some vague sense that the realms were in some difficult to define way to be independent. It took some 1800 years of experience before the Christian world began to intelligently institutionalize a separation of religion and state.

    Tina Magaard is a linguist who got her Ph.D. in Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne. She did a three-year study of the original texts of the ten largest religions. One of her findings was that Islam's core texts were by far the most aggressive against other groups.

    What are key differences, then, between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition? You should consider reading Daniel Boortin's book The Creators. It has a very short chapter (in a book with dozens of chapters almost entirely on non-religious subjects) comparing the Judeo-Christian view of creativity with the Islamic view. To judge by your comment, you could learn a huge amount from it. Boorstin points out that the Judeo-Christian God is more of a Creator than a Commander, while the reverse is true of the Islamic God. Further, Boorstin points out that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, human beings are made "in the image of God" and are thus expected to imitate God's creative work in making the world at the beginning: "be fruitful and multiply," the Bible tells human beings. Conceived as sons and daughters of God, human beings are expected to be creative, like the Judeo-Christian God. But in Islam, Boorstin points out, human beings are not described as made in the image of God. Islam explicitly denies that Allah has any sons. The Qur'an conceives human beings as slaves of Allah.

    All these things make a difference, even if one is an atheist and God does not exist. How will it be, over the long run, to live in a society rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition (which early on merged with the Greco-Roman tradition, when the John Gospel identified JC with the Greek Logos, Reason, the Word), as compared with how it would be to live in a society based on the Islamic tradition? Have you looked at the human rights statistics for Muslim-majority nations lately?

    You say, proposterously, that Christianity is as great or a greater danger than Islam. You don't seem to understand that the most atheistic great power in the world, namely Europe, is expected to become Muslim-majority within a couple of generations. In only a few years, the four largest Dutch cities will be majority-Muslim. Currently one third of all French babies born are Muslims. Next round, most French babies will be Muslim, if current demographic trends continue. Get it? Europe as a liberal continent may well disappear sooner than you think. Then where will the U.S. be? Up a creek.

    You think those who recognize the unique totalitarian threat of Islam are filled with "hate" and want to do "violence" and so on. It's just a matter of some cultural backwoods chauvinism, in your opinion. Nonsense. The totalitarianism of Islam is real. You should educate yourself.

  • arc||

    "You don't seem to understand that the most atheistic great power in the world, namely Europe, is expected to become Muslim-majority within a couple of generations."

    [by who?]

    "In only a few years, the four largest Dutch cities will be majority-Muslim."

    [citation needed]

    "Currently one third of all French babies born are Muslims."

    [citation needed]

    "Next round, most French babies will be Muslim, if current demographic trends continue."

    [original research?]

  • ||

    Easily enough done by merely depicting accurately events reported in the Koran. Say, Mohammed chopping off the heads of defenseless prisoners by the score. Or his deflowering of the child Aisha. The possibilities are boundless.

  • ||

    Stop it novaculus, you're making me start to like Mohammed.

  • Matt||

    You can sunmit your drawings here: http://www.theobjectivestandar.....uman-life/

  • ||

    Here is one website that is accepting submissions of pix of big Mo for the big day. I intend to submit one myself, I'll work on it tomorrow

    http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/

    And I don't intend to do something mean about him, and it will be a bad picture, stick figure at best.

    I don't like blasphemy at all. But here is my view, this is not about blasphemy, or even tolerance. It's about not being a bunch of lilly-livered losers like Lawrence O'Donnell. It's the attitude let's beat up on the good kids, cause we're afraid of the bad kids, that is truly the path to hell.

    I'm drawing Mohammed and I hope some mean Mormon punches Larry O'D. in the nose.

  • People Power Hour||

    Not only do I shit on Muh-ammad, I wipe may filthy ass with his head wrap.

  • ||

    I'm pleasantly surprised that Reason published this essay. Frankly speaking I didn't expect to read such a piece here.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    I wonder how Reasonites can combine the tone of the essay with the theory of unlimited mass immigration, which is another popular concept here.

    Note that the cab driver in the story was no deadbeat welfare king, he was a working and productive member of society, yet he was obviously seriously incompatible with the American culture and I cannot see how import of, say, 30 million of his spiritual brethren would be a boon for America. Mark Goldblatt probably can't either.

    Shikha Dalmia, Ruben Navarette, would you comment on this please?

    Because all the European negative experience with immigration from the Muslim world gets brushed aside as a matter of the Euro welfare states, and Libertarians with big L seem to be determined not to see the cultural dimension thereof.

    That is why publishing this essay on Reason seriously surprised me.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I shit on xenophobes.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Good grief.

    I personally am a mixture of 5 different nationalities when you go back 3 generations.

    And half of my ancestors were from the Balkans and I have absolutely no f-king illusions when it comes to the rule of Islamic power over non-Muslim population.

    How many of your great-grandparents were beheaded by Turkish shock troops?

  • ||

    Marian, your question is a good one, and highlights one reason I call myself a "moderate libertarian." If you try to apply any ideology at 100% strength everywhere, you end up with tyranny and/or absurdities. Libertarian support for massive, uncontrolled immigration of people whose beliefs are contrary to libertarianism is obviously self-defeating, but if you point that out you're likely to be called a "racist" or "xenophobe" by some purists whose beliefs allow no exceptions, edge cases, or compromises.

  • Mike D||

    Libertarian support for massive, uncontrolled immigration of people whose beliefs are contrary to libertarianism is obviously self-defeating, but if you point that out you're likely to be called a "racist" or "xenophobe" by some purists whose beliefs allow no exceptions, edge cases, or compromises.


    They're not "purists", they're liberals.

  • Charles C. Johnson||

    I'm increasingly a proponent of what John Derbyshire called "libertarianism in one country" after it seems hordes of Mohammedans descend through the welfare office to the bus station. America is American because it caters to Americans, whether they be born in America or abroad. Are we really under the illusion that Muslims are compatible with our culture?

    Congrats to Reason!

  • MikeL||

    I've been to that website.

  • ||

    "Citizen Nothing"

    How appropriately named.

  • Citizen Something||

    Islam-based cultures are wholly incompatible with the West. While trying to be "tolerant" may make you feel nice, it doesn't erase the fact that the point of view of these cultures is primitive, destructive and wrong. Tolerance for them, in this case, is the greatest evil we can perpetrate.

  • Mike D||

    I shit on xenophiles.

  • ||

    The culture, especially when steeped with the brew that is Islam, may well be the issue.
    Take the rural Tajiks, Pushtuns, Uzbeks or Turkmen we are currently attempting to tame. They are Huns... actual, living Huns.. They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. It's ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47's. It's only slightly different in the enlightened countries.
    They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Jihadist warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.
    Before politically correct public education the history of the mid eastern arab was portrayed much like the American Indian early in our own history. Fragmented bands of (largely) bedoins, berift of portable fire, written language; the wheel and gunpowder beyond them. The early history of European expansion in America could hardly have been written differently than it was.
    I echo the words of Daniel Boone, when, after attempting trade, agriculture and barter and still couldn't safely venture beyond the walls of Boonesboro and came to the conslusion that the one thing they hadn't tried was killing every mother's son of them.

  • yojimbo||

    Hey! If you are going to use the exact letter that Jack sent home the least you could do is give the props to him. This was in the letter sent home by a Recon Marine in Afghanistan by the name of Jack Saucy. Semper Fi my brother.

    That said i do agree with your point that these people have no hope of redemption.

  • ||

    While I like the "Saucy Jack" letter as much as anyone, it's a fake for a myriad of reasons. Here are just a few:
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/freezing.asp

  • Mary ||

    THANK YOU! For recognising that the infusion of BACKWARD cultures is the issue, not Islam itself!

  • NAB||

    "yet he was obviously seriously incompatible with the American culture"

    Maybe he is, but I doubt his kids will be. Full assimilation takes only one generation; my grandfather, mother, wife, and most of my friends convince me of this.

    BTW, if he decides to mount some sort of organized, violent jihad within US borders... we have ways of handling that.

  • Kroneborge||

    Actually a lot of the homegrown terrorists are second generation.

  • cmace||

    If you take literally any of the books of the World's Three Great Religions you're going to act like Faisal Shahzad or non-Rev Fred Phelps.

    The trick of being moderate is not to believe the crap.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Nonsense.

  • Slowburnaz||

    Incense

  • MikeL||

    Hortense

  • notfornuthin||

    pretense

  • MikeL||

    Worm fence

  • Donkey||

    Donkey!

  • MikeL||

    Dammit!

  • ||

    Six pence

  • DADIODADDY||

    PEPPERMINT

  • .||

    Maintenence!

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    How can you not take the Qu'ran as a literal word of Allah and still be a Muslim?

    This is a crucial part of Islam: Qu'ran is the literal word of Allah, as dictated to Muhammad Rasul'Allah. It is not to be changed or interpreted at will.

    Of course, Islamic world is not monolithic and people like Maulana Rumi (check him out) have wandered a long way away from the original concept, but such deviations can be considered heresy.

    And, unlike in the West, heresy is a serious accusation in the Islamic world.

  • Some Guy||

    How can you not take the Qu'ran as a literal word of Allah and still be a Muslim?

    Just like Catholics do? There was actually a point during my Catholic school years when I thought everyone else was in on the joke, too. It wasn't until a few years later that I found out people actually believed it.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Hehe, I can't say anything about American Catholics, but the Czech Catholics are usually quite fuzzy on the Bible ... it seems that everyone got their own interpretation of said book, sometimes wildly different from the original wording.

    Maybe it is different in the old U.S. of A.

    Some difference can be seen even in Slovakia, and that is a relatively close nation.

  • Some Other guy||

    I could be wrong about this (it's been a while since Catholic school), but, while Catholics believe the bible is the literal word of god, they also do not believe that the bible is to be taken/followed literally in every respect.

  • ||

    not exactly the same. The Bible is not conscious of itself. It is merely a collection of scriptures, written by 40-some different people over a millenium. It is a guide, but not the center of the religion. The Quaran is all from Muhammad. It has to be considered infallible.

  • ||

    It's more than that. Korans are said to be copies of the one in Heaven, written by Allah (who speaks medieval Arabic). You think Bible literalists are bad? Imagine if Jesus wrote the entire Bible himself, in Aramaic, and said it was a copy of the one in Heaven. Not much room for interpretation there, eh?

  • ||

    In Catholicism, THE CHURCH is the final authority on spiritual matters, not the scriptures. Where the Pope and the Bible appear to differ, there must be some kind of misunderstanding of what was meant in the Bible passage in question.

  • ||

    Kind of like liberals and the constitution.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In Catholicism, THE CHURCH is the final authority on spiritual matters, not the scriptures.


    Must be why they have problems with child rape.

  • ||

    Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God written down by men. Not the literal word the way Muslims do.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Hold on, cmace. I have half a dozen family members who practice about as many variations of Christianity - Baptist, Assembly of God, et cetera - and none of them act anything like the freaks you mention.

    I don't practice anything myself, but when I did go to church, I had no urges to blow shit up or shoot abortion doctors, either.

    You do have a point if said adherence of faith + unhinged tendencies, but IMO those two have to go together in order for your theory to = Fred Phelps.

  • c||

    here here. first reasonable comment

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If you take literally any of the books of the World's Three Great Religions you're going to act like Faisal Shahzad or non-Rev Fred Phelps.


    Fred Phelps claims to take the Bible literally.

    Is he truly doing so? Is his behavior and preaching absolutely consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

  • ||

    I dunno. Timothy McVeigh was inspired by the Constitution. He thought the government was disrespecting the Constitution. He retaliated by killing a bunch of innocent people.

    Should my response be, "I shit on the Constitution?"

    Loads of people over the centuries have been inspired by their Christianity to do horrible things to other people. Should I respond with "I shit on Christianity?"

  • Brian||

    If a significant number of Americans (say, greater than 20%) thought that the Constitution justified McVeigh's actions, then your response should indeed be, "I shit on the Constitution!"

    Until there's some evidence that more than 80% of Muslims unequivocally condemn Islamist terrorism, radical Islamists cannot be treated as a fringe minority of Muslims.

  • Amy||

    A significant number of Americans, definitely greater than 20%, believe that the Constitution justifies murdering innocent civilians who have the audacity to live in countries whose governments are hostile to the US government. More than 20% of Americans believe that the Constitution justifies torturing suspected criminals. So should we consider "radical Americans" a threat to liberty everywhere and condemn all Americans for associating with them?

  • Stretchy||

    Actually, they don't believe the constitution justifies it. They believe the constitution doesn't prohibit it.

  • yojimbo||

    +1

  • Brian||

    The vast majority of people everywhere believe that international law justifies war that causes unintentional civilian deaths for civilians who have the audacity to live in countries whose governments are hostile to theirs. Perhaps, "I shit on humanity"?

  • ||

    Actually, the United States is a country that goes out of its way to avoid killing innocent civilians.

    While Muslims pack nails into their car bombs to wound and kill the maximum amount of innocent lives, Americans spend billions and billions of tax dollars developing pinpoint laser targeted missiles to avoid collateral damage.

    I think you owe Americans an apology.

    PS: I shit on Muslims who try to justify the attempted Times Square bombing.

  • ||

    Oh yeah....our record in Vietnam shows how much the US government goes out of its' way to avoid killing civilians. Don't be a fool, any government will kill civilians in a heartbeat if it serves their purposes. The trick is keeping it off the news.

  • Saigon Sucker||

    Umm, have you even actually read anything on the Vietnam War? One of the reasons it carried on so damn long was the refusal of the US government to bomb areas designated as "civilian" as well as refuse to eliminate villages sympathetic to the vietcong. Had we done these things, the war would have gone much better for our troops. I suggest you try to know something before you open your trap.

  • Saigon Sucker||

    ...and I don't support us being there or our overall mission, but don't be naive or dishonest even it fits your viewpoint.

    Libertylover's credibility = -100

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A significant number of Americans, definitely greater than 20%, believe that the Constitution justifies murdering innocent civilians who have the audacity to live in countries whose governments are hostile to the US government.


    How were the civilians in Tokyo and Dresden innocent?

    More than 20% of Americans believe that the Constitution justifies torturing suspected criminals. S


    Proof?

  • Apple||

    If your intent was to offend people who thought McVeigh was justified in his actions, then why not?

    By the way, do those people even exist? I'm sure there must be two or three of them, but can you really jump in a cab in NYC and find one?

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Brian, yours is a nice attempt at self-delusion. I've heard it quite often, especially from educated people who have serious trouble accepting that not all ideologies are the same, and that not everything is relative, yada yada. It seems that the American system of education is especially averse to any value judgments (with the exception of racism).

    Nevertheless, this kind of reasoning is akin to one-sided intellectual disarmament.

    Timothy McVeigh was one in a nation of 300 million. How many shit-brained jihadi volunteers do you think there would be in an Islamic nation of 300 million? I would guess about 10 million. With a charismatic leader a la Khomeini, now that would be a show. Remember the Iranian children sent to the minefields? It takes a powerful and malevolent ideology to do something similar in mass dimensions. Can you imagine sending your own child to certain death with a plastic Taiwanese key in hand, as the key to heaven? I guess not. This hasn't been done in the modern Christian world ever, with the exception of Hitlerjugend and some Soviet partisans.

    Oddly enough, most Muslim nations know very well that they must crush religious radicals constantly and vigilantly, or face the consequences. The Turks, the Moroccans, the Syrians, basically anyone with exception of Iran, Sudan and Gaza, have significant legal and illegal mechanisms to imprison, disappear or forcibly emigrate potential charismatic leaders of the radicals, because no one in their sane mind wants to risk another Islamic Republic. For most of the middle east, one is already more than enough.

  • Brian||

    Um, Marian, I was agreeing with you--Islamic radicalism is singled out for special targeting because it's so prevalent, far more so than McVeigh-ish Constitutional nuttery.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    I was replying to Brian24, not to you :-) When I started the edit, there were no replies to him yet.

  • Brian||

    Sorry for the confusion :)

  • Ed Schultz||

    No, no, no, Brian! There HAVE to be JUST AS MANY potential McVeighs out there - in fact, there have to be MORE!

    If you and others on here keep insisting there are more unhinged Muslims out there, you'll ruin my "right-of-center = religious whackjob bomb-makin' wife-beater" template, and that's how I make my living!

    Geez, you fucking righties are real pieces of work!

  • IceTrey||

    There are over a billion Muslims and probably only 20,000 or so really hardcore all out jihadis.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Wow. Understatement of the year. My god, even the Taliban in the Af-stan has more than 20 thousand men at arms.

    Where do you categorize, say, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, with more than a million members? They are force-fed hateful religious ideology every day.

  • ||

    Number of men under arms doesn't prove agreement with doctrine -- or do you think that Obama will get the votes of all of the people in the Armed Forces?

    IT specified "hardcore jihadis" -- the ones we need to shoot. That cabbie was just a supporter, not a jihadi.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Hmmm... I do not think that your comparison is on-the-spot.

    Taliban is an organization very different from the US armed forces. It is religious and it is militant.

    You don't join Taliban unless you agree with both of these principles.

  • xx||

    Nah....the Taliban uses contractors, just the same as us.

    A non-zero number of suicide bombers are just poor and the pay sounded good. They might not keep the reward, but their family does.

  • wilhelm||

    Not true. Research has shown that many suicide bombers, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, are educated and come from middle or upper class backgrounds. They had nothing to gain from killing themselves, except for the promise of paradise.

  • wilhelm||

    Not true. Research has shown that many suicide bombers, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, are educated and come from middle or upper class backgrounds. They had nothing to gain from killing themselves, except for the promise of paradise.

  • wilhelm||

    Not true. Research has shown that many suicide bombers, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, are educated and come from middle or upper class backgrounds. They had nothing to gain from killing themselves, except for the promise of paradise.

  • ||

    The foot soldiers of the Taliban are often poor and under educated. These are the guys they send to place IEDs in AF as well as the suicide bombers they employ there. The educated and truly indoctrinated suicide bombers are typically the ones sent abroad and are recruited, trained, and supported by Al-Qaeda. Remember the Taliban, I'm talking about TTP, are primarily concerned with getting Afghanistan back.

  • Jorgen||

    or if you don't have particulary good options, or if the taliban helped you keep your land when the government wanted to take it away, or if the taliban is being led by a guy you really like, and the local government is run by a guy you hate.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    BTW You missed another important point: one of the reasons why Islamic radicalism is not even more widespread is that the local regimes try really hard to nip any nascent organizational structure in bud. Whenever they fail, you get Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut-Tahrir or Hamas.

    Again, Khomeini was but one man with a few assistants, and yet he managed to overthrow a 2500-year old monarchy and install a true theocracy there - something which is completely alien to Iranian culture.

  • ||

    Again, Khomeini was but one man with a few assistants, and yet he managed to overthrow a 2500-year old monarchy and install a true theocracy there

    With a huge assist from the CIA.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    That is true, but I frequently observe that Americans overestimate roles and capabilities of the CIA in foreign coups, and underestimate the local players.

    Khomeini was no doubt a unique personality (which I do not mean as a praise). Only several such people are born per century.

    Changing a political system of a country into something that is really far from the local traditions is no small feat and foreigners can't do that.

    Iran was never a theocracy before, and the power of the clergy was strictly controlled by the nobility and the sovereign.

    This kind of change is only comparable to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It is similar in its extent and quality,

  • Brian R||

    I believe the US actually supported the Shah, which was the guy Khomeini overthrew.

  • Gabe||

    yes, big violent a-holes usually follow the tyrants we put in power.

  • ||

    IceTrey|5.14.10 @ 5:21PM|#
    "There are over a billion Muslims and probably only 20,000 or so really hardcore all out jihadis."

    For anyone to believe *that* load of horse-shit, you're going to need some pretty strong cites.
    I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your butt and don't have a shred of evidence to back it.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Bernard Lewis says it's like 10-15% of Muslims.

  • The_Chef||

    10-15% of a Billion people = a shit ton.

    That's a lot of angry people willing to do violence in the name of a god.

    Personally, I'm not a religious person, I think all of them are kinda sketchy. But damn, Muslims make it so easy to stereotype them.

  • jacob||

    "Timothy McVeigh was one in a nation of 300 million. "

    You've apparently never been on Stormfront.

    I'd multiply your number of 1 per 3 million by about 5 to 10 thousand. I don't have a citation to back that up, but neither do you.

  • ||

    Stormfront are some scary motherfuckers, no joke.

  • camouflagesortie||

    Your analogies don't stand up to much scrutiny. Yes, there are nutjobs in every religion and political philosophy, but there are not rabid "constitutionalists" blowing up buildings and marketplaces here and around the world every other day like we've witnessed with Islam for decades and decades. Yes, the Christians had their days of bloodlust too, but for hundreds of years now, they've been (largely) tamed by secular notions of basic human rights (which include the right not to have your head cut off if you don't adhere to someone else's religion).
    I don't read this as "I shit on Islam" per se, I read it as "I shit on any ideology that claims to override the principles of the Enlightenment." I suspect Ginsberg and Goldblatt couldn't care less about someone's religion (to the point of wasting their valuable shit on it), until that religion attempts to substantively dominate the public sphere by threatening death for any perceived verbal "insult"--they are being intentionally provocative and inflammatory to highlight the religion's totalitarian tendencies and to make a bold statement that this will not be tolerated in a pluralistic and (still somewhat) free society.

  • Random Dude||

    "Yes, the Christians had their days of bloodlust too"

    The days of Christian bloodlust were in direct response of the sack of Constantinople by the Muslims.

    There seems to be a pattern here.....

  • St. V||

    That direct response took a few hundred years, but I get ya'!

  • ||

    Loads of people over the centuries have been inspired by their Christianity to do horrible things to other people. Should I respond with "I shit on Christianity?"

    Why yes. Yes, you should.

    Personally I find all religions pure fantasy and have a difficult time reconciling the fact that many intelligent people I know are also practicing theists of one sort or another.

    Still, for all of the fundies of any stripe out there - Fuck you if you can't take criticism as you all have no trouble dishing it out. Fuck you twice with a razor embedded corn cob if you can't take a goddam joke.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Although not a Christian, I must admit that Christianity deserves credit for trying to mend its previously horrible ways.

    Hundreds of years ago, knight orders like the Knights of Santiago would have mottos like "Rubet ensis sanguine Arabum — ‘My sword is red with the blood of the Arabs’. No Christian country allows something similar today.

    For the Islamic world, just look at the Saudi flag. And Saudis have been busy spreading Wahhabism with use of their oil money for the last 40 years. The influence is already quite felt. For example, previously tolerant Kashmiri brand of Islam has been all but replaced by fundamentalist strains.

  • ||

    All the monotheist are a-holes.

    Polytheist understand that if there is one all knowing all powerful god that is juveniele enough to be concerned about who the humans worship ...then certainly that god would create other gods that he would then invite to parties or try to compete in events with.

  • Some Guy||

    Should my response be, "I shit on the Constitution?"

    If you're talking to him, then yes.

    Should I respond with "I shit on Christianity?"

    If you're talking to one that is going to be an asshole about it, then fuck yes!

  • ||

    McVeigh again? Really? Doesn't the fact that the same name from 14 years ago gets recycled constantly indicative of the fact that McVeigh-type loons aren't quite as immediate a thread as Islam?

    And once again, Timothy McVeigh was inspired more by the Turner Diaries than the Constitution.

  • Brian24's Teacher||

    A major difference is people who believe in the constitution believe in your right not to like it. It also prohibits those of us who follow it from killing you for disliking it.

    This is the OPPOSITE of what Islam teaches.

    Now Brian24, you obviously didn't finish your homework or understand the material. Time to get back to class!

  • hammeredHead||

    I don't have a problem with this type of stereotyping. Religion is an ideology and can be freely chosen. When someone professes adherence to an ideology, you can safely make assumptions of their core beliefs.

  • ||

    Epi, Everybody Draw Mohammed day is next Thursday, May 20. AFAIK, there is no central site for collecting these, but rather people are encouraged to draw Mohammed and post the drawing on their blog, FB page, whatever.

  • ||

    Oops! Moynihan here at Reason has volunteered to collect and post our little scribbles.

  • ||

    Cool, thanks dude.

  • ¢||

    I second the motion that you guys usually aren't this cool.

    Good shit-talkin'.

  • ||

    Preach on, brother Mark.

  • hmm||

    I don't know if Reason has managed a comment on Lars Vilks recent attack at Stockholm's Uppsala University.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=05e_1273854335

    Shit like this almost makes me violent against those trying to stop free speech. For fuck's sake if you don't like it get up and leave.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    It has been duly commented on.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    So I guess the film succeeded at being provocative. :::chuckles:::

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    These days, Islam-related blasphemy is probably the only real provocation you can do.

    In the age of Lady Gaga, no one can really be shocked by kinky sex anymore.

  • Lyle||

    The shitting is starting a bit late, but better late than never. I always knew my cock and balls were as big Ginsburg's.

  • Hacha Cha||

    excellent piece.
    I too shit on Islam, Mohammed, and religion.

  • MatTrue||

    Lumping all religions together and disparaging them will get you far in life! How about shitting on Law, Technology or Media while you're at it? Generalizations are good for survival, but only when they're generally true. Religion has harmed many people, but at this very instant, are people who abide by the Ten Commandments helping or hurting us? I don't believe they are divine, but I believe they helped form me as a moral person. I don't believe our unalienable rights are divine, but I like having a lot of people treat them that way.

    On the whole, Islam is a bad religion. Like the Force (or Schwartz), a religion has a bad side and a good side. That doesn't mean it can't get better or the religion makes people bad. The bad people in the religion just need to "disappear".

  • King Mob||

    Christianity: Islam for pussies.

  • ||

    As a Christian, that made me laugh. I'm going to have to use that one.

  • ||

    I'll second that!

  • xx||

    Come on....the first 4 commandments are directly about Yahweh...and you think it's not about divinity?

    "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".....yeah, sounds just like "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion".

  • MatTrue||

    So if something isn't 100% beneficial to society, and has things in it that only benefit the man in the sky, then we should get rid of it?

  • Jon||

    MatTrue:

    The "commandments" in the Ten Commandments--at least the important ones (e.g., no murder, theft, etc.)--don't require religion for their existence or practice. Notice that those values are pretty much universally held (not without exceptions, of course) across all cultures. Religion may well have been an explanation for morality, but it isn't its source. Furthermore, I don't trust a man who refrains from murder and so forth just because he thinks that, by being good, he will get to eat sky cake (I stole that analogy from Patton Oswalt, sorry).

  • MatTrue||

    What is the source of morality then? If you can get away with immoral behavior that gets you ahead in life, what stops you? I grew up Catholic. I can't control for that to say that my culture and not my religion is what makes me moral. Can you control for your source?

    Whatever stops a person from murdering is more important than their trustworthiness, don't ya think? If you saw a priest or a guy in a hooded sweatshirt walking down a dark ally, who would you trust more not to harm you?

    Besides, religion teaches more than just what gets you into heaven. Aren't there practical benefits to honoring your parents, or not coveting your neighbor's wife?

  • wilhelm||

    Reason is the source of morality (not the magazine but the process). Most people understand that a functioning society is better to live in than chaos, and that moral choices are those in which contribute to this functioning, civilized society.

    Religions, such as Islam, convince people of the opposite many times. Let's look at what's going on with women in Tehran right now for an example of the barbarism imposed by religious views.

  • wilhelm||

    Reason is the source of morality (not the magazine but the process). Most people understand that a functioning society is better to live in than chaos, and that moral choices are those in which contribute to this functioning, civilized society.

    Religions, such as Islam, convince people of the opposite many times. Let's look at what's going on with women in Tehran right now for an example of the barbarism imposed by religious views.

  • MatTrue||

    "Most people understand that a functioning society is better to live in than chaos"

    Are there any data or experiments to illustrate that?

    Hmm.. order vs. chaos... if you had to choose between living in Iran or a remote part of Afganistan, which would you pick? It's not always a clear choice, is it?

    The problem isn't religion, beliefs or morals. The problem is arbitrary government force and a lack of respect for the individual.

  • Brian R||

    Actually, yes. There have been studies on morality based on hypothetical questions ("If an old man and a young girl are both about to be run over by a bus and you can only save one..."). It turns out that morality is generally quite uniform across religions and cultures. They even studied disconnected rainforest tribes and got the same results.

    There's a long section of Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" on this exact topic. You seem interested in this topic - you should read it.

  • Brian R||

    Sorry, that was specifically in reply to "Are there any data or experiments to illustrate that?"

  • Jon||

    MatTrue,

    I hope that you are not suggesting that being religious, or in your case Catholic, makes you de facto moral. Nor do I hope that you suggest that atheists and agnostics are immoral. What stops me--an agnostic--from immoral behavior is a feeling of guilt inside because I believe in the objectivity of morality. I think everyone really does, at bottom, because everyone believes that we can have meaningful debates with other people and cultures about right and wrong. I don't need threat of punishment from above or from a government to convince me that I should keep my promises even if I could get ahead by breaking them. That's what morality is about and it doesn't require a belief in God. For people who must believe in punishment from above in order to convince them to behave, I really do worry because what happens if they have doubts about their faith?

    I'm not saying religion is all wrong. It just isn't necessary in order to believe in or have morality. Millions of nonbelievers do just that.

    And, frankly, I might trust a priest walking down the alley but no more than a business man, doctor, or lawyer doing the same. But who would you prefer to have babysit your 9 year-old son, Mat? The priest or the business man?

  • MatTrue||

    I'm agnostic, too. My only point is that I cannot determine if my religious upbringing had no positive effect on my morality. It might not have. Do I take that chance with my children? We have them believe in Santa with a naughty and nice list... why not a vengeful deity that gave us specific rules to follow? I think I (and my family) turned out normal having believed that. I never forced my beliefs on others, nor will I except for those I have the duty to raise.

    Did you not have any feelings of guilt before you believed "in the objectivity of morality"? When and how likely are most people to get that sense of guilt, without religion? Do you have some data on that? And what you treat as objective, people with guns are free to say anything is moral or immoral. I'd rather have religious institutions (at least in the West) tell me what's right and wrong than people with guns and the power to tax.

    I would hire a qualified baby sitter to watch my 9 y/o. I'm just saying that a preist (or someone I see walking out of church) is less likely to mug me than some other stranger. Not ten times less likely, but experience just tells me it's less likely. What gets him off sexually is a different story. I have no sympathy for anyone who misuses their position of power for their own benefit (to get off, get wealthier, etc.) at the expense of others, especially children. They ALL should rot in hell.

  • ||

    Aren't we just talking about empathy? What ever you are - jew, christian, muslim, budhist, etc.... the good of any religion is empathy for others.

  • ||

    That depends, how old am I in your hypothetical? If I am prepubescent I'll take the guy in the hoodie.

  • IceTrey||

    It was Santa Claus in the bear suit.

  • MatTrue||

    Who was in the U-Haul?

  • Mike M.||

    Sigh. If only we had more Mark Goldblatts in the media and the government these days and fewer cowards. Tell it like is my friend.

  • ||

    Link (new window)

  • Captain Kanuck||

    How unusual, a jew recommending that we piss off muslims/arabs. Oh wait....

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    It is way too easy to piss of Arab Muslims.

    Their concept of 'honor' means that they are skinless beings in sandpaper world.

    Which is OK as long as such standards are not applied to the West, where we are used to mocking and disparaging one another, including religion and everything.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Also way too easy to piss off Jewish Americans. But luckily, we have the ADL, AIPAC, CJC and the rest to protect us from anything that might offend them. Great defenders of "free speech" unless that speech offends them.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    I believe that. I've heard enough about ADL.

    Myself, I believe in free speech without limitations.

    I have been called by quite interesting slurs, including "Balkanian Gypsy Dog", and I just don't mind.

    Sticks and stones...

  • jacob||

    +1000

    Oh shit, does this make me an anti-semite?

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    Prohibbiting the murder of indfidels is racist!!!

  • The Heroic Mulatto||

    Captain Kanuck,

    Didn't your whore of a mother teach you to shut your mouth when grown folks are talking? Or did she have too much trouble talking because her jaw was permanently dislocated from all the cocks she sucked?

    (By the way, learn how to capitalize.)

  • jacob||

    Great tactic there, Mulatto. Mom jokes are better than intelligent discussion any day of the week. Doesn't sound like you're good at either.

    Go back to HuffPo you dicksucking idiot.

  • Keyboard Commando||

    Right. Drawing coming up.

    And where do I leave my name and personal information should they want to seek revenge?

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

  • Keyboard Commando||

    Naw. I plan on winning. My beard is mightier than Mo-Mo's.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    In such case, please contact the Commonwealth Victoria Cross Commission.

    The British are prepared for all alternatives :-D

  • ||

    The story about Ginsburg is fascinating - I am visualizing him screaming bloody murder in a cab, and everything, and it is riveting - but I sure would like a fact-check or some corroboration on it. Mark, maybe you could get the assistant to write something?

  • MrGuy||

    "his fecal stain of a life". Classic!

  • Some Guy||

    I would like to add a side note to this. If you're going to bitch about someone else not showing Mohamed on TV, calling it "political correctness" or whatever, then you damn well better be wearing a bomb-hat Mohamed T-shirt or otherwise walking the walk.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Interestingly enough, Italian government minister Roberto Calderoli has worn a Muhammad cartoon T-shirt on television.

    Not even Berlusconi had this kind of balls.

  • Coeus||

    I've been wearing a mohammad t-shirt since the cartoon riots (off and on, I do change my clothes occasionally). After the southpark incident, I'm about to buy a few more in other colors.

  • PIRS||

    "There are times for interfaith dialogue, for mutual respect and compassion. This isn’t one of them."

    Well said.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    This kind of dry humor is the thing I love about Anglo-Saxon cultures.

    The Germans or the French just can't produce any similar quotes.

  • ||

    As a fan of the late great Oriana Fallaci I say "Fuck Mohammed and all of Islam is their reprobate ass" too.

    O'Donnell usually has balls - I am ashamed of him now.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    I can't believe that we two actually agree on something.

    But if Oriana Fallaci was 50 years younger, I would struggle to be her lover :-)

  • ||

    Oriana Fallaci. Right. You realize that if she had had a chance, she would have been exactly as violent as Hitler or Mussolini, only not as intelligent as either, right?

  • Sudden||

    The only balls O'Donnell has ever had are Obama's mincey little nads on his chin.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Raaaacist!!!

  • ||

    Anybody who tries to take away our rights by force or threat of force deserves our scorn. Civil discourse is often desirable, but often a good "fuck you" can speak more clearly than the most nuanced discussion.

    For that more nuanced discussion, I would recommend John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" where he advocates an "equal liberty of conscience" restrained only when there is a "reasonably certain interference with the essentials of public order." (p. 215 at http://books.google.com/books?.....p;f;=false) No one has the right not to be offended, and those who try to impose their sensitivities by force must be opposed, whether those sensitivities are religious or political in nature.

  • PIRS||

    What would be really great is if someone created a Muhammed dog chew toy.

  • ||

    Koran-printed toilet paper would be better.

  • PR||

    Too late, I took a big shiite this morning.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    All I see here are hypocrites with "big balls". Congratulations.

  • PIRS||

    Hypocrites in what respect?

  • ||

    “If you speak your mind on the Vatican, on the Catholic Church, on the Pope, on the Virgin Mary or Jesus or the saints, nobody touches your ‘right of thought and expression.’ But if you do the same with Islam, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, some son of Allah, you are called a xenophobic blasphemer who has committed an act of racial discrimination. If you kick the ass of a Chinese or an Eskimo or a Norwegian who has hissed at you an obscenity, nothing happens. On the contrary, you get a ‘Well done, good for you.’ But if under the same circumstances you kick the ass of an Algerian or a Moroccan or a Nigerian or a Sudanese, you get lynched.”

    Oriana Fallaci - a woman of courage (1929-2006)

  • PIRS||

    "who has committed an act of racial discrimination"

    I never did understand how anyone could call this "racial" anything considering Islam is not a race.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Try saying this to the local Human Rights Commission.

    Somehow, Islam is considered a race among the liberal elites.

    Buddhism, Christianity or Viking Paganism is not.

  • ||

    Ill try it (may regret it).

    Moral Relativism is a cornerstone idea of Liberalism. It works fine on gay sex, adultery, and such.

    But how does a sensible liberal excuse the most reactionary and conservative ideology of all - Islam?

    I can only say - Moral Relativism run amok in the lower brain.

  • ||

    Well, it does fit if modern liberalism/progressivism is truly anti-Western civilization. I try not to reach that conclusion, to stay out of the ranks of the most fire-breathing conservatives, but I'll admit it's hard to think of alternative explanations other than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

  • PIRS||

    What about Pastafarianism? Is that considered a race?

  • ||

    I'd like to see anybody try to take on an eskimo

  • ||

    It's my understanding Judeo-Christianity held the Enlightenment back

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Yes, indeed. But the fundamentalist elements of Judeo-Christianity lost the battle so long ago that they are forgotten from the memory of the living generations.

    This is not the case of Islam.

  • ||

    "It's my understanding Judeo-Christianity held the Enlightenment back"
    "Yes, indeed."

    I'm not sure about that.
    http://armariummagnus.blogspot.....world.html

  • BakedPenguin||

    While the percentage of Muslims willing to kill may be small, it's still disturbingly large.

    I'm thinking we need a detente with the Islamic world - get out of their countries, stop supporting Israel (and everyone else), but also stop allowing immigration from Muslim countries (with perhaps a few exceptions for those convicted of heresy or blasphemy).

    And definitely let everyone know that we have the right to free speech, we plan on using it, and anyone who doesn't like that is free to leave.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Hear, ye people, voice of Reason!

  • PIRS||

    I think a great deal of this would go away if we started drilling for petroleum in our own country (ON LAND!) and building refineries. Without cash-flow they would not be able to support as many radical mosques.

    But no, we can't allow people to drill for oil on land in our own country, that might hurt the sloth-toed-red nosed-north-west pine squid.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I think a great deal of this would go away if we started drilling for petroleum in our own country (ON LAND!) and building refineries. Without cash-flow they would not be able to support as many radical mosques.


    From what country are you?

    America gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela.

  • ||

    Has support for Israel been the reason for recent Islamist massacres/attempted massacres? The Mumbai attack, Darfur, the Times Square and underwear bombers, and all the Muslim on Muslim violence seem to make no mention of our support for Israel.
    Could it be argued that most of the active conflicts in the world today could be laid at the feet of the Jihadists?
    Most

  • BakedPenguin||

    It may or may not have played a part; I suspect it's a fairly major grievance among many jihadists. As for me, I'm fairly neutral on the Israel vs. Palestine issue, I just think we shouldn't be giving any other countries any money. Certainly not when we're $13,000,000,000,000,000 in debt.

  • Brian||

    We shouldn't be giving any other countries any money out of pure altruism. Aid to Israel and Egypt is meant to keep the peace and keep the oil flowing, for our own benefit, and military aid to Israel in particular is meant to keep a huge economic partner from being devastated by war. Withholding military aid to a key ally and economic powerhouse is a form of stupid, purist libertarianism.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If they're such an economic powerhouse, why do they need our aid? Also, we get nearly all our oil from the Western Hemisphere. The US, Canada, Mexico & Venezuela supply nearly all our oil needs.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Interestingly enough, there is a live debate in Israel whether they shouldn't give up the US aid voluntarily. First, it creates an uneven bond between the countries, and second, if Israel gave up the money, Egypt would probably have to do the same - which would be quite a source of schadenfreude in Israel.

    It is well possible that the debate will end with "yes, we give it up" in a year or two.

  • ||

    13 quadrillion?

  • ||

    We're worse off than I thought.

  • BakedPenguin||

    While the percentage of Muslims willing to kill may be small, it's still disturbingly large.

    This was a very poorly phrased statement. I meant that if .5% of Muslims are willing to commit murder, that's a rather small percentage. But it would still mean that out of 100,000 Muslims, 500 would be willing to kill for their views.

  • Some random guy||

    I've worked in buildings that were said to be targeted by Islamic terrorists, but I'm far less concerned about publicly slagging them than say... scientologists.

  • PIRS||

    When South Park criticized scientology they lost a voice actor. When South Park criticized Islam their lives were threatened. Take your pick - when you rather lose an employee or have your life threatened?

  • cynical||

    Would you rather suffer a real, tangible harm, or suffer a hypothetical one, you mean?

  • PIRS||

    Are you saying that terrorism is not a real harm? Doesn't one's body and mind have real, tangible impact from threats to one's life?

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    The number of artists killed by Islamic fundamentalists is way over zero.

    In the Middle East, the numbers are in hundreds.

    In the West, attacks are rarer but still do happen.

    Theo van Gogh was slaughtered like a pig.

    Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie too.

    Kurt Westergaard (one of the famous Danish Mo cartoonists) was recently attacked by a Somali guy with two axes, and only quick retreat into a specially furbished bathroom (basically an armored room with a button that alarms police) saved him from becoming yet another martyr of freedom of speech. And his juvenile granddaughter as well.

  • Brian||

    I shit on Scientology as well, and they deserve it. They're even better at lawfare than the Islamists.

  • skr||

    scientology threatens the lives of people all the time. they just use lawyers.

  • ||

    like it or not, that's called "rule of law". this is america. to paraphrase a quote about grand juries... you can sue a ham sandwich

  • alan||

    Also way too easy to piss off Jewish Americans. But luckily, we have the ADL, AIPAC, CJC and the rest to protect us from anything that might offend them. Great defenders of "free speech" unless that speech offends them.

    Are you kidding? I exploit their tolerance of humor aimed at them on a daily basis. Really, beyond the ADL which only goes after big shots like Mel Gibson or the like for fund raising purposes, Jews are more tolerant of ridicule than your own family (bro has a mean back hand wallop as I found out when I told him his wife turned him into her girlfriend when he told me he watches 'Cougartown.')

  • alan||

    and really, the Irish and Jewish jokes are only there to mask my true hatred. If you see a few Irish jokes and then a few Jewish jokes, you are going to see a follow up one aimed at the Scots.

    Why? What have they done to me? Nothin. It is not really them that annoys me. It's hipsters, and every fucking hipster on the internet loves him some fucking Scots.

  • Adam Smith||

    Hipsters don't often like me.

  • alan||

    Adam,

    It was a discussion of 'No True Scotsman' between MNG and joe that sent me over the edge.

  • alan||

    Actually more annoying than those doofuses was the aquintances, two brothers of Scots decent, who tried to get all the men who attended the eldest brother's wedding to wear kelts. These guys could not tell you Smith from Hume and the only thing being Scots to them meant was to be a belligerent bastard but they insisted on wearing kelts to the wedding.

    I told the youngest brother when he tried to get me to do it, 'you are lucky I showed up wearing pants. I'm not wearing that.'

    Hardly anyone else did. Their father refused to wear one. When the bride who did not know about this retarded idea before hand found out about it she found out sent one of her people out to tell the groom to change out of the kelt. He did.

    Only the youngest brother and a few of his most loyal and retarded friends wore them, and they wore these embarrassed grins the entire time.

    I don't remember where I put the pictures I took of these fucked up precedings, but if I find them, I will post them.

  • IceTrey||

    FYI, it's kilt.

  • alan||

    The spell check kept pointing that out, but it being Scots, I couldn't give a fuck.

  • anarch||

    No true Scotsman wears spellchecks.

    Hey, a joke! A Jew and a Scotsman were walking down the street. The Scotsman dropped a coin, and the Jew didn't pick it up.

    (Two impossibities...)

  • alan||

    Not the spell check being Scots, but the cross dressing apparel.

  • alan||

    Not the spell check being Scots, but the cross dressing apparel.

    NTTIAWWT

  • π||

    Since we're in the Spelling Nazi mode already, it's descent, not "decent."

  • alan||

    Well, thanks, that did slip by, and given its not Scots and not girly wear I'll keep that in mind in the future.

  • anarch||

    Real kiltsmen don't wear slips.

  • alan||

    Which makes for an even more disturbing image than if they did.

  • ||

    The plural of doofus is doofi, isn't it?

  • ||

    I'm going to be simultaneously disrespectful yet concilliatory. My picture of Mohammed is going to be a 70's circa picture of the strikingly handsome Kenny Loggins with a Chef Boyardee hat photoshopped onto his melon.

  • π||

    Now that the issue of photoshopping qualifying as cartoon has been cleared up, my entry will be Cat Stevens as Mohammed's head tattooed on a camel's ass with the animal's anus serving as his mouth, which will be crapping out a pile of Korans. A suicide vest wearing AK-47 packing congregation will be standing in line behind a sign reading "take one free," expressionless, awaiting their turns to pick up a copy, with those having already gotten theirs walking away with big smiles. The caption will read: "Everyone gets one."

  • Kid on a school playground||

    Mrs. Johnson! Mrs. Johnson! Trey and Matt are saying bad things about my prophet!!!

  • ||

    Personally, I'd like to see it become commonplace to "shit on islam/muhammed" (From now on, I'm not capitalizing either of those words). That way the "targets" become overwhelmingly numerous for the followers of that violence-based religion. They'll know that if they kill one "infidel", there are going to be 100 to fill his place. After every act of islamist terrorism, there should be huge public outcry against islam and its followers.

  • Davidhoffer||

    Yeah let's like pretend to be them killing us, only we kill them. They are a bunch of fascists anyways. Not to mention the profusion of unibrows that I disapprove of most of all. 'Bunch of cock-suckers...

  • π||

    You seem to be upset we are on some kind of crusade against Muslims as if we were some kind of anti-Islamic fascists. Maybe you just have a selective form of attention.

    A partial list of examples of the US policy and/or action favoring Muslims over others:

    Muslim Nigerians against Christian Biafra (all the Nigerian oil is in the Christian part).

    Muslim Indonesia against Catholic East Timur.

    Muslin Turks against Greeks in Greece and Cyprus.

    Azerbaijan and Turkey over Armenia.

    Refused to support Christian Lebanese Arabs.

    Albanians over their Greek and Albanian Christian minority.

    Kosovo Albanians over Serbs.

    Bosnian Muslims over Serbs.

    Chechen Muslims against Russia.

    Pakistan and Bangladesh over India.

    Sudan over Sudanese Christians and Animists.

    Ertiria Sunni Muslims over Ethiopian Orthodox.

    KLA over Macedonians, who had bent over backwards for the US/NATO

    Egyptian Arab Sunnies over the Egyptian (real Egyptian) Orthodox Copts (10% of Egypts population was expelled).

    PLO Islamics over Orthodox & Catholic Palistinians

    Sudan's Darfur region (where the oil is) is a Muslim on Muslim war based on Black vs Arab Muslims and that is the only place NATO and the UN will consider intervention but not the Sudanese Christian area.

    Liberia was handed to a Muslim coalition ousting the equally bad but Christian Taylor (Which is why Nigeria was involved - America installed Nigeria's Muslim allies in power there).

    Iraq's Christians have practically vanished since we invaded.

    Seems there is no shortage of examples of us favoring Muslims over others. Could it be that like Muslims you expect us to always favor them in every circumstance?

    How about this idea: We quit sticking our damn noses in everyone else's business, period. It's impossible to avoid becoming the bad guy to someone when alliances are the order of the day. For example, our alliance with Stalin resulted in unintended living Hells for much of Eastern Europe.

    By the way, I have an unibrow.

  • Rich||

    Islam forbids picturing living beings at all, because "angels" are forbidden from visiting "places" where "pictures" of living beings are present.

    Well, that *is* "logical".

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    Hey, the Amish don't like you to take their photo because it might capture their "soul" or some such. So don't criticize MY religon!

  • Rich||

    Then I hope the Amish don't find out about Google and its ilk. They might get *angry*.

  • PIRS||

    I have been through Amish country many times - but I have never seen an angry Amishman. Seriously, not once.

  • ||

    Oh they're pissed off constantly I'm sure. They're just pacifists and not allowed to do anything about it.

  • π||

    I've done some metal fabrication work for the Amish. They were honest to do business with, kept their word and upheld their end of the agreement, and paid in full on time as promised plus threw in some very good home-made pies as a bonus. Nothing bad to say about them, they are fair in trade. How they choose to live is their business, not mine.

  • ||

    This was a great thread for a while,then came all the snark, sad.......oh yeah,
    FUCK ISLAM! good day all,
    Bob

  • Hyperion||

    FUCKAYOU WHALES, FUCKAYOU DOLPHIIINS, FUCKAYOU MUSLIIIMS! Oh, and BTW, fuckayou polar bears, and Al Gore too.

  • Zenmaster||

    ICP?

  • PIRS||

    South Park. There was an episode of South Park that was a commentary of the West's condemnation of Japan's love of eating whale-meat.

    To understand the joke you have to see the episode.

  • π||

    Nothing like a good Insane Clown Posse melody.

  • PIRS||

    It was ICP? Maybe South Park was referencing ICP????

  • π||

    To be honest I'm not sure, it reads like lyrics from a ICP song. Was it from South Park? If so the creators may have had Gwar in mind. Since we're on the subject of Gwar and Islam they did a catchy little tune some years back titled Saddam A-Go-Go.

  • ||

    Excellent piece.

  • jane doe||

    "How unusual, a jew recommending that we piss off muslims/arabs. Oh wait...."

    Because you sure never see Africans, Arabs or Muslims talking about Jews in an insensitive manner. Oh wait....

  • jane doe||

    If thinks get much worse soon we may see the media talking about Muslims the way the Islamic media, black civil rights leaders and Obamas preacher talks about Jews. Can't let that happen.

  • π||

    Al Jazeera has evolved into an actual news source. It has by U.S. standards, at least.

  • ||

    A good number of the Palestinians I've known were raised in the atmosphere of hate that produces unflinching and unquestioning allegiance to Islam - and pretty much screw the rest of the world and particularly Jews if they can.

    The Muslims I know that weren't brought up in the hate ocean known as the ME are far more relaxed, don't particularly hate anyone, are relatively well or quite well educated, and yet go about their religious observances no less diligently than the rude output of the Circle of Hate environment.

    Similarly, many Americans I know are sophisticated, well-travelled, know how to eat properly (not something as common as you might think), and can be taken into any social setting with a fair expectation of fitting in. Others, I'm afraid, are so important that their sun has to outshine everyone else's, they know what is right and will tell you so at every opportunity, have the "correct" (they think) opinion on every topic imaginable down to the composition of ant faecal matter, and they think they know how to comport themselves while dining, but they don't.

    There are too many of this latter category anymore; perhaps the US needs to begin etiquette universities, as most of them shouldn't be taken out in public and are barely house trained.

    The point is that no culture is barren of its extreme examples and occasionally there are parts of the world that are overrun with them. For the cockroaches that are Mad Muhammad followers, no greater justice is available that they will have to live with themselves.

    One of Sartre's best novels was the story where people who were bored and slightly disgusted with each other had to spend eternity together. Some folks just deserve it.

  • alan||

    Instead of expecting deferential behavior from everyone else, maybe you should stop being an jackass who thinks he is guiding others around by the leash.

    I mean, and can be taken into any social setting with a fair expectation of fitting in, really, how barbaric are you that you think I am put on this earth to make you snug and comfortable in your environs?

    Drop everything you have learned from the parochial mores of your culture and pick up a copy of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty so you'll be better prepared when confronted with other people who come from vastly different experiences most of which for some unfathomable reason you believe you have status born means to reject as being less legitimate compared to yours in spite of your questionable literacy (you write more like a well trained mimic than someone of whom mastery of the language where disciplined thought and a creative turn of phrase comes naturally).

  • alan||

    stop being an jackass

    stop being a jackass.

    I knew I shouldn't have went easy on you by changing 'an asshole' to 'a jackass.' No good deed goes unpunished. Last bit of mercy you'll get from me.

  • Pierre D.||

    know how to eat properly (not something as common as you might think)

    I have seen no spike in the cases of people choking to death so I'm going to assume you are incorrect.

    How to properly eat.

    1. put food into mouth.
    2. crunch with teeth until particulate is smooth enough for a pleasant transfers through the esophagus.
    3. swallow.

    Anything else is either unnecessary but helpful to the experience or mere boorish sophistry. Your opinion being of the later sort.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    It is true that the Missile East (as the joke goes) is an immense, ancient cauldron of hatred. And probably a hopeless one, at least for the generation already alive.

    One of the problems with massive immigration is that this kind of memes travels too, and there are already serious Muslim-on-Jew crimes in places like Scandinavia, which mirror the recent developments in the Israel-to-Palestine chronic crisis.

    Religious hate is akin to rabies or SARS. While people generally understand that rabies need to be quarantined, the same logic with religious hate escapes them. Even though most hardcore believers are frank about their beliefs, and will not try to hide them.

  • π||

    Malmo Sweden is the stage for young Muslims waging war on Swedes. When interviewed by a young Swedish woman preparing a sociology thesis one group of young Jihadists gave this response when asked why they do it:

    “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.”

    Someone brought me a book a few days ago, copyright 1930, titled American Citizenship -An Approved Course For Schools and Persons Desiring Citizenship. It seems relevant since it explains the Second Amendment as "the right of self defense."

    Something tells me the Swedes, who don't already, are going to see a day they'll regret having surrendered that crucial and basic right to their government.

  • PIRS||

    “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.”

    Well if you believe in socialism how could you morally justify opposing theft? Did they vote to allow their government to rob from people? If so how could they oppose these people in their pursuit of the redistribution of wealth?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Religious hate is akin to rabies or SARS. While people generally understand that rabies need to be quarantined, the same logic with religious hate escapes them. Even though most hardcore believers are frank about their beliefs, and will not try to hide them.


    The only cure for that kind of hate is a bullet or a bomb fragment.

  • ||

    I've found in my travels that people who claim to have read Sartre almost always miss the point of the discussion and are often found mumbling in a corner about proper table manners.

  • MJ||

    That's a nice thought. Problem is, Muslims seem to get offended by the very idea that there are "radical" and "moderate" Muslims.

  • DEATH||

    I shit on Abraham.

    I shit on Moses.

    I shit on Jesus.

    I shit on Muhammad.

    I shit on Buddha.

    I shit on all religion.

    All religion shit on all humanity.

    Islam shits on humanity.

    Christianity shits on humanity.

    Judaism shits on humanity.

    If you are a Muslim, I shit on you.

    If you are a Christian, I shit on you.

    If you are a Jew, I shit on you.

    Your religion has poisoned humanity.

    You desire nothing but death and destruction. You will get it. Your religion will necessitate it.

    I will bring it to you. I am coming for you. All of you.

  • ||

    You will have to shit on me twice, I'm turning the other cheek.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Did anyone else hear DEATH's voice in a guttural black metal growl?

  • Joe C||

    No, but I do now, and its awesome.

  • π||

    Is there any truth to the rumor that in real life you are Michael Medved?

    Either way a word to the wise... don't (contractions count as one word, right?). With all the cheeks shitting going on the last thing we need is cheeks turning. The piles of doo are tall enough without you adding to the problem.

  • ||

    lame.

  • Joseph Stalin||

    Yes, yes, yes!!! Now commit your life to The State: the true source of morality.

  • π||

    Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to Mr. Jumping Joe Stalin!

    Has anyone ever told you that you are much nicer person since you died?

  • jacob||

    If you are a Jew, I shit on you.

    Ginsberg's going to be rolling in his grave over this one.

  • ||

    Death, we need to talk about your addiction to laxatives.

  • ||

    clap clap clap. (standing)

  • π||

    Too late for the Mo-ham-mutt tee-shirt, I already blew my entire annual tee-shirt budget on days of the week "Don't Tread On Me" ones. So hopefully my virtual trident of insults on the prophet's name will serve as nice consolation prize. Unlike Bill Maher (poster boy for political correctness), I am a sworn enemy of political correctness.

  • webkilla||

    Oh wow - loved what i read here.

    Makes me want to get a webcam and start my own Vlog on youtube slamming islam.

    Indeed. I too would shit on islam if islam means that others are justified in killing me for doing the same things we've been doing to christians for centuries.

    Sure, you got some religious doctrines you live by. fine. Do not come and force others who are not members of your faith to abide by them as well. Different culture, different government, go sit down and shut up. We don't fly into homocidal rages when muslims do stupid shit in their back yard

  • ||

    lol good article.

    hey check out this politics site i think u guys might like it

    ThePartisanDialogues.com

  • ||

    Religion mirrors the sentiments of its adherents. When the more angry, violent preachers (clerics, whatever) are the ones being followed, it is because the followers are already feeling angry and violent (or fearful and powerless to earn a living). As with governments- even dictatorships like Hitler's- religion's real power lies always with the people, who should have rose up and smote him, but didn't because (at first)he was saying exactly what they wanted to hear at the time. Your author's assertion that Islam "gave [a terrorist's]fecal stain of a life its depth and its justification" is backwards thinking, therefore, and comes across as bigotry instead of reason. A justifiable, emotional response to terrorism, I agree, but not "reason" as indicated. Some of us(even an atheist like me) who remain respectful to Islam despite terrorism do so NOT out of "political correctness" but rather from intelligence, because to attack it would certainly make things worse AND be totally misdirected. The ones who become terrorists do so out of desperation first, inspiration second. To attack the inspiration (angry clerics) would only make things worse. Gotta attack the desperation.

  • ||

    "...because to attack [islam] would certainly make things worse AND be totally misdirected."

    Sorry, our deference is what the radical muslims are counting on. They won't get it from me. islam deserves no respect till the majority of its followers not only denounce, but attack and imprison their radicals.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The ones who become terrorists do so out of desperation first, inspiration second.


    How was Mohammed Atta desperate?

  • hmm||

    Not a bad article, but I have to wonder how much if it is intended piss off the Muslim population, to get death threats, to get publicity.

    What can I say. I'm a tad cynical.

  • seanrude||

    I think that is exactly the point.

    http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.c.....ammed-day/

  • ||

    No, it's standing up and calling out the evil in the world. Much like Reagan did against the USSR.

    The "moderate" Muslims are the very same ones who will wish death (if not inflict death) on you for drawing a cartoon. The "radical extremist" Muslims are the ones who actually don't want to kill infidels. Those are rare.

  • ||

    I'm with you on this. What harm could making muslims angry do? They've already declared jihad against the west. "Okay, that's a double jihad on you... and you don't want to see my triple jihad!"

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I think nothing could be better than to piss off the Muslim community and get publicity doing so. The non-violent Muslim community should pool their resources and make a lot of noise condemning the actions of the extremists rather than just complaining that they get lumped in with them. They are lumped in with them BECAUSE they do not object to what is done in the name of Islam. If the best, most peaceful Muslims can't call upon themselves to condemn these measures than the whole religion is evil.

  • ||

    Substitute "democracy" for islam and what do you get? A lot more murder and terror.

  • ||

    No, you get the world's richest, open minded, most compassionate and caring country in history. Try expresing this level of disrespect and hatred in Muslim Iran and see what happens.

  • ||

    You are aware that the founding fathers had nothing but contempt for democracy?

    Anyways, try telling the united states treasury to go stick it when it comes for its share of your paycheck.

  • ||

    Right. So what country were you referring to when you said to substitute "democracy" for islam?

    The founding fathers placed their trust in the people, not royalty or a class of elites. Go play with your words elsewehre else.

  • ||

    The point is that the founding fathers loathed democracy. They understood that the evils which would inevitably ensue if democractic principles were to carry the day. They were right.

    BTW, in how many nations does Iran have military installations? How about its war expenditures? Particularly vis-a-vis the united states?

    Which of the two has a history of meddling in the other's internal affairs? WHich of the two has invaded two of the other's neighbors?

    Perspective, you need some, slaver.

  • Jon||

    Iran hasn't been busy fucking with its neighbors because it has been too busy fucking its own citizens.

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    Given time we will get to you as well. Look far far we expanded from the Arabian Penninsula. It is our goal to cover the entire globe. If you oppose us it must be because you are racist. There could not possibly be any ideological differences that would cause you to oppose our plans, no, it must be that you are a racist or a xenophobe.

  • π||

    The Founders indeed did have contempt for true democracies.

    As Benjamin Franklin so eloquently stated in 1759: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

    The constitutional republican form of government that was settled on was intended to give Liberty the best chance of lasting. And it did, until the people let go their obligation to hold government to it's legal obligation to function within the limits set upon it by the Constitution of the United States.

    Democracies do nothing to protect their citizens liberties, freedoms, and rights. The tyranny of the majority eliminates that possibilty. It's no less ugly than a tyranny of a minority.

    Libertymike needs to stay right here if for no other reason than he understands we are not and never were a democracy. The point is a vital one.

  • ||

    When will we realize we are at war with islam. Unlike skin color, religious people CAN change the way they act (though I do concede that religion itself, though not necesarily the particular dogma, is a genetic disorder and nobody 'chooses' to be religious). You don't choose to be black, but you do choose to blow something up in the name of god.

    We should immediately cease letting Muslims into this country legally (illegal immigration has nothing to do with this). At the very least, we should require every Muslim to repeat the following two sentences: "Allah is a false god, Mohammad is a pig-fucking lying false prophet who sucks the dicks of goats." If you can't even say two sentences (don't have to swear to it or otherwise affirm it or pray it, just repeat the words - can do it with your fingers crossed if you like) then you're FAR TOO DANGEROUS to be allowed within 500 miles of the USA.

    We should be making every single person entering America repeat those two sentences. If they can't do it and refuse, they get denied a visa and are immediately arrested, put into a small cage (for public safety) and flown back to their country of origin, which can open the cage and let them out.

    Terrorism will immediately cease to be a problem on these shores.

  • Tim McVeigh||

    Yep

  • Eric Rudolph||

    Sounds about right

  • Bill Ayers||

    +1

  • Ted Kaczynski ||

    Sure thing.

  • π||

    Doesn't seem right that you go to prison while Bill Ayers walks free. Justice must be equal. We better see if we can't get Obama to pardon you. Maybe if you tell him your only regret is you didn't do more, then he'll understand and have you released.

  • PIRS||

    +1

  • Blasphemy no, Sparta Yes..||

    Great article, and btw, I've come to find (through Muslim friends) that even the most sincerest Muslims do not and cannot condemn the actions of their brothers regardless of the atrociousness of their actions. Also, what kind of religion warrants your death for leaving the faith? I've tried to stay tolerant to all the religions, but this one I have a hard time with because it is within their doctrine to hate. The more I learn about Islam, the more I see its totalitarianism doctrine. It's not even worth my shit.

  • PIRS||

    I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is the praying 5 times a day.

    5 times a freaking day!

    It is almost like a form of brainwashing. Repeating phrases over and over.

  • Sparta guy, got lazy.||

    It isn't almost, it IS brainwashing and it starts from day one. Check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • PIRS||

    That is scary! She should be out fingerpainting or building sandcastles or doing something fun at that age. Not repeating wothless garbage. Is listening to music really forbidden? I have heard pleanty of music from the Muslim world. Some had phrases from the Koran in it!

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Ayatollah Khomeini said that it is not forbidden to listen to music, but it is forbidden to have pleasure from said listening. Don't you just love this kind of dogma?

    Nevertheless, music is widespread in the Islamic world, and the recent attempts of radicals to ban it or harass the musicians are extremely unpopular, even in otherwise hardcore regions like Afghanistan, let alone Kuwait or Lebanon. This is actually one of the ways how radicals lose support in general Islamic population.

  • ||

    It is almost like a form of brainwashing. Repeating phrases over and over.

    Like fast food workers asking, "Would you like fries with that?"

    Or your doctor asking "What seems to be the trouble? Let's have a look at you."

    Or a prostitute asking, "Looking for a good time sweetcheeks?"

    Or an Obamatron saying "Hope and Change!"

    Or Libertarians asking "Is this Constitutional and, if so, what is the cost-budget analysis?"

  • PIRS||

    Asking a question over and over is not the same as repeating a dogmatic statement over and over again.

    As far as the Obamatron, well, many of them are brainwashed as well. His speeches have code words repeated over and over again.

  • ||

    Paul Krugman has the same dilemma.

  • Lyle||

    This is my experience as well and I've lived with in a Muslim community before.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    . Also, what kind of religion warrants your death for leaving the faith?


    Under Jewish law, those who worship other gods are subject to execution by the rulers of Israel.

  • PIRS||

    Is there any actual historical evidence that there was an historical Muhammed?

  • Jesus||

    A hellava lot more than there is for me

  • PIRS||

    I am also skeptical of the existence of an historical Jesus. But that is not an answer to my question. If there is any historical evidence, what is it?

  • PIRS||

    Also, was the artist who did this work of art killed?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg

  • PIRS||

    Can we get rid of the Pingback spambot already?

  • MatTrue||

    And can we stop shitting on all religions when there's really just one that wants to convert or kill us all? I think our founders were mostly Christian, right? And we're FREE not to be, right?

  • PIRS||

    It is true that I have never had a Buddhist threaten to commit violence against me. In fact I have never met a Buddhist who has ever been anything but kind and friendly towards me.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Contrast it with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HnIKk9aB4g

    Warning, quite graphic in some places.

  • ||

    Yah, we in the west don't really have to deal with Buddist-ish doomsday cults. They mostly exist in China and Japan.

  • PIRS||

    Doc Merlin, the Shinshūkyō cults derive elements from many different religions. They are no more "Buddhist" than they are Christian or Shinto.

  • ||

    Hence why I said "Buddist-ish" not buddist.

  • PIRS||

    Doc,

    Well, then I am not sure what that had to do with the point I was making then.

  • ||

    funny, they don't LOOK Buddistish

  • turdmanwhich||

    Shinshūkyō

    What's up with those vowel toppings? Someone might mispronounce it
    Shin sha kyah?

    Really, highly unnecessary in this case given the long accent is the default norm in both cases..

  • Kolohe||

    iie, turd-san

    It's using a romanisation version where the long - eally double - vowel is presented with the dash rather than repeating the letter

    without the dash the syllables are "shu" (like the footwear) and "kyo" (rhymes with 'yo')

    with the dash
    "shu-u" and "kyo-o"
    the second vowel only syllable is pronounced lightly, but it's not a dipthong.

    "Tookyoo" is similar.

  • AntoineR||

    Is something good because God says this is good? Or is something inherently good, and therefore God says this is good?
    Too often, people think the first one because the second requires reasoning.

  • MatTrue||

    Who cares? as long as *they* are good.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Is something good because God says this is good? Is something inherently good, and therefore God says this is good
    Too often, people think the first one because the second requires reasoning.


    The first is correct.

    God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, so what He says and does is good by definition.

  • ||

    I was surprised in a good way to find this article on Reason. But my cheer is spoilt by the knowledge that Reason and other non-interventionists have contributed to our current situation. When the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued the Fatwa against Rushdie, that should've led to the immediate and brutal invasion of Iran to destroy the Islamic Republic. Instead, with the blessing of libertarian non-interventionists, our governments have failed to live up to their basic duty to protect our individual rights-they have been AWOL in the ONE FUCKING PLACE they shouldn't be. One this point, libertarians need to evaluate if they are pro-freedom or anti-government primarily.

  • Salamon Rushdie||

    You know that, like, I'm a British Citizen? And like it's not the USA's job to protect any random limey with a death threat on his head.

    Remember your first and greatest president:
    "He saved the children, but not the british children"

  • Salman Rushdie||

    I also got like a condition that prevents me from spelling my name correctly

  • ||

    The fatwa was against anybody associated with SR too. At least on of his translators were killed and American publishers were threatened.
    First they came for the British, and I did nothing...

  • jacob||

    Godwin's law

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    Now that is an interesting question.

    If an undisputed leader of a foreign country proclaims death sentence on your citizen(s) and authorizes anyone to carry it out, is that an acceptable casus belli?

  • ||

    YES. And if that isn't, then the funding of terrorism is. Lets just invade already.

  • ||

    YES. And if that isn't, then the funding of terrorism is. Lets just invade already.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I hope you've enlisted so you can lead the first wave, Cytotoxic.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

  • jacob||

    +100

  • jacob||

    When the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued the Fatwa against Rushdie, that should've led to the immediate and brutal invasion of Iran to destroy the Islamic Republic.

    What a stupid fucking statement. There are not enough money/arms/firepower/manpower to start invading every country that unjustly kills someone. Or, in Rushdie's case, talks about killing someone. Part of the reason you hawks can talk a big game is that you can't see the unintended consequences of your idiotic plans.

    The unprovoked invasion of a country that 'threatened' some random guy justifies the invasion of our country and the murder of our citizens.

  • ||

    God of the old testament was a vengeful God. After the Flood, he promised not to destroy the earth again. 2000 years ago, he sent Jesus to show us the way home. Jesus was a human and spoke only the truth: "I am the Truth, the Light and the Way."

    500 years later, some guy named mohamMad claims that he's a prophet and God gives him license to kill infidels. Anybody see a disconnect here?

    mohaMad was the original Manson, Jimmy jones or David koresch. Do what I tell you and I get all the praise and all the pussy.

    The crazy Arab is the most successful cult leader in history! 100s of millions still believe his bullshit 500 years after he went to Hell!

    I too shit on mo and any zombie that believes in harming so called infidels.

    Not very Catholic of me, but I don't like the 500 year old con. For you Progressives out there, embrace the tolerance. When the cult takes over, all the gays, trannies, feminists, atheists and intellectuals will be the first to lose their heads.

  • One for Whom sequence matters||

    I am the way, the truth, and the life.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    Thanks. I was pretty sure I had messed that up.

  • jacob||

    So YOUR belief in fairy tales is better than someone else's.

    Right.

    Go back to Townhall you dicksucking idiot.

  • Joe C||

    I'd just like to say, fuck Catholicism in the neck, and fuck Islam in the neck twice as hard. You, the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans etc. and all of your imaginary friends can kiss my liberty-loving ass.

  • PIRS||

    Belief in a deity is not a requirement of Buddhism. In fact, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion in the Western sense.

  • Joe C||

    Is it an altruistic philosophy? Either way, Buddhism is the one that least concerns me.

  • PIRS||

    I suppose this may depend upon your definition of "altruistic". In the sense that Ayn Rand used the term I would say no. In the sense that most people who have no idea who Ayn Rand was I would say yes.

    IN Buddhist ethics that are what are called "five precepts"

    1.To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms)This is like the Judeo-Christian commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

    2.To refrain from taking that which is not given "This is like the Judeo-Christian commandment "Thou shalt not steal"

    3.To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct "In other words do not commit adultery"

    4.To refrain from lying (speaking truth always)

    5.To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol)

    There is also the famous but often misunderstood concept of Karma. The idea is basicly that one's positive actions will have a positive impact on oneself and one's negative actions will have a negative impact on oneself. It is important to remember that there are many forms of BUddhism some of which have beliefs in rebirth etc. I personally do not adhere to the concepts of rebirth etc. But I do agree with much of the basic philosophy and do believe that one's positive actions impact oneself in a positive way, in this life.

    Also many misunderstand the word "Buddha". Buddha is a title, not a specific person. It simply means enlightened one. There have been many Buddhas in the past and will (hopefully) be many more in the future.

  • Joe C||

    Well in that case I'll consider giving the Buddhists a pass. Your definition of karma sounds a lot like the idea of pursuing one's long-term, rational self-interest to me.

  • ||

    i just took a shit on mighty Mo! He squirmed a bit but I promised him pictures of naked 11 year old prepubescent virgins and that calmed him down a bit.

  • fly_dive||

    someone should start making Muhammad T-shirts....I'd buy one

  • Ben (Australia)||

    I’ve been speaking out against these radical Muslim nut jobs for years – and I’m not even old. Please. America grow some bigger balls (especially if you live in a “liberal” city).

  • ||

    In democratic societies like the United States, the voting process is a means by which citizens hold their government accountable, conflicts are channeled into resolutions, and power transfers peacefully. Our system of representative government works only when honest ballots are not diluted by fraudulent ballots. When elections become corrupted, democracy becomes threatened.
    The FBI has a limited role in ensuring fair and free elections in the United States. Election crimes become federal cases when:
    The ballot includes one or more federal candidates;
    The crime involves an election official abusing his duties;
    The crime pertains to fraudulent voter registration;
    Voters are not U.S. citizens.
    First Name: kenyan born at the white house
    Last Name: TRUTH
    Address: AMERICA
    Address: INPEACH OBAMA
    City: USA
    State: usa THE END OF AMERICA
    NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'
    Michelle say Barack born in Kenya
    Obama's grandmother say he was born in Kenya
    Subject: OBAMA SAID approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth.
    Message: INPEACH OBAMA TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT
    obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led." "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one." "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it." "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. "pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social &^% ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half &^%, and the other half &^& How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit… The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, truth be damned. State: *usa Obama chuckles at America*
    If YOU PASS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YRS HARD LABOR, YOU PASS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT. Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison,There is no immigration allowed in China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and MOST other countries YOU PASS THE AMERICAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, DRIVER'S LICENSE, ALLOWANCE FOR A PLACE TO LIVE, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT SO YOU CAN READ A DOCUMENT. WE CARRY PASSPORTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR FACE JAIL TIME. REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE!! ((STOP COMMUNIST OBAMA)) THE COMMANDER

  • Sean||

    I have a bit of a hard time saying, "I shit on Islam" or "I shit on Muhammad". Back in college I had a number of Muslim friends, all very nice people, and even got to participate in their prayer services a few time--quite moving and touching, even though I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and thus on the opposite end of the religious spectrum.

    I do, regrettably, acknowledge the problem of Islamic extremism in the world, and the general motivation/justification that Islam seems to give for extremist violence and oppression. I wish to God that (A) truly moderate or liberal Muslims were more numerous, prominent, and secure, and (B) that they would exert a lot more influence in curbing the extremists.

    I'll oppose religious extremism, but I'm not going to effectively say "shit" on the beliefs and identities of my Muslim friends--although I would urge them to fight the extremists themselves.

  • π||

    Works for me, but what the heck, I'm easy.

    Can we agree that political correctness is crap, though, and has no place in a free society. And that the mental picture of Ginsberg going psycho on the cabbie is an amusing one, to say the least.

  • Sherm||

    What's the point of shitting on all of Islam when its only a small subsection who deserve it? That's the type of indiscriminate attack that characterizes terrorists like Shahzad.

    Ginsburg was a poet, who understood how to choose his words. When he bitched out that cabbie, saying "I shit on Islam", he was targeting that cabbie specifically and that cabbie alone. He was saying to that one guy, if those are really your perverted beliefs, you've succeeded in turning me against the religion you hold so highly.

    Now the writer of this article asks, "Why won’t anyone say in public what Ginsberg said in the back seat of that cab?" Because the writer is not the poet that Ginsburg was, because the writer is not even much of a writer, he doesn't understand that words need to be chosen carefully, they need to be suited for their specific context, and saying "I shit on Islam" is not appropriate for a public forum, unless you want to unnecessarily insult the majority of Muslims, who wince at the actions of bin Laden and Shahzad.

    There's nothing brave about broadcasting "I shit on Islam", and there's nothing noble about depicting Mohammed and violating Muslim cultural norms just for the sake of insulting their religion. Those are indiscriminate attacks, and as many have pointed out, they provoke mostly indiscriminate responses. Theo van Gogh was a martyr, but so were the countless innocent bystanders who were collateral damage of other retaliations. A vast majority of these victims had nothing to do with the words or images that sparked them; meanwhile, the instigators have escaped mostly unscathed, but not without benefits to their public profiles.

    The writer asks why more people haven't taken a broadsword to Islam. Well South Park did, and unless you're autistic, Lawrence O'Donnell obviously did as well. There's nothing uniquely courageous about the writer of this article, although he is a bit classless and his thinking is imprecise. God willing, the terrorists won't be as imprecise if, God forbid, they choose to retaliate.

  • ||

    Sherm|5.15.10 @ 10:21PM|#
    "What's the point of shitting on all of Islam when its only a small subsection who deserve it?..."

    Cite please.
    As an atheist, I shit on all religion. In most cases, there's no reason to state my case as most Xians, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, etc don't either physically threaten me or claim their religion limits my speech.
    Only Muslims do that, and given the response to the cartoons of that self-delusional Muhammad, you're going to need a good, strong cite to claim 'a small subsection'.
    Cite please.

  • ||

    Of course atheists have run the most destructive and oppresive regimes of all time - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot. So don't forget to crap in your own bed as well.

  • PIRS||

    Is someone who worships the state actually an atheist? I would call such a person an animist. Or, perhaps more aptly, a statist.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    "Atheism" is not a religion, in the same way as "baldness" is not a hairstyle.

    In the large set of atheist political ideologies, only the totalitarian subset has engaged in things you mention.

  • ||

    Big Chief|5.16.10 @ 12:55AM|#
    "Of course atheists have run the most destructive and oppresive regimes of all time - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot. So don't forget to crap in your own bed as well."

    You're kidding, I hope.
    The fact that these people professed to be atheists while they were murderous despots /= atheists cause murderous regimes.
    Any objective reading of those circumstances makes clear that religion was just one more competitor to state power which had to be removed.
    Statements of non-belief were window dressing.

  • ||

    If your statement is valid, then it would seem the following should also be true:
    "The fact that these people professed to be Muslim while they were murderous despots /= Muslims cause murderous regimes."

  • ||

    Big Chief|5.16.10 @ 3:01PM|#
    "If your statement is valid, then it would seem the following should also be true:
    "The fact that these people professed to be Muslim while they were murderous despots /= Muslims cause murderous regimes."

    Ha, ha....
    You seem to have forgotten that the people doing this state they are doing it specifically *because* of those beliefs.
    No window dressing or subtext here, and I'll bet you knew that.
    Fail.

  • ||

    Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy and double-standards.

  • ||

    Ah, the putrid smell of a bleever busted for sophistry.

  • jacob||

    +10

  • jacob||

    Err, that's for Big Chief @ 5.16.10 @ 3:41PM

  • Lyle||

    Haha... you're promoting violence against words. That's so Muslim.

  • π||

    With luck the ones Iran selects to deliver the nukes on the Great Satan will be as useless of idiots as Shahzad, Mr Underwear Bomber, and so many others.

    On the other hand if they aren't, and are more clever, there's no reason we couldn't survive losing a city or two, maybe we could just consider it an over due culling of the herd.

    As easy as it would be to smuggle a bomb into one of our ports, it's probably more likely a rocket fired from a sea vessel to produce an electromagnetic pulse effectively throwing the nation back to the stone age in a flash would be a more practical approach.

    Unfortunately. either way, the government would without doubt see it as the opportunity they've dreamed of, the excuse to end all freedom permanently, and would waste no time in doing just that.

    And that brings us back to needing a little luck. Another revolution in Iran could do the trick. Time will tell, not much we can do to change anything, we're all just passengers riding the death train with this one.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    As easy as it would be to smuggle a bomb into one of our ports, it's probably more likely a rocket fired from a sea vessel to produce an electromagnetic pulse effectively throwing the nation back to the stone age in a flash would be a more practical approach.


    Can a single bomb take out the entire nation's electrical grid. Remember that the U.S. is huge .

  • Mohamet the Considerate||

    DEATH TO AMERICA!

    Sorry for yelling, it wasn't my intention to sound offensive or be disrespectful towards others.

    Death to America...unless it upsets someone.

  • Lyle||

    Death to America doesn't really bother us. You can say it all you want to.

  • LibertyAtStake||

    The perfect construction. Well done.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    [For a light hearted take on our present peril]

  • ||

    fatwa in 3... 2... 1...

    lol

  • ||

    I shit on xenophobes.

    Isn't that just typical? Someone DARES (!) question unrestrained immigration so they are a complete xenophobe. Citizen Nothing, you are a sack of utter uselessness whose death would be a net plus to the Universe. Oh, and you forgot to trot out the Nazi comparison, asswipe.

  • ||

    What's the point of shitting on all of Islam when its only a small subsection who deserve it?

    This bullshit needs to be laid to rest. Here in Orange County, California, there were celebrations held by local muslims during the evening on 9/11. You had to know where to look. And the local media, filled as it is with sacks of pigshit in biped form, reported NOTHING despite that fact that it was pretty well know afterwards. One of those "open secret" sorts of things.

    The small subsection is the few muslims who have successfully westernized their beliefs, but probably they are something else and should adopt a new name.

  • ||

    New name- Sufi?

  • jacob||

    Wow, I never saw it that way. The muslims in the OC are representative of all muslims, even the mysteriously tolerant ones we have here in Ohio.

    You're a fucking genius.

  • Drugs are Bad mm-Kay||

    No time to read all of the comments but Great article Ive been thinking we need a commercial like the one with different elasticities saying "I am an American" except this one says "I drew Mohammad" with them holding their picture to their chest.

  • Drugs are Bad mm-Kay||

    **ethnicities.. what I get for assuming the spellcheck was right.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I would shit on all religions if I had to go but I would go out of my way, even alter my diet to squirt an especially stinky and offensive shit on islam.

    Check out Daniel Pipes and Yaron Brook on totalitarian islam on you tube.

  • Momo Juniad||

    I really love Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM. I really be honest that if I have mean to kill anyone who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM, I won't do it .I will first talk to the person, I will tell the person why one shouldn't do this. I am doing it; I am practicing my rights to tell you that according to my belief what you are doing is not right by all and every mean.
    first thing that I am amazed about it that whatever you draw good or bad that hasn't any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM. Whatever been drawn and whatever will be drawn doesn't have any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon Him.The good or bad whatever you or anyone else will draw or had had been drawn is just a reflection of his own self. In the first place I am right to tell you and others that draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM is wrong not because its Muslims belief not to draw but also you are drawing false images and wrong fully getting attention that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM is drawn.
    Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM forgave HIS worst enemies. The people of Makah from where HE started HIS preaching for Islam had opposed HIM by all and every way. They tortured HIM physically like throwing nailed bushes on HIS way; they socially and economically boycotted HIM and HIS whole tribe. When HE conquered Makah and all the people of Makah gathered in the Ka'aba HE asked from then what do you all accept from me that what I will do to you? They said you are a noble person and son of a noble person. He said to them I forgive you all .Makah was conquered without any bloodshed. Among these people a lady is present who hired a black slave to kill the Prophet Muhammad's peace be upon HIM uncle Hamzah who was very beloved to HIM. That lady name Hinda wife of Abu Sufyan asked to that slave to kill Hamzah with a poisonous knife and then she took out his liver and tried to eat it but couldn’t and throws it out. Then she slaughtered his ears and nose. She was also forgiven Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and he just asked from her not to come in front of HIM. Because she reminded Him how His uncle was slaughtered
    IN the time of His preaching in Makah HE went to a neighboring city Taif to preach them. They also opposed Him, didn't listened to Him even they asked the small children in streets to throw stones on Him and go after Him call Him insane. He walked out of that city and on the out skirts of the city sat in a fruit garden there ALLAH almighty send angel Jibraiel (Gabriel) and he asked from Him that ALLAH almighty said if you want I will destroy this city in between these two mountains around its surroundings. He said I hope there will be believers among their children in the next generations.
    These are just two or three examples of how He behaved with His worst enemies. His life is full of these examples.
    There are certain things allowed and not allowed in different religion is a really vast subject. As I think you may know this pork meat is completely forbidden in Islamic law and it’s a part of everyday food in west, Muslims never asked from any person who is non Muslim to not to eat it and like this there are many examples.
    it's not just what's allowed or forbidden its love for our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. He is our Prophet. We love Him so much that for love and respect we didn’t like to say his name even.
    I don’t think so that first anyone threaten the person who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him he draw that and after it all started.
    So my points are these
    1. Whatever you draw good or bad didn’t have any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    2. Whatever you will draw will not be anything like Him.
    3. The good or bad whatever you draw is your own reflection.
    4. You falsely claiming that you draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. So you are misguiding others.
    5. We love our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him more than our parents, more than our children, more than our selves. What you are trying is simply showing that you have problem that why we love our Prophet this much. You don’t love anyone this much so you all don’t understand it at all.
    6. i am using my rights to tell you to stop abusing my believes, to stop abusing a religion, to stop abusing humanity and to stop abusing human rights and freedom of speech.
    7. in the name of freedom of speech and rights you are dividing world. Religious people and people who hates religion.
    the cartoons are not just images.The modern meaning refers to both humorous illustrations in print and animated films.
    why on the frist place you want to draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and second thing you want to draw in insulting manners.

    You really know that what is the problem west has with Islam.
    To become a Muslim one should say that I believe and testify in oneness of ALLAH al mighty and the prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him is the last messenger of ALLAH almighty .When one say this and embrace Islam then Islam is a manifesto to live the life.
    Islam is like a circle drawn by ALLAH almighty.
    I am sure you heard the story of Adam and Eve. As to Islamic version after creating Adam and Eve Allah almighty asked them to live in Eden and told them they can eat whatever they want and like except one tree's fruit was forbidden for them.
    Islam is the continuity of it. ALLAH almighty send us in the world and with Islam told us which fruits we can eat and which are forbidden.
    Now in west human intelligence is their lord and driven force. In Islam ALLAH almighty can tell which fruits human can have and which are forbidden because He is the creator and All Knower.
    West wants that Islam changes itself. May be many Muslims also think so. My fellow human being Mr. Ian it may be sounds rigidness to you but nor any Muslim scholar neither any common Muslim can change what ALLAH almighty told.
    Yes of course Muslims are dealing with modern life challenges and Muslim scholars are guiding and showing the way in this modern world but whatever they are guiding is just according to the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    We have Quran as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and Life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him is also recorded and written with great research and care that any false or lie cannot infiltrate in it.
    So Mr. Ian I think west needs to be tolerant and understanding that Islam cannot and will not change as west wants. It is not any work of human intelligence so any more intelligent and clever person will made changes in it.
    These cartoonist and writers are also part of it. To insult Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    In everyday life Muslims live life as they want, many Muslims made changes in their everyday life's do's n do not's as they want. But still majority of Muslims are living their life as Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him guides us.
    Even if majority of Muslims want that Islam also adopt changes like any other religion it cannot happen. ALLAH almighty himself can tell to change this and keep this.
    West needs to understand this and stop trying to change Islam and Muslims.
    and these young muslims were heros when they were fighting in afghanistan against russia and america was supporting them funding them facilitating them with equipment and money.

  • PIRS||

    “So Mr. Ian I think west needs to be tolerant and understanding that Islam cannot and will not change as west wants. It is not any work of human intelligence so any more intelligent and clever person will made changes in it.
    These cartoonist and writers are also part of it. To insult Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.”
    My friend, you may not be part of your problem but far too many of your fellow Muslims are. If all Muslims were as tolerant as you perhaps are, this South Park cartoon would not have been written in the first place. Do you not see that tolerance must necessarily go both ways? A mouse may be tolerant of the cat only if the cat is also tolerant of the mouse. Otherwise the mouse will die. My nation, the United States, has a long proud history of religious tolerance. This is even written into our very Constitution. The problem comes when certain people are not tolerant of us.

  • ||

    Why should there be any peace for a murderous pedophile moron illiterate dirtbag as was mohammed the depraved? and why should there be any peace or rights to anyone stupid enough to take that filth as the perfection of humanity?
    and if allah is as depicted,he is the god of hate,and worse than satan

  • Joe C||

    Sorry dude, but all I can say after reading this is "I shit on Allah and Prophet Muhammad." Loving an imaginary god more than your children is why the rational part of the world has a serious problem with your beliefs. It makes you dangerous. It makes largely tolerant people not want you here.

  • Lyle||

    Sir,

    You do not understand freedom of speech or human rights. It is you his against freedom of speech and it is you who abuses human rights. You literally want to keep peoples' mouths shut. You can disagree with us all day long, but we will not abide your call to shut up ourselves and show you respect or your religion respect. It is you who must mature, it is you who must grow up, it is you who must show us respect.

    Nobody would be bothering to have a "Draw the pedophile Prophet Muhmammad Day" if it wasn't for people like yourself. You've brought this wonderful day on yourself. Because you want us to not say something, we're now going to say it. Because you want to dictate and control how we think, we're going to dictate to you our thoughts about you, your pedophile Prophet, and your misogynistic faith.

    Change sir or be beneath us the rest of your life.

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    "Because you want to dictate and control how we think,"

    But it is for your own good!!!

  • Lyle||

    Haha... cheers The Prophet Muhammad.

  • ||

    Momo Juniad|5.16.10 @ 7:19AM|#
    "I really be honest that if I have mean to kill anyone who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM, I won't do it .I will first talk to the person, I will tell the person why one shouldn't do this."

    And what will you do *after* the talk doesn't accomplish what you wish?
    Plus the 'peace be on HIM' repetition sounds less like a comment from a rational person than it does some mantra of the indoctrinated. Are you so indoctrinated?

  • ||

    Plus the 'peace be on HIM' repetition sounds less like a comment from a rational person than it does some mantra of the indoctrinated. Are you so indoctrinated?
    reply to this

    Well noticed, O Ron.

  • ||

    "Now in west human intelligence is their lord and driven force."

    Thank you.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Momo Juniad

    I notice that you didn't condemn murder in the name of islam you just said you wouldn't do it yourself. Yet you do condemn a cartoon. This means you think ridicule is more evil than murder and should be punishable by murder. You are evil. It is your acceptance of these teachings that makes you evil. It is not your carnal flesh which makes you evil, as your prophet teaches you. It is not your culture or the color of your skin that makes you evil, as you are taught is American opinion. It is your mind's acceptance of an imaginary being who requires human blood in exchange for cartoons that makes you evil. But, it is you who accepts it and it is therefore you who is evil. You are a few Islamic totalitarian lectures away from strapping a bomb to your chest. If you believe it is wrong to blow up Americans just because you disagree with the west then say so otherwise you are nothing but a murderer waiting in the wings. If this was not the case you would explain the fundamental difference between your beliefs and these terrorists. The only difference between you and those who have killed westerners as punishment for their beliefs is that less effort has gone into your brainwashing.

  • ||

    well said.and correct.we live with 150,000,000 of these bastards,with millions more on both sides.

  • ||

    Yes, well said Fiscal Meth

  • ||

    In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

  • ||

    EXAMPLE FROM ONE OF THE CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, SHOWING THAT MUHAMMAD SAID THERE IS TO BE NO PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERING SOMEONE WHO INSULTS MUHAMMAD:

    Here, from Sunan Abu-Dawud, a hadith collection considered canonical by mainstream Muslim scholars (when they are not disinforming Westerners), is a hadith that shows Muhammad supporting the murder of a woman by her husband, merely because she used to speak to her husband insultingly about Muhammad:

    Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348:

    Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

    A blind man had a slave-mother [a slave who bore children for him] who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He [the blindman] forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he [the blindman] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

    He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

    He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

    Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

    There are various examples in the core Islamic texts of Muhammad having those who insult Islam killed.

  • Please choose||

    1) Too easy.

    2) I'm so glad we had this little chat.

    3) Res ipsa loquitur.

  • anarch||

  • ||

    He lost me at "radical" Islam, proving he still doesn't get the nature of the enemy.

  • Kyle||

    I shit on religion.

  • PIRS||

    I shit on Pingback

  • ||

    As long as you're not shitting while pinging bareback. But then, there may be folks into that sort of thing.

  • Because you want to dictate an||

    Pingback is one of my greatest followers.

  • ||

    Organized religion is bullshit. So, make fun of xtianity, buddism, hindusim, islam, new-age-garbage, etc...

    Just be prepared to defend yourself from fuckin nutjobs.

  • ||

    The most courageous piece of writing I've seen in a long time. Mark, you aren't alone this.

  • ||

    I want to lead a few thousand people to Shahzad's mosque, walk in, sit down, and start singing "We Shall Overcome" until the cops drag us all away.

    It may not make them like us, but it may very well show them what forms of protest will get you accepted in this country!

  • Sean Scallon||

    Well, when you and others shed blood and organize armies to defend the Enlightenment, it will be a first.

    And those who though they were fighting for the Enlightenment (Jacobins, Communists) turned out to be as authoritarian and repressive as though they thought they were fighting against.

    The cowardice you see exists for a reason.

  • Lets..||

    ...take the cheap shot and say the only hordes that Mr. Scallon has defeated are ones that tried to cut in front of him at the buffet line
    http://www.chroniclesmagazine......n-scallon/

    And that at 37 years old it's not too late for him to drop some pounds and don a uniform, rather than being typifying the behavior of himself and his chickenhawk bretheren of cheering every war since Gulf 1 safely seated in their livingrooms on the sidelines and moreover being a special and the most annoying breed of Internet Tuff Gai in this new century.

  • ||

    I can picture my drawing now, moe's head on a chihuahua, getting hammered doggy style by porky pig.

  • David ||

    Religion has always been the opium of the masses, the intellectually weak, and is at best only a form of intellectual slavery. Banning and making illegal faith based religions is the solution. What do we have to lose anyway. In effect, we would only be eliminating stupidity in our society. Until North America eliminates its dependence on Middle East oil we will always have this problem and the threat of Islam bombs in our streets.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In effect, we would only be eliminating stupidity in our society. Until North America eliminates its dependence on Middle East oil we will always have this problem and the threat of Islam bombs in our streets.


    What dependence on Middle East oil?

    Do where know from which countries the U.S. imports most of its oil?

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    David has it partially right, partially wrong (as for his citation of Marx and advocating of illegalization of faiths - well, I smell a commie).

    The problem is with the whole world being dependent on oil. And oil is a fungible commodity, pretty expensive at that, and it keeps unsavory regimes in power (see Venezuela or Azerbaijan).

    As long as there are buyers willing to dump huge billions into oil, for that long will some brands of Islam (particularly Wahhabism) cheap source of proselytization money.

  • Thomas O.||

    "Banning and making illegal faith based religions is the solution."

    Yeah, how did that work out for Russia and China?

    Even if there's no communistic intentions, you can't ban religion and expect to remain a free, libertarian country. You can't regulate or control what people believe (1984, anyone?), you can only enforce commonly held values like one's right to life and liberty.

  • ||

    I am Bob Rosenthal and this is my story as I was in the cab. Ginsberg only said "Then I shit on your God!" He did not put down Islam. He was putting down the Ayatollah's fatwa on Rushdie that's it.
    Check out his poem"Yaywey and Allah battle" to hear Ginsbergs thoughts on the Great Nobodaddy (the one god acording to William Blake) yours Bob

  • ||

    PS from Bob Rosenthal The cabbie did not hear the offensive remark and we did not demand to be let out!

  • ||

    PS from Bob Rosenthal The cabbie did not hear the offensive remark and we did not demand to be let out!

  • ||

    wow, the author who sounds like a stupid dip shit also lied about the story.

    Please make fun of mohamed and all of the same monotheist and their stupid religions...but don't write articles that subtely argue for genocidal foreign policy or repeat the lies our corrupt government uses to promote high taxation and granting big contracts to politically powerful contractors.

  • PIRS||

    Who was arguing for a genocidal foreign policy or repeating the lies our corrupt government uses to promote high taxation and granting big contracts to politically powerful contractors? Did you read the same article I did?

  • ||

    It kinda self-evident that this article has been written by a motherfucking zionist.

  • LAR||

    Are you available? If not, tell your wife to give you a big kiss for writing this piece.

  • Bruno||

    When an illiterate, proven pedophile claims to be g-d's messenger and rants an obviously hateful and made-up load of crap that resulted in the Koran, it is necessary that sensible people begin to recognize such moronic dogma for what it is. If not, be prepared to convert...or die in the name of such utter, contemptible garbage.

  • ||

    I shit on fucking jews like the fucking idiot who wrote this piece of trash. Of course I shit on muslims, catholics, protestants and other retards. And I shit on american nationalists too.

  • .||

    Hm. You seem to be full of shit.

  • ||

    Seriously, what more can you expect from a gutter religion who worships a child rapist?

  • t. yamamoto||

    On May 20th in support of South Park and all those who made cartoons or were threatened by radical Islam it is Draw Muhammad Day. Support it, I will. Be offensive or just draw something benign, it does not matter. Stand up. To paraphrase what you said; You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me and I'm armed with sarcasm and a .45, try me.

  • ||

    Hello...

    I've read your article and i cant contradict your views because your views are based on something that might have happened with you, it might be true from your point of view but not might be true for everyone else.
    Just take for example, adolf hitler was a christian and he killed 6 million jews, does that make all christians terrorist? in Bosnia (bosnian genocide) 500,000 muslims were slaughtered and killed by christians, does that make all christians terrorist ? In the same genocide, 20,000 to 50,000 muslim women were raped by serbs soldiers, who were all christians, does that make all christians rapist ?

    The answer is NO, absolutely NOT.
    Just because adlof hitler killed 6 million jews, doesnt make all christians terrorist. the same applies for all the muslims.

    There are rotten apples in every society, in every nation and in every religion, but we cannot categorise them on the basis of religion, or nation and target their whole religion or nation.

    There is a saying,"Never judge a book by its cover" .

    We cannot draw conclusions of a particular religion just on the basis of a few bad ones.

    Moreover, if you want to draw conclusion of a particular thing, you have to look at both the sides, and not get blinded by only one side.
    If you want to look at a particular religion, you have to read its scriptures and not just draw conclusions based on a few bad, who misinterpret religion.
    Man often changes, sometimes he is good, sometimes he is bad. So we cannot draw conclusions regarding any religion based on a man, because we ourselves does not know what's in the man's head.
    If i were to look at christianity, i wouldnt just draw my conclusions based on Adolf Hitler and those serbs soldiers who killed innocent lives in bosnia and darfur. I would infact, go through the holy bible and try to understand it and try to interpret it as best i can. Similarly, its senseless to draw conclusions of islam based on a few odd-ones. If you have to draw conclusions of islam, you have to refer the holy quran.

    All people are different and so i cannot draw conclusions regarding religion based on a few people, You have to go through the scriptures to understand that religion.

    Allen Ginsberg, might have been a great person, but doesnt mean you draw conclusions based on his likes and dislikes. There is no Human and never will be any human who are as noble and as gentle as the prophets and messengers sent by god. There are the ones to be followed and not any other guy.

    All iam saying is never draw conclusions regarding religion or nations based on a few bad ones who might misinterpret it wrongly. People can change and so can their words, but the holg books revealed by god for mankind can never change, So its better to follow and understand the scriptures rather than folowing some group of people of any individual who might himself be blinded by the truth.

  • ||

    Well in principle I agree with the sentiment of this article, and I've drawn my toons...

    However I want to point out that citing Alan Ginsberg as the example of how we should behave is counter productive. This article could as easily have been called THE PEDOPHILE AND THE PROPHET. The guy was one of the founders of NAMBLA. Looked at from this angle the cabbie would be the good guy. So who's the bigger danger to YOUR kids... NAMBLA or Islam (or lets define it better - Islamists)? Child abuse for personal gratification seems every bit as evil as killing for religion or ideology in my book.

  • ||

    I don't how many people heard the podcast. Isn't it ironical that when the essay on the right to free speech and tolerance of offense is read out as a podcast, the sentence "I shit Islam" becomes "I hate Islam". Whose sensitivities is the reader of the podcast trying to not hurt here?

  • Suraj_response||

    > Whose sensitivities is the reader of the podcast trying to not hurt here?

    Perhaps her own, or the organisation she works for?

    I reckon if she is providing a service of the podcast, she is justified to read it however she wants.

    As a side note, I liked her intonation when reading the paragraph starting "That’s the problem in a nutshell....." :)

  • Nk||

    Mr. Goldblatt,
    your article is one of the worst i have ever read in my whole life. it completely lacks research, understanding and depth. before you start shouting all sorts of profanities at Islam and Muslims, get your facts right. target your anger and spite towards people who are worthy of it- people who distort Islam, are extremists and therefore do not represent the whole Muslim population. Islam does not advocate any of the stuff you have mentioned in your article. you said Islam instigated the plan behind the Time Square bomb, have you read the Quran yourself and can you point out ONE part that would entice such a thing? have you even read the Quran to be making such statements about what the religion says and does not?you're ignorant and foolish and i pity you.

  • ||

    well mr goldblatt..im sure u think u'r real clever and smart to write what u did.why dont u try reading the Quran before u talk about islam and muslims like that.freedom of speech and thought does not give anyone the right to slander what the other people believe..as for america and its holier than thou attitude...well america's bloody history says it all.when u point a finger at the muslims..three fingers are pointed towards u.dont ever forget that

  • ปลวก||

    I'm pleasantly surprised that Reason published this essay. Frankly speaking I didn't expect to read such a piece here.

  • RAN||

    There is no Human and never will be any human who are as noble and as gentle as the prophets and messengers sent by god. | RAN ran ran แรน แรน แรน |

  • Stay in Oslo||

    This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I have shared your site in my social networks!

  • a-chat.org||

    nice article

  • a-ll.info||

    nice to read you

  • a-nd.info||

    Wonderful article

  • a-re.info||

    I need some time to think about this!

  • b-est.info||

    Gotta love engineers ;-)

  • blo-g.com||

    The faculty of reason, rationality, or the faculty of discursive reason

  • b-uy.info||

    I agree with most of what you wrote down below

  • b-uy.info||

    ast update?

  • c-hat.info||

    do you wanna be my leader ?

  • d-vd.info||

    si on ne mélange pas les torchons et les serviettes

  • f-ilm.info||

    Join us now to get access to all our features.

  • f-ood.info||

    Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics

  • f-orum.info||

    You don’t need to add your email if you are already subscribed by email to Reason

  • f-ree.info||

    we try and we hope.

  • f-un.info||

    Something like this may be what you're looking for

  • g-ame.info||

    get your own private messenger, and so, so much more

  • g-et.info||

    It's also quick and totally free

  • h-elp.info||

    so what are you waiting for?

  • h-ere.info||

    There are lots of links on reason

  • SEO||

    so far so good

  • CZmacure||

    While I understand the point and empathize with the text, I think that the perspective of being murdered, or having some close relative murdered, or even the incitation of mass killings, is indeed something to worry about.

    I don't think it's simply cowardice, just like it isn't that much cowardice the reason why you lock your doors at night or even during the day. When you weigh what you could accomplish and what you could lose, to me seems that the safest bet is just not to irate people who can then blow the school where your children study. I don't see shitting on islam having any positive effect, or any other than a short lived sense of relief, or a payback.

    I think we got to be smarter than that.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement