Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"No, I said Muhammad had to kick the goat out of the outhouse before he had sex with his mother"
Larry Flynt weighs in on the intoonfada. Some highlights:
Do you think Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell really like the jews and the muslims? No, they tolerate them because they have to because of freedom of religion, but other countries don't have that...
[Evangelicals are] just as bad as the Muslims in many respects; they are fundamentalists...but as I say, we've been able to keep the spirit of people's right to choose a religion pretty much intact because of the way our constitution was devised...
[The media are] so wimp-kneed, you know, there's no point in even discussing the media. They're a bunch of suits in an ivory tower trying to decide what we should see, what we shouldn't see...
I haven't seen [the cartoons] yet; if I had it I'd be happy to run it. I'd do something even more offensive...
If you went out into the street and took a poll: "How many believe in free speech?" 97% would say yes. But then if you say "what about hate speech, what about flag-burning, what about pornography," that 97% falls down below 50 again. And we need Freedom of Speech to protect that.
I'll tell you what you do get in European countries: a much-more laid-back attitude towards religion and social issues like adultery...they've been through a lot and they don't get so excited over things... over anything, like these cartoons...
What I'm trying to say is European people go with the flow, and Americans are always looking for a reason to protest things.
Kidding, Muhammad, kidding! We all know it was Jerry Falwell who had to kick the goat out of the outhouse.
Mark Deming|2.15.06 @ 1:38AM|#
Larry Flynt is, unfortunately, right. One of the first college
papers to run the articles were rewarded with
suspensions for its editors.
Freedom to think, speak, and express is dead... atleast on our
nation's campuses of "higher" education.
|2.15.06 @ 3:22AM|#
In an interview with a Danish TV host, Alan Dershowitz fucks up
an otherwise equally good rant with this:
"If you have a circle of symmetry where everything is equally
permissible or everything is equally impermissible, that is
fair."
Flint does't make that misstake.
Subversive Mind|2.15.06 @ 3:46AM|#
Flynt is, without doubt, one of the greatest defenders of the First Amendment in our time. I hope some day our society will be brave enough to erect a statue in his honor, and I hope it's designed to offend at least half the people who see it.
|2.15.06 @ 7:14AM|#
"I'll tell you what you do get in European countries: a
much-more laid-back attitude towards religion and social issues
like adultery...they've been through a lot and they don't get so
excited over things... over anything, like these cartoons..."
What is Flynt talking about here? Europe is much more restrictive
as a matter of law on speech issues than the US is. If anything, as
a result of this incident, Europe is going to be worse, as
evidenced by this:
"Franco Frattini, the European Union commissioner for justice,
freedom and security, revealed the idea for a code of conduct in an
interview with The Daily Telegraph. Mr Frattini, a former Italian
foreign minister, said the EU faced the "very real problem" of
trying to reconcile "two fundamental freedoms, the freedom of
expression and the freedom of religion".
Millions of European Muslims felt "humiliated" by the publication
of cartoons of Mohammed, he added, calling on journalists and media
chiefs to accept that "the exercising of a right is always the
assumption of a responsibility". He appealed to European media to
agree to "self-regulate".
Accepting such self-regulation would send an important political
message to the Muslim world, Mr Frattini said.
By agreeing to a charter "the press will give the Muslim world the
message: we are aware of the consequences of exercising the right
of free expression, we can and we are ready to self-regulate that
right", he said." -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/09/ncart109.xml
It would behoove Flynt to see Europe and Europeans as they really
are, rather than the Europe of the fantasies of American
libertines.
|2.15.06 @ 7:30AM|#
"If you have a circle of symmetry where everything is
equally permissible or everything is equally impermissible, that is
fair."
It is fair. It is NOT just. Dershowitz of all people sould
know the difference.
|2.15.06 @ 8:05AM|#
"that 97% falls down below 50 again."
Granted, the math-processing section of my brain is very smooth,
but....wha..??
|2.15.06 @ 8:08AM|#
Okay, that tiny wrinkle just kicked in.. He's saying 97% would
drop to minus 50%.
Barbie is right. Math IS hard!
|2.15.06 @ 8:25AM|#
I'll tell you what you do get in European countries: a
much-more laid-back attitude towards religion and social issues
like adultery...
Oh, hooray. That's exactly what we need: a more permissive attitude
toward people betraying and stabbing each other in the back. That
will truly foster a more civil society.
Guys? Do me a favor and work a little harder to make the
libertine/libertarian cliche a little less true?
What I'm trying to say is European people go with the flow, and
Americans are always looking for a reason to protest
things.
Yeah, those Europeans really just go with the flow... as long as
the flow is setting fire to cars.
amazingdrx|2.15.06 @ 8:38AM|#
"...as long as the flow is setting fire to cars."
Says another changeling. Got mod status oh masked avenger?
Hehehey.
Ed|2.15.06 @ 9:30AM|#
Subversive,
Here, here. But will the statue portray him standing or sitting?
And if sitting, will the wheels be visible?
|2.15.06 @ 9:31AM|#
I hope some day our society will be brave enough to erect a
statue in his honor
The Erect Larry Flint Society.
|2.15.06 @ 10:29AM|#
Says another changeling. Got mod status oh masked avenger?
Hehehey.
Jigga what?
I can't understand anything in that sentence. Do you speak English?
And are there names for people like you? I'm beginning to think
there should be. So much of the crap I read in blogs/forums these
days is unintelligible hipster stream-of-consciousness gibberish.
Here's a tip: the rest of us can't hear the voices in your
head.
|2.15.06 @ 10:33AM|#
That entire rant was just a grand display of ignorance... does he know anything at all about Europe? They don't protest in Europe? What the fuck is he talking about? They're more laid back over there? Jesus is he a moron...
Captain Holly|2.15.06 @ 11:13AM|#
I haven't seen [the cartoons] yet; if I had it I'd be happy
to run it. I'd do something even more offensive...
Put your money where your mouth is, Larry. We'll be glad to
wait.
A prediction: Larry won't run the cartoons in question, and he
certainly won't run one showing Muhammed masturbating while
thinking about his momma. He's a pompous windbag publicity hound
who realizes that Evangelical Christians might get mad at you when
you smear them, but they don't saw your head off or tear you into
little pieces.
And since Larry really wants to live a few years longer, he won't
do anything to offend Muslims.
What a prick.
|2.15.06 @ 11:25AM|#
DENMARK: (to Muslims) We made a fair move.
Screaming about it won't help you.
U.S. STATE DEPT.: (interrupting) Let them have it.
It's not wise to upset a Muslim.
DENMARK: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a
Christian.
U.S. STATE DEPT.: That's 'cause Christians don't
pull people's arms out of their socket when they get offended.
Muslims are known to do that.
|2.15.06 @ 11:32AM|#
One can only hope that the result of this is a photo spread in Hustler that involves Muhammad.
|2.15.06 @ 11:41AM|#
That's what I was hoping for when I read this article.
Something I read further up was about "trying to reconcile 'two
fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression and the freedom of
religion.'" Since when has someone's expression impinged on your
religious practices? I mean, if someone burns your church down and
call that "expression," then yeah, I could see that, but I don't
get how a dozen cartoons are making it more difficult for anyone to
be a practicing muslims.
|2.15.06 @ 11:56AM|#
"I'll tell you what you do get in European countries: a
much-more laid-back attitude towards religion and social issues
like adultery...they've been through a lot and they don't get so
excited over things... over anything, like these cartoons..."
He's talking about the same bloc of nation-states that punish
people judicially for Holocaust-denial. However abhorrent such
denial is, if they had such a "laid-back attitude" they would
tolerate it.
|2.15.06 @ 12:12PM|#
Larry's heart is in the right place, but he is like a 13 year
old who gets his politics from reading the liner notes to his
favorite CDs or maybe a skateboarding magazine. "All wars were
caused by religion... in Europe they let everything hang out, man,"
etc. There is some germ of truth to what he says, but it is banal
and exaggerated.
I certanly hope he prints those Danish cartoons, though.
|2.15.06 @ 12:24PM|#
The best thing to come out of this so far, a new anti-Semitic
cartoons contest - this time drawn by Jews themselves:
http://www.boomka.org/
|2.15.06 @ 12:50PM|#
He's a pompous windbag publicity hound who realizes that
Evangelical Christians might get mad at you when you smear them,
but they don't saw your head off or tear you into little
pieces.
What about that guy who shot him?
|2.15.06 @ 1:02PM|#
I may have left this site, but look for me in next month's Penthouse! I just got a call from Larry! Yay!
Captain Holly|2.15.06 @ 2:18PM|#
What about that guy who shot him?
The guy who shot him was mentally deranged, IIRC. Whatever his
motiviations, he certainly didn't do it in response to some
fatwa issued by Jerry Falwell.
Which neatly expresses my original point. Larry Flynt is more than
happy to smear Evangelical Christians because he knows deep down
inside nothing worse than a futile lawsuit or an angry
letter-writing campaign will happen.
It will be a cold snowy day in Mecca before he does the same thing
to Muslims, because he knows deep down inside he would truly be
risking his life.
|2.15.06 @ 2:30PM|#
Evangelical Christians might get mad at you when you smear
them, but they don't saw your head off or tear you into little
pieces.
A couple of them have been known to bomb abortion clinics, shoot
abortion doctors and menace said doctor's family members, though.
The difference between extremist evangelical Christians and
extremist Muslims is that the evangelicals, fortunately, live in a
society where the law won't let them do whatever they feel like
doing.
|2.15.06 @ 2:35PM|#
By the way, Captain Holly, did you know that when Pat Robertson
was running for President, one of his proposals was to set up
special Christian courts? The idea was that if a Christian killed
somebody, or bombed a building, he could go before this special
court and argue that he only committed this crime because God told
him to; if the court agreed that his behavior was inspired by God,
then the criminal would get off scot-free.
Luckily, this lunatic wasn't elected and is unlikely to ever be
elected. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there aren't
people in America who would be just as loony as the Muslim
fanatics, if only they had the chance.
Captain Holly|2.15.06 @ 2:38PM|#
By the way, Captain Holly, did you know that when Pat
Robertson was running for President, one of his proposals was to
set up special Christian courts? The idea was that if a Christian
killed somebody, or bombed a building, he could go before this
special court and argue that he only committed this crime because
God told him to; if the court agreed that his behavior was inspired
by God, then the criminal would get off scot-free.
Sounds interesting. Got an original source for that, or is it just
something you heard?
Captain Holly|2.15.06 @ 2:54PM|#
A couple of them have been known to bomb abortion clinics,
shoot abortion doctors and menace said doctor's family members,
though. The difference between extremist evangelical Christians and
extremist Muslims is that the evangelicals, fortunately, live in a
society where the law won't let them do whatever they feel like
doing.
and
Luckily, this lunatic wasn't elected and is unlikely to ever be
elected. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there aren't
people in America who would be just as loony as the Muslim
fanatics, if only they had the chance.
Do you really, truly believe this tripe, Jennifer? I mean,
you seem to be a rather intelligent person. But this is roughly on
par with some pronouncements of...Pat Robertson.
Which is it, Jennifer? Are Evangelicals an odd fringe group that
don't represent mainstream America, or are they an oppressive
majority that, given the chance, would force a Taliban-like
existence on everyone who doesn't convert? They can't be
both.
The difference between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims
(besides the fact that there are many more of the latter as opposed
to the former) is that the overwhelming majority of Christians
don't support their whackos.
|2.15.06 @ 2:54PM|#
Holly,
A few weeks ago somebody in a Hit and Run thread posted a link to a
list of his presidential proposals. I have had no luck finding it
myself; however, if you Google "Pat Robertson" and "church
tribunal" you'll find ample coverage of his scary proposal.
Luckily, as I said before, America's modern political climate is
such that someone like this is unlikely to be elected. But things
can change, and if Robertsonian Christians took over this country
they'd be just as bad as the Islamic fundamentalists are.
There's nothing inherent to Christianity or Islam that makes one
religion peaceful and the other violent; it all has to do with how
much political power is mixed in with that religion.
|2.15.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Are Evangelicals an odd fringe group that don't represent
mainstream America, or are they an oppressive majority that, given
the chance, would force a Taliban-like existence on everyone who
doesn't convert?
This is what is known as a "false dichotomy," Holly. What I said
was that if Christianity got the same political power in this
country that Islam has in other countries, you'd see the same sort
of behavior. Fortunately, our laws are based on secular laws, not
religious laws.
|2.15.06 @ 3:08PM|#
Were he a Muslim cleric would you have considered Pat Robertson's comments about Hugo Chavez a fatwa?
|2.15.06 @ 3:09PM|#
It seems to me the difference between Muslim fundamentalists and Biblical fundamentalists is that the Muslims aren't afraid to carry out the barbaric morality described in their Holy Book. The fact that Biblical fundamentalists aren't killing homosexuals, adulterers, kids who disrespect their parents, and people who work on the Sabbath (as is called for in the Old Testament, and which Jesus confirmed in Matthew 5:17) I think probably has a lot to do with the fact that our government wouldn't tolerate it. I'm sure there are many other reasons that Muslim fundamentalists are more likely to act out on their barbaric beliefs.
|2.15.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Considering all the hype around Robertson, I'd have to see a
pdf copy of the original, unedited transcript before I'd believe
that one.
And since you're not likely to find a PDF transcript of an event
that occurred 20 years ago, you don't have to believe it.
But here's a hypothetical question: let's say that in some
alternate universe Pat Robertson DID get elected, and DID set up
these special church tribunals. Do you think that in this case, we
wouldn't see crimes committed in the name of Christianity? Do you
still think evil religious-based governments would still be
exclusive to Islam, or do you think it might be possible for people
to do horrible things in the name of Jesus?
|2.15.06 @ 11:17PM|#
Thanks, Cap'n Obvious, except that I just realized that I left
out a key line at the end:
DENMARK: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy. Let the
Muslims win.
|2.16.06 @ 2:54AM|#
Do you think it might be possible for people to do horrible
things in the name of Jesus?
Never happened, never will.
|2.16.06 @ 3:49AM|#
To back up Jennifer on Pat Robertson's "Church Tribunal" notion,
I found the following:
In a September of 1984 edition of The 700 Club, Robertson
suggested that special church tribunals could be called upon to
discern if a believer had in fact received an authentic word from
God which compelled him to break a civil law. According to
Robertson, if this church tribunal did determine the believer had
in fact received an authentic message from God - how they could
reach this conclusion without issuing God a subpoena wasn't made
clear - then, Robertson said, the church tribunal would have the
civil authority to provide the believer with immunity from
prosecution.
Full text can be found here and other references can be
found here and
here.
|2.16.06 @ 4:03AM|#
Oh, hooray. That's exactly what we need: a more permissive
attitude toward people betraying and stabbing each other in the
back. That will truly foster a more civil society.
Yeah, because it's so much more honest to remain in a loveless
marriage after you relize that you don't want to fuck the same
person for the rest of your life.
Yeah, those Europeans really just go with the flow... as long
as the flow is setting fire to cars.
What the hell do the recent French Riots have anything to do with
European sexual attitudes? When last I checked the riots where
committed by long-suffering Middle Eastern immigrants, not French
adulterers.
Of course, I don't expect logic from Christards...
|2.16.06 @ 4:09AM|#
Oh! I forgot to comment on another of Amanda's inane
remarks:
Guys? Do me a favor and work a little harder to make the
libertine/libertarian cliche a little less true?
Why? So we can end up as prudish and anal retentive as you and
Captain Holly? Without the sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, we
libertarians might as just become Republicans. In my experience,
you can't be a very credible "libertarian" without being an
enthusiastic "libertine."
|2.16.06 @ 11:24AM|#
But here's a hypothetical question: let's say that in some
alternate universe Pat Robertson DID get elected, and DID set up
these special church tribunals.
Oh great, it's the "if it could happen in an alternate universe, it
could happen here" line of argument. Perhaps also known as the
"First they came for the goateed Vulcans" school of debate.
|2.16.06 @ 12:33PM|#
Oh great, it's the "if it could happen in an alternate
universe, it could happen here" line of argument. Perhaps also
known as the "First they came for the goateed Vulcans" school of
debate.
Did you even read the rest of my statement? Do you not understand
the concepts of "hypothetical question" and "context"?
Apparently not.
|2.16.06 @ 12:56PM|#
"Were he a Muslim cleric would you have considered Pat
Robertson's comments about Hugo Chavez a fatwa?" - SPD
No, even tho he's clearly as nutty as a fatwa-issuing imam, Pat was
advocating the GOV'T take out Chavez not appealing to all faithful
followers to go out and find a way to kill the guy.
The gov't just shrugged at Pat and went on with whatever it was
doing. But there are millions of folks who take a fatwa as
seriously as Moses did the burning bush...
|2.16.06 @ 11:17PM|#
In my experience, you can't be a very credible "libertarian"
without being an enthusiastic "libertine."
Why? There are plenty of leftist and rightwing libertines who don't
give a damn about anyone's else's freedom, unless it's to buy a
copy of their magazine.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245