U.S. Embassy In Cairo Apologizes For Our Failure to Execute Blasphemers

Effluvia

Look, you folks over in the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, I know how it is.

First of all, you're diplomats. You're conditioned to believe you've got to eat the shit sandwich now and then, and to apologize for stuff other Americans do so that relations don't break down. I get that sometimes preventing relations from breaking down saves lives and property and trade and stuff.

I also get that you've been attacked by a howling mob that vastly outnumbers you, you have very limited defenses, and the willingness of the local constabulary to protect your lives is in doubt.

So I'm not going to fault you if you sweat and stammer and need a few minutes to get it together. It's scary. I understand.

But you know what? I'm not going to sit by quietly when you issue a pusillanimous press release misstating and abandoning core American values.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Every sentence of this is chock-full of un-American bullshit. Yes, I said un-American. And I meant it.

First, U.S. Embassy in Cairo, you issued this because a mob attacked you because its members were angry about a movie they heard is being made. Mob violence against disfavored speech shouldn't result in a timorous "we're sorry you were offended" from the United States government. That encourages more violence, thus endangering people everywhere, and reinforces a view of speech that I will very deliberately call inferior and barbaric. You have no business whatsoever underming perhaps the most important American civic value.

Second, your second sentence is either a complete non-sequitur or a further capitulation. Do you mean to pronounce, on behalf of the government, that there's a "fitting" way and wrong way to commemorate 9/11, and that expression that offends people is the wrong way? We don't need the government to tell us that, thank you.

Third, "[r]espect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy" is a false statement. Respect for the freedom to worship — along with freedom of expression — is a cornerstone of American democracy. Government-enforced displays of respect, or government protection from offense, are not cornerstones of American democracy.

Fourth, the statement that you "firmly reject" expression you don't like is either totalitarian or meaningless. If it just means "we don't agree" it's meaningless. If it means "we may yield to your censorious demands, or wink at the violence you employ to retaliate against speech you don't like," it's totalitarian. Moreover, the formulation is insipid and accepts the central but unsustainable premise of the censorious mob. Rude speech can hurt feelings. But it is impossible to "hurt the religious belief of others" by speech. That belief either exists or does not. Here the U.S. Embassy's statement accepts and promotes the narrative of the censors: that religious people (and, let's be frank, mostly people from one religion) have a protected right to be free of people saying things they don't like. That's vile and dangerous, and damn you as traitors for endorsing it.

Let me point out, furthermore, that you're apologizing to a mob even though it's not clear what movie they are complaining about, or whether the movie was ever produced or released. Perhaps you mean to apologize to them for being from a country where it is possible that such a movie could have been made without its producer being jailed or stoned to death.

This is no small thing. The United States is in a struggle against forces that would like to demand that it abandon its tradition of freedom of expression and accept instead an unprincipled regime under which people have a right not to be offended. You're fighting for the other side — the side of mobs, censors, and their enablers and apologists at the U.N.

Shame on you.

Edited September 12: A few updates. First, the mob-led murder of State Department employees in Libya illuminates the stakes here. Second, further information suggest that the mobs were angry about a virulently anti-Islam film made by a man named Sam Bacile, which I offer as a point of clarification and not as any sort of justification or excuse. Third, several commenters pointed out that emerging facts suggest the Embassy in Cairo put out the statement before the mob attack, not after. If nothing else, that calls into question the alleged value of such conciliatory language.

Further edited: Subsequent evidence suggests strongly that mob attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were coordinated for political effect by terrorists, not spontaneous reactions to any film.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

223 Comments

218 Comments

  1. Pablo  •  Sep 11, 2012 @5:21 pm

    Apparently, this is the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sQPRtS2h7k&feature=player_embedded

    I can't imagine why an Egyptian Copt would have a problem with Islam, aside from the fact that its adherents are relentlessly trying to eliminate Copts from Egypt.

  2. Chris Berez  •  Sep 11, 2012 @5:54 pm

    Well said, Ken, as always. Very well said.

  3. PhilG  •  Sep 11, 2012 @6:09 pm

    I've missed you Ken.

  4. TJIC  •  Sep 11, 2012 @6:44 pm

    Employees of a vast socialist freedom-hating government that engages in un-Constitutional acts daily are careerist, socialist, and freedom-hating, and piss on the Constitution?

    Why does this not surprise me?

    Why DOES this surprise anyone?

  5. Sue  •  Sep 11, 2012 @6:52 pm

    Thank you, Ken.
    Nice to have you back saying stuff some people think of but can't say even half as well as you do. You have a wonderful way with words.

  6. Robert White  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:13 pm

    Dear Stupid Muslims: (No not all of you, just the stupid among you):

    Is the Koran flawed? Are you allowed to change and edit it at whim or will to suit your needs? If you are not sure of this question, look over at the smart Muslims and copy from their answers.

    The correct answer is "no".

    So when the Koran, or indeed the writings of The Prophet, say that "the faithful" should not make images of Muhammed, are you allowed to just cross out those two words? Check again with your smarter brethren.

    The correct answer is "no".

    Now you should be _ashamed_ that a freaking _atheist_ like my self has to send you back to Islam school like this, but I sort of read your books a little and I sort of paid attention. Perhaps you should have as well.

    If the Koran and The Prophet are flawless in these writings, then you can't go around saying that the admonishments not address to the faithless should be applied to the faithless. In short, you should Stop Your Own Blasphemy. Stop sullying th Koran and The Prophet by putting words to their credit that they did not speak.

    I can get a cartoon depiction of Muhammad on my dick if I wanted.

    The particular restriction placed on the _faithful_, admonishing them to make no image of Mohammad, lest they fall in idol worship to the Prophet insted of the revelation which is the Koran is violated both in spirit and fact with your elevation of his image, made by others, into a sacred transgression.

    You are faithless to believe Islam so weak as to be threatened by a wisp of film.

    Signed,
    An Atheist who is takes your faith more seriously than you seem to…

  7. Robert White  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:17 pm

    P.S. If it wasn't clear, that is the press release that should have issued. And it should have issued from that dutch newspaper so many years ago.

  8. Robert White  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:30 pm

    @Pablo — Okay, that was possibly the worst piece of film I have seen in a long time. Someone should burn something after that…

    But at least the guy who (infamously) had his head face and neck tattooed with a slave hood and collar (and his nipples surrounded by nautical stars for some apparently unrelated reason) is getting work somewhere…

  9. Ariel  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:37 pm

    "Every sentence of this is chock-full of un-American bullshit. Yes, I said un-American. And I meant it."

    Welcome to the United States of America State Department. We do not represent anything about America, none of the ideals, we only try to exist within whatever abysmal political abortion we are assigned to, and will adopt any method to do so. We represent nothing you were taught in American Civics, but we will continue because we are, ultimately, a bureaucracy, and deserve existence because we are. We will continue.

    We hate British TV, because their parody is wrong about bureaucracy. We are America, we continue.

    We are Daleks. (Voguns are pikers.)

  10. Robert White  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:42 pm

    The only describable function of the state department, as near as I can tell, is to trick other countries into passing copies of the laws (like the DMCA) that trash our economy while excepting everyone from any of the laws that protect people or the environment.

  11. Chris Berez  •  Sep 11, 2012 @8:02 pm

    Apparently now the White House is saying the statement was never cleared and that it does not reflect the views of the U.S. government. So… yay? Kind of?

  12. ttl  •  Sep 11, 2012 @8:24 pm

    Kind of indeed Chris.

    " The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/white-house-disavows-cairo-apology-135247.html

  13. Tarrou  •  Sep 11, 2012 @8:29 pm

    Abject, disgusting, filthy cowardice. The rankest pile of steaming offal to yet emerge from the brain (and I use the word loosely) of a pusillanimous shitbird since Chamberlain. If he grew three testicles, he'd be half a man. I do not say this lightly. I am ashamed of my nation.

  14. repsac3  •  Sep 11, 2012 @8:44 pm

    I support the rights of all who call members of other religions or political factions child molesters or animal fuckers, burn flags or religious texts, urinate on or masturbate with religious icons, or otherwise intentionally offend whole groups of people for artistic or political purposes.

    But, like folks who walk through crime-ridden neighborhoods flashing money and expensive jewelry, having the right to do a thing doesn't justify the wisdom of actually doing it.

    Yeah, folks have the free speech right to say bigoted and offensive things free of US govenment reprisal. I wish all countries were as free. Bigotry in response to bigotry is never a good idea, no matter who started it or whose bigotry or reaction to bigotry is worse.

    I don't avoid pissing on or burning bibles, korans, crosses, flags, or drawings of Mohammed because of how the US or any other government would react if i did… I avoid doing so because that shit is offensive to the people who hold those items and what they represent sacred, and because i'd prefer to act the way i expect others to act toward me…even if they don't return the favor. (I'm responsible for what *I* do, not what they do. I have no intention of lowering my standards for them–or for myself, either–whatever they may do…)

    I get where Ken, etc. are coming from…but i see the embassy's point, as well–no matter how poorly they attempted to make it. Free speech isn't diminshed, but upheld, when folks respond to bigoted speech with speech that affirms the right to speak like a bigot, but condemns the bigoted speech, as well.

  15. repsac3  •  Sep 11, 2012 @8:54 pm

    (It should be obvious that nothing i said defends or excuses the violent reaction of those Muslims who attacked either embassy… But i guess I ought to affirmatively say so, lest i be accused. My response was to the embassy statements and responses to them, and NOT to the violence and vandalism of the protesters, which is inexcusable and indefensible every single time it occurs and whatever the ostensible "reason" for it.)

  16. EBL  •  Sep 11, 2012 @9:41 pm
  17. Ae Viescas  •  Sep 11, 2012 @10:42 pm

    Gasp! Indeed! How dare someone APOLOGIZE for SOMEONE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH while working for the US Government!

    Apologies are un-American, you see.

  18. Adrian Ratnapala  •  Sep 11, 2012 @11:01 pm

    While I agree generally, don't you think headline of the post is over the top? Its not really clear what the embassy is apologising for, but I think it is definitely not the failure to hang anybody.

    Another question: It's all very well posting this on a website for people who already agree with Ken's views. But how can this be used to actually embarrass the State Department and make them think twice in future?

    Bill O'Reilly to the rescue?

  19. Ae Viescas  •  Sep 11, 2012 @11:05 pm

    @Adrian You probably shouldn't say "his" name unless you're willing for the next headline to be EVEN WORSE.

  20. John Locke  •  Sep 11, 2012 @11:35 pm

    Not to rain on the parade of people looking for examples of how bad the State Department might be, but the offending press release was apparently issued prior to the riot on the Embassy.

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/" title=">http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/"

    Before the protesters attacked the compound, the U.S. mission in Cairo issued said in a statement: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” Later, the embassy’s official Twitter feed condemned both the provocative film and the attack on the compound.

    It's still not the right response to a stupid religious zealot trying to whip up religious hatred (Terry Jones), but it was apparently issued prior to the riot and thus not an "apology" in that sense. Viewed in the pre-riot context in which it was issued, it was probably seen as the best way to criticize an asshole's choice of speech. Remember, criticizing the choice of speech exercised isn't censorship, even if it's the government doing the criticism (unless the criticism carries the threat of censorship behind it, which doesn't seem to be the case here – we can re-vist that if the situation changes and anti-muslim protestors become the hated minority in the US).

  21. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @2:44 am

    Is what the embassy in Cairo did deplorable? Yes, without a doubt.

    What is really getting old for me though is all the people that immediately say that the President said it when there is no doubt he did not. In fact the White House said that the embassy did it without clearance. Yet even here where I find that most of the readers tend to be of above average intelligence still push that somehow this was the Presidents fault.

    Yes we get it you do not like him. But you cannot turn around and argue that anything that is done that you like he had no hand in and everything you don't like is 100% his fault.

    As someone who until this year was a registered Republican it is people like this that are ruining the party. When the GOP decided to allow it's ranks to be infiltrated by the tea party and then took their views and made it the party stance the GOP was destined to be doomed.

    The GOP that argues that the Muslims are hate filled and should be removed due to some extremists are at the exact same time allowing themselves to be ran by extremists. The really sad part is the resemblance between the Tea Party and Al Quida. (Yes I understand I am pissing off a lot of people by saying this) You have the leaders of the tea party arguing that their religion is right and the US was founded on it and if you don't like it gtfo, that the vote of the opposite political party should be limited, or that women's health choices should be limited because they don't like it. At the same time we are waging a war against people doing the exact same thing.

    You have money controlling the election, you have candidates who lie about even the stupidest things, such as the time they ran a marathon in, and are running on policies that they will not discuss the details of. The party complains that the President has not been tough enough on terror then when leaks come showing he was the argument switches to he doesn't care about national security.

    I may not like a lot of the policies that the President has but I have to say he has more backbone then just about anyone I have met.

    Just imagine for a second you are CEO of a company. The board of directors refuses to approve anything you put out and flat out says they don't like you so they will do everything to make you fail. Of course when you can't get anything passed, they immediately blame you for not doing your job. So what do you do, you find a loophole that at least lets you get some stuff done, so they now complain you are side stepping them and hate this country.

    Since when has the good of the USA been about politics? When did we decide it was ok to stop the government from doing it's just just because we didn't like who was in charge. The US I was taught about in history would have never let this happen. The country I believe in puts it citizens above politics.

    Now I know many are already saying how I am a 'libtard hippy that doesn't understand what America is about'. To that I would argue that you are correct, I don't know what 'this' America is about, I don't recognize it any more. I would also remind you that I am a partially disabled veteran who would give my life for this country. The day I was medically discharged was the beginning of the hardest time in my life and I went into a deep depression over it for a few years before I was able to get back up and continue on.

    There is not a day that goes by that I do not wish I was still in, not a day goes by that I do not feel the pain of my injury and even though I got out almost 9 years ago now I have only just started to really sleep through the nights with waking up 3 or 4 times.

    During 9/11 while so many were shocked from what they saw on TV I got to see an entirely different side. I was going through Basic Training at Ft. Benning. While the world was watching what was happening on TV and talking about it, we heard one thing and one thing only "The US was just attacked, they went after New York". We lost all outside communications immediately. At first I thought it was just a mind game, then we looked up and saw all of the planes / helicopters taking off with the Rangers in them. We found out later in the day that they were all taken and disbursed to other bases / non disclosed locations because the initial intelligence was we were being attacked by China. We were given rifles that afternoon and told to shoot at any plane that moved. They believed we were the next target (which would make sense with Benning housing the Infantry and the Rangers). It took two days before we got any more information about what happened and even then it was real unclear and little was told.

    I have always had nothing but pride in my country and what we did. But seeing the way that we have become split and are fighting against each other actually is worse for me than anything else I went through. I can always hope that one day the country will heal and this in fighting will be a thing of the past. I only hope that this happens before we fall well behind the other countries in the world.

    So go on say what you wish, I can guarantee that nothing you say will ever top what I was told by my Drill Sargent (they really do take the whole break you down and build you up thing seriously). But once you are done, forget what you have heard on the media, they all lie, and look up facts, read the numbers, understand them. Then go and find someone you know that you completely disagree with politically and have a real discussion with them about how to make this country great like it once was. Find a common ground with them and then encourage them to do the same with others. Take a look at things from the other side. But most of all be courteous, they are a US Citizen and have the right to their opinion just as much as you do.

    You cannot have an informed opinion on an issue until you can understand all sides of the issue. Believe me when I say that watching any 1 station for news will not give you even the full story from a single side and watching all the networks will not tell you half of what is really there. The news networks are there to make money, the more they enrage you the more money they make. They will twist the facts and even flat out lie to make a buck. Don't be a fool and repeat what you hear. Educate yourself and understand what is really going on.

    The only way this country has a chance at remaining great is if we educate ourselves and come to an agreement that all sides can work with.

    Sorry for the long rant, but if I discuss it just about anywhere you get people who refuse to look at anything they disagree with and do nothing but flame the other side. This blog is one of the few that tends to have a readership that is at the very least above average when it comes to intelligence.

  22. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @2:46 am

    @Adrian What will embarrassing the state department do? Not a thing, the White house already came out against it. Not even 24hrs has passed and you are complaining about it. How about you give the White House some time to gather all the facts and then take appropriate action?

  23. LB  •  Sep 12, 2012 @4:46 am

    Your legal analysis is far more interesting and correct. So let's think about this, shall we? Let's pretend that you're in a fortified compound in the Middle East. Further, you're in a US embassy. Then pretend that that compound is surrounded by pissed off people who want to do you harm. Don't you think that you might use some sort of conciliatory language, especially if news of the American death at the US embassy in Lebanon had already filtered back? And especially since the only alternative to conciliatory language, in terms of reducing the threat from the pissed-off crowd, would be to start firing on protesting citizens of a country that we're not at war with. These types of statements by yourself and others that I have seen are EXACTLY what these Muslim Brotherhood-backed protestors wanted. You are doing exactly what they want. I can imagine the discussion back at MB HQ, "Ah, if we surround their embassy they'll probably say something conciliatory. And since this is the anniversary of 9/11, other Americans will view that conciliatory language as an affront to their sensibilities." You've heard, I'm sure, the old saw about dived we fall, united we stand? Basically, with one death and a little rabble rousing these dudes were able to do away with the type of American unity that I remember on 9/11 and which crops up with every anniversary.

  24. Damon  •  Sep 12, 2012 @4:46 am

    So the protesters stormed the wall and burned a flag. So what. They had their fun. If they'd had gotten inside the building (described as a "fortress") I'd have some heartburn. Sounds like the walls need to be raised in height.

    Really? Outnumbered? Do not the marines securing the building not have access to SAWs or .30 Cal machine guns? Christ, this wasn't like a buch of folks comming over the walls with RPGs.

  25. Tarrou  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:13 am

    I'm not sure why Cairo is getting the top headlines, but the protests in Benghazi are much worse, our consulate is burned, our ambassador has been killed, along with several others, and mobs are still looting the ruins. So yes, Damon, people are coming over the walls with RPGs, just not in that particular rabid islamic mob.

  26. Demosthenes  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:23 am

    Let's start by saying that I agree with you about sentences 1 and 4.

    As to sentence 2, is it your position that "honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation" is NOT a "fitting response" to 9/11? Yes, yes, I'm aware of where you made your stand on that sentence. But is it possible…just possible…that maybe the government was trying to describe people's actual behavior, instead of trying to dictate it?

    And as for sentence 3:

    "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy."

    If you seriously believe that sentence contains any un-American content, then allow me to return your last sentiment. Shame on you.

  27. shg  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:26 am

    There are moments in time when, in an effort to stem imminent hostility, vague prudence prevails over the demand for nuanced expression of American ideals.

    An explanation of why the statement was misguided is understandable. An attack on the statement of this magnitude was unnecessary and perhaps naive and simplistic, despite the applause of the angry townsfolk, torches and pitchforks always at the ready.

  28. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:29 am

    "The United States would like to remind the government of Egypt that by both custom and international treaty it is required to defend all embassies within its national borders and that failure to do so can be considered an act of war. The Unites States would also like to remind all observers that we recently rolled up the largest army in the Middle East, then considered by some to the the forth largest army in the world, in a matter of two weeks.

    Gentlemen, get your rabble under control or we will replace you with somebody who will. You want to play nice with us, because you do not want us to stop playing nice with you."

    *sigh*

    If we would come out with hard words a little before we actually got mad, it would save everybody SO much grief later.

    Oh, well, I can dream, can't I?

  29. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:51 am

    Using freedom of speech to criticize, condemn, mock, or belittle the religious faith of violent, ignorant, illiterate morons, whether in Cairo or Kentucky, is not an "abuse" of free speech. It is one of the most, if you will pardon the term, sacred purposes of it. When you apologized for Americans having the audacity to say something a bunch of imbecilic third-world peasants couldn't fit their uneducated pseudo-brains around, you disgraced your office. There is no need for apology, no need for excuses, no need for politeness. There is no need to claim to "understand" the mindless violence of the howling mob, no need to "see their point of view", no need to offer them a hint of sympathy or respect. If they can't deal with the fact they are living in a global community where they will be constantly exposed to ideas they do not like, let them crawl back into their caves. Your role as the spokesperson for American foreign policy is to tell them that if they continue to unleash violence against American citizens, we will create the caves for them. Well, craters, really, but you get the idea.

    I have many strong and continued disagreements with the policies of the Obama administration, but, unlike many of its critics, I have never considered it to be unamerican or anti-American. Until now. Your craven apology to those who would respond to ideas with violence shames your office. Resign.

  30. Tarrou  •  Sep 12, 2012 @5:57 am

    Both the Ambassador to Egypt and whoever drafted that abject bit of spineless drivel should be fired, stripped of citizenship, and ejected from the embassy to apologize to the mob in person. Good luck and Darwin bless.

  31. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:01 am

    @shg: The rioters responded to ideas with violence, including the murder of a US citizen on embassy grounds — in other words, on American soil. The time for "nuance" is well past. They went well past any line where there is any room for negotiation, politeness, or the meeting of the minds. When a shouting match turns into a boxing match, it's too late to consider the best way to phrase your response, and 100% of the moral culpability falls on the man who threw the first punch.

    I repeat what I said above, because I've learned that, on the Internet, the strength of an argument is based on how many times you say it. We — all of us, all 7+ billion of us — are living in a world linked by global communications. Echoing the issue of the CDA on a planetary scale, we either reduce all speech to that which offends no one, or we accept that we will be constantly assaulted with speech we find offensive (such as how offensive I find the State Dept.'s apology) and that we learn to deal with it. No one should be asked to be silent or meek when confronted with ideas they find offensive, but they can be asked to not use force in response, and if they can't manage that, then, they must leave the global community. If they refuse to leave of their own free will, they must be evicted. That's that.

  32. Shane  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:07 am

    @Robert,

    You are the best. I could never figure out why a religious text would be so worried about it's prophet image. I was to lazy to go find out why and you have provided the answer. I am often surprised how things get so twisted, and deviate so far from original intent.

  33. Carl Regan  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:07 am

    I have a lot of respect for your opinion after reading your blog for several years. I have agreed with your First Amendment comments completely.

    Having said that, I do not agree with this post at all. Nothing was said in that press release about denying the makers of the film their right to make it. The government can not interfere with the film makers rights to make their film, however nothing in the First Amendment prevents the government from expressing an opinion of the film or the film makers.

    I have no problem with my government issuing a statement that separates us as a country from the opinions of some bigoted fools.

    Having said that, I'm very happy to see you back at the keyboard and I look forward to future posts.

  34. GDad  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:40 am

    Ken,

    I hope you can come back more often.

  35. Frank  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:51 am

    I'm not the least bit ashamed of my nation, as Tarrou is. I'm ashamed of its representatives. My nation is made up of a lot of good, decent people who respect others.
    I suspect that's what Tarrou meant, though.
    Bless you Ken for writing this piece and putting these people in their place, even if only in your reader's minds.

  36. Josh M.  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:52 am

    Wow. I would normally be rather upset by Ken's ranting and raving about a press release like this. I initially thought that it was merely a portion of it that he was ranting about.

    I was wrong. Wow. That was the ENTIRETY of the PR?!?! Dafuq. Yes, respecting others' religious beliefs is a civil and respectful thing to do. It is not required, especially when those same religious beliefs are being used as an excuse to do violence against people who had nothing to do with the particular thing you're pissed off about! In fact, that would seem to me to be a perfect reason to denigrate someone's religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs cause you to completely forego all reason in your actions you deserve to be mocked as a frightened, paranoid reactionary.

    I'm going to go and fume for a few minutes and write a more appropriate press release. That will help me feel better. Argh.

  37. Jonathan Kamens  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:53 am

    I have been led to believe that the statement about which Ken is so incensed was released by the embassy _before_ the attack on it, in an attempt to calm the situation and prevent violence.
    Perhaps I have been misled. However, if that is true then I think it casts things in a somewhat different light.

  38. Tarrou  •  Sep 12, 2012 @7:11 am

    Mr. Kamens, that is exactly what makes it so cowardly and groveling. When the crowds started to gather, the correct and effective response would be to deploy the medium machine guns, go to 100% security and issue a statement that said "You're pissed off, but this is sovereign US soil, so fuck off before a lot of people get hurt". The slimy and appeasing approach doesn't work, as has been amply demonstrated by the events of the past 24 hours. The fact that ANYONE breached the embassy walls without having to crawl over fifty yards of bodies is a national disgrace.

  39. David Schwartz  •  Sep 12, 2012 @7:33 am

    Demosthenes: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy."

    I have the religious belief that god wants anyone who sees you to kill you on sight, preferably slowly and painfully. Is it unAmerican for you not to respect that belief?

  40. Matt  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:02 am

    Sorry, no sympathy for them at all. I've got some sympathy for the folks in the Libyan consulate, who DIED.

    Know what? You leave the United States on an official government passport and take up office in one of our embassies or consulates overseas? This might happen to you. It was a risk you assumed when you joined the Foreign Service. It's not like you were drafted. You VOLUNTEERED for this job. The higher up you are in the bureaucratic hierarchy of the State Department, the more likely it is that some portion of your position was obtained through means other than fully honest, above-board, and meritocratic. Strings, in other words, were probably pulled on your behalf, to get you to where you are. So own it. Don't start crying about the downsides and the risks, like you've been asleep since 1979.

    As an American, I sincerely hope that it doesn't kill you or even put you in imminent peril of death. But as a human being, I'd hope you would have the cojones to do the right thing, if and when it does.

    We should mourn those who gave their lives in Libya. Those in Egypt, who sold out their country's principles instead? To hell with them.

  41. Ken  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:11 am

    Posted a few updates inspired and informed by your comments. Thanks.

  42. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:11 am

    I need to make a quick apology/correction on my first post. Somehow, I'd gotten it locked into my skull that the press release from the embassy was issued directly by the state department, i.e, it represented a high-level US official making a formal response that represented the opinion of the current administration. This is a straightforward factual mistake on my part; I can only attribute it to first reading this article late at night, and something getting jumbled in my brain, to the point where I didn't bother to re-read the article or double-check the salient points of the memo before composing a response. It was stupid, emotionally motivated, and cannot be justified or weaseled out of. (Conspiracy theorists in the audience, take note: This is what humans do. They misread things. They conflate ideas. They merge concepts. They form false memories that contradict reality, even about very recent events. Thus, any event will generate contradictions, differing accounts, misstatements, and things that don't fit, and if anything would point to a conspiracy, it would be perfect uniformity of accounts. (This is a general statement, and not an implication there's any conspiracy-mongering about current events, though I'm sure that someone has already laid out a 10,000 word essay about how this is all part of the Illuminati's plan.)

    So, Ms. Clinton, as far as I can tell, does not yet deserve the level of opprobrium I directed at her for this event.

    Isn't it a good thing that when I get mad at someone else's speech or ideas, I reply by writing, not rioting? People can't easily control their emotions, but they can control what actions they take in response to their emotions.

  43. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:17 am

    " If nothing else, that calls into question the alleged value of such conciliatory language. "

    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html

  44. b  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:22 am

    TJIC, if I excerpt the hilarious uses of "socialist" in your quote, the rest of it would apply fully to the previous administration. And I further believe that a similar (and essentially harmless on its face) PR would have been put out by embassy personnel during the last administration's tenure.

  45. En Passant  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:31 am

    shg wrote Sep 12, 2012 @5:26 am:

    An explanation of why the statement was misguided is understandable. An attack on the statement of this magnitude was unnecessary and perhaps naive and simplistic, despite the applause of the angry townsfolk, torches and pitchforks always at the ready.

    Those who advocate, regardless how stridently, against a supinely apologetic government response to attacks upon its own citizens abroad are not the ones who have "torches and pitchforks always at the ready". The latter are those attacking and killing American citizens abroad.

  46. b  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:33 am

    Sigh. Yesterday, I proudly shared your year-ago 9/11 article with people. And today I show up and this near-Fox-News-worthy, the-Hottentots-are-coming, and, yes, pearl-clutching alarmist response greets me today.

    I come here because, when all is said and done and the invitations to taint-sniffing have been issued, usually cooler heads are sharing constructive opinions. Today that is somewhat less true, in my opinion.

    Some unsolicited and probably dumb advice, as an aside, is contacting bvierra, assuming what he wrote wasn't cribbed from someone else or completely fictitious (no offense, bvierra) and offer to guest-post his above response on its own, particularly because of its relevance this week.

  47. Leslie  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:33 am

    Thanks Ken, so very glad you're back.

  48. EBL  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:46 am
  49. mojo  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:46 am

    "The Arab is either at your feet or at your throat."

    The Brits were imperialistic a$$holes, but they weren't stupid.

  50. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @8:57 am

    One of the major issues that I have with religion is that people will start wars / kill anyone who disagrees with them on the basis that they insulted / wronged said religion. Just about every religion has and will do this even to this day.

    It is amazing to me how close this resembles US school shootings. You have 1 person who feels picked on (Islam Extremists) who continually walk the fine line of taking a gun to school and shooting it up. You then have the other group of people (The US) who do 1 of 2 things, ignore them or possibly feel empathy for them but never really do anything to get them help, or they make more fun of them (The anti-Islamists) with the defense that it is legal for them to do so. When said picked on person has had enough the shoot up the school and everyone condemns it and gets mad at that person yet you have a number of people who tend to stand up for them, if they were not picked on this would have not happened, etc.

    Somehow though in this case no one stands up for them, which I completely understand, however why are we now mad at those that are condemning the ones picking on them? No one said that we need to get the people who made the movie to stop. No one said they should be prosecuted. No one said what they did was illegal. No one called for their arrest.

    Do not get me wrong, these attacks are horrible and we should retaliate in some way. But since when have we started blaming the victim? I personally think what they said was a 3 on the scale of 1 – 10, with 1 being who cares and 10 being someone needs to fire their dumb ass now.

  51. shg  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:06 am

    En Passant wrote Sep 12, 2012 @8:31 am:

    Those who advocate, regardless how stridently, against a supinely apologetic government response to attacks upon its own citizens abroad are not the ones who have "torches and pitchforks always at the ready". The latter are those attacking and killing American citizens abroad.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. It's very hard to see the similarities between oneself and one's enemies. After all, they fight for evil and you fight for righteousness, so it must be entirely different.

  52. Ken  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:09 am

    "The Arab is either at your feet or at your throat."

    The Brits were imperialistic a$$holes, but they weren't stupid.

    This is straight-up bigotry, and I condemn it.

  53. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:13 am

    @b No offense taken, it was and still is my life, I have no reason to make it up or steal it. I don't personally think it's post worthy but that is me.

  54. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:31 am

    @shg: The differences are not hard to see.

    We use words.
    They use weapons.

    This is not a subtle difference, nor is it merely one of degree.

    Those who conflate speech and violence, or to claim there's no difference between a protest and a riot, are so self-evidently specious that it's hard to grant them an assumption of stupidity rather than malevolence.

  55. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:34 am

    @Ken,

    It is interesting that they've gone a step further to talk about "offending" people as if that's a crime. I wonder if that's where free speech is heading, where "feelings" trump speech.

    @Robert White,

    Unfortunately the Qur`an is not the only source of Islamic Law. You also have the Sunnah and hadith which can often be every bit as valid as the Qur`an as long as they don't disagree.

    The Qur`an is the primary source followed by the Sunnah/Hadith if the Qur`an doesn't approach a topic or doesn't expound on it fully. Sunnah may sometimes be synonymous with Hadith but the various Hadiths are generally considered to be less established according to who you talk to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah

    Shariah law actually gives a scale of importance and authority to various forms of Hadith from actions all Muslims MUST practice to actions that are recommended (for example, Mohammad brushed his teeth and so there is actually an associated hadith and degree of religoius importance to brushing your teeth).

    Unfortunately, Iconoclasm was established directly by Mohammad during the invasion of Mecca in 630 and so is considered to be just as much a command as if it were directly in their Qur`an.

    Sunnis and Shi`ites generally disagree on some of the major hadith sources and this presents a lot of the differences in their practices (they hold a different lineage of authority after Mohammad's death so the sources they trust as legitimate would naturally differ).

    You'd be amazed what is in the Qur`an, Sunnah, and Hadiths.

    1. It's permissable to marry a 7 year old girl if you're a 50 year old man and consumate the marriage at age nine (their Prophet did this to his wife Aisha).
    2. It's basically permissable to kill all non-Muslims, non-Christians, non-Jews, and non-Sabians (these other groups are protected in Islamic Scripture, Qur`an 2:62 as long as they pay the additional taxes). As an atheist, I'm sure you love fitting into the "other" category.
    3. It's important to kill any individual who converts away from Islam (some interpretations specify that a woman may be killed or imprisioned until she converts back. Unfortunately any source that disagrees with this is in the small minority).
    4. If your wife disrespects you or goes against your wishes, these are the appropriate steps to follow according to Islam:
    a. Warn her.
    b. Refuse to sleep with her.
    c. Beat her (a modern version I saw added the words "lightly" as if that made it ok. I wonder if anyone killed that translator for the alteration).
    5. General calls to discriminate members of other religions by taxation.

    You may have been told that Islam is a peaceful religion, but not at all by our standards. Most of my Islamic professors wanted to push our Western values on this faith and it simply isn't possible without significant rewriting of their scriptures or sharia laws. This "rewriting" is unbelievably and expressly forbidden. The whole concept of Islam is the "children of the book" where God has come multiple times to Earth and his word has gotten corrupted (Jews, Christians, Sabians) which is why the need for Islam was established. The idea is that Islam is the uncorrupted version and to change anything would demand death.

  56. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:50 am

    @bvierra — Stating that the rioters (or Muslims in general) are the poor, helpless, victims of bullying is disingenuous to a startling degree. The Americans are not dragging Egyptians or Libyans into the bathroom of YouTube, and forcing their heads into the toilet of anti-Islamic twaddle. They *chose* to expose themselves to ideas, in the public forum, which they found disagreeable, and they chose to *commit* *acts* *of* *violence* simply because they knew there existed, in the world, this film.

    If we were discussing a situation where a conquering power had banned the practice of Islam, had forced Muslims into weekly propaganda meetings where Mohammad was mocked, had compelled them to read anti-Muslim tracts or to write essays about "Why Mohammad was a scumbag" or go to jail, then, violent uprisings would be expected and justified. This isn't the case. They are not the victims. They are the bullies, outraged simply because something they do not like *exists*, and unable to deal with its existence except by force.

    It is wrong to hold Obama, or the State Dept, accountable for the mewlings of one random bureaucrat. I did such, based on a poor reading and memory of the facts, and I apologize. I will not, however, offer the rioters the tiniest shred of "sympathy" or "understanding", as the words are normally used, which means "condoning". I "understand" why they did it. It's because they've grown up in a culture where repression of speech by violence, in the form of constant and continuous government censorship, is the norm. They've been taught, from birth, that if someone says something the powerful don't like, they should be beaten, tortured, and shot. When they become a mob, they become powerful, and they act how the powerful have always acted in their experience. Their faith, and the specific trigger event, are pretty meaningless. This was not a rational response to a religious debate. Given their culture, it would not matter if they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Scientologist. Focusing on the trivial details of the imaginary god they worship, or how they believe this imaginary person was insulted, misses the entire point. They have some set of values, X. Something laughed at X. They've been taught that the only response to an unpopular idea is physical force, and that's what they did. It's time to teach them otherwise, not to talk about how sensitive we should be to their hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are not a justification for murder. They're a justification for a quart of ice cream and emo Facebook posts.

    There's really no getting around this: They attacked American citizens on American soil, as far as international law is concerned. What kind of response to that do you think is appropriate? What would, say, China do if a mob of the chronically unemployed killed Chinese representatives at their embassies in America? Discuss how the poor economy in America is partially the fault of cheap Chinese goods, and thus they're somewhat to blame?

  57. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @9:59 am

    @Lizard,

    As I said above (probably while you were writing the above post), due to the Iconoclastic actions of their Prophet it is considered a mandate to destroy any idolatry. The only thing their Prophet preserved in Mecca were Christian images of Mary and Jesus which has allowed a lot of Christian artifacts to survive over the centuries despite a successor of the Prophet mandating even those be destroyed.

    So, this isn't just them being mad that someone is laughing at belief X, it's them following their faith that when you see Y, you do Z (here Y=Idolatry and Z=Destroy it).

    This doesn't make their actions right, I'm just saying that their actions are predictable as part of their tenets of belief.

  58. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:02 am

    @Gavin
    "The idea is that Islam is the uncorrupted version and to change anything would demand death."

    Ever talked to a Baptist about the King James Bible vs. other translations?

    Do you advocate the stoning to death of misbehaving children, homosexuals, and adulterers? How about witches?

    Nothing in your list is any worse than the material in the Christian Bible. And if you claim, "Oh, that old testament stuff doesn't matter", you put yourself at considerable odds with most Christians, who think it does matter. If a Christian claims to oppose homosexuality because it's unbiblical, but then claims to not support the death penalty for homosexuality, they are engaging in profound cognitive dissonance.

    Of course, most Christians don't actually believe in the literal truth of the Bible, even if they claim to. They know that most of it is bullshit, and that the crimes and punishments it mandates are insane and immoral. It would be ridiculous to assume that, if someone claims to be a "Christian", they would actually be willing or able to apply the death penalty for the many things the Bible says they should. A tiny minority of madmen, sure, but not the vast majority, even among the fundamentalists. Likewise, quoting the Koran and assuming a typical Muslim is more likely to be insane than a typical Christian is foolish. If Christians actually followed the literal words of the Bible, all of modern society would be impossible. Why should we believe that the average Muslim is any more prone to actually act on their written beliefs than the average Christian? (And, if they are, does that mean Christians should try to play catch-up?)

  59. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:05 am

    Let me just clarify one point. While I firmly believe and have established that Islam is generally incompatible with other religions, this by no means that there aren't Muslims who interpret things peacefully or who even turn a blind eye to violent commands.

    As a friend of several American Muslims, it is extremely frustrating/enfuriating to see people carrying out hate crimes against them. It is every bit as bad a racism because it's just stereotyping. Please do not consider my words as evidence that all Muslims are somehow bad. Just that Islam itself does call for war-like activities and it very much is against pluralism. There is a reason that a religion that started in Mecca/Medina fought (as in, with a giant-ass army) its way across Africa and into Spain within a century of its inception. Day 1 on the Islamic calendar starts with the invasion of Mecca.

  60. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:16 am

    @Gavin: How does "No man comes to the Father, but through me.", encourage pluralism?

    No religions are compatible. They are conflicting "laws of physics" for the soul. The only reason pluralistic societies work is that religion, in actual practice, is about forming social communities and having rituals that provide order and comfort in life. Actually, deeply, truly, believing in the "holy texts" of any faith, and living by them, is something reserved for the insane. Hypocrisy is how modern society functions, and thank God (heh heh) for it. Without hypocrisy, you have madness. If someone is facing an *infinity* of torment in hell, it is perfectly sane to torture them until they convert, because no amount of torture in this life can equal the torture you've saved them from. If someone is preaching a doctrine which will send someone to hell, then, killing them is absolutely and totally justified, just as you'd kill someone who was randomly spraying bullets at a crowd. What *wouldn't* you do to save someone from *ETERNAL* torment? What CAN'T be justified by that? Infinity>Finity, period.

    If you're (generic you, not any personal reference) sane, then, deep down, you know it's bullshit. You know there's no heaven. You know there's no hell. You know this life is the only you've got, and that it's wrong to kill people except under some narrowly defined circumstances. You may claim to "believe" that there's infinite torment awaiting those who don't share your particular belief system, but you do not actually ACT as if you believe it. If you did, you'd be in an asylum, or dead.

  61. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:19 am

    The biggest problem of mob violence is that a mob is angry… violently angry… at something, but usually something that is out of reach and beyond their control. The violence erupts and manifests as violence directed at someone or something that has only tangential connections, if any at all, to the actual source of the malice. (For example, after the white cops were found not guilty of beating up a black guy, the mobs pulled the first white guy out of a truck and beat him up.

    Lecturing a mob on the finer points of law and logic is not a useful exercise. Apologizing for someone else's misdeeds is basically an attempt to say "hey, me and the guy you're mad at are different people… don't take it out on me. I'm on your side (sorta)". The fact that there's one guy going out of his way to insult Muslims (or any other group) doesn't mean that all of us agree with him, and pointing that fact out is hardly in the same category of unAmerican as, say, supressing him. The policy of the American government is that we (collectively) should not intentionally insult any religious group. This is not the same thing as saying that we (individually) are limited in what we do, think, or say. Nor does our freedom to think or say freely what we choose to imply that the government must approve of it… Rather, our Constitution merely requires the government to tolerate it.

    Obviously, I think the criticism of this statement is out of proportion. The embassy was trying to establish distance between the guy who wants to intentionally insult an entire religious group and the nice people who work at the embassy who do not want to insult an entire religious group. Some see this as knuckling under to the threat of violence, but I don't. Knuckling under would have been if either A) Washington had done something to suppress the original instigator, or B) Washington had offered to produce the instigator for the mob in exchange for safe conduct for the other Americans, or C) we'd cut and run, as Reagan did in Lebanon when the Marines came under attack.

    Filling the streets with bodies would not have established our toughness. It would have hardened the resistance to our presence amongst the moderate Egyptians… the ones who know the difference between one American and the American government, but who remember who made the weapons that were used by their former government to keep the people oppressed.

  62. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:20 am

    @Lizard,

    Does violence being present in other religions somehow negate what I'm saying about this one? Islam is kinda "violent religion" on speed by comparison to many other faiths.

    As a Christian I have given significant thought to what I believe. I believe that I am part of a New Covenant (aka New Testament) and not part of the Jewish Covenant (aka Old Covenant/Testament). I know this because the Jewish Covenant is set up in the form of a Suzerain Treaty (between a Lord and his subjects) and my Covenant specifically discards most of the stipulations of that treaty. For example, I do not sacrifice animals nor do I perform purification rituals (before you respond, I'm not Roman Catholic) or pretty much anything required to "make it" in the Jewish faith. I am particularly fond of Hebrews 8 in which the author clearly states that the new covenant is meant to replace the old one even if the old one still exists.

    Hbr 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
    Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
    Hbr 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
    Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
    Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
    Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
    Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

    But you may respond, "But Jesus said that he came to fufill the law and not to destroy it!" To which I'd reply one of a few things:

    1. He did fulfill it and then made a new Covenant.
    2. The creation of a new covenant doesn't necessarily mean that the old one no longer exists.
    3. What is the "law". People take it for granted that the Law was the Hebrew Bible. That's a pretty big step to take since the Hebrew Bible as we know it wasn't finished until 100 CE which would be after Christ and the Apostles depending on how long you believe John lived. Likewise, any canons that existed before seemed to differ from the 100 CE versions so it's all a toss up. What did Jesus mean exactly? It's highly debateable. What does Hebrews mean? It's pretty cut and dry.

    I will say that the Old Covenant is a covenant that was only open to one people and so the object was to keep the people alive and to flourish which meant it was them against the world and so violence was part of that survival (and boy oh boy have the Jewish people had a rough go at survival). Now, the New Covenant is open to the entire World as if all the World were the Jewish people and non-believers are just the same as non-practicing Jews in the old covenant.

    Either way, the Old covenant was meant to govern the nation. The New covenant was made to teach us how to live in different environments and under other governments. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's you know?

  63. mojo  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:23 am

    This is straight-up bigotry, and I condemn it.

    I apologize for my bigotry against Brits.

  64. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:25 am

    @Lizard:

    Are you making the claim that all people believe there's no afterlife somewhere deep down?

  65. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:28 am

    Lizard, funny you should mention an attack on a Chinese embassy… during the Kosovo conflicts the United States, due to a bad map (although there are plenty of conspiracy theorists claiming it was no accident), bombed the Chinese diplomats (I forget whether it was a consulate or embassy, and it doesn't really matter.) They got over it.

    In Cairo, the major damage was spray-painting on the walls. The Libyan situation is a little different, of course, and putting additional Marines on the ground there seems to me to be a reasonable course.

  66. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:29 am

    More importantly, how does what Islam teaches and what Muslims are doing in obedience to those teachings have anything to do with other religions?

    The discussion at hand is the fact that Muslims will murder to stop idolatry. How does that translate into, "But Jews have similar laws!" Wouldn't that just make them both unethical to follow nowadays rather than to diminish what is being said about one in light of another more commonly accepted faith (in the West)?

  67. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:31 am

    @shg, bvierra, Carl Regan, ect.

    Your criticisms of Ken's post are off the mark because you miss the context of the protests. It was not US Government'slack of condemnation of this movie which motivated the protesters, it was the movie's existence. They didn't storm our embassies because the US government didn't strongly enough deride the film, they attacked because the US government allowed it to exist.

    As Ken pointed out, the Egyptian embassy's response in this context is either one of two things:

    1) Irrelevant, as it made a non-sequiter leap from legal rights and obligations (freedom of speech, right to use force to defend sovereign territory), to the opinions of certain government functionaries.

    Or 2) Subversively un-American, as it essentially conceded the mob's anger at the film's existence as justifiable, and tried to ameliorate that anger by subtly agreeing to the narrative of the censors who wish to legally protect hurt feelings.

  68. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:33 am

    Caleb had the right of it. Good correction.

  69. central texas  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:33 am

    Re: the update.
    It also calls into question most of your incendiary and inaccurate interpretations of the Cairo statement. But you are in good company. Mr. Rmoney has been flogging the same bullshit for the entire day.

  70. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:42 am

    Gavin, I'm always suspicious of "Islam experts" who happen to be Christian. I'm also suspicious of anyone who makes the claim "THEIR religion is violent but OUR religion is peaceful". (It's not that there aren't violent cults and peaceful cults so much as the fact that any religion big enough to be a world player probably has plenty of both.)

    P.S. there was considerable turmoil in the early church whether Christians had to become Jews first and accept the Mosaic law (largely due to the reluctance of adult converts to submit to circumcision). The tipping point seems to have been the fact that income from converting Jews to Christianity wasn't sufficient to continue the church, so they went out and converted some wealthy people who wouldn't give their money to the church if they had to cut off part of their naughty bits to join. In other words, your side won because St. Paul was a good fundraiser. (The less said about HIS opinion of marriage, the better.)

  71. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:48 am

    Caleb, you complain that the Cairo message was "Subversively un-American, as it essentially conceded the mob's anger at the film's existence as justifiable"

    To which I say, well, "no".
    The mob's anger at the film's existence IS justifiable, and, in fact, is justified. The film-maker did something to intentionally insult people of a specific religious group. When Person A does something to intentionally insult Person B, Person B is fully justified in being angry at Person A.
    What is not justified at all is taking that anger at Person A out on Persons C, D, and E, who had nothing to do with it.

  72. Brad Warbiany  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:51 am

    Like Josh M., I wasn't quite sure what the fuss was about until I clicked over to read "the rest" of the press released… I thought Ken excerpted it. Nope — that was the whole damn thing???

    No statement of respect for the freedom of speech? You can condemn speech while still pointing out that you don't want to see it criminalized — the purveyors of this blog do so on a regular basis. Adding a simple statement along the lines of the below would have cleared it up:

    "We understand the offense that has been caused, but the American First Amendment to our Constitution protects the rights of individuals and groups to say unpopular, offensive, and sometimes even hateful things. Protecting this right is one of the cornerstones of a free society, and even if we disagree with the choice that some have made to create material offensive to Islam, it is their right to do so."

  73. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:53 am

    @Gavin
    a)Of course, pointing to violence in one faith doesn't excuse violence in another. It does, however, make the point that the written words of a faith, and the day-to-day lives of the people that practice it, are often at odds, and that pointing to specific religious points as justification for particular acts of violence is silly. Rarely, if ever, does the trigger point for a riot actually mean anything, whether it's racial, religious, or economic. Focusing on that trigger point is a waste of mental energy. You might as well discuss the finer theological points of the Reformation while pondering why the Irish and the British like to lob bombs at each other — and you'll note that, when they mostly STOPPED lobbing bombs, it had nothing to do with one side accepting the other's religious beliefs.

    b)Do people really not believe in the afterlife, deep down? Yes. I think we instinctively know that dead is dead. That's why people cry at funerals, even as they claim to believe the deceased is "in a better place" or "we'll meet in heaven". If I truly believed I had an *infinite* amount of time awaiting me with my loved ones, then even if I had to wait a few decades to die before I'd see them again, the ratio would be such that I'd be no more upset by their death than I would be if they walked out of my line of sight for a single second. Our reptile brains (no relation) know the truth. We die, we're worm food. That's it, and that's why we cry. (Or cheer, if we didn't like the bastard.)

    c)On the issue of violence in general, you keep missing the point. Islam doesn't encourage violence more or less than any other faith, and Muslims who act violently are doing it because of the prevailing culture they were raised in, not because of the specific teachings of the Koran. The political culture of liberal western democracy is what helps quell mob violence over such things, not any religious belief. Transplant western ideals of individual rights and the rule of law to other nations, and it won't matter if they worship Yahweh, Allah, or Xenu. (Any claim that Christianity is somehow less likely to produce violence is pretty much proved a lie by all of Western history, including the endless Christian-on-Christian wars that have occurred and are still occurring.) It doesn't matter which version of the Bible you want to quote. The point is unchanged: It doesn't matter what any people's religious documents state, people will always act like people and justify it later. (Yes, atheists too. And the otters.)

  74. Sam Devol  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:55 am

    I think you're confusing defending free speech with supporting hate speech. The film's promoter is Terry Jones, no stranger to trying to incite, and although I think Sam (Im) Bacile shouldn't be prohibited from making his film, I believe it's important that anyone, including gov't, be allowed to express that they don't support it.

  75. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:58 am

    @James: So, are you saying that violence due to being insulted is acceptable, as long as you kill the right person? Do you support the killing of Theo Van Gogh as a "reasonable" response to his "insult" of Islam?

    The proper response to a film insulting Islam is to make a film insulting Christianity, or Judaism, or America, or whatever.

  76. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:01 am

    @James Polluck,

    My knowledge of Islam comes from study in a Public University. Not a seminary. My speciality was in Christianity, Judaism and Islam with lesser studies in Himalayan and Tibetan religions. Anything I said is easily verifiable. Is there any point I made that you need further evidence of? I'll be glad to present legitimate sources.

    As to the rest, again, I fail to see how any points I'm making here about one religion changes if we bring other religions into the fray. Saying that Islam is violent doesn't make Judaism more or less violent and vice versa.

    Regardless of the reasons you claim that Christianity steered away from Judaism (I didn't hear that claim at all in my studies and my Christian studies professors were usually Jewish. Do you claim to be an expert on Christianity?), they still steered away. Christianity is a great example of a peaceful religion. It has been used for really shitty things but there's a reason why so many non-Christians have respected the words of Christ. It does teach love and turning the other cheek. So, unless you found laws in the New Covenant that command me to kill people, I don't think you can impose violence on my religion's tenets unless I'm also a theonomist, which I'm not.

    As for genital slicing, that is only one of many stipulations. There was no argument for sacrificing lambs, for example. The idea was whether or not Christianity was a morphing of the old covenant or a complete new one.

  77. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:04 am

    @James Polluck,

    Unless you're stating that I can't speak for the entirety of the Christian faith and what seperate denominations/cults might teach. In which case you are correct, I can't. I can only affirm that the Christian scriptures of the New Covenant do not advocate violence.

  78. Constantine von Hoffman  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:09 am

    Considering what happened in Libya I think this qualifies as a statement made under extreme duress. As much as I wish they hadn't put out this press release I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I were in there place. Even if I wouldn't, I find it hard to fault them.

  79. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:11 am

    @Sam: There's a very large difference between "We don't agree with this film." and "We think it's an abuse of free speech to insult someone's religion."

    The entire reason we (western society) have laws (or long standing social contracts and precedents as potent as law) is not to protect speech that is inoffensive, kind, and harmless. They are not there to protect those who express popular views. Free speech is a right worth fighting for because it allows people to express ideas which are vile, contemptible, rude, offensive, and wrong. Free speech is there to protect hatred, insult, mockery, crudeness, and cruelty. While free speech can and does protect those who say things that are unpopular, but ultimately moral and right (for example, "women are actually human beings", "maybe we should try NOT owning people"), it is also there to protect those who say things that will, hopefully, never be accepted as moral and right. It does not protect actions, but it does protect ideas. Those who cannot keep their responses to ideas in the realm of ideas cannot function in a world where it is becoming increasingly impossible to wall out speech, and they need to be taught how to deal with things they find offensive by means other than violence and censorship.

  80. Tam  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:14 am

    "He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building, deemed safer, after the initial wave of protests at the consulate. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack."

    1) Killing an ambassador has been a casus belli since the dawn of the nation-state.

    2) I am amused by those commenters above who regularly read here and cheer on the Popehat crew's denunciation of censorious assholes and yet are suddenly defending censorious assholery because, I guess, the assholes in question are charmingly foreign and quaintly ethnic, or something.

  81. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:14 am

    @James Pollock

    The mob's anger at the film's existence IS justifiable, and, in fact, is justified.

    No. Not in the legal context, it's not.

    How any one person or persons acts in response to a lizard-brain emotional response is the realm of psychology, and the potential responses runs the gambit from well within 1-sigma of the bell curve to the certifiably insane. But those reactions either are or are not, "justice" has nothing to do with them.

    Within the legal context, your complaint for insulting statements lay against the speaker, and in the form of elective social complaint, not legal or illegal action. Any action outside of this format is, per se, unjustifiable.

    What is not justified at all is taking that anger at Person A out on Persons C, D, and E, who had nothing to do with it.

    Which is what happened here. Which is why the US Embassy's compliance with the mob's framing of the issue as one of insult, rather than one of legal rights and obligations, is so damn insidious.

  82. En Passant  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:27 am

    shg wrote Sep 12, 2012 @9:06 am:

    The two are not mutually exclusive. It's very hard to see the similarities between oneself and one's enemies. After all, they fight for evil and you fight for righteousness, so it must be entirely different.

    By "the two", I presume you mean advocacy and attacks with deadly weapons, since that is the distinction I made in my statement to which you replied.

    I can only respond that the two are in fact different. One is words. The other is an attack with a deadly weapon.

    Obviously one can perform both acts simultaneously, as in striking someone while shouting words. But that hypothetical does not conflate words with deeds. It in fact includes both explicitly.

    The distinction between words and actions is inherent in the old saying children once learned, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

    I do not comprehend the mental gymnastics required to conflate the two.

  83. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:31 am

    @Lizard:

    a. My point was by no means to justify their atrocities. It's to explain why it happens. There is a trend, for some reason I can't explain, to force the notion of peace and cohabitation with other faiths onto Islam. It really isn't viable without that significant reinterpretation. You know? I don't disagree that a lot of people fail to live out what they believe. But Islam pretty much hits every point of violence and discrimination that we abhor here. Judaism does a lot of that too. But I'm explaining why. Compared to Islam, Judaism doesn't even come close. It's still bad, but Islam is far more explicit in its command whereas Judaism's violence typically leans towards governing the land in Israel rather than outside its borders.

    b. It is particularly offensive to claim to know what all people "secretly" believe. Deep down I'll admit that I don't know if there is an afterlife just as I accept that I don't really know that God exists. But I don't have some magical inherrent disbelief of it. I'm more agnostic with a lot of beliefs. I am also sure that some people believe that there must be something more after death. It's easy to think that all people think the same way you do and that they're just lying to themselves, but that's a remarkably smacking of self importance of your own beliefs. Some people cry at funerals simply because of the years they're facing without them. Hell (no pun intended), imagine the tears of a Christian wife at the funeral of her Atheist husband. Does that necessitate some sort of secret feelings that there's no afterlife?

    I am not so presumptious as to think all people think the same way I do. If they did, there'd be a lot less strife in the world since disagreements would be all the rarer.

    Genetically, it would actually benefit us to believe in an unseen observer. I listened to a piece on NPR a few years back that talked about this as being a fundamental building block to societies where individuals act in a socially approvable manner to avoid the unseen observer's wrath despite being able to take what they want physically. Interesting stuff.

    C. You are absolutely wrong. Islam gives implicit instructions of violence and discrimination. Within a single century of their inception Islam was already marching into Spain (711 c.e. is when they invaded Spain after having marched across Africa and they stayed in Spain until 1492 c.e., almost gaining the entire country). Judaism generally limits its rule to its own land (Israel) and Christianity teaches a message of peace. Going to Eastern faiths and you have some even more peaceful religions (albeit some with some pretty egregious discrimination, like castes in Hinduism).

    I would posit that there is no other more violent religion that has anywhere close to the number of adherents that Islam has. It is not only extremely violent and discriminatory, but also huge. Its tenets are directly made into government laws and they're not just things like "Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie", it's stuff like, "kill them, don't kill them, tax them because of what they believe, beat them, etc". These beliefs are WIDELY practiced to this day. We're regularly complaining to Islamic nations who are about to kill someone for doing something we deem completely fine. Is your reason for saying that Islam is not inherrently more violent than other faiths because members of it don't have to listen to it? My response is not only do they listen to it and follow it, but that the things it teaches are worse than other faiths from a western perspective.

  84. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:35 am

    Clarification:

    I meant to say that Islam gives Implicit AND Explicit instructions of violence and discrimination.

  85. Demosthenes  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:41 am

    @ David Schwartz:

    "I have the religious belief that god wants anyone who sees you to kill you on sight, preferably slowly and painfully. Is it unAmerican for you not to respect that belief?"

    I knew someone would try to play a gotcha game.

    You can BELIEVE what you like with respect to whether God ordains my death. I will respect that, no matter how odious or stupid or evil I find the contents of your beliefs.

    If you tried to act on it, you would be courting trouble. I said I would respect religious beliefs, and I meant that as an absolute. My acceptance of actions arising from those beliefs is conditional, however, particularly as those actions would affect my life.

    Thus ends today's episode of "Things That Hardly Needed to Be Said…But Someone Made Me Say Them Anyway."

  86. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:10 pm

    @Demosthenes:

    Exactly, it's like how we accept KKK members right to free speech but insist it not flow over into physical violence.

  87. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:17 pm

    @Demosthenes

    I will respect that, no matter how odious or stupid or evil I find the contents of your beliefs.

    Wait, so you will "respect" any opinion or factual assertion, no matter how illogical or ridiculous, so long as it is categorized as "religious?"

    Either you are a far nicer person than I am, or you have a unique definition of "respect." (Or, possibly, "religious.")

    What about scientologists? What about those "God hates fags" clowns? Does the fact that they assert that their beliefs are religious in nature insulate them from any and all criticism that may offend? What if taking offense at rational inquiry is part of the religion? What if not adhering to their beliefs causes untold emotional anguish?

    Also, will you "respect" their decision to categorize a set of ideas as "religious," or is that inquiry outside of the scope?

  88. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:26 pm

    @Caleb,

    I think you're confusing how the term "respect" is being used here. It's being used as tolerance rather than esteem.

  89. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:30 pm

    @Caleb I am in no way agreeing with what the embassy staff in Cairo stated. Nor am I against Ken's post. My argument is against those who blamed the White House, not against those who blamed the embassy staff.

    @Lizard I am not saying that they Muslims are victims. What I am saying is that you know doing X will piss of group Y and that group Y tends to react in violence. When you are doing X and you are doing it specifically to provoke them you cannot be surprised that doing it caused violence. Yes it is legal to do X, yes you should be allowed to do X, but shouldn't you take 2 minutes to go if I do X it could get someone killed so maybe I shouldn't do it? I am in no way defending group Y, I condemn their actions and think they should be held responsible for them.

    However I am saying when person A (random commenter not the embassy) sits there and goes, "common X stop doing that, there was no benefit to it" why are we now blaming A and getting mad at them? The blame should squarely be on group Y and that is where the rage is justified not at person A.

    My other issue lies with the fact that the US Govt has no problem justifying extraditing someone for causing a company in the US to lose money based on pirated content (even though this person did not host said content just linked to it) even though what they did in their country was 100% legal. Yet you know damn well if a country that has a law saying that this movie was illegal tried to extradite the person who made this movie we would never do it saying it was legal here and to get over it.

    The US is supposed to be the one that is morally superior, yet we only are when it works for us.

    IMHO the best way to fix the issue is to actually wage a real war against the extremists. Get the senate out of making rules for the military, stop placing all of the conditions that are there to protect the civilians… Think WW2. The reason for so many of the US troops deaths are the ROE that prevent Soldiers from firing unless they see someone fire at them. Just holding a weapon is not grounds to attack. You have to be returning fire, etc.

    This war to liberate cannot be won and will not be won. If you want war, let the military handle it and keep all politicians out of it. War is not pretty, people die, civilians die, it is the cost of war. If you cannot handle it, then find another way.

  90. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:35 pm

    @bvierra,

    I agreed with you right up to the point where you compared international trade law where individuals are harming people from a long distance with a law in one nation that has nothing to do with enforceability on another nation.

  91. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:42 pm

    "Yes it is legal to do X, yes you should be allowed to do X, but shouldn't you take 2 minutes to go if I do X it could get someone killed so maybe I shouldn't do it?"

    When you allow yourself to be held hostage by threats a third party makes against the innocent, you effectively give them veto power over your speech. It's easy to make the argument you do in the case where the film is so seemingly odious and intended to offend, not educate (I haven't seen it, but I take people at their word in this case), but violence has been threatened and performed over far less. Have we all forgotten "The Satanic Verses"? Rushdie surely knew he'd offend people, including people prone to violence. Would you have advocated those people be able to use the threat to silence him? What lesson would that teach groups which currently tend to take offense at everything from Teletubbies to Skittles, but who generally refrain from violent action?

    There are seven billion people on this planet, and more squirting out as I write this. The odds of *anything* managing to offend at least *one* of them are pretty darn high, and the odds of anything that offends more than a random scattering of people including, in that group, someone unbalanced enough to be motivated to violence are also high. If you refuse to speak out of fear someone, somewhere, will be moved to violence, you can say nothing.

    The moral responsibility lies with those who cannot control their responses to words, and/or those who knowingly goad, cajole, and manipulate such people.

  92. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:51 pm

    @Lizard,

    I agree. Do you recall that (dumb) preacher who was basically bullied into not burning Qur`ans in Florida for just this reason?

  93. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:52 pm

    Then why not use the word "tolerate?" "Respect" has more deferential connotations which confuse the debate.

    But even with that word usage, I am incredulous. At issue is a categorical classification of ideas which, once placed within the "religious" box, immunizes them from critical words and actions which cause a subjective emotional reaction in their adherents.

    Why?

    Do we want to protect people from emotional distress? As this blog is excellent at pointing out, using that criteria as a touchstone leads to some very censorious and pearl-clutching behavior.

    Do we not want to subject "religious" ideas to ridicule? Please. Unless you advocate subjecting no belief to ridicule, then one can always classify anything a "religious."

    Do we want to eliminate ridicule as a mode of human interaction? (Implying that no belief deserves ridicule.) Don't make me laugh.

    This is what I'm getting at: what is the underlying goal of (what we will call) "respect-tolerance?"

  94. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @12:59 pm

    @Caleb,

    It used to be respect for their right to freedom of religion. In which case you're respecting the right. Shortening it to respecting their religion is just easier to say albeit potentially very opposite to how they feel about the religion in practice. I agree it's confusing.

    The reason for this protection is because, historically, the people who get to decide what is an acceptable religion and what isn't have abused the power even to the point of murder. There are some things that religions get away with doing that would otherwise be illegal but generally people who do bad things are held accountable regardless of what faith they profess.

    America's earliest pilgrims (a.k.a., not the Native Americans) came here to escape religious persecution and so this is a vital part of what it means to be an American.

  95. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:01 pm

    I hit submit too early:

    Who is saying we shouldn't ridicule what people believe? It's just as much our right to think something is stupid as it is to think something is right.

  96. Demosthenes  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:15 pm

    In the process of forming a response to Caleb, I realized that I probably have to apologize to Ken for grossly misinterpreting him. So…I apologize, Ken, and I'll explain why below.

    When I read the phrase "respect for religious beliefs" in the press release, I think I interpreted that differently from Ken — because I was going sentence by sentence, and he was looking at the passage as a whole. As far as I am concerned, I respect your beliefs if I respect your right to have them. So the idea that Ken was calling "respecting someone's beliefs" un-American struck a bad chord in me, and I responded accordingly. (Or, perhaps, "ac-chord-ingly.")

    Ken, on the other hand, took the passage to imply that criticism of anyone's beliefs is solidly out-of-bounds. And that certainly would be an un-American attitude, and it would not be unreasonable to assert that. So I was not responding to what Ken said. What's more, honesty compels me to admit that after re-reading the press release in light of Caleb's excellent and pointed questions, I am forced to agree that Ken had the better interpretation.

    In my defense, I was a bit shocked by his "every single sentence" declaration, which was what prompted me to go sentence by sentence in the first place. But that is an explanation, not an excuse. So, shame on me, and I accept it.

    Now, on to Caleb:

    "Does the fact that [Scientologists and Phelps followers] assert that their beliefs are religious in nature insulate them from any and all criticism that may offend?"

    Of course not. I respect your right to have whatever religious beliefs you would like. That doesn't mean I can't criticize them if I find them illogical or immoral. To say otherwise would be trampling on free speech in the name of freedom of worship.

    "What if taking offense at rational inquiry is part of the religion?"

    Then it would be a stupid religion. Part of the way I show respect to an idea (or to a speaker) that I disagree with is to address it (them). But if they want to believe that rational inquiry is something about which they should get hot under the collar, no skin off my etc.

    "What if not adhering to their beliefs causes untold emotional anguish?"

    Yeah…I have no idea what you mean here.

    "Also, will you 'respect' their decision to categorize a set of ideas as 'religious,' or is that inquiry outside of the scope?"

    Let's look at one of your examples. I think Scientology is obviously a sham, meant to control the gullible and con money out of them. I would never be a Scientologist. But if they want to define a particular set of beliefs as a "religious creed," who am I to tell them what to believe? It's a free country.

  97. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:18 pm

    @Gavin Fair enough, there is a difference in it however I disagree with any harm being done to anyone over here. That however is a completely different discussion.

    @Lizard So you believe that censoring yourself because you know it will cause violence is not responsible? There is a difference between speaking out against something because you believe in it and just doing something to piss someone off.

    This is not a period of time where there are low tensions and everyone is happy. We are actively fighting these groups and someone who has absolutely no fear of repercussions because he is not over there thinks it is a good idea to do this. He knew this would incite violence, he did it as a political statement (his own words). When you take an action that you know will most likely get people killed you should take time to realize this before you do it. You are asking others to die so that you can make your political message. Do I think there are times that this should be done, absolutely. Do I think that this was a good choice now? Not at all.

    I really believe that the director wants to rid the world of Islam and he knows that if he pisses them off enough they will attack, which will in turn make the US attack back.

    Are the extremists right? Hell no. But is it right for someone to put other peoples lives in harms way just so he can get what he wants? No, if he wants to fight against Islam he should join the military and do it. He should not be trying to get the US military to do his bidding by inciting others to attack us.

    In no way am I saying we should stop him from doing this. I however do think people need to realize that what they do has consequences, the issue however is that the consequence is not against him so he does not care. Do you think he would have made this movie if he knew doing so would get himself and his family killed? I don't.

    Stand up for what you believe in, but if you are willing to get others killed, you must be willing to stand on the front lines yourself and take the brunt of the force for your actions. To do something and then stand in the back and go into hiding while expecting others to stand up for your right to do it… well that is just cowardly.

  98. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:22 pm

    @ Gavin.

    We're on the same page. What I'm arguing is that, in this context, what is at issue is not the right to free religious exercise, but the ridicule of beliefs in a civic context. Those who were defending the embassy's statements were conflating the two.

  99. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:26 pm

    @Bvierra,

    It is considered theft and perhaps rightly so. Still, whether or not an actual loss has occured is questionable. So, it's theft in that they're taking something that doesn't belong to them but not necessarily theft in that they took one copy of a potentially infinite supply of them.

    I've always found internet piracy laws fascinating. Typically though, the people that warrant extradition are NOT the consumers. They're the people who get the product and then file share with thousands of consumers and therein lies the cost to the producer. Loss revenue. I admit that in a case where a person would never have purchased it at all that we can't claim loss (though this point is difficult to prove), but even then we do have international laws that protect against these sorts of things and those laws or agreements with those countries are what we use to enforce this. We aren't just breaking into the country and grabbing them. It's part of their own legal process.

    The idea that we don't enforce laws which we never agreed to then makes perfect sense. We especially would never enforce laws that go against our bill of rights.

    Anyways, yeah, probably a very different discussion.

  100. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:32 pm

    " To do something and then stand in the back and go into hiding while expecting others to stand up for your right to do it… well that is just cowardly."

    Thus, freedom of speech belongs to those who can afford guards, secure compounds, etc. An interesting viewpoint. We've gone from the fairly reasonable "Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one" to "Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns a private army."

    I was under the impression that having other people risk their lives to protect my right to be an obnoxious prat was part and parcel of this social contract I signed. It is the job of the police to stand and protect hippies who are burning the American flag while chanting "All cops are pigs!" from the mob that would attack them, and the job of soldiers to do the equivalent on foreign soil.

    It's very hard not to read your post and conclude, "People who say things I agree with, but which are offensive to other people, ought to be protected. People who say things I disagree with should go out and get shot. Serves them right."

    If "The Satanic Verses" were going to be first published today, would you tell Rushdie "Don't do it, you'll only stir up trouble."?

    Or will you draw a fine and hair-splitting distinction that basically boils down to "Rushdie produces better quality work, so he has more right to protection from violent fanatics"? Your attempt to draw a distinction between "people who stand up for what they believe in" and "people who just want to cause trouble" is more than a little weak. It is nigh-impossible to not see this as simply a euphemism for "people who say controversial things I support" and "people who say controversial things I don't support".

  101. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:32 pm

    @Caleb,

    Yes, I understand what you meant. I just don't see anyone here actually saying that we shouldn't ridicule other faiths.

    We are saying that the embassy's statement flies in the face of our right to freedom of speech. They're saying that they condemn people hurting their feelings and claim that they're somehow hurting the beliefs of others by disagreeing with them.

    Or am I missing someone saying otherwise here?

  102. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:35 pm

    @Gavin I wrote out a response and realized I did not want to hijack the thread for another issue that is extremely complicated. Would love to be able to debate it with you however if Ken ever decides to write on it ;)

  103. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:37 pm

    @Gavin. Yes. That same preacher is behind this film. Is he pretty much just an attention-seeking demagogue? Sure he is. Does he have anything to say of value, meaning, or worth? Not that I can see. Is he engaging in showmanship and spectacle in order to get news coverage? Absolutely.

    Does he have the right to do these things, and should he not be bribed or bullied into silence because it is known there are people who cannot control their emotions? Absolutely yes and no, respectively.

    The best thing to do with him, and others like him, is to ignore them completely. Don't give them news coverage, don't interview them, don't waste column inches either defending or decrying them. They feed on attention. Starve them.

  104. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:37 pm

    @bvierra:

    Fair enough, I accept your response as not a concession of stance but just a desire to keep on the topic at hand. We shall hopefully duel it out at a later date! Haha.

  105. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:42 pm

    @Lizard,

    I don't disagree. I actually drove by that pastor's church during the whole thing. Did you know it is so incredibly in the middle of no where that his town doesn't even have a stop sign? Someone must have been REALLY looking for news.

    Also, please let me know if I missed some response from you on the point that Islam is a more explicitly/implicitly violent religion. I don't want to leave any questions on the subject unanswered. Islam was actually my favorite religion to study so I really enjoy discussing it. The culture is quite remarkable even if the religion can be pretty bad at times.

  106. Gavin  •  Sep 12, 2012 @1:42 pm

    Correction, they don't have a stoplight! Big difference, they have plenty of stop signs there.

  107. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @2:58 pm

    Lizard says:
    "@James: So, are you saying that violence due to being insulted is acceptable, as long as you kill the right person?"
    Where the heck did you pull that from?

    "The proper response to a film insulting Islam is to make a film insulting Christianity, or Judaism, or America, or whatever."
    No, the proper response to a film insulting Islam (assuming one is a Muslim) is to pick a different movie to see.

  108. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @3:24 pm

    Gavin said:
    "Yes, I understand what you meant. I just don't see anyone here actually saying that we shouldn't ridicule other faiths. "
    I said that. (Not that we can't, and not that we shouldn't be allowed to, but just that we shouldn't.) I don't think rudeness should be encouraged.

    And earlier noted:
    "My knowledge of Islam comes from study in a Public University."
    In a Muslim-dominated country? My inherent suspicion of experts on Islam who are not themselves Muslim is hereby expanded to include your educators as well as yourself.

    and finally:
    "Christianity is a great example of a peaceful religion."
    This probably explains why the Christian nations have been able to live together without warfare for so long.

    And now for the reasonable opposing viewpoint:
    Religion is a tool created by humanity. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil depending on the person wielding it and the circumstances. A hammer can be used to drive nails into wood, as part of building a house for shelter from the elements; it can also be used to cave in the skulls of the current residents of a house already built, and in either case the result is the same… the hammer wielder gets to stay warm and dry tonight. Is the hammer evil because it can be used that second way?
    Of all the ridiculous reasons men have ever had for hating another man enough to kill him, "they pray to the same God we do, but they do it wrong!" is the ridiculous-est.

  109. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @3:34 pm

    BTW to those still following what is going on. In Benghazi they held a pro-America rally today with many holding up signs apologizing to America, denouncing the terrorists and thugs that did this as well as calling Chris Stevens a friend to all Libyans.

    I know there is a lot of anti-Islam feeling out there, but hopefully this will remind you that there is good in every Religion and not all believe like the extremists.

    You can see the pics here: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

  110. Grifter  •  Sep 12, 2012 @3:39 pm

    @James Pollock:

    I believe Lizard was objecting to this:

    "When Person A does something to intentionally insult Person B, Person B is fully justified in being angry at Person A.
    What is not justified at all is taking that anger at Person A out on Persons C, D, and E, who had nothing to do with it."

    What is actually not justified at all is taking out that anger, at all, if taking out that anger is done inappropriately. Even if the filmmaker had been behind the walls, claiming US sanctuary, their response was inappropriate. While it's even worse that they took it out on persons C,D, and E, your post implied that they were justified in taking out their anger if only it had been person A. I think you didn't necessarily intend that, but it seems pretty clearly implied, and I think that was what Lizard was saying; the problem we're having is not "Geeze, the real dude wasn't even there!", but rather "they shouldn't have been doing that at all!"

  111. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @3:43 pm

    @ bvierra

    My argument is against those who blamed the White House, not against those who blamed the embassy staff.

    What do you mean by "blame?" Do you mean the transposition of those ideas antithetical to the American rule of law expressed by the embassy to the President? If so, then I agree.

    But if you mean that the President should not be held politically liable for the statements made, then I do not agree. That position undermines the idea of a unitary executive, and the President as the sole repository of accountability for that entire branch of government. It also completely ignores the concept of agency, both the legal principle and the administrative structure.

    @ Demosthenes

    Agreed on your points.

    Yeah…I have no idea what you mean here.

    My apologies for the incoherence.

    What I was trying to get at is the factors which made mockery of one's "religious " ideas impermissible. Obviously, you have since clarified that you interpret "respect" for a religion as "respect for the right of free exercise thereof" rather than "respect for the ideas, practices, and feelings of the believers thereof." The latter is what the Embassy likely meant, and what I was arguing against.

    In that context, it's interesting to go through what the embassy was trying to say is impermissible. Is it the categorization of a belief as "religious?" Is the the form of critique? (Rational inquiry vs. mockery) Is the negative emotional response in the adherents? If it is impermissible to cause emotional distress in to a religious acolyte, you may in fact be doing so by merely failing to adhere to their faith. ( It is the case of the latter where I make my comment.) Thus, by the "emotional distress" standard, one should adhere to every faith that has followers who are emotionally hurt by you not being a part of their faith. This, of course, is absurd. Which was my point.

  112. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @4:19 pm

    @Caleb I mean the actual phrasing that the president said "….". When pointed out that the president actually did not say it and that the condemned it the response comes back as "they work for him so he said it, it's the same thing."

    Even for the political liability issue on it I have an issue however, especially when he condemns what was said. As I have said before, I believe we need to be working together. We need to make sure the best people for the job are in the right positions. We do not need any president to worry about someone on his staff having the wrong opinion on an issue because they are a different party. As long as any president states they disagree with the opinion it should not reflect against them.

  113. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 12, 2012 @4:33 pm

    A better response — which they might have thought of, if there weren't a mob of murderous thugs surrounding the compound where they and their families live — might have been something like this:

    "We understand the anger that followers of Islam feel when their faith is insulted. Americans feel the same way when their own faiths are insulted. However, we have found that mass protests of offensive speech serve to increase the influence of those responsible for that speech.

    "By any measures the film in question is of terrible quality. It is an expensive folly that would otherwise play to nearly empty theaters during its mercifully short run. We encourage the people of Egypt not to give any free publicity to films they consider immoral and offensive."

  114. Caleb  •  Sep 12, 2012 @4:42 pm

    @ bvierra

    Well, if one is striving for precision, then saying: "the president said '….'" is not desirable.

    However, the entire concept of presidential accountability works very strongly (if seemingly inequitably) against the executive escaping fault for the actions of his subordinates who acted pursuant to authority flowing from the president. If you will recall Federalist #70, the idea of presidential accountability is the trade off for the broad authority given him. To allow him to escape this liability is to temper an institutional check on his power without a reciprocal reduction of power.

    Note that I'm not arguing he be held at fault for what was said. He needs to be held accountable that it was said. It is his responsibility, and his alone, that all actions taken pursuant to his delegated authority conform to his parameters for the exercise of that power. If they do not, then he is at fault just as he would have been if he had directed his subordinate to act.

  115. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:01 pm

    @James: That's certainly A proper response, but it's not the only one. Speaking out against speech you disagree with, offering counterpoints, or just engaging in trying to top the other guy with how crude and offensive you can be are all valid responses. The only invalid response is violence.

    Lizard says: "Do unto others as they have done unto you, only twice as hard and with no lubricant."

  116. Lizard  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:05 pm

    Also, @James… where did I pull that from? Your post. Your argument strongly implies that you believe the problem with an angry mob is not that their violent murderers, but that they're not murdering the right people. I repeat: What do you think of the murder of Theo Van Gogh? Was it justified? He went out of his way to insult Islam, and a Muslim killed *him* for it, not some random other person. By your logic, that's seemingly well and good.

  117. bvierra  •  Sep 12, 2012 @6:08 pm

    @Caleb I somewhat agree with you, I have continued to make the argument to myself while it fits, it just seem to barely fit. I guess that for me it makes sense that not everyone under his control, especially when it is not even someone he appoints. IIRC Ambassadors are assigned by the SoS who is of course assigned by the POTUS. It was immediately condemned by the SoS then by the POTUS and yet people still say it was not enough. Once again though, you cannot justify a group by it's weakest members.

    I understand the accountability, I just feel that we need to have people with different ideas and in today's world the opinion on just about every subject for every person is known (at least in politics). What worries me is that we will get to a point where if a potential SoS does not agree 100% with a health issue the POTUS will end up passing on that person as SoS even if they are the best fit to go with someone who is more lock step.

    We all know that no everyone will agree on every issue and that if you don't it should never come out. But in reality it will. Maybe it is just because I have such a dislike of present day politics that I assume the worst in politicians and am afraid of the consequences that holding someone accountable for everyone else's opinions will only cause them to shut out some of the best people due to this.

  118. johndburger  •  Sep 12, 2012 @7:41 pm

    Just a reminder that conservatives can be censorious riot apologists as well:

    http://www.jeffjacoby.com/12278/why-islam-is-disrespected

  119. Demosthenes  •  Sep 12, 2012 @10:24 pm

    Caleb:

    Oh, I see. Point well made, and well taken.

  120. James Pollock  •  Sep 12, 2012 @11:44 pm

    "Your argument strongly implies that you believe the problem with an angry mob is not that their violent murderers, but that they're not murdering the right people."
    My argument implies no such thing. In fact, my argument claimed that A) some anger is justified, and B) violence is not. If you got something else, that was your brain filling in the gap.

    Let me address the area now.

    If someone tries to get you angry, then getting angry is justified. There are insults and aggravations involved in the world, and nearly all people quickly develop "thick skin" and ignore most insults. Some do not, and so you have events like road-rage car crashes, bullied-student revenge shootings, and the like but these are rare because a normal mind overcomes, and either forgives or forgets the anger-causing insult fairly quickly. Still, there are people who seem to delight in intentionally insulting others, and they delight especially when they know they are causing pain. We call these people "bullies", and it's not limited to high-school (in fact, most likely the place where bullies are seen most often is in divorce court. Becoming angry when bullied is entirely justified.

    Turning that anger to violence is a whole different story… No, a bullied high school student should NOT show up at school with a couple of shotguns and make messy holes in their tormentors. However, some would argue that a lesser violence (a punch to the face, say) taken sooner might resolve the issue (or at least, turn the bully's attention to a victim less likely to throw punches). This is a moral area (unlike the two I referred to in my earlier post) does not have one person clearly in the right and one person clearly in the wrong; rather, it has two people in the wrong and a fairly difficult balancing act in calculating equities where different people may and probably will come to different conclusions as to the degree of relative wrongness by each party (and the school will likely suspend both the bully and the victim-turned-aggressor.)
    This complicated grayness is why I did not address the question of whether violence is always wrong (probably not), never wrong (definitely not) or just probably wrong. ish. maybe. it depends.

    The world sure would be nice if everyone had sufficient anger management skills to not rise up when baited, and to use that anger to foster positive change, but so very few actually do… so anger turning to violence is BOTH a regrettable thing to be condemned AND a predictable outcome. Blame for anger boiling over into violence lies primarily with those doing the violence, but ALSO for those fomenting it. This is why incitement to riot is a criminal offense even if the defendant did not actually riot. So… when the kid brings his gun to school and shoots his tormentors, the teachers who didn't help, and some random other kids, the kid with the gun in his hand is the MOST wrong… but the bully who harassed him day after day after day is ALSO WRONG. When the mob of radical religious nuts storms the embassy and kills people, the mob is the MOST WRONG, but the radical religious nut of a different flavor who antagonized them is ALSO WRONG.

    But wait… the bully and the radical religious nuts have freedom of speech, meaning here that the government should neither limit their opportunity to speak nor provide punishment for the content of their speech (with the typical limitations). It is not the government, but rather society that should provide the pressure. It is generally not currently illegal to tell a racist joke, and many, many people indulge this freedom every day. But social pressure has vastly limited the tone, tenor, and frequency with which it occurs, because while it is not illegal to do so, it IS socially unacceptable in more places than it used to.

  121. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @1:08 am

    @James Pollock:

    You said:
    "When Person A does something to intentionally insult Person B, Person B is fully justified in being angry at Person A.
    What is not justified at all is taking that anger at Person A out on Persons C, D, and E, who had nothing to do with it."

    The implication is that it would be justified to take one's anger out on Person A. Which is true, to a certain extent.

    However, no one here has said "Boy, those Muslims don't have a right to be offended!", so that's a rather moot point.

    Instead, the entire debate has been regarding the fact that their response was inappropriate, and it is the majority's opinion, I think, that they were inappropriate no matter whether or not Person A was there.

    So for you to say "It's inappropriate for them to [do what they did], because it wasn't directed at the right person" seems to miss the point, don't you think? Isn't it inappropriate for greater reasons than that?

    And to address your argument, you seem to misunderstand what bullying is. You see, bullying (to me, but perhaps I need it clarified) requires either harassment or physical force, neither one of which have been defended. Those are wrong things. Just saying you don't like someone is not bullying.

    But let's make your analogy legitimate. Let's say that someone is disliked, and they go on a shooting spree because they hear someone was talking about them after school, at someone's house. In that case, would you really say "Well, the guy who said things the shooter didn't like is ALSO WRONG"?

    The real bullies here are the extremists. And I will not be blackmailed or forced at knifepoint not to say things in my own country that they don't like, and I will not feel responsible for their actions as a result of something that only impacts them because they've chosen for it to. If this filmaker (if he exists) was kidnapping Muslims and forcing them to watch the movie, I think your argument might have more merit.
    But he's not.

    So the correct response is not "Therefore he's bad because he said things that forced these Muslims to start killing people", but rather, "He's a douchebag on the basis of what he said, but he's not a douchebag for saying it, because it's his right and how dare they try to prevent him from exercising it with their threats".

    As has been previously pointed out, if we subscribed to your way of thinking, at what point would it become unreasonable to bow to the whims of the violent?

    "Oh, this sect hates "good morning", so don't say it or they might kill someone."
    "This sect of militant vegans hates cheese, so don't eat any or you're culpable for killing someone when they bomb a random school".
    "These Latter-Day-Sainted Islamic Buddhists think that watching Doctor Who is an offensive sin because of its depiction of time as anything other than Allah's straight line, and they'll stone babies to death every time they see anyone doing it"
    Et cetera.

  122. Gavin  •  Sep 13, 2012 @6:45 am

    @James Polluck:

    I said that. (Not that we can't, and not that we shouldn't be allowed to, but just that we shouldn't.) I don't think rudeness should be encouraged.

    Yes, the "don't be a dick" philosophy is a pretty good one. I don't know if anyone in particular is advocating dickishness, we're just saying that physical violence in response to it is in no way acceptable and should be responded to with every element of vehement condemnation possible. "Sticks and stones" and whatnot.

    [quote] In a Muslim-dominated country? My inherent suspicion of experts on Islam who are not themselves Muslim is hereby expanded to include your educators as well as yourself. [/quote] Is there anything I said that you don't believe is true? I can verify anything I've said for you if you wish.

    Do you not believe that the Sunnah (actions, words of the Prophet) or Hadiths are given specific legal and religious authority?
    Do you not believe that their Prophet married and slept with a girl under the age of ten? (Aisha, wiki her, all sources agree on 9 or younger except for one source that says she was 10. The last source has no greater reliability than the others and these are traditional Muslim sources. Their point of stressing her age is emphasizing her purity, it is backfiring now.)
    Do you not believe that the Qur`an carries specific instructions on when it's ok to beat your wife?

    Qur`an 4:34 Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    Do you not believe that Muslims kill apostates?

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

    This is confirmed in the Hadith and all four schools of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence as well as traditional Shi`ite jurists. I think that source may be somewhate biased though, I have not interpreted those Qur`anic verses to be necessarily against apostates, for example, the 9th surah:

    http://quran.com/9

    In context it seems 9:11-12 is to be against polytheists (a.k.a. religions that are not members of the children of the book). Had the cite referrenced 9:29 on they could have gotten a good "kill all non-believers" set. Pretty much the entire 9th Surrah is about how to interract with non-believers. As long as we have a treaty and pay the taxes and never try to witness (even atheists "witnessing" against religion) then we are protected against attack. So it's either discrimination or death for non-Muslims.

    But as for Apostasy the best sources are the hadith, which again, ARE part of their faith just like the Qur`an is. It's like Mormons with the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

    Bukhari (52:260) – "…The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'
    Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    The most important part though, is the backing from Sharia Law.

    Many of my classes that were led by Muslims were taught by people from the Middle East. Do you only doubt them because they are scholars? Why do you doubt the people who have actually studied it? Most of them push the idea that Islam is peaceful anyways. If you want to ascribe to Islam being peaceful then you should trust them all the more.

    This probably explains why the Christian nations have been able to live together without warfare for so long.

    There is a significant difference from a religion that teaches peace but some adherrents practice violence and a religion that teaches violence whose adherrents practice violence.

    Do not forget that the Roman Catholic Church assumed the role of leadership in the power vaccuum that followed the fall of the Roman Empire. This made the position of Pope incredibly powerful (Emperor, even) and so the next several centuries saw a huge influx of mafia-like families trying to force their family's patriarch into the top. They assasinated pope after pope up until the 1200's (when the Cluny Monastery forcefully assigned one of their monks to the position to clean up the act). This was not Christianity, this was a power struggle. Nations like England and Spain abused the faith to justify atrocities for the sake of conquest and getting rid of opposition. What you see there is the downfall of man and combining religion with government. Christianity is probably the most peaceful religion (on paper!) because it wasn't made to govern a nation like Judaism and Islam were. It was intended to only govern the individual while under the rule of governments that aren't necessarily Christian.

    This should be a simple concept. Do you have any New Covenant verses that call us to acts of violence of any kind? Or is there a large emphasis on love, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile for those that would take advantage of us? This is an incredible step for religion and it is an absolute travesty that the Roman Empire used it as a tool of violence but their justification is not found in its pages. Islamic violence, however, is.

    Religion is a tool created by humanity. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil depending on the person wielding it and the circumstances. A hammer can be used to drive nails into wood, as part of building a house for shelter from the elements; it can also be used to cave in the skulls of the current residents of a house already built, and in either case the result is the same… the hammer wielder gets to stay warm and dry tonight. Is the hammer evil because it can be used that second way?

    My entire point is that Islam in particular is not a hammer, it is intended to be a sword. A tool specifically for silencing your enemies. Sure, you can use it like a machete to do yard work, but it's primary focus is conquering enemies.

    Again, there is a significant difference between using a religion in a way it was not intended and using a religion in the way it was. There is a reason why Jesus is well respected as a philospher at least by members of all faiths/non-faiths and creeds. Because He espoused good and noble things that hold true to this day. If someone wrongs us, it is not our job to wrong them back. This is a fundamental change from scriptures written for a nation that is under attack.

    Christianity, a religion set up to be a bowl to contain water for the thirsty was smashed against the heads of believers and non-believers alike, completely in contradiction.

    Islam, a religion set up to do battle with other nations, was used as a sword. Again, within 100 years of the religion's inception they had already invaded Europe from the Middle East. That's a significant move.

  123. Gavin  •  Sep 13, 2012 @6:47 am

    Sorry for mispelling your name, James Pollock. I considered double checking at some point while making the post and then forgot. I also appear to have used my old [quote][/quote] html around one of your statements.

  124. Caleb  •  Sep 13, 2012 @7:59 am

    @bvierra

    Those are certainly valid concerns. And they need to be weighed in balance with and against other factors, including presidential accountability. I'm not arguing for any particular outcome of that calculus. My point was simply to refute your original argument, which seemed to say that considering presidential accountability at all is somehow invalid.

  125. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @10:53 am

    Gavin, if you cannot see that statements about what Muslims believe offered by a person who is not and has not been Muslim is inherently suspect, perhaps switch gears… do you find Rush Limbaugh to be an accurate source for what liberals believe? Or, switching gears, would you want to get all your information about conservatism from Nancy Pelosi? Or (hello, Mr. Godwin! How are you?) perhaps Mr. Hitler should be a source on Judaism? The phrase is "conflict of interest". Your parade of horribles is rather meaningless coming from you and whenever I see it starting, I skip to the end… you've demonstrated your conflict of interest already, which (likely) means that all of the nuance and shading of facts you offer is distorted.

    Now, I don't claim to be an expert on Islam; I'm not trying to claim to know, or speak for "what Muslims believe". To be honest, I don't really care what Muslims believe, as what *I* believe is that people should choose to believe whatever they want, and I'm fairly sure that there are very few specific items on which all Muslims agree, just as there are very vew things on which all Christians agree, and those doctrinal differences, while endlessly fascinating to those who believe they are significant, are endlessly boring to those who do not.

  126. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @11:38 am

    Grifter said:
    "However, no one here has said "Boy, those Muslims don't have a right to be offended!", so that's a rather moot point."
    I think if you go back upthread and read what I actually responded to, that's EXACTLY what the claim was.

    "Just saying you don't like someone is not bullying."
    No, it isn't. I don't think the mob was rioting because someone said they didn't them, though. Bullying is intentionally triggering an anger response… which can be done by harassment or by physical force, but can be done entirely with words by people who know how. Siblings and spouses, for example, know what buttons to push to make the other(s) angry, and this is why cops don't like responding to domestic calls… you get at least one, sometimes more, person who's been bullied into irrationality, sometimes violent irrationality.

    "As has been previously pointed out, if we subscribed to your way of thinking, at what point would it become unreasonable to bow to the whims of the violent?"
    Consider a wholly different area of modern life. If you drive rudely, cutting people off, there is a very, very tiny possibility that the person who you've just cut off will take it poorly, pursue, and may in fact indicate their displeasure of your driving choices with a firearm. It happens, and this possibility, although still quite low, is still more likely to affect the American citizen than is the possibility of being confronted by the angry Islamic mob.
    So, do you avoid cutting people off in traffic because you're afraid of becoming a road-rage victim? Or do you avoid cutting people off in traffic because you don't want to be a dick? Or neither, because getting there thirty seconds earlier makes that big a difference to you?

    "Oh, this sect hates "good morning", so don't say it or they might kill someone."
    If you know this, and you decide to punish the stupidness of their beliefs by singing the Beatles' "Good Morning, Good Morning" at the top of your lungs, you're a dick.

    "This sect of militant vegans hates cheese, so don't eat any or you're culpable for killing someone when they bomb a random school".
    Again, if you want to show your disrespect for their beliefs so much you go out of your way to show them how much you like your double cheeseburger, and go up to each one and offer them a big ol' bite, waving it in their faces one at a time, you're a dick.

    "These Latter-Day-Sainted Islamic Buddhists think that watching Doctor Who is an offensive sin because of its depiction of time as anything other than Allah's straight line, and they'll stone babies to death every time they see anyone doing it"
    OK, this one's a little harder. Um, wearing your Dr. Who t-shirt while humming the theme song and intentionally speaking loud enough for them to overhear while you discuss with your friend exactly which actor played The Doctor best, moving to follow them when they try to move away to avoid hearing you, makes you a dick.

    No matter how ridiculous (to you, and to your friends) the beliefs of others might be, if you intentionally do something to insult another human being, it's a dick move. Crazy people do crazy things and, if the crazy thing harms someone, there's nobody to blame but the crazy person who did the crazy thing. If, however, you know that there's something you can say to someone that will make them do something irrational, whether it's an otherwise rational person or an irrational one, you share the blame for triggering the event.

    The argument "well, we can't say anything, ever, because it might set off some crazy person somewhere, and we just don't know it yet" is not a response to "if you know that saying X will cause this specific crazy person or this specific group of otherwise rational people will do something stupid, irrational, and/or violent, and you do it anyway, you share the blame for the result (not equally, of course, but the point is that this type of case is NOT a freedom of speech issue.)
    If you point a loaded gun at someone, and it goes off even though you didn't pull the trigger, who is to blame for the resultant injury? Mostly, the gun, because guns are not supposed to fire unless the trigger is pulled… but you are ALSO responsible. This is why responsible persons do not point a loaded firearm at a person unless and until they intend to kill them.

  127. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @11:56 am

    @James Pollock:

    I will have to wait until I'm back from the dentist for a real reply, but: " Bullying is intentionally triggering an anger response" is not a true statement.

  128. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @12:04 pm

    I eagerly await your redefinition of "bully". I'll concede that there are two meanings, one that describes primarily actions (taking things by force or intimidation) and one that describes primarily a personality trait (wherein the person enjoys inflicting and exploiting feelings of powerlessness on others) and it is only the second to which I refer (because, obviously, it's the one that's relevant to a discussion of intentionally offering insult.)

  129. Gavin  •  Sep 13, 2012 @1:13 pm

    @James Pollock,

    I have no problem with you holding such things suspect. This is precisely why I cited everything I stated to show that I am making valid statements. Is there anything I said that cannot be immediately verified?

    Islam is a lot less fragmented than you'd think. There are sects but nothing like we see in Christianity. This is because their religious beliefs are ALSO their laws. As I stated, Shariah Law is comprised of mandates form the Qur`an and Hadiths. This may differ some between Shiites and Sunni because of the difference of belief in who were the right heirs to succession after their Prophet dies. This, however, would only change which Hadiths they accept as valid and not the Qur`an itself.

    We KNOW that the two major groups of Islam are the Shiites and the Sunni. We know that they both firmly adhere to the Qur`an, so that's already a source we can rely on. The Sunni Muslims make up 75-90% of all of Islam. Shiites, the next largest group, making up 10-20% of the faith. If I were to take the lower range for both groups then we are talking about what 85% of all Muslims believe. Keep in mind that the third largest group, the Sufis, are difficult to number because they typically fall into the Shi'ite camp or the Sunni camp and just differ in that they believe in the ability to personally experience Allah. This means that any other group would be in the smallest minority being that any other segments would have to share whatever the remaining percentage is.

    We know that the Sunni use six major sources for Hadith and that the Shi-ites use three different major sources (written by the three Muhammads).

    We know that Sunni Islam has four schools of law that each accept the validity of the others. They are not deemed as seperate sects since they all accept the core beliefs and only seem to disagree on minor things just like some denominations readily accept other groups that they deem to be very close.

    The Shi'ites are more fragmented but by far the largest group is comprised of the twelvers and so their beliefs are generally the ones I refer to. Unlike the four Sunni Schools of law, this group only has one (Jaʿfarī). Even though they differ on some points, there has been some argument to make it a fifth school in the Sunni faith despite their disagreement with succession of authority. So they don't disagree on too much.

    All of them agree with all of the things I've mentioned. Most importantly, the 75-90% group absolutely does.

    So, because we do know all of the main schools of Islamic Law we can know exactly what they believe. It simply isn't the same as Christian Protestant Fragementation of Denominations. Not even close.

  130. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @1:29 pm

    @James Pollock:

    One of the defining characteristics of "bully" is, as you noted in your reply, powerlessness. You did not mention that in your original definition; simply saying something that angers someone else does not make you a bully.

  131. Gavin  •  Sep 13, 2012 @1:36 pm

    In summary, Islamic mainstream belief is pretty knowable. Everything I mentioned can be checked off the list, one by one. Even that pedophilia, as practiced by Muhammad (consumated his marriage to a 9 year-old girl when he was over 50 years-old), is ok.

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

    To shrug off all of these beliefs as if they were some minority opinion is just being ignorant of the mainstream beliefs. I hope this information has at least brought that to attention.

    Keep in mind, there are many fantastically peaceful Muslims. There are even Muslims who would never act on many of these laws. So discrimination is unjustified.

  132. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @4:07 pm

    "Islam is a lot less fragmented than you'd think. There are sects but nothing like we see in Christianity. This is because their religious beliefs are ALSO their laws."

    Statements like this don't help your credibility any. Nor does it help when you cite from biased sources.

    For example, the FAQ section of your source, http://wikiislam.net, reveals:
    "I'm looking for information on Islam. Is this the site to get it?
    Yes, if you're looking for factual information critical of Islam"

    YOU'RE looking for information critical of Islam, and surprise! That's what you found. At least the website ADMITS how biased it is.

  133. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @4:17 pm

    "One of the defining characteristics of "bully" is, as you noted in your reply, powerlessness."
    I don't think so. A bully is a bully whether I feel actually feel powerless about it or not. They'll just keep probing for a weakness to provoke the desired result until they find one. Also, there's lots of things I'm powerless to affect (ranging from having to wait at a red light to my disagreements in foreign policy with the President to my dissatisfaction with the number of supermodel girlfriends I currently have), but none of those things make me bullied. It's not until I get angry at my powerlessness that I feel bullied. And, on those occasions when I feel bullied, it was the person who went out of their way to point out, or increase, or take advantage of my powerlessness who is the bully. So… you can be bullied if you lack powerlessness (although, obviously far less successfully from the bully's point of view) and you can be powerless without being bullied. That adds up to powerlessness NOT being a defining aspect of bullying. To me, anyway.

  134. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @4:25 pm

    @James Pollock:

    Where do you get that definition? The power imbalance is central to bullying according to every source I've found.

    Wikipedia:

    Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power.

    Google:

    bul·ly/ˈbo͝olē/
    Noun:
    1. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
    2. Corned beef.

    While someone may be a bully, in that they are someone who would do bullying behavior if given the chance, if the behavior is not bullying, then it is not bullying. Even if you don't like it.

    However, having just gotten into a looooong conversation with Gavin about the relative definitions of "atheist, theist, and agnostic" recently, I don't want this concept to drag out. If you can give a decent, respectable source backing yourself up besides your own brain, I'll concede it's a proper usage of the term, although I will maintain that it muddies the waters, because your version of bullying (or rather, the aspect of it your'e applying here, since we agree on several facets of the term) is otherwise known as "100% my right because I'm not beholden to what you consider proper things to say", while the more common definition I'm using is otherwise known as "harassment", "coercion" or "physical violence", none of which are protected.

  135. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @4:34 pm

    @James Pollock:

    And as regards to your responses to my examples, I would point out that this guy is making this movie, as far as I understand, in America. He's not making it in Egypt or Libya. If this is wrong, let me know, because the rant I'm about to unleash would be diminished somewhat if I'm missing some detail

    So (and forgive the upcoming language): it's none of their goddamn business. If I get off cutting a hole in a Bible and fucking it, and I'm in my own home, I don't care if that offends Gavin (sorry Gavin!) so much he wants to kill some random person that isn't humping Bibles but who lives in the same apartment complex. I will not feel guilty or share any blame for what was 100% Gavin's decision based on information that was none of his damn business in the first place.

    Your "corrections" to my example all included bits like this: "moving to follow them when they try to move away to avoid hearing you". If you feel that brings the analogy closer to reality, please explain exactly how in hell, because it seems, if anything, to bring it farther from the real situation, and closer to harassment, which this wasn't. At all.

  136. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @6:20 pm

    "So (and forgive the upcoming language): it's none of their goddamn business."
    Depends. If you go out of your way to antagonize them, then you are making it their business.

    " If I get off cutting a hole in a Bible and fucking it, and I'm in my own home"
    Go for it, if that's what you want to do. This is, as you say, your business, and nobody else's (except possibly your Bible salesman, if you are a repeat customer.) In fact, if you want to film this, and watch the film over and over in your home, this is still your business and nobody else's.

    "I don't care if that offends Gavin (sorry Gavin!) so much he wants to kill some random person"
    This is probably shakier territory, but so far, I'm with you. You shouldn't have to change your private behavior because of someone else.

    So where do we diverge? That would be when, KNOWING THAT BIBLE-HUMPING WOULD BE LIKELY TO SEND GAVIN (also sorry, Gavin) INTO AN UNCONTROLLABLE MURDEROUS RAGE, you email him the video clip and say "hey, check this out!"
    Or, if the ONLY REASON you decide to taste the carnal delight that is Bible-humping, is because you know full well that, although most people who see it will go "Eww!" and turn it off, there are some that will be infuriated, and of those infuriated, there is at least a possibility that some of the infuriated will take action in the form of violence, then you have a piece (a small, tiny piece, but a non-zero piece) of the responsibility for the violence that results.

    I'll repeat: This is not to say that the person who does the actual violence is blameless; far from it, they still deserve full blame for whatever violent action they take. But, there's a little bit of blame left in the bottom of the package for the person who set things in motion, if either that is the result they intended or it was a reasonable assumption that something like (whatever happened) could happen.

  137. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @7:04 pm

    @James Pollock:

    I still do not understand the logic that says that one moral actor has responsibility for another moral actor's choices (barring, of course, a paternalistic/condescending approach, which I don't believe you're taking, that they're inferior people).

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    I can think he's an asshole for his opinion, or even for what he's doing, but it was 100% his right, and to say that he has any ethical obligation not to exert things that are 100% his right is insulting to me, because it says that you have an ethical obligation to not have rights.

    Now, I can agree he's an asshole, and maybe that's all you mean by "blame". But to me, you're saying that these other people's actions are in some manner, his fault for exercising his own rights, in his own country (again, he's not going over to Egypt to make this film. He has done nothing in their country. If he put it on the internet, it's not vastly different than international waters with a boat…still not their goddamn business, even if he's anchored really close to their shores). They made their own choices, and those choices aren't his fault in any way, shape or form. If they're so bothered by other coutnries' rights, they should go live in a goddamn cave, because guess what? Other people are different than you. And they may not like you. They may even make fun of you if they think you're stupid. That's called "society".

    You're saying that, from an ethical standpoint (I very much see that you have not said legal standpoint), there is no such thing as free speech, because you have to control what others reactions are to your stated opinion.

  138. James Pollock  •  Sep 13, 2012 @11:00 pm

    If you're detecting that I'm claiming that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, you are correct. The converse of freedom is responsibility. ALL rights have limits (typically, where one person's rights begin to affect other people's rights.) It is the responsibility of the person exercising their rights to know where the limits of their freedoms lie, and to stay within those limits.
    Some (but by no means all) of those limits are enforced as law. For example, your right to possess a firearm and to use it on your property is limited as soon as flying lead starts landing on someone else's property. I forget the case title that established this, but it involved duck hunting where the hunters stood on and fired from their property, but they were shooting at ducks flying over somebody else's property. Not cool, judgment for the plaintiff.
    Sometimes the limits of your rights are enforced by the phyical limits of the universe we live in… your right to drive at any speed you like on your own property end when you hit the brick wall at 130mph. No appeals.
    Sometimes the limit of your rights is enforced by social disapprobation. Your right to speak freely into your cellular telephonic communication device is limited when you're currently in the matinee showing of "The Dark Knight Rises". Your right to decide which chemicals will interact with your body chemistry also ends when you're currently in the matinee showing of "The Dark Knight Rises", if your chosen method of introducing those chemicals to your body is by smoking them.
    The right to speak one's mind freely is a broad and valuable right, one of the cherished bulwarks of American society. However, even here, this right has limits. And it has NEVER included any kind of right to speak without consequences. Rather, the government's ability to inflict consequences on speech is sharply limited, with only a few small exceptions necessary to preserve other rights. One of the consequences the government is NOT precluded from using is disapproval or disavowal.

    Contributing to violence is almost always wrong (I'm not absolutist, and I can think of a few cases where violence is righteous, but they are few and far between.) Assuming that the violence is wrongful, then contributing (in any way, even the tiniest way) is a wrong. It might be a much, much tinier wrong that the wrongful violence, but it remains wrongful.

  139. Grifter  •  Sep 13, 2012 @11:11 pm

    But here lies our main disagreement.

    "Assuming that the violence is wrongful, then contributing (in any way, even the tiniest way) is a wrong."

    I maintain that he didn't contribute to the violence at all. The violence was 100% the decision of the other moral actors, and he was not the cause at all. Heck, it has been noted before that this was undoubtedtly little more than a pretext for the violence. Sooner or later they'd have found something, or someone would have made something up (folks often forget that one of the most "angering" images released with all the original Mohamed cartoons was the man dressed up as a pig…which was not in any way related to Mohamed or supposed to represent him. It was a lie that was included to ensure folks got especially riled up.

    Again, the filmmaker is an asshole. And his speech was, to all accounts, odious. But he has exactly no blame whatsoever for the decisions of the mob.

  140. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @12:00 am

    "I maintain that he didn't contribute to the violence at all. The violence was 100% the decision of the other moral actors, and he was not the cause at all."

    Well, the people actually doing the rioting in Cairo cited this film as the reason. I agree that it almost definitely wasn't the main reason (I'd guess a combination of dissatisfaction with the revolutionary regime and lack of economic opportunity are the "real" reasons. These conditions created the powderkeg, and the film/video provided the spark; both are necessary for an explosion. However (stretching the analogy) striking sparks near a powderkeg is reckless, even if there are other sources of sparks nearby. It may well be that, had this particular event occurred, some other triggering event would have occurred ("What? Community was moved to Friday night and only given 13 episodes this season? We should go protest at the U.S. Embassy to get them to tell NBC we need a full 22 episode season! Praise Allah! And also Joel McHale!"); it's even possible that some bogus reason to riot would have been manufactured ("Our President cannot produce an Egyptian birth certificate! He's actually a Kenyan Socialist non-Muslim! We should totally trash the U.S. embassy!")

    The rioters themselves seemed to think that the film was the reason the violence in Cairo became centered on the U.S. embassy. Again, there were probably nearly as many reasons why the crowd was so close to turning into a mob as there were people in the crowd… since it's pointless to debate what could have happened if things had been different (maybe, if the crowd hadn't had the Muhammed video thing to get irate over, they would have instead gotten angry that the 1% control all the wealth in Egypt, and decided to occupy the parks and bank lobbies instead of spraypainting on the U.S. embassy walls.)

    So, you and I are settled. If the film contributed to the violence, then the person who did it was wrong to do it; I think that factually it was a contributing factor, so the film's maker was in the wrong, and you think that factually it wasn't a contributing factor, so the film's maker is in the clear. We agree that the various members of the mob retain responsibility for their actions during the mob activity, each individually depending on what, exactly, they did.

  141. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @6:37 am

    @James Pollock:

    I apologize if I wasn't clear, when I argued against your point by saying he didn't contribute. I believe that, under these circumstances, he cannot be said to have contributed to the violence, and you believe he can. If I concede your point, that his movie was 100% the reason they flew into murderrage, I still do not think he did a "wrong".

    I do not agree that he's "in the wrong" if his speech was a "contributing factor" to the violence, because I maintain it's immaterial to the relative rightness of him doing things he's allowed to do in his own country.

    I feel this is essentially a form of victim blaming (although he was not a victim, but the logic could just as easily be extended if he had been)…"She was wearing such a short skirt, it's partially her fault for being raped", or as I used analogously earlier somewhere "That harlot walking down the street didn't keep her eyes averted, it's her fault I'm beating my children"

    What is your opinion of "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day"?

  142. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @7:19 am

    @James Pollock:

    I don't use Wikipedia anything as a source. I use the citations it uses as a source. Please tell me what point I made that you think isn't true. Don't just say, "*Gasp*, you're not Muslim, therefore everything you say must be wrong!" That's not a valid argument, especially not when presented with evidence. It's like saying I can't tell you if it's raining outside because I'm not the wheather and might therefore be biased because I might want it not to be raining. All reliable sources agree with the points I was making. If you actually disagree with something I said, and I present factual evidence, then it's your burden to present a counter point and not dismiss it as "well, you just want it to be something that it's not". Please note that you in no way actually responded to anything I said. Especially not the longer post in which I explained why we can generally know what Muslims believe.

    Now, as for the only thing I cited wikiislam for:

    Question: Did Muhammad marry a 7 year old girl and then sleep with her when she was 9 years old?

    Answer: Yes. Yes he did. And it wasn't an unusual custom in his society either.

    Now, if you find a source that states this and then criticises Islam as a religion that does not condemn such actions nor can it (because again, it'd be like saying that Jesus sinned in the Christian religion, because Muhammad's actions are supposed to be just as divine as the scriptures), are you going to claim that it is somehow "biased" because it thinks pedophilia is bad?

    WikiIslam was only used because it is immediately available. This is something I've learned in College and it is a common criticism of Islam. Historically, Muslims have actually stressed Aisha's age to emphasize her "purity" because she played such an important role after Muhammad's death (to the Sunni faith, the Shi`ites are probably pretty unhappy with her and her role with the Caliphs whom the Shi'tes do not believe were legitimate).

    This is wikipedia's overall bio of her:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

    But since they clearly "must" be biased. [/sarcasm] Then perhaps you can explain the Hadiths which are believed to have been narrated by Aisha herself that claim she was 6 when married and 9 when consummation occured. But clearly Aisha and Islamic Hadiths must be biased against themselves since they say something that us Westerners now think is awful. But just for kicks, let's cite them below:

    These traditions are from the hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875). These two collections are regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims.
    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
    Sahih Bukhari 8:151, Narrated 'Aisha: "I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
    Sahih Bukhari vol. 5, Book 58, Number 234 Narrated 'Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).

    Other hadith in Bukhari repeat this information.

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aisha

    Most everyone believes that she was nine. The argument that some people make is that she reached early puberty. This is still a 50+ year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl, puberty or not. Muslims don't see this as a bad thing because it was well within the custom of that day and because her age, as I said above, is used to point out that she was the only virgin that Muhammad had married and so purity is a big thing.

    You can reject what I say and reject what Muslims themselves say, but that just means you're closing your eyes and that is in no way condusive to the discussion.

  143. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @7:23 am

    @Grifter:

    So (and forgive the upcoming language): it's none of their goddamn business. If I get off cutting a hole in a Bible and fucking it, and I'm in my own home, I don't care if that offends Gavin (sorry Gavin!) so much he wants to kill some random person that isn't humping Bibles but who lives in the same apartment complex. I will not feel guilty or share any blame for what was 100% Gavin's decision based on information that was none of his damn business in the first place.

    Exactly, but I'll take it a step further. Even if I directly attack you then it is still 100% MY fault. There is no acceptable reason to attack someone who is not doing anyone else any harm. The attacking of other random people who had nothing to do with it is even more vile.

  144. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @7:51 am

    *sigh* My longer post above the one to Grifter is awaiting moderation because I listed two links. Are there any guidelines on where I should just not include citation or links to avoid this from happening?

    To summarize what I said, I listed several Hadiths attributed directly to Aisha herself claiming to have been 6 when married/engaged and 9 when consummation occured. Conflicting sources (not Hadiths, but bibliographical works, remember that Hadiths are the ones that actually make Sharia Laws and form beliefs) have to make an argument that she lied. This would be like saying a factual statement in the Qur`an was a lie.

    Keep in mind that several of the Hadiths passages I cited are from the Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the 6 major hadiths that Sunnis follow and considered to be either 1 of the top 3 most authentic sources of the Hadiths or even the most authentic book after the Qur`an. So to disagree with this source is pretty bold in Islamic society. Especially with no direct evidence.

    Just as much as you seem to "suspect" my many sources and points, isn't it just as important for Western minded scholars/Muslims to try to believe that Muhammad didn't do that? I have what are considered direct evidences that she was 9. Anything else is indirect and calling their most trusted canons lies. It'd be like a modern historian saying that the Christian Gospels are true but the other books (our Hadiths) are suspect or lies. This would be extreme blasphemy to Christians of nearly all practices.

    The only early source that actually mentions her age as different than 9 is Tabari who says that she was 10. Scholars try to read into other things they say to infer an older age because there is conflicting information but when these sources say she was a kid and when Aisha herself says she was that young, you have to go pretty damn far to twist things into your own devices.

  145. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @9:42 am

    Grifter, you say:
    "If I concede your point, that his movie was 100% the reason they flew into murderrage"
    Two things, the trivial one first… did the mob in Cairo kill someone? I was under the impression from first reports that they did property damage only.
    Secondly, the math. If you have two events that combine to form a result, and either one alone won't form that result, then I guess you can say that each event is 100% the cause the result (with the obviously odd math of totaling 200%). That's the only way I see of getting "Mr. Film-maker was 100% responsible for the mob violence" as a conclusion from anything I wrote.
    So, Person A maliciously rolls a large rock down a hill onto a roadway, because he's REALLY bored and wants to see the cars dodge around it. It's clear daylight and the road is quite straight, so anybody can see the rock in the road with plenty of time to avoid it. However, as Person B rolls up, he's badly distracted and not paying attention to the road at all. He hits the rock in the road.
    So, you could say that Person A is 100% the cause of the crash, because he put the rock on the road, and without that, there is no crash. You could also say that Person B is 100% the cause of the crash, because he was driving inattentively. Arguing over relative fault is foolish, because each of them is 100% responsible for their own wrong, and the relativity of these wrongs is strongly subject to subjective interpretation… that is, different people can conclude differently based on their own experiences, and their own biases, and their own interpretation of what has happened.
    Continuing on, is it "blaming the victim" to note that Person B contributed to the crash? How about if we add to the hypothetical that a piece of flying debris strikes and injures Person A. Is it blaming the victim to note that Person A contributed to the crash.
    (With regards to rape, the victims who contribute to their own rapes are not the ones who dress slutty… It's the women who go out someplace and voluntarily get so inebriated that they lose control of themselves and the situation. Other victims who get blamed include someone who goes to a high-crime area and flashes a lot of cash before they get robbed, or car-theft victims who left the keys in the ignition and the engine running while they ran inside "just for a second".)

  146. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @10:23 am

    Gavin, you're biased against Islam. I contend that is axiomatic that biased sources of information are inherently untrushworthy.

    Going through a written document (or a whole library of them) looking for things to spin is a waste of time. Here, for example, I will offer you a nice analogue for your amusement.

    I am an expert in Gavinism because I have read the writing, and I sat around with other people who think like me and discussed Gavin even though none of us ARE Gavin or even bothered to talk directly to Gavin.

    We can see that he likes to write about the sexual abuse of minors a LOT, because this theme comes up in his writings over and over. From this we can conclude that Gavin enjoys thinking about sexual abuse of minors. Now, I can't say whether or not Gavin is actually currently abusing any minors, but, it's right there in the writings so it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

    See? Complete nonsense from beginning to end. The author of this hit piece is totally biased, and makes biased inferences of facts that reflect, not truth, but the opinion of the author.

    "It's like saying I can't tell you if it's raining outside because I'm not the wheather and might therefore be biased because I might want it not to be raining."
    Huh? You're not claiming to have knowledge of what is actually happening. You're claiming to have knowledge of what other people believe.

    "All reliable sources agree with the points I was making."
    What points are those? That the societal views of 7th century desert peoples were different than the current views of Western society? Perhaps it isn't that different, as the difficulty in stamping out child pornography and the sexual trafficking of minors indicates.

    "If you actually disagree with something I said, and I present factual evidence, then it's your burden to present a counter point and not dismiss it as "well, you just want it to be something that it's not"."

    It is? Why? When did I claim to be an expert on any of the subjects at hand?

    "Please note that you in no way actually responded to anything I said."

    Noted.

    "Especially not the longer post in which I explained why we can generally know what Muslims believe."

    Dude, NOBODY reads wall-of-text postings. Hasn't anyone ever pointed that out to you?
    If I want to know what A Muslim believes, I'll ask HIM. But I won't ask a Christian who is attempting to turn everything against Islam. As noted before, it would be like getting information about what Republicans believe from Nancy Pelosi… there would be plenty of facts, all neatly lined up (and carefully chosen to support a distorted view). Just as there's no point in arguing all those points with Nancy, there's no point arguing all those points with you… you're happy in your distorted views and they're not going to change.

    How often do you debate your interpretation of what Muslims believe with, not Christians who are, like you, inherently opposed to Islam, but people who are actually Muslims? Or are you afraid to, because of how inherently violent they are?

  147. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @11:04 am

    @James Pollock:

    So basically, you have no evidence about anything and just want to dismiss anything negative anyone has to say regardless of its validity without addressing any of the evidence to the contrary. Good to know. Congrats, you win life! No one can defeat you or ever possibly have the right answer in debate with you unless they're answer is the same as yours! I never thought I'd meet the man who simply cannot be wrong as anyone disagreeing with him must just be biased!

    I wonder if Muslims know that their own sources are biased against them. You should go tell them that their traditions and hadiths tell dirty lies, I'm sure they'll be so happy for the insight you've provided that they'll proclaim you their king. Please, go over there and tell them that. I'm sure they'll see you as the truly enlightened western thinker that you are and wouldn't dare accuse you of extreme blasphemy and then have you summarily executed for it.

    Maybe you should look at your own bias. Why is it so important to you that Islam isn't violent and doesn't espouse all these things that I clearly cited?

    It is? Why? When did I claim to be an expert on any of the subjects at hand?

    I studied Islam for several years under multiple professors from different backgrounds and creeds in a University (i.e. not a seminary and not from Christians). I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I am very well educated on it. Everything I've said are valid moral objections to Islam.

    I explained very clearly that we know what Muslims believe because there are only four schools of law that define their belief in the Sunni expression of Islam (75-90% of the entire religion) and one more school of law in the Shi'ite expression (10-20%). Because of this, we can define what Muslims believe fairly easily, much the same way I could explain the beliefs and differences between specific denominations in Christianity. I can admit that the all of the remaining smaller segments may believe different things. But seeing as at the most they all make up around 15% of the Muslim faith collectively, let's assume I'm not talking about them. Would it make you feel better if I said Shi'ites and Sunnis each time I begin expressing what they believe? I could add the minor expressions of the faith like Quranism which makes up less than 5% of the faith on its best days and only adheres to the Qur`an (which means wife beating and the murder of converts and anyone who witnesses to them).

    As for all the vast majorities that accept the Hadith, I leave you with this. You interpret it however you want. If it's bad then it mus be Islam being biased against itself. Keep in mind that one of the below Hadiths is one of the big six hadiths on which all Sharia Law for 75-90% of Muslims are based.

    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

    In disagreeing with this, you may have the joy of calling a pedophilia victim a liar and a sacred book a liar all for the sake of nothing negative being said.

  148. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @11:51 am

    "So basically, you have no evidence about anything and just want to dismiss anything negative anyone has to say regardless of its validity without addressing any of the evidence to the contrary. Good to know. Congrats, you win life! No one can defeat you or ever possibly have the right answer in debate with you unless they're answer is the same as yours! I never thought I'd meet the man who simply cannot be wrong as anyone disagreeing with him must just be biased!"

    If it's any consolation, I'll happily concede that while I utterly reject your opinions on Islam, you ARE an expert in what Christians-who-are-opposed-to-Islam believe.

    "Why is it so important to you that Islam isn't violent and doesn't espouse all these things that I clearly cited?"
    Why are you ascribing things to me? (this is additional evidence, if any was needed, that you are a poor judge of what other people believe.) My claim is that you are a poor source of information of what Muslim people believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

    "I'm by no means an expert on the subject"
    Agreed. Although earlier (In another thread, or I would quote you directly) you claimed otherwise.

    "I explained very clearly that we know what Muslims believe because there are only four schools of law that define their belief in the Sunni expression of Islam (75-90% of the entire religion) and one more school of law in the Shi'ite expression (10-20%). Because of this, we can define what Muslims believe fairly easily, much the same way I could explain the beliefs and differences between specific denominations in Christianity"

    This is nonsense, because not all people, even people within the same church building, much less the same religion, believe the same thing. As a simple example: Does hypothetical person A, who is a Catholic, believe that artificial birth control should be used to limit the size of a person's family?

    Your fascination with Muhammed's sex life borders on obsession, and (I'm guessing here) has about as much relevance as pointing out that Jesus liked to hang out with hookers. That is, really useful if you want to land a zinger on the faithful, but not really useful for anything else.

    There is a long, proud tradition of picking through the Bible to find Scriptural support for just about any position (the pro and anti slavery camps (both Christian) tossed Scriptural references back and forth.) If the Bible can be used this way, why would I assume that any other religion's holy writings can't also be manipulated this way? Had I the time and temperament, I'm sure I could comb through the Bible and selectively quote passages proving… pretty much anything about the people who consider the book holy, depending on which way I was trying to spin it. The point is, doing this is a complete and utter waste of time.

  149. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:29 pm

    @James Pollock:

    Points of order conceded, to a certain extent.

    I was conflating Cairo and Libya; weren't the supposed causes the same?

    As regards to the "100% bit", to use your analogy, I was basically saying (admittedly sloppily), that like the person pushing the rock is 100% responsible for the rock rolling into the street, I was saying even if you do agree that his actions were 100% the cause of their anger (i.e., that it wasn't just a pretext, etc.). Now, the rock analogy is a failure as an analogy, because the rock roller does not have a right to roll a rock into the roadway, but regardless, I concede and have hopefully clarified to your points of order.

    As regards to your argument:
    I'm glad we have discussed rape (even though we, neither of us are equating it, but rather discussing relativity), because something has become clear. I do not believe we can have any more productive debate on this subject. You come from a mindset that a rape victim can share the moral blame for their rape, I come from the side that while you can say that a person may do actions which will reasonably result in X (rape or robbery), that that does not in any way, shape, or form, make them responsible for X. I don't think we can possibly bridge that gap; to me, it is simply axiomatic that the moral burden is in no way shared (even if, in the car keys example, I say "well, that was stupid") in those situations.

  150. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:38 pm

    @James Pollock:

    So you're purposely trying to flame? Are you really that insecure in the possiblity that a religion that you can't control believes in something that could harm you? Or perhaps you think you need to defend them to the point of crossing the "don't be a dick" rule of philosophy like you're their white knight or something.

    Either way, all I can do is show you what they believe by citing them. That's what I've done.

    And yeah, I'm totally obsessed with his sex life. I wish I could have been that 9 year old kid he definitely slept with. I bet his old man chest hair would have tickled my cheeks. But alas, I'm not only a dude but far too many years removed. So it was not to be… *sighs longingly* Thanks for helping me to reminisque. I'm glad you weren't trying to make some sort of homophobic attack on me or something.

  151. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:42 pm

    @Gavin:

    I think he's just saying that he doesn't trust biased sources because it's easy to cherry-pick, and he was just trying to show you how easy it is to do, not actually say you have an obsession with kid abuse.

    You accused me of doing something similar in a different thread, about the subject of your own religion, and I was just saying some Christians believe X, while you have appeared to be making sweeping generalizations. I think he could give you the benefit of the doubt a bit more than he has, and I think that referencing a book that believers point to as a book they believe in is valid, even if you do cherrypick, but I understand his point, in that it is tough to speak about anything "inherent" in a religion.

  152. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:45 pm

    The most hilarious part is that I was just presenting what they believe. The fact that you think it's just Muslim hate speech is kinda interesting for those of us that know that they not only really do think and defend those things but they are in their laws. I do think we're quite done here though. I'll save my time and "expertise" for people who actually read facts before explaining that they're biased. I didn't even through subjectivity into them, I just stated and cited.

    You can claim that they don't really believe all of these things, but if they're Sunni they do. Regardless of which school of law they're part of. All four unanimously accept the entire Qur`an which is the source of most of the comments.

  153. Gavin  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:53 pm

    @Grifter,

    I understand, you may think it's surprising but I don't "really" wish I was that kid. Whiskers don't feel good at all! Ticklish at best, scratchy at worst.

    My problem is that I'm just sighting the Qur`an and their most trusted Hadiths. These aren't biased opinions, it's the people themselves. I'm pointing out mainstream beliefs. These aren't fringe beliefs.

    He needs to do his research. Just because I'm not Muslim doesn't make me biased against them. Even with everything I said, I am actually still quite attracted to this religion and culture. If an atheist quoted a scripture verse to me I wouldn't exclaim, "You're biased!". You would be, of course, but that doesn't make you wrong or the verse non-existant. It's valid evidence that should be reviewed.

  154. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @1:58 pm

    @Gavin:

    I agree…but I also agree that if you think a source is biased you should take the info with a grain of salt, so I guess I'm just saying you should cut him some slack, just like I think he should cut you some slack.

  155. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @3:48 pm

    "The most hilarious part is that I was just presenting what they believe."
    No, the most hilarious part is that you apparently cannot conceive of the difference between what they (individually and collectively) believe and what you believe they believe.

    "The fact that you think it's just Muslim hate speech"
    Oops! Projecting again! I THINK you're a biased source. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I'll save my time and "expertise" for people who actually read facts before explaining that they're biased."
    Facts are biased?
    One more time… the accusation is that YOUR INTERPRETATION of facts is biased.

    "You can claim that they don't really believe all of these things, but if they're Sunni they do."
    Again, this monolithic thinking. I countered this claim with a counterclaim, that not all people necessarily agree with everything their church tells them to. You were so busy being outraged at being doubted that you forgot to respond to that.
    All Christian faiths accept that the Bible is holy and guides their religious thought… but… they have so MANY disagreements about what the Bible MEANS. Why should I (or anyone else) assume that this is any less so with Muslims and THEIR holy words?
    You see, this circles back to the main point, that it isn't really what the holy words ARE that matters, it's what the faithful THINK THEY MEAN. Now, once upon a time it was highest blasphemy to suggest that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today, most Christians accept that not just the Earth, but the entire Solar system is just a tiny bit of a much grander creation. Which words of Scripture were altered to allow this interpretation, which was heresy worthy of torture just a short time ago?

    Let me summarize the rest of the argument you made:
    All Muslims accept the Koran as divine, holy text.
    My interpretation of the Koran is "X".
    Therefore, all Muslims believe "X".

    Spotting the logical flaw in this argument is left as an exercise for the reader.

  156. Malc  •  Sep 14, 2012 @6:14 pm

    @Grifter 1:29,

    While the media has happily conflated the Cairo events with the murders in Benghazi and the riots elsewhere, it is perhaps misleading that have done so!

    It appears that, far from being obscure, the trash film apparently produced by an Egyptian Copt had been getting heavy promotion within Egypt over the past week or so.

    (It's possible that that was the intent of the film: to promote angry Moslem response, so as to discredit the Moslem government in the eyes of the US, and so "force" the US into some kind of moral or other alliance with the Egyptian Copts, who by all accounts have been feeling a bit exposed. Sounds a bit of an odd plan to me, but not impossible or even terribly implausible).

    The Benghazi attack, on the other hand, seems to have been a deliberately planned action by extremists on the anniversary of 9/11. How may angry rioters bring along their RPGs, you know, just in case…

    Finally, it's worth noting that the Egyptian Embassy release that got Ken and others all riled up is in fact based on long-standing State Department policy, or at least actions:

    As the United States Secretary of State herself said: ""Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States".

    [ Oh, and before anyone gets upset at Mrs Clinton, that statement was made on May 12th, 2005, by Mrs Rice. See http://nepal.usembassy.gov/pr_05-12-2005.html ]

  157. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @7:23 pm

    Grifter, I agree that a fundamental meeting of the minds may be beyond our reach, because the notion that a victim categorically cannot be said to have contributed to their victimization seems, well, ridiculous to me. Blaming the victim INSTEAD OF the perpetrator is error, but I can think of too many instances where the victim could have chosen a different path and avoided being victimized.

    Still, I don't like to give up. One last try:
    Suppose we try a terminology change. Instead of saying "the victim was partly to blame" or "the victim contributed to events…", how about "the victim may have learned the hard way of some things they can do to reduce the likelihood of being victimized again."

    While thinking of examples, I kept turning to financial scams. Most con games rely on the greed of the mark, and will not work if the mark is not greedy and looking for "easy money". Every Internet user's favorite, the Nigerian Letter, for example, only works if the mark agrees that helping the late oil minister's wife spirit the money out of Nigeria without the government's consent is something that should be done, and OF COURSE whatever percentage is offered by that poor, old widow is a fair price for use of the mark's bank account for a couple days, right?

  158. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @10:16 pm

    @James Pollock:

    We are talking about morality, not practicality. From a practical standpoint, of course a person walking down a street in a bad neighborhood with hundred-dollar bills sticking out of his pockets is about 1000% more likely to be robbed. But from a moral standpoint, I don't believe our street-walker has any moral culpability for his mugging.

    And, for the record, your scammers analogy fails because those who are fleeced in that situation are committing a wrong, whether it's a scam or not. They have willingly entered into a criminal enterprise out of greed.

  159. Grifter  •  Sep 14, 2012 @10:32 pm

    Also, James Pollock, you never readdressed the bullying bit, which I suspect is central to your thoughts that our Shitty Filmmaker (SF) is in some way morally culpable for the actions of the mob. (Because what I will for now call "real bullying" is a moral wrong, and so therefore if he were actually bullying them, I might come round a bit to your perspective, in that someone committing a moral wrong cannot complain/is more easily argued to be morally culpable for a moral wrong done in response. )

  160. James Pollock  •  Sep 14, 2012 @11:28 pm

    Ah. Let's return to our robbery victim, then, or rather, two different versions of him.
    Mr. One is a person who, though hard work and diligent effort, has earned a relatively successful income, but for whatever reason he still lives in what we can call a bad neighborhood. He is known to have money, and he is known to carry cash, because of the nature of his business and the extent of his civic involvement in volunteer activities and his support of neighborhood fundraising projects. He quietly invests a substantial portion of his income to improving the neighborhood; sometimes these investments return profit in the form of cash, sometimes only in the form of lives bettered. One day when he is carrying a substantial amount of cash (which the bad guys know about despite Mr. One's best efforts to keep quiet) he is set upon and robbed.
    Mr. Two, on the other hand, is also a person who through hard work and diligent effort has earned a relatively successful life, and who also for reasons not important lives in a bad neighborhood. Where we diverge is in the way Mr. Two handles his success. He never misses a chance to brag about it, and to harp on his success compared to others who have, for various reasons, not enjoyed as much success. Mr. Two waves his money about, making a big show of paying for things that others cannot. Expensive car, designer clothing, flashy jewelry. He has invested his money not in improving the neighborhood, but in making sure the neighborhood knows he has achieved success that they have not. One day he is set upon and robbed.
    Now, we know that we can hold the robbers to blame for the robbery, and if they are caught, each fully deserves the punishment they receive. We are concerned ONLY with the victims. Can you say that each of the victims has displayed precisely and exactly the same amount of wrongness in their actions? I'll admit, the difference is extremely small compared to the robbers, but relative only to each other, are they identical? Or is Mr. Two's sin of pride, of lording his good fortune over those not so favored, his habit of showing off… just a tiny bit wronger than poor Mr. One?
    (Note that the degree of wrongness in the victim has no impact on the wrongness of the crime. We aren't going to impose a longer sentence on the first robbers because they attacked noble Mr. One while the second robbers "only" attack that total jerk, Mr. Two.)
    (Note that I am not making the case that this scenario is comparable to the rape case hypothetical from upthread, where the type of wrong committed by the victim is recklessness. To reach that far, our analogy would have to stretch to Mr. Three, who's just cashed a big lottery prize at lottery headquarters, and the TV news reporters that show A) Mr. Three picking up several stacks of shiny new bills, describing the total as "mid six figures" B) his name and likeness, and C) his home address, which is again in that same "bad" neighborhood.)

    "for the record, your scammers analogy fails because those who are fleeced in that situation are committing a wrong, whether it's a scam or not. They have willingly entered into a criminal enterprise out of greed."
    My original argument is that Mr. Film-maker has committed a wrong (recklessness) WHETHER OR NOT angry mob turns to riot, WHETHER OR NOT anyone actually gets hurt. So we've come full circle. The wrong of the victim is entirely independent of the wrong of the perpetrators, and status as victim of crime does not categorically remove the possibility of wrong action on the part of the victim.

    Here's another one… the domestic abuse victim who returns again and again (with the kids) to the abuser. (Yes, some people are trapped by economic circumstance. Let's simplify and say I'm talking only about the ones who are not, the ones who had a choice to leave or return, and chose to return.)

  161. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @12:08 am

    "Also, James Pollock, you never readdressed the bullying bit"
    Because it was fairly apparent that your experiences in this area differ substantially from mine. While what I will term "physical bullying" is what comes to mind from the word "bully", it is just as possible, through what I will term "emotional bullying" to produce the same effects without ever laying hands on the victim. (What can I say? Growing up, most of my friends were girls and this is the type of bullying they endure.) When bullying takes this form, the bully (or bullies) detect the emotional and psychological weaknesses of the victim and return to them over and over, poking and prodding in a way that they know will create a reaction. I've never known anyone who didn't have at least a couple of buttons that could be pushed to provoke a response; the bullying lies in returning to those buttons over and over again. The victim has no way to make it stop (there are, of course, cases where this has led to suicide which have been heavily publicized, there are cases where the acting out took the form of attacking others, and there are probably lots and lots and lots of cases where the acting out took the form of bullying someone or something else… picture the cliche of the man who is yelled at at work who comes home to yell at his wife and kick the dog.) Online social media have proven to be a channel that emotional bullies can use quite well in their bullying.

    I call both of these forms of bullying, physical and emotional, "real bullying".

    "which I suspect is central to your thoughts that our Shitty Filmmaker (SF) is in some way morally culpable for the actions of the mob."
    Again, SF is morally culpable for the recklessness of his own actions, NOT the actions of the mob. In contibuting to the formation of the mob, or in the transformation of the mob from angry mob to riot, one creates a dangerous situation, a situation wherein people may be harmed. As I see it, if you recklessly put people in danger, whether the danger is in the form of inanimate objects (throwing rocks off the freeway overpass), some kind of animal (turning the big cats loose because your wild-animal park is bankrupt), an angry mob of people(yelling "scab" at a union protest), a coldly rational person (telling the crime boss that someone's a state's witness), or left-handed space aliens who utterly fail to understand our ideas of moral judgment, doesn't matter. The wrongness lies in knowing the danger but proceeding anyway.

  162. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @12:09 am

    Ick. I seem to be drifting into wall-of-text myself. I'll try to cut back.

  163. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @12:33 am

    @James Pollock:

    I do not consider pride a moral wrong, so I would say that while in general One is a morally good person for the deeds you noted, Two's actions are morally neutral. He's not "more wrong", in that he's not "wrong" at all.

    As regards to the "bullying" debate, you misrepresent my argument. I never once tried to ever say or imply that bullying required physicality, or that emotional bullying doesn't exist, since that's obviously true; what I said was that it required a real (or perceived) power imbalance.

    Emotional bullying is real, but to say that SF is an emotional bully is, to me, ridiculous. And doesn't follow any definitions I gave you. So what I said was, give me a definition external to yourself that says "bullying is doing anything that another person doesn't like/angers them" (granted, it's a simplification of your position, but to me it appears to be your definition), so that I can believe that you are not just wrong on your definition, but rather using another recognized definition.

  164. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @12:44 am

    And SF's actions were not reckless. They did not directly do anything, and, in fact, couldn't since his actions were just words (okay, there are words that can do things…fire in a crowded theater and all, but of course that's fraud and not at issue here).

    You're saying the actions were reckless because they might have thrown another group of people into a murderrage, and I say he has no moral obligation to restrict his own rights to prevent other people from doing something blatantly immoral.

    Whether that's the wisest course of action is another debate entirely, one in which we'll likely be on the same side, methinks. But as regards to moral obligations, no, it's not his to limit his morally neutral activities just because someone else might decide to commit an obvious moral wrong in reaction.

  165. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @6:13 am

    "what I said was that it (bullying)required a real (or perceived) power imbalance."
    I would say that this is more or less necessary for physical bullying, but not emotional. It's not uncommon to see divorces where each spouse bullies the other. You sometimes see it in siblings, too. Sometimes the imbalance is that one employs physical bullying but the other employs emotional bullying, but to be be an emotional bully doesn't require any power, just knowledge of what the victims emotional or psychological weaknesses are.

  166. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @6:32 am

    "You're saying the actions were reckless because they might have thrown another group of people into a murderrage"

    Not "might have". "Were intended to". And the recklessness comes not from the act of speech, but of publication (and probably subsequent promotion). Of course, publication is another first amendment right, meaning that the government lacks the power to prevent it, and has sharply limited rights to punish him for it, but the right to publish is not unlimited any more than the right to speak. Note that the first amendment does permit "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech, if they're reasonably necessary to protect other rights. (Thus, for example, your first amendment right to peaceably assemble in the streets can be limited not only as a result of a failure of some of your members to remain entirely peaceable, but also can be limited if you're blocking the free travel of others; your right to speak to a crowd in a park is protected but your right use amplified loudspeakers to do it may be limited.)
    This is one flaw in your "it can't be wrong because SF had a right to speak/publish". The other is that things can be both entirely legal and morally wrong at the same time. ("Illegal" describes things you aren't permitted to do, while "wrong" encompasses things you shouldn't do. These terms overlap significantly but not completely.)

  167. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @7:14 am

    @James Pollock:

    I understand you don't think there needs to be a power imbalance, re-explaining your position isn't helpful here. What I said was that I believe you are using a wrong definition. I gave sources for mine, and asked that you give source(s) for yours, because I am of the opinion you're "just wrong" in your definition, but if you can find somewhere else that agrees with you, then I'd be more likely to accept that it's at least a valid definition. I, for example, in a spousal equality situation, would not say they are "bullying each other". I would say they're both being emotionally abusive assholes, they're both pushing each other's buttons, but not that they are bullying.

    And explaining to me that rights are limited in some circumstances, or that there's a difference between legality and morality, has no bearing here. I understand both of those concepts, thank you very much.

    My point here is that SF does not, in my opinion, have a moral obligation to protect the dewicate feewings of anybody. If his duly exercised free speech (used in a perfectly legal way, and done in his own country) causes people in another country to go apeshit murderrage, that's not his moral burden. It is theirs alone. They are the ones who choose to look into what's happening in America, and they are the ones who, as a result of that, decided to commit a clear moral wrong. He can be faulted for offending them, yes, but I don't believe anyone has a moral obligation not to offend, especially not in their own "house".

    On a side note, you keep acting like he went "out of his way" to offend them, and I keep saying he is in his own country…what made him go "out of his way", would you say? Beyond the simple creation of the film, because that's nothing more than his own expression of his own opinion (now, misleading the actors, that's a moral wrong, but that's a whole different ball-o-wax), which he's morally and legally entitled to.

  168. Malc  •  Sep 15, 2012 @12:19 pm

    @Grifter: suppose, just for a moment, that SF's motives were to explicitly provoke outrage and anger. That the reason he made the film in the way he made it was NOT merely to express an opinion, and impart a viewpoint, but to create the sort of response that he got.

    NOW you have a "fighting words" situation, one in which Chaplinsky v New Hampshire would have bearing (remarkably, that's a case where a Jehova's Witness's speech was unprotected).

    Is this what happened? I don't know… but the more facts about the background appear, the more I think it becomes a possible scenario.

    Having said that, I fully accept that any attempt to prosecute under a "fighting words" theory is itself problematic absent blatant smoking guns (e.g. an email saying "Guys, we're going to make a film to incite Egyptian Moslems to such uncontrolled anger that they'll riot and stuff").

  169. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @2:53 pm

    @Malc:

    While we are discussing morality, not legality, I had previously conceded that if it was his intent to cause death, then that intent is a moral wrong.

  170. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @4:48 pm

    The "fighting words" doctrine recognizes that while ideal human beings remain in control of themselves at all times and never, the non-ideal kind that are actually found in THIS world may, in fact, be triggered into emotionall irrationality by mere words, depending on the circumstances, the speaker, the words actually uttered, and the tone and timber of the speaking.
    Grifter, you're willing to concede that Mr. SF did wrong if he intended to cause death. How about a step further? How about if he intended to create a situation in which one or more deaths was not certain, but were distinctly possible (if not likely)? How about if, rather than death, it was only serious (physical) injury that was possible (if not likely)?
    Is the person who incites a crowd to riot "wrong" if they themselves personally harm no one and damage no property? How about if after several people are injured, their defense is "hey, I just wanted to get the crowd to break a few windows. I didn't intend that anyone would actually get hurt."
    As best as I can apply your standards, the answer is "no" because A) the person who did the incitement was merely speaking, B) other people had the moral authority to refuse to riot, and instead chose to riot (therefore, they are entirely to blame for the resulting damage/injury) and C) the speaker did not intend anyone to die.

    Now, of course, this comparison is not apt if what SF did is not similar to inciting to riot. It seems to me (YMMV) that the imagery and dialogue in the film WAS, in fact, intended to inflame Muslims as much as possible, and it seems likely to understand that, if such intentional insults to Muslims are widely distributed, they will come to the attention of at least one person who ideally would not turn to violence, but practically, can be reasonably expected to react with violence. If so, the combination of A) making the film as inflammatory as possible and B) distributing it as widely as possible makes C) at least one person, probably many, reacting with violence to be predictable. If violence is a predictable result of your actions, you are inciting violence.
    This is not, and never has been about "pwotecting feewwings." Protecting feelings is the polite thing to do, but rudeness is generally legal and generally ethical, except for those who hold to the highest standards (which I don't… ask Gavin.)

    Since I think you'r hung up on the "the rioters had a moral choice to make, and they made it wrongly" idea, whereas I see a "fighting words" type exception to the rule that people are responsible for their own actions, I don't see agreement coming.
    Again, I think if you intentionally create a dangerous situation, regardless of the exact nature of the danger, it's a wrong. You're countering that that wrong does not accrue if the exact nature of the danger is people "choosing" to riot, because the moral wrong of that act expands and crowds out all other wrongs.

    I'm not a fan of rap music, and I choose to express my opinion on the relative musical merits of rap by the simple expedient of not seeking it out, and not financially supporting its practitioners. I suppose, if my attitude towards rap music was extreme antipathy rather than the extreme indifference I actually have, I might be moved to take a more active stance in opposition to rap music. I could speak out by speaking and writing about how objectionable rap music is. I could take many steps, well within my rights as an American.
    One thing I can't do is walk into a hip-hop club, wait for a break between songs, and shout "SHUT UP NIGGER!" using my outside voice. Why? Because it is EXTREMELY likely that someone is going to get hurt in the resulting melee. I'm probably going to run into a similar problem if I just walk back and forth on the sidewalk in front of the club with a sign that says that, and say absolutely nothing at all out loud. This is not because people, whether black or not, have a right not to hear or read this word, or because it hurts their feelings. It is because the likelihood that someone (probably me, but maybe others as well) will be harmed, AND I am fully aware of this before speaking.

  171. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @4:53 pm

    @James Pollock:

    Easy on the walls-o-text!

    I kid, I kid.

    Anyway:

    Intent is always important in morals. If I intend to poison someone, but instead the poison interacts and cures their cancer, I don't get real credit for being a cancer-curer, morally, because that wasn't my intent at all.

    My argument is that it is not his obligation to care if his words offend those in another country. However, I concede (and did much further upthread, in fact, so it's odd to me that you're bringing it up again now) if it really was his intent to manipulate these people into attacking, then he has committed a moral wrong.

  172. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @4:57 pm

    And you keep using examples where a person has forced themselves on others (If I walk into a hip-hop club…). This guy posted a video on the internet. Nobody has to view it, they have to seek it out.

    It's more akin to someone who attends a Klan rally then getting so mad they shoot someone because of all the language. 1, why were they surprised, and 2, do they really get to complain?

  173. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @5:04 pm

    And remember:

    These people, if we take them at their word that they're offended by the movie, are not offended that they were shown it, but rather that it exists at all. So there were no circumstances he could speak his piece that wouldn't be "reckless" according to you.

  174. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @6:07 pm

    It wasn't a wall of text when I started, and as I write it I can only see about six lines. Obviously, I have no moral fault on THAT particular topic…

    It's the combination of tone and timbre of the video, combined with wide distribution, that creates the recklessness. One or the other, without the other, creates no problem. Of the old media, I think posting to YouTube is closest to a pamphlet drop, where the same objection applies… no one had to pick up the pamphlet and read it. It's not a perfect analogy, because the WWW is truly a new media type, not just an evolution of an older one. But your objection more or less applies to ANY form of delivery. Nobody forced anyone to watch that TV show, view that film, read that book, or interpret that interpretive dance. Outside of some kind of "Clockwork Orange"-type of thing, anyway.

    And we still are circling around the same thing. Yes, the nutties are bothered by the fact that the video even exists. This is, in part, because Mr. Film-maker made his film in such a way that this would be true, with full knowledge that this would be the result. There are LOTS and LOTS of anti-Islam rants in print, on television, and on the Internet, that the nutties are NOT clamoring over, so it must be possible to make an anti-Islam film without stirring up the nutties. Mr. Film-maker sought out a way to be sure that he did, and succeeded.

    Conceded, there is a real chance that my interpretation of Mr. Film-maker's actions is incorrect. I'm pretty sure, however, that it is not, and of course, I intend to proceed as if I'm correct until demonstrated otherwise; you may feel free to disregard my opinion on the matter entirely.

  175. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @6:21 pm

    Are we proceeding on the assumption he made the video to upset, and not caring beyond that, or that he made the video specificially to get them to kill?

  176. James Pollock  •  Sep 15, 2012 @8:26 pm

    Somewhere in the middle is my guess… intending that it would get them upset, knowing it was likely to lead to violence, not caring if it did.
    Alternatively, intending that it would get them upset, knowing it would lead them to want to kill (him), knowing they'd be unlikely to succeed at killing him, not caring if anyone else was affected.

  177. Grifter  •  Sep 15, 2012 @9:28 pm

    Okay. And it is my contention that he doesn't have to care. Not ethically.

  178. Gavin  •  Sep 17, 2012 @9:04 am

    @James Pollock:

    So, your argument is that because some individuals can believe something other than their religion's actual tenets that the religion can't possibly mean that?

    I stated what Islam teaches, not what every individual believes. If I explain what scientists tell us about evolution do I need to make a special side statement to include "creation scientists" or can I just say what the mainstream teachings are and let it go at that.

    It's really nice that some Muslims ignore those teachings or outright reject them. It doesn't change what Islam teaches though. Not one bit.

  179. Gavin  •  Sep 17, 2012 @9:06 am

    To explain what I actually think you mean so you can clarify if not:

    You mean that individuals don't necessarily believe it just because their denomination teaches it so I can't make a blanket claim of what Muslims believe.

    If so, my above statement stands. I'm telling you what Islam teaches.

  180. James Pollock  •  Sep 18, 2012 @10:09 pm

    "If I explain what scientists tell us about evolution do I need to make a special side statement to include "creation scientists" or can I just say what the mainstream teachings are and let it go at that."

    There's no such thing as a "creation scientist", because creationism isn't science, it's theology. But if you made the claim that "scientists believe (x) about evolution", you'd be incorrect, because what scientists believe is all over the map.

    Let's take what I consider the logical trap you've fallen into completely out of the religious arena. All American lawyers agree that the Constitution is the primary source of law in the United States and that all other law flows from the Constitution.* The text of the Constitution is the same, no matter who reads it. So, obviously, all lawyers interpret the words of the Constitution the same way, right? The legislature would never enact a statute that was unconstitutional, and the courts all agree on the correct meaning of constitutional text, right?
    Here, we're only talking about text that is a couple of hundred years old and has never needed translation from one language to another. Religious texts are far older and usually have been translated at least once between the source and the current faithful.
    In short, you've fallen into the trap of assuming that words can and do have only one possible meaning, one possible interpretation, and this is just not the case. So, your claim that you can look at the words and extract the one and only interpretation seems ludicrous. I'd hoped you'd see that when I offered analysis showing the one and only true interpretation of YOUR writings…

    So, again, your knowledge of what the various holy writings actually say (both yours and theirs) is greater than mine by a substantial margin (largely because I don't care.) Your ability to speak as to what THEIR holy writings mean to YOU is undisputed, and that is what you have been sharing. Your ability to speak to what THEIR holy writings mean to THEM is highly disputed, and I'll call you on it every time you claim to do it.

    So when you say "I'm telling you what Islam teaches." my answer is still "no, you're telling me what YOU THINK Islam teaches." (or, perhaps, "what Islam teaches YOU." This provides me with no information at all about what actual Muslims think Islam teaches, and your admitted use of biased sources leads me to believe that there probably are severe differences between your interpretations and theirs.)

    *this is a dangerous assumption, of course, but I think that while it may be inaccurate to state it as an absolute, it is close enough to remain meaningful. An important difference: although lawyers hold the Constitution to be the source of all U.S. law, for the most part, they do not believe it to be inerrant.

  181. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:30 am

    James Pollock:

    Again, Islam has five schools of law (if you include the Shi`ite school). These laws are enforced by Middle Eastern Governments. You can read the laws and tell what it teaches. Some Muslims there may not believe in everything it teaches but if they cross one of those legal boundaries they get executed like anyone else. Do you have evidence to suggest anything to the contrary? Do you have evidence that anything but fringe groups or American adherrents have dropped those beliefs? FYI, these would be "bad" Muslims according to Sharia Law, because some of these actions are commanded and not just recommended.

    What I'm trying to say is, why do you get to dismiss what I'm saying if I'm the one sitting on all the evidence and you're not? I'm not trying to be inflamatory or say that Muslims are evil. I'm merely presenting beliefs that are just mainstream, but are written into their law. Things that run very contrary to our Western mindset. Do you think the regular assaults on civil liberties regarding religion, gender, and lifestyle choices just happen randomly? Or is there a government and religious backing?

    We see Sharia Law being supported all the time. The only events that governments seem to back down is if the person gets enough media attention to shine a spotlight on their pending execution. God forbid you are an ugly old Muslim who converts to Christianity or Atheism, I doubt the media would kick up a storm.

    Read this BBC article on it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml

    Adultry and Homosexuality are also things resulting in execution. As adherrence to Sharia law increases in a country, so does these sorts of executions and infringements on human rights.

    BBC acknowledges that there is a "small" group that holds an abolitionist view. But not only are they not necessarily Muslims, but their reasons for doing so isn't that Islam doesn't teach such things, it's that people aren't given a lawyer, that sharia law is used to attack the poor and women, and that there is some disagreement on interpretations/authenticity of the sacred texts (this would not apply to the Qur`an as beleif in it's authenticity is just as vital as in Christianity, this would be the Sunnahs/Hadiths that the various schools of law can interpret differently). Unfortunately, many of these points are universally agreed on by all of orthodoxy.

    Do you have any evidence of significant groups of Muslims that reject all of these commanded punishments? You're basically demanding that we have faith that there are an untold number of Muslims out there that secretly reject these notions while on the other hand we regularly have people getting executed in the streets for the most basic exercise of the civil rights we enjoy here.

  182. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:43 am

    TLDR version:

    So, again, your knowledge of what the various holy writings actually say (both yours and theirs) is greater than mine by a substantial margin (largely because I don't care.) Your ability to speak as to what THEIR holy writings mean to YOU is undisputed, and that is what you have been sharing. Your ability to speak to what THEIR holy writings mean to THEM is highly disputed, and I'll call you on it every time you claim to do it.

    The Sharia Law is what their holy writings mean to them. It is literally the interpretation of their scriptures in clear and modern format. Citing it is citing what Muslims say.

    Once again: You have the Qur`an and the Hadiths/Sunnah which are correctly up for interpretation. Then you have four schools of law that 75 to 90% of all of Islam fall under (more if you include the fifth school of law that generally agrees with these). If you are Sunni, it means you adhere to one or more of those four schools. If you are Shi`ite, it means you adhere to the fifth school of law. Together, these schools can account for somewhere in the 90% region of belief.

    Do you understand what I'm saying? Sharia Law is modern and changeable. They edit things all the time. But it IS what Islam believes. This is so silly that you're just dismissing it. It's like some guy named ted wrote a note saying that he likes hotdogs and then told me he likes hotdogs. I then go to you and say, Ted likes hotdogs, look, it says so in his writings AND he told me so. Then you say, "NO, you can't speak on his behalf!" Then I say, "But that's what HE said." Then you argue that it doesn't matter, I can't speak on his behalf.

    What if I got one of my Muslim friends to get on here and affirm this? Would you then make the argument that he can't speak for all Muslims? This is a flagrant disregard of evidence from all sides. I get that a lot of people have used this information to spread hate. I'm strongly against htat. But that doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned to the truth. That's just being willingly ignorant. Would you feel better if I said that at least 85% of Islam (if you take the lowest possible number of the scale for Shi`ites and Sunnis but fail to include the unorthodox groups who may ALSO believe in many or all of these laws) believe these things?

  183. Grifter  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:44 am

    @James Pollock:

    I think you're being a bit hard on Gavin; I see, and agree with, your point to a certain extent, but it's super semantical.

    Let's parse a statement from his religion: "Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God". Not all folks who consider themselves Christian believe that. Some even believe he was just a man, and they consider themselves Christian, too.

    But the ones with those interpretations are quite in the minority; the majority (AFAIK) have as their statements that he was the son of god. So a more apt statement is much longer: "The majority of sects, that call themselves Christian, at the present time have as a stated, official belief the idea that Jesus was the Son of God", but if someone said the first thing, and someone else said "Well, not literally all of them", and the first person responded "Well, okay, not all of them but certainly a majority", is it worth getting up in arms that they haven't corrected their original statement?

    In the case of Catholics, while many don't believe in everything Emperor Palpatine says, technically they're supposed to call themselves Catholic. So saying "Catholics believe X" is often untrue (certainly on the subject of birth control), more apt is "The official Catholic doctrine is X", but the underlying point is still there.

    Gavin has admitted that there are folks who don't believe the crappier things he's mentioned; I think he's just saying they're in the minority, which is why he essentially disregards them. Is that about right, Gavin?

  184. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:45 am

    Correction, the above is clearly not a TLDR version. Guess I'm just not good at those.

    TLDR version: Sharia Law is a modern definition of what Muslims believe. It is always in flux and comes up with new laws just like our own legal system does. The type of Muslim you are is determined by the school of law you adhere to (if one of the four major ones, you're Sunni, the fifth one means you're Shi`ite). To cite Sharia law is to cite what THEY believe.

    Done.

  185. Grifter  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:51 am

    Whoops, forgot an "if they"

    *"…technically they're supposed to, if they call themselves Catholic."

  186. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:52 am

    @Grifter,

    That is correct. The people who believe otherwise may account for as much as 15% of Islam if the numbers are to be believed and are the lowest possible number for Sunni's and Shi`ites. They are probably less than 10% all told and several of the groups I've studied still adhere to many of the things I've mentioned. There are also probably individuals who hold beliefs other than the ones they profess but these would be impossible to know.

    I'd also expect that the numbers are SIGNIFICANTLY different in the US where people grow up being taught the importance of civil rights along with the tenets of their faith. These would be people who would be considered bad or weak Muslims by the majority of foreign Muslims, though probably/hopefully not to the point of apostasy. I am grateful that this country provides an environment that can produce peaceful expressions of a religion we'd otherwise consider violent. It's another reason to be all the sadder when American Muslims are attacked out of ignorance and prejudice.

  187. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:55 am

    *Not that you shouldn't be sad if non-American Muslims get attacked out of prejudice! I'm just saying that America seems to have a much more peaceful expression of the faith.

  188. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:42 am

    Grifter, let's take your analysis at face value.
    Let's use your example. "Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God". True enough, this is one of the very few things that Christians agree on; if you ask a Christian if Jesus was the Son of God he's going to nod. But.. what does it MEAN to be the "Son of God"? The meaning of this phrase varies from sect to sect, and very likely from individual to individual. Now, to someone who wanted to attack the faith, it shows that God is sinful, in the sense that He put His seed in Mary while He wasn't married to her, and that's supposed to be Not OK.
    I'm not quibbling with his claim(s) because there's a small number of people who aren't with the mainstream… I'm quibbling with his claim that there is and can only be one interpretation of the text, when, in actual fact, such a situation is rather uncommon. Lawyers make a LOT of money, collectively, resolving cases where people using the same words but holding different meanings for them enter contracts. Admittedly, sometimes the legal wrangling over the meaning of words is one side trying desperately to weasel out of admitting that the words mean what they mean (Clinton on whether he "had sex" with "that woman"). But… does the text of the second amendment say that individuals have a right to carry weapons, or not? There were two sides to that argument, both convinced that they were right, obviously right, and 180 degrees apart on the question. If you ask the NRA what the second amendment MEANS, you get a different answer than if you ask the Brady Center, even though both are looking at the exact same words.
    For the rest, I'm going to use "Gavin" as shorthand to mean "Christian scholars who are opposed to Islam to some degree".
    Applying this to Gavin's interpretation of Islam, it's possible that the interpretation of any specific Islamic text made by Gavin may be different from the interpretation of that exact same text by Muslims. It's also possible that the interpretation of any specific Islamic text made by one Muslim may be different from the intepretation of another Muslim. (It's also possible that all their interpretations match completely, of course.)
    Thus, if Gavin wants to offer examples of what the texts say, that's one thing. Once Gavin's analysis turns to what the texts mean, that's shakier ground. When Gavin speaks to what the texts mean to Muslims, that's San-Andreas shaky.

    And, for hopefully the last time, my claim isn't and hasn't ever been that Gavin is wrong. My claim is that Gavin isn't a reliable source of information. Maybe he's right about how Muslims interpret the texts, maybe he's wrong, maybe he's partly right and partly wrong. The point is, even if you take in everything he has to say, you'll still have to check it against an unbiased, authoritative source to find out.

  189. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:46 am

    Gavin, you keep wanting to play the "throw Scripture back and forth" game, wherein the person who quotes the most Scripture wins (calling it "evidence" doesn't make anything evident.) Thus far, I've declined to play. However, in order to bring this to a close, I will offer this Scripture, which should answer any Scripture you'd care to raise:

    "Twas Brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe
    All mimsy were the Borogoves
    And the Mome Roths, outgrabe"

  190. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:47 am

    One more time for the books.

    Sharia Law IS their interpretation of their scriptures. Sharia Law is not sacred itself, it's the legal interpretation of what the Qur`an and Hadiths mean. To cite Sharia is to cite Muslim interpretation of scriptures. Because of this, you can make a valid claim as to what at least 85% of Islam teaches and believes.

    Again, it's like a person tells me something they believe and then I tell you what they said and you say, "You aren't a legitimate source!" Then I show you a recording of them saying it and I show you it in writing but you continue to say, "You aren't a legitimate source". In my mind, this comes down to you being prejudice against me because I'm not a Muslim. At the end of the day, isn't that what you're doing? You're disregarding what I'm saying because of my own personal beliefs even when I give you every available evidence from their side. Keep in mind, they are not ashamed of these beliefs, if anything, they typically express shame at American Muslims who say otherwise.

  191. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @8:50 am

    @James,

    Your second post came through during my typing of my first.

    Sharia Law is not scripture. It is their interpretation of scripture. Sharia Law can actually change and does change over time. What this means is that Islam is in a unique position of having a exhaustive declaration of beliefs that we can know and read. What aren't you getting? To cite Sharia Law is to cite Muslims interpretations of their scriptures. The difference is that these interpretations carry legal consequences.

  192. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @12:01 pm

    "In my mind, this comes down to you being prejudice against me because I'm not a Muslim."
    Interesting. Now, can you support THAT claim with any evidence?

    "At the end of the day, isn't that what you're doing?"
    No. Pointing out that your biased (with regard to this one topic) and therefore an unreliable source of information (with regard to this one topic) is what I'm doing. Have you stumbled onto the fact that Muslims are ALSO biased? If there was one on there describing all the wonderfulness that is Islam, and they got quoting from a website that described its purpose as "your source of information on how to soft-sell Islam to Americans", that guy would also be complaining as he quoted all the nice, be-good-to-people parts of the Koran.

    A biased source is a biased source. The problem with a biased source is that you don't know how accurate it is, thus rendering it useless, no matter how many pages of "evidence" it offers.

    "You're disregarding what I'm saying because of my own personal beliefs even when I give you every available evidence from their side."
    Where are the Muslims who say that you're reporting accurately? That would be pretty compelling evidence. Otherwise, all I see is you telling me over and over how accurate your reporting is, and I DON'T BELIEVE YOU when you say that.

    Thing is, EVERYONE is biased about the things they care about. The honest thing to do is to say "yeah, I have these biases". When someone gets caught out in their bias, and doubles down with a claim of NON-bias, that's doubly-suspicious as to the reliability of their claims. You've gone beyond doubling down to, like 64-down or 128-down.
    You're anti-Islam. Noted. All your rambling after that is just establishing a point already conceded. You both pray to the same God but you think they do it all wrong. I get it. Don't care.

  193. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @12:29 pm

    @James,

    Yes, you say that I am an unreliable source because of my religion. This is inherrently discrimination based on religion.

    Is Sharia Law somehow biased against Islam? This is the case you're making, that something established and followed by Muslims to translate their Qur`an and hadiths into practical laws is somehow not their beliefs? I'm sorry, but you're wrong and it's only your bias that is coming through. I don't know why you're so biased against the notion that they have a statement of faith that we can read and know, just like any denomination you run into in the states for Christianity, and why you cannot accept that this religion has things in it that you disagree with.

    It is ignorant and perhaps even insulting to Muslims in the Middle East to reject these beliefs that are found not only in their scriptures but their laws and statements of beliefs.

    It is interesting that I can present what Islam teaches and largely practices and you translate into me bieng anti-Islam. I am anti-murder and infringement on basic civil rights. But Islam as expressed in many American circles is not that way. I don't know why you're being hard nosed about it.

  194. Gavin  •  Sep 19, 2012 @12:35 pm

    What I guess I mean is, how is it that I can cite for you a list of what Sunni and Shi`ite Muslims both believe from their own laws and lists of mainstream beliefs and that be somehow biased against them? It isn't me saying from my own knowledge that they believe it, it's me showing you what they say they believe. Does the act of it coming out of my mouth somehow magic it into the realm of bias and falsehood?

  195. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @2:15 pm

    Sigh.

    "you say that I am an unreliable source because of my religion. This is inherrently discrimination based on religion."
    If you are of the belief that all sources on a topic are equivalently equal, then I guess your criticism is valid. Of course, if that's your point of view, then all religions are equally valid.

    "Is Sharia Law somehow biased against Islam? This is the case you're making"
    Um, no it isn't, I've made no claim whatsoever regarding Sharia, or any other aspect of Islam. (other than my sincere doubt that any group of a billion or so people all agree on the exact same thing… which is actually a claim regarding people in general and not specific to Muslims.) Go back and look.

    "I don't know why … you cannot accept that this religion has things in it that you disagree with."
    Where on Earth did you get THAT crazy idea? You're projecting, offering your own opinion of what I mean instead of understanding my message to you. If you can't get the beliefs of someone who's communicating directly with you correct, why would I ever come to believe that you can get anyone else's right?

  196. Grifter  •  Sep 19, 2012 @6:54 pm

    @Gavin and @James Pollock:

    I've become confused as to the point of you two's debate, so help a brotha out here.

    Gavin, I hope you concede that you have a bias (or at the very least, concede how it might be seen that you have a bias) against Islam, because 1., You feel it's inherently bad/violent due to its teachings and traditional interpretations, and 2., You feel the religion is wrong. Therefore, James Pollock takes what you say with a grain of salt.

    James Pollock, you're very right in your examples of situations where bias leads to what might be called "unfair debate" on a subject…but on the flip side, they're also just other ways of interpreting the belief, which may be still stated correctly.

    As regards to your "God is sinful because he had premarital sex with Mary" example argument, it's technically a valid point to bring up. Not that there wouldn't be a response, but you wouldn't be lying unless you said "Christians believe it's sinful because…". Just because he's biased doesn't make him wrong about what their beliefs are. As far as I can tell, most of what Gavin's said is fairly neutral or well-known. Won't lie though, at this point I don't recollect everything Gavin said.

    Answers in Genesis is biased all to hell about Creationism, but even they agree the moon-dust theory is crap. That doesn't legitimize their other crackpot ideas, but still…not everything on there is flat-out wrong. Just a lot of it. Bias doesn't preclude honesty, it just makes it more suspect (which I feel was your original point?)

    So was there something specific you took issue with, or are you just trying to make the broader point that because he's biased he's not allowed to talk about this subject? That seems a bit overreaching, but I'm confused…let's presume Gavin says "yes, I might be biased, confirm what I say with your own trusted sources" (and really, in general on controversial topics confirmation is recommended regardless of possible bias). What then?

    It seems to me that you guys seem to have both gotten stuck on "Is Gavin's point about Islam correct", with James Pollock saying "He's biased so I can't trust him, and his sources are equally biased" and Gavin saying "I gave you links and references, so either actually disagree or don't but don't just throw out my point based on possible bias".

    Gavin, if I recollect, was trying initially to explain the violence that happened through the lens of the religion, showing how the teachings led to the violence. James Pollock, you're claiming that there are multiple ways to interpret those teachings, which is true, and Gavin has said from the beginning that there are Muslims who don't accept those interpretations…but the violence happened. Is it unfair to postulate, in finding a reason for the attacks, that the attackers were interpreting the teachings in the same way Gavin is? Not that the religion is any more inherently "bad" than any other of the big ones, in theory, but that, at present, it is being interpreted by its adherents worse than the other big ones (In terms of numbers…far more terrorists for Allah than abortion clinic bombers, but there are abortion clinic bombers).

    Is that a correct summation?

  197. James Pollock  •  Sep 19, 2012 @7:14 pm

    Grifter:
    "Just because he's biased doesn't make him wrong about what their beliefs are."
    True. Did anyone claim he was wrong? I know I didn't… I said he's an unreliable source for learning what their beliefs are. You can read all he said and still not know… maybe he's right, maybe he's not, you can't tell for sure until you check with other sources which ARE reliable.

    "because he's biased he's not allowed to talk about this subject? That seems a bit overreaching"
    That would be a LOT of overreaching… everyone is biased about subjects they care about. Honest people admit what their biases are. Before Comcast bought them, every time the NBC news had a story that even vaguely concerned GE, they ran a disclaimer.

    "but I'm confused…let's presume Gavin says "yes, I might be biased, confirm what I say with your own trusted sources"
    Yes, had that happened, my objection would have been blunted, and that would have led to a wildly different thread. But that's NOT what he said.

    "Gavin has said from the beginning that there are Muslims who don't accept those interpretations…but the violence happened. Is it unfair to postulate, in finding a reason for the attacks, that the attackers were interpreting the teachings in the same way Gavin is?"
    Perhaps. But while hundreds of people did attack our embassy in Cairo, several million did NOT. So I guess it's fair for me to conclude that the actual teachings of Islam, as interpreted by millions of people, is that insults to Mohammed can be tolerated, and violence is neither warranted nor necessary. Why, look at events right here in the U.S. where violent mobs of angry, offended Muslims descended on Google's various offices and demanded retribution and revenge for distributing the video.

  198. Grifter  •  Sep 19, 2012 @7:45 pm

    I agree, and hopefully he cops to it. And you are right to take things with a grain of salt, of course.

    As regards to the millions who did not: While very true, it's also very true that there have been numerous similar instances. And I think it's safe to presume that there are others who would have participated, if they felt able to. And remember that there are political/religous figures who have publicly advocated violence (the first obvious choice is Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, of course.) But you are very right: thankfully, the crazies are usually in the minority. I believe Gavin would agree with all of those things…but perhaps I'm wrong.

  199. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @6:40 am

    @Grifter and

    Does bias = dislike of? I believe that using toddlers as cannon fodder to attack nursing homes is wrong. Does this mean I'm biased against the hypothetical people who do it or that I just find those actions deplorable.

    Bias entails an unwillingness to see an uncolored truth. It entails including your "feelings" in the facts to color things in a certain light. Bias isn't just a dislike of something, it's a coloring of opinion.

    I am against killing or punishing gays because they're homosexual. Does that mean I'm biased against Islam because its Sharia Law justifies legal reprecussions against it? No, it means I don't like executing or punishing people because of their sexual preferences. Does this somehow mean I now think everything Islam does is evil? No. It means I think they do that one action that I think is wrong. When I learn of another action, that's one more, but I don't ignorantly think worse of their other actions. I judge things on a case by case basis. Jame's problem here isn't whether or not I'm right, it's that he wants me to say that I'm biased like that somehow changes the validity of things that I say. I am unwilling to say that I believe these things because I want to. That would be a lie. I believe these things because I've learned it from Muslim Law and scripture that I've actually taken the time to study and he hasn't.

    The things I listed are the specific beliefs that I dislike. I LOVE studying religions, I love learning them and the cultures. I have a strong desire to visit Mecca and to be around its rich culture. This is why I got a religion degree from a public university, I wanted to know what they believe not why they're wrong (which is what a seminary would do). I do not accept that I am unwilling to see things objectively here. I am presenting their scriptures and modern interpretations/laws based on them. How does any bias bleed through in that? Did you know that Islam also has a religion-wide taxes call "Zakāt"? It is one of the five pillars of Islam and is entirely devoted to charity. This isn't a crappy tithe like in Christianity that isn't even technically justified scripture and mostly only goes to keeping the lights on in a church building, this is money that goes to people in need. They have zakat committees that are just there to decide where the money should go in local areas. What a wonderful and charitable thing! Is there any malice or evil to be found there? No, the only people to ever be suspected here would be the zakat committees if they abuse the generosity of Islam.

    If I present beliefs that are really there that you think are bad, that does not mean I'm biased. The sun will one day go nova and utterly destroy this planet if it hasn't been destroyed long before then. This doesn't mean I'm biased against the sun, it's just a fact and I shouldn't be beseeched to admit bias before my fact is accepted.

  200. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @6:47 am

    "I do not accept that I am unwilling to see things objectively here."
    And thus, the problem.

  201. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @6:52 am

    P.S. your science is wrong. The sun will NOT go nova; it is well below the Chandresekhar limit.

  202. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @6:55 am

    @James,

    What type of Muslim you are is typically defined by the school of law you follow. These schools of law review the Qur`an and Hadiths and base their laws on what they believe they mean. This means that these are the faith's statement of beliefs. It is no different than me reading the statement of faith of the Assemblies of God (a well defined Christian denomination that I'm not a part of) denomination and saying that AoG professes this belief. There may be individuals that disagree with basic tenets but unless you find a way to quantify exactly who believes what then I needn't make a special exclusion for their sake.

    Now then, if you do not fall under any of the four schools of law in the Sunni faith (you don't accept their hadiths or their interpretations), then you are not a member of the Sunni faith. If you do not fall under the Shi`ite school of Hadiths and tradition, then you are not a Shi`ite. If you don't accept any Hadiths but do accept the Qur`an then you are a Quranist.

    Because Sunni's and Shi`ites make up the vast majority of the Islamic faith (possibly in the 90% but definitely as much as 85%), it is their belief systems I'm talking about. Because Sharia law is clearly defined Muslim interpretation of their own scriptures then to cite it is to cite them.

    Would you disagree with someone who said that Methodists believe in baptising children? There are certainly people within that denomination who disagree with this tenet, but it is still a basic Methodist belief and is something they very much practice. Does me saying they practice it mean I'm biased just because I'm not Methodist and don't agree with baptizing people who can't willingly accept or deny faith in it?

    My entire point in establishing that Sharia Law encourages violence towads acts of blasphemy is to explain why these demonstrators may feel justified in their actions even if many Muslims think that they're attacking the wrong people. If this jerk had made this video in any of these countries then he would likely be put to death via the legal system if a mob didn't get to him first. I'm not saying that Sharia Law is inherently bad, it has a lot of positive things in it, but I am saying that their actions should not be surprising as it is religiously defensible.

  203. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @6:57 am

    @James,

    And how are you a good source to claim that I am biased? Have I made any claim that was objectively untrue? Doesn't bias necessitate an unfair coloring of the truth due to personal prejudice?

    Our sun won't go Nova? (goes and researches)

    Oh, it won't. You are correct on that point. I was incorrectly under the impression that all suns eventually go nova. I stand corrected.

  204. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @7:00 am

    @Grifter:

    To answer you're earlier question, the debate at hand appears to be that James' eyes can pierce my very heart and see my every motive and that he, the wonderful and exalted deity that he is, has declared me biased regardless of anything I say or do, objective fact or not. I just wish he'd put his gifts towards helping mankind.

  205. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @7:52 am

    "but I'm confused…let's presume Gavin says "yes, I might be biased, confirm what I say with your own trusted sources"
    Yes, had that happened, my objection would have been blunted, and that would have led to a wildly different thread. But that's NOT what he said.

    I could say that I might be wrong, but seeing as I am directly citing Muslim sources and clearly traceable Sharia Laws I'm not. You can feel free to research anything I say to verify its validity, I just ask that you read the actual source and not a secondary source that isn't it. I agree that almost all secondary literature appears to be biased to one side or the other. Some people even claim that Islam says to kill everyone that's not a Muslim, that's not true. One of the possible recipients of the zakat, for example, are people who view Islam favorably and may consider conversion. It also does not distinguish between the Islamic poor and the non-Islamic poor as far as I know.

    The reason I take so strong offense to bias here is that it isn't a subjective thing. It's an either or. Either Sharia law teaches something, or it does not. Binary answers do not require subjective interpretations. If I said they kill apostates because they secretly wish they could get out too, then that would be an expression of bias.

    You are expressing your own bias by believing everything I say is just colored with bias or that bias would even make a difference here. The only individual expressing bias here, is you. If you presented primary source evidence that something I said was incorrect, then I would recant and my future discussions on the subject would no longer contain that point. That's the difference. My understanding of their beliefs is based on actual research done from primary sources.

    "I do not accept that I am unwilling to see things objectively here."
    And thus, the problem.

    So then, everything I say aside, you're only problem is that I am unwilling to state that I am coming from a point of view that is not Muslim and therefore may have bias? That is an objectively plausible statement, but I'm presenting binary facts. Not only would bias not impact binary (yes/no) facts which are being used in this discussion, but the plausibility of something doesn't make it so. I have nothing personal against Islam. The sources I use are not secondary/biased sources, it's straight up traditional and modern Islamic writings or "from the horse's mouth", if you will. If Islam taught something else, I would say that they believe that thing. Bias is coming from a colored point of view, or a view that is held because of something other than the facts at hand, like feelings.

    I have never been treated with anything other than hospitality by Muslims. I was never taught anything about Islam, negative or positive before my time in college other than 9:11 which I still maintain was done in direct contradiction to their scriptures and beliefs (as I believe all suicide bombings are contrary to their faith which even recommends pretending to convert to another religion if faced with death/duress). Please tell me where this imaginary bias came from? Is there a reason why I should want Muslims to be violent or discriminatory? What do I get out of it if they are? Nothing as far as I can tell. I do see a lot of people frothing at the mouth when talking about Islam but I don't see the point. Historically, Muslims have been pretty kind to Christians and Jews when they invaded new areas. Perhaps if I were an atheist or another religion I might have a lot to gain from exposing the incompatibility with their laws and my hypothetical belief. But as is, even if the Ottoman Empire was reborn in unstoppable power I would be safe. I know that and Christians who don't know that are just ignorant or, wait for it, biased.

    Has the thought even crossed your mind that I diligently seek the truth and am willing to change my positions when wrong? That I'm not one of those crazies with a score to settle with a religion they've never taken part of? Are there really no polarized issues that you are indifferent on but like to study? Learning about Islam was important to me because learning about other people and their cultures is important to me, not because I wanted some dirt on them.

    Look, I get it, there are a lot of crazies out there, particularly on the side that would point out their politically incorrect views for the sake of showing how "evil" they are. It can be truly difficult to distinguish between the sane in a sea of insane. But please don't discriminate against me just because those people exist. There are a lot of people in my faith that would spread a word of hate and prejudice and these are the people I'm ashamed of that give you every right to suspect bias. But demanding that bias is the only way is just falling into your own argument by expressing your own bias and prejudice.

  206. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @8:59 am

    "I just ask that you read the actual source and not a secondary source that isn't it."
    We we're in agreement that I shouldn't read any more of what you write? Done!

  207. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @9:42 am

    @James Pollock,

    Am I citing secondary sources when I cite sharia law, the Qur`an, or Hadith? I have to use secondary sourcing when presenting statistics on the division of the faith but the primary sources I post are still primary. They don't cease to be primary if I say them. What I'm saying is that if you doubt anything I say, go to the primary sources and verify. Secondary sources are all over the board.

    Don't be silly, James, you're being pedantic on purpose for some unknown reason. Forgive me if my being new here has led me to be unfamiliar with the way you carry on discussions.

  208. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @9:58 am

    To reiterate:

    If I say that I think Islam smells funny. That's a secondary source. Or if I say, "I once heard that Islam smells funny", that's a secondary source.

    If I say that Islam smells funny and then present first hand evidence from someone that has smelt Islam, then my claim carries with it the credentials of a first hand account. If someone then cited me, it'd be second hand then.

    Also, any conclusions I draw from citing something would be secondary. If you feel that the citations I've provided were somehow ambiguous and could be interpreted in a different manner, then by all means present them.

  209. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @10:07 am

    *Me saying it would be secondary because I have never smelled Islam (nor any other philosophy/religion for that matter).

  210. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @1:35 pm

    "If I say that Islam smells funny and then present first hand evidence from someone that has smelt Islam, then my claim carries with it the credentials of a first hand account. If someone then cited me, it'd be second hand then."

    Odd phrasing, but… still wrong. In legalistic terms, you keep trying to present hearsay evidence.
    The primary source for "what Muslims believe whatever their Scripture means" is… Muslims. Your reporting is second-hand (at best).

    Look, if you want to argue Muslim theology so badly, why don't you go find some Muslims, and tell THEM what Muslims think and all the reasons their religion is wrong? At least then you'll be arguing with someone who CARES.

  211. Gavin  •  Sep 20, 2012 @1:41 pm

    The primary source for "what Muslims believe whatever their Scripture means" is… Muslims. Your reporting is second-hand (at best).

    Sunni's believe "most" of what one of the schools of law believe or they're not Sunni which would throw them to the extreme minority side of Muslims. Shi'ite's also have their own school of law but it can be a little more fragmented than that since the belief that the Caliphate succession was incorrectly done is the main requirement for Shi'ism, still the school of law is a primary component of the faith, but admittedly not necessary.

    Sharia Law is made by these schools of law which are modern and ever changing schools (albeit not changing on big issues). This is not their scriptures, this is their interpretation of scripture.

    To read Sharia Law is to read the Mainstream statement of beliefs of Muslims. How is this anything but primary?

  212. James Pollock  •  Sep 20, 2012 @5:09 pm

    You're still trying to sell me something after the door's been closed and the porch light's been turned off.

  213. Gavin  •  Sep 21, 2012 @5:28 am

    The door started closed from what I can tell.

  214. James Pollock  •  Sep 21, 2012 @7:56 am

    That'd be yet ANOTHER example of how poor your ability to tell what someone else thinks by reading what they write, then. If it makes you feel better to think that the reason you couldn't close the sale here was that your excellent salesmanship just fell on deaf ears, so be it. The problem can't POSSIBLY be that your bias on the subject is detectable a mile away. It just CAN'T.

  215. Gavin  •  Sep 21, 2012 @8:03 am

    Fantastic. I'm so glad you know me so well. Best Friends Forever?

  216. Ken  •  Sep 21, 2012 @8:21 am

    Let us all behave and write about the topic, please. The topic is interesting. All of you, by contrast, are hideously boring. Sorry. I said it.

  217. Gavin  •  Sep 21, 2012 @8:34 am

    @Ken,

    I prefer to be called incredibly boring instead of hideous. I just want to be incredible at things!

    The point is that Islam has clear instructions on how to handle outside entities for which you have a treaty. In this case, it's America. America is doing something against Islam's beliefs which prompts a violent response.

    I think this weak-ass response from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo is just to try to shift the blame so that it does not look like it's America doing the treaty. I think most Muslims understand this and don't think that it's America causing the problem. But some do see the allowing it as just as bad as the problem. This can lead to some pretty damn scary consequences and really give a lot of fuel to anti-American groups over there.

    The question is, if this "apology" would save lives and stop violence, is it necessarily a bad thing as long as we don't actually do anything in line with it?

  218. Gavin  •  Sep 21, 2012 @8:35 am

    *like it's America breaking the treaty, not "doing the treaty".

5 Trackbacks