In the politically-correct world,
the doctrines of Christianity
can be freely criticised and ridiculed
- which is fantastic, and a hard-won freedom
that cost the lives of many
atheist and freethinking
martyrs.
But you can't do the same to Islam.
Leftists will call you a "racist" if you try to criticise
any religion other than Christianity.
The free (Creative Commons) online Flash game
"Faith Fighter"
by
Molleindustria.
Gods and prophets engage in hand-to-hand combat,
including Jehovah,
Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Play it
here
and
here.
Download it
here
and
here.
This game shows the problems for reactionary Islam in the modern globalised world.
It is true that Islam
(and not Christianity)
threatened the makers of this game,
and forced them into
grovelling apologies and censorship.
In their grovelling, they even disparage
"the one-way islamophobic satire of the Danish Mohammad cartoons".
They do not defend the artistic freedom of others,
but rather submit to the religious bullies, and admit they were wrong.
But who would blame them.
They don't want to get killed.
They carry on with extended grovelling:
"we are aware that muslims are victim of widespread racism in the western world. This islamofobia is functional to the imperial interests in Middle East and all over the world."
Grovel, grovel, grovel.
But again, my criticism of their rubbish about "imperial interests" will be limited
because they had the guts to make this game in the first place.
And they don't want to get killed.
And maybe the more positive story is that millions of Muslim youth online,
who are somewhat negative or indifferent towards the clerics that have been browbeating them
all their lives,
will laugh at games like this
and other forbidden fruit online.
Reactionary Islam
will have a hard time
passing on the faith unchanged to its young people
in the onslaught of the Internet and other media
in the 21st century.
UK and Irish laws against criticising religion
Both the UK and Ireland have introduced terrifying new laws recently,
which, depending on how they are prosecuted,
may outlaw criticism of religion.
These laws are an offense against the concept of a free society.
Artists rarely
do anything genuinely brave and daring.
Insulting
Christianity, Judaism, America, Britain, Israel, capitalism, zionism and neo-conservatism
is safe, risk-free, and likely to win praise from your peers
and money from grant bodies.
If artists were
genuinely brave and daring,
they would insult and criticise people for whom there is some element of risk attached
- for example, Islam, Scientology, the Nation of Islam, cults,
organised criminals,
western terrorists,
living dictators, and third-world revolutionaries
such as the Palestinians.
Mocking Christianity is not daring. Mocking Islam is.
Piss Christ
- boring, boring!
Why don't you do something risky?
A boring, brain-dead attack on conservative religion
(but not on religion itself)
by people devoid of history or philosophy, or culture, or real emotion.
Pro-religion, in a stupid, trendy, foulmouthed sort of way
(the director, "Silent Bob" Kevin Smith, attends church weekly).
In short, a movie for left-wing theists, not for atheists like me.
Humourlessly pee-cee too.
(God is a woman! Jesus is black! An abortion clinic worker will save the world!
Oh shut up you sanctimonious preacher.)
Interestingly,
Kevin Smith acknowledges my central point
in discussing a sequel:
"Scary thing is this: the film would have to touch on Islam. And unlike the Catholic League, when those cats don't like what you do, they issue a death warrant on yer ass (see Rushdie). And now that I've got a family, I'm not as free to stir the shit-pot as I was when I was single, back when I made "Dogma". I mean, now I've gotta think about more than my own safety and well-being."
Full marks for honesty.
But your film is still shit.
It's so cowardly to attack the church when we won't offend Islam
- Nick Cohen
on Gilbert and George.
"The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them.
That knowledge invalidates their claims to be transgressive.
An uprising that doesn't provoke a response isn't a 'rebellion',
but a smug affirmation of the cultural status quo.
If they were to do the same to Islam, all hell would break loose."
As
Mark Steyn
says:
"in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity
as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally
writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co.
rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is.
The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative,
it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked."
However, this isn't the whole story.
Terrence McNally was under no threat from Christians,
but surprisingly he got
death threats
from Islamists
(because to Muslims Jesus is still a holy prophet).
So maybe mocking Christianity does
mean you are brave after all.
Oddly, Islamists may be the ones to defend Christianity
with violence, since Christians (thankfully) won't.
Jesus cartoons:
In response to the Muhammed cartoons,
the leftie moonbat Univ. Oregon
student paper
"The Insurgent"
prints
cartoons of Jesus with an erection
and other blasphemous cartoons.
Ooh, they're so brave.
They might get .. criticised by Christians!
In an issue packed with refreshing blasphemy, they would not
print the Muhammed cartoons.
Conformists.
Why doesn't he
do
"Muhammed: The Guantanamo Years"?
Would that be too close to the truth?
"Eco-Friendly Jihad"
is pious liberal-left humour.
It does not make fun of the jihad.
His facebook group
Humanists Against (fellow left-winger) Richard Dawkins
claims that
"there is considerable wisdom in the teachings of religious leaders such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and Gandhi."
Maybe he should read more about the life of Mohammed.
In Iain Banks' novel
Espedair Street (1987),
one of the rock stars is assassinated by a fanatic Christian
for her supposedly blasphemous act.
Recent events have made plots like this (and there are many more)
seem safe and conventional,
as if they are ignoring the elephant in the room.
"officials at Burlington Township High School enlisted the help of two local policemen
to carry out a mock 'hostage situation' drill at their school.
...
the student body was told that the alleged gunmen were
"members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders'
who don't believe in separation of church and state."
...
The drill organizers explained that the supposedly Christian gunmen
'went to the school seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class.'"
School Superintendent says, "We need to practice under conditions as real as possible"
Mocking Christianity is important, but less important now
that Christianity is tolerant.
Supposedly "daring" modern artists ridicule Jesus and Mary
and other Christian figures,
showing crucifixes in urine,
or Jesus having sex,
and so on.
Of course there is nothing daring about it,
because modern Christianity tolerates criticism.
If they were really daring, they would do it to Islam.
You're joking if you think this is satire
- Mark Steyn
mocks a supposedly "daring" song called
"We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus."
- "You can sing "We're
Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" because there are no
"fundamentalist Christians" within 20 miles of the Birmingham Rep -
or at least none that is going to be waiting for you at the stage door.
"We're Sending You A Schoolgirl Bomb From Allah" might attract
notice from a livelier crowd. If you're going to be provocative, it's
best to do it with people who can't be provoked."
Dozy condescension
- Mark Steyn
on the movie Saved!,
set in a Christian high school,
"American Eagles Christian High".
- "USA Today called it "irreverent" and "subversive".
Au contraire, if you wanted to be irreverent and subversive,
you'd have set it at American Eagles Wahhabi Madrassah
... deriding Christians is obvious and risk-free".
I agree, and I am not a Christian.
A True Islamic Reformation
by Ibn Warraq
complains about how the left protects Islam from criticism:
"we who live in the free West and enjoy freedom of expression and scientific inquiry
should encourage a rational look at Islam, should encourage Koranic criticism.
...
Instead, political leaders, journalists and even scholars are bent on protecting the tender sensibilities
of the Muslims. We are not doing Islam any favors by protecting it from Enlightenment values."
Artists too frightened to tackle radical Islam, November 19, 2007
- At least Grayson Perry is honest:
"I've censored myself. The reason I haven't gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.
...
With other targets you've got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don't know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time."
Robert Spencer
talks about a "daring" art display in Glasgow, by artists working
"in association with organisations representing gay Christians and Muslims",
where people are encouraged to deface ... the Bible.
Spencer points out that by using the Bible, but not the Koran,
the exhibit does not have quite the meaning the artists think it has:
"They didn't offer a Qur'an for defacing. And so their entire absurd exhibit
demonstrates anew that Leftists don't believe their own rhetoric
about Christianity and Islam being equally likely to incite believers to violence."
Even people trying to praise Islam are at risk:
Polish techno DJ and musician
Jakub Rene Kosik
produced a track called
"Mekka"
in Dec 2009, which was meant to be a tribute to Islam:
"my composition was supposed to be a tribute to their culture.
I'm atheist. But I was raised with respect to different religions and philosophical opinions."
Much to his surprise, it led to death threats.
PBS, Recruiting for Islam
by Daniel Pipes
- In America, it is illegal for taxpayers' money
to be spent on missionary films for Christianity.
But only Christianity.
The leftist world view is such
(and I don't understand why)
that taxpayers' money
can be spent on missionary films for Islam.
See also here.
Karen Armstrong
writes like a devout Muslim, but apparently she is not one.
She is a "freelance monotheist".
"I draw sustenance from all three of the faiths of
Abraham."
Review
of Karen Armstrong's book "Islam: A Short History"
by Daniel Pipes,
September 2001
- "Armstrong goes out of her way to soften every hard edge,
explain away every unpleasantness, and hide what she cannot otherwise account for."
Karen Armstrong: Islam's Hagiographer
(also here)
by David Thompson
- "Islam's foremost hagiographer and shill
has found an audience among Muslims and those on the left with
little appetite for unflattering facts
and a preference for being told whatever they wish to hear."
Efraim Karsh, Sept 25, 2006,
on Karen Armstrong's whitewashings.
"A Duck Napping"
(and more search),
the
"duck beheading" video
by students from Brookville Hall at
the C.W. Post campus
of Long Island University,
2007.
A spoof of jihadi beheading videos.
Hurray for anyone who pokes fun at maniac religious killers.
National Lampoon's 72 Virgins:
OK, I don't actually find National Lampoon's
humour very funny.
It's too simple and obvious.
But fair play to them for making this.
Braver than most.
This was banned in Greece
in 2005 for blasphemy, and Haderer received a suspended jail sentence
in absentia.
The ban and sentence were reversed on appeal.
Das Leben des Jesus (The Life of Jesus) (2002).
From official site.
Russia - where attacking Christianity is daring
Andrei Yerofeyev and Yury Samodurov, two Russian art curators,
were fined in July 2010 in Russia
for an exhibition that
offended the religious beliefs of Russian Orthodox Christians.
Typical Russia.
First, they make Christianity illegal,
and
jail, torture and execute Christians.
Now, they make offending Christianity illegal!
The cover of the banned issue of "Clareification".
The "Clareification" controversy,
Clare College, Cambridge, Feb 2007.
A student is forced into hiding from death threats
for criticising Islam.
The university, instead of supporting him,
shuts down the paper,
stops its funding,
recalls and destroys the issue,
and disciplines
the student,
forcing him to apologise
under threat of expulsion.
The UK police question
the student, and may press charges
(if they are idiots).
The college promises to take action to prevent a similar incident occurring.
The National Secular Society:
"We are shocked that the staff and even the students union at this
supposedly liberal college have joined the attack on this student
because he had the temerity to poke fun at religion.
Free expression is such a precious commodity and is under such ferocious attack at present
from religious interests that it is disgraceful that no-one is standing up for
this young man's right to be rude about religion - even about Islam.
...
Satire aimed at religion is no different to satire aimed at any other ideas and should not be punished or restrained."
It is true.
Why should people be allowed to
poke fun at atheism and Darwin
if we are not allowed to poke fun at Islam and Muhammad?
On the threats to the student:
"This episode demonstrates terrorism in action.
If critics cannot be silenced by reason, then they must be silenced by intimidation - real or imagined."
The student is forced to apologise to
"women, Jews, Christians and Muslims".
As if women, Jews and Christians were the reason he went into hiding.
What Cambridge is doing is teaching ultra-right-wing Muslims that
the threat of violence works,
and so keep it up, and expect more.
Before we were allowed see some of the issue, I said:
It is hard to form an opinion on this
since we are not allowed to see the censored work.
Apparently
the piece said
"I hate Islam",
which sounds stupid but legal.
After all, it is legal to say "I hate atheism".
Anyway, knowing the intelligence and wit of most ultra-smart Cambridge students,
I doubt very much that this was simply a bald statement: "I hate Islam".
Again, one would want to see the whole piece.
Apparently, the piece also implied (via a switched pictures joke) that the Prophet was
"a violent paedophile", which again is perfectly legal,
even perhaps uncontroversial.
After all, it is legal to say that Moses was a violent rapist
(because he was).
Again, one would want to see the whole piece, but it sounds like harmless satire
if this is the worst they can dig up.
My instinct was right:
We are finally allowed see
some of the banned content
(also here),
and it is not brain-dead BNP-style abuse,
but rather intelligent, witty satire.
Exactly
what one would expect from super-smart Cambridge undergraduates.
See below.
Some of the banned issue.
Intelligent, witty satire, poking fun at
the touchy, aggressive, violent, sanctimonious, hypocritical
Islamic street,
which
bombs churches,
executes nuns,
and
cuts the head and limbs off priests
in protest at suggestions that Islam is violent.
Such satire is badly needed in these times of dour, humourless religious fanatics.
If this material is banned at Cambridge, then
Cambridge is no longer a free university.
If this material is banned in Britain,
then Britain is no longer a free country.
I do not show images of Muhammed (though I admire those who do).
I do not directly criticise the Koran or Muhammed.
I may link to people who do, but
I never do myself.
Simply put, I want the freedom to say what I think,
but I do not want to engage with violent people.
I do not want to attract the attention of the violent, emotional, illiterate savages
like the ones in the comments above.
The violent threats above confirm for me the wisdom of the choices I have made.
Sacha Baron Cohen
is braver than
perhaps any other artist, actor or comedian in the world.
Here,
as the gay character
"Bruno"
in the 2009 movie,
he meets
Ayman Abu Aita,
either formerly or currently of the
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
terrorist group
or of its political wing
Fatah,
and insults him:
"Can I give you guys a word of advice: Lose the beards.
Because your king Osama looks like a kind of dirty wizard or a homeless Santa.""What exactly did he just say?""He says that your King Osama looks like a dirty wizard or a homeless Santa Claus."
To add to this, Cohen is a Jew, from Britain, who has lived in Israel.
What an incredibly brave man Cohen is.
The scum of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades respond, July 2009, with the only language they know:
death threats:
"We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man [Cohen].
This movie was part of a conspiracy against the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
...
This was a dirty use of our brother, Aiman.
...
This joke is very dangerous. We are not in the United States, we are not in Europe, we are in the Middle East, and the world operates differently here."
It sure does. That's why your world is so fucked up, and our world is so lovely.
Ayman Abu Aita, Aug 2009,
claims he is no longer an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist, but admits that he used to be:
"he insists he is no longer involved with the group, and is only a Christian Fatah representative for the Fatah movement's political wing."
That is, he now works for Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades'
political wing Fatah.
The Brigades statement also claimed "Aiman is part of the political level of Fatah in Bethlehem, part of the leadership of the political apparatus of Fatah. He is not a member of the Brigades."
Ayman Abu Aita sues Cohen, Dec 2009. He claims to be "non-violent" and a "peace activist", yet is a member of Fatah.
He claims he is "no longer" in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades,
and in fact "a firm opponent of terrorists",
yet how come the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group
issued a statement defending him, and calling him "our brother"?
Some "opponent" of terrorists he is!
Ayman Abu Aita
is a board member of the Holy Land Trust
(see criticism).
That is, this "non-violent" "charity" has open links to Fatah.
"The college is now arranging a meeting for next term to discuss
the problem of maintaining free speech while avoiding offence."
-
Clare College, Cambridge, 16 Apr 2007,
after disciplining a student for criticising Islam,
show they have no idea what "free speech" actually means.
by Michael Shapiro.
My instinct was right:
Since 1995.
