b3c60b10b9fa182018e2…

Why not a cute stuffed pig with the same shirt?

JiangxiDad on December 9, 2007 at 7:10 AM

I guess that’s the next in the Koranimals product line.

I have been waiting for a new Lenny Bruce.

Christians have sacrilege thrown in our faces all the time … –BKennedy on December 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM

That’s not right either, is it. Neither does it justify bad behavior from Christians.

But the important thing, IMO, is not whether we offend, but whether it advances or deters us in the fight. I’m suggesting it’s too broadly cast, somewhat counterproductive, and that we can defend our freedom in more efficient, more effective ways.

But again, if FR is correct in that moderate Muslims aren’t offended by Mo Bear, then the issue is moot and I’m barking up a wrong tree.

Petefrt, are you a Monte Python fan by any chance?

FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 10:20 PM

We’re being taunted by The French!

And come petefrt, Christians have sacrilege thrown in our faces all the time and many share a special hatred for the Catholic Church to which I belong. We don’t jail people for two weeks over it.

And again, the “no images of Mohammad” utterly fails the smell test when they name half of their children after the prophet. Damn you Mo bear, accurse you and your adorable cuddlyness, you are an insult to my religion! ALLAHU ACKB-*boom*

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 4:20 AM

Goodnight

After all this, I gotta crash now and rest my pea brain.

See ya tomorrow, FR, in the threads here at MM’s CHEERS. Thanks!

FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 3:49 AM

The cartoon jihad was instructive, to say the least. So were last year’s riots in France. And the persistent terrorism in Britain.

The jihadists would use our freedoms against us, turn us against ourselves, and transform this country into their own vision. They may well succeed unless we keep the battle on their lands, not ours, and unless we fight them on our own terms, rather than theirs. We can count on the radical left in this country being their allies, and undermining our will for self-defense. PC may well be our downfall. We seem to lack clarity (or even seriousness) of thought and conviction. I must say, it doesn’t look good for the USA as we know it.

It’s the radicals who are our enemy.

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 3:31 AM

I agree, but I also believe that this is a problem with Islam and therefore it’s the responsibility of Muslims to solve it. They have an opportunity to do so right now and if they pass up that opportunity, (which for the most part is what they’ve been doing so far), and we are attacked again, they will relinquish that responsibility and will not have earned the right to complain when we do whatever we deem necessary to protect ourselves and solve their problems for them by force of necessity. In other words, although I realize that there are a lot of good Muslims in foreign lands, a share of them may end up dying if they don’t get off their collective butts and fix their own damn problems. While I will feel bad for any innocent Muslims that will be killed, such is the way the world works and there’s only so much we can do to prevent it.

I’m ready to be wrong on this. In fact, I’d prefer it.

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 3:16 AM

We’ll see, I’m not positive myself. I don’t think that the HA Mohammed Bear is going to offend moderate Muslims at all, although CAIR and leftist groups may try to score grievance points off it. If this turns into another cartoon jihad it will still be instructive. To be honest, I like to think that this sort of thing will help temper Islam and force it into the modern world, but that may be wishful thinking. Eventually they’re just going to get tired of getting all frenzied up and marauding through their streets.

government derives its authority from the governed, individual rights are inherent in the people not granted by the government, and the Second Amendment is our last resort

I agree, this is what separates conservatives from liberals.

hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Indeed they should. Probably most are. And probably it would help if they’d speak up more about it.

Moderate Muslims should be off-put by the outrage exhibited by their louder co-religionists at every percieved slight.

There are plenty of good Muslims, I know there are because I’ve met them, and even though they all told me that there are a lot of bad Muslims it required 9/11 for me to see the light and finally believe them.

FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 3:15 AM

We agree.

I wish I knew more Muslims, to be better informed about this. But I’m guessing you’re right. Most Muslims are willing to co-exist with others in this world without dominating them, and most Muslims in this country are honorable, productive Americans.

It’s the radicals who are our enemy.

Anyway, limited government and self-ownership separates us from the left, doesn’t it? The left would have us believe all our rights derive from the state, meaning naturally that the state can revise, limit and delete them as expedient. In the view of the left, our rights are bestowed by the state, such that totalitarianism is a natural option of government. We, on the other hand, assert our rights are inalienable, deriving not from the state, but from our own self-ownership, and for those of us of faith, from God. In either instance, government derives its authority from the governed, individual rights are inherent in the people not granted by the government, and the Second Amendment is our last resort

Conservatives value individualism. We guard the integrity of each individual. This would include religious belief, at the core of one’s individuality, provided it’s reasonable, honest and bona fide belief.

Jailing some well-meaning teacher for allowing a tot to name a teddy bear is in no way reasonable. Nor is running through the streets, machete in hand, calling for her head.

Thus the MoBear.

Moderate Muslims aren’t usually offended by such? If so, then my criticism is clearly mistaken. How would I get to the facts on this?

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 2:16 AM

I guess in my case it was just personal experience. A cousin of mine is married to a black Muslim and she has a dog, so how bad can he be? He’s a good guy and I don’t have any concerns about him at all regarding radicalism. He doesn’t come to my extended families Christmas celebration, (probably because he’s a black Muslim and my family’s white Christian or non-religious), although he’s made an appearance once or twice over the years, but my cousin always brings their son and he’s a great kid. I have to admit, though, that I’m very glad that he goes to a public school rather than an Islamic one.

A co-worker friend of mine at one of my first jobs was named Jihad. Seriously, apparently it’s a common name in Palestine, (go figure, LOL), and he was of Palestinian origin. At the time I was naively sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and told him so when we started to get to know each other. I expected that he would reciprocate my opinion, him being Palestinian and all, but he didn’t. He told me he hated Palestinians and that most of the good ones have long since left the area, most of those that remain are bad people. He was very convincing but I didn’t buy it entirely. I thought maybe he was just trying to disassociate himself from them, but now I don’t think so.

Then some years ago another co-worker, a female who wore head/body covering but with her face exposed, expressed a very similar opinion of radical Muslims. This was a few years before 9/11. I expressed sympathy for the plight of Muslims and she practically castigated me.

There are plenty of good Muslims, I know there are because I’ve met them, and even though they all told me that there are a lot of bad Muslims it required 9/11 for me to see the light and finally believe them.

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 2:02 AM

Like I said, we probably have more in common than not.

my rights come from self-ownership!

Right on. I generally point out that while I don’t have a problem with people claiming that our rights are granted by God, he left us with the responsibility of defending them, thus the 2nd amendment is crucial to the continuation of our freedom and liberty. I’ll have to try to remember to incorporate “self ownership” next time I discuss the topic, which seems like the principle upon which most of our rights stem.

I just think that irreverence should be applied equally or it shouldn’t be applied at all, and without irreverence both humor and freedom cease to exist. — FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Well put, FR. I couldn’t agree more.

Teddy bears are not going to offend truly moderate Muslims. Period. To suggest otherwise is insulting to truly moderate Muslims, of which there are plenty.

Moderate Muslims aren’t usually offended by such? If so, then my criticism is clearly mistaken. How would I get to the facts on this?

I always thought that freedom, liberty, tolerance and responsibility were the centerpieces of conservatism, or at least some of the most important ones.

FloatingRock on December 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Yes, I’d agree with that.

I once tried to define my conservatism. Here are some, but only some of the keys that come presently to mind:
· Individual freedom (First Amendment stuff). That is to say, classic Western liberalism. Individual rights versus group rights, versus elitist rights and versus multiculturalist protected classes. There is no individual freedom without individual responsibility and respect for individual integrity.
· Economic/financial freedom. Free markets versus socialism and central control. Freedom to take risk in a free market, and freedom to fail.
· Political freedom. Limited government, the less the better, versus statism and nanny-statism. (Our rights come from God, NOT from the state… or in my case as an agnostic, my rights come from self-ownership!)
· Equal opportunity for all citizens (but not necessarily equal outcomes) within the meritocracy of traditional Western civilization (Judeo-Christian culture).

I must be really screwed up. Here am I, an agnostic complaining about Hitchens (one of my intellectual idols) about his anti-religion hang-up, and about Michelle (another of my intellectual idols) about her Mo Bears. Still tomorrow I’ll support the DRAFT CHENEY campaign. Woe is me.

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 1:05 AM

My steamroller reference above was in regard to the targeting of humor; not that I’m apposed to employing steamrollers in the war as appropriate, so long as they’re supped up and supersonic. I’m sure there are plenty of other issues we probably agree on.

I just think that irreverence should be applied equally or it shouldn’t be applied at all, and without irreverence both humor and freedom cease to exist. Islam has most certainly NOT earned a special place in civilized society above that of all other groups, nobody has or ever should, and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise to appease the delicate sensibilities of the intolerant. Teddy bears are not going to offend truly moderate Muslims. Period. To suggest otherwise is insulting to truly moderate Muslims, of which there are plenty.

crew rifles and shotguns, I prefer the steamroller approach.

FloatingRock on December 10, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Hey, FR, I’m with you! I prefer the steamroller too, if only we had one that would run.

PC says no steamrollers allowed in this war. Meanwhile our boys and our allies’ boys die. I hate the way that works.

RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Yes, a long time poster and also a fan of your comments usually.

It just goes against my libertarian conservative grain to attack another person’s religion, especially another world religion, on the basis that it has a venomous component. I think we need to define that component, and target our attacks on it, rather than bashing the religion and its believers generally. To use the shotgun so early in the hunt is a mistake, I think.

Let’s take a sharp[er aim at our enemy.

petefrt on December 10, 2007 at 12:38 AM

I’m in favor of humor at the expense of any group or public figure whether they’re an enemy or not, but especially if they’re an enemy. The world would be a miserable place without humor. Screw rifles and shotguns, I prefer the steamroller approach.

Because some of our countrymen volunteer to defend, armed with training, discipline, and weaponry, on the front lines. And those of us on the home front are left with the choices won by their sacrifice. One of those choices is to take up the splendid and potent weapon of mockery and scorn. Be proud to be in the ranks that deploy psychological warfare.

RushBaby on December 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM

I love what you said. But my point is we’d do better with a rifle, not a shotgun. Let’s take a sharp[er aim at our enemy.