If any other ethnic or religious--blacks, Jews, gays, etc.--had been villified in the way that Muslims were villified by the Muhammed cartoons, the newspapers in this country that printed those cartoons would have been shut down, or, at the very least, boycotted. The fact that villification of Islam is tolerated anywhere (popularity of Salman Rushdie being just one example--yes, the man has a write to express himself, but he is also a hatemonger) is indicative of the attitude on the far Left and Right--that certain "protected minorities," such as Jews and blacks, cannot be stereotyped, whereas "unprotected" groupss, such as Muslims and whites, can be. In effect, the lack of uproar in this country over the Muhammed cartoons is a reflection of the affirmative action mindset--blacks good, whites evil (Jews good, Muslims evil)--end of discussion.
And Muslims in this country should not be held responsible for the reactions of their coreligionists overseas--the reaction in this country was very peaceful, and Muslims renounced the violence that occurred elsewhere. The picture and post, however, imply that Muslims here reacted the same way that Muslims in the Netherlands, France, Britain, etc. reacted. On the other hand, look at how the Christian Right in this country reacted to the Reagan drama, or how the ADL, AIPAC, etc. react to even the slightest criticism of Israel, even if that criticism has absolutely NOTHING to do with Judaism itself.

Similarly offensive things *have* been printed in American newspapers about various groups, and no newspapers have been shut down over them. And if you want extreme examples, consider Piss Christ and the painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with dung. Both considered utterly blasphemous. Yes, lawsuits were threatened and boycotts undertaken, etc., but that's a far cry from the violence and threats of violence over the Muhammand cartoons.

Yes, thankfully the reaction in the US was much more peaceful than in Europe, and I never implied otherwise (though some media outlets, bookstores, etc. still banned the images out of fear of potential violence). But all that is beside the point. The irony in this photo is striking.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

Uh, I don't think either of the examples you mentioned depicted Jesus (or Christianity for that matter) as inherently violent. And potrtaying Muhammed in any form goes against Muslim practices. (How many pictures do you see of the guy in Islamic art, as opposed to the number of times Christ is depicted in Christian art?)
And you missed the larger point. Why is stereotyping of Muslims tolerated? Do any newspapers in this country (or worldwide, for that matter) run Little Black Sambo? Do any bookstores sell The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? On the other hand, one can find plenty of books by Nonie Darwish, Steve Emerson, and others, arguing that Islam today is nothing but violent, that mainstream Muslim organizations such as CAIR are "extremist," that Muslims represent some sinister fifth column trying to take over the U.S., if not the world. If such generalizations were being made about blacks or Jews, the newspaper or bookstore containing or selling such writings would be in huge trouble. The bottom line is that stereotyping is simply wrong, even if it is protected free speech. Trying to suggest that offending the central figure of a religion in such a manner is "justified" by the reactions of members of the religion, even a minority, is simply hatemongering masquerading as political correctness. It's the same strategy used by the multicultural movement at Stanford--it's okay to offend whites, but not blacks.
Also, I have Jewish ancestry, so don't you dare try to patronize me with your croccodile tears for Israel. Who was butchering Jews in Europe all those centuries? Trying to be cute by calling yourself a friend of the Jewish people and then villifying Muslims just as Jews were villified for centuries is just hypocritical. Don't give me your good two-shoes Old Testament garbage about God promising Israel to the Jews. You just want the Rapture.

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, Eric is not Roman Catholic, so any comments about "butchering Jews" should be directed towards me, ITA's token Catholic. Last time I counted we've still got the Palestinians beat. Also, all other Catholic stereotypes, such as Piux XII's complicity in the Holocaust and Catholic homophobia, are fair game.

And not to be pedantic, but I don't think Eric has ever fashioned himself "cute," at least by way of giving lip service to Jews or, more abstractly, by supporting Zionist maschinations. Besides, we all know that Jesus will return to Jackson County, Missouri - at least for Romney and crew.

For consideration - would it not have been more poetic (perhaps saucy?) to call Eric's Old Testament a "three-shoes Old Testament"? You know, a sort-of below the ecumenical belt jab at how Christians read the Blessed Trinity into the Old Testament?

BH4J was legally attacked because of it's advocacy of drug law violations, not because of any religious message. ITA blogged on the case before:

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/03/students_and_th.html

For the record, I seriously question whether the school had any jurisdiction over students who were viewing the parade on someone else's private property.

I couldn't bear to read more than three chapters of "Satanic Verses", so I have no insights into the author.

Seth, in addition to your examples, there is also a newer stereotype (though I do not know how popular it actually is, or how many of the people who spread it actually believe it and how many of them just want to stimulate themselves by talking about it) concerning Catholic priests and pedophilia. Obviously, most priests have not committed these crimes.

Also, the best answer to the question, "Who was butchering Jews in Europe all those centuries?" is, "No one at this blog." I'm sure that it wasn't Eric, anyway, and I do not think I could even blame myself and Seth. Anonymous, you seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions about Eric's intentions from the mere fact that he is a Christian, which is the kind of stereotyping that you claim to be against.

The reaction to the Reagan drama was not to condemn it for a tendency to stereotype anyone. It was considered a negative and inaccurate portrayal of one man. The difference is that when stereotyping is the issue, there may be differences of opinion over what group is being portrayed; a cartoon could be meant to characterize all Muslims, or to criticize just a certain kind of Muslim (even though a cartoon portraying a certain kind of Muslim could arguably tend to stereotype all Muslims, even if it was unintended). I do not remember whether the people who protested those cartoons said that they were inaccurate; it would have been difficult for them to make that claim without a clear indication that the cartoons characterized all Muslims. (Also, as you mentioned, some of the protesters would have objected to any portrayal of Muhammed, so even if inaccuracy was partially responsible for the uproar, this was not the only issue.) There is no question of who the Reagan character represented in the Reagan drama, however, and Reagan either thought and acted as that character did, or he didn't. The people who protested the Reagan drama said that he didn't.

Why not put a picture of William Donohue of the Catholic League next to the Chocolate sculpture of Jesus that he and his group protested (if you want to call phoning in and emailing in death threats "protest") right out of a NY gallery? mean, how is Donohue any different from the guy in Eric's picture?

I'm so glad we're feeling so smug here at ITA.

Do any bookstores sell The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Ahem. Only the biggest book/movie/music retailer in the world.

And with that, I will end my responding to your ignorant, anonymous ranting.

Smug? No, John, just observant of the reality that the-bane-of-middle-aged-dissenting-Catholics Bill Donohue did not encourage acts of violence and/or issue death threats against the hotel the way some Muslim clerics did in the wake of the Danish cartoons.

The League's Press Release in full:

From April 1 to April 7, the Roger Smith Lab Gallery at the Roger Smith Hotel in New York City will display a 6-foot tall anatomically correct sculpture of Jesus in milk chocolate; the figure is depicted as crucified. Artist Cosimo Cavallaro titles his work “My Sweet Lord.” A picture is available on the Internet. (Click here.)

Catholic League president Bill Donohue outlined his game plan today:

“The Roger Smith Hotel is located in the heart of New York City, and it boasts on its website that its Lab Gallery ‘is a high traffic, fast paced’ venue. Indeed it is: the gallery is located on street level, easily accessible to the public. But it is sure bet that in the years to come there will be little in the way of high traffic coming from the Christian community.

“As I’ve said many times before, Lent is the season for non-believers to sow seeds of doubt about Jesus. What’s scheduled to go on at the Roger Smith Hotel, however, is of a different genre: this is hate speech. And choosing Holy Week—the display opens on Palm Sunday and ends on Holy Saturday—makes it a direct in-your-face assault on Christians.

“All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don’t react the way extremist Muslims do when they’re offended—otherwise they may have more than their heads cut off. James Knowles, President and CEO of the Roger Smith Hotel (interestingly, he also calls himself Artist-in-Residence), should be especially grateful. And if he tries to spin this as reverential, then he should substitute Muhammad for Jesus and display him during Ramadan.

“I am contacting hundreds of organizations about this assault. Our allied list contains scores of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations, as well as secular groups, that share our concerns about religious hate speech and the degradation of our culture. The only thing that those who operate the Roger Smith Hotel understand is when they get hit in the pocket book. So that’s exactly where we’ll hit them. The boycott is on.”

The disclaimer "and before you accuse me of [bigotry towards some ethnic group] you should know that I am partly descended from [said ethnic group]" is worn-out and should be retired from all intelligent discouse. I'm not saying whether Anon engaged in anti-Semitism, but if his remarks were anti-Semitic, being Jewish doesn't make them valid.

Seth-

There are Muslim who don't like artists depictions of their god in cartoons, and there are Catholics who don't like theirs depicted in chocolate.

The gallery owner received death threats from Donohue's minions.

Posting Donohue's press releases doesn't explain to me how his attitudes towards free expression are any different from the guy in the photo.

JohnS, the broad category of Muslims "who do not like artist depictions of their" prophet "in cartoons" is like the broad category of Catholics who do not like hotels to display naked chocolate Jesus statues. However, this post is not about offended Muslims in general -- it is about these particular protesters, a mere subcategory of offended Muslims, and the viewpoint depicted in the picture. The protesters in the picture expressed their opposition to freedom of expression as a concept, and that is why their picture was posted and Donohue's was not. The irony of the picture in the post (which was Eric's stated reason for posting it), that the man is expressing his opposition to expression, is not present in a Donohue protest of a statue, unless Donohue opposes not only the statue but also the freedom to erect it.

William Donohue is too easily offended and is almost never right, but his protest of the chocolate statue appears to object to what is expressed, not to the freedom to express it.

Sorry Karl, you're not making any sense. I understand perfectly well the irony in the photo. Donohue and his attack dogs used their freedom of expression to say, "Freedom of Expresion, Go To Hell!" to the sculptor of "My Sweet Lord" and his gallery. It's you who appear to have missed the irony...

No, there is a difference between opposing something that is said (or displayed) and opposing the freedom to say (or display) it.

I wonder whether the cause of your confusion is thinking that Donohue's boycott (which does not involve the use of force) actually limits the freedom of the hotel, or whether you are even missing the essential difference between criticism of speech and limiting the freedom to speak. The people in the photograph have not, as far as I know, actually limited the freedom of expression, but if their signs are to be believed, they would like to see it happen.

Also, I think that one of the reasons why boycotts are used is that they do not actually limit the freedom of the entity that is boycotted. They affect its economic incentives, but even if a boycott were so successful that the entity were left with no economically realistic alternative other than to change its behavior, no one would have done anything other than to choose not to interact with the entity, anymore. The Roger Smith Hotel remains as free to express itself as it is to leave stains on its ceilings and sheets, though either may lead to the hotel losing customers.

This is getting annoying, Karl. I am not confused at all, you just simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Donohue didn't just "criticize speech." He wanted to close that show down. He wanted to "limit speech." Just like the guy in Eric's photo.
After his thugs shut the show down by phoning-in death threats to the gallery, Donohue went on tv and gloated over his "victory."

PS: As a Catholic (and someone works as a graphic designer), I found Donohue's rationalization of his actions (the sculpture=hate speech) patently ridiculous. The sculpture was beautifully executed. The sculptor's regular medium is food, so his choice of materials is not surprising. And Michaelangelo chose to present David the same way.

This is getting annoying, Karl. I am not confused at all, you just simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

I have already discussed the boycott, and why his boycott did not limit freedom of expression even though he "wanted to shut the show down" by boycotting the hotel. Did he want the government to make a law? Did he want the removal of the statute to result from the use of force or threats of force? Unless you have a source indicating that Donohue urged people to make the death threats (you call them his "thugs," but did he order them to do it? Did he ask them to do it? What was even the connection between them, other than that they were all against the statue?) or that he intended to threaten something other than a decrease in business, I see nothing indicating that he limited or wanted to limit their freedom of expression. (If you do have something that shows that he was directly responsible for the death threats, which I have not been able to find, then he did limit freedom of expression. However, I would still doubt that there is a picture of him that captures the irony as effectively as the picture that Eric posted does, which is why his use of that picture was not "smug.")

Did he want the government to make a law? Did he want the removal of the statute to result from the use of force or threats of force? "Unless you have a source indicating that Donohue urged people to make the death threats (you call them his "thugs," but did he order them to do it? Did he ask them to do it? What was even the connection between them, other than that they were all against the statue?) or that he intended to threaten something other than a decrease in business, I see nothing indicating that he limited or wanted to limit their freedom of expression."

What does all that have to do with the price of tea in China? You have no problem at all making certain judgments about the guy in the photo whom you know nothing about (other than that he appears to be a Muslim), but yet you are all too unwilling to make similar judgements about his Catholic counterpart, about whom we know all too much.

Donohue made himself perfectly clear: there will be NO freedom of expression for artists whose work he personally disapproves of when their work relates to his Church. You "see nothing indicating that he limited or wanted to limit their freedom of expression" because you don't want to.

"Unless you have a source indicating that Donohue urged people to make the death threats..."

Of course he wouldn't come right out and ask people to phone in death threats, that would be a crime. However, what we do have here is a pattern. A month prior to the "My Sweet Lord" controversy, Donohue sicced his Catholic League thugs on the John Edwards' campaign for its hiring of so-called "anti-Catholic" bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Marcotte and McEwan received death threats from Donohue's minions. Both quit the Edwards' campaign. Donohue never condemned the death-threat calls. So it should have come as no surprise when a month later, after calling the artists work, "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," death threats were phoned in to the gallery.

Donohue never condemned the death threats to the gallery, either. Actually, what he did do was go on Anderson Cooper's 360 Degrees show and make veiled threats HIMSELF to the artist Cosimo Cavallaro: "You're lucky I'm not like the Taliban, because you would lose more than your head."

Tellingly, Cardinal Egan and the Catholic Church never officially denounced Donohue and his corrupt Catholic League, despite the death threats and the thuggish behavior of Donohue. I would, however, like to note this appropriate response to Donohue's appearance on Cooper's show from a Catholic priest in Kentucky, Fr Jeff Gatlain:

"As a Christian, a Catholic Priest, I stand in opposition to any and all hateful speech used by anyone, especially when they do so in the name of Jesus. I do not believe that one can claim to be a disciple of Jesus and at the same time deride, mock, insult, or threaten violence against another person. Mr. Donohue clearly makes hateful remarks as well as violent comments towards Mr. Cavallaro and as such he insults God, his fellow Catholics and humanity for that point.

Proclaiming the Salvation of Jesus means that we are to refrain from such vile speech. One cannot preach the love of Jesus while cursing one's neighbor. The two cannot co-exist. To continually use hateful, crude, violent language is indicative of what dwells within one's heart. Mr. Donohue speaks only for himself and not the Catholic Church."

To be clearer: I should have said at the end of my fifth paragraph:

"So it should have come as no surprise when a month later, after siccing his thugs on the art gallery for showing, "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," death threats were phoned in to the gallery."

What does all that have to do with the price of tea in China? You have no problem at all making certain judgments about the guy in the photo whom you know nothing about (other than that he appears to be a Muslim), but yet you are all too unwilling to make similar judgements about his Catholic counterpart, about whom we know all too much.

JohnS, I do not know why you became annoyed so quickly with this discussion, but now it has resulted in you making an intellectually lazy accusation (you accuse me of assuming that this man is against freedom of expression because he is a Muslim, and assuming that he is a Muslim because of his physical appearance, even though I have stated my true opinion many times above, and even though my reason for believing that these protesters are against freedom of expression should be obvious -- it is the subject of this post!).

I could make the argument that the man with the microphone, specifically, is against freedom of expression. He is the guy talking into a microphone at a rally where people have signs that say things like "Freedom of Expression Go To Hell," in addition to the context that the rally was meant to condemn the cartoons; the "Freedom of Expression Go To Hell" sign is immediately behind him, and other signs with similar messages are nearby, so this juxtaposition was probably not an unlikely accident. I did, in fact, assume that he agreed with them. However, I think it would be more on-point to observe that even though you seem to think that this post and this discussion are about the man with the microphone, they are clearly about the use of a sign at a rally condemning the freedom that its maker is exercising, and that the fact that a man is shouting into a microphone in the foreground is just a bonus. (That is why in the comments above, I repeatedly referred to "these protesters" in the plural, trying not to make this about what we might assume are the views of the man with the microphone.) The microphone-man's agreement with the sign behind him is not essential to the irony of this picture.

And yes, we "know all to much" about Donohue, and it should be clear from my first response to you that I am not a fan of his. Assuming, however, that he encouraged people to make death threats, based on the fact that I do not like him, would not be founded on what we do know about him. Your evidence that he was connected with the death threats is only marginally more persuasive than this. He probably just has people on his e-mail list (or who hear about his protests through other media) who have a tendency to make death threats when they encounter something that seems to be attacking Christianity. Unless anyone who condemns and protests things is responsible for the actions of people who agree with them but then go too far, I see no reason why Donohue should be responsible for the people who make death threats. If I were Donohue and I could confirm that these idle threats actually were made, I think I would condemn them -- but I am not Donohue. Donohue is a jerk. When the chocolate display was removed, he stated in his press release that because he did not like the hotel's concession statement, he was not going to tell his contacts that the exhibit had closed (which would have the effect of causing the boycott to continue). He might also have reasonably wanted to avoid turning the story into something about death threats instead of the statue. Finally, I think you are misreading the Taliban story. Donohue was not making a "veiled threat" to decapitate Cavallaro. Without the context, the quote could seem to mean many things, but in context, it is clear that Donohue was just saying that Cavallaro is lucky that Donohue is not the Taliban, to which he had been compared. Obviously, Donohue was not informing Cavallaro on CNN that he really intends to kill him, and the comment was not meant to make Cavallaro expect Donohue to kill him. The transcript is available at CNN.com, and Cavallaro had just said that Donohue was too stupid to issue a fatwa, after Donohue mentioned that someone had accused him of doing that. It was an angry, clumsy attempt at a "comeback" in an exchange with very few finished sentences, and I do not think it would be a reliable indicator of Donohue's beliefs, even if it were a threat.

Donohue made himself perfectly clear: there will be NO freedom of expression for artists whose work he personally disapproves of when their work relates to his Church. You "see nothing indicating that he limited or wanted to limit their freedom of expression" because you don't want to.

I think the truth is the opposite -- now that you have chosen your enemy, you miss the most probable explanations for what he has said and find connections between him and people who make death threats, even without evidence of them. At the same time, you are ignoring my plain, repeated reason for concluding that the picture in this post depicts expression by people who are hostile to freedom of expression, and substituting for it a straw man that would be a more convenient opponent for you. I do not understand why you became annoyed with this discussion so quickly, especially since it is probably a result of us disagreeing over the definition of freedom (as I addressed several posts ago) of expression. Donohue may be attacking "openness" and "tolerance," but that is not the same thing as attacking freedom of expression. If this is our disagreement, just say so and we can talk about something else.

Karl,

What I find annoying is being called "confused" and being called out for making "lazy assumptions" that I never made (for writing that you/we know nothing about the guy in the photo other than that he appears to be Muslim - huh!?), and then having to slog through your endless meandering rambles. Sorry, but you asked.

My final thoughts, as we appear to be getting nowhere fast...

Yes, the photo is ironic in just the way that Eric indicates.

And yes, I find it also ironic that people like Donohue and his Catholic League thugs use their rights of free expression to stifle the rights of others.

And yes, I find it ironic that Donohue and his Catholic League thugs are not criticized here for holding the very same attitudes towards free expression as the guy in the photo appears to hold. Donohue may well agree in theory with our western "free expression" ideal, but his actions demonstrate that he doesn't agree with them in practice, at least when it comes to his religion.

JohnS, you are giving me nothing new. Today, you wrote, "What I find annoying is...being called out for making 'lazy assumptions' that I never made (for writing that you/we know nothing about the guy in the photo other than that he appears to be Muslim - huh!?)" Actually, I said that you made an intellectually lazy accusation against me when you wrote yesterday, "You have no problem at all making certain judgments about the guy in the photo whom you know nothing about (other than that he appears to be a Muslim)." Your accusation was intellectually lazy because I had stated my reason for thinking that the protesters were against freedom of expression many times, and because that reason should have been obvious, anyway (because, again, it is the subject of this post!), but you preferred the all-purpose easy (and dishonest) route of accusing your opponent of racial and religious bias, without any evidence whatsoever. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that if you had not confused the words "assumptions" and "accusation," you would not still have denied today writing what you wrote yesterday. However, your accusation yesterday was still intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Also, as you should be able to see in the comments archived above, I did not call you "confused" as an insult. After you wrote, "Sorry Karl, you're not making any sense...It's you who appear to have missed the irony...," I explained what I thought was the cause of your confusion. This reminds me of what you did with the Donohue Taliban quote -- first, you pick your side, and then choose the meaning that would be most favorable to your side, even if that meaning is unlikely, considering the context.

...but his actions demonstrate that he doesn't agree with them in practice, at least when it comes to his religion.

Again, I question whether we simply disagree on the definition of "freedom" of expression. I could agree that Donohue is "intolerant," but boycotts do not limit freedom of expression. Disagreeing over such an essential definition necessarily leads to misunderstandings (like your claim that I refuse to see what Donohue really is, when I have already told you that I dislike Donohue but that I do not think that freedom of expression and tolerance of expression are the same thing), so we should talk about this before talking about anything else, if there is any need to continue to discuss this at all.

...and then having to slog through your endless meandering rambles. Sorry, but you asked.

I do not think I did ask, but anyway, it requires time and words to respond to your accusations and to correct your factual and logical errors. I will use fewer words if you reduce the need for them.

Karl,

Now I'm not annoyed, I'm angry.

Listen up. I did not make any "lazy accusation" about you, or anyone else, being a racist. That was crappy of you. I myself assumed he was a Muslim because of his physical appearance, and the signs behind him. Should I accuse myself of being a racist?

If you will look upthread, it was my observation, that in light of the behavior of the Catholic League's shutdown of an gallery show, perhaps we might be feeling a bit too "smug" about Eric's photo. As in, they've got their religious intolerants, but *newsflash* we've got ours too -- it's just that we appear reluctant to admit it here. That is the only "accusation," if I can even call it that, that I lobbed on this thread, and my subsequent comments should be viewed in that light, not the unflattering light you've chosen.

Boycotts. (OK, let's even leave the phoned-in death threats to the gallery out of the equation.) Big deal, boycotts. I don't care so much about the tool Donohue used, I care about his desired result. Which was the cancellation of an art show he didn't like. If working to cancel a show about something you don't approve of isn't working to "limit free expression," I don't know what is.

I did not make any "lazy accusation" about you, or anyone else, being a racist. That was crappy of you. I myself assumed he was a Muslim because of his physical appearance, and the signs behind him. Should I accuse myself of being a racist?

I'll leave it to you to decide for your own case whether "racial bias" is the same thing as racism, but you did (falsely) accuse me of assuming that he is against freedom of expression because of his appearance -- that he "appears to be a Muslim." Unless you meant that the "appearance" of which you write, that he is a Muslim, was based on the knowledge that you claimed that we do not have about him (even though he is talking into a microphone at a rally where he is surrounded by signs condemning freedom of expression and BBC), I think I would be right to assume that you were referring to his physical appearance. (That is also the natural interpretation of your words when you say that he "appears" a certain way.) Yes, accusing someone of concluding something bad about someone just because of the way he looks is an accusation of prejudice.

If you will look upthread, it was my observation, that in light of the behavior of the Catholic League's shutdown of an gallery show, perhaps we might be feeling a bit too "smug" about Eric's photo. As in, they've got their religious intolerants, but *newsflash* we've got ours too -- it's just that we appear reluctant to admit it here. That is the only "accusation," if I can even call it that, that I lobbed on this thread, and my subsequent comments should be viewed in that light, not the unflattering light you've chosen.

You also accused Donohue of being responsible for death threats, for making death threats himself on CNN, and you accused me of concluding that someone who you said I know nothing about, "other than that he appears to be a Muslim," is against freedom of expression. I have addressed the rest of what you say in this paragraph in earlier comments, so I will not revisit it.

Boycotts. (OK, let's even leave the phoned-in death threats to the gallery out of the equation.) Big deal, boycotts. I don't care so much about the tool Donohue used, I care about his desired result. Which was the cancellation of an art show he didn't like. If working to cancel a show about something you don't approve of isn't working to "limit free expression," I don't know what is.

Even as you say that you want to leave the death threats "out of the equation," you bring them up, so I will just point out again that Donohue did not make the death threats, and that there is no evidence of a connection between him and the anonymous people who made the threats other than that they take offense at the same things. I am also willing to believe that he unintentionally inspired some of them.

And your response still seems to miss that we disagree over the central definition of freedom of expression. The goal of stopping unwanted expression is common to a general intolerance of some expression and to hostility to freedom of expression, under what I think is the best understanding of the words. You apparently have a different understanding, since you elevate the goal above the means, so it should be no surprise that we would disagree on their application. As I wrote before, if this is our disagreement, we should recognize it, because it is making a mess of everything else that we say about it. However, I think that there are often private or economic consequences for speech, including that people will boycott a sponsor or that offended people will spontaneously take their business elsewhere, and if we won't allow our words to distinguish between that and the use of laws or other threats of force to extinguish or regulate the content of expression, we will be unable to talk about an important distinction that happens to separate Donohue from people who use force, or threaten force, or who want force to be used. Don't you think there is an important difference between accomplishing a goal by threatening to nonviolently (and legally) cause someone to lose money or the source of his money, and accomplishing the goal by threatening to beat someone, or kill him, or put him in a cage? Isn't this one of the important differences between the threats sometimes used against employees and the threats that would be used against slaves? I have seen nothing to indicate that Donohue is willing to do anything other than make inflammatory remarks and urge boycotts. Other people are willing to make death threats, or to follow through on those threats, or to burn things, or to make laws punishing certain kinds of speech. The difference between the two is not one of degree.

I'll leave it to you to decide for your own case whether "racial bias" is the same thing as racism, but you did (falsely) accuse me of assuming that he is against freedom of expression because of his appearance -- that he "appears to be a Muslim." Unless you meant that the "appearance" of which you write, that he is a Muslim, was based on the knowledge that you claimed that we do not have about him (even though he is talking into a microphone at a rally where he is surrounded by signs condemning freedom of expression and BBC), I think I would be right to assume that you were referring to his physical appearance. (That is also the natural interpretation of your words when you say that he "appears" a certain way.) Yes, accusing someone of concluding something bad about someone just because of the way he looks is an accusation of prejudice.

To pithily answer your gasbaggy question: Yes. When I said he "appears to be a Muslim," I was obviously referring to his physical appearance (the sign with the word, "prophet" -- big clue too!).

One. More. Time...I did not accuse you of racial bias, you twit.

My point, for the last time: All you, or any of us, know is that the guy in the photo appears to be a Muslim speaking in front of signs condemning free expression. It's probably safe to infer the guy opposes "free expression," at least when it concerns Islam. You did, so did I, and so did others on this thread. We can all therefore note the irony of his use of "free expression" to condemn "free expression" when it comes to his religion. In the case of Donohue, I claimed we don't even have to safely infer he opposes "free expression" when it comes to his religion -- we have his own words on videotape and his group's deeds in the news. However, I appear to be the only one here to note Donohue's identically ironical use of free expression with respect to a particular artist and his gallery.

Oh wait, your ridiculous distinction: Donohue doesn't oppose the artist's right to carve the statue, just his right to display it in a privately owned gallery! He's a real champion of free expression all right, Karl!

Sorry, but the end of the first paragraph is as far as I could get on your last comment. It's like torture, I just can't endure any more of your writing.

Donohue doesn't oppose the artist's right to carve the statue, just his right to display it in a privately owned gallery!

Wrong. He doesn't oppose anyone's right to display anything. He's simply attempting to apply economic incentives to convince sponsors to end the display. To quote from his press release:

The only thing that those who operate the Roger Smith Hotel understand is when they get hit in the pocket book. So that’s exactly where we’ll hit them. The boycott is on.

Another way to view a boycott is that it is simply someone urging like-minded people to choose not to use their consumer dollars to support merchants who support things that offend their values. The Roger Smith Hotel retained the right to display the chocolate Jesus, and Christians had the right to decide not to patronize the hotel.

Eric,

The Roger Smith Hotel retained the right to display the chocolate Jesus, and Christians had the right to decide not to patronize the hotel.

Boycott? Economic incentives? If it had just been about a boycott, fine, show displeasure. But Donohue and his thugs wanted that show cancelled. And they got their wish. Why that is so difficult for people to acknowledge here is mystifying.

John, what qualifies one to be a Donahue "thug"? I gave $5 to his group last year - might I be included? I much prefer theological beatnik. What happened to all of that Vatican II talk of love and toleration? Who knew you and Fr. McCloskey would have so much in common?

To pithily answer your gasbaggy question: Yes. When I said he "appears to be a Muslim," I was obviously referring to his physical appearance (the sign with the word, "prophet" -- big clue too!). One. More. Time...I did not accuse you of racial bias, you twit.

By considering other possible meanings, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Deciding that the man with the microphone is against freedom of expression based on his middle-eastern appearance would be racial bias, an accusation that you now simultaneously deny and admit making.

My point, for the last time: All you, or any of us, know is that the guy in the photo appears to be a Muslim speaking in front of signs condemning free expression. It's probably safe to infer the guy opposes "free expression," at least when it concerns Islam.

Your point before was an accusation that we only know his physical appearance, and judged him on that basis. I maintained that we could form conclusions based on the fact that he is the guy shouting into a microphone at a rally where he is surrounded by signs explicitly condemning freedom of expression. I also observed that the picture, this post, and the discussion were never about him, but about everything that the picture shows -- expression of hostility to expression.

Oh wait, your ridiculous distinction: Donohue doesn't oppose the artist's right to carve the statue, just his right to display it in a privately owned gallery! He's a real champion of free expression all right, Karl!

The distinction is between threatening force and threatening to withdraw funding from the sponsor. It is unfortunate that you were unable to read the rest of my comment; I have been trying to get to the heart of our disagreement for several days now, usually after beginning each comment by responding to your accusations, but you apparently do not want to understand. The artist's "right" to erect a statue at a hotel is not impaired when the hotel decides to order it to be removed, whether the hotel caves into economic pressures or simply decides that it does not like the statue.

Boycott? Economic incentives? If it had just been about a boycott, fine, show displeasure. But Donohue and his thugs wanted that show cancelled. And they got their wish. Why that is so difficult for people to acknowledge here is mystifying.

Boycotts always have a goal, and that goal would almost always be to limit freedom if it were pursued through force or threats of force. I do not know what makes you think the goal of this boycott is so different from the rest.

To follow JohnS' argument to its logical conclusion, the people who objected to Isiah Washington's anti-gay slurs and ultimately got him fired are against freedom of expression, too.

To follow JohnS' argument to its logical conclusion, the people who objected to Isiah Washington's anti-gay slurs and ultimately got him fired are against freedom of expression, too.

C'mon Eric, you're talking about "hate speech," we're talking about a sculpture. Please don't try to equate it with "hate speech." It was not, as Donohue suggested on CNN, equivalent to a swastika on a US postage stamp. I'm a Catholic (as is the artist), and I thought it was beautiful.

You and Karl seem to think this discussion should be one about the *different means employed by two different religious groups to achieve similar ends (not printing cartoons, not showing sculpture in a NYC art gallery). Why don't you two go ahead and have it, it's just not one that I'm interested in.

*And if you believe the gallery owner, and I have no reason to doubt him, both groups even employed similar means (death threats).

JohnS, Donohue did not make death threats, and you have not been able to present evidence that he encouraged death threats.

Also, since you do not recognize a difference between the means used to silence expression, and since you are comfortable with social and economic consequences for hate speech, are you also comfortable with the use of laws and other threats of force to silence hate speech?

You seem to be compensating for a flaw in your theory of freedom of expression by making an arbitrary exception to it. Your definition of that freedom fails to distinguish influence by threats of force from influence by threatening mere economic consequences. Your definition of freedom would prevent people from withdrawing their financial support for a speaker's sponsor, if it is a reaction to the content of the expression, but because you want people to be able to respond to "hate speech," you created an exception to your rule. It would be better to fix the rule itself.

By the way, if those death threats were real, the people who made them did indeed attack freedom of expression. However, it was Donohue who we were talking about, and I see no evidence of a connection between them and Donohue, whether or not they are characterized as his "thugs."

C'mon Eric, you're talking about "hate speech," we're talking about a sculpture.

Liberals such as yourself seem to forget that there's no exception in the First Amendment for "hate speech." Unless the speech constitutes a threat or incites violence, it is protected by the Constitution. If we're going to have real freedom of expression, we must realize that will mean people have the freedom to express ideas that we find repugnant. Though, naturally, there will be social and economic consequences for such expression.

Eric,

Please don't make assumptions. about "liberals like myself." I'm not sure that I disagree at all that there's no exception in the First Amendment for "hate speech." But that's for another thread.

Again, I ain't buying that our religious intolerants are any "less ironic" than theirs because ours employ more peaceful means of free expression (if you choose to ignore the phoned in death threats to the gallery) to achieve the same ends: limiting someone else's free expression (ie: non-publication of cartoon/non-display of sculpture).

JohnS, you keep using the words "free expression." I would normally assume that this is supposed to mean the same thing as "freedom of expression," an important phrase in the discussion we have been having. However, the structure of your "free expression" phrase (moving the emphasis from the freedom to the expression) and your apparent understanding of it make me question whether they are meant to be synonymous.

Are you aware that Eric and I (and the protesters, and most people who use the words "freedom of expression") are not talking about ease of expression or expression without adverse reactions, but freedom (the natural right) as it relates to expression? You seem to be talking about expression without challenges.