Skip to main content

    I don't have a lot of time, but I wanted my fellow DKos readers to know that the Radio Host, Jack Armstrong, who told his listeners to post negative depictions of Muhammed and post them on Al-Jazeera must be in trouble with Clear Channel so his devotees have started a Facebook Page to "support" the radio host.

     ThinkProgress reported on this yesterday.  The Radio show is called: Armstrong & Getty, I got on their Twitter feed and that's where I learned about the Facebook page.

     As ThinkProgress pointed out, many people were killed in Afghanistan 2011 when a similar situation happened.  In 2011, Terry Jones asked people to join him in a "Burn a Quran Day" as a way to show hate toward a religion different from his.

     At that time, in 2011, riots broke out in Afghanistan over the plan to burn Qurans.  The New York Times reported:

    The dead included at least 7 United Nations workers ... the death toll at 10 foreigners in the United Nations compound, 8 killed by gunshots and 2 beheaded.
     At the time, General David Petraeus, decried Jones’ plan as potentially endangering American lives:
Burning the Quran is wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic.
    Personally, I think people organize hate mailers or hate Ads with the sole purpose to generate extreme violence and possible death are despicable.  (Which is why I support Boy-cotting and getting haters off the air).  

      To me, those people who started the Support A&G Facebook page are acknowledging their devotion to Armstrong's plan for extreme violence to ensue in the Middle East, and to me, they are equally as despicable as Jack Armstrong.

     I could not embed the video so you will have to go to ThinkProgess to view it.

     Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if people could paint Gay Jesus, bi-sexual Jesus and not get condemned.  Also, it would be nice if people could say whatever they want about someone's prophet without risk of violent riots ... but ... the reality is ... the Middle East is not there yet.

       The Middle-East, sadly (and I think intentionally) is a few centuries behind the West when it comes to tolerating certain types of speech.  But, before people start belittling those in the Mid-East, simply because they are a few centuries behind the West -- remember a few centuries ago in America, people where being murdered if someone simply thought they did not believe in "god." (See Salem Witch Hunts)

        Remember, 1860 (not really all that long ago) the Inquisition Period was still going on?  Voltaire lived through and wrote about the Inquisition Period (See Candide).  In 1860 The Christian's Inquisition Period made it so that people in the West were killing other people who merely suspected ... suspected ... of not believe in the Christian God.

        David Kertzer wrote in his book "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara" that in 1858, the Roman Inquisition agents, also known as Grand Master appointed by the Pope, legally removed a 6-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, from his family.

      The local Inquisitor had learned the 6-year old had been secretly baptized by his nursemaid. Pope Pius IX raised the boy as a Catholic in Rome. The boy's father, Momolo Mortara, spent years trying to reclaim his son. The case received international attention and fueled Anti-Papal sentiments that helped end the Inquisition Period.

        Don't get me wrong again, I do think the Christian Inquisition Period was barbaric.  I think it was very barbaric to see someone and simply 'think' they don't believe God and therefore be legally allowed to kill that person and hang their dead body in public ... which is exactly what happened up through 1860.  

        My point is, people in the Middle-East are a few centuries behind the West and there is no rational reason for anyone to go out of their way to incite the type of violence that will get other people killed.  

       To me, the type of person who does go out of their way to incite the type of violence that they know, in advance, will most like get people killed are just as barbaric as those whom they are trying to incite.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think the people trying to instigate this crap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keepemhonest, JDsg

    are the ones who are a few centuries behind.

    They are as religiously intolerant as the ones they would  provoke. Though, of course, countless more would be insulted than would take any overt action.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:53:27 AM PDT

  •  I still stand by his right to do it (0+ / 0-)

    Just as I very strongly support the work of  Andres Serrano.  

    Now there are key differences here..the former is done only to incite, while the latter is more a statement of cheapening religion.  Regardless, Serrano received death threats and hate mail from within the USA, not to mention condemnation from the Senate Floor.

    In short, we aren't THAT much further ahead.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

    •  Exactly & Brilliant Post!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostboyjim

      I agree with you 100% and you will notice that no where in my Diary did I ever even suggest that the radio host did not have a 'right' to speak his mind.

      .... However ... while Armstrong may have a "right" to speak his mind, his employer has the right to can him, which if he were my employee I would fire him.

      You made an excellent point with Andres Serrano!

      •  good response (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keepemhonest

        You're right that Armstrong (just like Serrano before him) was not exempt to reaction and consequences to his work and speech, but there are hard limits: say what you want, but you must stop at physical threats and violence.  

        I had initially stated "which stop at hate speech..." but then realized that Armstrong's work, and the art that comes of it, could easily be classified as Hate Speech.  At the time, Serrano's work was classified as Hate Speech as well, though I disagree with that -- motivation counts.  

        I have a viceral issue with denying art because it is considered Hate Speech, or anti-religious.  Too many works of art have been destroyed directly by religious fanatics, how many more were never created because the artist visualized a work, but never created it for fear of reprisal?

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:14:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Facebook conversation. (0+ / 0-)

    Targeted For hate mongering how unfair.

    Like · .

    Brendan Mohr Clarify?

    38 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine sar·casm
     [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA

    noun
    1. ...See More

    33 minutes ago · Like..

    Joshua D. Wise That's not sarcasm, it's ignorance.

    32 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine in·tol·er·ance
     [in-tol-er-uhns] Show IPA

    noun
    1. ...See More

    32 minutes ago · Like..

    Brendan Mohr Which part are you claiming sarcasm? "Hate mongering" or "how unfair".

    31 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine they are guilty of
    hate speech

    noun
    speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

    29 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine its not debatable.

    26 minutes ago · Like..

    Shannon Lindley Free speech is not debatable. It's a right in America.

    20 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of t...See More

    9 minutes ago · Like..

    Brendan Mohr Did you listen to the entire 25 minute, on air, discussion or did you base that on the excerpt that the media put out, which was about 30 seconds; 2% of the conversation? I already know the answer. Do you always base your opinions when you know 2% of the subject? If you heard the discussion, you would realize that it was not intolerant in any way. It was all about protecting our rights and actually finding a solution to ending the violence that seems to be inevitable no matter what we do. You wouldn't know that, because, based on your statements, you are intolerant of the truth, facts, and the opinions. There was nothing hateful about the entire 25 minute discussion in context. The reported statement was the last thing said on the subject from the radio program. It's like reading the last page of a novel and doing a book report. That is what you are doing. It's not an intelligent way to formulate an opinion or base a discussion.

    8 minutes ago · Like..

    Please feel free to join in Kossacks

    Dennis Argentine in·tent
    1 [in-tent] Show IPA

    noun
    1.
    something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.

    2.
    the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.

    3.
    Law . the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.

    4.
    meaning or significance.

    5 minutes ago · Like..

    Dennis Argentine Are saying they did not intend to harm?

    4 minutes ago · Like

    •  I don't think this is unfair... (0+ / 0-)

      Did you listen to the entire 25 minute, on air, discussion or did you base that on the excerpt that the media put out, which was about 30 seconds; 2% of the conversation? I already know the answer. Do you always base your opinions when you know 2% of the subject? If you heard the discussion, you would realize that it was not intolerant in any way. It was all about protecting our rights and actually finding a solution to ending the violence that seems to be inevitable no matter what we do. You wouldn't know that, because, based on your statements, you are intolerant of the truth, facts, and the opinions. There was nothing hateful about the entire 25 minute discussion in context. The reported statement was the last thing said on the subject from the radio program. It's like reading the last page of a novel and doing a book report. That is what you are doing. It's not an intelligent way to formulate an opinion or base a discussion.

      ^ This is the crux of the entire matter; this entire thread is based on the falsehood that they intended to provoke violence. Had anyone involved actually bothered to find out what was going on before getting all morally outraged, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site