"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Today In Disgusting People

Sure enough, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on the offices and staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdol, the assholes are out in full force.

Top of the list is Erick Erickson, editor of RedState (which should give you an idea of where his head's at), with this:
A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered. So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar. The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender. So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to 'glory God' and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin. And the terrorists won in Atlanta.

Erickson's account differs radically from other accounts -- I mean, aside from the outright lies -- and I think we can be excused for assuming that he's edited reality to suit his agenda.

The key issue is trying to link gays to terrorists over something that, by all reports, no gay organization or individual had anything to do with, aside from being outraged at Cochran's behavior. He's not the first to compare gays to terrorists -- maybe Nazis are a little old hat (or maybe he just admires Nazis too much to link them with gays). Just goes to show you -- as far as the "Christian" right is concerned, there is no bottom.

Next is perennial blowhard Bill Donohue, who is the Catholic League. Donohue, of course, is blaming the victims:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction. Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses. While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them. Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, 'Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.' Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

Frankly, if anything's ripe for ridicule, it's religion, especially the varieties espoused by conservative extremists like Donohue. It's nice, though, that he, unlike Erickson, at least made a pro forma condemnation of the murders before he started vilifying the victims.

Someone theorized in a comment thread on another blog that the bishops don't shut Donohue up because he's saying what they think. I think that's only part of the reason: it's also because no one listens to him anyway.

At any rate, how's that for politicizing a human tragedy -- a heinous act that springs from motivations shared by our two featured personalities.

Oh, and a footnote -- she only deserves a footnote because as far as I'm concerned, she's a has-been:

No comments: