Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MODERATE?....From Marc Lynch:

I haven't seen this reported anywhere in English (nothing shows up on Google News), but Al-Arabiya is featuring a report on a new petition issued by 41 leading Islamist personalities on February 13 calling for a resolution of the cartoons controversy through the passage of an international law criminalizing insults against Prophets (Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses are the ones named).

I gather from Marc's post that in the Middle East this petition is basically considered a "moderate" one because it encourages conciliation and refuses to endorse violence. Count me as skeptical though. Anyone who thinks I should be tossed in jail for making fun of Jesus sure doesn't sound very moderate to me.

Kevin Drum 12:04 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (122)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wow! Scary.

Would us atheists get to pick our own guy who can't be made fun of? Probably not.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on February 14, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, religions who have those three individuals as holy personages are to get preferential treatment from the entire human race, including those people who hew to religions that categorize those three individuals as just plain folks with good ideas.

This would, to me, be an example of assuming the primacy of your own religion and forcing that assumption on others, including any who might challenge the primacy of your religion.

I vote no. Actually, check that; I vote HELL NO.

Posted by: BruceK on February 14, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

would that include being thrown in jail for taking the lord's name in vain?

as in: jesus fucking h christ that's a scary law.

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

For an ex-Catholic, like me, insulting Jesus is rather natural, for we were taught that Jesus screwed his mother and beget himself, quite a feat, even for a God!

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Quick! While it's still legal!

Fuck Jesus. Fuck Moses. Double fuck Mohammed.

Bring it on, guys.

Posted by: neoliberal on February 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

So God , Allah, and the Holy Ghost are still fair game?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on February 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

remember, there is no separation of Church and State. that's just a legal fiction dreamed up by militant secularists trying to kill God. therefore, all good conservatives will support this wholeheartedly.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

I can hear James Dobson's full-throated support for this already...

Posted by: tam1MI on February 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Don't the Wiccans get to throw people in jail if they display those ornaments showing witches who apparently crashed into something? Or if they hang pictures of witches with long, ugly, warty noses?

No more jokes about Rev. Moon or L. Ron Hubbard I guess. No more snarky speculation about the pope's red loafers and spangled vestments.

Can we still tell Thor jokes?

Posted by: cowalker on February 14, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Have them add Buddha and Krishna to the prophet list and see how fast the muslims drop their support for this plan.

Posted by: The Bobs on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, a repressive measure upon which ALL crazy fundies can agree, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. It's a marriage made in heaven!

No making fun of the prophets, or it's into the booby hatch!

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Did you provide a trackback for that link?

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

This proposal really isn't fair.

Jesus said some damn funny things (the guy was such a card), so this law would offer a serious test of individual willpower.

Mohammad's material was weaker. Cracking on the guy is easier to resist.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on February 14, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

The discouraging aspect is that the prominent Islamists seem to have NO understanding of the concept of personal freedom. Freedom is not free to comment or criticize? Would the next step be to throw dissenters into the torture room?

Posted by: Marylou on February 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Can we still tell Thor jokes?

Yeah, but you'll be thor afterwards.

Posted by: Indiana Joe on February 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Quickest way to make them drop it would be to add Baha'ullah.

Posted by: Adrian on February 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

It affirms the principle of free speech, but demands responsible limits in its practice - in particular, not offending the beliefs of any religion. Finally, it calls for the United Nations to establish an international legal principle criminalizing insults to the Prophets Mohammed, Jesus, or Moses (those are the only ones mentioned).

"principle of free speech" notsomuch. more like really expensive speech, cuz if no belief of any religion is going to ever get offended then there will be very little left to say. i mean any time an evangelical preacher gets behind the pulpit, that's pretty much gonna offend the beliefs of Judaism and Islam right? and ditto an Imam explaining that if you don't follow the rules of Islam then you're an infidel, pretty offensive to Christians. not to mention every one who's not a member of one of those three religions. but we're all gonna burn in hell anyway, right??

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but you'll be thor afterwards.

Ouch! You're such a pun in the ass!

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not worried. If I offend these guys, I have Cheney to protect me.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

but we're all gonna burn in hell anyway, right??

nope. Hell is for children.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I totally agree with this law as soon as we can get the entire human race to agree on who were the truly holy figures throughout history.

Yeah. Let's all agree first and then go from there.

Posted by: Tripp on February 14, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

issued by 41 leading Islamist personalities

Are they allowed to have personalities?

Actually, what it says is they want to criminalize insults against profits. It's co-sponsored by Exxon.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as another atheist and card carrying member of the reality based community whom these so called 'moderates' would stone to death...let's say I have, shall we say, reservations.

Anyone in DC can wander on over to the Freer or the Sackler and see three, count 'em, representations of Mohammed.

Oh, and did anyone see that a KFC has been torched in Lahore?

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

There goes my Delphic Oracle routine.

Posted by: adam on February 14, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

At first glance, this proposal sounds ridiculous, and there's no way we pass such an international law.

No way.

Posted by: Jimm on February 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody gets offended. I don't see any reason for people to get fired up over this. Afterall, sometimes religious people have to bow down to the religion of atheism. I'm not religious, I just feel that if people have the right to feel like religious America shouldn't push their views on them, then I don't think that non-religious America should complain when they get angry for offenses to them. It's a normal and very real lifestyle and people shouldn't complain about it... religious people have the freedom of speech and religion too!

Posted by: kamolahy on February 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

"The really good friend is someone who dares to speak ill of the Buddha."
-- Zen master Lin-chi, circa 810-866 A.D

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

It offends me that people can be so easily offended.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz? What does "the Left" have to say about this? I didn't get my newsletter this morning.

It's not appeasement again, is it? I so hate that strategy. But, since I'm a member of "the Left", I'll have to go along with it. Wouldn't want to think for myself or anything.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

The proposal is the kind of dreamily amusing insanity one might expect from a bunch of out-of-touch mullahs, but let me just point out that any impartial reading of a law like that would have to put Kim Il-Sung on the list, too.

Notwithstanding: I say if the atheists can add Darwin, Jefferson and Voltaire to the list, it's a deal. Oh - and let's put Marx in too, just to screw with everybody's heads.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

How about being tossed in jail for destroying the religious symbols of other religions--like giant buddhas or hindu iconography? I'd go along with granting civil penalties to the destruction of other people's religious monuments and shrines as long as the penalties were
a) civil
b) minor
c) inclusive of all prophets and religious symbols not just those muslims care about.

aimai

Posted by: aimai on February 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and did anyone see that a KFC has been torched in Lahore?

CFShep is way out ahead of me - we need to add the Prophet Col. Sanders, the Prophet Mickey Mouse, and the Prophet Ronald McDonald to the list, and then we'll really be getting somewhere.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that non-religious America should complain when they get angry for offenses to them. It's a normal and very real lifestyle and people shouldn't complain about it... religious people have the freedom of speech and religion too!

i really thought this was Al.

~~~~~
Craigie -- you're secretly a writer for The Daily Show aren't you?

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
Anyone who thinks I should be tossed in jail for making fun of Jesus sure doesn't sound very moderate to me.

No, they sound Republican.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget L. Ron Hubbard and Sun Myung Moon. Not to mention God-Emperor George W. Bush.

Posted by: KCinDC on February 14, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK
At first glance, this proposal sounds ridiculous, and there's no way we pass such an international law.

I'm guessing this is supposed to be ridiculous. Its making an extreme and unfulfillable demand so that what happens next can be blamed on the people that didn't fulfill the demand.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

"remember, there is no separation of Church and State. that's just a legal fiction dreamed up by militant secularists trying to kill God. " Cleek

You might be surprised to learn that early proponents of separation of church and state were actually religious reformers who believed that the church should be made up of adult believers who freely consented to join the church. They understood that the combination of church and state was coercive and didn't lead to genuine religious conviction anyway. They also understood that a church (or religion) with the powers of the state at its disposal was ultimately corrupt and capable of great brutality.

Posted by: Ed on February 14, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

The real divide over the cartoons thing, to my mind, was revealed in these relatively intelligent opinion columns in Muslim-world newspapers which pointed out that Denmark's Muslim community had unsuccessfully tried to get the Danish government to prosecute the offending newspaper under Denmark's blasphemy laws.

For Muslim columnists, the reaction was: See, Denmark calls itself a reasonable country, with reasonable blasphemy laws; it showed its hypocrisy by refusing to enforce them, and that's what made us angry.

But for the American (or probably most European) reader, the reaction was: Denmark has BLASPHEMY laws? WTF?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who taunts the Flying Spaghetti Monster does so at their utmost peril.

Posted by: Alf on February 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

What about Zoroaster? There are still Zoroastrians around, even if they don't proselytize and, owing to inbreeding, are relatively (no pun intended) infertile -- at least according to a WSJ article last week. Doesn't their prophet deserve protection as well?
And now I have an excuse to tell my Zoroastrian story. When was regasitering at law school, the form had a place where you could enter your religion. I thought it was none of their damned business, but it was voluntary, and the stated purpose, to give my name to appropriate campus ministries, seemed decent, so rather than fuss I decided to have a little fun. I checked "other" and wrote in "Zoroastrian." As I left I realized: "Wait a minute, this is New York. If there are any Zoroastrians left, they'll be here." I spent the entire semester expecting a knock on the door from the local Zoroastrians. Never happened.

Posted by: C.J.Colucci on February 14, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

They forgot Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Rama and Krishna. Not to mention Ganesh, Kali, Laxmi, etc.

Posted by: nut on February 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

"You might be surprised to learn that early proponents of separation of church and state were actually religious reformers "

Yes, but the first Congress required a bible in every federal homestead grant out west.

We didn't really get serious about separation of curch and state until much later when Catholics came on the scene.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Anyone who thinks I should be tossed in jail for making fun of Jesus sure doesn't sound very moderate to me."

Kevin, you won't be tossed in jail; however, your transgressions will be noted and made a part of your Permanent Record.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Aren't the remaining Zoroastrians mostly in Iran and Iraq? Or is it only the Mazdis in Iraq? But aren't Mazdis kind of Zoroastrian? Or are they more Manichaean? Or are they all Manichaean? Or is George W. Bush Manichaean? Or is he more Gnostic? Or are the Masons still actually running things?

It's all so confusing.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

What about Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

As an atheist, I'm told I raise myself to the level of a god. So you people better watch your step.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think Nyarlathotep is currently United States Ambassador to Iraq.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

No one may insult Giblets!

But Giblets does not want to be on the list with Jesus, Mohammed and Moses.

Giblets is too good for such a list! Giblets would be insulted to be put on such a list!

Giblets has already passed an international law that it is illegal to make fun of Giblets. But you may BOW to Giblets! You may bow to Giblets NOW!

Posted by: Tad Brennan on February 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. Of all the hilarious lines in this thread, the Delphi Oracle bit was the funniest!

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

No mention of Santa Claus yet.

Do you realize what would happen to the Santa Claus industry if this passed!

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

If they really wanted to show respect for religion, their efforts would best be spent restoring the blown up Buddhas.

They should also set up a series of very well-funded institutions that would protect, restore, and study all the relgious artifacts and texts held in Muslim lands. A thorough study of the desecrated material would be truly helpful.

The previous Pope referred to Islam as a relgion of oppression, not redemption. These are possitive steps the Muslim world could take to improve their image.

Posted by: Bob on February 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Zoroastrians are mainly found in Iran, to a lesser extent in Iraq, and in India. Still haven't found them in New York, but I haven't been looking hard. I know they never found me.

Posted by: C.J.Colucci on February 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Are you sure they never found you?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
The previous Pope referred to Islam as a relgion of oppression, not redemption.

Are you sure about that? Because that seems out of place with, e.g., this.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't going to hell punishment enough? Now I gotta worry about offending someone's feelings, fer chrissake's...

Oops. Now I'm really going to hell, despite what the last Pope said about hell not being an actual place.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I made a comment on this topic in my blog a couple of weeks ago. To summarize: If you have any conservative acquaintances who are mocking proposals along these lines (criminalizing insults against Mohammed), store your conversations away for later, when the flag burning amendment once again rears its head. Symbols are symbols, and you don't get to pick and choose which are to be respected and which are not, in a secular society.

Posted by: RSA on February 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

The bastards forgot L Ron Hubbard! Fuck them and their backwards mythological religion!

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Wait 'til the Mormons and Scientologolists get wind of this...

To say nothing of the Friseebiatarians.

"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." Stendhal

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, a repressive measure upon which ALL crazy fundies can agree, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. It's a marriage made in heaven!
Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Naw, then they can't pundit about "Judeo-Christian" values anymore. It would have to be "Judeo-Muslim-Christian" values.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

The previous Pope referred to Islam as a relgion of oppression, not redemption.

Yeah, and he's one to talk.

If you have any conservative acquaintances who are mocking proposals along these lines...store your conversations away for later, when the flag burning amendment once again rears its head.

I would, but experience has shown me that the chasm of relating one situation to the other is way too wide for them to cross, and they've burned the bridge to boot.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

-- The previous Pope referred to Islam as a relgion of oppression, not redemption.

-- Are you sure about that? Because that seems out of place with, e.g., this.

I saw it yesterday, somewhere on the Internets, but my history gets erased with re-booting. Can't find it through google today. ["Islam is a relgion of oppression, not redemtion" -- John Paul II] is what I remember seeing.

Anyhoo, that church sure knows a thing or two about oppression, so I just assumed it was a real quote.

Posted by: Bob on February 14, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

You might be surprised to learn that early proponents of separation of church and state were actually religious reformers who believed that the church should be made up of adult believers who freely consented to join the church.

and you might be surprised to learn that i was being sarcastic. :)

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Naw, then they can't pundit about "Judeo-Christian" values anymore. It would have to be "Judeo-Muslim-Christian" values.

or, "Abrahamic values"

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

For all of the blasting away at us Fundamentalist types, the truth is we (and I feel safe in speaking for all decent Christians here) find this sort of repressive crap (especially coming from a bunch of lying, hypocritical, Islamists) to be the most insulting thing of all.

We have the right to profess our faith in public but you do not have to listen. Moslems have the right to profess their faith in public but the rest of us do not have to listen.

There is no right not to be offended in the Constitution. Anyone who tries to put such an ammendment in there is a fascist.

All these Islamists are doing is trying to scare people into allowing them to start getting the abomination of Sharia into the door of our civil laws as a preparation for forcing us all into dhimmitude (slavery).

I may be offended as Hell at many things in our country but we all have certain rights and if I gotta deal with crosses in vials of urine, they gotta deal with turban bombs. Freedom means you have the right as an adult to make choices and if you can not choose then faith is meaningless.

Stinking Islamists can (and will) go to HELL!!!

Posted by: Wayne on February 14, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wikipedia: "Blasphemy laws - nowadays often altered to include blasphemy regardless of religion - still exist in several countries, such as in Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the criminal code), Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code), Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code), Italy, Ireland (See: Irish Constitution), The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code), Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code) and United Kingdom."

So I don't see what the big deal is. Many European countries ALREADY have laws such as that being suggested.

Posted by: Al on February 14, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK
For all of the blasting away at us Fundamentalist types, the truth is we (and I feel safe in speaking for all decent Christians here) find this sort of repressive crap (especially coming from a bunch of lying, hypocritical, Islamists) to be the most insulting thing of all.

Well, certainly, when its not coming from aligned Christian extremists, Christian Fundamentalists don't like it. That's not surprising.

OTOH, outside of playing "No True Scotsman" games, its certainly not the case that Christian Fundamentalists are universally aligned against this type of thing when it isn't coming from Islamists.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK
So I don't see what the big deal is. Many European countries ALREADY have laws such as that being suggested.

Well:

1) Its not an "international legal principle", and
2) In many cases the laws are restricted to blasphemy against a particular religion (and are vestigious -- or components -- of establishment of religion), and
3) The "big deal" is that this is an effort to set up an excuse for blaming the West for the violence from Muslim extremists in response to future perceived blasphemies.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

IMNSHO - passing a law that basically states that God needs humans to defend Him from blasphemy, is, in itself, probably the worst form of blasphemy.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Odd -- isn't it a Rule that in every state where there is an established religion (like Norway, where it's a department, like we have the USDA), people rarely go to church, while in places with freedom of worship, like the U.S., people tend not merely to act, but to BE religious?

I had an imam tell me once (before he took it on the lam) that Islam isn't a church, or even a religion, in the Western sense: it's a way of life, like being male of female.

So -- does it contradict the Rule, or not?

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 14, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Nope. Not buyin it. Free speech/press. Nothing less.

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

"For an ex-Catholic, like me, insulting Jesus is rather natural, for we were taught that Jesus screwed his mother and beget himself, quite a feat, even for a God!"
Posted by: Matt

Dude!!!!!!!!! Harsh!!!!!!!!
Funny...but harsh.

*waitin for the lightning bolt*

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 14, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

The widespread devastation and attendant slaughter of the Thiry Years War were fresh in the minds of the framers when they, after much debate, adopted that whole business about the separation of church and state.

Class assignment for tomorrow: Dicuss the causes and results of the Thirty Years War.

"Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were of course exterminated." Voltaire

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." H. L. Mencken

"Where it is the duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat." John Morley

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

(Ironically, my kind and thoughtful wife bought me a dashboard "Buddy Christ" for my valentine's day present).

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

"I gather from Marc's post that in the Middle East this petition is basically considered a "moderate" one because it encourages conciliation and refuses to endorse violence. Count me as skeptical though. Anyone who thinks I should be tossed in jail for making fun of Jesus sure doesn't sound very moderate to me."

Um, no, this is just BS sponsored by clerics who don't give one rip about Jesus or Moses, they're just being political.
Besides, I reserve the right to mouth off to Jesus anytime, and I ain't gonna have no Islamic cleric, or government telling me how I can talk to my lord.

And, oh yeah, before I forget, I'm not muslim therefore I reserve the right to rip Mohammad and his blood drenched history a new one anytime I want.
They are more than welcome to defend their "prophet" against the allegations of genocide, murder, torture, theft, inhumanity to man, lies, a deciever, and this list is just the beginning of it.
Freedom of speech means free to speak ones opinion. I refuse to limit the speech of an atheist talking smack about Jesus, and I'll be damned if I'll limit the speech of a Muslim talking smack about Jesus.
Time for the people of the Middle East to start breathing a little freedom of the mind, too.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on February 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

I would not be able to call myself a human being if I could not belittle assholes like Jesus, Mohammed, St. Augustine, Lao Tze, Guatama and Abraham - goat fuckers all. Better to have a petition to destroy all churches, temples, and mosques.

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

"..assholes like Jesus, Mohammed, St. Augustine, Lao Tze, Guatama and Abraham - goat fuckers all."

I have pointed out many times, Mohammed did not fuck his goat, rather he fucked his camel. Let's show a little more respect for the goats, at least.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Better to have a petition to destroy all churches, temples, and mosques."

Hostile, you're a little mind which has a lot to learn before it becomes truly dangerous.
However, in this I can agree with you. I think the Church has put too much emphasis on edifices, and not enough on the people in them.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on February 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Mohommed did not fuck his goat.

There is a difference between "fucking", and "making love".

It's Valentine's day for god's sake.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, Osama, who put a quarter in you today? You're on an excellent comedy run.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

1) Its not an "international legal principle", and

How do you think things BECOME an "international legal principle"? By many countries passing laws to that effect. International law is not solely treaty based, you know.

2) In many cases the laws are restricted to blasphemy against a particular religion (and are vestigious -- or components -- of establishment of religion), and

Which makes the Islamists' case even stronger, since they are merely asking for equal treatment with the religions that are ALREADY legally protected.

3) The "big deal" is that this is an effort to set up an excuse for blaming the West for the violence from Muslim extremists in response to future perceived blasphemies.

No doubt. That said, the argument by itself doesn't seem to be extraordinary. It's an argument that the West has accepted (with respect to Christianity, at least) for a long time.

Posted by: Al on February 14, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's Valentine's day for god's sake.

That's Saint Valentine's day to you, o blasphemous one.

Posted by: Alf on February 14, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks shortstop

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
How do you think things BECOME an "international legal principle"? By many countries passing laws to that effect.

Well, since the laws in question exist in a minority of countries, and don't do what is being requested, so what?

At most, there is an international legal principle that such laws are within the power of sovereign states (hardly a big deal, itself), and even that may be in doubt, given more recent international developments like the UDHR and, more concretely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which, I'm sure you will find, are both adhered to by all of the cited countries and newer than their blasphemy laws (and perhaps one reason while, even though still on the books, those laws are not, in practice, applied to cases like this.)

International law is not solely treaty based, you know.

When you call for it to be established by the UN, yes, you are calling for it to be established by treating.

No doubt. That said, the argument by itself doesn't seem to be extraordinary. It's an argument that the West has accepted (with respect to Christianity, at least) for a long time.

Or, rather, its an argument the West accepted long ago, but has been increasingly rejecting, even with regard to Christianity, for the last 200+ years.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

That's Saint Valentine's day to you, o blasphemous one.

Time for Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly to decry the War on St. Valentine's Day! Personally, I get offended every time some mealy-mouthed PC moral relativist liberal store clerk wishes me a "Happy Valentine's Day!" instead of a "Happy St. Valentine's Day!" Can't Fox News do something about this???

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Actually this is a narrowed variant on something that was in the news about a week ago and noted by Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/02/index.html#009093

In that case it was a call from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Home.asp?zPage=Systems&System=PressR&Press=Show&Lang=E&ID=3836

..................................................
"Rage spread all over the Islamic world over defaming caricatures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH published in a Danish newspaper. We emphatically believe that those who allowed this dispecable behavior on assumption of freedom of _expression, are indeed tarnishing the concept of liberty, in whose name such repulsive and shameless acts are committed. We, however, appeal to Muslims not to let their furor drag them to attack properties, to expand the scope of protest, or to turn it into a clash between civilizations. Enraged Muslims should adhere to the Islamic ethics and principles in showing their outcry. Presently, the world suffers from an evil band that dedicates its capacities to ignite religion and civilization clashes, hoping to exercise further economical and political domination. We, in addition, express our hope that this mishap triggers an international initiative on passing an U.N. law that makes the respect of holy symbols of all nations and cultures binding. Therefore, such acts will not recur"
..................................................

Notice how a more general call for religious respect in the words "an international initiative on passing an U.N. law that makes the respect of holy symbols of all nations and cultures binding" has been downgraded into imposed respect for religious symbols that Muslims already regard with respect and reverence but which may not be entirely true of other religions, much less for non-believers, cursed be they to hell (CBTTH??).

I posted about this at the time at Bopnews.
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/005966.html

Plainly, bluntly and starkly it leaves out other non-Ibrahim (Abraham) based religions. Like Buddhism.

Why bring up Buddhism? Remember those ancient treasures of Afghanistan, the giant Buddha statues that were destroyed by the Taliban which was supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Do you remember any outcry from the Muslim world over the desecration of religious symbols? Do you recall any effort to right that wrong and restore the statues? In the Muslim world? Well no that wouldn't be possible since the statues were idols (and idols of a false god at that) and so their destruction was required by religious law just as Moses was required to destroy the golden calf that one of the laws on the tablets he carried forbade. That's the problem with any depictions of Gods and prophets, they're forbidden idols. Watch out for those saints on your dash board.

Yes so everyone in the world must respect what Muslims respect but openly carrying a bible in Saudi Arabia is still a crime and non-Muslims are still forbidden to enter Mecca.

That's sounds about right. No?

Posted by: Amos Anan on February 14, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

What about Aleister Crowley?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

But for the American (or probably most European) reader, the reaction was: Denmark has BLASPHEMY laws? WTF?
Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yup, we have them - but I can't remember any case being brought to court the last 30-35 years, much less any convictions for God knows how long.

The prosecutors and the courts seem to have reached the obvious conclusion: It's mighty hard to join the concepts of "belief" and "evidence" in a courtroom in any meaningful way. Actually it's pretty much the mother of all oxymorons, so even if this blasphemy section still exists in our Penal Code it might as well not.

There are people working to get these blasphemy thingies disbanded, but sadly I'm not sure if they can.

Posted by: Ole on February 14, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yahwistic fruitcakes need to get some piety in the face.

Sorry.


It just occurred to me that the only way you'll ever get most Americans to actually read the Koran is if you print it up on toilet paper.

It's most appropriate medium, to be sure, but they would actually read it.


Americanist, "I had an imam tell me once (before he took it on the lam) that Islam isn't a church, or even a religion, in the Western sense: it's a way of life, like being male of female."

It's a political theory, and, as such, should be legally regarded like any other totalitarian political theory. Neo-Nazi parties are banned in some (or, maybe, even all?) European countries, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider such measures against Islam as a whole --it's a political theory.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

"What about Aleister Crowley?"

I learn so much on this blog.

Aleister Crawley, the 73 most important Britains, according to a BBC Poll:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/100_Greatest_Britons
Sitting between King Henry V and King Robert the Bruce.

Born in 1875, this great man used the occult and mysticism to help defeat Hitler.

He wrote 'Diary of a Drug Fiend', and beleived the destiny of man was to drug and womanize.

I kind of like this anarchist, but, let's get down to basics. Did he love camels or goats?


Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Shrug, it is a non-starter. Better this petition than other options. No International No Prophet Insulting treaty is ever going to pass, never mind it makes no sense.

If anything, it merely highlights the fact this particular group of Ulema are utterly illiterate when it comes to modern international relations. No surprise there, most people are.

In fact, this is a win-win.

This little group of Ulema get to have a meaningless little petition that will sink into the sands after some months. Navel-gazers here get to whip themselves into their own meaningless frenzy of offense over the same. Islamophobes and Xianophobes and generally militant athiests get to have an excuse to engage in their own little frenzies of posturing. It's fun little meaningless pinyata game of round-robin bigotry and utterly idiotic posturing all around.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

The Chinese Channel, 265 on Dish, which is in English, is absolutely fascinating. The news isn't exactly hard-hitting, but it's like tv from another, prettier, planet.

If the Arabs or Iranians had put up something like this they wouldn't have nearly such bad press.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

I strongly support this law as long as we also included the great American prophet who taught us about peace, prosperity and righteousness - George W. Bush. The man should be canonized

Posted by: G. Reynolds on February 14, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, just landed that on the wrong thread. Still true here, though.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

I would note, if one steps back from the knee-jerking and religious phobia, the actual reporting is interesting insofar as the Islamist religious scholars signing on to a secular law (as all international law is of coursE) and supporting non-Sharia solutions to their point of view is rather out of character for them.

Meaningless overall, the effort, in terms of practicality, but interesting for that point.

Else, I return comments to the usual facile religious bigotry of various stripes.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

collounsbury, go back to your dog fucking worldmagblog.

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK
I would note, if one steps back from the knee-jerking and religious phobia, the actual reporting is interesting insofar as the Islamist religious scholars signing on to a secular law (as all international law is of coursE) and supporting non-Sharia solutions to their point of view is rather out of character for them.

Um, an anti-blasphemy law (international or not) is, inherently, a religious law, and one which subordinates secular society and freedom to religious sensibilities.

Islamists suggesting such laws are not doing something "out of character".

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one that thinks that its an odd Al that's talking with cmdicely today. He even conceded something, and tried to engage an argument. Not even trying to be fake Al.

Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on February 14, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

>Yes so everyone in the world must respect what Muslims respect but openly carrying a bible in Saudi Arabia is still a crime and non-Muslims are still forbidden to enter Mecca.

Conceding (for no good reason, sounds like you got a good case of knee-jerk Muslim hating) that they *think* it says what you claim, I wonder if they realize that after we run it thru the Western law-making bureacracy (and the UN is a solidly Western-style institution) that it will quite likely give somebody legal grounds to sue over exactly that: the right to carry a bible/enter Mecca.

Religious people are a mystery to me, for sure.

Posted by: doesn't matter on February 14, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

The first to be prosecuted should be Homer Simpson for praying to Jebus.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 14, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

What about Aleister Crowley?
Posted by: SecularAnimis

Uh huh?

Waiting for punchline with bated (No, truly, it's not 'baited' - trust me.) breath.

Death? Or death by uuuga-booga?

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

collounsbury does not like commenters expressing their dislike of religion, calling them religious bigots. I think insulting religion is a reaction to religious bigotry against nonbelievers. collounsbury is entitled to her/his opinion. I apologize for insulting him/her and hope she/he continues to comment here. I became a little excited imagining all of that righteous beastiality and could not control my fingers.

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I learn so much on this blog.

Thank SecularAnimist.

Posted by: Hostile on February 14, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Waiting for punchline with bated (No, truly, it's not 'baited' - trust me.) breath.

You are one of 20 people on the planet who know this. Right on.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I was living in England around the time of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, and the prolonged, agonized/-ing discussion in the Lefty British press was something to behold. Ultimately about half of the pundits wanted to abolish the British blasphemy law, while the other half wanted it extended so as to cover all major religions. (Leading, of course, to endless debate about which were sufficiently "major.")

Posted by: waterfowl on February 14, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

"(Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses are the ones named)."

Abraham should be there, too.

It's standard Muslim doctrine not to depict/insult these fellas.

In other words, they want as international law the standard Muslim law. That's reasonable.

Posted by: Guy Banister on February 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Re this:
Um, an anti-blasphemy law (international or not) is, inherently, a religious law, and one which subordinates secular society and freedom to religious sensibilities.

Islamists suggesting such laws are not doing something "out of character".

No, it's a secular law, although aimed at religious sensibilities - in the sense that any international law is based on secular legal traditions, etc. It would not in any way be calling up on Canon Law or Islamic Law in terms of its own functionality.

Normally speaking the Islamists are utterly hostile to any secular legal systems.

As to Hostile's childish outburst, while not being religious myself, I do not find juvenile hostility to religion and knee-jerking smearing to be in any way interesting or supportable. One can whinge on about how the other guy did it first, blah blah, but that's really just playing the adolescent as standard of behaviour. Most of the world is religious, often incoherently so. One has to tolerate that as billions are not going to become skeptics any time this century.

Regardless he or she need not worry that I would give the least damn about a juvenile twit.

As to this >Yes so everyone in the world must respect what Muslims respect but openly carrying a bible in Saudi Arabia is still a crime and non-Muslims are still forbidden to enter Mecca.
So the fact that the Saudis are bigotted nut jobs means that all Muslims are?

It amuses me on one hand to see people differentiating Xian practice, but lumping Muslims into a hive mind.

When one actually gets to know Muslims in region, one quickly learns hardly anyone has kind words for the bigotted Saudi system - indeed one can pick out Muslim bigots if they do.

The lesson, which evidently should be repeated ad nauseum, is that Suaidiyah ain't the Middle East, and its bizarre bigottry and twistedly mendacious and oppressive system is well-out of the norms. Only they and the Iranians have the sick religious police, etc.

But then, if the supposed literate commentators here can't differentiate between various Muslim countries and Muslims, how would you expect Muslims in the region to be any better at the same....

No wonder the Cartoon controversy blew up, the wonderful circus of ignorance was general.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

"..differentiate between various Muslim countries "??

I sure can. Indonesian Muslims do not have camels.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Why that was almost vaguely witty. I hope you didn't have to wrack your mind for the insightful imagery.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

hahahahaha

Jesus, only a prophet and not a rise from the dead god? never work here

Posted by: lilybart on February 14, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

--Only they [Saudis] and the Iranians have the sick religious police, etc.

Um, no. For example:

Now Russian Muslims are threatening to attack anyone who participates in a planned Gay Pride parade in Moscow this spring. Money quote from Chief Russian Mufti Talgat Tajuddin: "The parade should not be allowed, and if they still come out into the streets, then they should be bashed." I am constantly being told that violent Muslims do not represent the real Islam. But this is the chief Muslim spokesman in Russia, issuing what amounts to a threat. Remind me: Why should I respect bigotry, backed by violence? [andrewsullivan.com]

By the way, all the mosques in my area (Southern California) are Saudi affiliated. I called the largest one a week or so after 9/11, and spoke with an Indonesian who explained to me that the other forms of Islam, esp. Sufi ["they're weird--they're not even part of Islam"], were corrupt and that he was very happy that like in his home country most of mosques had come under Saudi control. The Muslim Students Association at USC which had previously hosted officials from the Taliban (who bragged about blowing up the Buddhas to an auditorium filled with laughter and app

Posted by: Bob on February 14, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

..lause) is also under Saudi control.

Posted by: bob on February 14, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, can I call you Bob? Well no matter, I care not.

Um, no.

Well, yes. Unless sub-literates have come up with a new definition of police.

For example

Now Russian Muslims are threatening to attack anyone who participates in a planned Gay Pride parade in Moscow this spring. Money quote from Chief Russian Mufti Talgat Tajuddin: "The parade should not be allowed, and if they still come out into the streets, then they should be bashed."

Well, it's one guy, albiet a Russian Mufti. Not police, unless you have some new, unique definition of police that means "a guy freelancing."

As to Andrew, well his Islamophobic hysteria continues not to impress me. An Xian cleric saying bigotted things somehow does not manage to morph into "American Xians" - so an officially appointed Mufti with KGB connexions shouldn't morph into "Russian Muslims."

But double standards.

That Saudis are buying themselves mosques is not news, I may add. That is and long has been bad. Your anectdote has fuck all to do with religious police, again.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Actually in practice, Muslims only enforce insults against Muhammad.

If they respected Elijah, Moses, etc. - they'd have to accept he led them into the promised land.

If they respected Jesus, they'd have to admit he is Lord or lied about saying he's Lord.

Posted by: McA on February 14, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

As an added item with respect to Sullivan's hysterical Islamophobia and the rather rank hypocrisy in re the same, I point you to this site discussing the position of homosexuality in Russia and the generalised official discrimination. Including the police. The overwhelmingly Xian Orthodox police. Yes somehow it's the Muslims that get lumped into one violent undifferentiated mass.

http://www.gay.ru/english/history/kon/prosp.htm

Logical that. Official anti-gay actions on the part of the police, calls to public morality, etc. Orthodox Xians being the dominate force - and one bloody little Mufti gets all Russian Muslims denounced by Sullivan.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, yet more informed commentary.

Actually in practice, Muslims only enforce insults against Muhammad.

This fine statement being based on....? Ah, never mind, you made it up.


If they respected Elijah, Moses, etc. - they'd have to accept he led them into the promised land.

Eh?

Rather nonsensical statement. Moses did not lead the Muslims into any promised land, and the Mosiac mythology is not controversial in re Islam; they simply see it as superceded.

If they respected Jesus, they'd have to admit he is Lord or lied about saying he's Lord.

Now this is really quite laughable. In fact Jesus, Aissa in Arabic, is regarded as a key prophet, and there are several Sufi "paths" that cite Aissa quite a bit. The Islamic point of view merely takes a pov close to Xian Unitarian or perhaps vaguely Nestorian POV.

Really, one should try to be somewhat less ignorant in ones anti-Islamic smears.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, that should be Arianism not Nestorian.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 14, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

A reasonable response to the petition would be to ask whether the proposal extends to insulting Bahullh, the founder of the Bahai faith - whose members are often treated by Muslims, especially in Iran, as heretics or apostates.
As a matter of logic, the position on the founders of religions branching off from older ones has to be asymmetrical. Christians acknowledge Moses, but Jews must hold Jesus to be a false prophet. Similarly Muslims can acknowledge Moses and Jesus as prophets, but Jews and Christians hold Mohammed to be in important respects a false prophet. The Bahai simply take the process a step further. Even when expressed moerately, these necessary positions are to some extent insulting to believers. (The idea that the prophets themselves can be insulted, like you and me, is bizarre). The solution is to grow up.

Posted by: James Wimberley on February 15, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

it, office, hardware, equipment, printer,copier

Posted by: office things on February 15, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Collounsbury, are you an example of a moderate Muslim?

Posted by: Bob on February 15, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

I am an example of me, or an old school Anglo with no patiance for idiocies or ignorance. If you're searching for some vague attempt at an insult or sweepingly ignorant generalisation, afraid you'll have to find another hook to hang it on.

Posted by: collounsbury on February 15, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is playing with fire. The day is not far till the western world will decided that enough is enough.

Posted by: Eric Spol on February 16, 2006 at 5:56 AM | PERMALINK

http://vs.mcdsys.com/women-shoes.html - women shoes http://vs.mcdsys.com/women-shoes.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/fat-free-mature-porn.html - fat free mature porn http://vs.mcdsys.com/fat-free-mature-porn.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/nude-mature-womens.html - nude mature womens http://vs.mcdsys.com/nude-mature-womens.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/pics-mature-hairy-pussy.html - pics mature hairy pussy http://vs.mcdsys.com/pics-mature-hairy-pussy.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/45-year-old-attractive-nude-women.html - 45 year old attractive nude women http://vs.mcdsys.com/45-year-old-attractive-nude-women.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-legs-skirt-women-tgp.html - mature legs skirt women tgp http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-legs-skirt-women-tgp.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/hot-babes-mature.html - hot babes mature http://vs.mcdsys.com/hot-babes-mature.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-hardcore-women-thumbnails.html - mature hardcore women thumbnails http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-hardcore-women-thumbnails.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/sexy-mature-women-in-portland.html - sexy mature women in portland http://vs.mcdsys.com/sexy-mature-women-in-portland.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/amateur-mature-cum-slurping-sluts.html - amateur mature cum slurping sluts http://vs.mcdsys.com/amateur-mature-cum-slurping-sluts.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-sexy-ladies.html - mature sexy ladies http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-sexy-ladies.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/40-and-50-year-old-women.html - 40 and 50 year old women http://vs.mcdsys.com/40-and-50-year-old-women.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/freee-movies-mpg-video-download-mature-sex.html - freee movies mpg video download mature sex http://vs.mcdsys.com/freee-movies-mpg-video-download-mature-sex.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/classic-mature-sexy-women-nylons-gallery.html - classic mature sexy women nylons gallery http://vs.mcdsys.com/classic-mature-sexy-women-nylons-gallery.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-interracial-fucking.html - mature interracial fucking http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-interracial-fucking.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/gay-older-men-pics.html - gay older men pics http://vs.mcdsys.com/gay-older-men-pics.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-free-porno-pics.html - mature ladies free porno pics http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-free-porno-pics.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/dutch-mature-porn.html - dutch mature porn http://vs.mcdsys.com/dutch-mature-porn.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/jokes-about-getting-older.html - jokes about getting older http://vs.mcdsys.com/jokes-about-getting-older.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/nude-mature-south-african-women.html - nude mature south african women http://vs.mcdsys.com/nude-mature-south-african-women.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-sex-free.html - mature sex free http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-sex-free.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-tales-com.html - mature ladies tales com http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-tales-com.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/free-mature-xxx.html - free mature xxx http://vs.mcdsys.com/free-mature-xxx.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-tgp-skirt.html - mature women tgp skirt http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-tgp-skirt.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/petite-women.html - petite women http://vs.mcdsys.com/petite-women.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/dutch-scandanavian-porn-mature.html - dutch scandanavian porn mature http://vs.mcdsys.com/dutch-scandanavian-porn-mature.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-masturbating-video.html - mature women masturbating video http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-masturbating-video.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-with-young-boys.html - mature ladies with young boys http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-ladies-with-young-boys.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-picture-asian.html - mature women picture asian http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-women-picture-asian.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/boys-having-sex-with-mature-women.html - boys having sex with mature women http://vs.mcdsys.com/boys-having-sex-with-mature-women.html
http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-amateur-women-big-boobs.html - mature amateur women big boobs http://vs.mcdsys.com/mature-amateur-women-big-boobs.html
WBR bsKYTWxUwojSFGCPE

Posted by: YLMGVfeTwF on February 16, 2006 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly