Today I’m participating in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, albeit not without some reservations.

Originally conceived by cartoonist Molly Norris (who later disassociated herself from the event), Everybody Draw Mohammed Day began as protest against Comedy Central’s self-censorship of the South Park episode 201, which included depictions of and references to the prophet Mohammed. (Reportedly, the episode is not airing in reruns – which would explain why my DVR recorded the wrong episode at the 12:00 hour – nor is it available on Comedy Central’s website.) Nevertheless, the episode resulted in thinly veiled death threats against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone on the website Revolution Muslim.

As envisioned by Norris, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a means of standing up for freedom of expression (and showing solidarity with Parker and Stone) by “watering down the pool of targets.” This is to say, it’s easier to silence one voice, or two or twenty; an international chorus, not so much. Rather than being anti-Muslim, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is pro-free speech (ditto: pro-free though and pro-secularism, at least to me). And ethical consistency: “if you want to live in a Western society and use the system to protect your rights [attn: Revolution Muslim], you have to be willing to allow others to have theirs as well,” explained Mimi, one of many event organizers. All of which this heathen vegan feminist is totally down with.

Unfortunately (though unsurprisingly), many of the submissions I’ve seen on Facebook and elsewhere are not just anti-Muslim, but also virulently racist, as well as sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, sizeist, speciesist, and the like. Common themes include Mohammed’s head Photoshopped onto the body of a nude/semi-nude woman (women’s sexuality is gross!); Mohammed’s head Photoshopped onto an obese woman’s body (fat women are gross!); Mohammed engaged in various sexual acts with another man (dude, gay!); and Mohammed raping nonhuman animals (appropriating animal suffering, yay!), to name but a few.

Unoriginal and juvenile, yes, but even more so, these images manage to mock and ridicule people instead of ideas, and largely for irrelevant personal characteristics, at that. Just as I abhor this sort of behavior when it comes from those in the animal rights movement, neither do I condone racism, sexism, etc. when employed in defense of the First Amendment. You can poke fun at and criticize religion – even religious fundamentalists – without denigrating entire groups of people, particularly those who already bear the brunt of discrimination and prejudice. I sincerely hope that my eleven submissions (none of them actual drawings; I could hardly draw a stick figure to save my life, and anyhow, the stick figure thing is played out) are a decent enough illustration of this.

Finally, I invite all participants to join the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and Amnesty International in supporting the civil and human rights of the millions of Muslims, Middle Easterners and people of color who have been marginalized and oppressed by the “War on Terror.” Likewise, if you’re a member of the Facebook group Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!, please also join me in Time to Arrest the Pope.*

The bottom line? Don’t be a hater, mkay?

Now let the blasphemy commence!

First up is this riff on Dumb & Dumber, wherein Mohammed appears as Jim Carrey/Lloyd Christmas and Jesus manifests as Jeff Daniels/Harry Dunne (so chosen solely because of his hippie stoner haircut).

“I’m with Mohammed”:
Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, dressed as Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne from the movie Dumb & Dumber, stand side by side, arms slung around one another’s shoulders. Their t-shirts read “I’m with Jesus” and “I’m with Mohammed,” respectively.
(Original image taken from the film’s soundtrack.)
——————————

The message? Religious pissing matches are a waste of time; in the end, there are no winners, and all participants are equally dumb, yo! So just grab a doobie and let’s all just get along, kay? (For what it’s worth, I absolutely loathe this movie.)

(More below the fold…)

President Obama rescinded the Global Gag Rule yesterday. Wishes really do come true! Well, kinda sorta. Being the cynical bitch I am, Obama’s timing and statement threw up all kinds of red feminist flags for me.

As I said in Thursday’s Blog for Choice post, I had hoped – fervently – that Obama would repeal the Global Gag Rule that day. Instead, he chose to do so a day later. What’s one day, right? Practically speaking, not much. I don’t imagine that much money was distributed to international NGOs between Thursday the 22nd and Friday the 23rd, so most likely Obama’s slight delay didn’t have a negative impact on any family planning organizations. And yet.

Had he chosen to take action on the anti-abortion rule on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade – like the two administrations before him – he would have sent a strong message to anti- and pro-choicers alike: Women are humans, and I respect their right to privacy and bodily autonomy unequivocally – no matter how popular such a stance may or may not be. Period. The difference is one of symbolism – and symbolically, Obama seems reluctant to align himself too closely with the pro-choice side.

Of course, he also chose to repeal the rule on a Friday – the slowest of all news days. Consequently, I’ve seen little-to-no coverage of the Gag Rule on the cable news shows. Seriously, Sully Sullenberger has received more air time. The more cynical part of me (which is to say, 99%) can’t help but think that this was Obama’s plan all along.

Of his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule, Obama wrote:

It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.

For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

It is time that we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.

I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.

(More below the fold…)

Come and get ‘em while they’re hot and slutty! Today only, Abortion Doughnuts! – Free with all third-trimester intact D&X’s at your local Krispy Kreme clinic! Birth defects not required.

In audio clips posted on their website, Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church preaches that, for one Christian to divorce another Christian is a sin – even if one of the so-called Christians is physically abusing his (or her!) partner.

On whether women can divorce an abusive spouse (question #32):

I’d always rather choose a short-term pain and find God’s solution for long-term gain than try and find a short-term solution that’s going to involve long-term pain. … [In scripture] adultery is one [reason for divorce] and abandonment is a second. I wish there were a third in scripture. Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse there’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you have a right to leave them. … If you’re in this kind of situation I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministers. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.

On whether a woman has to stay in a “miserable” marriage (question #31):

The Bible answer is yes. Does God expect me to stay in a miserable marriage, and why would he do that to me? I often say to people when they’re facing this decision, really, you’re choosing your pain in this moment because it’s going to be painful either way. If you stay in your marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. … There is lifelong pain in divorce. … I wish there was a way to say there is a choice here where you’re not going to have pain but there is pain in relationships. Now, God understands that… He can be with us in our pain and he can comfort us, he can strengthen us, he can give us perspective. He can also give us wisdom. Does God expect me to live with this pain? No. I think he expects us to ask for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. … The Bible says the husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband and if that doesn’t happen you have the right to keep pushing for that.

According to Warren’s teachings, abused women have no right to divorce their abusers.

(More below the fold…)

Last month, I gave away 100 or so bags of apples through freecycle. I think we divvied ‘em up between five people, give or take. Everyone was rather nice and thanked us for the free food; one woman, heavy into canning and food preservation, even brought us a few jars of homemade salsa and apple butter, which was super cool of her.

A few weeks ago, I received a thank you card in the mail, from the last woman to pick up a load of apples. “What a nice gesture,” I thought, “I’ll have to keep her in mind for next year.” The sentiment lasted all of 30 seconds, until I actually opened the letter, only to find a Christian tract tucked inside.

Incidentally, the pamphlet was well-worn and even had a stain on the inside panel. Um…way to represent your God?

My initial inclination was to ignore the incident, but it was still bugging me last week. You see, I own the freecycle list in question, and proselytizing is strictly against the rules. I could have given her the boot, but I didn’t really think that kicking her out of the group would help her to better understand just how intolerant, intrusive and presumptuous her proselytizing is.

So instead, I grabbed some “propaganda materials” from www.venganza.org – two brochures and three flyers – stuffed ‘em in a festive green envelope, and mailed them without comment.

The packet went out Wednesday; I expect the army of missionaries to arrive any day now.

——————–

Tagged: fsm flying spaghetti monster pastafarian godbags proselytizing proselytize christian born again tract flickr photos

This is part nine in a nine-part series on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. A full TOC, complete with links for easy navigation, is included at the bottom of each post.

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

The dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale produced and aired by BBC Radio 4 in 2000 is more than a direct reading of the novel. Rather, it’s a full-cast performance, complete with sound effects, that puts the film version to shame.

In direct contrast to Volker Schlöndorff’s 1990 film effort, the producers of the 2000 BBC 4 radio dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale succeed in creating a moving reenactment of the novel – without sacrificing any of Margaret Atwood’s vision. Granted, the BBC audio recording is a bit lengthier than the film; it spans three CDs, totaling no more than 4.5 hours (the film clocks in at 109 minutes), allowing extra time for Kate’s narration to unfold. Still, even the producers of the BBC dramatization had to cut several prominent sequences in order to condense the story. Unlike Schlöndorff and company, they chose wisely, and also reworked other aspects of the dramatization to compensate for the lost pieces of the novel.

(More below the fold…)

As part of this week’s Countering the Right assignment, I had to sit through this “trailer” for the Family Research Council’s 2008 Values Voter Summit. Before I embedden the vid, let me just note that the featured speakers include Stephen Baldwin, Michele Bachmann, “independent” Lou Dobbs, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, Sean Hannity, and – well, you get the idea. They bring the loony, is what I’m sayin’:

First of all: Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!? What are they doing, advertising a monster truck show? Ahem. Anywho.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but – isn’t that Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” playing in the background?

(Word to the wise: listen to this video, don’t watch it. It’s absolute dreck.)

Like, WTF FRC / VV08?

I’m not a big Colplay fan, but I do lurve this particular song. (Maybe because it reminds me of Lost, what with the British accents, fallen Catholics and wanna-be island kings. But that’s neither here nor there.)

And it doesn’t take a music critic to detect its anti-establishment undertones. Just check the lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ostensibly, it’s about a corrupt, fallen king whose reign on earth has been so tainted by sin that, upon death, he’s not fit to cross the gates of Heaven. No?

Yes, explains bassist Guy Berryman:

It’s a story about a king who’s lost his kingdom, and all the album’s artwork is based on the idea of revolutionaries and guerrillas. There’s this slightly anti-authoritarian viewpoint that’s crept into some of the lyrics and it’s some of the pay-off between being surrounded by governments on one side, but also we’re human beings with emotions and we’re all going to die and the stupidity of what we have to put up with every day. Hence the album title.

And, while I don’t claim or even care to know much about Coldplay’s politics, singer Chris Martin is married to Gwyneth Paltrow – who, along with her mother Blythe Danner, has campaigned on behalf of Planned Parenthood (in a Mother’s Day fundraising push that threw the anti-choicers into quite the tizzy). So I very much doubt that the guys in Coldplay consider themselves “Values Voters” – or rather, they don’t share the “values” of the evangelical crowd. (Hey, just because I don’t swing right, doesn’t mean I don’t have “values.”)

And yet the Family Research Council, with all their woman-hating, gay-bashing, war-mongering, nation-building, stone-throwing authoritarian spitefulness, chose this song to promote their “Values Votes” Summit. Oh, sweet irony!

I wonder if Coldplay will have the dubious honor of inclusion on the Reich Wing’s next conservative song roundup? (Fortified with unintentional irony, natch!)

———————

Tagged: frc family research council vv values voter values voter summit 2008 elections coldplay Viva la Vida music video youtube irony conservative right wing uncool evangelical pop culture

Want to have some crazy nightmares tonight? Watch this video:

*shudder*

By the by, how did the phrases “safe sodomy subsidies” & “the Homosexual Gestapo” never catch on? Pure nutbag awesomeness, those are!

Via PFAW, whose YP4 / PAO Countering the Right course I’m currently enrolled in.

——————-

Tagged: youtube video religious right countering the right pfaw people for the american way pf4 pao progressive academy online godbags politics first amendment

This is part eight in a nine-part series on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. A full TOC, complete with links for easy navigation, is included at the bottom of each post.

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

If you’ve never read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the 1990 film adaptation by Volker Schlöndorff might seem an interesting enough movie. Set in a future in which Christian fundamentalists have overthrown the government, the film paints a terrifying picture of an American theocracy. Women, homosexuals, religious minorities, people of color, political dissidents – all suffer under the oppressive thumb of The Republic of Gilead.

Those familiar with the 1985 novel will see that much of the basic story remains the same in Schlöndorff’s on-screen adaptation. The former United States is in the midst of a Civil War; The Republic of Gilead holds much of the East Coast, while dissenting religious and secular groups wage war to the South and West. Within the Republic’s borders, a strict social structure is enforced. Men are ranked according to prestige and merit (Commanders, Eyes, Angels, Guardians, and businessmen and professionals), while women are grouped according to social function, which is primarily determined by their reproductive health and racial makeup (Aunts, Wives and Daughters, Econowives, Handmaids, Marthas, and Unwomen). While no Gileadean citizen is truly free, it is the females who bear the brunt of Gilead’s religious tyranny.

It is in this context that we meet Kate (Offred), a Handmaid who has been assigned to Commander Fred (“Of Fred”) and his Wife, Serena Joy. The Handmaid’s Tale is Kate’s tale, told in her very own voice, through a disjointed series of flashbacks and present-day narrations. Through Kate’s eyes, we reflect upon “the days before”; we learn how the Sons of Jacob were able to destabilize and eventually topple the American government and institute their own patriarchal theocracy; and we get a glimpse of what daily life in the Republic is like.

(More below the fold…)

This is part seven in a nine-part series on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. A full TOC, complete with links for easy navigation, is included at the bottom of each post.

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

Dear Dystopian Deniers

Perhaps the most widespread criticism I’ve seen of The Handmaid’s Tale is that it is improbable, unrealistic, a stretch of the imagination.

To wit:

Not Realistic Enough to be Scary; [A]lthough there were a great deal of things about this book that touched me and made me think, I found it simply unbelievable that anyone, male or female, would have tolerated this social system for very long.

Handmaid Tale…; Atwood made this society where it is supposed to be the future, yet women are still being repressed by male dominated society. Theocracy should have been eliminated by this point in time.

Trite and unrealistic.; This book in no way convinced me that American society would end up in the bizarre ’1984′-like ripoff presented here. To even suggest this as the logical future is completely shortsighted and ignores all advances women have made towards equality in the past hundred years or so.

…and my personal favorite, from “a female conservative”:

Intriguing, but Unlikely; Several of the other reviewers argue that Atwood’s vision is not at all farfetched because of the state of women in Islamic countries. Exactly! I had the same thought in the back of my head the whole time I was reading this book. It is so-called Islamic countries in the Middle East and not Western nations where women are limited to lives as wives and mothers and where the sanctity of the individual is not respected. Had Atwood set her novel in present-day Iran or Iraq, it would ring true in a way that setting it in near-future-day America does not. We have a centuries-old tradition of respecting individual rights in America.

Shorter female conservative: It’s the darkies who are bigots, silly!

Or: What slavery?

(More below the fold…)