Religion slurred

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 10th, 2017 at 10:41 am

If you were the follower of a certain peaceful religion, wouldn’t it be offensive to you if people were scared you might endanger the lives of anyone who mocked that religion? Wouldn’t it be a little upsetting to be identified as a potential murderer? Muslims should boycott Borders Books.

Posted by Tim B. on 04/19/2006 at 01:21 PM
    1. Headquartered in Ann Arbor, MI… Borders Books has a goodly number of “a certain peaceful religion”

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 04 19 at 02:15 PM • permalink


    1. If you were the follower of a certain peaceful religion, wouldn’t it be offensive to you if people were scared you might endanger the lives of anyone who mocked that religion?

      If I were a brainless, conscienceless, retrograde, medievalist moron and my religion-of-submission was keeping me that way, I’d certainly find something to be offended by, but it probably wouldn’t be the endangerment of the lives of a bunch of infidels.  Who cares about them anyway?

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 19 at 02:36 PM • permalink


    1. On the other hand, if I was a member of an insidious and subversive subset of society determined to impose severe limitations on the actions of the society at large, but was lacking the numbers to do it right away, I would pick on soft targets and lobby hard to bend rules towards favouring my group.
      I would seek to protect the machinations behind a facade of religiosity, and exploit the overweaning concern of the target society’s institutions with rights agenda rather than responsibilities.
      I would use the bias in the legal process towards a presumption of innocence and the obsession with fair process to ensure that damage to my group by law enforcement was minimised.
      Oh … and if Borders so much as verbally described those cartoons I would have my minions rampage against them!

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 04 19 at 05:28 PM • permalink


    1. A lot of people are saying “well, this is just a business decision”.  If so, it is a very poor business decision – the shareholders should be annoyed.  On the basis of no actual threat they have gone out of their way to demonstrate that they are (very) open to extortion.  Has that potential for increased future extortion been factored into a business risk assessment?  Doesn’t look like it.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 19 at 05:38 PM • permalink


    1. According to a US libertarian, Borders have a leftleaning stance that extends down to the counter staff. He claimed he was sniggered at when he complained about the difficulty to find recently released libertarian books while the front display was all the latest politically correct stuff. Rather like Gleebooks. I wonder how they are travelling re Free Inquiry and cognate materials.

      Posted by Rafe on 2006 04 19 at 05:59 PM • permalink


    1. How disappointing. Borders used to be one of my favorite stores. Oh well—I’ll just keep on patronizing the used-book stores in my neighborhood as well as ordering used, hard-to-find, and out of print books from

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 04 19 at 06:18 PM • permalink


    1. Looks like another lame Wildebeest has been picked off by the lions.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 04 19 at 06:31 PM • permalink


    1. Slightly on topic, who’s seen the latest episode of South Park? They do a whole two partner on the cartoon controversy, I’m in Oz but have downloaded them and they are rippers.

      Has the following from Mr Garrison,

      Mrs. Garrison: Lets all look at why muslims are upset. First of all in the muslim religion you are not allowed to have what?….. SEX, good. There is no sex until marriage in the muslim world. Now this would be fine except that in the muslim religion you also cant?… Anybody?…. Jackoff.. Okay, jacking is strictly forbidden in the muslim religion. And what do we know about the places muslim live? They live in?…. Sand! Now put yourself in the shoes of a muslim, its Friday night but you can’t have sex and you can’t jackoff, there is sand in your eyes and proberly in the crack of your ass. And then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet. Well do you know what? I would be pretty pissed off too!

      Posted by HC44 on 2006 04 19 at 08:00 PM • permalink


    1. Women can’t walk their dogs. In fact, they can’t even have dogs to start with.  And I love the bit about women causing noise pollution with their car stereos.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2006 04 19 at 08:30 PM • permalink


    1. This is the email I received from Borders Books customer service when I wrote them to protest:

      Dear Rebecca:

      Thank you for your expression of concern about our decision not to carry the April/May issue of Free Inquiry magazine featuring cartoons depicting Muhammad.

      Borders is committed to our customers’ right to choose what to read and what to buy and to the First Amendment right of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. In this particular case, we decided not to stock this issue in our stores because we place a priority on the safety and security of our customers and our employees. We believe that carrying this issue presented a challenge to that priority.

      We value your thoughts and sincerely appreciate that you invested your time to tell us how you feel about the issue. I can assure you that our management team gave careful deliberation to this decision and considered all sides of the issue before reaching this conclusion. As always, we are interested in customer feedback about our choices and while we know you do not agree with our position, we hope you can understand the challenge of balancing the needs of our customers, employees and our communities.

      Your comments will be duly noted in our customer service records for corporate executive review. Feel free to let us know if you have any other questions or comments

      And my reply:

      I sincerely hope your corporate executives realize that capitulation will not save Borders from the wrath of fanatics any more than the rest of us.  And please then, let us have no more Borders campaigns to highlight the sin of book-banning, as that effort on your part now has no credibility.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 04 19 at 09:02 PM • permalink


    1. RebeccaH, to Borders, “banning” a book simply requires that a school district someplace remove it from the curriculum.  Whichever book it is (typically Catcher in the Rye) it’s always still available, usually prominently displayed in the local Borders window.

      But let somebody actually call for the suppression of a book and see what they do.  Some fringe Christian group?  You get a stuffy pompous “committment” to freedom of expression.  Some scary eyed bozo representing a faith known for slavery, misogyny, genocide, torture, rape, murder, and bombings?  We’re seeing it right now.

      But that’s reasonable, right?  I mean, the only rights worth defending are the ones not under threat.

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2006 04 19 at 09:38 PM • permalink


    1. #3, Blogstrop,


      #10, RebeccaH,

      Well done.

      I don’t understand why people are not standing up and demanding that the government give them the protection that is their due.  What the hell are we paying them for, if not to protect us?  If the government won’t protect us in our own country, why bother fighting this war?  What is the point?

      Weak as water, the whole bunch.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 04 19 at 10:37 PM • permalink


    1. Morlocks do not and will not boycott bookstores because Morlocks do not read books.  Morlocks do not share precoccupations of the Eloi.

      Instead, they read Scriptures, such as the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, and “Mein Kampf”, as well as DIY (detonate-it-yourself) and RAR (roast-a-car) manuals.

      Posted by tmciolek on 2006 04 20 at 12:00 AM • permalink


    1. salty, I wrote in that sense to Borders after getting the same mealymouthed response that Rebecca got.

      I said, you pay taxes, demand a policeman if you think you need one; in Dearborn, demand a whole SWAT team.

      No response so far.

      In my original message, I wrote that they had offended Americans in order to make Muslims feel better, which I thought was a really stupid business decision.

      That was, perhaps, wishful thinking.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 04 20 at 01:58 AM • permalink


    1. I have decided to ban myself from patronising Border Books in future because of the severe threat to my moral integrity and my sense of self-worth.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 04 20 at 02:36 AM • permalink


    1. #14 Harry.  Exactly, it’s going to be a loser decision in more ways than one. Muslims aren’t the most profligate buyers of books, for a start.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 20 at 05:05 AM • permalink


    1. Somehow I don’t think they’re buying the books Borders are selling.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 04 20 at 06:22 AM • permalink


    1. 3 Blogstrop

      On the other hand, if I was a member of an insidious and subversive subset of society determined to impose …

      Damn!  Looking at this and then looking at my comment above it, it looks like I’m saying, or strongly implying, that ALL Muslims fit into my characterization there.  That’s wrong and stupid of me, and I wish I’d put a little more damn thought into the comment.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 20 at 10:44 AM • permalink


    1. Andrea, I love/hate you.  You have given me another source for my obsession.  I just spent $30.00 and would have spent more, but the one book I would absolutely love to have is over $100 (edition published 1937). Time to start saving.

      Ah, the smell of books in the morning.

      Imperial Keeper

      Posted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2006 04 20 at 11:20 AM • permalink


    1. Here’s my email to Borders (sent to as their web site customer contact form would not submit):

      Please allow me to add my voice to the chorus of those protesting your decision to not carry the April/May edition of Free Inquiry magazine because it includes reprints of the Mohammed cartoons.

      I already know your stated reason for doing so (“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority”), so please don’t bother to reiterate it in any reply. I also realize that this is a business decision you are free to make. This being America and all.

      Perhaps, however, you could shed some light on the following:

      How does this decision square with your long held position regarding book banning and your sponsorship of events highlighting and protesting same?

      What message does this deliver to Muslim Americans? Do you actually, sincerely believe that your customers and employees are in danger of being harmed by these Americans? It seems a strange attitude indeed when you consider that your anchor store is in an area boasting a sizeable Muslim population. Or is that the problem? Have you had previous difficulties with and/or threats from that community? What exactly have you said to them about the Free Inquiry decision? What was their response?

      What are some of the other books/periodicals that you have declined to carry in the past? What were the bases of those decisions?

      Do you still stand foursquare behind our guaranteed freedom to express an opinion that might be considered unorthodox or unpopular? Or is it no longer important to you to make sure that those viewpoints are available to all who wish to read them?

      And, finally, I have heard something rather odd and request that you confirm or deny. Do you stock copies of the Koran on your top shelves only? If so, why? And, if so, do you show the same deference to copies of, say, the Bible or Torah?

      Thank you for your time. I look forward to your reply.

      If I get anything back, I’ll share that too.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 04 20 at 01:59 PM • permalink


    1. Oh Kyda, you force one to wonder why the hell we don’t have journalists asking these questions.  I mean that.  How have we allowed our universities to turn out so many mediocre journalists.  Look at the danger we’re in because of what progressivism has done to our educational system.  We’ve allowed ourselves to become intellectually disarmed culturally, giving over our individualism to the collective, in the name of a racist based “diversity”, a vicious “tolerance” that demands we tolerate the unpardonable, and the mind-control of political correctness.

      In his book Less Than Words Can Say, Richard Mitchell wrote:

      “Words never fail.  We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live.  Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them.  Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen.  There must be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot remain reasonble.  Irrationality, like buried chemical waste, sooner or later must seep into all the tissues of thought.”

      All this education and no objective discernment?  How are we better off than we were when a journalist was someone who learned his job on the job?  What were all these educated journalists taught that they aren’t any improvement over uneducated reporters?

      I’m rambling, Kyda…sorry.  You made me think, though.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 04 20 at 03:48 PM • permalink


    1. “Book” ethnic cover cleansing never looked so good for Islam.

      Pretend it dosn’t exist in print or to show the west it dosn’t exist and hey presto it dosn’t exist at all.

      But then again they are allowed to publish this perspective. 2005

      “Islamophobia in Australia is not something suddenly appeared over the horizon because of the weather. To the contrary, racism against Muslims has always been part of Australia’s psyche. Whether it is against neighbouring Indonesia, Malaysia or Muslim Australians; the pall of racism is permanently hovering over Australia. Government policies, including the criminal war against Iraq and the introduction of the so-called “anti-terrorism” laws have legitimised racism against Arab and Muslim Australians.

      Bankstown Islamic sermons told by Sheiks just two weeks ago disclosed intolerance to democracy here in Australia as recently heard on 2gb, (Islamic worst truthful radio station on the subject nightmare in Australia apart from Jim b)and told of an Islamic state in Austrlia.

      Race: Islam is a small baked bean kinda religion and is not a race. Only a race that likes having fun marrying or inter breeding with their peaceful cousins.

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 04 21 at 12:17 AM • permalink


    1. But if you cover up the truth like Islam’s chosing the parables they want to hear then you really get people who do these horrible things like this in Saudi Arabia. What
      s worse is the stoning etc which is the same thing etc.

      The Kingdom was recently shocked and outraged to learn of the torture and subsequent killing of a nine year-old girl by her father and stepmother.

      But then again, when women are denied and repressed and Can’t drive and men are the dominant ones… how could you help a child as innocent as this little one.

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 04 21 at 12:29 AM • permalink


    1. Livres avec frontieres..

      Posted by crash on 2006 04 21 at 08:19 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.