Seriously. This a tweet of hers: "Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid..."
And why yes, she is blaming the producer of a film for the deaths of American citizens. Apparently the actual murders, you know the folks that attacked US diplomatic staff and murdered them, aren't really to blame. The real culprit is the person that made a cheesy movie that dared mock someone's religion.
Yeah... recall the book Butler wrote.
Speaking of responsibility, Erin Palette also points out that the governments in Egypt and Libya do bear responsibility since such security is part of the requirements of hosting a diplomatic embassy.
She also gives a suggestion on what should be done by the US. Tam does too. Unfortunately, it's Carters all the way down.
Back to Anthea Butler the link to Twitchy has some real choice quotes including where she clarifies her position:
"And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don't understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.— "
Oh I see. So if you "understand" what you hate, then it's okay to speak out against it.
Such as you and Palin's beliefs. What if someone got angry at your book and killed a person. Would you bear any blame?
Who's the arbiter of this Prof? Who determines if a person has enough "understanding" of a religion to earn the privilege to speak up about it?
Clearly you as a mighty Associate Professor of Religious Studies are at least entitled to critique Christianity. But what about the other proles?
I know! Maybe First Amendment Permits can be handed out on May-Issue bases to those that are deemed to have a need to speak on such sensitive subjects and not abuse said privilege.
Meanwhile MSNBC wants the Department of Justice to prosecute people for blasphemy. And note that they're going against a man who is only tangentially related to the film.
Can you say blacklisting and blasphemy trials for those that even dare to endorse films that speak out against theocratic orthodoxy?
And yet these are the same folks that demand every business support Gay Marriage and every institution support Abortion. Huh. Seems to be a lack of tolerance. At least that's consistent.
And you can add ABC to those rooting for some good old theocracy. You see to Christiane Amanpour making a film that offends someone else's religion is just like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Great to see journalists eagerly demanding that free speech be removed and replaced with adherence towards the tenets of a defacto state religion.
At least MSNBC and ABC has some political support. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is on the exact same page as them demanding a presidential apology and prosecution of a man that dares produce a film they don't like.
Of course it's not just the media and academia. As this great essay on Qando reminds us: "The response of the US Embassy to this assault was to condemn the "abuse" of free speech. Just think about that for a minute."
And of course the media is livid at this, but as Glenn Reynolds reminds in this post, more for Lese-majesty than the fact that barbarians killed our diplomatic staff.
"Reader Leslie Eastman writes: “The fact the elite media was more upset about Romney’s critique of the White House than our dead ambassador says all there needs to be said about our press.” "
Jack on Ace of Spaces (no relation) has a great essay on a related subject:
I'm angry at a hypocritical, feckless President who personally spikes the football over Bin Laden's death while his state department apologizes to Islamists for the exertion of similar First Amendment rights by other Americans who aren't lucky enough to be anointed god-kings.
I'm angry that a posturing, empty-suit of a president lectures Americans on "denigrating religious views" when he is on record as referring to Americans of faith as "bitter clingers", and when he has campaign surrogates attacking his opponent for being a Mormon.
But with four Americans dead, our flag burning, and our embassies trashed, you know what really makes me angry?
Our president isn't.
Think about that fact.
Our president isn't. He read a bland and bloodless set of prepared remarks for 10 minutes, hid behind Hillary Clinton's ever-widening skirt, took no questions, and then thought the best thing he could do would be to hit the Vegas strip.
Go to the link to find out what did make the President angry what just yesterday did warrant, in his view, a statement "tougher than anything Obama said in response to the death of an American ambassador, his staff, or the attack on our embassy grounds."
There's a bit on incentives there too.
But what if the religion was swapped?
Oh hell, say there was a film critical of the Virgin Mary (like that's hard to imagine). And say there was mass rioting in Lima as a result and a Catholic mob broke into the US embassy and killed the ambassador and other diplomatic and military staff.
Do you think the media, academia, and government would be moaning about "unlimited free speech then"? Would there be calls to imprison the filmmakers coming from major mainstream media outlets?
Do you think the President would give the same mealy mouthed bland words?
Or would Christian extremism be decried from the rooftops?
Is theocratic bloodshed only rewarded if it's adherents of the right religion doing it? Maybe that's how the "right" religion is picked. By the willingness of people to commit violence in its name.
There's a reason Tim Minchin, as funny as he is, doesn't mock Islam. Mocking Christians, by and large, is far far safer.
It's all about incentives. You will see more of the behavior that you reward. Such as canceling a film because it gets threatened.
It's just like training an animal, isn't it?