Fox News Host Wants Federal Investigation into 'South Park'

Categorized | Loon Media, Loon Politics

Tags | Anti-Muslim, Blasphemy Laws, Christianity, Federal Investigation, Fox News, Hollywood, Innocence of Muslims, Islam, Islamophobia, South Park, What if they were Muslim

Fox News Host Wants Federal Investigation into ‘South Park’

Posted on 05 October 2012 by Emperor

If a Muslim had said something along the lines of what Todd Starnes said you can bet that the Islamophobia echo chamber would be pushing the line that American Muslims are trying to undermine the First Amendment by pushing blasphemy laws.

What if they were Muslim? (h/t: CriticalDragon)

Fox News Host Wants Federal Investigation into ‘South Park’ for Blasphemy

(RightWingWatch)

Fox News’s Todd Starnes is sick and tired of ‘South Park’ and Hollywood getting a free pass. The Fox News commentator participated in the Values Voter Summit panel on “Religious Hostility in America” over the weekend.

The panel featured the familiar argument that Christians in America are somehow a beleaguered minority that is under constant assault. Starnes claims to have a pile of stories stacked up on his desk about “instances of people who have been facing attack because of their faith in Jesus Christ.”

Speaking of the controversy surrounding the laughably bad “Innocence of Muslims,” Starnes asked why the federal government isn’t investigating “shows like ‘South Park,’ which has denigrated all faiths.” He also demanded to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced Hollywood.

Watch:

We have the seen the administration come out and say, “we condemn anyone who denigrates religious faith.” And they come out in regards to this anti-Muslim film.

Well, that’s well and good, but my question is, when has the administration condemned the anti-Christian films that are coming out of Hollywood? Where are the federal investigations into shows like ‘South Park,’ which has denigrated all faiths?

Where is the outrage when people of the Christian faith are subjected to this humiliation that is coming out of Hollywood?

Religious Right activists have been the most vocal supporters of the filmmakers, if you can call them that, and have rightfully pointed out that the First Amendment protects their activities. Starnes, however, seems to have a double-standard when it comes to speech that he deems offensive to his religious views.

As it turns out, the only investigation going on around the “Innocence of Muslims” concerns whether one of the purported “filmmakers” violated the terms of his probation. Otherwise the government has no place policing speech, regardless of who is offended, and the president is not the film critic in chief. President Obama can be excused, however, for speaking out when Americans are being killed over an amateurish YouTube video.

Ilisha

@Ted

“South Park aired quite a few religions jokes at the expense of many except when it comes to Islam & Muhammad. They couldn’t show Muhammad yet had Buddha snorting lines.”

Not true. South Park did show a depiction representing the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and no credible Muslim group ever complained about that, nor the subsequent episodes that became the center of a manufactured “controversy”:

South Park, the “Four Morons” of Revolution Muslim, and CNN’s Epic Fail

… the reality is that South Park has already portrayed an uncensored Muhammad in 2001, in an episode entitled “Super Best Friends”. In fact, the image of the Prophet Muhammad was not only used in that episode, but appeared in the opening segment of the show for four entire seasons. What was the Muslim reaction? Nothing. Absolutely nothing happened. No protests, no riots, and no death threats. The Muslim American community shrugged it off…

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/04/south-park-controversy/
Pingback: Fox News Host Wants Federal Investigation into ‘South Park’ | WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com
Chameleon

@AJ,

Nice analogy — and plain as day to me. However, when you have to explain the difference between free speech and common courtesy to someone, my guess is that such a person won’t even be listening. They seem to have forgotten the entire purpose of speech, which is to communicate, not just to speak.

Their own disrespect for free speech and the great responsibility this freedom implies means that your free speech advocating responsible free speech can only be interpreted as an attempt to restrict their free speech. Ironically, it is those who advocate reckless free speech who are always whining the most about how we need to oppose the free speech of those who are doing nothing more than advocating responsible free speech.
http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

@ted,

A close analogy to what you said is:

A man telling his coworker: “When I tell my wife that she is fat, she enjoys it and laughs over it. Why are you offended when I call you fat?” We are not talking about the legality of stuff here – we are talking about offending your neighbors, coworkers, fellow citizens over why they don’t enjoy fat jokes or their Prophet (PBUH) being made fun of when others don’t mind it. I can call you a fat ass – it’s legal but I shouldn’t do it out of respect.
Ted

I think some of the commenters have missed the point. Maybe all that TV is making you stupid. If we allow religious comedy, 1st amendment rights, it needs to be fair across the board. South Park aired quite a few religions jokes at the expense of many except when it comes to Islam & Muhammad. They couldn’t show Muhammad yet had Buddha snorting lines. Even Jesus is regularly made fun of. This investigation will set the precedent for what is or isn’t allowed. Hopefully it will remove the double standard that favors certain religions that resort to violence as retaliation.
http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

@Ilisha,

Thanks for saying that I bring another perspective regarding Saudi Arabia. I think a lot of democracies do what the Kingdom does which is to make strategic partnerships with various countries (including Israel, Turkey and Egypt) but KSA is supposed to act as some pious leader of the Muslims and thus expected to not think of its own safety.

Regarding that song, my kids were like “mom, you are really embarrassing” but Pink singing it would be a good idea provided she doesn’t show any bumbums

@ZAS, For me democracy doesn’t matter as long as the public is happy. My social circle in KSA are not the princes but people like the women I met at Hajj in a Saudi camp or my husband’s colleagues who are ordinary non royal people. They love King Abdullah, plain and simple. He does a lot for his people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://www.unesco.org/most/mideast3.htm

Free education, healthcare and housing sure beats any democracy.

@Garibaldi,

As is obvious from the above links, that the monarchy is doing its best to advance its citizens. My husband, a physician, serving Saudis and providing them one of the best healthcare packages speaks of healthcare alone. My mom, a Pakistani, spent nearly 30,000 riyals on a pelvic repair procedure in Riyadh. The same surgeon provides the same procedure to Saudis free of cost. Abdullah could keep the money his country earns in hs pockets like Zardari does but he spends it on his people. I strongly request that you keep an open mind towards Saudi Arabia’s kingdom. Thanks.

@jewish Israel, please do visit ths link to see how much Jew hatred is taught in Saudi schools.

http://aayjay.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/refuting-the-allegation-that-saudi-textbooks-teach-hatred-of-jews/
http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

I’m not sure what “double standard” you’re referring to

This was presented as a “what if they were Muslims” post, which normally amounts to saying there is a double standard, others get away with things Muslims are criticized for. Stames is complaining about what he sees as a double standard, however, so the whole thing is getting convoluted.
Ilisha

@Yitzchak Goodman

I’m not sure what “double standard” you’re referring to, but I recently expressed a very similar view on the use of the word “Antisemitism”:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/brazilian-president-dilma-rousseff-takes-on-islamophobia-in-un-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-216145

JSB pointed out Danios has also said similar in the past. Maybe some visitors disagree, but their views aren’t necessarily the LW position.
http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

In my previous comment, the part beginning “Jews know very well” is what I am responding to. I messed up the italics tag somehow to show it was quoted from another comment. It should be obvious, but I would hate anyone to think that was me.
http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

Jews know very well that Arabs are Semites, yet Zionists promote the false definition of Semitism by deceitfully accusing Arabs of “antisemitism.” It’s a reflection of their own racism and ethnic chauvinism.

The term “anti-Semitism” was coined by anti-Semites such as Wilhelm Marr in the late 19th century. They thought it made their bigotry sound more scientific. It has come down to us as the standard word in the lexicon for anti-Jewish bigotry. It doesn’t mean being against Semites. People (not just “Zionists”) who use the term “anti-Semite” to mean “anti-Jewish bigot” simply know what the correct word is in English.
http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

Isn’t it sort of weird for Loon Watch to pushing the double-standard angle here? Isn’t that Stames’ point (or part of it)?
Garibaldi

I believe when it comes to Human Rights, liberties and the repression of minorities Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s chief culprits. It is a regressive regime, while I don’t believe in demonizing the nation (or any nation for that fact), I have to concur with those who’ve criticized it. Also this supposed “prosperity” in S.A. is a chimera, nearly 40% of residents in the nation live in or near poverty, but they aren’t even counted. Like everywhere else the King and his powerful clan have acquired a monopoly on violence in the country and are using it as a means to make themselves rich.
Zakariya Ali Sher

@ AJ:

I think I should clarify my position here. I have nothing against our brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia, and while I have not set foot there, I have known Saudi citizens living abroad and do have experience with the other Gulf states. That said, I DO keep up on news and culture from the region as much as possible. As a fairly liberal Shi’a Muslim, I do NOT agree with much of Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia is not a free state, even if they have relative prosperity, and their relations with other Muslim countries are sort of awkward. Certainly you know there is no love lost between Saudi Arabia and Iran (which, for the record, is also a dictatorship).

The royal family has both good and bad, but I am opposed to monarchy in general. I don’t know if that’s because I’m an America, or because I’m Shi’ite, or both. I would prefer that Saudi Arabia have a pluralistic, democratic government, much like I would prefer Syria would, for example. This is not to say I’m an advocate of blindly overthrowing monarchies either. I would much rather there be a transition. Of course, for the record I’d also point out that King Mohammed VI over in Morocco and King Abdullah II of Jordan are some of the better rulers in the Arab world right now, so make of that what you will.

I appreciate that your views might be different. Certainly Saudi Arabia IS undergoing some significant changes and reforms, and it is difficult for outsiders to keep up with such things. However, I’ll also point out that Saudi Arabia is far from an open society, so it is difficult for many of us to keep up with it. On the other hand, countries like Egypt, or Morocco, or even the UAE have been much more open. Its much easier for us to dispel stereotypes.

As for Israel, that’s a whole other issue entirely…
Reynardine

It’s well known of “double-high” authoritarians that they think strict religion is wonderful for *other people*- the ones they want to control with it. It doesn’t apply to themselves, because they’re already perfect. This applies whether it’s Saudi royals imposing Wahabism on their followers or Republicans imposing stick-up-the-* “Christianity” on us ewepeople. There are many other examples of like kind.

Over at Politicususa, there’s an article calling Romney a pig in a poke. Never mind the poke, though. All you need to know is the first part.
Just Stopping By

@Ilisha: Enjoy your dinner. Based on your comment, there’s probably not much for us to discuss, since I agree with everything you said.

But, next time, you don’t have to make my elliptical comments so obvious.
Ilisha

@JSB

Sorry. I kind of got cut off by some technical issues while I was trying to post a longer reply. I do suspect we’re in agreement, as I said, and I was going to go into that in depth, though now I have to leave soon for a dinner engagement. Let me summarize by repeating that I don’t think any country should be demonized, whether it’s Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other country.

It isn’t always easy to know what constitutes legitimate criticism and we may not always agree on the details, but I think it’s important to make a good faith effort to be fair and reasonable. I also think it’s very important to remember that in every country in the world, there are ordinary, decent people and we should feel solidarity with them. That sounds simplistic, but I really believe people forget that. If some country is supposed to be uniquely evil, and “critics” sound as if they hate everyone there, down to the last, that definitely isn’t legitimate criticism.

Anyway, I must dash. We can pick up this discussion later, if you’d like.