Aptos psychologist: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That is in the Constitution. That’s why you do have the right to pray at high school graduations as well as in fox holes…

The Tea Party read the literal words of the Constitution and that is what everyone needs to do. There is no “separation of church and state” concept in the Constitution. Read the Constitution and see for yourself.

Share

There is an obvious disconnect concerning the Constitution between the Tea Party crowd and the establishment of both major political parties.

“This was evidenced most recently in a clip on CNN of an exchange between Eliot Spitzer and Dana Loesch. Loesch is a founder of the Saint Louis Tea Party and Editor in Chief of Breitbart’s Big Journalism. Ostensibly, Loesch had been invited on the Parker Spitzer Show to discuss the upcoming election and the role of Tea Party organizations in the campaigns, but for Spitzer, it was an ambush, and it didn’t take him long to drop the gloves and come out swinging.

Spitzer: I don’t mean to be snarky about this, but we heard Christine O’Donnell today in, you know, your Senate candidate from Delaware saying separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, either. So, maybe the Tea Party’s working off a different Constitution. We’ll wait and see.

Loesch: It’s not. No, it’s not. That phrase isn’t in the Constitution at all. That phrase is not in the Constitution.
Yes, they are working off a different Constitution, and that will be shown as the crux of the brewing battle between the Tea Party movement and the politicians in office. For reference, the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The confusion arises from the different methods of reading the Constitution. Spitzer is relying, as most lawyers and politicians do, on case law ruled on by myriad judges and justices taking into account precedent and stare decisis. Loesch is relying on a literal reading of the same document, where clear sections have been litigated out of use — in this case, the part of the First Amendment which reads “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Tea Partiers, like Loesch, see that for what it is, an administrative omission, a tactical obliteration without taking the necessary steps to amend the amendment.

“[P]rohibiting the free exercise thereof” would seem to mean exactly that. Due to the fact that this phrase comes after the non-establishment clause, it would seem to clarify the meaning. In essence, since the federal government cannot establish a religion, it also does not prohibit the free exercise thereof. The federal government cannot hinder one’s free exercise of his own religion, i.e., not in the classroom, the jury box, the bench, or the museum, for that matter. In fact, it would seem that such places in government are expressly prohibited from limiting that freedom, whereas some private organization might indeed prohibit religious expression.

The part of the amendment that Spitzer is focusing on is the non-establishment clause, but it has not been made clear what “establishment” means. To a literalist like Loesch, “establishment” means to create a Church of the United States, just as there was a Church of England, in which taxes were raised to provide a budget for the church. Theoretically, a citizen could be made to attend, contribute, and even pray. Freedom from the Church of England was a motivating factor in the development of America, so it is quite clear to the average intellect that the founding fathers would not like to create the same monster on the new shore. Far from trying to exclude religion from government, even a cursory reading of the works of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin would lead one to believe that, specifically, the Christian religion was integral to the soul of the new union, not banished from it as Spitzer apparently believes.

A complicating factor in the discussion is that lawyers and judges naturally give weight to their own decisions, to case law, to precedent. Where judicial activism is clear, as in the instance of the First Amendment, the rulings have less and less meaning for the literalist. Corruption of intent is not a justification for denial of rights; otherwise, there never could be the social developments in society wherein the people, and ultimately the courts, discover that outdated and irrelevant rulings no longer apply. See slavery.

The truth, perhaps, is somewhere in the middle. There are some aspects of amendments that have been clarified by case law. Some of these cases are merely a commonsense approach to the rigidity of the wording, but the battle between these two visions of the Constitution is just getting started.

The Tea Party movement is not populated by the dim-witted, as the media would have one believe. The founders and organizers, like Loesch, have done the hard work of educating themselves on the Constitution. They have brought in constitutional scholars to “brief” their organizations. The mainstream American might be surprised to find how many constitutional scholars actually agree with the Tea Partiers. It is not for a lack of understanding that this question is brewing; it is actually a conflict of visions on how to give a full reading of the document.

T.L. Davis is a novelist, a contributor to the Washington Rebel blog, and the author of The Constitutionalist: Rights To Die For.
45 Comments on “How the Constitution Is Read” Recent Articles
•The Exciting Journey of Juan Williams
•Fox’s Rash Juan Williams Overreaction
•How the Constitution is Read
•Are Europe and America Trading Places?
•Forty Million Losers
•Fun, Frolic, and Midterms
•Who Foots the Bill
•Cling to Guns (and Pass the Deer Nachos)
•Bully for You
•America’s Casting Call
Blog Posts
•Hey kids! Let’s impeach the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!
•WaPo investigation confirms politics at the heart of New Black Panter decision at DoJ
•Petreaus says progress in Afghanistan faster than expected
•Odds of GOP taking the House now 3 out of 4
•For Democrats, Newsweek retrieves a bouquet from the manure pile
•Don’t call her ‘Ma’am’ – at least not until after she’s defeated
•Texas guardsman gunned down in Juárez
•The New York Times discovers Democratic dirty campaign tactics
•Yes, Taxes Do Change Behavior
•Barack Obama, Marxist student
Monthly Archives
•October 2010
•September 2010
•August 2010
•July 2010
•More…

About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: Time to say NO to Democratic Socialist of America Sam Farr — one of 70 Socialists in America. Time to say NO to ObamaCare

Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

The 2010 election is all about Obama. Locally the 2010 election is about Dem. Sam Farr, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Sam Farr supports ObamCare. Who to support in the 17th District in opposition to ObamaCare?

Sam Farr, 17th district, voted for Obama-Care. Sam Farr supports everything that Obama is and what he represents. Sam Farr is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. What does that mean? Google the Democratic Socialists of America and find out.

Sam Farr tells us what we should support. Such arrogance. As Mike Z of 1080 AM said this AM — in the seven (7) Town Hall meetings held about Health Care, Sam Farr told US the PEOPLE how he planned to vote. Sam Farr planned to push for 1) single payer or 2) whatever Obama supported. Sam Farr was not there to listen to us THE PEOPLE.

Four people run against Sam Farr for the 17th District. If the 4 became 1 and consolidated maybe there is a chance to vote Farr out.

I listened to the 10-12 call in show on 1080 AM today in Santa Cruz, CA.


If Sam Farr wanted to listen to his constituents one might expect him to listen to those who differ from him. So does Sam Farr listen to other voices? Apparently not. Sam Farr said today that he has never listened to KAy Zwerling on 1080 AM What does that say?

I liked much of everything that all four opponents to Sam Far said. But we need to WIN against the Democratic Party represented by Sam Farr, socialist.

How can the 4 that oppose Sam Farr become 1 so we can win?

Per the Wall Street Journal today the Tea Party has supported Republicans. And I think that IS the best way to go.

So will the write in candidate from Carmel who is a Tea Party movement person support Jeff Taylor! I hope so.

Share

Aptos, CA Psychologist. The Tea Party movement is a response to President Obama’s goal to fundamentally change America?

Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Remember the State of the Union message?  President Obama used the ocassion to publicly rebulk the Supreme Court as they sat there with no way to respond back.   The President criticised the Court for  their recent decison that corporatons have First Amendment free speech rights.

The following article about the Tea Party movement is from the Wall Street Journal. Continue reading “Aptos, CA Psychologist. The Tea Party movement is a response to President Obama’s goal to fundamentally change America?”

Share

Aptos psychologist: A confused, angry, depressed 5 year old moves every 3-4 days between parents & says he wants to die. How might a grandparent assist?

Pay close attention when young children say that they want to die. Through probably a plea for help, all threats by children need to be taken seriously. And, probably best to seek appropriate professional help.

What ‘s best for this confused, angry, probably depressed 5year old child who moves every 3-4 days back and froth between his parents? How might a grandparent who provides some weekly care assist?

The issue of stability needs to be addressed:

Would this child do better with less movement back and forth between homes for a while? At least for a period of time (3-4 months) would it be better to stabilize in one home rather than move back and forth? Parents and others such as grandparents who are actively involved in the daily care need to sit down and talk.

Communication abilities between the parents and grandmother:

Maybe the parents & grandparent need to talk with professionals present if they cannot easily do it themselves. After all, the things that cause people to separate and divorce often are the same things that make it hard for them to communicate to each other about their child.

The focus of the discussion should be child-centered.

Keep the discussion focused on this particular, unique child. What does this particular child need most? Is the child more attached to one parent than the other? Can one parent currently better meet the emotional needs of the child?

Talking with the child:

For sure, parents and grandparent talking to the child in language they understand must happen time and time again. It is standard that children blame themselves for parents divorce. Children need to explore their feelings in a safe enviornment.

There are various books that might assist.  Recommended by the Berkeley Parenting Network are:

Dinosaur’s Divorce by Marc Brown and Laurene Brown and

It’s Not Your Fault, Koko Bear by Vicky Lansky (for ages 3 to 5)

Group therapy might assist the parents.

From Berkeley Parents Network, last updated 9-6-2009 from http://parents.berkeley.edu

Some other books out there include:

Children Ages 3-5

When Mom and Dad Divorce , by Emily Menendez-Aponte

My Family’s Changing , by Pat Thomas

Mom and Dad Break Up , by Joan Singleton Prestine

Two Homes , by Claire Masurel

Dinosaur’s Divorce , by Laurene Krasny Brown and Marc Brown

Children Ages 5-7

Let’s Talk About It: Divorce , by Fred Rogers

I Don’t Want To Talk About It , by Jeanie Franz Ranson

When Mom and Dad Separate , by Marge Heegaard

Sometimes a Family has to Split Up , by Jane Werner Watson, Robert E. Switzer, and J. Cotter Hirschberg

Check out the following websites: www.kidsinthemiddle.org www.kidsturn.org Laurie

Share

Aptos psychologist: Time to say NO to Sam Farr, Obama-Care and the Recovery Act.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

People like Sam Farr, Rep for the 17th District — per how they vote — believe that government can do a better job making decisions for you than you can. Given the last 18 months of government by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Sam Farr –now is the time to say, “Stop!”

That view — that people should accept what Representatives tell them — is what I took away from listening to Sam Farr during the Health Care debates.

Now Sam Farr says that the Recovery Act has helped. The following is from a recent meeting in San Juan Bautista. Many people said No! to Sam Farr. For more, read the following:

“Calling San Benito County and the tri-county area one of the country’s best areas for agricultural business, Congressman Sam Farr told a capacity crowd of more than 200 people inside the San Juan Bautista Community Center Hall on Tuesday night the county needs to focus on what it does best – produce agriculture.

“We are the Silicon Valley of agriculture,” Farr said.

In the third of four town hall meetings throughout the Central Coast area – the only one in San Benito County – Farr spoke and answered questions for nearly two-and-a-half hours as attendees applauded and booed.

Farr, a Democrat from Carmel, is up for reelection in November and has been the District 17 representative for 17 years. District 17 includes Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties. He is being challenged by Republican Jeff Taylor.

In Farr’s opening 30-minute speech he mentioned growing up in the area and traveling to San Benito County to eat dinner and look at the scenery.

“I say this all the time – there is no place in the world, no place in the United States where you have as much diversity in the land,” Farr said. “We sell scenery.”

A part of that scenery is the Pinnacles National Monument, which Farr hopes to change to a national park soon.

“This missing book on geology is Pinnacles National Monument,” he said. “The name change won’t change anything but give it more recognition.”

A large portion of his speech focused on the success of the county and area – mostly the agriculture and schooling. He said there should be a focus on bringing higher-end agricultural jobs to the county.

“The ag that is here is the brain trust for the rest of the agriculture throughout the country,” Farr said. “You always have to sell it and I’m going to be your national campaign. This is an area that we all know and cherish.”

Farr also mentioned that the area has more affordable school institutions than areas such as New York and Boston.

“It doesn’t matter what type of grades you get if you can’t afford the school,” Farr said.

Contention came from the crowd when Farr mentioned the recovery act and the belief that officials needed to “infuse massive amounts of capital” back into the country. Many crowd members shook their heads. Some simply said no.

Questions focused on the health care bill, employment, the economy and Clear Creek Management Area. The group was just about divided in half from those who supported Farr and those who opposed him. Waiting outside were members of the Santa Cruz Tea Party and the Republican Party.

The groups were passing out the literature of Meg Whitman and held signs that said “vote out socialist Sam Farr” and “more freedom and less government.”

See the full story in the Pinnacle on Friday.

Connor Ramey
Connor Ramey is a staff writer for the Free Lance. You can reach him by email or at (831) 637-5566.

Share

Aptos psychologist: Yes there are ways to reduce early signs of autism. Figure out ways so, unprompted, your infant gazes at you. Pay attention most to the non-verbal clues.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

A family has one  child  diagnosed with autism.  Then they have a second child.  Siblings of autistic children have a 25 times greater  likelihood than average also developing autism.

Can parents reduce likelihood of autism in child #2? Possibly and certainly worth the try. One avenue: what are ways to increase gaze between parent and child which is unprompted?

DSM IV 299.0 Autistic Disorder is characterized by three kinds of difficulties: the hardest to “fix” are the non-verbal social communication problems (poor eye contact, not ‘reading’ facial clues, low social and emotional reciprocity).

It is possible to identify children at risk of autism quite early. Interestingly, when and to whom a child gazes is an early marker. To me that suggests why not figure out all sorts of ways that babies can do something to prompt adults for gaze. The baby is not seeking gaze but by doing something they in fact increase gaze.

Might it not be the total gazing and human interactions that gaze provides that assists children to learn all sorts of non-verbal clues?

 Per article below, at six months, siblings do less gazing at parents when not prompted than children who do not have a autistic sibling.

So what might be some ways to encourage siblings of autistics to increase non-prompted gazing at parents and caregivers? Below are some ideas and why not share your ideas? Continue reading “Aptos psychologist: Yes there are ways to reduce early signs of autism. Figure out ways so, unprompted, your infant gazes at you. Pay attention most to the non-verbal clues.”

Share

Who exploits who? Meg Whitman’s housekeeper “used” the system and gets used as part of a political stunt?

Meg Whitman's Latina housekeeper used by Jerry Brown?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

The purpose of hiring an illegal is typically for financial gain: pay the worker less than usual, not pay social security and other taxes.

Meg Whitman got no financial gain out of hiring what turned out to be an illegal, undocumented worker. The facts suggest that the housekeeper hoodwinked her employer.

Let’s say that you, Meg Whitman, live at 24 Edge Road, Atherton, CA and want a housekeeper. You go to an employment agency that you trust. The agency, which presumably checks backgrounds, recommends several persons.

You hire a Latina recommended by your employment agency. You pay the Latina housekeeper $23 an hour. You pay her social security and give her a W2 each year. She and you are on a first name basis. You like her and presumably she likes you.

Years later, the housekeeper confesses to you that she is illegal, that she gave you a relative’s social security number. Your response? You fire her. When you do, you are running for governor of California.

How will this shake out? Jerry Brown says he wants Meg Whitman to admit a mistake and move on. Are Mexican Americans more likely to vote for Jerry Brown because Meg Whitman hired an undocumented, illegal worker and supposedly exploited her?

No exploitation appears to have occurred on Meg Whitman’s part. $23 an hour is a decent wage. Lots of college graduates are not making that wage. Living in Atherton the housekeeper lived and worked in a pleasant environment.

Has Jerry Brown’s campaign exploited the housekeeper?
By going public this woman may face deportation by immigration and federal penalties from social security for falsifying documents.

So who is paying for the law suit against Meg Whitman? Some third party fronting the money to liven up the campaign in Brown’s favor?

The Oct. 2, 2010 Santa Cruz Sentinel states that the Service Employees Inernatonal Union (SEIU) spent $5 million for a Spanish language TV ad attacking Whitman for treatment of Diaz Santillan 12 hours after the story broke.

What do you think?

Share

Aptos psychologist: Do President Obama’s core values resonate with any of yours?

What are President Obama’s core values? Certainly honesty is not one of Obama’s core values. He can say one thing and he simply does not seem to remember what he said. Remember those promises that health care costs will go down and not up… you can keep your doctor and your health care plan?

Obama certainly does not believe that it’s OK to make money and keep it. His actions show that he believes in economic leveling.

Obama certainly does not believe America is great at anything except exceptional in taking what belongs to someone else. Obama repeatedly apologizes that America is responsible for all the ills in the world.

So what do you think Obama’s core values are? Do any resonate with yours?

August 31, 2009
Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn’t fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate — thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?
Think of modern Presidents that had core values that resonnated with the values of most Americans: President Reagan said, that “The Soviet Union is an evil empire! and remember his speech, Tear down that (Berlin) wall! Remember President Kennedy who said, Ask not what your country can do for you…Ask what you can do for your country…”

What are President Obama’s core values? Certainly honesty is not a core value. He can say one thing and he simply does not seem to remember what he said. Remember those promises that health care costs will go down and not up… you can keep your doctor and your health care plan? His actions show that he believes in economic leveling and more economic leveling… He tells the world repeatedly and apologizes that America is responsible for all the ills in the world…

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us. He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task– all contributory of course. It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

[editor’s note: The author is not the not the same person as Geoffrey P Hunt, who works at the Institute for Scientific Analysis as a senior research scientist.]

Share

‘Make no graven images of God’ is standard Old Testament. Make a picture of Islamic prophet Mohammand results in death?

Currently, there are a multitude of pictures and sculptures of Jesus — the Son of God — in Roman Catholic churches. Growing up in Asia, I remember seeing a beautiful 100 foot long golden image of Buddha. Clearly, many religions do routinely have images and statutes of God and prophets on display.

In contrast, some churches forbid or do not have any graven images. Best as I know, Episcopal churches and Protestant churches typically do not put graven images — statutes or pictures — in their churches. Yet, no Episcopalian or fundamentalist church threatens the Roman Catholic church with death or other retributions for their graven images.

Whether they should or not, many religions do make graven images of God and God’s prophets. And, they put those graven images in their homes, temples, churches. There are no graven images of God in Jewish synagogues. At least in recent history, the Jews have never attacked Christians or other religions because of graven images or pictures.

Should the Islamic prophet Muhammad be an exception? Should a picture of Muhammad – or a contest to make many pictures of him supportive of free speech result in death threats? It did. Recently, Molly Norris – who sponsored a contest to make a multitude of pictures of Mohammad — went “underground” due to Islamic death threats.

In the Islam-ist world, pictures of the Prophet are forbidden. Make a cartoon of him or jest about the Prophet — yes, that can result in a death threat.

There have been many political ideologies — and yes Islam is a political ideology — that seek to dominate the world by violence and intimidation. Telling the world ‘no graven images’ of Muhammad or dire effects will occur is one more instance.

For sure, America can require Islamic mosques/ community centers to abide by American laws. For example, America does not allow Mormons to have multiple wives. Likewise, America can require mosques/ community centers to act similarly as others do: provide charity to the local community and reach out to other Faiths.

How can your church, synagogue or faith organization “shake hands” with local Islamic mosques?
How can your faith organizations encourage a local Islamic faith organization to join the 20th century world and support common spiritual, religious goals? Specifically, get a commitment against jehad, against death threats, and a commitment for tolerance, compassion and the equal treatment of men and women.

Maybe that might be something to put on the agenda for Outreach in your church?

written by Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gamil.com

See the following:

“Everybody Draw Mohammad Day was a 2010 protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of Muhammad.

It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, “201” by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for the segment.

Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that “everybody” create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park.

Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur’an.[1]

Today, Catholic Churches have images of Jesus on a cross. Episcopal Churches and Protestent churches do not have graven images of God in their church. Episcopalians and Protestants do not make death threats on Catholics for hanging a statute of Jesus crucified on a cross.

“Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com (under the pen name Abu Talha al-Amrikee; later identified as Zachary Adam Chesser) had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was shot to death by a Muslim extremist. The individuals running the website later denied that the postings were actual threats, although they were widely perceived as such.[citation needed]

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic.

Within a week, Norris’ idea became popular on Facebook, was supported by numerous bloggers, and generated coverage on the blog websites of major U.S. newspapers. As the publicity mounted, Norris and the man who created the first Facebook page promoting the May 20 event disassociated themselves from it. Nonetheless, planning for the protest continued with others “taking up the cause”.[2] Facebook had an “An “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”” page, which grew to over 100,000 participants. A protest page on Facebook against the initiative, named “Against ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'”, attracted about the same number of supporters. Subsequently, Facebook was temporarily blocked by Pakistan; the ban was lifted after Facebook agreed to block the page for users in India and Pakistan.
In the media, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day attracted both support from commentators who felt that the campaign represented important issues of freedom of speech, and the need to stand up for this freedom, as well as criticism from other commentators who found the initiative crass, juvenile, and needlessly offensive.

Share