Steve Rubenstein, The San Francisco Gate, December 4, 2007
Conservative talk show host Michael Savage sued an Islamic rights group Monday for rebroadcasting on its Web site several excerpts from his radio show in which he called the Quran a “book of hate” and said Muslims “need deportation.”
Savage, in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, said the Council on American-Islamic Relations had violated copyright law by using the excepts in a campaign to persuade advertisers to stop sponsoring his show.
In the excerpts, Savage calls the Quran a “hateful little book,” says Muslims “breed bombers” and asserts that the religion of Islam seeks to “convert or kill” nonbelievers.
The council, in rebroadcasting the excerpts, urges visitors to its Web site to complain to Savage’s advertisers.
They need to counter sue him for attempting to use the legal system to score publicity points.
Comment by greyhawk — December 5, 2007 @ 7:08 am
I usually dont agree with any religious group,
but in this case I agree with Greyhawk and I hope they win if only to clean up what used to be the public airwaves.
Comment by Rainlander — December 5, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Problem is that, like Savage, they engage in hatred, and do so with that hateful book in hand.
I don’t like GW and I really don’t like Savage’s style, but little turds like this : “George W. Bush and his neocon puppeteers have again sounded the danger fantasy about Iran” deposited on this web site are just as bad.
It’s amusing that you democratics engage in such hateful retoric, yet whine when others do the same.
I do hope that soon you actually hit puberty and begin to bring more issue oriented writing to the table rather than attack propoganda, such as the above.
Comment by grimgold — December 5, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Excuse me.
First off, I may not like what either group has to say but I would never use the courts to silence the First Amendment. Second, this suit will go nowhere and Savage knows this. The issue is a copyright violation and that was settled in several other suits. Most recently when a station tried to sue a guy for setting up a boycott. The tactic being used is to file a lawsuit to generate publicity (and hopefully raise cash) then to drop it before the case goes to court. Grim I would think you would be violently opposed to someone using YOUR tax dollars to try to raise their own ratings.
Comment by greyhawk — December 6, 2007 @ 5:20 am
And by the way this is not the first time Savage has used your tax money like this.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i4savage.htm
Comment by greyhawk — December 6, 2007 @ 6:03 am
Grim, have you ever actually read the Koran (Qu’ran)? How do you know it’s a “hateful book”?
You are aware that most of Islam is based on the Old Testament of the Hebrews and that Jesus is considered one of its prophets? Therefore, part of that hatefulness comes from the Judeo/Christian Bible.
Does this sound hateful to you?
“To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil by evil is evil.”
That was a quote by the Prophet Mohammed from The Koran.
In fact, the Koran is no more ‘hateful’ than the Bible or the New Testament — it depends on who’s interpreting it and for what purpose.
As we’ve seen in the religious craziness in this country, with Christians advocating war, death and hatred, the message can be twisted to serve the ends of a government or a leader, as it has been in Islam.
Comment by RS Janes — December 6, 2007 @ 8:03 am
“George W. Bush and his neocon puppeteers have again sounded the danger fantasy about Iran” is not the same as the responses I’ve received from you two. I appreciate your thoughtfullness.
I didn’t know Savage has sued previously for benefit – whatever it may be. I’ll keep an ear to the ground.
The Koran quote that burns in my brain is “If your wife disobeys you, beat her.”
However the old testament (which is very poorly intreperted) does have vicious things in it, such as: And we entered the village and killed them all; men, women, and children, praise the Lord! (not exact quote – from memory).
It was in response to Jesus that that break-away Jewish group, Christainity, came into existence, people who wanted better than cutting the hands off of theives and publically whipping women for daring to object to being raped. YOU study the Koran and see for yourself. It is awful. I haven’t read the whole thing, but have read books by Moslems who give great examples. Islam, a religion of peace, my ass.
Comment by grimgold — December 6, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Grimmy,
Thanks for responding to My comment.
The gist of the comment was that Savage is using the public airwaves to insult and provoke People who view believe in various sects of the Islamic faith.
I would like to expand further that comment,
IMO Savage is in fact rattling the sabre for the benefit of the Bush administration and the Military Contractors to advance thier agenda of invading Iran.
In doing so,He is expressing the view that all Islamic people are violent extremists and that their religion advocates forcible assimilation for non-believers.
Unfortunately there are sects which believe this to be true,and these are the fundamentalists which are most likely to go to Iraq to attack our troops on the ground.
I’m not saying that this will happen or that Michael Savage is responsible for the attacks on 9-11-01 or the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.
But if there was even the slightest possibility that one american soldier could lose thier life or even be injured by one of these hypothetical combatants,would’nt it be irresponsible of the staff behind or the advertisers of the Michael Savage show to incite it?
I admit that all the above is a huge stretch,
but at the end of it all,is it worth it?and who is served?the public?
BTW,I’m a registered Independant not a You Democrat(s).
Regards,Rain.
Comment by Rainlander — December 6, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Rain, thanks for the excellent response – I read it twice.
I agree with a lot of what Savage says, which pains me since I can’t stand to listen to his utterly hateful retoric for more than a few minutes.
For example, his ‘language, borders, culture’ theme is right on.
Fortunately, he has lucid moments in between his beating the hell out of his callers, so I have listened to him in the past long enough to get the jist of his opinions.
One would hope that the more sensible among Moslems will prevail since the reward of peace is economic prosperity.
To answer your question, not even one even slightly wounded soldier is worth Savage’s stupidity on the air waves (I haven’t listened to him for months, BTW).
Concerning your suggestion that he is in league with GW, forget it. He was wild with anger when GW stole his origination: ‘compassionate conservative’.
And at one point he was so upset with the president (as were all of us conservatives) he said “MY God! I wish I hadn’t even come up with the phrase compassionate conservative!”
Best, Grimgold
Comment by grimgold — December 6, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Grim, you wrote: “It was in response to Jesus that that break-away Jewish group, Christainity, came into existence, people who wanted better than cutting the hands off of theives and publically whipping women for daring to object to being raped.”
In the Old Testament, it says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth — some Jews and Christians have interpreted this literally, and in Europe centuries ago, these were standard punishments. including the cutting off of hands for theft and whipping people for minor crimes. (You’ve obviously forgotten the brutal tortures imposed by the early Puritans in America, especially on those they suspected of witchcraft.) I admit that some nations are mired in the Middle Ages in Asia Minor but, again, this is the result of the misinterpretation (or added interpretation) of the various leaders there for their own political benefit, not intrisically a part of Islam.
Grim, you also wrote: “YOU study the Koran and see for yourself. It is awful. I haven’t read the whole thing, but have read books by Moslems who give great examples. Islam, a religion of peace, my ass.”
Don’t read “books by Muslims” — that’s interpretation — read the Koran itself. It is as much a religion of peace as Judaism or Christianity, and, throughout the ages, as much abused for the state’s purposes of violence, expansion, and repression of its people as either of them.
But let me put it another way: There has never been a Christian, Jewish or Muslim government on this earth at any time in history; they have all used religion as a front for the secular evils of greed and power.
Were the US a Christian nation, we would have forgiven the 9/11 attackers and never gone into either Afghanistan nor Iraq; for that matter, there would be no ‘debate’ about illegal immigration; we would welcome them and love them as our brothers and sisters, as Jesus demanded.
Were Israel a Jewish nation, they never would engage in any action where innocent blood is shed, such as their incursion into Lebanon recently, and they certainly wouldn’t try to dismiss Palenstinians as second-class citizens. After all, in the OT it says the Muslims are descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and his slave Hagar.
Were Saudi Arabia a Muslim nation, the royal family would never treat their people so badly, violate Islamic laws against drinking and adultery when outside the country, nor would they fund terrorist organizations that attack Israel.
As Steven Weinberg put it:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
– Steven Weinberg, The New York Times, April 20, 1999.
Take religion out of the equation and bin Laden would have a pretty hard time convincing kids to kill themselves; the Israelis and Palestinians would likely work something out without further violence; Bush/Cheney wouldn’t be in office; and a whole host of other problems would disappear.
Comment by RS Janes — December 6, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
First of all, the Koran itself is interpreted over a dozen ways by native speakers themselves. You are correct, of course, about cruelty under Jews and Puritans. But that wasn’t the teaching in the new testiment, as you know.
The sentence ‘If your wife disobeys you, beat her’ is in the Koran.
Your objection to religion as an easy vehicle for humans to act inhuman is noted. I would add the Crusades as an amazing example of abuse in the name of God.
But the problem is deeper than that. It’s contained in the word believe. Religions promote a belief system of fear, such as a Christian favorite – burning in Hell forever.
There is no proof of that, since it is bullshit, only belief.
Athiesm is no better, fervently believing in the supremecy of the State, or worshipping some person as a God.
The point is, it’s an inner problem, a psychological problem, and a part of human nature that must be outgrown if we are to keep away from eventual nuclear death. As you point out so aptly, belief causes blood baths.
The answer? Simple to say, hard to do. Religion, or the study of the inner, spiritual nature, must be experiential not belief oriented. Grim
Comment by grimgold — December 7, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Grim: “First of all, the Koran itself is interpreted over a dozen ways by native speakers themselves.”
Native speakers? What language? Arabic, Farsi, or one of the other dozen languages of people who practice Islam? Yes, the Koran is misinterpreted by many, as is the New Testament.
Grim: “The sentence ‘If your wife disobeys you, beat her’ is in the Koran.”
I haven’t run across this sentence in the Koran, at least not written by the Prophet Mohammed, but there is a lot of this kind of brutality in the OT — stoning people for minor infractions and the rest. And the term ‘rule of thumb’ comes from Christian England in the Middle Ages, where it referred to the law that prohibited beating your wife with anything wider than your thumb. It makes my point that Islam is no more inherently violent or hateful than Judaism or Christianity.
Grim: “Athiesm is no better, fervently believing in the supremecy of the State, or worshipping some person as a God.”
uh, Grim, that’s not the definition of atheism. According to Webster’s New American Dictionary, it simply means one who does not believe in God. It says nothing about the supremacy of the state nor worshipping an individual as God.
Other than that, I mostly agree with the rest of what you wrote in Comment 11.
Comment by RS Janes — December 8, 2007 @ 7:34 am