An Update On L'Affaire De Sykes: What Others Are Saying

For an overview of the basics of the latest Sykes folly, Monsieur Brawler delivers another masterful piece chock full of insight, as opposed to the Chuck full of incite.

There have been quite a number of people posting about this bit of hate mongering. McIlheran and many of the right wing bloggers have, as one would expect, ignoring the facts and using three basic approaches:

1. Sykes is great, so he can't be wrong.
2. The Interfaith Alliance once knew a guy who's girlfriend's uncle's third wife's fourth cousin (on the mother side) had a neighbor who delivered a newspaper to a bad man. This means the IA are bad people, even though members come from every denomination.
3. Here is a link to another right wing blogger who links to yet another right wing blogger who links to another right wing blogger who agrees with Charlie, case closed. So there.

Meanwhile, on the reality-based side of the blogosphere, we have a few posts worth noting.

First, there is the elegant Anne Quimby Mathias, who points out that TMJ should leave Charlie's post up, so that the world can see what they really stand for:

And, under no circumstances, should Sykes remove the "Drawing the Line" post he offers as his rationale for treating a legitimate request for civility as an “obscene” attempt to erode American liberty.

Otherwise, how would we know how willing he is to misrepresent the principles of the First Amendment to suit his own ends? Or that he’s counting on his audience to believe that a request to reconsider the content of his post is an infringement on his right to free expression under the Constitution.

We also have a wry twist to the issue from the bloodied but not beaten Illusory Tenant (yes, that Illusory Tenant, and if you don't like, well, that's too damn bad for you):

It's funny, because I know a lot of, for example, non-Christians who conduct themselves in a manner more in accordance with the admonitions of the founder of
said religion than most of the ones who parade their alleged Christianity like a Macy's balloon.

Mssr. Brawler asks a simple question, with a graphic answer.

But the coup de grace is eloquently delivered by James Rowen:

My point is that even Charlie gets offended, and uses his power to rally the like-minded to put pressure on an organization - - in this case, Miller Brewing, successfully - - to make a change with regard to its use of imagery that means important things to a religious community.

That is exactly what Interfaith is doing, and WTMJ should do what Charlie helped Miller do. Apologize, and be more mindful and consistent in the future when using or debating religion, its symbolism or imagery.