Molly Norris is in hiding

[hmelton]

At least one muslim clerics has issued a Fatwa that orders her death and several others have supported this. So far no muslim leader has publicly spoken out against the kill on sight Fatwa.

As near as I can tell from the few reports posted by the news the FBI reported to her that several muslims groups have been planning her murder and that other groups may be trying to enter the

country or activate assets already here.

hmelton

[Logan Darklighter]

Do you mean Molly Norris?

[hmelton]

I was aiming to fix it when I did the second edit to make the formatting appear correctly , but was distracted and signed out to take care of something outside of cyberspace.

Here is one link to one article, just do a search, with the correct spelling and you can find more.

http://www.seattleweekly....is-disappears-from-view/

hmelton

[Sofaspud]

At the risk of fanning the flames...
... if we're allowed to issue kill-on-sight orders to our 'assets' for them, I see no particular outrage being possible over them doing the same to one of us.
And while I respect Miss Norris' right to express herself as she saw fit, I further expect that maybe, just maybe, she'd have spared a little thought for what the possible repercussions might be.  Was it worth putting her life on the line?  If so, more power to her! -- but I have to wonder why she'd have made the decision to go ahead with it and then vanish, because that doesn't seem to me like someone who both thought through their actions and wants to stand behind their convictions.

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Logan Darklighter]

Spud. Do you REALLY believe what you just said? Or are you just trolling?

[Sofaspud]

I don't troll.
Please explain to me in simple terms how this is any different, when you get right down to brass tacks, than anything the US government has done?  Don't get me wrong, I love my country.  But loving my country doesn't mean I'm blind to it's faults.
Further, please explain to me how someone can, in essence, deliberately wave the red flag in front of a bull, and then expect any sympathy* when they get gored?  I understand why she did what she did; I even approve -- I just wish she had the strength and the courage to stand behind her convictions instead of going into hiding.  It really doesn't seem to me that she expected any repercussions from her acts, and as a staunch advocate of personal responsibility, I can't help but lose some respect for her over it.
(* I realize Miss Norris may not be expecting sympathy -- I rather hope she isn't, in fact, it would make me respect her more -- but the original post seemed to imply that we should be feeling sympathetic for her current situation.)

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Morganite]

I think the idea is supposed to be that the kill-on-sight orders from the US government are in theory* supposed to be a proportionate response - the idea was to kill someone who was either directly or by proxy trying to kill US citizens.

Molly Norris, on the other hand, made a comic that some consider in poor taste, which is not traditionally a crime that carries the death penalty. Disproportionate response.

*I'm pretty sure I saw a thread already about the practice part, yes?

-Morgan... and the staff of Morgan & Antares make no comments about whether the kill-on-sight orders actually are proportionate response, because the point is about the intent of the people who actually -did- it.

[hmelton]

That really isn't a good comparison Molly made some pictures or incited people to make more pictures of a person the muslim's consider holy.

I don't agree with the "shoot on sight" order that has been issued without trail, especially for an U. S. citizen, but that man is a clear threat who by his own admission is trying to kill any who are not muslim, especially americans.

What sort of threat is Molly?

One thing that struck me was how weak and pathetic most of the articles were, in most you would be hard pressed to tell if the writer thought the incitement to murder was wrong.

A while back a christian man threatened to burn a muslim holy book and world leaders, the news media and other christians spoke out against it clearly and LOUDLY.

As near as I can tell Molly was forced to run at least a week ago and the only reason I knew about it was a recent habit to check up on "real" Fatwa being issued by muslim clerics.

Molly did a foolish thing, but she did it trying to rally support for a vanishing freedom called free speech.

She did nothing illegal or wrong, except possibly believe that others would support her in fighting to keep a freedom.

A woman's life is at stake here where are the people who were shouting when it was just a collection of ink and paper?

As far as running goes, even the minute men knew when to run.

So why stay when she is facing dozens to possibly hundreds of hidden killers and there is no one willing to even speak out?

In one article that I can't confirm it mentioned that the FBI is not providing protection or any help of any sort other than limited intelligence and advice.

Molly is an U. S. citizen targeted for death because she may have drawn a picture and as far as I can see not a single U. S. Leader has spoken out against this shot on sight order.

Many of these leader did speak up about the ink and paper that was nearly burned.

Has anyone spoke out loudly against this? where are the world leaders, the News media and other Muslims?

hmelton

[Sofaspud]

Ah.
Y'know, actually, I hadn't considered that angle.  There is indeed a disproportionate response here, which does make a difference.  However -- and I can't stress this part enough -- it doesn't change the fact that Miss Norris should have expected this level of response, regardless of how disproportionate it is.
I mean, it's not as if the radical Muslim groups who were the target of her cartoons have a well-established history of tolerance and rational response to desecration of their sacred symbols.  Rather the opposite, in fact.
What it comes down to is I feel Molly Norris deliberately and with malice made a statement and encouraged others to do the same, and while I feel that it was well-targeted and more-or-less deserved by those it criticized, I can't help but look at her subsequent actions and think to myself, "Really?  You're surprised by this?"
Because, again, any forethought at all would point out that this is going to come back and bite you in the ass.  At that point you need to decide if it's worth doing regardless of that fact -- and if it is, then do it and stand behind it.
If you just throw something out there, and then run away from the consequences of your actions, it makes you look like a bully.  And we have enough problems with that already, as a country. 

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Sofaspud]

hmelton:
Molly has been in hiding since, I believe, mid-July.  I suspect that's part of the reason you're not seeing mass outrage.
That said -- you say all she did was put some ink on paper.  This is entirely incorrect.
Molly manipulated a symbol.  Symbols have power; they always have and they always will.  Symbols mean something to people.  And Molly quite clearly knew this -- it's an artists stock in trade, the manipulation of symbols.  We (meaning the US, primarily) don't believe in the same symbols as everyone else, but that doesn't make them any less valid to the people they have meaning for.  There is a reason propaganda is such a huge part of every war.  There is a reason that flags are saluted, national anthems sung, and soldiers buried with the symbols of their country.
Whatever you may think, Molly did not simply put some ink on a piece of paper, and it's blatantly obvious that everybody knows this, from the people it was targeted at to the people who censored it to the people who gleefully rallied behind it.
Symbols matter.  It's not rational but it's true and it's the reason artists can have such a disproportionate impact on society.  So please, don't try to downplay her actions as being inconsequential.  Symbols have throughout history been deemed to be worth many, many lives.  Were they worth hers?
... only she can say, really.  And judging by her actions, she doesn't think so.
But she made the choice to attack someone else -- and yes, their response is out of proportion to whatever crime they think she committed, but again, it was nothing that couldn't have been foreseen, quite easily.

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Morganite]

I think the point is that she shouldn't have to expect such a response. Or, to put it another way, a world where someone making threats like this for such minor provocation must be taken seriously instead of being met with the scorn and derision they deserve is not something that should be tolerated by any human of sound mind.

I don't recall much outrage mid-July either. Of course, for me, that could be because it's freaking *July*. But I'm not sure.

And judging by her actions, she doesn't think so.

Or you could take it as her thinking that it wouldn't actually help her side to stay exposed. Or any of several other things, including some involving not really having a 'side', but really. Not being willing to die for nothing or not being willing to die when it helps your enemies seem like pretty obvious reasons to take steps to avoid dying.

-Morgan. And regardless of the intent of the original comic... once someone calls for your death, they're an enemy.

[Ayiekie]

The kill on sight order is also wildly disproportionate considering its target is hiding out in Yemen trying not to be blown up by US missiles.

That being said, I have no sympathy for anyone threatening Molly Norris. There's no moral justification in trying to kill her, therefore the fact this response is to be expected does not in any way legitimise it. I hope she remains safe, and that anyone trying to harm her is caught and brought to justice.

And of course many people have spoken up loudly about this, including Muslims (and also did during the danish cartoon uproar, and during the Satanic Verses uproar, and all other such things). Why would you think there wouldn't be? More to the point, though, why should there be such expected? Are all Muslims or governments of predominantly Islamic countries suddenly responsible for the actions of Muslim extremists? Because that's certainly not a standard we hold any other religion to.

And saying "no one is willing to speak out" is ridiculous hyperbole, considering this has been a significant news story for several days now.

[Logan Darklighter]

EXACTLY. Why SHOULD she have to worry about offending
Muslims? Nobody worries about offending Christians, Buddists, Hindus,
Wiccans or any other religion - not here in the USA at any rate.

Yeah symbols have power. But why does anyone who is not a muslim think that the koran has any special place or privilege above and beyond any other symbol? Why is it protected more than any other "sacred" book in the world, even by non-muslims? Why does it have that power HERE in the United States? Would you feel fear for burning a Bible? Would you fear the wrath of a fatwa issued from the Pope? Would you be afraid that hordes of stampeding Jews would batter down your door and beat you senseless if you burned a Torah or the Israeli flag? We certainly don't feel fear from the government (yet) for burning an American Flag. Many people do it all the time. Because the physicality of the flag DOES NOT MATTER. It's the idea that it represents that matters. I would never burn an American Flag. But someone else wants to? Fine, I'll shrug and consider them an idiot and an asshole and move on. Doesn't bother me.
I SHOULD be able to burn a Koran. Just like I should be able to burn a
Bible. Or a Torah. Or the Mahabharata. Or the American Flag. Or the Canadian Flag. Or any
other damn thing that is "sacred" to some nation or sect on this planet.
Not because I actually want to. Not because it's in good taste. Not because it's right. But because NO
ONE should have a "right" not to be offended. No sect should be able to
blackmail society like this with death threats just because they are
offended!

Why did the pastor who threatened to burn a Koran get LOUDLY denounced
by everyone in this country? Was it because they thought he was wrong?
Maybe it was wrong. It certainly was in poor taste. But I don't think
that is the real reason at all. I think it's
because they were afraid. And the more people act this way, the more
death threats will be issued. The more people will have to go into
hiding.

"If you pay the Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane."

Admit it Spud, you are afraid of Muslims and what they will do
if "incited". I see it in your words. "She should have
known not to do that." ... "Was it worth her life?"
To draw those cartoons?
I ask do you think it SHOULD be worth her life? WHY should she have to EXPECT her life to be in danger?
I find that kind of thinking disgusting. Cowardly. You should be ashamed for thinking that way.
Damn it! Do NOT live in fear!

"Lan Astaslem". In Arabic, it means "I will not surrender. I will not
submit." It is the only Arabic phrase I consider worth knowing.

In practical terms, it means, "I will not be muslim."

I'm a Texan, and to me it means "Bring it on!"

I want it on a T-Shirt. I want to wear it in public. Why? Because "they" have said I should not. And "they" are afraid.
And I aim to misbehave.

[hmelton]

Still trying to find when she went into hiding a search is turning up mid September for when she was advised to hide by the FBI, but July is mentioned in some articles, which seems a little contradictory.

Sofa as far as the picture being a symbol yes it is, but as near as I can tell nearly everything is a symbol in muslim beliefs.



Female clothing and faces or bodies are a symbol that has several fatwa issued for Acid burning of tennis stars, bare faced women, women in short(?length?) skirts.

Predictable yes and I cringed when I heard about her comment back early in the year when Molly made headlines with her "draw day" and apology/retraction. After that it vanished from the headlines and I hoped she had dodged a bullet. Sadly the "shoot on sight" seemed to not be news worthy enough to show up in my daily allotment of news headlines. (See Ayiekie Hyperbole below.)

Ayiekie Hyperbole? Probably not I watch about 25 to 35 minutes of broadcast news a day and quickly check general headlines on website before heading for the tech and science news sections. The Book burning was unavoidable I saw interviews with several people speaking about the threatened book burning. The FBI warning to Molly about the Fatwa seems to have been issued in mid September. I usually check for Fatwa's once a month mostly out of curiosity due to a previous thread I started about a fake fatwa.

I'm not sure why the molly fatwa didn't show up in a daily news blog I check about free speech called "Tongue Tied", but a quick check doesn't show it being mentioned.

Didn't I see our president making several statements about burning the muslim books being wrong?

Has the president said anything about the molly Fatwa being wrong?

Has any leader asked for other muslim clerics to issue a retraction? As near as I can tell nearly any muslim cleric could issue a counter Fatwa accepting her apology and it would help.

hmelton

[robkelk]

Still trying to find when she went into hiding a search is turning up mid September for when she was advised to hide by the FBI, but July is mentioned in some articles, which seems a little contradictory.

Don't hunt too hard for this information, hmelton. The obscuring of the truth in this case helps protect the cartoonist, by making it more difficult to find her. (If somebody knew exactly when she went into hiding, then somebody could look for a stranger who showed up someplace on or just after that day...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Epsilon]

EXACTLY. Why SHOULD she have to worry about offending
Muslims? Nobody worries about offending Christians, Buddists, Hindus,
Wiccans or any other religion - not here in the USA at any rate.

Now you're being unfair, Logan. There are many places in the US where one does not admit to things that would "offend" the Christians in the area. Being gay or trans, for instance.
----------------
Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

Still trying to find when she went into hiding a search is turning up mid September for when she was advised to hide by the FBI, but July is mentioned in some articles, which seems a little contradictory.

Don't hunt too hard for this information, hmelton. The obscuring of the truth in this case helps protect the cartoonist, by making it more difficult to find her. (If somebody knew exactly when she went into hiding, then somebody could look for a stranger who showed up someplace on or just after that day...)

Interesting point. I was starting to get curious about that myself. But that makes sense.

[Logan Darklighter]

EXACTLY. Why SHOULD she have to worry about offending
Muslims? Nobody worries about offending Christians, Buddists, Hindus,
Wiccans or any other religion - not here in the USA at any rate.

Now you're being unfair, Logan. There are many places in the US where one does not admit to things that would "offend" the Christians in the area. Being gay or trans, for instance.
----------------
Epsilon

I don't think I am being unfair. There have been many other fatwas issued by imams that have resulted in either death (Theo Van Gogh) or their targets going into perpetual hiding (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie). And these were official decrees - death threats - issued by recognized, accepted officials of the community of Muslims. 

I can not think of a single example in modern times (let's call "modern" to go back to the turn of the previous century - 1900, just for the sake of clarity) of a Christian pastor, priest, bishop, cardinal or any other type or rank of official in any sect of Christianity issuing such a specific type of proclamation that "this person needs to die, and the Church authorizes you to do it". If such a call were made, that official would be drummed out, stripped of his office, and the church would probably cooperate with the state in pressing charges of making death threats. Furthermore, nobody would take such a command seriously. 

The closest you'll get in this country are the nutballs who follow Fred Phelps, and nobody, least of all any actual Christians, considers him and his followers to be representative. They want nothing to do with him. The Phelps loonies are scorned and mocked by 99.99999% of everyone in this country. And well they should be. 

What you are talking about is not a proper comparison. It is true that prejudice exists against gay and transgendered people. But the official stance of all sects of Christianity and the ideal that most Christians try to live up to is "hate the sin, love the sinner". (Incidentally, I do NOT agree with mainline Christianity on the concept of homosexuality being a sin. I think they're wrong.) They would never, ever condone killing someone because they were different. And if someone does, that person is considered to have gone against the ideals of their faith, if that is indeed how they try to justify it. And I can't remember a case where that has happened offhand. I may be wrong on that. But I can't readily bring an example to mind of that sort of thing. But the fact that I - and you, and many other people - can instantly think of many examples of Islamic fatwas should tell you something.

[Sofaspud]

Admit it Spud, you are afraid of Muslims and what they will do
if "incited". I see it in your words. "She should have
known not to do that." ... "Was it worth her life?"

Oh, we've devolved to name-calling already.
I couldn't care less about 'inciting the Muslims', as you so eloquently put it.  Way to paint with a broad brush, while you're at it.  What I *am* disturbed by is the overall mentality that people seem to have that makes them not think -- about the consequences of their actions (please note I never once said those consequences were deserved or valid), and about the impact of their words and actions.
At first I thought Molly *had* thought about those, and that she *had* the courage to stand behind her convictions.  I agreed with her caricature and applauded it.  I am now disappointed because she chose to back off.  She took a purposely inflammatory stance, standing on her soapbox and rallying people behind her, making herself a focal point for all the righteous indignation people felt...
... and as soon as the consequences of doing that became apparent, she ran and hid.
I'm not scared of 'the Muslims', as you put it.  I fear getting hit by lightning a whole lot more.  I fear the bank that holds my mortgage.  I fear the drivers on the road beside me.  I do not fear terrorism, at all.  I'm not apathetic to it, but I refuse to succumb to the F.U.D. infection that you have obviously been bitten by.
I am *dismayed* by Molly's lack of acceptance of her responsibility.  It upsets me because she *could* have stood her ground and become a symbol -- without being a martyr, even -- for the proponents of free speech.  I feel for her -- it cannot be easy knowing that you are on someone's death list -- but as I've said, that was an easily predictable outcome of her actions, and if she didn't feel comfortable taking that step, then she shouldn't have done so in the first place.  Because I think it does her message more harm than good when she backs down like this.
'Free speech' does not mean 'speech free from responsibility', Logan.  'Free speech' does not mean 'speech free from repercussions'.  Free speech simply means that you are allowed to speak your mind, that your government will not attempt to silence you -- and we, as a country, are outnumbered by those who don't agree with this.  That doesn't make them right any more than it makes us right to enforce *our* views in *their* land.  It simply is a fact.
The FBI and the gov't should be protecting Molly.  I don't believe they should be doing so by recommending she hide, because that sends the wrong message.  It says we are afraid of threats like this.
What I am saying -- all I have been saying, despite your attempts to inject your paranoid views into my opinions -- is that I am disappointed that Molly did not have the courage of her convictions, and her hiding portrays the wrong image.

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Logan Darklighter]

Namecall...? oh. You think I'm actually calling you a coward, rather than saying I think you are advocating cowardly behavior (which - see below). *Sigh* Sorry Spud. Not my intent. But this sort of thing punches my buttons -hard- and I got pissed off. 

What I *am* disturbed by is the overall mentality that people seem to have that makes them not think -- about the consequences of their actions (please note I never once said those consequences were deserved or valid), and about the impact of their words and actions.

Ok. Fair enough.

I'm not scared of 'the Muslims', as you put it.  I fear getting hit by lightning a whole lot more.  I fear the bank that holds my mortgage.  I fear the drivers on the road beside me.  I do not fear terrorism, at all.  I'm not apathetic to it, but I refuse to succumb to the F.U.D. infection that you have obviously been bitten by.

F.U.D.? That -can't- be what my initial thought on the initials came out as. (F--K You Dead? Can't be that.) Fear of something? Whatever it is, I've never seen it before, I don't think.

I am *dismayed* by Molly's lack of acceptance of her responsibility.  It upsets me because she *could* have stood her ground and become a symbol -- without being a martyr, even -- for the proponents of free speech.  I feel for her -- it cannot be easy knowing that you are on someone's death list -- but as I've said, that was an easily predictable outcome of her actions, and if she didn't feel comfortable taking that step, then she shouldn't have done so in the first place.  Because I think it does her message more harm than good when she backs down like this.

'Free speech' does not mean 'speech free from responsibility', Logan.  'Free speech' does not mean 'speech free from repercussions'.  Free speech simply means that you are allowed to speak your mind, that your government will not attempt to silence you -- and we, as a country, are outnumbered by those who don't agree with this.  That doesn't make them right any more than it makes us right to enforce *our* views in *their* land.  It simply is a fact.

The FBI and the gov't should be protecting Molly.  I don't believe they should be doing so by recommending she hide, because that sends the wrong message.  It says we are afraid of threats like this.

What I am saying -- all I have been saying, despite your attempts to inject your paranoid views into my opinions -- is that I am disappointed that Molly did not have the courage of her convictions, and her hiding portrays the wrong image.

Ok - THAT makes much more sense. That I can get behind. It does indeed send the wrong image. I think you and I were approaching the same point but from WILDLY different angles. 

Peace?

[Sofaspud]

I'm not scared of 'the Muslims', as you put it.  I fear getting hit by lightning a whole lot more.  I fear the bank that holds my mortgage.  I fear the drivers on the road beside me.  I do not fear terrorism, at all.  I'm not apathetic to it, but I refuse to succumb to the F.U.D. infection that you have obviously been bitten by.

F.U.D.? That -can't- be what my initial thought on the initials came out as. (F--K You Dead? Can't be that.) Fear of something? Whatever it is, I've never seen it before, I don't think.

F.U.D. - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  It is what the media and the politicians bank on to whip the populace (of any country) into a frenzy.  Instead of appealing to rational thought, it appeals to the emotions.  It is a powerful tool and terrible weapon and I despise the fact that it's become the prime motivator in this "War on Terror" or whatever they want to call it this week.
As for peace... sure.    But I think we have some very disparate beliefs about this entire situation.

--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs

[Rev Dark]

I can not think of a single example in modern times (let's call "modern" to go back to the turn of the previous century - 1900, just for the sake of clarity) of a Christian pastor, priest, bishop, cardinal or any other type or rank of official in any sect of Christianity issuing such a specific type of proclamation that "this person needs to die, and the Church authorizes you to do it". If such a call were made, that official would be drummed out, stripped of his office, and the church would probably cooperate with the state in pressing charges of making death threats. Furthermore, nobody would take such a command seriously.

I can think of several involving the pastors associated with  militant anti-abortion groups calling specifically for the murders of doctors, and cite the assasinations carried out by their members; various christian sects in Africa issuing proclamations in regards to killing witches, with resulting deaths; not to metion Christian pulpits in the former Soviet republics declaring their support for killing Muslims (and different denominations of Christians.) Roman Catholic priests in the Rwandan genocides using their pulpits to declare other tribes as insects to be killed.
So someone indeed took their commands seriously.

[ECSNorway]

FWIW, apparently (so saith Wikipedia, and we all know how reliable that is) her aim in this project was to get as many people as possible to do the same thing, on the principle that "If we keep it up, either they'll make themselves look like idiots trying to keep after us all, or there'll just be too many targets for them to try".

So I'd say, yes, she knew what she was getting into.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Logan Darklighter]

I can not think of a single example in modern times (let's call "modern" to go back to the turn of the previous century - 1900, just for the sake of clarity) of a Christian pastor, priest, bishop, cardinal or any other type or rank of official in any sect of Christianity issuing such a specific type of proclamation that "this person needs to die, and the Church authorizes you to do it". If such a call were made, that official would be drummed out, stripped of his office, and the church would probably cooperate with the state in pressing charges of making death threats. Furthermore, nobody would take such a command seriously.

I can think of several involving the pastors associated with  militant anti-abortion groups calling specifically for the murders of doctors, and cite the assasinations carried out by their members; various christian sects in Africa issuing proclamations in regards to killing witches, with resulting deaths; not to metion Christian pulpits in the former Soviet republics declaring their support for killing Muslims (and different denominations of Christians.) Roman Catholic priests in the Rwandan genocides using their pulpits to declare other tribes as insects to be killed.
So someone indeed took their commands seriously.

I suppose I should have been even more specific. I thought it was obvious from the context that I meant here in the United States, where we practice (and enforce) freedom of religion (and from religion, too). I'm aware of abuses elsewhere. I'm talking about mainstream Christianity as practiced here in North America. (Though I hadn't heard of the bit about the Soviet Churches before. That's interesting. Link?)

And those pastors you mentioned here? Were they not roundly denounced by the rest of the Church? Do most people seriously consider them representative of Christianity as a whole? I'm speaking largely of the majority perception here.

[Black Aeronaut]

I can think of several involving the pastors associated with  militant anti-abortion groups calling specifically for the murders of doctors, and cite the assasinations carried out by their members; various christian sects in Africa issuing proclamations in regards to killing witches, with resulting deaths; not to metion Christian pulpits in the former Soviet republics declaring their support for killing Muslims (and different denominations of Christians.) Roman Catholic priests in the Rwandan genocides using their pulpits to declare other tribes as insects to be killed.

I suppose I should have been even more specific. I thought it was obvious from the context that I meant here in the United States, where we practice (and enforce) freedom of religion (and from religion, too). I'm aware of abuses elsewhere. I'm talking about mainstream Christianity as practiced here in North America. (Though I hadn't heard of the bit about the Soviet Churches before. That's interesting. Link?) 

Unfortunately, what we're dealing with is a culture where freeedom of religeon is an extremely iffy thing, if it even exists at all.  Bear in mind, I'm not refering to Islam in general, just the practitioners that set forth this 'death order'.
My two cents:
Yes, she should have seen this coming, given how extremist groups tend to behave (ie: live beheadings over the internet).
Really, the US should offer her better protection, up to and including giving certain countries the hairy eyeball for permitting a 'church-of-state' to threaten US Citizens, even if it is just the extremist branches.
Islam is used to being slandered (though the moderates do wish some people would stop being so mean-spirited).  It's just the extremists that get out of hand about the matter.
And modern ideals mean nothing to Islamic Extremists.  After all, they're entirely against modern inventions such as television and radio.  (But they'll gladly use guns and RPGs along with their sabers.)  They are all about the 'reformation' of Islam and the world in general.  They won't knock it off until there's a burka on every woman, a minaret on every street corner (of what streets will be left), and everyone bows down to pray five times a day.