« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

An Opportunity To Appease

Now that a hapless, and moderately untalented, filmmaker has been rousted out his bed a something after 1am and taken by a half dozen or so sheriff’s deputies to an “interview” with his parole officer, the Obama administration has another neat-o opportunity to appease Islamic Rage Boy and his confreres.

The “spiritual leader” of Lebanese Hezbollah has called for an international law preventing Islamic butthurt.

In a move that could escalate tensions around the Arab world, the leader of the Hezbollah militant group called for protests against the movie and said the U.S. must be held accountable for the film.

In a televised speech, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah pushed for the creation of an international law that would ban insults of Islam and other religions, citing similar laws that exist to prevent anti-Semitism.

One hardly knows where to start with this. Most of the practitioners of Islam as it is practiced in the wild, not the sensitive and gentle Religion of Peace version we were introduced to circa 2001, specialize in the slaughter of the adherents to non-Islamic religions. Were Nasrallah serious he could take a huge first step by advocating freedom of worship and freedom of religion in the Arab world.

Of course that isn’t the issue. Nasrallah knows his man. Obama is distrustful of American power and American culture and will not take any meaningful step to use the first or defend the latter.

Oddly enough, former British Prime Minister actually gets the issue correct on a couple of levels.

Mr Blair, now Middle East envoy for the Quartet of powers, said: ‘The film, it may be wrong and offensive but it is also laughable as a piece of film-making.

‘What I am afraid is very dangerous and actually is wrong is the reaction to it.’

He is correct.

What is wrong in reaction to this film, to the extent it is actually a problem, is the contrived outrage and riots in the Arab world.

What is dangerous about this reaction it the way this administration has contrived to use this non-issue as a way to seek to severely circumscribe speech permissible under the First Amendment. From their failure to defend American values in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to the disavowing of the speech of a private citizen, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a Florida pastor to get him to moderate his speech, this administration had declared a basic American freedom off limits.

Lest you think I am being overly dramatic, consider this:

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Pam Geller boils it all down:

    http://sheikyermami.com/2012/09/15/pamela-geller-you-cannot-ask-me-to-sacrifice-my-freedom-so-as-not-to-offend-savages/

    Then watch this lecture by Stephen Coughlin, who was fired from his job at the Pentagon in 2008 because he would not “soften” his descriptions about the Muslim Brotherhood and Org. of Islamic Cooperation jihad strategies against the West and the U.S., that explains who are Muslim enemies are,
    their strategy, and what our government is NOT doing about it:

    http://sheikyermami.com/2012/09/14/a-lecture-with-stephen-coughlin/

    Coughlin was fired in 2008 after he published ““TO OUR GREAT DETRIMENT”: IGNORING WHAT EXTREMISTS SAY ABOUT JIHAD,” found here:

    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

    To put things in perspective regarding how members of some religions react to depictions of their revered prophets or deities, here’s an article I came across at the web site above that hosts the Coughlin lecture video.

    The article includes a very “insulting”
    cartoon/drawing of Moses, Jesus, Ganesha and Buddha, but not Mohammed,
    engaging together in various sex acts — and then making the point that
    even though the cartoon/drawing was all over the internet, not one
    member of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist
    faiths harmed as much as one hair on anyone’s head because of it. I’ll
    spare you having to look at the ridiculous drawing but here’s the text
    of the article:

    WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the
    most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted
    engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was
    murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported
    Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ
    as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by
    Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his
    fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single
    bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the
    person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way.
    Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths
    were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon
    seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and
    continued on with their day.

    I was offended by the government-funded Piss Christ “art.” But I wasn’t going to harm anyone physically over it.

    Our First Amendment rights trump hurt feelings. Sorry.

    Thanks,
    CW

  • westcoastpatriette

    Martin…could you be so kind as to educate us on what (SAW) means?

    And as an aside, you keep comparing non-sexual pictures of Muslims to sexual images and try to tell us it is the same but it just isn’t. I think maybe you will have to adjust your views and stop being easily offended. That is part of living in a free country. We all do things that offend each other sometimes and we have to deal with it.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Martin, you and your fellow Muslims could not possibly hold Muhammad in higher regard than a believing, practicing Christian holds Jesus. If you think that you can, you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that Christians living in America are, for the most part, grown-ups who understand and practice tolerance of others, even if those “others” are blaspheming Christ. I personally recommend intense psychotherapy to you and those like you if you can’t just brush it off. Grow up!

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    I don’t think you’re going to get an answer from Martin, but the SAW is “Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam” which is the equivalent of “peace be upon him.”

  • westcoastpatriette

    I thought it was something like that. Thanks.

  • Cornholio

    I appreciate the Sardonic humor, but the implied suggestion that we should assasinate this Muslim gentlemen simply because he asks that a picture of Mohammed be removed is obviously wrong and immoral.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    You name offends me. Please remove it from this post.

  • M_Becker

    There was no humor intended. Not only am I deadly serious, I would personally push the button to release and fire the missile. Preferably when he’s in front of a large and adoring crowd.

  • jamesm

    You speak too highly of that swine Nasrallah. Gentlemen is the wrong word. This swine should be judged at the fair. Ooops.. did I say swine. Now I think my opionion is too high.

  • jamesm

    Martin,
    I truly respect your freedom to worship even though I know that Islam is the deceivers religion. In fact one of the 99 names of the Prophet means “The Great Deceiver”. We are Americans and are a strong, bold and honorable people. Our right to speak freely and openly is more precious than Muslims can understand. Americans will begin to understand the true nature of Islam and the threat it is to our civilization. Our civilization trumps your hurt feelings. We do not bow to no man. To us your prophet is a man. To me he is a butcher.
    Respectfully

  • Martin Knight

    The sexual/non-sexual thing is not the point – I’m trying to point out that it is that offensive to us.

    Would it make a difference if I said it is like having the picture of a mutilated corpse being flashed all over our screens?

    PS: rickbull is right – SAW means Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him).

  • Martin Knight

    Hello rick.

    Do not be confused – I am one of many Muslims who realizes that the persons who go about drawing denigrating pictures or shooting blasphemous movies of the Prophet do a lot less harm to Islam than the idiots going out on murderous rampages using Islam as their justification.

    But that does not make that picture any less painful. I’m not going to go on a murderous rampage, or suffer a mental breakdown over it. I’m simply asking that it be taken down.

    If not, okay. Allah (SWT) is all-knowing.

  • Martin Knight

    Errr … 99 names of the Prophet? You’re obviously a little confused.

  • jamesm

    Errr…No….Absolutely not..
    kheir ol makarein
    Suras 8:30 and 10:21

  • kipling

    mbecker is calling for the assassination of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah. He is not calling for the assassination of the poster Martin Knight who asked for the picture of Mohammed to be removed. The sort function simply made it appear so.

  • Martin Knight

    Yes. All are disgusting … And?

  • Martin Knight

    And yet, I’ve been living in Western civilization quite fine.

    This is obviously hard for you to understand, but it is extremely distressing for a Muslim to see the Prophet (SAW) denigrated. You may or may not agree, but that’s just the way it is.

    By the way; I signed up on RedState five years ago. I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a Muslim. So if you’re terrified that I exist, perhaps you can try having me banned …

  • Martin Knight

    Context is your friend, james.

    What did God do to Sodom and Gommorah?

  • Martin Knight

    Becker – Can you please point out anywhere, at any time, I have claimed that Muslims have the right to demand that anyone dies? I disagree with that – I’ve seen no evidence that the Prophet (SAW) ever commanded that anyone be put to death for insulting him.

    In fact, I have seen Hadith of the highest strength where the Prophet (SAW) warned his wife that she (and by extension all Muslims) should not respond to such provocations when he was insulted and cursed at.

    I honestly believe the Prophet (SAW) seeing the death and destruction being engaged in and justified in his name would be nothing less than ashamed of the people doing this and calling themselves Muslims.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    You haven’t Martin and I don’t find anywhere I’ve said you did. My comment related only to the difference in response to affronts between Muslims and other religious groups.

    With respect to what the Prophet might or might not react to is neither here nor there. What the issue is, is what people who use his name are reacting to and the way they are reacting.

    It’s unacceptable, and it’s not recent history that this behavior started. It’s time to stop it and if the group won’t bring the animals to heel someone else needs to.

  • jamesm

    Genesis 18-19

    What about Noah? Genesis 6-9
    context: New Covenant

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    My question to you is this: what makes you think that the drawing featured on the front page with this story is supposed to be Muhammad? To me, it looks an awful lot like Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, whose picture, I believe, is featured at the top of this diary. Have you seen pictures of Muhammad (paintings or drawings)? You make the assumption that the drawing is Muhammad, but it is never stated, nor even implied in the text of the diary. It seems to me that you are simply looking for something to be offended by.

  • jamesm

    mbecker908 and M-Becker? Will the real slim shady please stand up

  • streiff

    actually that is not true. The cartoon is the famous Danish cartoon of Mohammed that was banned in Europe because of fear of peaceful muslims.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    What I stated, though, is true. Nowhere in your diary is the Danish cartoon even mentioned. Had Martin not already seen the cartoon elsewhere, your diary gave him no reason to infer that it was his prophet.