Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Muhammad and The Maverick Conservative: French Beat Me to It, or Were They INSPIRED by Me?

News story this morning;  France will close 20 of its embassies across the Muslim world, fearing a "backlash"  against a "cartoon" in a French weekly picturing a NAKED Muhammad.

Readers of this blog know that I have been tryinbg to figure out a way to "publish" some cartoons of Muhammad--drawing cvhallenged and tech challenged that I am--in PROTEST of both the MUSLLIM INTOLERANCE in the world and our MEDIA antoganonism toward free speech (blamng American and Americans first for MUSLIM INTOLERANCE).  It is distressing that the FRENCH beat me to it.

Oh, did you think I was kidding abut there benig BLOOD on the hands of Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burneett, th eothers at CNN, and the rest of our mainstream media?  Think again.  Tis same story said that there are ow DOZENS DEAD as a result of this "unrest" in the Muslm world.  You are wrong if yu think the reacitn of our media, an dthe Obama Administratin, has nothing to do with the BLOOD spilt, and bwhich is continuing to be spilt, in Muslim world.  This is what happens when ou do not PUSH BACK against inttolerance, but instad BLAME FREE SPEECH and EXCUSE the violence.  Again, you peoile have BLOOD on your hands, and you will have more. 

You may find this hard to believe, but I am not as EXTREME as this French weekly.  If they were acting on my inspiration, they took he concept farther than I would have taken it.  I wanted to do SATIRIC cartoons of Muhammad, but I find it to be something of a gratuitous 'insult" to picture Muhammad NAKED.  However, as I have stated , that is in the EYE OF THE BEHHOLDER (as is always ture of free speech). I cnaz see why a person PROTESTING about MUSLIM INTOERLANCE, and in favor of free speech, would believe that the bestg "satire" would be a cartoon shwong Muchammad NAKED.  After all, for someone who is NOT a Msulim--and Mulsims have NO right' to CONTUROL US-Muhammad's (he is DEAD) naked body is LESS "sacred" tahn that of, say, Kate Middleton. Windsor (or whatever the last name of the duchess married to Prince William now is--Duchess of York?  Just what is her LAST NAME now, or is that a nonsense question? Shows how much I keep up with the Royal Family in Britain, and the terminology).

The point here--ginored by our truly STUPID and EVIL media--is that it is CERTAIN that peole who believe in, and/or engage in, freee speech are gong to OFFEND Muslim extremists.  That means that unless we get across the message to these Muslm extremists--and many not so very "extrfeme"--that their REACTION to free speech is UNACCPETABLE to US, then we are gong to face EVER-ESCALAING violence that KILLS peoople. 

Unless we ABANDON free speech, as our anti-American, evil media appears perfectly willing to do,  it is INEVITABLE that free speech SOMEWHER, by SOMENE, is going tro "offend" Msulims.  Again, it is UNACCEPTABLE for Muslims to keep responding to free pseech they don''t like (in places where it is LEGAL and an important principle) with VIOLENCE and HATRED.

Message to lyou Muslims out there who insist on imposing YOUR views of religioni on everyone else;  Do you REALLY believe in God if you can't rely on GOD to take care of people who "insult" your religion?  Prtty insecure and not very strong in your faith, aren't yu?  You find that "offensive"?  TAK TO THE HAND.  I don't care.  The Christian Church has long ago got beyond the AROGANT, INSECURE credo of the Inquisition:  that it is up to MEN to ENFORCE the LAWS OF GOD, and to "protect" GOD from "insult'.  Notice that I am not talbkng about the "laws" of God involving proper CONDUCT among men, which Musim extremists are violating every ay in the most blatant way.  I am talking about HERESY and BLASPHEMY.  Nope.  Abortin is NOT a "reiligious issue", nay more than murder in general is such.  But the "sacrfedness" of Muhamad, or such things as the "pripartite" nature of God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are RELIGIOUS.  God is perfectly capble of acting against HERESY, UNBEIEF and BLASPHEMY.  If you, as a religious person, are not willing to levave PUNISHMENT for such things up to GOD, then you don't really BELIEVE in God at all (in my view). You are INTOLERANT and INSECURE in yhur beliefs: perverting religion into a game of POOER and FORCE.  Notge that I actaully respect "fundamentalist" religious peole, who actually BELIOEVE  in their religin, more than I do peole who jsut profess to "believe" for practical and social reasons.  Thus, I respect peole who actually try to CONVERT others to their religin.  If lyou BELIEVE tghat your religin is the only, or best, way for a person to get to Heaven, and avoid eternal damnatino, is it not your DUTY to CONVERT everyone you an--for their own good?  Sure it is.  But it is NOT your duty to PUNISH people forr not having the RLIGIOUS beliefs that you do . That uis up to GOD, if yu really believe in God.  Don't you Muslims believe that Allah is up to the job? 

Again, Christian churches--almost ALL of them, no matter how "fundamentalist--have moved BEYOND the intolerant Christian Church of the Inquisitn, where HERESY was a crime punishable by death,  Too many Muslims have NOT moved beyond the ideology of the Inquisition, as applied to their religion.  Itg is WRONG of hem to apply this intolerance in their woun countries.  It is UNACCEPTABLE for them to try to applly this attitude woward fEE PEOLE in OTHER COUNTRIES.

If we don't snd the clear message that this is unacceptab be, as our media and present President are not, then we have BLOOD ohn our hands and have betrayed the verfy principles upon which his country was founded:.  "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Or:  Millions for defesne, not one cent for tribute."  Hve we really fallen as fAR as our media would indciate? I hope not . If we have, we eserve what we get.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: