Religion of Peace Update (PowerLine)

PowerLine ^ | 2/3/06

[StoneGiant]

 Source: PowerLine



February 03, 2006

Religion of Peace Update

Across the globe, Muslims are protesting the publication of cartoon images of the prophet Mohammed in European newspapers. They're being incited by clerics:

An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.

Demonstrators are carrying belligerent signs, like this one:



This one is completely over the top:



And that was in London, not Gaza.

Meanwhile, the State Department denounced publication of the cartoons:

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

An interesting idea: freedom of the press "must be coupled with press responsibility." Someone tell the New York Times.

The striking thing about the Mohammed cartoons is how mild they are. Most of them are innocuous; probably the most incendiary is one that shows Mohammed's turban as a bomb:


Which is not exactly complimentary, but hardly unfair, given the thousands of people who have been blown up by fervent Muslims purporting to act in Mohammed's name.

The State Department says that publishing cartoons like this one, and even tamer ones, constitutes "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds." Why? These cartoons are very mild commentary by any standard. Compare them, for example, to the vile, anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in the Arab press. The cartoons are said to be offensive because Muslims don't believe in depicting the prophet, even in complimentary ways. I can understand that. Likewise, we Christians don't believe in submerging crufixes in urine, and calling them art. So the Muslims can adhere to their prohibition; but if someone else chooses to draw a picture of the prophet--or, say, eat bacon--it should not be an occasion for threats of genocide. For the State Department to suggest that there is some shadow of legitimacy to the widespread, violent reaction to the cartoons is unfortunate, to say the least.

 

[frankjr]

Here are some other related photos:

Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[Wolfhound777]

The musings of delusional followers of a death cult. If they like death so much, we might be obliged to arrange it for them.

[Desron13]

"And that was in London, not Gaza."

The Brits should have used this opportunity to round up all of these barbarians in filthy nightshirts and ship them off to the islamic paradise of their choice.

[Bubba_Leroy]

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

Of course, if you produce something offensive to the beliefs of Christians, such as Piss Christ, then you can probably get funded through the National Endowment for the Arts.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There are some denominations and churches of christianity who believe that pictures of Jesus are also improper. My own church (which meets in another church) covers up pictures of Jesus, tells its congregation not to go to see movies depicting Jesus, and uses bibles and sunday school materials that do not include pictures of Jesus.

All of this surrounds a (to me, too literal) interpretation of the "make no graven images" restriction of the 2nd amendment.



My point being, there are LOTS of christians in churches where this is the teaching.

So, when's the last time you saw a christian calling for beheading someone for a picture of Christ, or looking to blow up nativity scenes?

No, the big attack on nativities is that bastion of "tolerance", the liberals.

When Christians complained that art was "offensive" to them, we were told to get over it. When muslims threaten to kill people for "offenses", our state department attacks free speech and suggests that every human being on the face of the earth should be required to adhere to muslim religious beliefs.



BTW, THAT'S what it means to have someone's religion forced down your throats -- it's not when someone in front of a school classroom professes their own PERSONAL faith in Christ, or wears a cross, it's when the religioun threatens to kill you, and your own government tells you to obey the religious leaders.

On the other hand, liberals don't have a problem with this, because they believe in the supreme liberty of not having to be "offended" by anything.

[dead]

[Sweetjustusnow]

See this thread on anti semetic cartoons from Arabs

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571090/posts

[Sweetjustusnow]

Bravo. You nailed that one. :)