Posted on 05/17/2005 10:53:24 AM PDT by UpStateNY
Isn't it interesting that the Koran in the toilet (which didn't happen, apparently) constitutes desecration and a crucifix in a bottle of urine gets a government grant? Does that seem strange to anyone else?
Yes:
So, the LEFT doesn't like desecration of religious icons? (Vanity)
Yes...yes it does.
Anti-Christianity is the last "safe" bigotry in America.
Too disgusting to discuss.
Just like lesser nations, false religions cannot allow scrutiny or disrespect.
Let freedom ring.
What if I paint a smiley face on my Koran before I flush it?
No, I accept it.
You can burn an American flag, dip Christian symbols in urine, and all of that is OK... but an allegation of a book maybe being desecrated and people are killed over it.
Do not destroy a book, but go right ahead and kill that unborn baby.
The world of liberals.
But we share some of the blame. Christians have become too "tolerant" of this sort of thing. We're expected to sit back and take it. If we reacted with 1/100th the passion and outrage of the Muslims, it would put an end to such desecration overnight.
Bashing Christians is not only safe, but encouraged by the left in this country. Not suprising at all.
Nevertheless, can you imagine the outrage in the strange world that is Islam if an artist created a P*ss Mohammed?
Cortez is treated as a universal villain, and I'm not going to argue on his behalf here. But over the course of time the Spanish and their Christian message did civilize some very, very nasty people.
Yet I'm pretty sure that if the Aztecs were still down there kidnapping American tourists and cutting out their hearts, the leftists would be proclaiming that it was all our fault for oppressing them, just as it is our fault that Muslims kidnap Americans and cut off their heads.
Here's an interesting quotation taken from the website from which I have borrowed the following picture: "Russell Means, as noted in a review of his book, 'Where White Men Fear To Tread', in 'The New Republic' magazine, July 8, 1996, pg. 37-41. Pg 38: 'Means maintains, for example, that it is a Eurocentric lie that Aztec sacrificed captives by ripping their hearts out: they had secret drugs, he says, and were actually practicing open heart surgery'."
Illustration from the Codex Duran, at a website which argues that the Aztecs were really very nice people who have been maligned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601320.html
Did you all know about the new rules the Pentagon enforced concerning the handling of the Koran?
Here's a piece of the article:
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
"The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal "respect and reverence," and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book "due to cultural associations with the left hand." The Koran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art," it says."
Read it all...
Russell Means is a meathead.
No, I've read enough.
Thanks.
What goes around, comes around. I think Koran urinal targets are in order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.