Radical Muslims Attack Paris — and Freedom Everywhere

BernardGoldberg.com ^ | January 7, 2015 | Bernard Goldberg

[magellan]

On September 30, 2005 a newspaper in Denmark Jyllands-Posten published an article under the headline, "The face of Muhammad" – an article that included 12 cartoons of the prophet.

After the cartoons were published there were riots in many cities around the world.

On February 7, 2006, the New York Times ran an editorial, explaining why the newspaper of record would not show its readers the cartoons. "The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems as reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words."

One day later – one day! – the very same New York Times published a story on "the power of imagery" in which it showed a picture of a painting by Chris Ofili called "Holy Virgin Mary," which depicted Mary covered in elephant dung and little cutouts of pornographic pictures.

On February 7 the Times was concerned about "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." On February 8 it showed a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant crap.

Why was it okay to show a piece of art that offends Christians but not a cartoon that offends Muslims? We know the answer, of course. It takes no courage to offend Christian sensibilities. Angry Christians won't firebomb the Times Building. But let's be clear: The Times was right when it published "Holy Virgin Mary" since the painting had caused a great deal of controversy. But so did the Danish cartoons. Appeasing radical Muslims doesn't make them more reasonable. Now we have Paris.

[magellan]

Edited for brevity. Entire article at link. Bernard nails it.

[wastedyears]

Those crazy Amish, at it again.

[Travis McGee]

[Uversabound]

ANNIHILATION. PERIOD.

[Biggirl]

Look for those cartoons to show up online. The Muslims lose again.

[Ouderkirk]

The only good muslim, is a dead muslim

[Norm Lenhart]

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

Dan Simmons saw this coming. Fiction but a must read for everyone.

[Paine in the Neck]

‘Muslims’, Bernie. Just ‘muslims’. Drop the ‘radical’. There are just two kinds of muslims. Those who have the nerve to do what their ‘religion’ requires and those who don’t.

[LeonardFMason]

So SIMPLE. Everyone, EVERYWHERE should display as many silly picture of the Pedo....I mean Prophet MooHAMid as possible. If there are 500,000,000 targets your chances of being attacked are very small.

[ManHunter]

Yet another “peaceful protest” by adherents to the “religion of peace” and the White House continues to vacillate...

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The White House criticized French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2012 for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney questioned the magazine’s judgment after publishing images of Muhammad naked. “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” Carney told reporters in September 2012.

And from the White House today, “...Islam is a peaceful religion.”

Any objections from the White House on caricatures of Christ, Christians, Jews or any other religion that isn’t massacring countless numbers of defenseless civilians...?

[Dagnabitt]

For a while there will be more online postings of the cartoons (the main one of muhammad below). But major newspapers will be even more fearful and more self-censoring from here on out. The Muslims are winning big time in their efforts to beat down the West into Sharia compliance.

[kjam22]

I probably have a couple of different thoughts. These guys sit in their building and insult a variety of religions as part of their job. Freedom says they can. Freedom says the government can't do anything about it. In a polite world they don't make a living insulting people (many they don't even know). But we're in a not so polite world and they're exercising their right to say what they want without government intervention. But also, in a not so polite world someone gets pissed off about it and shoots them.

You know... It probably all goes with the territory.

[Biggirl]

Even so, the Muslims are losing again. Go do a search engine search for Mohammed cartoons and they will be found regardless of what the newspapers do. So it will be more of a victory for the internet.

[kjam22]

But major newspapers will be even more fearful and more self-censoring from here on out

But think about it. You walk in a bar and there is a really big guy with his wife or girlfriend.... and she is really really hot. You self-censor. You don't say anything to her to try and pick her up. You don't stare at her. You self self-censor because you don't want the guy to start a fight with you.

Everyone self-censors. It doesn't hurt papers to self-censor now and then either.

[Salvation]

*8Why was it okay to show a piece of art that offends Christians but not a cartoon that offends Muslims? We know the answer, of course. It takes no courage to offend Christian sensibilities. Angry Christians won’t firebomb the Times Building. **

BTTT!

[grumpa]

WHY MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT

This is pretty straight forward folks. There are peaceful Muslims, but there is no such thing as peaceful Islam. Violence is not an aberration in Islam—it is DOCTRINE. Dozens of passages in the Quran exhort Muslims to hate or kill or terrorize infidels (non-Muslims) wherever they find them. For examples, see Suras 2:190-193, 2:216, 2:244, 3:56, 3:142, 3:151, 4:56, 4:74 (beheading), 4:76, 4:84, 4:89, 4:91, 4:95, 4:104, 5:51, 5:32-38, 7:96-99, 8:12-15 (beheading), 8:39, 8:57-60, 8:65-67, 9:5, 9:14, 9:20-30, 9:38-41, 9:73, 9:88, 9:111, 9:123, 17:16, 18:65-81, 21:44, 22:18-22, 25:52, 33:60-62, 47:3-4 (beheading), 47:35, 48:16-17, 48:29, 61:4, and 66:8-12. These are the passages that jihadists quote in defense of their horrible atrocities. Unlike the Old Testament, violence in the Quran is mostly open-ended, that is, not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding events.

While there are a couple of passages that Muslims point to that might suggest peaceful solutions (Suras 2:256, 29:46, 41:34), these are overwhelmed by the violent ones. Indeed, the peaceful passages were abrogated by the violent ones—because the violent ones were written later, after Muhammad’s move to Medina (from Mecca). Anyone who wants to commit acts of violence has perfect justification for doing so from the Quran. There is nothing in the Quran comparable to Jesus’ teachings to “turn the other cheek” and to “love your neighbor.”

You can look these passages up for yourself. Below is a site that has three translations of the Quran side-by-side. (Note: English translators of the Quran sometimes try to soften the true Arabic meaning of some of these passages. For example, to “fight” really means to kill in Arabic.)

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran

In addition to the Quran are the hadiths. These are collections of sayings and actions of Muhammad. Indeed, Muhammad was one of the most violent men in history, setting the example for all Muslims to follow. See this link:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

For more information, see our Faith Facts article:

http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/christianity-vs.-islam

[Biggirl]

Inspired by the devil shall we ask?

[Magic Fingers]

“But also, in a not so polite world someone gets pissed off about it and shoots them. You know... It probably all goes with the territory.”

It’s far too “polite” a (politically correct) world. If it were really “not so polite” there would be an all-out war on murderous Muslims.

[Dagnabitt]

Peddle your surrender elsewhere.

[Biggirl]

Except online there is a certain “freedom” that you do not see in the real world.