"Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," said Donohue...
Charlie Heb did cartoons o the Pope half naked and wearing a condom, nuns masturbating with crucifixes, and Our Lord doing things I can't describe. I would be RIGHT to be angry, but not JUSTIFIED in going out and murdering people.
But notice how the Wawa Compost frames it. It says that many have rallied in support of the magazine and its right to free speech...
"But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue...
Bill Donohue has been consistently in favor of free speech and free press, and consistently against obscene provocations (without calling for prior censorship or state suppression of offensive speech.)
But the WaWa Compost has finally put two conservatives into the ring, so to speak, and is now urging, "Let's you an' him fight!"
They just aim to set conservatives to punching each other our.
Amazing how easily they succeed.
Making fine points isn’t the forte of our wondrous modern entertainment media, some of whom aren’t that far above Hebdo.
They succeed because people, even some conservatives on FR, love to have their prejudices stroked. Leftist agitators like the washington compost are really good at stroking peoples' prejudices.
Christians are supposed to ‘turn the other cheek’.
Muslims are supposed to cut your head off....................
What excuse did the Muslims have for 9/11?
It’s as ridiculous as blaming a YouTube video for terrorism.
Muslims are terrorists, period, it’s what they do, it’s what their book tells them to do.
You are a kind person with a big heart and all the best impulses, but Bill Donahue should staple his mouth shut.
Even if I were to admit that anything he said had an iota of truth to it, sometimes, the timing and context of comments can be so egregiously evil as to make even objective truth entirely obscured.
That being said, there is nothing true about what the ass Donahue said.
It is a good general rule not to be gratuitously insulting. However, this rule generally only applies when one is dealing with other individuals who deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are people acting in good faith to participate civilly in a civil society.
It's kind of like the rules of war (although one hopes with a little less bomb-throwing, at least, not literally). We all reciprocate with each other on certain basic concepts, like the inviolability of prisoners of war, the role of non-combatants, the requirement for military personnel to be uniformed in order to reduce civilian casualties, etc.
Thus it is with other civilized people in the discussion of religion and other sensitive topics. I'll try not to abuse your sacred cows if you don't abuse mine.
If we were dealing with civilized people, the ass Donahue would have a point.
But as it stands, Mohametans have no right to be angry. At all. They are by and large savage barbarians, entirely lacking in civilization, and deserve not consideration for their tender sensibilities but rather death in extremely large numbers. However, instead of the mass death they so richly deserve, they receive only mild ridicule. It is ridicule entirely deserved, and no one owes these filthy creatures a damned thing, certainly not an apology.
These verminous human filth believe their god instructs them to murder non-believers, rape their women, and enslave their children (as well as bugger the innocent cattle). They are outside the laws of civilization, and should be treated for the dirty barbarians that they are.
If and when some significant percentage of these savages decide to join humanity, we can reconsider what they deserve, and whether or not we should mock their god, their religion, their beliefs, and their perversions.
Until such time, the ass Donahue should stuff it.
sitetest
Exactly! Thanks for pointing that out.
Never quote a man’s exact words if you set out to make him look like a fool. So not many people will ever read or hear what he actually said.
God is angry enough, in fact, to bother to dig down to why someone might be opposing Him “in ignorance and unbelief.” And to do something about the situation even if it means temporarily blinding that someone.
I can’t say I am 100% sure, but I have a hunch. Because in a small sense I have been there and done that. Militant secularists like Charlie sometimes blame the concept of “religion” or “faith” in general for things that we know are due to the gross abuse of faith. And some of the grossest abusers are Islamic, using it to preach a graceless “God” who asks people “do you feel lucky punk?” We know this is a horrible mistake on their part. It is like blaming the mail for mail bombs, or blaming airplanes for 9/11. But how many Christians out of 100 can show the sort of love that St. Paul told the church in libertine Corinth was being extended by the Lord every minute, waiting to be reflected? Maybe if some of the Charlie people had met Christians like that they might have reconsidered what they were doing. We’ll never know on this mortal coil.