http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslims-torch-loot-buddhist-holy-sites-in-bangladesh-over-alleged-facebook-photo/
Hat tip to The Blaze.
To make an historical comparison, I have to think that in the last three or four years Muslims have destroyed more non-Muslims houses of worship than early Christians ever did in all their years when they turned on Greco-Roman temples or Germanic and Celtic oak-groves in northern Europe.
Not to justify the acts of early Christians, but at least part of their frustration had been due to the periodic persecutions that they had suffered.
The trigger for the destruction of at least 10 Buddhist temples, with two of which dating back 300 years?
It was a photo of a burned Koran that had been posted on Facebook.
Although I have often criticized the Koran, Mohammed and Islam, I am personally against destroying Korans or making major public pronouncements in a manner that is likely to result in people being attacked or houses of worship being targeted. I know that I am mincing words, but I try to walk the fine line of getting the facts out while doing my best to avoid acting in a manner that may result in someone or something being destroyed by proxy for what I did.
That is why I tore Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones apart:
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/10/koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones.html
The main point of the above posted link is that Jones, if he really was a man and wanted to make a splash for burning a Koran, should have traveled to a Muslim-majority country for his act and taken his lumps there. Instead, he did it while safely ensconced in the US with, for example, some Coptic girl in Egypt getting gang-raped for what he did.
What we do need to ensure is that the US does not move to pass hate speech laws, which will prohibit us from saying anything derogatory about Islam. Such laws the goal of those who destroy and attack. They are like abusive spouses who terrorize their partner and blame the victim for making them act that way.
Again, there is no such thing as incitement unless one walks up to a Mosque or a Muslim guy's home and tells him what Mohammed was. If one does so and gets punched in the nose, then that is his problem and he can pursue legal measures. No act can "incite" someone to harm an innocent or an uninvolved non-Muslim house of worship. Any claim to the contrary is a lie.
These acts of terror by supposedly insulted Muslim are those of base cowards.
The Hot Gates - 480BC. An event that was to determine what path much of the Western World would follow occurred as the Persian army threatened to overwhelm Greece in 480BC. The West today again faces both external and internal threats to its identity and existence.
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Norwegian Cop on "Innocence of Muslims" Film
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/police-dhimmitude-in-oslo.html
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.
When I watched this video, one phrase came to mind.
"Oh calm, dishonorable, vile, submission."
Those words, spoken by Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, sum up the groveling for which we in the West have jostled each other to be the first or the most profusely apologetic whenever Muslims commit acts of violence in response to insults, be they real or perceived.
Mercutio, unaware that his cousin was already married to Juliet and therefore now related to Tybalt (Also unaware of the nuptials), uttered this phrase after witnessing Romeo speaking kindly to Tybalt, who has been insulting him. The doomed newlyweds had not made their families aware of the marriage. Thinking that Romeo was acting cowardly towards Tybalt, Mercutio is disgusted with Romeo's responses to Tybalt's insults such as "Though art a villein".
"What are you doing Romeo? You are making us look like a family of cowards!"
In the video in the link at top, a Norwegian police official sees fit to appear before a group of Muslim men and make it clear that he and his colleagues "reject" the film "Innocence of Muslims. I did not see anything in the translation that looked like and actual apology, but the point is the same - someone aggravates Muslims, and others have to step forward to placate them to prevent bloodshed and destruction of property.
The situation has become ridiculous. The Islamic mindset sees such acts not as conciliatory but as signs of weakness. The idea is that, by making it clear that they will kill people for saying things about their religion or prophet that they do not like, they can force others into silence or to be supplicants who beg for mercy. By doing so, they are effectively the conquering party.
In ancient Greece, it was understood that the side that requested a truce after the battle to recover the bodies of the slain was admitting to be the losing party. The winning side held the battlefield, so it was their decision to allow or deny the collection of the dead.
Every instance of apologies, disassociating from anti-Islamic drawings/movies/writings, or rejections of those acts brings us closer to a worldwide prohibition of any offensive speech. None of this endears us to the House of Islam. To the contrary, it emboldens them. They will still be able to denounce Christianity and Judaism, while we will face civil or criminal penalties for such actions - all this because we are afraid of their reactions.
I am not a Muslim, therefore their is no reason why I or any other non-Muslims cannot say or write anything derogatory about Mohammed or Islam. If the US adopts any legislation that prohibits such free speech or allows civil lawsuits due to such speech, there is no limit to what else can be prohibited.
I fear for the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who live in Muslim-majority countries and have to suffer the consequences of Islamic tolerance as a result of the film. If Russia* does not step in to protect these people, then she and/or other majority-Christian nations (Orthodox in particular come to mind) need to help evacuate them and give them new homes. It will be immeasurably better and appropriate to do so than to import hordes of Muslims into the same countries, where they will expect more apologies and proskenesis. It would be a sort of reverse of the uplift of the Ethiopian Jews; instead of bringing Jews back to their homelands, the minorities will be removed from their homelands.
Then we can close all of our embassies and other diplomatic offices in Muslim-majority nations. Let them go bananas among themselves.
-On my call for Russia to take the lead in protecting Christians and others in the Near/Middle East.
*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-for-russia-to-protect-christians.html
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.
When I watched this video, one phrase came to mind.
"Oh calm, dishonorable, vile, submission."
Those words, spoken by Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, sum up the groveling for which we in the West have jostled each other to be the first or the most profusely apologetic whenever Muslims commit acts of violence in response to insults, be they real or perceived.
Mercutio, unaware that his cousin was already married to Juliet and therefore now related to Tybalt (Also unaware of the nuptials), uttered this phrase after witnessing Romeo speaking kindly to Tybalt, who has been insulting him. The doomed newlyweds had not made their families aware of the marriage. Thinking that Romeo was acting cowardly towards Tybalt, Mercutio is disgusted with Romeo's responses to Tybalt's insults such as "Though art a villein".
"What are you doing Romeo? You are making us look like a family of cowards!"
In the video in the link at top, a Norwegian police official sees fit to appear before a group of Muslim men and make it clear that he and his colleagues "reject" the film "Innocence of Muslims. I did not see anything in the translation that looked like and actual apology, but the point is the same - someone aggravates Muslims, and others have to step forward to placate them to prevent bloodshed and destruction of property.
The situation has become ridiculous. The Islamic mindset sees such acts not as conciliatory but as signs of weakness. The idea is that, by making it clear that they will kill people for saying things about their religion or prophet that they do not like, they can force others into silence or to be supplicants who beg for mercy. By doing so, they are effectively the conquering party.
In ancient Greece, it was understood that the side that requested a truce after the battle to recover the bodies of the slain was admitting to be the losing party. The winning side held the battlefield, so it was their decision to allow or deny the collection of the dead.
Every instance of apologies, disassociating from anti-Islamic drawings/movies/writings, or rejections of those acts brings us closer to a worldwide prohibition of any offensive speech. None of this endears us to the House of Islam. To the contrary, it emboldens them. They will still be able to denounce Christianity and Judaism, while we will face civil or criminal penalties for such actions - all this because we are afraid of their reactions.
I am not a Muslim, therefore their is no reason why I or any other non-Muslims cannot say or write anything derogatory about Mohammed or Islam. If the US adopts any legislation that prohibits such free speech or allows civil lawsuits due to such speech, there is no limit to what else can be prohibited.
I fear for the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who live in Muslim-majority countries and have to suffer the consequences of Islamic tolerance as a result of the film. If Russia* does not step in to protect these people, then she and/or other majority-Christian nations (Orthodox in particular come to mind) need to help evacuate them and give them new homes. It will be immeasurably better and appropriate to do so than to import hordes of Muslims into the same countries, where they will expect more apologies and proskenesis. It would be a sort of reverse of the uplift of the Ethiopian Jews; instead of bringing Jews back to their homelands, the minorities will be removed from their homelands.
Then we can close all of our embassies and other diplomatic offices in Muslim-majority nations. Let them go bananas among themselves.
-On my call for Russia to take the lead in protecting Christians and others in the Near/Middle East.
*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-for-russia-to-protect-christians.html
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
More Efforts to Suppress Criticism of Islam
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2734/criminalize-free-speech
The EU has offered to be the next host for the ongoing Istanbul Process conferences. These are intended to create an environment where criticism of, for example, "recognized religions" is effectively prohibited, Those who are behind these efforts plan to use the UN resolution described below as their vehicle to have cristicsim of Islam legally defined to fall under 'hate speech' laws in Western Europe (already accomplished) and hopefully the US and remainder of the West.
Note that somehow the Koran, which in and of itself is a tremendous source of hate speech against Jews, Christians, and others, is apparently never on the table for discussion when this subject is brought up.
The following is a quote from the Stonegate article for which a link is provided on top:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I noted in an earlier post (October 21, 2011), Obama's Department of Justice hosted a number of Muslim groups that petitioned the US to consider enacting legislation to essentially whittle away at our First Amendment rights. Speaking factually of Islam, let alone exaggerating or lying about it, is more than enough to make that institution look very bad. Muslims who want to go about pretending to belong to a group based on peace-loving and tolerant principles have little choice but to try to get everyone else to shut up if they don't want their houses of cards to be knocked down by the rigorous scholarship of, say, reading of or bringing attention to lines in the Koran.
A number of people in Western Europe have been prosecuted for criminal charges for violations of hate speech laws simply because they had the gall to make factual statements about Islam. In fact, the courts took pains to note that, for example, Elisabeth Sabaditsch - Wolff's statements about Mohammed's performance of sexual intercourse on his nine year-old wife were determined to be factual, but her conclusion that he was a pedophile had gone too far. A video of an interview with Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff may be seen on the link below:
http://english.savefreespeech.org/?p=452
Americans have but little choice to ensure that we do not lose our right to free expression. If a shameless, sheep-like, dope from New Hampshire is not only not embarrassed to freely admit that he does not agree with the motto "Live Free or Die" and is consequently allowed to cover up that motto on his license plate, then those who actually do believe that freedom is worth defending have to stand up for our right to live in a free manner.
The EU has offered to be the next host for the ongoing Istanbul Process conferences. These are intended to create an environment where criticism of, for example, "recognized religions" is effectively prohibited, Those who are behind these efforts plan to use the UN resolution described below as their vehicle to have cristicsim of Islam legally defined to fall under 'hate speech' laws in Western Europe (already accomplished) and hopefully the US and remainder of the West.
Note that somehow the Koran, which in and of itself is a tremendous source of hate speech against Jews, Christians, and others, is apparently never on the table for discussion when this subject is brought up.
The following is a quote from the Stonegate article for which a link is provided on top:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I noted in an earlier post (October 21, 2011), Obama's Department of Justice hosted a number of Muslim groups that petitioned the US to consider enacting legislation to essentially whittle away at our First Amendment rights. Speaking factually of Islam, let alone exaggerating or lying about it, is more than enough to make that institution look very bad. Muslims who want to go about pretending to belong to a group based on peace-loving and tolerant principles have little choice but to try to get everyone else to shut up if they don't want their houses of cards to be knocked down by the rigorous scholarship of, say, reading of or bringing attention to lines in the Koran.
A number of people in Western Europe have been prosecuted for criminal charges for violations of hate speech laws simply because they had the gall to make factual statements about Islam. In fact, the courts took pains to note that, for example, Elisabeth Sabaditsch - Wolff's statements about Mohammed's performance of sexual intercourse on his nine year-old wife were determined to be factual, but her conclusion that he was a pedophile had gone too far. A video of an interview with Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff may be seen on the link below:
http://english.savefreespeech.org/?p=452
Americans have but little choice to ensure that we do not lose our right to free expression. If a shameless, sheep-like, dope from New Hampshire is not only not embarrassed to freely admit that he does not agree with the motto "Live Free or Die" and is consequently allowed to cover up that motto on his license plate, then those who actually do believe that freedom is worth defending have to stand up for our right to live in a free manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)