The Bigsibling Blog

Linda S. Heard wrote in the Gulf News web-site - which I believe when they say "gulf" they mean Persian Gulf, not down Mississippi way because when one clicks "Nation" for national news, they get news about the UAE - in which she calls freedom of speech an "Admirable Concept" and explains how the West doesn’t really have free speech.

The main point of her misguided, but very well written rant, is that while we may think we have free speech, we really don’t. She cites some hate-speech examples in Europe. She believes that some US states have laws against blasphemy which, I have to see to believe. The whole wall between church and state that the left is just so nuts about would seem to impede any laws regarding blasphemy. I could be wrong (but I’m not).

She spends a bit of her time with Geert Wilders’ movie "FITNA" which is causing quite a ruckus with those peace loving followers of Mohamed. So peace loving in fact, that Wilders is under state protection in the Netherlands, and the Dutch are preparing for the worst when the film is finally released.

She states if the Dutch government really wanted to stop the film from being shown, they could. Which is completely false. All Wilders has to do is release the film in the USA, from US servers. See, as much as Heard wants to believe that our first amendment is an "Admiral Concept", what she doesn’t, and probably will never understand, is that it is so much more than that. It is sacred. Freedom of speech…religion…to peaceably assemble…these are not concepts. These are not some high ideals that we only strive for. These are not the edicts of ayatollahs and imams that will get us into heaven, but which are nigh impossible to attain.

Jesus said that if we only had the faith to fill a mustard seed, we could command a mountain to move, and it would move. But in reality, that kind of faith is simply unattainable in the human realm, with our limited mind and inability to fully comprehend God in all his glory. Something similar to Heard I think. She simply cannot (or more probably will not) comprehend 1) what this freedom is; and 2) what it actually and truly means to us, as Americans.

There is a reason the framers of our country placed that amendment first. It is the most important of all the freedoms they have guaranteed for us. That document was drafted with copious debate, and nothing is in there, or placed, by accident. Every letter, every piece of punctuation, is intentional. It is where it is supposed to be.

She claims that Wilders’ film will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups:

Furthermore, it will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups calling for a jihad against the new Crusaders.

Shame on him and shame on those who would prioritise the so-called rights of this imbecile over the heartfelt pleas of Muslims in the Netherlands and around the world!

Shame on us? Shame on the freedom loving people? What about the please of the non-Muslims in the Spain and England who didn’t want their trains bombed? What about the please of the Israelis in settlements constantly being bombed by the Muslims. Are the bombs they send in heartfelt? Probably not.

Heard will never understand what it means to be free. She will never understand what freedom of speech is really about.

As for Wilders’s film, given his known detestation of Islam, one can only wonder about his motives for making it. Rather than exemplifying his freedom to express his views, it is likely to be 15 minutes of pure, unadulterated hate probably designed to cause an even greater rift between Muslims and non-Muslims than already exists.

The question which Heard does not ask. And will never explore, is why does that right exists in the here and now? Why is there such a great divide between Muslim and non-Muslim? Could it be that the non-Muslim is horrified at the Muslim treatment of women? That non-Muslims can’t understand why converting from Islam to a different religion is punishable by death? Could it be that the non-Muslim simply can’t fathom that the victim of a gang-rape is punished, then pardoned by the Muslim government? I’m certain Heard will discount any of these things for helping to create, and keep the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. I’m certain Heard has some other far-reaching reason, and all fault will be placed squarely on the shoulders of us Westerners. Oh and the Israelis, can’t forget them, it’s their fault too.

Let’s not forget, the reason for the riots last year, the burnings of buildings, and the deaths were not the Muslims. Sure, they perpetrated the atrocities, but who could blame them? Newspapers in the Netherlands and Denmark published the Mo’ Toons. I mean seriously, if that isn’t a reason for wholesale lawlessness, what is?

###

Stumble it!

A group of Arab youths in Brooklyn assaulted and beat Rabbi Uria Ohana this week. It all started innocently enough. The Arab teenagers, being teenagers, and Arab, decided it would be funny to steal the Rabbi’s kippa (a/k/a yarmulka) and run off with it.

The Rabbi, being completely in his right, chased the offending youth out of the subway, where the Arab youth ran into traffic and got hit by a car, suffering a broken leg. That’s when the offender’s friends, blaming the Rabbi (natch!) for their friends broken leg, beat and kicked him while yelling "Allahu Akbar" while regaling in their violence.

The cops say that the Arab youths might possibly, maybe could be charge with a hate crime. They cops, in their infinite wisdom, are claiming the Arab youths who beat the Jewish Rabbi, because he is a Jew, while yelling the jihadist phrase "Allahu Akbar" - probably just didn’t know what the phrase meant. Uh-huh. Sure, okay.

If a kid shows a ham steak to a Muslim, he is perpetrating a hate crime. If someone puts the Koran in a toilet, they are perpetrating a hate crime. If someone puts up a poster, on private property, that declares their dislike of Islamic Supremacists, that is a hate crime. But beating a Rabbi, because he is Jewish, isn’t necessarily a hate crime.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not big on the whole hate crime crap to begin with. I don’t believe in them. I believe if one assaults and/or kills another, they should be punished, and that the law should be blind as to why someone did what they did. If they are guilty of murder, or assault, they are guilty of the crime. The why of the crime should not enter into it. What does it matter? The problem is, we have these asinine hate laws, and we don’t apply them levelly and evenly.

source (by way of JihadWatch)

###

Stumble it!

Boy, Holland seems to be a real hotbed of racial tensions these days. It seems, ever since the murder of Theo Van Gogh three years ago, the Muslims and everyone else have pretty much been at each other’s throats.

Muslims attacking former Muslims; other people attacking Muslims. Newspapers and reporters threatened. And now, now comes the coup d’etat in my view. In what I can only regard as the ultimate, spineless act of appeasement, Catholic Bishop Tiny Muskens utters this statement:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we well name God Allah?”

Now, I don’t know what this guy is spiking his Holy Water with, or what he is burning in that incense decanter he’s swinging around, but I am pretty darned sure, based on prior statements regarding Islam, that Pope Benny probably doesn’t think very highly of that idea.

What’s next Tiny? Encourage the females to wear headscarfs? Because, really, what does it hurt? It won’t hurt anyone to wear a scarf. It will protect from the sun and the cold, and keep one’s hair from being mussed by the wind.

source

Technorati Tags: Catholic, Allah, God, Bishop, Dutch, Tiny Muskens, Islam

Stumble it!