Article

2006-02-03 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Bush's Faith Based Sandbag Comes Home to Roost - US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 13:26|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Zenster, I suspect this action has more to do with maintaining coalitions than with faith-based initiatives. Bush's proposals on faith-based initiatives had to do with finding better ways to aiding the underclass, whose needs are served better by religious charities than by the government.

State is saying this for purposes of maintaining good relations with muslim-majority allies. I understand your skepticism about initiatives that seem to blur the boundary between church and state but I don't think that's the dynamic at work here.

Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan 2006-02-03 13:56|| 2006-02-03 13:56|| Front Page Top

#2 I also disagree with Zenster, particularly since implementing the measures he lays out would be very short-sited given our allies in the new governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, I think this is a horrible mistake, since the basic lesson here is that if you don't want your religion to be made fun of, be violent. Yeah, cause that message won't empower extremists at all ...

Posted by Dan Darling">Dan Darling 2006-02-03 14:26|| http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com]">[http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2006-02-03 14:26|| Front Page Top

#3 State is saying this for purposes of maintaining good relations with muslim-majority allies.

Johnathan, I appreciate your calm approach to this, admittedly, divisive issue. Our freedom of expression goes to the core of what differentiates democracy from theocracy. To knowingly deprecate the rightful actions of American citizens in pursuit of ameliorating relations with countries that consistently repress their populations goes directly against the grain of being committed to democracy.

It is exactly these sort of seemingly innocuous concessions (see Britain and their constant appeasement of Islamic sensibilities), that will eventually reveal themselves to be the death of a thousand cuts. No one of these slight concessions can be identified as any sort of actual tipping point. The real fulcrum lies in how Islam's political ideology marches under the false colors of religion. Islam seeks to upset the checks and balances of democratic rule by demanding unwarranted respect for its own tenets above and beyond those of other religions. This is what is being done here and this ugly scenario will be repeated endlessly until we are reduced to dhimmitude. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

We are witnessing the Titanic collision of cultures that grant the freedom to offend greatly with a putative religion that takes great offense at the least slight. To tolerate this endless taking of offense without finally ridiculing it for the thin-skinned eggshell morality that it is does a great disservice to us all.

Until our government finally wakes up and begins to distinguish between true religions and Islam's political ideology we will merely slide into a cesspit of self-imposed hobbling that claims more American blood and treasure each day.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 14:27|| 2006-02-03 14:27|| Front Page Top

#4 Well spoken Zenster.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-02-03 14:33|| 2006-02-03 14:33|| Front Page Top

#5 That said, I think this is a horrible mistake, since the basic lesson here is that if you don't want your religion to be made fun of, be violent. Yeah, cause that message won't empower extremists at all ...

Dan Darling, I believe you have things inverted. Islam was already violent, long before anyone started poking fun at them. In fact, it is the constant face-making and incendiary rhetoric spewed forth by Islam that has most likely resulted in people finally becoming fed up and showing their disrespect for such immature squalling.

What is called for here is a side-by-side publication of the European cartoons with the much more degrading and propagandistic filth that is daily printed in the Arab press.

While I concur that it would be to needlessly alienate the infant governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, it is far more important to protect our democratic freedoms and make it clear why they are more deserving of protection when faced with constraining them for the sake of appeasing an oppressive and tryannical doctrine.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 14:36|| 2006-02-03 14:36|| Front Page Top

#6 My reply should have read:

Dan Darling, I believe you have things inverted. Islam was already violent, long before anyone started poking fun at them. In fact, it is the constant face-making and incendiary rhetoric spewed forth by Islam that has most likely resulted in people finally becoming fed up and showing their disrespect for such immature squalling.

What is called for here is a side-by-side publication of the European cartoons with the much more degrading and propagandistic filth that is daily printed in the Arab press.

While I concur that it would be to needlessly shortsighted to alienate the infant governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, it is far more important to protect our democratic freedoms and make it clear why they are more deserving of protection when faced with constraining them for the sake of appeasing an oppressive and tryannical doctrine.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 14:40|| 2006-02-03 14:40|| Front Page Top

#7 good God, Zenster. I know you pride yourself in your ability to bash Bush in a manner that you feel is so subtle that none of us are aware, and I'm not sure what sort of satisfaction you get out of that - but hey - do your own thing.

In this case, you just look excessively alarmist and silly.

Far from proving that this is evidence that freedom of speech is being sacrificed on the altar of Bush's own religious obsession - this is an adult diplomatic response from the President.

I don't think the Europeans should back down, but these cartoons are offensive - just like are cartoons of blacks with big lips or Jews with hook noses eating babies or piss Christ exhibits.

I recently bought Danish and I applaud Europe standing behind their right to freedom of speech - but your over reaction to Bush's diplomatic response just shows your own bigotry - not his.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 14:58|| 2006-02-03 14:58|| Front Page Top

#8 By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

Seems to me that it's the Muzzies that need to do something about their image, and not via hiring a PR firm either. (hint: disowning the extremists among them would be a start)

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-02-03 15:02|| 2006-02-03 15:02|| Front Page Top

#9 and besides, it was the State Department - not Bush who made the comments.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 15:11|| 2006-02-03 15:11|| Front Page Top

#10 I, for one, am just glad to see Bush take the opposite side of the argument from the Europeans for once.

Besides, we'd all be pretty pissed if some Arab magazine printed a bunch of blasphemous cartoons - Jesus sodomizing goats, Mary blowing Clinton, etc. Not as extreme as the Muslims, but hey, it is pretty gratuitous.

Posted by gromky 2006-02-03 15:19|| 2006-02-03 15:19|| Front Page Top

#11 This has infinitely more to do with State traitors wanting to ensure their retirements than anything Bush has said or done.

Bush could bother to clean out State, of course, but I shudder to think what the reaction to that would be. The CIA can't keep secrets out of hatred for Bush; State would be practically running a publishing house in its eagerness to destroy him.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-02-03 15:20|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-02-03 15:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Besides, we'd all be pretty pissed if some Arab magazine printed a bunch of blasphemous cartoons - Jesus sodomizing goats, Mary blowing Clinton, etc. Not as extreme as the Muslims, but hey, it is pretty gratuitous.

They already do this.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-02-03 15:21|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-02-03 15:21|| Front Page Top

#13 This is an interesting question. I don't recall the, then current, administration apologizing to the Vartican or the Missouri Synod for financing Piss Christ. Why should they be commenting on religious issues now? And at the price of eroding freedom of the press?

The government should be expressing support and admiration for PM Rasmussen's stand in favor of Freedom of the Press. The government of the United States should have little or nothing to do with religion, including the Branch Davidians.

If our "Arab allies" want to go to war over cartoons, I'm ready to support the use of whatever level of force is required. Hanna-Barbera '08.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-03 15:26|| 2006-02-03 15:26|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm seeing some real hypocrisy here. Yesterday some (including myself) were outraged at the Ted Tolls cartoon and were bitterly criticizing the WAPO for publishing it.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see an apology in that statement. I see a plea for civility. Isn't that a good thing?

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 15:39|| 2006-02-03 15:39|| Front Page Top

#15 Michelle Malkin says you can tell Foggy Bottom what you think here:

http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/home.php

Posted by SLO Jim 2006-02-03 15:40|| 2006-02-03 15:40|| Front Page Top

#16 I think this administration is doing its damndest to avoid a full out civilizational war if it can do so.

It's a goal I support, if we can manage it. But that's not up to us alone .....

Still, I know what the alternatives will otherwise be and they are not ones I would take up lightly, or until we did our best to avoid having to use them.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-03 15:53|| 2006-02-03 15:53|| Front Page Top

#17 Found via Instapundit:

Interesting take on this from the European point of view, at least some Europeans....

On the "dreadful mistake bit". Of course we Europeans (I am Belgian) have only ourselves to blame but Americans have to understand how fearful we are becoming of this violent minority in our midst. Muslims are already a majority in the lowest age groups in several large European cities. The potential for civil war is clearly there and what is even more worrysome is the dedication of most our governments to appeasement.

For the US State dept to seize this opportunity to burnish its image with the "muslim community" was only to be expected however and I am pretty sure that this is exactly the kind of noise our governments would want to hear from the US at this stage. So no harm done to us in any case. It will gain you zero goodwill from the fanatics, but it will not harm us. I do hope however that nobody at State dept really thinks that the fanatics have to be appeased and that those caricatures should not have been published. *That* would be a mistake of the first magnitude.

Bernard Vanden Bloock
Overijse
Belgium

Posted by Hupolunter Hupereting4617 2006-02-03 16:02|| 2006-02-03 16:02|| Front Page Top

#18 lotp, they needn't have said anything and shouldn't have. It's a mistake to get involved in religious discussions, especially for governments.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-03 16:06|| 2006-02-03 16:06|| Front Page Top

#19 Goodness, I used to live in Overijse! Lovely bedroom community... very proud of their champagne grapes, and had one of the area's best wine shops in the grocery store. The king and his court live on the far side of the forest in Tervuren, in much bigger houses. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-03 16:59|| 2006-02-03 16:59|| Front Page Top

#20 I agree with Nimble: Until we're at the point of completely taking our gloves off diplomatically, saying anything about this matter on our govt's part is lose/lose. It's only been a few months that Bush has even begun using the work Islamic in connection with terrorism, so the diplomatic gloves are still very much on.

They should have just taken Mark Twain's (or was it someone else?) advice and kept their collective mouth shut.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-02-03 18:09|| 2006-02-03 18:09|| Front Page Top

#21 I recently bought Danish and I applaud Europe standing behind their right to freedom of speech - but your over reaction to Bush's diplomatic response just shows your own bigotry - not his.

My own bigotry? Do tell. I guess you missed out when I said that "the better man" had won the election.

Appeasement is simply the absolute most stupid thing we can be doing right now. To paraphrase .com, we are apologizing for our strengths right when we should be demonstrating how such power derives from democratic administration of government.

The president is perfectly within his rights to say that, he, himself finds the cartoons to be tasteless or offensive, but to position America's administration in defense of such a blatant attack upon the freedom of the press is worse than stupid.

I make no bones about my dislike for Bush's continual erosion of the separation of church and state. It is highly amusing that none of you ever notice how I refuse to support the idiotic calls for impeachment or war crimes prosecution being made against Bush.

I do not seek to subtley bash Bush. I just want our country's essential foundations intact.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 18:11|| 2006-02-03 18:11|| Front Page Top

#22 More lately, I have decried how Bush's own overemphasis on religiosity has become a new flavor of Kool-Aid that the White House is drinking, which is obliging them to avoid outright criticism of Islam.

First of all, Bush didn't make these comments - but so eager you were to drive home your belief that Bush, like billions of others world wide who have faith in something beyond themselves, should instantly be discounted as a crazy loons, that you chose to ignore that.

Look around Zenster. There are churches, synagogues, and mosques on every other street corner and they are attended by more people than not. And they are all just one step away from the koolaid,right? Every single one of them. If it's not bigotry, then I guess we have different definitions for the word. But then you are stuck in the "what I believe is the only truth" mode.

Bigots are people who through their ignorance paint entire populations with one wide brush.

These cartoons are offensive. I didn't hear you defending Ted Tolls the other day for his cartoon - but that's different, cause he offended you - right?

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 18:31|| 2006-02-03 18:31|| Front Page Top

#23
With regards to the Zeropean civil war, it gets harder the longer you wait.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-02-03 18:39|| 2006-02-03 18:39|| Front Page Top

#24 Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

I think this is the part of the statement that has me troubled. It's missing the "By anyone". Just a strange "in THIS manner" (caps mine).

Where's the "just as demanding the destruction of Israel is not acceptable"? Or, "Arab cartoons denagrding jews or Israel are not acceptable."?

Why is only "this" (the Danish cartoons) unacceptable and not the behaviour of islamology?

The Muslim Brotherhood must be rolling on the floor. The US has submitted to islam. A fine result for weeks of work. And the seething masses will remain mad enough to explode.

I'm puzzled. Why no demand of reciprocal "respect"? Why are they off the hook and only we responsible for our behaviour.

We've been no less provoked or insulted or "hurt".

Posted by Hupomoger Clans9827">Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-02-03 19:11|| 2006-02-03 19:11|| Front Page Top

#25 Why is only "this" (the Danish cartoons) unacceptable and not the behaviour of islamology?

Good point H, but I still think that this was an appropriate diplomatic response. Should the Danish apologize? NO. Do the muslims need to learn to deal with it if they want to join the west? Yes.

Just yesterday we were all applauding the Joint Chiefs for responding to the highly offensive Ted Tolls cartoon. Yet today we are all in a tizzy because the state department has also called for civility. I don't get it.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 19:20|| 2006-02-03 19:20|| Front Page Top

#26 2b - we should have said nothing, or note only that violence isn't a civilized response. Dissent? yes. Boycott? fine. Killing an innocent? Only Islam finds that an acceptable option on first try, and it's written for them to find. I spit upon their "lost dignity" and outrage if that is their standard behavior. Should I apologize next for calling Mumia a cop-killer?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-03 19:27|| 2006-02-03 19:27|| Front Page Top

#27 Excellent point, Frank. You are right, it would have been better if the State Department had mentioned that the Muslim response of head chopping and murder was a threat to civilization. But it's State. What did we expect? I agree that the best response would have been no response.

I'm just ticked at Zensters effort to use this lame opportunity to declare it as proof that Bush is insane for being willing to acknowledge his faith in God.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 19:34|| 2006-02-03 19:34|| Front Page Top

#28 Do the muslims need to learn to deal with it if they want to join the west?

Most don't want to. And I personally am pretty fed up with the reactions in the Moslem world.

I don't know what I'd say if I were in the administration. I know what I'd be tempted to say as a private person, but as an official?

I don't know ....

Posted by lotp 2006-02-03 19:38|| 2006-02-03 19:38|| Front Page Top

#29 But I do know how bad an overt civilizational war could get, and I know that provoking one is a key aim of the Islamacists. So I have some sympathy for administration officials who are not inclined to play along with the Danish muslims try to get one started today.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-03 19:40|| 2006-02-03 19:40|| Front Page Top

#30 Zenster:

I was referring to religion in general, not Islam specifically. The lesson here is that if you're sufficiently violent, you're above criticism, which isn't the right one to send. The implication here is that if some Jews went out and vivisected some European editorialists (to use one example), they would stop calling Israel fascist, colonialist, and so on and so forth. That isn't the kind of message that any free society wants to send.

What is called for here is a side-by-side publication of the European cartoons with the much more degrading and propagandistic filth that is daily printed in the Arab press.

Maybe, but the Arab press, a lot of which is state-run or state-controlled, is almost exclusively the province of the looney bin. We've seen that demonstrated time and time again.

While I concur that it would be to needlessly alienate the infant governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, it is far more important to protect our democratic freedoms and make it clear why they are more deserving of protection when faced with constraining them for the sake of appeasing an oppressive and tryannical doctrine.

I was referring here to your comments that "Islam must not be viewed as anything less than a political ideology until it comprehensively renounces violent jihad and its desire to install universal sharia law upon an unwilling global population. Until these two important changes come about, Islam is our enemy and any succor given to them is simple treason," not to the issue of the cartoons. Taking such a position openly, I would argue, would needlessly alienate our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cartoon issue is another thing altogether and I don't see why the State Department should be getting involved in any of this to begin with, no more than they should get involved in Piss Christ or any other religious issues.

Posted by Dan Darling">Dan Darling 2006-02-03 19:40|| http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com]">[http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2006-02-03 19:40|| Front Page Top

#31 What is called for here is a side-by-side publication of the European cartoons with the much more degrading and propagandistic filth that is daily printed in the Arab press.

Now there is a solution we can all agree on. Agree also with #28, well said.

We don't need to sink to their level. I don't think ramping up pictures of Mohammed **&^ing a goat to make them understand our wondeful western world is helpful.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-03 19:47|| 2006-02-03 19:47|| Front Page Top

#32 We will sink to their level before this is over. That's how wars like this are won. And it's a war like that they want. And if it's war they want, then by our God, it's war they shall have.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-03 19:58|| 2006-02-03 19:58|| Front Page Top

#33 I think the comment by the State Dept. is nothing more than another manifestation of the PCism that is endemic in Washington. Talk of theocracy in the USA is the hobby horse of the militant secularists. The operative word here is "militant". Militant wants to impose their points of view an all the rest by force. Islamists, militant athiests and secularists, and militant Christians.

That said, it is pointless to intentionally set out to offend. Or did the Danes really think their snarkiness would not be noticed? The West must enforce freedom of expression - even tasteless expression. I just hope that we will enforce it on worthwhile issues, not on juvenile cartoons. We need to avoid the clash of civilizations - if possible. And the Muslims need to get a life. They will not be able to force the west to kowtow to their 7th century ideas.

In the final analysis, we may get the war that NS and I have been predicting.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-02-03 20:14|| 2006-02-03 20:14|| Front Page Top

#34 I've posted the full text of the State Dept. daily briefing exchange on this here.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-03 20:18|| 2006-02-03 20:18|| Front Page Top

#35 The Ted Tolls cartoon was offensive. The Danish Mohammad cartoons were offensive. The cartoons in the Arab News were offensive. The difference is that the Muslim response to the Mohammad cartoons has been highly disproportionate.

Thousands of Muslims who have never even seen the cartoons are marching about looking for Danes to lynch. Countries with free speech are being demanded to apologize for it. Danish businesses that have nothing to do with cartoons are being punished. Innocent Europeans are at risk of serious harm on the streets of Muslim countries.

The Muslim world will never get respect by acting like a bunch of barbarians everytime a book or cartoon in the west offends them, while at the same time relentlessly attacking innocents in office buildings, in nightclubs, on trains, in schools, and on subways without so much as a protest. The lessons of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King are lost to them. They are doomed -- self doomed.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-03 20:18|| 2006-02-03 20:18|| Front Page Top

#36 I'd let this war start over cartoons if that's what they want to start it over. Exactly what was offensive about them? Nothing, except to the muzzy sensibility. So it's really a dhimmitude issue. One day they will push their sh!+ too far and they've come close to it this week. They'd better get the message.

Posted by Lloyd Benson 2006-02-03 20:24|| 2006-02-03 20:24|| Front Page Top

#37 Well said, Nimble. I will spend my last coin, give my last ounce of strength, and sigh my last breath if the actual war the Islamists wnat truly comes in order to rid this earth of the scourge that is Islam.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-02-03 20:37|| 2006-02-03 20:37|| Front Page Top

#38

First of all, Bush didn't make these comments - but so eager you were to drive home your belief that Bush, like billions of others world wide who have faith in something beyond themselves, should instantly be discounted as a crazy loons, that you chose to ignore that.

And where did I say that Bush actually made these comments? My title line refers to Bushs faith based sandbag because I find his administrations constant focus upon religion to be at odds with proper governance of our nation. Does anyone here actually believe that the state departments statement was not vetted by the White House prior to issue? Ill ask that people note the complete lack of any correction in position by the Oval Office.

As to discounting all people of faith as crazy loons, that is you putting words into my own mouth. Please point out where I have ever said such an ungenerous thing. If you cannot, then feel free to retract your false accusation. What I seek is the appropriate separation of church and state. The Bush administration has done more to undermine this vital separation than any other presidency in history. I believe that freedom of religion is one of the things that has made America the great nation it is. The tampering that has been going on is intolerable.

Look around Zenster. There are churches, synagogues, and mosques on every other street corner and they are attended by more people than not. And they are all just one step away from the koolaid,right? Every single one of them.

Thats horsesh!t, and you know it. Again, you are trying to put intolerant words into my mouth. One more time, you can provide quotes by myself indicating such a stupid stance or retract them now. If I had such a low opinion of religion, why would I support freedom of religion so vigorously? Your presumptions are nothing short of insulting.

Bigots are people who through their ignorance paint entire populations with one wide brush.

Remember the beatings I used to take here for defending the moderate Muslims? No? Too effing bad for your short memory. My own position is changing due to the repeated lack of condemnation by moderate Muslims of their jihadist brethren. .com has put forth extremely persuasive arguments regarding how it is moderate Muslims who are funding the jihadists through donations and how the radical Muslims have to come from somewhere. Yet, somehow I still manage to rail against all of the truly intolerant morons here who want to initiate nuclear war against Islamic countries. Yeah, thats real bigotry all right.

These cartoons are offensive. I didn't hear you defending Ted Tolls the other day for his cartoon - but that's different, cause he offended you - right?

No, its not any different. Did you even bother to read my words yesterday?

Come on folks. Anyone see some similarities between the Mohammad cartoons and this one? Toles' cartoon is tasteless and ill thought out, at best. I find it offensive and, yet, remain glad that I live in a country where such drivel can be published without fear of retribution.

Want to make your displeasure felt? Boycott all papers that carry Toles' cartoons. That's how we do it in America. Hit 'em in the pocketbook.

Toles has stepped on his own d!ck, as I'm sure he'll soon find out. I'll add that the generals were well within their rights to protest such callous disregard for our fallen troops.

Note how the first line draws direct comparison to the Mohammed cartoons? Toles has the right to draw his cartoons, too. Just as I have the right to not read his work. I dont know what your problem is, 2b, but you really need to do your homework before attacking me like this.

I'm just ticked at Zensters effort to use this lame opportunity to declare it as proof that Bush is insane for being willing to acknowledge his faith in God.

Where in He|| have I ever called Bush insane? Quote it or retract it. I maintain that Bushs obsession with religiosity represents a strong conflict of interest in his ability to fulfill his official duties. Too often significant issues revolving around the separation of church and state are being blurred or outright eroded by Bush policy. I find this reprehensible and make no bones about it.

One more time If we had a Muslim president who was putting in place legislation so preferential to Islamic religious organizations, all of your would be howling bloody murder. Enough of you are Christians that, since its not your ox being gored, you could care less what is being done in the name of your religion, so long as it is favorable.

I say that Bush seeks to put in place religious commandment where strictly legal jurisprudence should reside. I say it is a mistake and, further, that it goes against the ultimate welfare of America as a healthy pluralistic nation. Towards that end, it is extremely dubious, if not stupid, to award any greater respect to offended Muslims than they are showing through the routinely offensive cartoons published by them.

At some point, the cognitive dissonance of the Muslim world must be dumped back in their laps. The longer we delay, the greater the upset will be when it finally happens, and happen it must. We are doing nobody any favors by putting it off.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 22:04|| 2006-02-03 22:04|| Front Page Top

#39 The lesson here is that if you're sufficiently violent, you're above criticism, which isn't the right one to send

Dan Darling, I think there's some confusion here. I agree completely with the above statement. It's for that reason that I refuse to show any quarter to Muslim intolerance for free speech. By allowing ourselves to be cowed, in the least way, by Muslim outcry only encourages further encroachment by them upon our liberty.

Britain's slow downward spiral into dhimmitude should serve as a warning to all of us what awaits any appeasement of eggshell thin Muslim sensibilities.

For all their easily offended sensibilities, Muslims may as well be skinless individuals living in a sandpaper world. I've had my fill of their whingeing and they can go p!ss up a rope.

I was referring here to your comments that "Islam must not be viewed as anything less than a political ideology until it comprehensively renounces violent jihad and its desire to install universal sharia law upon an unwilling global population. Until these two important changes come about, Islam is our enemy and any succor given to them is simple treason," not to the issue of the cartoons. Taking such a position openly, I would argue, would needlessly alienate our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dan, I am obliged to disagree. One of our only hopes for rallying the American people into real resistance against Islamist hostility is to paint Islam in its true colors. It is a violent religion that seeks to dominate the remaining world by force and that is a significant threat to our culture.

When Islam properly renounces violent jihad and forceful imposition of sharia law upon the entire world, only then should they be awarded the status of a peaceful religion. Until then, they are a political ideology and if hearing that that angers other Islamic countries, tough noogies.

The cartoon issue is another thing altogether and I don't see why the State Department should be getting involved in any of this to begin with, no more than they should get involved in Piss Christ or any other religious issues.

Exceptionally well spoken, Dan. I could not agree with you more.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 22:27|| 2006-02-03 22:27|| Front Page Top

#40 PS: Good comments, Nimble.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 22:41|| 2006-02-03 22:41|| Front Page Top

#41 So, 2b, no quotes or cites to support your scurillous fabrications? Then kindly ram your false accusations where the sun don't shine ... with walnuts!

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-03 23:39|| 2006-02-03 23:39|| Front Page Top

12:58 CaziFarkus
13:09 CaziFarkus
11:06 SOP35/Rat
23:58 Rafael
23:56 Rafael
23:51 Hupomoger Clans9827
23:39 Zenster
23:37 ed
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:30 Frank G
23:27 Pappy
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 Frank G
23:18 trailing wife
23:17 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:13 trailing wife
23:12 ed
23:10 ed
23:07 trailing wife
23:05 ed
23:03 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:59 trailing wife
22:58 JosephMendiola