I’m going to start out this post with an excerpt from a post written back in 2010:
Do I have a problem with people worshipping Mohammed? No, I don’t. I have worked with Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, Christians of all different denominations, and Wiccans. I’ve probably have worked with someone who is a member of the Church of Bob for all I know. But here’s where I have problems with Islam.
Any religion that states that it is the duty of each follower to slay and/or oppress the infidel (non-follower of their belief) automatically has my opposition to the religion (not the people). A religion that allows “honor” killings of women, and demands punishments of any that criticize the faith is definitely not the tolerant “Religion of Peace” that they promote their faith to be. The version of peace that they offer is an all-Islam world ruled from a religious/political government via Sharia law, but I also wonder about that too. Shiite and Sunni factions have been killing each other since Mohammed’s death over who Mohammed’s successor should be! I wonder how “peaceful” that world would be…
Now I realize that Christian history is not as clean as we would all like it to be. The Crusades, and the Catholic & Protestant conflicts don’t promote the message of the New Testament. But Christianity has evolved to embrace the diversity of the denominations. Islam, on the other hand, has stayed much the same – violent and intolerant.
…Supporters of Islam, whether they are Moslem or not, ask (or rather, demand) tolerance, empathy, sensitivity, and understanding for their religion. However, it doesn’t seem to be a two-way street…
The horror in France this past week only serves to illustrate the intolerance of the so-called “Religion of Peace.” It also shows that appeasement will not hold the radical Islamic terrorist at bay – France has allowed various Muslim communities to form their own Sharia courts, superseding French law as well as declaring those same areas “off-limits” to their own police.
Obviously, all this has done is encourage more and more concessions from the French, i.e., insult the Prophet and you will die. From The Daily Telegraph (which is an excellent read):
EVERY attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists is an attack against freedom of speech — whether they’re terrorising journalists and cartoonists at a magazine in Paris or bystanders having a quiet coffee in Sydney.
These callous cowards seek to silence dissenting voices by waging a war of terror against anyone who dares question their twisted, totalitarian world view.
All one has to do is look across the world at the violent conflicts in the Middle East and Africa perpetuated by groups such as Boko Haram, al Quada, and ISIS to understand that intolerance of other religions or of criticism is not part of the Islamic faith. Again, from The Daily Telegraph:
It is worth noting that, while the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, it also regularly satirised Christianity and Judaism. And yet there have been no attacks by enraged Catholics or Jews.
This reveals the lie that all religions are equally bloodthirsty; in the 21st century only one religion is at the centre of terror attacks around the world.
We have followers of one religion who think they are entitled to butcher those who offend their prophet?
Frankly, if your all powerful deity is so fragile a cartoon poses a threat then you may want to reconsider your belief system.
From an earlier post:
A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn’t need excuses, but accountability for it’s actions and justification for its existence. To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.
And this from The American Thinker’s Selwyn Duke:
Many interesting lessons on tolerance could be learned from the Muslim world. Note that when pious Muslims perceive something as negative (this isn’t to imply that all their perceptions are accurate), they often stop at nothing to wipe it out. Just consider the tens of thousands of non-Muslims killed and thousands of churches burned by jihadists during the last decade, the enforcement of Sharia law, and the Muslim-conquered parts of European cities euphemistically known as no-go zones.
Folks, what is happening in Europe is only a precursor to what will happen here in the United States should this nonsense continue. Already, there are numerous reports of “honor” killings, requests for Sharia-based courts in Moslem communities, and multiple lawsuits brought by Muslims to force zoning law changes and restaurant menus to “conform” to the Islamic belief system in the United States!
It also doesn’t help that we have a President that states in a 2012 speech to the Useless Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” May I remind the President of the First Amendment to the Constitution that he has sworn twice to uphold:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Freedom of Speech is fundamental to our system of government, and part of our society. If the press and various artists throughout the country have the right to lampoon, criticize, and otherwise mock Christianity and other religions, then the same applies to Islam – you cannot have it both ways.
And this is exactly why the Islamic faith as practiced by the “faithful” Muslim is incompatible with the United States Constitution – Islam combines government and religion into one package. For instance, Saudi blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes for blasphemy, i.e., writing non-conforming views on Islam.
And yet, our Media self-censors itself out of fear of an Islamic backlash. C.S. Lewis wrote this 70 years ago about the Media’s inexorable march toward political correctness with words:
“It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by an unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to produce her…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.” —C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
The Progressive/Liberals in the Media and in Politics have been making excuses for the violent actions of the Islamic Radicals long enough. “Workplace violence” when a person shouts “Allahu Akbar” needs to be reclassified as “Domestic Terrorism By Islamic Radicals” to get it back on the radar as the threat it needs to be. There is a need to treat terrorist actions by Islamic Radicals the same way as Thomas Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates instead of the First Lady tweeting out a hashtag with a sad face.
Finally, one last excerpt from a previous post:
Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now. They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda). They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties. And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, “We don’t understand! We were talking!” Understand this, you Brie-eaters – there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!! And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.
To otherwise ignore a threat, internal as well as external, is suicide by neglect. And that, my friends, is not the legacy I would want to leave behind.