A Disagreement With "Caesar": This Does Not Happen Often
There are times where I like Hugh, and times where I'm wondering where he is coming from. Today is one of those days. Don't get me wrong. I like the man. We both do, but I'm going to call him on this because I believe he is wrong. Below is from his post addressing the the cartoonist controversy erupting in the Middle East and across Europe. He seems to be admonishing the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey and a host of other bloggers who are firing back at the Muslims for their savage behavior over a perceived minor slight.
The furor over the Danish cartoons is sparking an odd reaction among some commentators in the West who see no contradiction in dondemning the idiocy of Joel Stein or the repulsiveness of Tom Toles while urging solidarity with the idiot newspapermen in Denmark who thought it a good idea to not just illustrate Mohammed, but to include some illustrations designed to offend. Like Toles and Stein, they sought a cheap reaction, and getting it, are alarmed that anyone could be judgmental of their efforts.
Stop. First off, Tom Toles and Joel Stein thought they were being funny, and are hiding behind the freedom of the press. Fine, they're idiots. We all agree on that. However, what Hugh fails to grasp (and this might come from not having all the facts) is that a call went out for artists to draw pictures of Mohammed as they see him. This falls to artisitc interpretation. Is there enough backing to prove their point? I'm not sure. Maybe we should look to the violence oppression, and beheadings that are supported by those that practice the radical side of Islam. And let's look further to those within their religion who are deafeningly quiet in condemning the savages.
And let's take a closer look at the comparison that Hugh makes. Yes, Joel Stein made an ass of himself, and was rightly and soundly hammered on for the better part of a week. These artists, cartoonists, whatever are being threatened with violence for a frelling cartoon. And these Muslims claim that to portray Mohammed in any sort of artistic way is to break their religious law. Well, Zombie has an image archive which blows that Islamic lie out of the water. Yes, they are respectful. Yes they are reverant. But the lie being perpetuated is that there are to be no depictions of Mohammed; an effort to forestall idolatry. OK. I got it, but don't lie about it. Depictions of Mohammed are all over historical drawings of the time.
Further, I don't remember seeing people protesting outside the LA Times with assault rifles over the positively idiotic column by Joel Stein, or threatening to behead Tom Toles. Muslims are doing this, and it's over a bunch of lousy cartoons. Did Christians march on NBC with pitchforks and torches, and demand the heads of the producers of the Book of Daniel series? When Michael Newdow brings new lawsuits against the mention of God, do we call for himt o be burned at the cross?
The answer is no, and it's because we are a civilized society capable of civil discourse. The Muslims that are outraged are trying to silence those they don't agree with. If some Danish cartoonists decided that they were going to portray Mohammed as violent, then so be it. That is their right. Were it truly deemed offensive, I doubt the Danish newspapers would have printed them. I don't believe that the intention was there to be insulting. I believe it was done to send a message to the Muslim world.
You want to be accepted in the world as equals, yet you refuse to speak out against the violence being perpetuated by a sect of your religion. And when you do decide to speak up, it is over a perceived insult. I am not the type of person who believe that this is a war against the whole of Islam. We have some nuts. They want us dead. I get it. But it is these nuts that are lathering up their religious base into a fervor over these cartoons. The Danish papers have issued apologies. Even our own State Department is condemning this in some sort of sick, PC driven attempt not to anger Muslims. And Kofi Annan has weighed in on it. The European press is weighing in on it. Honestly, folks, I'm pretty sick of the whole damn thing.
To the Muslims of the world, I apologize on behalf of the cartoonists. If you took offense to their depictions of Mohammed, and rightly so as I am a Chrstian and despise those who mock Christ, then I'm sorry. However, reacting as you have only encourages people to see exactly what the cartoonists drew. You do have a very violent sect within your midst that you can't seem to keep a tight leash on. They proclaim themselves "holy warriors" of Allah and Mohammed. They're not. They're savages acting like 7th Century savages would. We're in the 21st Century now, and that sort of behavior elicits declarations of war from other nations in the world. We don't tolerate the blatant, uncaring barbarism that is being silently condoned because you won't speak out against it and condemn it.
As for Hugh ... I see where he's coming from. But I also see where the world is coming from. Some areas of the world look at this war as "Islam vs. civilization." I don't condone that idea, yet. I brow-beat Tom Tancredo over his "let's bomb Mecca" comments, and I condemn anyone who thinks we should simply wipe Islam from the face of the Earth. Nice, but Hitler's dead, and I really don't want to revisit that bloody ideology. We're in a war against extremists, and those are the ones I want dead. So, to Hugh, I say "to each his own." We disagree on this, only because of the reaction in the Muslim world. Had they just simply protested, we, at the Asylum, wouldn't have given them so much as a sideward glance. However, the photos on Michelle Malkin's site here and here shows a religion that doesn't simply want to accept an apology. These people are angry, and they want blood.
I thank God I live in a civilized society. At least here, when someone insults me or offends me, I can call them a moron and move on. I'm not going to declare them an infidel, demand their head, or resort to other avenues of violence. If we were a nation like that, the Left would be wetting it's pants everytime it offended someone.
Publius II
There are times where I like Hugh, and times where I'm wondering where he is coming from. Today is one of those days. Don't get me wrong. I like the man. We both do, but I'm going to call him on this because I believe he is wrong. Below is from his post addressing the the cartoonist controversy erupting in the Middle East and across Europe. He seems to be admonishing the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey and a host of other bloggers who are firing back at the Muslims for their savage behavior over a perceived minor slight.
The furor over the Danish cartoons is sparking an odd reaction among some commentators in the West who see no contradiction in dondemning the idiocy of Joel Stein or the repulsiveness of Tom Toles while urging solidarity with the idiot newspapermen in Denmark who thought it a good idea to not just illustrate Mohammed, but to include some illustrations designed to offend. Like Toles and Stein, they sought a cheap reaction, and getting it, are alarmed that anyone could be judgmental of their efforts.
Stop. First off, Tom Toles and Joel Stein thought they were being funny, and are hiding behind the freedom of the press. Fine, they're idiots. We all agree on that. However, what Hugh fails to grasp (and this might come from not having all the facts) is that a call went out for artists to draw pictures of Mohammed as they see him. This falls to artisitc interpretation. Is there enough backing to prove their point? I'm not sure. Maybe we should look to the violence oppression, and beheadings that are supported by those that practice the radical side of Islam. And let's look further to those within their religion who are deafeningly quiet in condemning the savages.
And let's take a closer look at the comparison that Hugh makes. Yes, Joel Stein made an ass of himself, and was rightly and soundly hammered on for the better part of a week. These artists, cartoonists, whatever are being threatened with violence for a frelling cartoon. And these Muslims claim that to portray Mohammed in any sort of artistic way is to break their religious law. Well, Zombie has an image archive which blows that Islamic lie out of the water. Yes, they are respectful. Yes they are reverant. But the lie being perpetuated is that there are to be no depictions of Mohammed; an effort to forestall idolatry. OK. I got it, but don't lie about it. Depictions of Mohammed are all over historical drawings of the time.
Further, I don't remember seeing people protesting outside the LA Times with assault rifles over the positively idiotic column by Joel Stein, or threatening to behead Tom Toles. Muslims are doing this, and it's over a bunch of lousy cartoons. Did Christians march on NBC with pitchforks and torches, and demand the heads of the producers of the Book of Daniel series? When Michael Newdow brings new lawsuits against the mention of God, do we call for himt o be burned at the cross?
The answer is no, and it's because we are a civilized society capable of civil discourse. The Muslims that are outraged are trying to silence those they don't agree with. If some Danish cartoonists decided that they were going to portray Mohammed as violent, then so be it. That is their right. Were it truly deemed offensive, I doubt the Danish newspapers would have printed them. I don't believe that the intention was there to be insulting. I believe it was done to send a message to the Muslim world.
You want to be accepted in the world as equals, yet you refuse to speak out against the violence being perpetuated by a sect of your religion. And when you do decide to speak up, it is over a perceived insult. I am not the type of person who believe that this is a war against the whole of Islam. We have some nuts. They want us dead. I get it. But it is these nuts that are lathering up their religious base into a fervor over these cartoons. The Danish papers have issued apologies. Even our own State Department is condemning this in some sort of sick, PC driven attempt not to anger Muslims. And Kofi Annan has weighed in on it. The European press is weighing in on it. Honestly, folks, I'm pretty sick of the whole damn thing.
To the Muslims of the world, I apologize on behalf of the cartoonists. If you took offense to their depictions of Mohammed, and rightly so as I am a Chrstian and despise those who mock Christ, then I'm sorry. However, reacting as you have only encourages people to see exactly what the cartoonists drew. You do have a very violent sect within your midst that you can't seem to keep a tight leash on. They proclaim themselves "holy warriors" of Allah and Mohammed. They're not. They're savages acting like 7th Century savages would. We're in the 21st Century now, and that sort of behavior elicits declarations of war from other nations in the world. We don't tolerate the blatant, uncaring barbarism that is being silently condoned because you won't speak out against it and condemn it.
As for Hugh ... I see where he's coming from. But I also see where the world is coming from. Some areas of the world look at this war as "Islam vs. civilization." I don't condone that idea, yet. I brow-beat Tom Tancredo over his "let's bomb Mecca" comments, and I condemn anyone who thinks we should simply wipe Islam from the face of the Earth. Nice, but Hitler's dead, and I really don't want to revisit that bloody ideology. We're in a war against extremists, and those are the ones I want dead. So, to Hugh, I say "to each his own." We disagree on this, only because of the reaction in the Muslim world. Had they just simply protested, we, at the Asylum, wouldn't have given them so much as a sideward glance. However, the photos on Michelle Malkin's site here and here shows a religion that doesn't simply want to accept an apology. These people are angry, and they want blood.
I thank God I live in a civilized society. At least here, when someone insults me or offends me, I can call them a moron and move on. I'm not going to declare them an infidel, demand their head, or resort to other avenues of violence. If we were a nation like that, the Left would be wetting it's pants everytime it offended someone.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home