And so it goes: an US group mindful of freedom of expression organises a “Mohammed cartoon contest”, with no less than $10,000 for the winner.
In Europe no such initiative would be allowed, because Europe is not really free. It is, rather, a conglomerate of democracies in which the citizen decide in which way they want not to be free, and controlled by a Benevolent Nanny.
The US are, though, rather free, in the sense that at least they still take freedom of expression much more seriously than us (as for the freedom of religion, the jury is out). They organise, then, the context.
Alas, they also learn that in XXI America, the religion of peace is coming to their own homes, with two Muslims starting to peacefully try to kill as many citizens as they can before being killed themselves.
Note here the following:
1) You can’t make anything that displeases the peaceful Muslim brother without running the risk of being killed.
2) The security did not engage in “dialogue”. They gunned the two bastards down.
3) The event took place in Texas. I am not the only one to think this is one of those places where a number of people take their freedoms seriously and are, therefore, armed. It’s difficult to make a massacre of people armed. Much better if they are all harmlessly sitting there, like European sheep ready for the slaughter.
The US got another demonstration of the “religion of peace”. One wonders how many more lessons they will need.
Interesting, if tragic, developments in Bangladesh, where four bloggers have been arrested for having written comments “insulting to Islam” (possibly something like “fake religion soaked in violence and blood, created by a bloodthirsty pedophile”; but I have no exact news). Muslim hardliners want the death penalty for blasphemers of Islam (see above for a possible definition), the others want to tell them where to stuck their ideas.
The four now risk up to ten years in jail, and the matter caused the blood pressure to rise all over the country. Apparently 90% of the Country is Muslim, and again 97% of those Sunnis.
Being Bangladesh a very poor Third-World country I do not doubt they are recipient of more than generous transfer from a number of UNO organisations, which means they get an awful lot of money from Western countries.
One is curious to see how the West, always oh so attentive to the instances of even perverts by us, will react to this rather, ahem, unedifying “human rights situation” in a Muslim country.
The BBC coverage will also be interesting to follow. Remember, these are the people who gave order to call the terrorists “fighters” after the 7 July 2005 bombs who killed 52 innocent people going about their business.
I truly do not know why, with all the names at their disposal, they had to pick “religion of peace”.
You really must pity Richard Dawkins. He is one of those heroes ready to ferociously attack the pious, but a shrinking violet towards those potentially violent.
We have now discovered that whilst said Dawkins considers the God of the Torah a very bad “fictional” character, he “doesn’t know so much” about the god of the Muslims, so he’d rather keep schtum, thank you very much.
Now, firstly it is astonishing how a man with so much time at his disposal like Dawkins never thought he might employ some of it to examine the, erm, second biggest religion on earth. Secondly, it cannot have escaped him that Islam is a parody of the Bible, it is based on it, and it claims to be its authentic expression. Thirdly, it might have come to his attention that as far as violence is concerned, Islam isn’t really built on retiring wallflowers.
At the very least, our hero could have said: “I do not know much of the god of the Muslims, but it must be clear it is a fictional character too, and he has pretty much the same traits as the fictional character of the Christians”.
Alas, nothing of the sort. It is as if he would say “can we stay on Christianity, please. I like my atheist propaganda comfortable, and safe”.
Ah, these fearless paladins of truth against the prejudices of countless ages….
From the otherwise rather sleepy and windy Wales, news of some importance reaches us: it says here (I know it’s the BBC, a lair of pedophiles and other perverts; but this they should have managed right) that a mother has beaten her son to death with a stick, as a punishment because the boy could not learn the Koran fast enough.
The detail gives a lot of interesting details: the woman (forget “lady”) is a university graduate; when she discovered that her son had died out of the injuries inflicted to him she set fire to the body of her dead child; she said she did so in order to avoid being killed by her husband upon discovery of the death; she also managed to accuse her husband of the killing. What a delicate person.
You might wonder: why does Mundabor bore us with this individual case of a loony family? Because it seems to me that there is a system of values at play here, which was if not directly causative at least an important contribution in what has happened.
Firstly, you hear every now and then of White mothers who are very cruel to their children (rare, though); but you see, they generally aren’t observant Christians; they come from the worst of the urban plebs, and tend to have a history of alcohol or drugs. Here, we have a family of observant Muslims who want their son to become a Koran memorisation expert. The family is certainly not destitute, taxi-driver isn’t bad in Cardiff and if they had lived in misery this would have been used by the defence for all it’s worth (look, it’s so difficult; the stress of the abject misery, and having to care for so many children at home; of course the one or other gets beaten to death once in a while…).
Secondly, the mere idea of a mother burning her son’s dead body and then accusing her husband of the killing is utterly inconceivable in a Christian setting, as is the affirmation the husband would kill the wife upon discovery of the death. Strangely enough, both acts do not seem so strange if put in a Muslim setting: if a Palestinian mother can set her many children against the IDF and cash a lot of money if one of them is killed, one isn’t very surprised that another Muslim mother would beat his son “like a dog” (not my words; hers) for not memorising the Koran fast enough. As to the fear of being killed, I have known of Muslim women killed by their relatives for much less, though here it was probably an excuse; still, in this setting it is a less improbable one.
All in all, a climate emerges in which, though Islam must certainly not make of people such beasts (and I am sure many perfectly decent Muslim families live in England, though they follow the wrong religion; I have known some I can only define as exemplary), it is instrumental in what has happened here, where a well-educated woman beats her own child to death for not memorising the sacred book of her religion fast enough.
In a related news, the mega mosque in London will not be built; at least not as it is now proposed, a 9,000-place concrete nightmare.
Why am I relieved?
Religion of peace, my foot.
Chose a child rapist as a “prophet”, and this is what you get.
There’s too much anti-Muslim bias in Europe, says Amnesty International. BBC obviously reports in very sympathetic tones.
All those good and hard-working Muslims treated as if they were as many criminals. Tsk,tsk…
I must distance myself from such prejudices. I am sure many Muslims are rather westernised, and don’t give a Mohammed for their religion. Alas, many others aren’t, and they do give a Mohammed.
To prove that there are no problems with Muslims (in Europe, or elsewhere) I will post here a famous cartoon. You will remember this cartoon did not originate violent riots in several Muslim countries, did not cause the assassination of several religious and civilians, did not expose Islam as a dangerous religion all too likely to raise suicidal-homicidal hotheads, and did not cause any call for boycott of Danish products.
Therefore, Amnesty International must be right.