Blasphemy as a National Security Threat
Offending Islam has become a national security issue involving all levels of government.
Published: December 30th, 2012
print
tell a friend
Imran Firasat
Muslim blasphemy, like the ghetto hood’s respect is an assertion of supremacy by identity. It isn’t a grievance, it’s a right of violence, and if you give into it, then you accept the inferior status that comes from being weak in a system where might makes right and killing people, or threatening to, is what makes one man better than another.
1
Loading ...
the americans and the rest of the world, instead of fearing the arabs for talking smack about muhamed, they should fear Hashem the G-d of all peoples when they promote gay marrage and immorality. Hes the one that is pounding america with violent storms and dissabling the "most powerful country on earth" all because of their sick ways. the arabs kill homosexuals and blasphimers. israel should do the same.
Funny how the areas in NYC most devastated by hurricane Sandy included most of the areas that vote Republican in national elections.
Funny how the areas in NYC most devastated by hurricane Sandy included most of the areas that vote Republican in national elections.
"proposed to burn a Koran,".
The guy who wanted to burn the Koran — and did — is a nutcase named Terry Jones. He wanted to burn a Talmud, too — because according to Jones we Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence."
There hasn't been a blasphemy prosecution anywhere in the US since the 1920s, and in the 1950s the US Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional.
I thought that the JP had higher standards for factual content.
"proposed to burn a Koran,".
The guy who wanted to burn the Koran — and did — is a nutcase named Terry Jones. He wanted to burn a Talmud, too — because according to Jones we Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
"Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence."
There hasn't been a blasphemy prosecution anywhere in the US since the 1920s, and in the 1950s the US Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional.
I thought that the JP had higher standards for factual content.
I liked Jones better when he was with Monty Python
I liked Jones better when he was with Monty Python
He's saying that we are effectively using such laws now, even if we don't call it blasphemy persecution.
He brings no evidence for such. Although frankly I think Jones should be confined in a mental institution.
"The United States has a man sitting in prison for making another blasphemous movie, which the government spent weeks blaming for worldwide attacks on American embassies. And he isn’t the first man persecuted or prosecuted for offending Islam.""When Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa DJ, proposed to burn a Koran, the commander of the Afghanistan war contacted his girlfriend (who would later be stalked by Petraeus’ girlfriend) to contact the Mayor of Tampa to keep Bubba from burning a Koran. Instead of explaining how the American system works to the Lebanese temptress and her four-star general, the mayor wrote back that the city was working on it."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/bubba_the_love_sponge He's talking about a different person. And people should be able to say they want to burn the Talmud or the Koran. And if they want to, the government should not stop them from doing so.
When a country is at war — and remember we are still in the GWOT — liberties are restricted when expressing those liberties damages the war effort.
Were we in the middle of WW1 or WW2, we would not be having this discussion.
Sure we restrict freedoms. This makes sense to the extent of wiretapping suspected terrorists, for instance, but that often gets liberals up in arms. I do not think they punished Americans for anti-German speech in WWI or II (in fact, there were attacks in the first-which I am not justifying.) There is no reason our freedom should be restricted in order to appease those who threaten us, and the author's point is that the illusion that this will work is dangerous. Furthermore, where does it end? At WWI and II, it was clear when we won; the war on terrorism is ongoing, and we cannot just say we will live indefinitely in fear of offending Islam. If we do, they've won.
" wiretapping suspected terrorists, for instance, but that often gets liberals up in arms"
Never got me up in arms. There has been provision for this in the law for over 30 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
"At WWI and II, it was clear when we won; the war on terrorism is ongoing"
You are sounding like the ultra-lefties on dailykos!