God-Fearing People

[cybercoma]

By Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/nav/tap2/

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

Be sure to read the entire article.

[kimmy]

Be sure to read the entire article.

A terrific essay!

Why do people worry about offending Muslims but don't seem to worry about offending Christians or Jews? Mr Hitchens hits the nail on the head here.

I am reminded of the scene in Star Wars, when R2D2 is beating Chewbacca at chess, much to Chewbacca's displeasure. Han Solo suggests that R2 should let Chewbacca win or he might get angry. C3P0 asks why they should worry about making the Wookie angry, when nobody worries about making droids angry.

"Droids don't rip your arms out when they lose," Han observes. C3P0 immediately recognizes the peril and urges R2D2 to pursue a new policy of Wookie appeasement. (C3P0 likely sat down at his computer later on and posted a message-board thread called "A primer on Wookie 'Anger'.")

And when "moderate" Muslims point out that their less-moderate brethren might get angry in response to some policy or position, these "moderate" Muslims are likewise employing the threat of violence. Really no different from a mob "protection" scam where a mob representative reminds shop-keepers that "sometimes accidents happen" to people who don't cooperate.

-k

[scribblet]

Why do people worry about offending Muslims but don't seem to worry about offending Christians or Jews? Mr Hitchens hits the nail on the head here.

Obviously because of the propensity towards violence and non-peaceful protest by a number of them. Plus, the number of orgs. (CAIR and ACLU) who go to bat for them. It appears that we are inching towards Sharia Law, a little bit here a little bit there, as we cave in to more and more demands.

[kuzadd]

cybercoma:

I have read the article and I will discuss it, at length, as I sip tea!

"Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"

are we?

I see absolutely ZERO indication of that.

At large, we see Muslims, rounded up, subjected to hate crimes, abused in public by other citizens, and take a good look around this forum. I see very offensive aspersions made regularily.

I am afraid once Hitchens set's up his false premise, he has to go into some weird claims to back it up.

Including laying out the conditions HE deems necessary for Muslims:

"Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy."

Is that all there is to being a Muslim? Did he ask a Muslim?He gives ZERO indication of that.

Then he goes on with a condemnation of there Faith![/

b]

"Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. "

WOW, he's not worried about making offensive assertions, is he?

Then he redeems himself a bit, a show of balance, by including christians (meh)

"No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, .... (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.)

OK, following along with me?

But then , after saying that he goes right off on a tangent:

"Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape?"

setting up a false premise, who is "commanding' us to respect "those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable"? "

This could as equally apply to christianity or Judaism or any other religions, but who does he apply it to?

Islam. Then he goes on with this...

"that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape?"

really, So it's just Muslims that murder and rape. He ain't worried about the insult there. Nor the untruth in that statement

Then he goes on with the news story which he provides a link to, but does anyone check it?

I did. He say's and I quote"

"Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran."

The he goes on with his story about throwing his bible out the window, it's colourful, but does he really or is he just telling us a nice story, I am going for a nice story as it fits this article thus far."

Now here's the story:

"the Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace's lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit.

The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school. In an earlier incident on Sept. 21, the school reported another copy of the Quran was found in a library toilet, and in October someone scrawled racial slurs on a student's car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan. Police did not connect Shmulevich to those incidents."

Ok, I'll continue>>>

So this is actually the second time, the Quran has been put in the toilet and there have been numerous incidents of racial slurs etc., How can the University allow this kind of stuff to go on? it can't.

BUT, I note again, WOW, again, NO worries about offending Muslims in any of that eh???

numerous incidents of racial slurs and 2 Qurans in the toilet doesn't indicate to me in any way shape or form, that , there is much fear in offending Muslims, None at all!

In fact it looks like offending Muslims is exactly what is going on and intentionally.

So, unless Hitchens is saying that these people should be subjected to racist slurs, remarks and abuses on a regular basis, I do not understand why he is making an issue out of this?

No one should be subjected to this.

Then he dredges up all kinds of old news, regurgitated fear of Sharia, don't get where that is coming from in relation to this article.

EXCEPT, for this. This article was written to 'stir the pot'. 'fan the flames' and Hitchens is good at it, don't get me wrong.

He puts every bit of fearmongering he can muster into it.

BUT, the last thing he worries about is offending Muslims, or he wouldn't have wrote what is a piece of garbage, with half-truths, misrepresentations, and every emotional, fear inducing tactic he could use.

Hitchens long ago lost credibility as a serious journalist.

Edited August 1, 2007 by kuzadd

[sharkman]

Why do people worry about offending Muslims but don't seem to worry about offending Christians or Jews? Mr Hitchens hits the nail on the head here.

Obviously because of the propensity towards violence and non-peaceful protest by a number of them. Plus, the number of orgs. (CAIR and ACLU) who go to bat for them. It appears that we are inching towards Sharia Law, a little bit here a little bit there, as we cave in to more and more demands.

That is usually where appeasement over time gets us. It gave us WWII.

Analyze the Western Media's response to the Muslim Cartoon controversy, and you will see why we now are at a place where they are considering providing a place for Muslims to wash their feet in a public place before they pray.

[FascistLibertarian]

Yeah people are afraid to offend muslims. Thats the truth. People never ever say things that offend muslims.

wtf are any of you talking about. People talk bad about islam all the time. Have you ever talked to a Muslim about the shit they go through? Try being a nuclear engineer with the name Mohamad trying to get into the us.

Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse.

So no religion should be respected? I am fine with that.........

Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."

So your going to blame the crimes of a small few on the majority? I wonder if the author has ever even been attacked sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity?

Its not a license! Its not legit and its not islamic to attack people who choose to disrepect islam.

You can disrespect whatever you want. If you say that gay people arent legit and one of them caps you what then? This person would clearly blame all gays (because they are ignorant)

[kuzadd]

This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse.

Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion.

BUT, when one see's a half-baked article such as this, one notes the sheer level of BS in it.

It has to be condemned for what it is , an attempt to stir, hatred, fear and contempt for no rational reason.

I had to laugh at even the part, that is allegedly the demonstration of Islam's violence "book burning" or so he says.

What we have seen no other religions do and promote that???? LOL!

So these other religions would logically be equally violent, right?

Not according to Hitchens.

The entire article is garbage.

[sharkman]

This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse.

Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion.

BUT, when one see's a half-baked article such as this, one notes the sheer level of BS in it.

It has to be condemned for what it is , an attempt to stir, hatred, fear and contempt for no rational reason.

I had to laugh at even the part, that is allegedly the demonstration of Islam's violence "book burning" or so he says.

What we have seen no other religions do and promote that???? LOL!

So these other religions would logically be equally violent, right?

Not according to Hitchens.

The entire article is garbage.

Kuzy, this is where your skewed perceptions I was talking about earlier come into play. You can't find even one story about a Muslim kook that you:

1) Are not completely suspicious of, finding high levels of B.S. in every story

2) Can usually be found criticizing other religions, while finding no Muslims at fault in the story in question.

You do mention that there are Muslim nutjobs, but you just never seem to find any in the many threads on this board. This is why I suggested you need to read a wider scope of material.

Edited August 2, 2007 by sharkman

[guyser]

This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse.

Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion.

BUT, when one see's a half-baked article such as this, one notes the sheer level of BS in it.

It has to be condemned for what it is , an attempt to stir, hatred, fear and contempt for no rational reason.

Funny how you want to rant on all religions as intolerant and being exclusive, but not Islam. Please, do keep your thoughts in a row.

I mean, this is you isnt it..?...."Aah religion, when, will it actually be tolerant and inclusive!"

IOW, give all religions your benefit of the doubt, not just Islam.

[kuzadd]

This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse.

Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion.

BUT, when one see's a half-baked article such as this, one notes the sheer level of BS in it.

It has to be condemned for what it is , an attempt to stir, hatred, fear and contempt for no rational reason.

Funny how you want to rant on all religions as intolerant and being exclusive, but not Islam. Please, do keep your thoughts in a row.

I mean, this is you isnt it..?...."Aah religion, when, will it actually be tolerant and inclusive!"

IOW, give all religions your benefit of the doubt, not just Islam.

are you serious?

why would you even make this statement above, based on what you quoted me saying?

reread above and here and I'll bold it for you, yet, so it is absolutely clear

"This was why I took exception to this article, half-truths, stereotypes and worse.

Yes, there are criminals and nutjobs in Islam, as there are in any other religion."

Now where did I leave Islam out?

Suggestion:

a)if you need glasses, put them on.

b)if your reading skills are lacking, try reading more, to shore them up.

c) stop projecting( that means, not what YOU think I said, what I actually said)

absolutely incredible

[kuzadd]

Kuzy, this is where your skewed perceptions I was talking about earlier come into play. You can't find even one story about a Muslim kook that you:

1) Are not completely suspicious of, finding high levels of B.S. in every story

2) Can usually be found criticizing other religions, while finding no Muslims at fault in the story in question.

You do mention that there are Muslim nutjobs, but you just never seem to find any in the many threads on this board. This is why I suggested you need to read a wider scope of material.

sharky: was this a story about a Muslim nutjob?

NO, it was NOT, so what is your point?

I know, NONE!

Oh, I am completely suspicious of high levels of BS in every story, posted in this forum, and alot of them are complete BS.

The problem it seems, is what passes as fact, is nothing but rhetoric, or pure nonsense.

What were the Muslims at fault for in this story?

Not wanting to be subjected to hate crimes and racial slurs.

WOW, how godawful!

How outrageous!

The problem is YOU think they should be subjected to slurs, bigotry, racism, etc., that is why you are at odds with me over this subject.

That is your skewed perception not mine.

Edited August 3, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

I would like to make a suggestion to sharky here, read up on war time propaganda, and it's most common hallmark, demonization of the enemy.

There are extensive resources available to read on this subject, then you will understand what the Hitchen's piece, was exactly.

here's one to help you:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79071

Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War

"Propaganda, both by governments and the private media, has evolved over the years as media has evolved. But, some say, the principle remains the same.

"The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize," said James Forsher, a film historian and documentary filmmaker who has studied propaganda films, and who is an assistant professor of mass communications at California State University, Hayward.

"When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it,"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5058

"“Perception management” is another term used to describe the process of transforming public opinion to conform to a premeditated political agenda. Perception management establishes underlying trends and tendencies that drive the public perception of events in the direction of war. During war, perception management manipulates public opinion to accept the horrific nature of war crimes as merely nothing more than collateral damage, friendly fire and accidental mishaps that are inevitable consequences of the fog of war."

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.demons.html

"Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments."

IMO, sharky, you are drinking from the fountain of propaganda, way too much, and don't even realize it,

This type of tactic, demonization, was used by Hitler against, numerous persons, most notoriously the Jewish people.

Had the Germans been more savy, educated and aware of the way they were being manipulated, it is entirely possible, so many people would not have been killed.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Edited August 3, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

and another suggestion sharky and anyone else who may be interested, I want to be inclusive.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Lies-Be...s/dp/1932857060

Don't Believe It!: How Lies Become News

"To maintain audiences and readership, journalists, editors and producers will choose sensational stories that "shock." Combined with time and budget constraints, journalists may unwittingly or deliberately disseminate false or misleading information to the public. It is important to "get" a story, interview a subject or nab a scoop first-the accuracy of these elements is secondary. Competition from other media outlets also means the goal of a journalist is to get the scoop first-how it makes it on the air (flawed, inaccurate, questionably obtained) is unimportant.

Don't Believe It! teaches news consumers how to verify information. It shows readers how to evaluate sources, eyewitnesses and data. This is a comprehensive bible to information verification from a logical standpoint, showing how to be skeptical without being jaded, step by step, with case studies and a classification manual."

EXCELLENT BOOK!!!

I am in the midst of reading it now,(more then half-way through) and it really helps with discerning the bs, from the realistic.

IMO, sharky , you could benefit greatly from this book and reading the previously suggested information.

Edited August 3, 2007 by kuzadd

[buffycat]

I think that some of the threads on this board go to prove that no one is afraid of offending Muslims.

Though I can think of a couple groups folks are afraid of offending....

Hitchens has already lost any kind of journalistic integrity he may have had - a long time ago. He is relegated to the rank of shill.

Unflippin'beleivable!

I think Kuzadd has nailed it though, wrt demonisation and propoganda - that is pretty much all that Hitchens and his cohorts are able to produce these days!

ack

[Black Dog]

Having read old Hitch's booze-soaked ramblings, I'm left with one question: whaddaya mean "we," paleface?

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran?

Problem is, there's nothing in the article Hitch cites to indicate that the Quran is being afforded special treatment. We don't know (and I bet Hitch doesn't either) if similar treatment of the Bible or Torah would warrant a similar response. To use Hitchen's logic, the fact that someone spray painting anti-semitic graffiti on the side of a synagogue would be treated differently from someone tagging the wall of a 7-11 shows that Jews recieve special treatment (probably because "we" are afraid of offending them.)

One simply has to stroll through this board, the blogosphere, even the mainstream media to see that the so-called "fear" of offending Muslims and resulting special treatment is vastly overblown.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Black Dog

[AngusThermopyle]

Normally I wouldn't involve myself in this sort of bickering, however some pretty outrageous and false statements are being made and really should be addressed.

First, please dont try to revise the Islamic religion as one of peace kindness and goodness. One only has to read the Quran to see that is patently false. That is one very gory book, full of off with their heads and take over the world stuff. Thats not to say that other religions don't have their share of similar nonsense, they do as well. It's just to say that no, Islam is no more peacefull than other religions and in many cases is actually far more full of hate and violence than a lot of them.

Next, demonization of Islamic people. Sorry Kuzad, far worse than what you complain about is being perpetrated by our peacefull bretheren in the middle east. Farfafell (?) killed by a Jewish settler who stole his land. Jews portrayed with horns and fangs. Propaganda circulated that states Jewish people kill Islamic and Christian children for their blood so they can make Motzahs. Hmmm...no demonization going on there. Hitler did a good job of teaching his Islamic allies the techniques that worked best for him, it would seem.

Oh yes, if you wont be attacked or assaulted for criticizing Islam then I guess someone should let Salmon Rushdie know he can come out of hiding now.

As I said earlier, violence seems to be a part of most religions. Demonization is practiced by many not just those in the west. Actually what is happening with respect to the Jewish people is particularly vile. This is just to add a little balance to some of the statements already made in this thread.

[buffycat]

Normally I wouldn't involve myself in this sort of bickering, however some pretty outrageous and false statements are being made and really should be addressed.

First, please dont try to revise the Islamic religion as one of peace kindness and goodness. One only has to read the Quran to see that is patently false. That is one very gory book, full of off with their heads and take over the world stuff. Thats not to say that other religions don't have their share of similar nonsense, they do as well. It's just to say that no, Islam is no more peacefull than other religions and in many cases is actually far more full of hate and violence than a lot of them.

So, I take it you have read the Quran? How about the Old Testament - lots of off with their heads there too huh? And burnings, and smiting!!

Ain't religion grand?

[sharkman]

here's one to help you:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79071

Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War

"Propaganda, both by governments and the private media, has evolved over the years as media has evolved. But, some say, the principle remains the same.

"The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize," said James Forsher, a film historian and documentary filmmaker who has studied propaganda films, and who is an assistant professor of mass communications at California State University, Hayward.

"When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it,"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5058

"“Perception management” is another term used to describe the process of transforming public opinion to conform to a premeditated political agenda. Perception management establishes underlying trends and tendencies that drive the public perception of events in the direction of war. During war, perception management manipulates public opinion to accept the horrific nature of war crimes as merely nothing more than collateral damage, friendly fire and accidental mishaps that are inevitable consequences of the fog of war."

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.demons.html

"Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments."

IMO, sharky, you are drinking from the fountain of propaganda, way too much, and don't even realize it,

This type of tactic, demonization, was used by Hitler against, numerous persons, most notoriously the Jewish people.

Had the Germans been more savy, educated and aware of the way they were being manipulated, it is entirely possible, so many people would not have been killed.

Sooooo, this must be how the Iman's are getting members of their flocks to hate the West. Demonization and perception management. Although I'm puzzled at how liberals in the West are falling for it.

Couldn't help but notice how you responded to some criticism, kuzy. You wrote post after post after post. Four posts all by 5am. I'm beginning to wonder just what it is you do at night since you don't seem to sleep. Nice Hitler reference, but a little boring, I'm afraid. Since liberals having been referencing hitler so often, it's begun to lose it's effect I'm afraid.

[kuzadd]

Four posts all by 5am. I'm beginning to wonder just what it is you do at night since you don't seem to sleep.

Yet! you fail to consider the obvious.

I live in a different time zone, and instead assume I am posting all night?

You do realize there is more then 1 time zone in Canada, right? right?

wrt: propaganda : yup it flows both ways and IMO, you are taking it all in.

Edited August 3, 2007 by kuzadd

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually the Hitler reference is not for dramatic effect but is actual historic fact. I'll see if I can find the references as I've forgotten the specifics now. Hitler was allied with Muslims in WWII. I believe they managed to raise a couple of regiments for him if I remember correctly.And, yes, they did learn from him. Hence the popularity of instilling zealotry and hatred in the children, just as Hitler did with his Hitler Youth organization. They were right in lockstep with his "Final Solution" as well.

Kurzad, I believe if you read what I posted you'll see that I did indeed mention the fact that other religious tomes also include a good deal of violence. I guess you must have skipped that part.

Yes actually, I have read the Quran. It was some time ago now but I do believe that if you wish to discuss something you should first attempt to learn about the subject.

Edited August 4, 2007 by AngusThermopyle

[betsy]

Why are we so afraid of offending muslims?

Rushdie is a good example. For simply writing a book that muslims found was offensive (I don't know what part of it), a fatwa was issued on him.

This is like being a witness to a mafia slaying - when contract killers are put on you. You're dead....or you run and change your identity.

What about that European movie director who was killed by a Muslim who found his movie insulting?

The cartoons?

Even most media seem to walk on eggshells when talking about Islam or Muslims.

The west had been effectively intimidated by Muslim radicals...and our current trend and penchant towards appeasement had only made that much simpler. We have bowed down to bullies. Plain and simple.

[kuzadd]

Why are we so afraid of offending muslims?

The west had been effectively intimidated by Muslim radicals...and our current trend and penchant towards appeasement had only made that much simpler. We have bowed down to bullies. Plain and simple.

Yup!

look at ole' Betsy sitting here doling out the criticism, note the absence of fear.

Just like Hitchens, no fear there!

You two gotta stop with the appeasement!!!!

rofl!!

Edited August 4, 2007 by kuzadd

[scribblet]

The west had been effectively intimidated by Muslim radicals...and our current trend and penchant towards appeasement had only made that much simpler. We have bowed down to bullies. Plain and simple.

Their assaults on the freedom of speech is a form of intimidation, as an Afghanistan editor of a "Women's Rights" magazine was convicted on "blasphemy" charges after a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai accused the editor of publishing two "un-Islamic" articles: one criticizing the Islamic practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes; the other arguing that leaving Islam wasn't a crime.

Jyllands-Posten (Danish paper - cartoons) is another example of how we are intimidated by violent protests, and of course the riots and burning of France. All this and more are tests of our willingness to stand up to their demands; which are about influencing the West with the gradual encroachment of Sharia type laws and encroachment onto the western concept of free speech.

The less we stand up to intimidation and threats, the more the radicals become emboldened.

[kuzadd]

Another observation wrt the Hitchen's opinion piece.

It is entitled :

God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

who is now claiming to be an atheist?

Why does he use the inclusive pro-noun, 'we' in his title?

if he is doing it to include himself, he is then not an atheist, as he claims.

If he is using the pronoun we , as a reference to "God-fearing people" as a group, who exactly is the 'We', he is referring to, who is the 'we' he is writing this for??

IMO, the 'we' he is writing this for, whom it will resonate with the most are the evangelical, "god-fearing" christians.

The biggest irony in this article is that Christopher Hitchens the atheist, who should have no use for religion at all, writes an article to tell the "god-fearing" christian evangelicals, that they are apparently to scared to offend Muslims!

Preposterous!

[kuzadd]

Their assaults on the freedom of speech is a form of intimidation, as an Afghanistan editor of a "Women's Rights" magazine was convicted on "blasphemy" charges after a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai accused the editor of publishing two "un-Islamic" articles: one criticizing the Islamic practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes; the other arguing that leaving Islam wasn't a crime.

Jyllands-Posten (Danish paper - cartoons) is another example of how we are intimidated by violent protests, and of course the riots and burning of France. All this and more are tests of our willingness to stand up to their demands; which are about influencing the West with the gradual encroachment of Sharia type laws and encroachment onto the western concept of free speech.

The less we stand up to intimidation and threats, the more the radicals become emboldened.

and now here's scrib's, not afraid to criticize!

never has been , that I have ever noticed!

Excuse me, but, were the cartoons published?

Yes they were, oh, that Danish paper was just shaking and quaking!

"Their assaults on the freedom of speech is a form of intimidation"

Is it?

wow, just like ALL assaults on freedom of speech scribbs???

right scribbs?

Like the person who is having freedominion looked into?

That individual is 'assaulting' free speech right?

Like how groups like B'nai Brith 'assault' free speech?

getting websites shutdown, deciding what books, can be read by whom??

Like that children's book "Three Wishes" by Debra Ellis

an award winning book, no less!

http://www.mcnallyrobinson.com/product/cat...49/item/229283/

recall that?

Numerous persons inc. Jewish people, who disagreed with this, came out and said, it is not the place of these groups to decide, what people can and cannot read.

So many assaults on free speech, by so many!

So scribbs, are all the aformentioned 'assaults' on free speech forms of intimidation?

or is it just intimidation if it can be attributed/blamed on Muslims?

I would hate for you to appear to be promoting a double standard ?

Could you clarify?

Edited August 4, 2007 by kuzadd