Hatred-seething hordes of Islamic fundamentalists continue to run wild in the streets burning the West's flags, torching its embassies, and committing deadly mayhem over cartoons depicting Mohammed.
The cartoons were first published by the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper in September but the dispute has now erupted in earnest, as several European newspapers reprinted them in what they assert is a defense of free speech.
Islamic tradition strongly discourages depictions of the seventh-century prophet as a form of idolatry.
In order to provide an opposite perspective as to the reasons and extent of such rage, perhaps an article in Newsday.
com entitled, "Rage over cartoon goes beyond politics," by Carol Eisenberg, dated Feb.
7, 2006, might shed some light and provide balance to my own perspective as set forth below.
Indeed, some moderate Muslim groups have condemned the violence and urged restraint, but Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has said, "Let (U.
S.
Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can't forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.
" Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a word, a demonstration but let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ...
We will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices...
" At the same time, many Western leaders, forgetting that freedom of speech is a vital and fundamental principle of civilized society, are responding with outrage over the cartoons in the latest example of hand-wringing that occurs anytime there is widespread display of Muslim rage.
Only a handful of U.
S.
Newspapers have reprinted the cartoons, and The European Union now seeks to calm the tension by calling for a voluntary media code of conduct to avoid inflaming religious sensibilities.
But every attempt to appease radical Muslim opinion emboldens our enemies; every concession gives them hope.
More importantly, every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives them time to plan the next Sept.
11.
Case in point, the ever apologetic Ted Kennedy, in response to Abu Ghraib, whimpers, "We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons.
" Bill Clinton, though certainly not of Kennedy's ilk, has recently jumped into this pot of self-castigation by saying: "None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions...
there was this appalling example in...
Denmark...
these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam.
" Now the U.
S.
Government announces that while free speech is important, the government shares "the offense that Muslims have taken at these images," and even hints that it is disrespectful to publish them.
On top of this, we are continually told Muslim anger over our support of Israel is a leading cause of anti-American terrorism and we are charged with not being tough enough on Israel, even though that free nation, unlike its neighbors, has laws that guarantee protection of all citizens, including Jews and Arabs alike.
And President Bush, like most politicians (and many high-flying intellectual doves), has taken a political posture that appears to be more in sync with appeasement.
He has declared Islam a "great religion" and promised the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a Palestinian state (though Hamas has since won the election).
Instead of confronting regimes who threaten us with mayhem and others who threaten us with the ongoing production of real weapons of mass destruction, like Iran, he has supported those who would seek their "cooperation" at the bargaining table and who, in so doing, would replace negotiations with blackmail.
Now then, why does a Muslim have a moral right to his or her dogmas, but we must be apologetic and tentative about our rational principles of free speech? Why are journalists called out for moral censure but Muslims are allowed to respond with death threats? Help me understand why we admonish the good to pacify the evil? Why do we permit this inexplicable double standard? I say Muslim Islamic rage be damned; mystical taboos be damned; dogmas be damned; apologies be damned.
Its high time to proudly argue for the superiority of our American way of life--one that includes respect for the rights of the individual, one that includes freedom, prosperity and pursuit of worldly pleasures--not one that seeks a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.
As well, maybe its time to declare that militant groups and states that employ violence and mayhem as a response to free speech will no longer be met with appeasement, but perhaps with something quite different.
Some may call it jingoism or sabre rattling; I call it standing up for my country--and I will never, ever apologize for that.
"No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.
" --Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, 1949-1953
The cartoons were first published by the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper in September but the dispute has now erupted in earnest, as several European newspapers reprinted them in what they assert is a defense of free speech.
Islamic tradition strongly discourages depictions of the seventh-century prophet as a form of idolatry.
In order to provide an opposite perspective as to the reasons and extent of such rage, perhaps an article in Newsday.
com entitled, "Rage over cartoon goes beyond politics," by Carol Eisenberg, dated Feb.
7, 2006, might shed some light and provide balance to my own perspective as set forth below.
Indeed, some moderate Muslim groups have condemned the violence and urged restraint, but Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has said, "Let (U.
S.
Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can't forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.
" Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a word, a demonstration but let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ...
We will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices...
" At the same time, many Western leaders, forgetting that freedom of speech is a vital and fundamental principle of civilized society, are responding with outrage over the cartoons in the latest example of hand-wringing that occurs anytime there is widespread display of Muslim rage.
Only a handful of U.
S.
Newspapers have reprinted the cartoons, and The European Union now seeks to calm the tension by calling for a voluntary media code of conduct to avoid inflaming religious sensibilities.
But every attempt to appease radical Muslim opinion emboldens our enemies; every concession gives them hope.
More importantly, every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives them time to plan the next Sept.
11.
Case in point, the ever apologetic Ted Kennedy, in response to Abu Ghraib, whimpers, "We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons.
" Bill Clinton, though certainly not of Kennedy's ilk, has recently jumped into this pot of self-castigation by saying: "None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions...
there was this appalling example in...
Denmark...
these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam.
" Now the U.
S.
Government announces that while free speech is important, the government shares "the offense that Muslims have taken at these images," and even hints that it is disrespectful to publish them.
On top of this, we are continually told Muslim anger over our support of Israel is a leading cause of anti-American terrorism and we are charged with not being tough enough on Israel, even though that free nation, unlike its neighbors, has laws that guarantee protection of all citizens, including Jews and Arabs alike.
And President Bush, like most politicians (and many high-flying intellectual doves), has taken a political posture that appears to be more in sync with appeasement.
He has declared Islam a "great religion" and promised the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a Palestinian state (though Hamas has since won the election).
Instead of confronting regimes who threaten us with mayhem and others who threaten us with the ongoing production of real weapons of mass destruction, like Iran, he has supported those who would seek their "cooperation" at the bargaining table and who, in so doing, would replace negotiations with blackmail.
Now then, why does a Muslim have a moral right to his or her dogmas, but we must be apologetic and tentative about our rational principles of free speech? Why are journalists called out for moral censure but Muslims are allowed to respond with death threats? Help me understand why we admonish the good to pacify the evil? Why do we permit this inexplicable double standard? I say Muslim Islamic rage be damned; mystical taboos be damned; dogmas be damned; apologies be damned.
Its high time to proudly argue for the superiority of our American way of life--one that includes respect for the rights of the individual, one that includes freedom, prosperity and pursuit of worldly pleasures--not one that seeks a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.
As well, maybe its time to declare that militant groups and states that employ violence and mayhem as a response to free speech will no longer be met with appeasement, but perhaps with something quite different.
Some may call it jingoism or sabre rattling; I call it standing up for my country--and I will never, ever apologize for that.
"No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.
" --Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, 1949-1953
Source...