What Did You Say About Muhammad?! [or why the west are a bunch of weenies]

What Did You Say About Muhammad?!

Which is more likely to elicit an irate Muslim response: 1) public cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, or 2) public proclamations that Muhammad was a bisexual, sometime transvestite and necrophile, who enjoyed sucking on the tongues of children, commanded a woman to "breastfeed" an adult man, and advised believers to drink his urine for salutary health? [...]

This item is mandatory reading for all of our chums that fantasise about mythical "moderate" islam and lecture to the rest of us about our intolerance and "islamophobia". The money shot is deeper in the article -

Of course, one need not agree with Life TV's tactics or evangelical mission to appreciate the lesson it imparts: Muslim outrage—as with all human outrage—is predicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself, withers away.

This isn't Faux or some neocon propaganda sheet. It's far too intelligently written to be that. Raymond Ibrahim has an extensive background in mid-east politics and is an Egyptian Copt by birth. Somewhat more entitled to discuss these matters than any of our whitey apologists.

It has been evident from the start that those that have usurped contemporary Humanism have not achieved anything with their policies of accommodationism and mantras on "tolerance". It is now a valid question to ask - how much does this continual appeasement exacerbate the problems we are now dealing with ?

Tags: accomodationism, alu akbar, fear, god is great, humanists, islamophobia, loathing, religion of peace, reverse racism, self-censorship

Views: 115

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Edward, people like Buchanan and Bachman are not simply exercising their free speech rights. They are, in fact, attempting to destroy the rights of others (not just Muslims). They should not be given a platform to do this, not even in the interests of free speech. Because they do not have the right to eliminate the rights of others. Which is what they are trying to do. You say they are impotent wackos, yet the Republibaggertarians pay plenty of attention to them. As with all demagogues, they must be opposed, just as we must oppose Islamist attempts to export their brand of tyranny.

The American Taliban may currently have less power than the one in Afghanistan, but their goals are the same, stylistic differences notwithstanding. I'm not interested in accommodating either threat. Bachmann and Buchanan aren't so much interested in stopping Islamic encroachment as they are simply xenophobic. They just prefer their brand of theocracy, and don't like the competition from Mecca. I don't want to live in an Islamic Republic or a Christian Republic, and I don't think demagoguery from either direction should be tolerated.
Oh, and who do you think pushed the PATRIOT Act? The right wing. Bachmann and Buchanan aren't exactly friendly to the ACLU.
Jason, so if I understand you correctly, it's more important to make sure to stomp on people who may potentially some day threaten us, as opposed to doing something about the people who are murdering and enslaving the innocent. You need to sort out your priorities.
Oh and Republibaggertarians was really funny. Did you come up with that yourself, or did you have help?
Edward, why let problems fester until they get big? What exactly prevents us from opposing homegrown bigotry and oppression? I fail to see why we can't do both. Nowhere did I suggest that we should give Islamists a pass, or prioritize their kind of assholiness below that of the Christian Right in the US. They are both dangerous. Bachmann and Buchanan encourage people like Timothy McVeigh. They're not just harmless talking heads.

And where did I say anything about political correctness? Just because I oppose the nutjob right in all its flavors, doesn't mean I want a worldwide caliphate or will put up with crap like the burqa in the interests of "free speech". I don't like any kind of extremism, and I certainly don't mind offending extremists. I don't oppose Bachmann and Buchanan because they oppose Islam, but because of everything else they stand for. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, or even neutral.
Edward: Thanks for your comments, Jaume and Bill. You think that everyone deserves rights...except people who disagree with you. I understand your kind very well. Thanks for making your position clear.

What wasn't clear to you, obviously, is my comment wasn't meant to be serious. But I've always thought that overused truisms and clichés like yours ("defend your rights, etc.") only deserve to be derailed or detourned ("defend your right-wingers").
Getting back to the actual article ...
This is my fav comment!
Atheists can not be argued with about faith. Logic’s do not exist and arguments are always “prove it”. Not a single thing can be disapproved, but that does not bother them. It’s pointless to argue with a child. It’s (child’s) mind operates on different level."

Ya hear that Atheists? apparently we're the ones who are illogical!?
Oh these theists and their crazy convoluted rationalizations!
If it wasn't so tragic I would be laughing!
The masque being built near ground zero in New York with an opening date of Sept. 11 2011 is a another accomodation that should be nipped in the bud.
Pat Condell has an excellent take on the building.
Near is different from at, but I still can see why he thinks that. It depends a lot on just how near it actually is, for me to think it's a deliberate "in your face!" thing. Apparently the people involved are part of CAIR, which is known for being two-faced.
The masque being built near ground zero in New York with an opening date of Sept. 11 2011 is a another accomodation that should be nipped in the bud.

I don't know; would we feel the same way about a Catholic Church being built near the former site of a concentration camp?
Fred: We should make Islam less fundy so they accept criticism from within and without without having to kill the messenger.

Yeah, and I should marry a rich chick and eat myself to death on a diet of whole truffles and panda steaks. Pretty likely huh?
I dunno. I just saw a TV reportage on Kazakhstan, part of its focus was on a group of young Muslim Tatar females whose everyday attire would make Paris Hilton blush. Today, religious revolutions begin with microskirts and pierced navels.
Maybe I was too specific. I should have written: today, revolutions begin with eye candy. That's the magic of global consumerism.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service