Is Criticism of Islam a H**e Crime?
Feb 17, 2015 09:08:05 #
Why the New Atheists did not k**l 3 Muslims in Chapel Hill.
After every terrorist attack, the news goes through the usual checklist of excuses. Muslims arent responsible. It had nothing to do with Islam. Asking Muslims to condemn or disassociate themselves from the attack is r****t and you should be ashamed of yourself for even asking them to do it.
The Chapel Hill shootings reversed the spin. The media switched from warning us that we shouldnt blame Muslims for Muslim terrorism, to blaming atheists for a parking dispute turned violent. Their evidence was Craig Hicks Facebook page quoting prominent atheists attacking, mainly, Christianity.
The Washington Post headlined its story, Chapel Hill k*****gs shine light on particular tensions between Islam and atheism. A more accurate headline would be that they shine a light on tensions between atheists and the left. Though atheists arent necessarily on the left, the Western left used to view them in a friendly light due to its own hostility to Christianity and Judaism. But recently that began to change.
The medias official story is that the catalyst for the conflict came from New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who were too strident and extreme. Like most of the medias official stories, this one is a fairy tale. Atheism has always had its strident rhetoric. It certainly did not turn strident a mere few decades ago. The New Atheists however were more willing to criticize Islam.
And the left has become increasingly intolerant of any criticism of Islam, whether from Christians or Jews, or from atheists even if they, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are ex-Muslims. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins havent said anything about Islam that Bertrand Russell didnt say. The difference is that they said it at a time when the left had become joined at the hip to Islam and criticism of Islam was being censured.
The New Atheists are far more focused on Christianity than any other religion, but even their occasional comments on Islam have infuriated the rising Muslim activists of the left and their non-Muslim allies. The attacks on them have come from the farthest corners of the left which would once have been militantly atheist. Today it is at best a politically correct atheism that criticizes Christianity, not Islam.
The debate had been initially fought out in the pages of The Guardian and The Independent, before migrating into the loonier corners of the American left, namely Salon, which became notorious for its unhinged rants about New Atheists hating women, smearing Muslims and mutilating cattle.
The initial critics had ties to Middle Eastern terror states that abused women, supported terrorism and blatantly discriminated against non-Muslims.
Al Jazeera, Qatars pet propaganda outlet, ran a piece accusing Richard Dawkins of Scientific R****m for describing Al Qaeda terrorists destroying a library as Islamic Babrarians. Nathan Lean, the research director for the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center, has spent more time attacking the New Atheists on Salon for Islamophobia than he has FOX News.
Why makes the New Atheists even scarier to Islamopologists than FOX News?
They are on the left making it impossible to ridicule them away as Faux News. Most of them have no interest in foreign policy so they cant be denounced as warmongers. Their scientific credentials make it difficult to dismiss them as ignorant. The usual attacks Islamopologists launch against critics bounce off.
And their criticisms of Islam are often more cutting and direct than anything viewers are likely to hear on FOX News. Consider Sam Harris writing, Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isnt, we will k**l you. That didnt appear on a right-wing site, but in the virtual pages of the Huffington Post.
Its not hard to see why shutting them up has become a major priority of the Islamopologist left.
Bill Mahers comments on Islam took the debate into the prime time, but the Chapel Hill shootings have made it possible for the first time to accuse the New Atheists of murder. Depicting the parking dispute as a h**e crime is about more than just the usual need to manufacture Islamic victimization, a bad habit which has already produced at least one post-shooting Islamophobic h**x h**e crime in Texas.
Its also about warning atheists against criticizing Islam.
The h**e crime case against Craig Hicks rests heavily on his Facebook page with its quotes on atheism, even though its contents mainly criticized Christianity. The implication has become that atheism is in and of itself proof of a bias motive. This position has dangerous consequences. If an atheist and a Muslim were to get into a fight, the atheists criticism of Islam might retroactively prove a h**e crime.
The Islamopologists have claimed that raids on Muslim charities funding terrorism were criminalizing their beliefs. Now they are criminalizing someone elses beliefs.
The Washington Posts Michelle Boorstein was quick to d**g in Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins into the shootings, while misstating a quote from Dawkins. Boorstein was unable to show that Harris or Dawkins had in any way advocated violence, only that they had accused Islam of being violent.
The New Republics Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig contended that, The Chapel Hill Murders Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Atheists. Again Harris and Dawkins were d**gged in without actually showing that they had called for the murder of Muslims.
CNN ran a Muslim piece claiming that Hicks had been motivated by atheism. NPR quoted Reza Aslan demanding that atheists confront extremists in their community. (If Reza Aslan did that in his own Islamic community, he would have a full time career on his hands.)
All of this is in sharp contrast to what happens after every Muslim terrorist attack when no amount of assertions by the very k**lers themselves can ever convince the media that it was Islamic terrorism. The media will disregard evidence of Islamic terrorism, as it did with the Fort Hood massacre, and in the same way it will disregard the lack of evidence when making the case that Muslims are the victims.
Non-Muslim neighbors described Hicks as threatening and obsessed with parking spaces. A development resident said that he was fueled by equal opportunity anger and that Hicks made everyone feel uncomfortable and unsafe.
But the case has already ceased to be about Hicks. Local shootings dont usually lead to condemnations from the White House or trending hashtags. Sandwiched between Muslim k*****gs of non-Muslims, the Chapel Hill shootings have become a rare opportunity for Muslims and their allies to play the victim.
Blaming New Atheists for the Chapel Hill shootings may be wildly dishonest, but so is pretending that Islam has nothing to do with the Islamic State.
Atheism in the Muslim world is a crime. The Islamopologist attempt to treat atheism as proof of a h**e crime imports the theocracy of Islamic law into the United States. And if it is allowed to stand, how long until Christian criticism of Islam suffers the same fate so that the only allowable attitudes to Islam are either belief or the mindless secular admiration that politicians and reporters display all the time?
Criticism of Islam, obnoxious or otherwise, is legal in the United States. It is illegal in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Recently weve seen Muslim efforts to impose this law through murder in Paris and Copenhagen. What the terrorists have tried to do to Charlie Hebdo by force, the Islamopologists are attempting to do here by associating the New Atheists with a crime they did not commit.
After every terrorist attack, the news goes through the usual checklist of excuses. Muslims arent responsible. It had nothing to do with Islam. Asking Muslims to condemn or disassociate themselves from the attack is r****t and you should be ashamed of yourself for even asking them to do it.
The Chapel Hill shootings reversed the spin. The media switched from warning us that we shouldnt blame Muslims for Muslim terrorism, to blaming atheists for a parking dispute turned violent. Their evidence was Craig Hicks Facebook page quoting prominent atheists attacking, mainly, Christianity.
The Washington Post headlined its story, Chapel Hill k*****gs shine light on particular tensions between Islam and atheism. A more accurate headline would be that they shine a light on tensions between atheists and the left. Though atheists arent necessarily on the left, the Western left used to view them in a friendly light due to its own hostility to Christianity and Judaism. But recently that began to change.
The medias official story is that the catalyst for the conflict came from New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who were too strident and extreme. Like most of the medias official stories, this one is a fairy tale. Atheism has always had its strident rhetoric. It certainly did not turn strident a mere few decades ago. The New Atheists however were more willing to criticize Islam.
And the left has become increasingly intolerant of any criticism of Islam, whether from Christians or Jews, or from atheists even if they, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are ex-Muslims. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins havent said anything about Islam that Bertrand Russell didnt say. The difference is that they said it at a time when the left had become joined at the hip to Islam and criticism of Islam was being censured.
The New Atheists are far more focused on Christianity than any other religion, but even their occasional comments on Islam have infuriated the rising Muslim activists of the left and their non-Muslim allies. The attacks on them have come from the farthest corners of the left which would once have been militantly atheist. Today it is at best a politically correct atheism that criticizes Christianity, not Islam.
The debate had been initially fought out in the pages of The Guardian and The Independent, before migrating into the loonier corners of the American left, namely Salon, which became notorious for its unhinged rants about New Atheists hating women, smearing Muslims and mutilating cattle.
The initial critics had ties to Middle Eastern terror states that abused women, supported terrorism and blatantly discriminated against non-Muslims.
Al Jazeera, Qatars pet propaganda outlet, ran a piece accusing Richard Dawkins of Scientific R****m for describing Al Qaeda terrorists destroying a library as Islamic Babrarians. Nathan Lean, the research director for the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center, has spent more time attacking the New Atheists on Salon for Islamophobia than he has FOX News.
Why makes the New Atheists even scarier to Islamopologists than FOX News?
They are on the left making it impossible to ridicule them away as Faux News. Most of them have no interest in foreign policy so they cant be denounced as warmongers. Their scientific credentials make it difficult to dismiss them as ignorant. The usual attacks Islamopologists launch against critics bounce off.
And their criticisms of Islam are often more cutting and direct than anything viewers are likely to hear on FOX News. Consider Sam Harris writing, Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isnt, we will k**l you. That didnt appear on a right-wing site, but in the virtual pages of the Huffington Post.
Its not hard to see why shutting them up has become a major priority of the Islamopologist left.
Bill Mahers comments on Islam took the debate into the prime time, but the Chapel Hill shootings have made it possible for the first time to accuse the New Atheists of murder. Depicting the parking dispute as a h**e crime is about more than just the usual need to manufacture Islamic victimization, a bad habit which has already produced at least one post-shooting Islamophobic h**x h**e crime in Texas.
Its also about warning atheists against criticizing Islam.
The h**e crime case against Craig Hicks rests heavily on his Facebook page with its quotes on atheism, even though its contents mainly criticized Christianity. The implication has become that atheism is in and of itself proof of a bias motive. This position has dangerous consequences. If an atheist and a Muslim were to get into a fight, the atheists criticism of Islam might retroactively prove a h**e crime.
The Islamopologists have claimed that raids on Muslim charities funding terrorism were criminalizing their beliefs. Now they are criminalizing someone elses beliefs.
The Washington Posts Michelle Boorstein was quick to d**g in Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins into the shootings, while misstating a quote from Dawkins. Boorstein was unable to show that Harris or Dawkins had in any way advocated violence, only that they had accused Islam of being violent.
The New Republics Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig contended that, The Chapel Hill Murders Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Atheists. Again Harris and Dawkins were d**gged in without actually showing that they had called for the murder of Muslims.
CNN ran a Muslim piece claiming that Hicks had been motivated by atheism. NPR quoted Reza Aslan demanding that atheists confront extremists in their community. (If Reza Aslan did that in his own Islamic community, he would have a full time career on his hands.)
All of this is in sharp contrast to what happens after every Muslim terrorist attack when no amount of assertions by the very k**lers themselves can ever convince the media that it was Islamic terrorism. The media will disregard evidence of Islamic terrorism, as it did with the Fort Hood massacre, and in the same way it will disregard the lack of evidence when making the case that Muslims are the victims.
Non-Muslim neighbors described Hicks as threatening and obsessed with parking spaces. A development resident said that he was fueled by equal opportunity anger and that Hicks made everyone feel uncomfortable and unsafe.
But the case has already ceased to be about Hicks. Local shootings dont usually lead to condemnations from the White House or trending hashtags. Sandwiched between Muslim k*****gs of non-Muslims, the Chapel Hill shootings have become a rare opportunity for Muslims and their allies to play the victim.
Blaming New Atheists for the Chapel Hill shootings may be wildly dishonest, but so is pretending that Islam has nothing to do with the Islamic State.
Atheism in the Muslim world is a crime. The Islamopologist attempt to treat atheism as proof of a h**e crime imports the theocracy of Islamic law into the United States. And if it is allowed to stand, how long until Christian criticism of Islam suffers the same fate so that the only allowable attitudes to Islam are either belief or the mindless secular admiration that politicians and reporters display all the time?
Criticism of Islam, obnoxious or otherwise, is legal in the United States. It is illegal in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Recently weve seen Muslim efforts to impose this law through murder in Paris and Copenhagen. What the terrorists have tried to do to Charlie Hebdo by force, the Islamopologists are attempting to do here by associating the New Atheists with a crime they did not commit.
Feb 17, 2015 09:17:07 #
JMHO wrote:
b Why the New Atheists did not k**l 3 Muslims in ... (show quote)
I read a whole third of that before having to stop and get a second cup of coffee, use the toilet and let in the cat. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Feb 17, 2015 09:26:41 #
JMHO wrote:
b Why the New Atheists did not k**l 3 Muslims in ... (show quote)
To criticize Islam requires only a minimal knowledge of it's doctrines, practice and history.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
Feb 17, 2015 09:29:25 #
B****sheep wrote:
I read a whole third of that before having to stop and get a second cup of coffee, use the toilet and let in the cat. Brevity is the soul of wit.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Feb 17, 2015 09:36:38 #
JMHO wrote:
b Why the New Atheists did not k**l 3 Muslims in ... (show quote)
F*** IZLAM , And EVERY MUZZY on the PLANET . EXTERMINATE EVERY ONE OF EM
Feb 17, 2015 09:47:17 #
Zemirah wrote:
To criticize Islam requires only a minimal knowledge of it's doctrines, practice and history.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
Pretty much the same with Christianity.
Feb 17, 2015 09:57:42 #
Antisocialist
Loc: Florida
Zemirah wrote:
To criticize Islam requires only a minimal knowledge of it's doctrines, practice and history.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
I can do all of the above while eating a pulled pork sandwich.
Feb 17, 2015 10:00:11 #
robmull
Loc: florida
B****sheep wrote:
I read a whole third of that before having to stop and get a second cup of coffee, use the toilet and let in the cat. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Since our administration joined forces with OWS, B****sheep, and in Ferguson OWS joined forces with the MB, CPUSA, MOB, SPUSA, ISIS, ACP, ASP, CAIR, ACORN, STORM and the New Black Panther Party, "wit," has been replaced by dark humor; although "brevity" is still the "soul." I'll be quick. "Liberalism" is now DOA. [They] recently met [their] most mortal enemy to date, in the eyes of Saul Alinsky; "EXPOSURE!!!" And; "no going back!!!"
Feb 17, 2015 13:02:39 #
My answer to the title of this thread is a resounding YES and for you nonbelievers, just ask the sitting Commander in Cheif.
Feb 17, 2015 13:13:36 #
Zemirah wrote:
To criticize Islam requires only a minimal knowledge of it's doctrines, practice and history.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
A second requirement is common sense.
The third requirement is the ability to defy political correctness and both recognize and speak t***h.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 17, 2015 13:18:17 #
robert66 wrote:
Pretty much the same with Christianity.
Not at all the same as Christianity!
Show me where Christians condone mutilating women. Show me where Christians preach Ens***ement of Half the Population. Common sense should take care of the rest, something liberals have shown themselves remarkably short of for quite some time.
Feb 17, 2015 13:36:21 #
Yadja
Loc: Florida
To be critical of Islam is not a H**e Crime except in this O's world.
What is a H**e Crime is cutting off the heads of Christians, burying people alive, crucifying them, h*****g them, stoning them, impaling them etc.
The Qur'an is filled with H**e and encourages crimes.
What is a H**e Crime is cutting off the heads of Christians, burying people alive, crucifying them, h*****g them, stoning them, impaling them etc.
The Qur'an is filled with H**e and encourages crimes.
Feb 17, 2015 14:00:23 #
Yadja wrote:
To be critical of Islam is not a H**e Crime except in this O's world.
What is a H**e Crime is cutting off the heads of Christians, burying people alive, crucifying them, h*****g them, stoning them, impaling them etc.
The Qur'an is filled with H**e and encourages crimes.
What is a H**e Crime is cutting off the heads of Christians, burying people alive, crucifying them, h*****g them, stoning them, impaling them etc.
The Qur'an is filled with H**e and encourages crimes.
And now the Taliban have just shot another woman accused of adultery while a cheering crowd of men look on. This took place just outside Kabul, and our so called president negotiates with this terror trash!
Feb 17, 2015 14:05:32 #
Yadja
Loc: Florida
It is an everyday thing throughout the Middle East and we have a Muslim in the WH and everyone is hem and hawing around the fact. It is what it is and he is what he is.
I think people are getting the picture. There is a cute and very profound U-tube video by an SNL actress singing There is a Muslim in the White House and she has documents and clips that go along with her song.
Check it out.
I think people are getting the picture. There is a cute and very profound U-tube video by an SNL actress singing There is a Muslim in the White House and she has documents and clips that go along with her song.
Check it out.
Feb 17, 2015 14:25:18 #
Yadja wrote:
It is an everyday thing throughout the Middle East and we have a Muslim in the WH and everyone is hem and hawing around the fact. It is what it is and he is what he is.
I think people are getting the picture. There is a cute and very profound U-tube video by an SNL actress singing There is a Muslim in the White House and she has documents and clips that go along with her song.
Check it out.
I think people are getting the picture. There is a cute and very profound U-tube video by an SNL actress singing There is a Muslim in the White House and she has documents and clips that go along with her song.
Check it out.
Did. I couldn't understand a word she sang. Abysmal, mushy sound quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.