Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

What In The Name Of muhammed? By Michael A. Minton  

You may have the impression that I do not know that muhammed is supposed to be capitalized, but you would be wrong. And ordinarily I would use a capital “M” when writing about the supposed prophet, but I am not. You may wonder why, and there are a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I live in a Western Republic, under a Constitution that says I don’t have to. Much like the Danish newspaper which ran the “cartoons” depicting muhammed in a not-so-flattering manner, I have the right to say what I want to, short of a few exceptions. I do not have to adhere to some militant-religious-government law which threatens to imprison me, or even kill me, because I don’t capitalize “muhammed.”

Secondly, I, unlike members of the American press, will not succumb to the threat of violence from some religious nuts by censoring what I write. I am guaranteed the right to do it, and I will not relinquish that right in the name of appeasement. As I have said before, trying to stop violence by acts of appeasement only leads to more violence, and thus, more acts of appeasement.

Actually, there is also a third reason I am writing “muhammed” this way: I want to stand in solidarity with the Danish newspaper and government. The newspaper had every right to publish the cartoons. Furthermore, they have apologized for the caricatures if anyone found them offensive. And I stand in solidarity with the government of Denmark for not apologizing for the newspaper, or for the freedom which gave the paper the right to publish the cartoons. It would be a grave mistake for that government to bow to the will of a minority, or even a majority, of any religion.

And besides, the riots and killing that the “religion of peace” is perpetrating have absolutely NOTHING to do with the cartoons. Rather, they have EVERYTHING to do with an opportunistic bunch of self-righteous, obsessed religious zealots who want to turn the rest of the world into nothing less than a muslim one world order in which no other religion is tolerated.

If these “people” were truly trying to protect the name of mohammed, allah, or islam, they would have taken to the streets on that terrible September morning in 2001. After all, did not the terrorists who hijacked planes and killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans do so in the name of allah? Where was the outrage from the muslim community then? The violence we are seeing now has nothing to do with the cartoons.

I am glad to see that there are a couple of newspapers here in America who have not laid down in the wake of these violent outbreaks from the “religion of peace,” and have found the anatomy to print these caricatures. However, I am very ashamed of the vast majority of the American print media who, instead of exercising the freedom of the press which they claim gives them the right to publicize national security secrets, have simply caved for fear of offending a minority of people who threaten violent reprisal. Shame on you!

Where was all of this self-censorship when an “artist” came up with the “artwork” depicting the Virgin Mary covered in elephant crap? The media likes to call it “dung” because it sounds less offensive, but it was crap. I seem to remember all kinds of print media which were more than happy to publish photographs of that great piece of art.

And what of the “artwork” which was called Piss Christ, in which an “artist” dipped a crucifix into a vat of his own urine and called it art? Was the media so afraid of offending Christians that they refused to publish pictures of that? No.

I actually think the media was right to exercise freedom of speech in publishing the depictions then, as they have the freedom to do so, and the “artwork” was part of the news story of that time. Now here we are again, with depictions of muhammed which are deemed offensive to a particular religion, but this time the media outlets are censoring themselves because they are scared. That is absurd, and will do nothing more than lead to more demands and pressure from members of the radical muslim community.

It is much like dealing with your children: if tonight your 15 year old comes home a half-hour past his curfew and throws a fit when you ground him, and you cave to the pressure and lift the punishment, I can assure that it won’t be long before he comes home an hour late. The same is true of radicals and terrorists. If we allow them to dictate our freedom of speech today, it will not be long before they come for the rest of our freedoms.

Mike Minton

http://mrrightopinion.blogstream.com

KY Coordinator-Stop The ACLU Coalition

http://stoptheaclu.org

mike.ky@stoptheaclu.org

---

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN