Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Friday, September 14, 2012

Muslims and Mormons and the Left

OK, we all have heard about some obscure video that apparently insulted Islam and set off a world-wide orgy of violence and murder. Our Secretary of State, at the Andrews air base ceremony for the four Americans slain by Muslim radicals, repeated the line that somehow this video was responsible, not the pathologies of Arab culture, not the totalitarian bent of the Islamist creed, not the manipulation of ignorant fools by malevolent creatures, no, none of that--it's all about the insult to the Islamic faith contained in some video nobody has seen but everybody--even an Embassy under attack--must condemn.

OK. Got it. This administration and its echo chamber press are against insulting religion. No works of "art" should be permitted that insult religion. We need a loophole in the first amendment. Got it.

So when outraged mobs of Mormons storm and gut the theaters running the Broadway play "Book of Mormon," we can expect Obama and Clinton and the Hollywood glitterati to side with the mob?

Just wondering about the size of that loophole in the first amendment.

10 comments:

  1. Of course, the actual reaction of the LDS (Mormon) Church when the play first came out on Broadway was quite mild, and more recently, the LDS Church has actually placed ads ("You saw the play, now read the book!") in the Playbill for the LA run.

    But, yeah, I had pretty much the same thought with all the sudden concern on the left for religious sensibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Much like the Left's new found sense of outrage that the opposition would question and criticize a president's foreign policy. Funny they didn't think of that from, oh, 2003-08.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a practicing, God-bless-King-Billy Calvinist, I will do without the Left's solicitousness for my beliefs and stick with First Amendment protections, thank you.

    Here's another critique of this administration's reponses to Muslims with hair-trigger tempers:

    unclecephas.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Remember what happened in Birmingham, England in December 2004 over the staging of the theatrical play "Behzti"? Shortly afterward, Lionel Shriver responded eloquently to some of the muddle-headed reactions being pronounced the time:

    "I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs … I may regard creationists as plain wrong, which would make holding their beliefs in high regard nonsensical. In kind, if I proclaim on a street corner that a certain Japanese beetle in my back garden is the new Messiah, you are also within your rights to ridicule me as a fruitcake." [http://bit.ly/eSFqdm]

    Why cannot people like Obama and Clinton get it through their thick skulls that it is NOT about respect for someone else's beliefs -- it is about mutual respect for everyone's right to hold their own beliefs, however wacky those beliefs may be.

    Whatever happened to the old bromide, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"?

    The British judge, Lord Justice Sedley, put it most succinctly:

    "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." [http://bit.ly/gq7YTZ]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Total agreement.
    As a side note, boss, I'd LOVE to get a Career's take on this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi

    The sourcing is heavily partisan (which doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect), but random schmoes like myself don't know how to interpret these things.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Our Secretary of State, at the funeral of four Americans slain by Muslim radicals, repeated the line somehow this video was responsible"

    I assume it wasn't their funerals, but receiving their bodies in Germany perhaps?

    Regardless, our Secretary of State had the bad taste to mention that spin at any event having to do with their deaths? I wonder what their families think about that nauseating bit of politicing, especially considering all of the fumbles and bumbles that State Department did during the lead up to this tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. My bad. It was not the funeral it was the ceremony receiving their bodies at Andrews.

      Delete
  8. Since I'm reading you from Canada, I won't prescribe anything relating to internal U.S. politics. As a person familiar with the mentality of leftist/globalist/social democrat ways, however, I can tell you that abridging free speech is no big deal to them because they don't really believe in it anyway. This unfortunately seems to be the case throughout the developed world.

    I'm hoping you can comment regarding something specific. As you are likely aware Canada suddenly broke diplomatic relations with Iran on September 7, closing the Canadian embassy in Teheran and ordering Iranian "diplomats" to leave Canada within five days. (I strongly favor this myself and I'd like us to do the same with more countries, beginning with Saudi Arabia. We have our own oil so screw them.) Given the September 11 and subsequent attacks on American and other embassies, this looks like a prescient move. Is there anything you can share with us about warnings the Canadian government may have gotten or other motivations they might have had? It's interesting how little attention this has gotten in American media.

    ReplyDelete