"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Monday, February 27, 2006

From D.C. Watson: Team CAIR, Speech Police

In August of 2003, WorldNetDaily published a column by the author of Islam Unveiled, Anis Shorrosh, who appears to have hit the spike on the head when he gave his take on how Islamists are working to overtake the United States by the year 2020.

In this column, Mr. Shorrosh laid out a twenty-step plan that he believes Islamists are following in order to undermine the foundation of this country. Lo and behold, step one entails the following: 'Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.'

In the wake of these overplayed, and overreacted to cartoons of Muhammad, CAIR recently sponsored a panel to discuss the 'cartoon controversy.'

From the column: CAIR board member Mazhar Rishi: "The right to free speech is not absolute," Rishi said. "It does not give a right to defame Prophet Muhammad or any other "religious figure."

If we were all in the Middle East, where they lop off your head for speaking out of turn, this would likely be true. But, no matter how badly some of these Muslim groups want America to be the Middle East, (ie all Islamic), it simply is not. See, America has these little documents called the 'United States Constitution' and the 'Bill of Rights'. Perhaps CAIR's Mr. Rishi should stop talking, and begin reading them. On second thought, why don't we review them right here?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Amendment 1: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

I have appreciated the opportunity to study the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In these readings, I was unable to find it written anywhere that freedom of speech doesn't apply if it offends the brittle feelings of Muslims. Actually, the words Islam, Muslim, Mosque, and Muhammad aren't found anywhere in these documents.

From the column: 'During their introductory speeches, several panelists denounced the cartoons as slanderous while discussing limitations on free speech.'

Since the 'Speech Police' have taken it upon themselves to offer their unsolicited input on this issue, and since these cartoons have been described as 'slanderous', I felt that it might be beneficial to define a few terms so that these panelists and Islamic pillars of the community can better understand them.

Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damage a person's reputation.

Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

Defamation: Communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person.

Threat: An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

Revisiting the Muhammad cartoon row, which of these cartoons were libelous, slanderous, defamatory, or threatening?

CAIR can roll out all the 'Explore the life of Muhammad' campaigns they like. The fact remains that Muhammad's legacy is not as peaceful, charitable, and morally sound as the promoters of Islam like CAIR would like everyone to believe.

Also from the column: 'Despite the widespread outrage the cartoons have caused among some groups, panelists and audience members agreed that there is a role for dialogue and tolerance in rebuilding burned bridges.'

With all of these 'burned bridges', and flags, and cars, and embassies, and disabled people, when would all of these rioting Muslims around the world have time for something as civil as dialogue?

What would this 'dialogue' consist of anyway? Muslim Imams and 'civil rights' organizations telling the rest of the world that their brethren is incapable of self control, so it is best not to upset them?

"We as Americans must show tolerance to all faiths," Rishi said.

Yes. And we do, so long as that 'faith' can prove that it isn't out to convert the world to itself by way of subversion, taqiyya, the bomb belt, and the sword.

Westerners, this is a deranged mindset on display around the world. One that will not be changed, so it must instead be challenged and ridiculed. Keep speaking freely, writing freely, singing freely, and drawing cartoons freely. If the Islamists can't deal with it, then they can find more suitable living conditions somewhere else.


Post a Comment

<< Home