Thursday, September 13, 2012
Media Echo Chamber applies Sharia to U.S. Freedom of Speech
The mainstream American media is floating the recent U.S. Embassy apology as a new world standard for universal free speech rights. The 9/11 U.S. embassy apology condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions” and “firmly reject[ed] the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Undaunted by the cluster-fuffle of the statement's late disavowal by the White House, the Make-Believe Media advanced the new legal standard and began the witch hunt to blame someone – anyone – other than the Muslims who killed Americans in Libya or the predictable result of Obama’s failed foreign policy apology tour.
Media outlets including MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Christiane Amanpour on ABC, and her husband James Rubin on CNN, suggested that such "abuse" of free speech may be equivalent to falsely "yelling fire in a theater" and could excuse the Muslims’ murderous rage as an understandable form of righteous indignation. They focused on the filmmaker’s intention to incite violence. This is akin to blaming the American female journalist for the Muslim gang rape.
To CNN’s Islamic supremacist and apologist Omid Safi, professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina, offensive words are analogous to dropping bombs and military occupation. CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen says making a comment about free speech is okay, but actually speaking effectively so as to provoke a reaction, whether it be thoughtful, emotional, religious or political or otherwise, is “irresponsible.” Such broad definitions of hurtful speech would classify Rush Limbaugh as a weaponized conservative universal free speech abuser deserving of legal censure or physical attack for hurting liberals’ feelings daily.
By entertaining such bias and by fueling the political witch hunt to pin American deaths on an unknown Israeli filmmaker, or a small town Christian preacher, the Make-Believe Media is aiding and abetting Muslim extremists’ attack against the U.S. Constitution. They are massaging and redefining the First Amendment to fit a new universal world order to suppress any speech that could be offensive to the hearer, most particularly Islamic hearers. And justice comes not in court-based rulings but by unilateral forcible attacks against convenient targets of Islamic passion. This is quite simply a back-door introduction of Sharia law to limit American free speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Susan,
ReplyDeleteWhat comes to mind when I read your excellent commentary is the this; Artist Enrique Chagoya created and displayed, using tax payer funds, a piece depicting Jesus in a sexually provocative situation, other so-called artists, standing on the First Amendment have also created pieces displaying Jesus in urine, coved in chocolate, covered in ants etc… And we can’t forget Madonna.
So let’s apply Mr. Safi’s and Mr. Bergen’s logic here. I’m quoting your post “
To CNN’s Islamic supremacist and apologist Omid Safi, professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina, offensive words are analogous to dropping bombs and military occupation. CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen says making a comment about free speech is okay, but actually speaking effectively so as to provoke a reaction, whether it be thoughtful, emotional, religious or political or otherwise, is “irresponsible.” Such broad definitions of hurtful speech would classify Rush Limbaugh as a weaponized conservative universal free speech abuser deserving of legal censure or physical attack for hurting liberals’ feelings daily”.
So mister Chagova is a liberal weaponized free speech abuser? And all the others also?
Have they been called such, or condemned by the likes of Mr. Safi or Mr. Bergen. Of course not.
Below are some comments by L. Brent Bozell in an article he wrote titled “Shock and Awful Art.
“You know — he wasn't asked, but you just know — that he never would defend as "the best art" the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or the Dalai Lama receiving oral sex. He'd be offended if it were a secular figure, such as, oh, President Barack Obama. But this is Christ, whom every taxpayer-funded artist always wants to crucify. This is "the best art."”
“Our media easily blame the offended Christian and not the artist. But make the image a Muhammad cartoon and our media would blame and shame the artist for being needlessly provocative and not the offended Muslim who would take action in response. Someone should ask Chagoya whether he's heard of Molly Norris, who merely proposed (and quickly retracted) "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" and then had to vanish from public view (along with her art) and change her name on the recommendation of the FBI.”
This, in my opinion is religious intolerance being displayed against Christianity. Does it offend? Yes. Does it hurt our feelings? No. Do we react violently and terrorize or kill those who created or displayed these items. Of course NOT, we are Christians, and that is not how we have been taught and told to respond to such things. We feel sorry for them, we forgive them, we pray for them and we love them.
So it’s quite easy to see the stark difference in reactions between those who are Islam and those who are Christians.
Our MSM should adopt a phrase from the Movie Tombstone; Doc Holiday said “my hypocrisy knows no bounds”
I used art as the example because this movie that they are all upset about, is a form of art, is it not? Freedom of speech, creative etc… everything progressives support? And did this art not “provoke a reaction, whether it be thoughtful, emotional, religious or political or otherwise”?
One last excerpt from Mr Bozell’s article:
The NEA also seems to find supporting art most exciting in the most "sexually liberated" cities. As part of the Obama "stimulus" package, CNS also found, the NEA distributed $1.4 million in special "stimulus" grants to 37 private arts nonprofits in the city of San Francisco, most of which is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That was more than the total number of NEA stimulus grants handed out to arts organizations in any other state except New York.
-Dale