Religion of peace threatens yet another artist

First, it was Theo van Gogh, murdered for creating a film which depicted the stories of abused Muslim women.  (Actually, there may have been any number of people before him, but he is the first which comes to mind.)  Then, it was the Danish cartoon incident, in which nearly one hundred innocent people were murdered in rioting, after a newspaper printed a cartoon (!) of Mohammed.  Now, even the creators of South Park are not safe.  After Trey Parker and Matt Stone created an episode which depicted Mohammed, the website RevolutionMuslim.com posted a message which suggested that Parker and Stone would end up like Mr. van Gogh.  In simple terms, Parker and Stone should fear for their lives.  RevolutionMuslim.com was also kind enough to list the addresses of Comedy Central's New York headquarters, as well as of South Park's Los Angeles production studios.  In response to all of this, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR described revolutionmuslim.com as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community."

My issue with this entire incident is not to take any Muslim organization to task for speaking up or not speaking up.  Frankly, I agree with Mr. Hooper's assessment as to the influence and popularity of RevolutionMuslim.com.  My issue is this: Is there anyone who is the slightest bit surprised that such a threat would emanate from the Muslim world?  The Virgin Mary can be depicted with elephant dung, a crucifix can be dipped in urine, and St. Peter's Basilica can be destroyed by a gigantic tidal wave, and there is nary a hint of a violent response by the Christian community.  (The closest parallel I could think of regarding the Jewish community was Leonard Nimoy's Shekhina (WARNING: Nudity), in which he depicted women in various states of nudity wearing Jewish ritual objects.  From even the furthest right Ultra-Orthodox sect, there was not a whiff of suggestion that Mr. Nimoy had reason to fear for his life.)  Can you imagine if any Christian or Jewish group would issue such a threat?  After the laughing subsided, the threatened artist would say, "No, really, who's calling?  Yeah, right."

Why is it that the only ones who ever threaten the lives of those who supposedly insult their religion are Muslims?  Christians have their faith insulted and made fun of on a regular basis on television and in films.  Yet not even Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ could elicit anything close to what the aforementioned incidents elicited from Muslims.  One cannot merely chalk up these over-the-top reactions to coincidence, or to overly zealous practitioners of their faith.  There seems to be a disturbing characteristic of modern day Islam: When perceiving a slight to their faith or prophet, Muslims are quite likely to lash out violently. 

The simple fact today is that if any religion's adherents will react violently when they feel their religion is being attacked, it is a virtual certainty that the religion will be Islam.  Yet so many (particularly in the open, liberal, western world), are afraid of stating this obvious truth.  Why?  Surely it cannot be because they are unaware of the overwhelming statistics.  Perhaps it is because they fear for their own lives should they point this out?

Nah, that would be too deliciously ironic.  Any other ideas?

See also:

• New York Post editorial - The Cowards of Comedy Central (April 24, 2010)
• New York Times' Ross Douthat - Not Even in South Park? (April 25, 2010)
  
• Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" (April 25, 2010)
  
• MSNBC - Yale draws criticism for nixing Muslim cartoons (September 8, 2009)
  
• Dennis Prager - Now Yale Embarrasses the Idea of the Western University (August 18, 2009)
  

Three cheers for President Obama. Radical American-born imam targeted for death.

So now the radical, American-born imam who may have encouraged the Ft. Hood murderer, Maj. Hassan, has his head in the cross hairs.  Anwar al-Awlaki has been targeted for death by the Obama Administration.  One wonders how long to wait for the civil liberties groups to start protesting this one.  If they keep silent, they're hypocrites, since they screamed bloody murder regarding the PATRIOT Act, legislation which caused the constitutionally-protected civil liberties of, at most, a handful of people to be violated.  (Anyone reading this know of anyone whose rights were violated?  Didn't think so.)  If they speak up in opposition, on the other hand, they are incredibly naive (as if we needed confirmation).  What would they like the US to do?  Put out a warrant for his arrest?  We are at war, and what you do with your enemies in war is............kill them.  This imam wants to incites violence against the United States?  More power to him, but let him understand that he will pay a price.

Kudos to President Obama for this one.  I hope that he will make future decisions in the war on Radical Islam with the same wisdom.

Profiling by conservatives? Bad. Profiling by Obama? Huh? Obama profiles?

In case you missed this, back in January, following the unsuccessful Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight, the Obama Administration announced that passengers coming into the United States from fourteen specific countries would be subject to extra security screening. 

While the mainstream media (MSM) did not ignore the story completely, they did manage to avoid stating the obvious: Is this not racial profiling, something they decried whenever conservatives suggested that certain groups, more likely to have terrorists among them, be given extra scrutiny before being allowed to board a plane?  For example, a search of New York Times editorials from the month after this decision finds exactly zero editorials dealing with this issue. 

On the other hand, to its credit, the ACLU criticized the announcement, "...because there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist...many terrorists have come from countries not on the list."  (I say "to its credit," because while I think that the ACLU, as usual, is wrongheaded in its opposition to a commonsense approach to fighting terrorism, at least I can respect them for their consistency in criticizing this decision of the Obama Administration.  They, as opposed to the MSM, are at least intellectually honest.)

By the way, what is this "list" to which the ACLU refers?  Here it is, and ask yourself, "Is there any common denominator here?"

1. Iran
2. Iraq
   
3. Syria
4. Sudan
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Algeria
7. Yemen
8. Pakistan
9. Libya
10. Lebanon
11. Somalia
12. Nigeria
13. Afghanistan
    
14. Cuba
    

Hmmm....think, think, think.  Aside from Cuba, what might the other thirteen countries have in common?  Love of cricket?  Former colonies of European powers?  Or could it be, dare I say it, they are all MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES!!!  Yet the ACLU's Michael German, in citing Shoebomber Richard Reid, four of the London subway bombers, and a Belgian female suicide bomber says that "...there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist..."  Perhaps not, Mr. German, but since all of your cited exceptions were Muslims, is it fair to say that there is a fairly accurate way to predict the religion of a terrorist?  Since the answer is obvious in any honest assessment, putting nearly every Middle Eastern Muslim country on the extra screening list might be a good start.

The two points I wish to make are these:

1. The MSM has exposed itself as blatantly hypocritical in this case.  When conservatives want to give extra screening to high-risk groups, liberals charge, "Racial profiling!  Unconstitutional!"  When President Obama blatantly does the exact same thing, there is not a peep from his adoring fans at the New York Times.  So, when conservatives want to do it, it's unconstitutional.  But when liberals do it, it's OK.  Did I get that right?  I am very interested in how my liberal readers would explain this one.
2. Given that security resources are limited, focusing on high-risk groups, namely Muslims, is clearly the right thing to do.  Claiming that doing so smears all Muslims is ludicrous.  Since, as I believe, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, those Muslims should be thrilled that their lives will also be saved by these techniques.  Would they rather get blown up instead of being inconvenienced by some extra screening?  If there were a serial killer on the loose in my neighborhood, would I be offended if the police gave extra scrutiny to me as a man, since the overwhelming majority of brutal murderers are men?  Of course not; I want to live!
   

Having visited Israel many times (I moved there last September), I see on a daily basis how well profiling works.  Israelis do not have time for ACLU-like foolishness; we need to survive.  When eighty-year-old Miami Beach grandmothers start slaughtering innocents, we can focus on them.  Until that time, however, let's go after the usual suspects, shall we?