Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Is President Establishing Religion?

I scratch my head every time I note that the godless Left seems to be in bed with the Islamists in trying to bring down the United States of America. But I am slowly figuring it out. At first, I thought the Left believed that they could use the Islamists, and once they were done taking over, they could kill them all, and be done with it. As it turns out, they seem to look upon Islam as more to their liking than Christianity, and seem to be yearning to become Muslims themselves. Why do you think that is?

I also often wonder about the atheists who get so offended by a mere mention of God (it is not his name, but merely his title). They go around taking down crosses, no matter how much history those crosses represent. They go about demanding that the 10 Commandments not be written on courthouse walls, lest they might have to see them. Oh, and Christmas has them in a tizzy as the try to eliminate Nativity Scenes, and Menorahs, and get cities to change the name of their trees to "winter holiday tree." But so far, not a peep as the President seems to endorse Islam. Could it be they know it isn't really a religion, but a totalitarian governing system?

The President, of whom it has been said that he is a Muslim himself, made some disturbing remarks to the United Nations this week. You can find some discussion of these remarks at Hot Air. So far, so good. But then the President had to say:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam!"
As reported at Hope n' Change
Really, Barry? Really...?! Let's pause a moment to chew on that - and the fact that the president was allegedly, at some point, schooled in law and the specificity of legal language.

Which is why he should know that an offensive video (or cartoon, or book by Salman Rushdie) would be an example of libel...not slander.

No, slander applies very specifically to the spoken word. Which means B. Hussein's statement isn't directed at (or limited to) editorial criticism of Islam which occurs in video or means that the president of the United States envisions a future with no room for those who dare to say bad things about the Prophet of Islam.

And it doesn't take much of a logical leap to realize that simply expressing doubt over Muhammed's status as a prophet could be seen as the most unacceptable slander of all.
In a system where we all have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, what makes the "Prophet of Islam" so special. When an "artist" can offend millions of pious believers around the world with his blasphemous picture of Piss Christ, with no repercussions, what do the Muslims think makes them any more immune to offense than anyone else?  We Christians were surely scandalized by that picture, but we survived.

What, one wonders, are the Muslims afraid of? Could it be that inquiry into their beloved "prophet" might reveal that he was a phony, a fake? That is, if he existed at all?  The Christian church puts up with inquiries into the life of Jesus, and into biblical archeology because we have found that such inquiries lead often to the truth, and knowing the truth makes us stronger.  Never mind the Appeaser in Chief, he is not the Church, and I doubt he is a Christian either.  But really, what are Muslims afraid of?  Are they afraid that Islam will be shown up for what it is?  Namely, a system of control over the peoples of the earth?  I will have more to say after I get through studying the Koran

Update:  On a related topic, over at Way Up North. But it is not just for the Jews. He is coming for Christians too.

Update 2:  Sultan Knish has a very excellent post up over at his blog. The interesting part:
The multicultural Muslim world has imported its own competing form of multiculturalism to Europe, Australia, America and Canada. So far its multiculturalism appears to be more potent than the local secular variety because despite being a third-rate bastardized version of Christianity and Judaism, with some tribal customs and pagan elements mixed in, it's still more vital than the thin gruel that the progressives feed their people to keep them occupied while they dig deeper into positions of power.
I wish I was that eloquent.


  1. It is indeed a totalitarian system of government, and a particularly harsh one, at that. Stalin only shot people; he didn't stone them or hack them to pieces by the sword.

    Thanks for the link, sir.

  2. Rev. Paul,

    Or crucify them, or behead them by literally sawing their heads off with a dull knife. More troubling still is that Islam believes that a person can be converted by threatening them with death. It is a low standard indeed. A person may outwardly convert, but his heart stays with what he truly believes. Yes, it is a harsh one that seeks control only peoples outward behavior.

    Oh, and your welcome for the link.

    God bless you,