by

We’ve had quite a few religious offerings of late, almost all of which have been lacking in the pleasing fragrance department.
This one, however, takes the cake, or the host, or however you want it.
Analysis follows.
First, we have a quote from the governmental statement of last week subsequent to the outrage in the Muslim world over the now-famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad dressed in a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.
The article’s author characterizes the State Department’s statement as “a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation,” and this is about the only part of his article I agree with.
He also says that it’s accidentally accurate, but I fail to see how.
Maybe it’s just the unacceptable part.
Or maybe it’s the comparison with religious beliefs.

How appalling for the country of the
First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean “unacceptable”? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a “spokesman”
cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing
racist libels to religious faith.

I take it ad hominum attacks aren’t nearly as bad as religious bigotry.
Or is that if religious people employ them, it’s bad, but if flaming liberals employ them, it’s OK.
And, for clarification’s sake, unacceptable means unacceptable.
There are plenty of dictionaries online, and in your local bookstore.
I suggest you pick one up and look up the word.

Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most
lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published
or broadcast.

Only problem is, we’re not hearing much from the local citizenry, with the exception of the Jordanians, the Bahreinis, and those living in the Emirates.
Not a peep.
We’re not hearing of boycotts of the media, or street protests.
It seems the only time the crowds can make an appearance is if someone in the west does something to offend them half a world away.
The despots don’t demand that the public go out and purchase the Protocols in record numbers, they do that themselves.
And what about the culture of death that’s taken root and is flourishing quite well in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip?
Who gets to take the blame for that?

However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are
recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda
(in the second).

I was wondering about that.
Now that you put it that way, it doesn’t seem like such a problem.
I mean, if they were coming up with it all by themselves, it would be so much worse.
Europe, really, you should have copyrighted your anti-semitism.
Then at least, you could charge royalties.

And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi
(most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism.

So does that mean that every Palestinian who refers to Jews as apes and pigs is an Imam?
Furthermore, a quick Google doesn’t reveal any talmudic source for Yosef’s inflamatory remarks, and the author fails to point out that he manages to offend everyone, Jew and non-Jew, religious and secular, with his remarks, whereas there have been very few remarks from the Muslim world, or the Muslim establishment in this country, against Muslim libles.
And now for one last quote.

The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to
the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

Once again, we have someone who is irreligious to say the least equating those of us who are religious with children.
This turns any good points this article may have had on their heads.
You can’t rail against religion and call it prejudiced while exhibiting the same prejudice yourself.
Just as you refuse to be dominated by Muslim hegimony, I, as a Jew, refuse to be dominated by your overly liberal semsibilities.
You stay on your side of the idiological fence, and I’ll stay on mine.
Read the whole thing here.


Comments

Respond

Leave a Reply

Write a Comment

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *