moonbattery.gif


« Chevy Chase Confronts the Apocalypse | Main | Moonbats Move to Ban Pickups and SUVs »


November 26, 2007

Religion of Peace Update

Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old British primary school teacher in the Sudan, is facing 40 lashes and up to six months in prison for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Mohammed, on the grounds that this supposedly insults the bloodthirsty pedophile maniac who founded Islam.

The kids themselves came up with the name, giving it 20 out of 23 votes.

Angry mobs have gathered around the police station where Gibbons is being held. Her entire school has been closed down for fear of reprisals. Explains school director Robert Boulos:

She has done nothing wrong but now we are very concerned that there's a risk to the school and the students from the men in the street.

Imagine a religion so depraved that its followers threaten children for innocently naming a teddy bear. But I'm forgetting: it's intolerant to disapprove of the Religion of Peace.

rage_boy_fist.jpg
No word on whether Rage Boy could make the party.

On tips from Ian from the EUSSR, Wiggins, and Byron.

Posted by Van Helsing at November 26, 2007 3:24 PM

Comments

All religions are signs of mass insanity. Islam is violent towards women, free thought and now teddy bears. Christians like to shoot clinic doctors and blow them up when they can figure out timed fuses. All religions should be banned. It's remarkable that in 2007 all this superstitious claptrap still remains. I guess people will never grow up enough to stop needing a sky-daddy to make everything all right.

Posted by: BillT at November 27, 2007 7:24 AM

Careful.

Or you'll be getting forty lashes yourself (or being waterboarded in Guantanamo).

Posted by: Philadelphia Steve at November 27, 2007 7:35 AM

'Bloodthirsty, pedophile maniac?' That ends your chances of any creditability from this reader. Unless, of course, you new Him as a child.............. Where does the Bible promote vitriolic hatred?

Posted by: Mike at November 27, 2007 8:19 AM

To Philadelphia Steve at November 27, 2007 7:35 AM

Have you even read the Bible? Sure you know the answer to your question? How many times did God give his people the right to kill and take land? (something we are still dealing with btw)
There are endless verses of God instructed mindless violence against, animals, children, women (all of whom did not have the legal standing to protect their own interests but then..God said...)
you see similar examples to the butchery we now associate with Islam (death penalty for adultery, the death sentence for consensual sex)
Go read the first four books in the Torah (Old Testament)

Thank goodness for the First Amendment is all I can say.

Posted by: jncc1701 at November 27, 2007 8:38 AM

Welcome Salon.com trolls! Try not to make too much of a mess.

Posted by: Van Helsing at November 27, 2007 8:39 AM

The only way that Europe was able to save itself from the witch epidemic was their use of waterboarding. Not only were they able to elicit confessions but they were also able to find the elusive hidden "sleeper" witches all of whom were in league withe Satan.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 27, 2007 9:17 AM

Tsk tsk. Christian parents would never picket a school for teaching evolution, allowing children to read the Harry Potter books, or preventing a parent from handing out pencils stamped with religious messages, would they? Pat Robertson wouldn't dream of invoking divine punishment on an entire city because they rejected the teaching of "intelligent design in school." And the Christian religion of peace, love, and bombing Iran and Iraq back to the stone age was founded by a man who was executed for treason by the lawful government of his country at the time. Obviously the benighted heathen need to learn a thing or two, don't they?

Posted by: T-Rex at November 27, 2007 9:36 AM

Ok, so what I am understanding from the above comments is that since you believe Christians to be equally as stupid then this is alright?
That threatening to lash a woman and throw her in jail, where unspeakable things will most likely happen to her because she had her class name a teddy bear is OK with you because Pat Robertson said something ignorant?
Now who is being the group who will make excuses for Islam and it's insane behavior? I believe that would be those who are defending this action.

Posted by: Sean at November 27, 2007 10:39 AM

Re: "Welcome Salon.com trolls! Try not to make too much of a mess."

Thank you for the pleasant greeting. I do use the Salon link to browse the blogs. I'm sorry if my opinions do not adhere to White House approved opinions, understanding that Conservatives must live by those dictates.

I will try not to overwhelm any Conservatives here with facts that are not on the Rush limbaugh Approved Thought list.

Posted by: Philadelphia Steve at November 27, 2007 11:26 AM

Re: "Ok, so what I am understanding from the above comments is that since you believe Christians to be equally as stupid then this is alright?"

I was not part of that commentary on this thread, only laterally involved in being excoriated because I am not sufficiently "Conservative" for those regulars here to beleive I deserve to have an opinion.

Regarding that above comment though, the answer is "no", I do not belive that Christians, or any other religious brops are stupid for their religious beliefs. I do believe that Christians, as well as many other religious people do a lot of stupid things in the name of their God though.

But that does not make them significantly different from other identifiable groups.

Posted by: Philadelphia Steve at November 27, 2007 11:30 AM

Sean, you're making a straw-man interpretation of my post, and you know it, or I hope you do.

No, no teacher in this country has been jailed and threatened with official punishment (not to be confused with unofficial death threats and hate mail) for doing something that Christians found offensive. That is because so far we still have Constitutional separation of Church and state in this country, despite Bush's best efforts to tear it down.

However, adherents of any religion are capable of spouting ridiculously violent rhetoric and threats against others, blithely unaware or unconcerned that they are contradicting their own principles in the process. A few years ago, when Roy Moore's 10 Commandments monument was touring the country, and the faithful were bowing and praying before that piece of carved rock, a speaker from a local atheists' society was invited to one event by way of equal time, to explain why he didn't believe in posting religious texts on government property. As he stepped down from the podium, a man in the crowd tried to trip him, and later said, "If I'd had my gun, I'd be in jail tonight. I believe in the 10 Commandments." And he was willing to worship a graven image and kill a man to prove it. (Well, that leaves 8 he hadn't broken . . . )

Posted by: T-rex at November 27, 2007 11:39 AM

I propose a New Teddy Range:
Jihad the Teddy
Infidel the Cuddly Bunny
Sword of Islam the Fluffy Gorilla
Suicide Bomb the Furry Monkey
Would these and the whole and further 'Mohammed and Pals' Range lead to more trouble.
If so, bring it on. We need more and more understanding in the West that this lot havbe no sense of humor and no interest whatsoever in comprehending us.
The sooner all Westerners get this reality the better.
I think we are moving closer to that goal with every ridiculous incident like this one.

Posted by: Patrick at November 27, 2007 1:32 PM

jncc1701 compares Islam (and presumably Sharia societies) with the Mosaic Law of the pentateuch. Can anyone name a country, society, culture or movement who implement, or demand the right to implement, the Mosaic Law of the Pentateuch as written?

I can't think of one. Anyone?

Apples. Oranges.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at November 27, 2007 2:31 PM

"'Bloodthirsty, pedophile maniac?' That ends your chances of any creditability from this reader." - Mike

If so, you don't know much about Muhammad's life according to Islamic sources. I know it's hard to believe, but it's all there in the Hadith, Koran and the well respected Siras written by early Muslims.

Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl by the name of Aisha. She was the last and youngest of his many wives. This can be found in a Hadith that states flatly that she was 6 when he married her and nine when the marriage was consumated. If you doubt the translation of the numbers "6" and "9", there is another Hadith that states that Aisha had a special dispensation to play with toys due to her young age. None of the other wives had this privilege because they were adults. Muhammad was a pedophile.

The "bloodthirsty" charge has massive evidence to support it. One of the most famous incidents is the conquest of the Khaybar oasis. Muhammad ordered an attack on the Jewish community that controlled the oasis after they refused to submit to his will. His army eventually overwhelmed the defenders. The women and children were enslaved. The men were all executed. Abu Bakr suggested the execution of all the men, but Muhammad initially rejected the idea. Shortly thereafter, the angel Gabriel conveniently delivered a message to Muhammad - all the male prisoners were to be executed after all. Bloodthirsty.

This is just one of many examples of Muhammad's visciousness in his wars of conquest against the polytheists, Jews and Christians who used to exist in what is now Saudi Arabia. They "used to exist", but don't anymore, because of the thorough ethnic and religious cleansing carried out by Muhammad and the first couple Caliphs. Anyway, "Bloodthirsty" is an understatement as applied to Muhammad.

As for the "maniac" charge, well, I'm not so sure about that one. It implies craziness. Muhammad wasn't crazy - he was calculating and just plain evil.

Posted by: forest at November 27, 2007 2:58 PM

The question of crazy comes down to whether he had visions of Gabriel, or made it all up. We can be certain that Islam is not the product of divine revelation. So either he believed, in which case he was crazy, or he didn't believe, in which case he was a charlatan. We'll never know which it was.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at November 27, 2007 3:19 PM

"bloodthirsty pedophile maniac"

Doesn't this describe a lot of US Congressmen?

"Shortly thereafter, the angel Gabriel conveniently delivered a message to Muhammad "

Are you really stating this as a historical fact?

Posted by: Angryflower at November 27, 2007 3:41 PM

"That is because so far we still have Constitutional separation of Church and state in this country, despite Bush's best efforts to tear it down."

T-Rex, this is AMERICA in case you have forgotten. Here, we demand PROOF from the ACCUSER, the ACCUSED doesn't have to proove SQUAT. Now, since you CLAIM that President Bush is trying to institute a religious government (Which is what the MUSLIMS want), let's hear your EVIDENCE.
Now if you refuse to do so, you are either too cowardly to present said evidence, or you HAVE NO evidence, or you are a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal who believes that the accused must disproove the charge. (something Liberals do on internet message boards and communists do in the countries they run)

Posted by: KHarn at November 27, 2007 3:50 PM

"'Shortly thereafter, the angel Gabriel conveniently delivered a message to Muhammad'

Are you really stating this as a historical fact?"

No. Everything I posted is based on what is written in Islamic texts. The slaughter is historic fact, and the revelation was claimed to be fact by Muhammad. Naturally, such things can't be verified, but this and all of Muhammad's revelations are believed to be fact by devout Muslims, and that's what matters most.

But I happen to agree with Ian - Muhammad was a charlatan in addition to all his other unsavory qualities.


Posted by: forest at November 27, 2007 4:47 PM

I said he was either crazy or a charlatan, I didn't say which :)

Such as it is, my own personal view is more "charlatan" than "crazy" but perhaps "crazy charlatan" fits best. I'm thinking L. Ron Hubbard as a model here. Hubbard was undoubtedly a paranoid schizophrenic, a wild fantasist, a megalomaniac.

But then Islam is a schizophrenic religion, most notably in that Muslims worship a man- Mohammed- while fervently denying that they do. It's a cult of personality. That's one of the things that makes if fundamentally different from the other two Judaic religions. While Jews and Christians seek to understand the will of their God, Muslims seek to understand the will of Mohammed.

This follows really from my above post about the Mosaic Law vs Sharia. One could make a case that Moses is Judaism's Mohammed, that the Mosaic Law is their Sharia. Well maybe, long ago, it once was. The ancient Jewish state is described as a theocracy, and a quite viscious one at that (stonings etc). But that state was destroyed 2000 years ago. The Mosaic Law, with its sacrifices in the temple, could no longer be followed because there was no temple.

But Judaism could adapt. It adopted the rabbinical system appropriate to the diaspora. And while it kept its religious law, that law had to operate in foreign states; it could only be a personal law. And I think here is the key point. Because the Rabbis extending and modifying that law with circumstance sought (through pondering and midrash) to understand the will of God, that law could change. Even the most old-fashioned Jews today no longer stone disobedient children to death, or punish rape on the basis of bride value, and so on. The Mosaic Law is merely the law delivered through Moses, who was a mere vessel (not even allowed into the Promised Land!). The general will of God was more important to divine than the specific will of Moses at his big moment on Sinai.

But Islam cannot do that. Because it is centred around Mohammed, Sharia cannot change. It cannot adapt. It cannot modify. THere is a vast literature in Sharia of extended legal rulings beyond the Quran, but in each case the purpose was to figure out only "what Mohammed would have ruled". Because they worship this man (though strangely deny that vehemently) they cannot move beyond this man. Their law is his law, nothing can change. It's unthinkable to reach a reasoned view on a change in the law, because to all intents and purposes Mohammed==God.

That's fundamentally different from Judaism and Christianity, both of which are focussed on the person seeking to follow the general will of God rather than the specific words of a specific prophet. Which is why they have coexisted with laws made by men in mundane empires and nation states, rather than being a Judaic Empire or a Christian Empire.

Which, er, having rambled somewhat, is why you can't compare Biblical Law with Sharia.

Not sure if all that made sense. But I tried. :)

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at November 27, 2007 5:12 PM

shira law, jewish state, neither is a democracy. and its funny to see you guys wailing on mohammed for a supposed face to face with the almighty while you defend the founders of christianity who base thier argument on the same fantasy.

alos wonder about the term troll: "someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response"

doesn't this discribe every blog and every responder (except for the amen chorus of the usual bootlickers)?

Posted by: ibfamous at November 28, 2007 2:16 PM

ibfamous, T-Rex and the others;
What about the woman who is under DEATH THREATS for naming a TEDDY BEAR "Mohammad"? Are you not OUTRAGED at this, or is it OK because MUSLIMS are threatening death?

I eagerly await your reply.

Posted by: KHarn at November 28, 2007 3:55 PM

The moral equivalence of the liberal commentators here is breathtaking. Christian violence (towards, say, abortion clinics) is far different from the situation in the Middle East, for a number of reasons:


1) The whipping story popped up this week. When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed? (i.e. the frequency of religious-inspired violence is much different between the two cultures).


2) Is the state sponsoring the act or condemning it? A state supporting religious violence is far more disturbing than a few isolated individuals doing the same deeds. For all the weird flak Bush takes for trying to install a supposed theocracy, anyone who openly commits violence in the name of Christianity is going to be prosecuted. There is no legally recognized "Christianity defense" in America. In the Middle East, however, we can point to several incidences, like the whipping case or the incident in which a woman was sentenced to a stoning for being raped, in which the state itself engages in violence on purely religious terms. That's a true theocracy, and it's a violence not on par with anything we see in America (or the West) today.


3) As an earlier commenter said, examples of societal Judeo-Christian violence tend often (though not always) to be very old (the wars of the Jews in the Torah, for instance). The Muslim clerics advocating religious violence are acting upon and expounding religious bases for violence today. It's like the pope going on tv and, beyond "insulting" Islam as he did in his speech, actually supporting violence against Muslims. It would never happen.


4) Is the violence for purely religious reasons--blasphemy being the most obvious case--or are religious and social issues intertwined? Obviously, with the Iraq War and the riots in Paris, social forces and religion both have their influences. But when the Dutch cartoonists are threatened, or a woman is whipped for supposedly insulting Mohammed, or when a critic of Islam is murdered, or when an author critical of Islam has a death sentence placed on his head--that's pure religious violence. Many reasons might lead a person to do something evil to an abortion clinic--perhaps those bombers think abortion is such a grave moral wrong that violence is necessary to oppose it. That view is obviously terribly, horribly wrong, but it's also not entirely religious (or in some cases it might not be religious at all).


5) There's a difference of severity. Someone earlier in the comments talked about Christian parents who "picket" when evolution is taught or when Harry Potter isn't banned. But how is that in any way comparable to whipping, stoning, throat-slashing, or bombing someone? It just isn't. Yes, there are some isolated acts of "Christian" violence (see point 1), but most of the incidences critics of Christianity can cite are awfully mild indeed.


I could go on, but you should see the point by now. There just is no comparison, and liberals marginalize themselves by insisting that one or two similarities make an identical match.

Posted by: Ted at November 29, 2007 12:21 AM