| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"My theology prompts me to opt for a concept of liberty that includes the free choice not to exercise it. God may, indeed, be all-powerful but were the divine power to be always applied to the full, humanity couldn't exist. We gain our freedom precisely because God holds back and allows us to act as mature beings. I know of no greater expression of such maturity than the desire to imitate God.In the context of the cartoons, this may mean that though newspapers should have the power to publish such pictures at will, they should choose the path of prudence not to do so out of consideration for the feelings of the Muslim minority. " -- Rabbi Dow Marmur
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall are we (and don't we know it). And Rabbi Marmur hopes that, while we are (as just noted) free to fall, he thinks we should imitate him, Rabbi Dow Marmur. Just as he manages to do, we should attempt in all things to imitate God.
And God's first rule apparently is: don't offend anyone when they claim that something really really offends them. Just get rid of it.
For example, showing "Show Boat" is wrong -- because we should not, nowadays, have any historical sense about things (including the period in which they were written). And that means that the Antebellum South is simply off-limits, because you would have to depict black slaves. And if you had, furthermore, a musical, well, those black slaves would have to sing, and we couldn't have that, could we? Because that would offend as a distraction from the matter of slavery.
And similarly, those Danish cartoons offend Muslims. Why? Because they do. And we non-Muslims have no right, therefore, to show them. And in this case the offense is rank. We know the offense is rank because otherwise they wouldn't threaten to kill everyone involved, and indeed, everyone who shares the same nationality as those Danish cartoonists, would they? But Rabbi Dow Marmur is on the side of the angels. Or more exactly, he not only tries to imitate God, but I suspect he is well-pleased with his own attempts at imitatio Dei.
And he would be the first to tell us that he, Rabbi Dow Marmur, is not one whit morally superior to the rest of us. We too can imitate him, as I said, as he imitates God.
Oh, just two more questions, your honor, for Rabbi Marmur.
If someone were to suggest that "The Merchant of Venice" offends (and surely it does) and should be banned, Rabbi Marmur, would you support the banning of that Shakespeare play, the removing of it from school curricula?
Oh, you wouldn't support such a ban? You would be totally against that? Yes, I thought you'd say that.
Now, for your final question, square your predictably morally-preening circle and tell us how the cases differ.
Meanwhile, the entire Western, no make that the entire Infidel press, should in a display of solidarity and defiance once again republish, possibly all on the same day, or during the same week, the cartoons that appeared in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten and the single cartoon of Lars Vilks, and then any other cartoons that have appeared that have elicited threats of any kind from Muslim states, Muslim groups, or Muslim individuals.
No commentary is necessary. Just the cartoons, reprinted solemnly in an act of worldwide defiance. Who is to decide what Infidels publish or write or say or think? Is it to be Muslims, or is it to be the Infidels themselves, exercising their own rights, rights which they acquired over centuries of effort by remarkable individuals -- not one of whom could have been produced by, or could have lasted a minute within, any society suffused with Islam?
I feel like saying to the world's press what someone who often comes to mind once told me in justified exasperation: "fais un petit effort."
Danish papers did, in an intelligent and necessary show of solidarity and refusal to be intimidated, recently reprint the cartoons. But where was The Times (of New York, London, Los Angeles)? Where were the Washington Post, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Figaro, and a thousand other places? They should all have, on an agreed date, or perhaps in staggered fashion, have reprinted the cartoons. And kept it up, and kept it up.
Perhaps an international Committee For the Defense of Free Speech needs to be formed. Its purpose would be to explain the extent of free speech, and those limits on it that are proper, and those that are not. And among those limits that are not proper are those that Muslims demand.
Posted by Hugh at March 15, 2008 7:46 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I recall a clarifying moment in my kindergarten teacher's education. My daughter had been crying for not very good reasons, and the teacher kept taking her over to her sister's class to comfort her, and then bringing her back to her own class. She was doing this several times a day, and when I asked her why Rachel was crying all the time, she told me that it was because "her feelings got hurt."
I was quite angry that this twit was wasting time, taking the fartling over to big sis' class in order to have her feelings assuaged, so I said to the woman: "The next time Rachel starts crying and whining about her hurt feelings, you are to tell her this: Your feelings don't matter. Your crying is interrupting the class, now go sit down and do your work." Well, you would have thought I was the most abusive mom on the block, but I insisted she do this, and pretty soon, Rachel's feelings were fine.
I guess my point is this: We need grown ups to deal with the children of the prophet, and their perpetually hurt feelings, and it is quite sad to see that the only grown ups on the block are the Danes.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 15, 2008 10:58 AM
Perhaps the rabbi fails to see that the offense taken by mahometans has no theological basis whatsoever. The whole affair is about power and intimidation.
Posted by: Infidel33 at March 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Greetings:
If I remember correctly from my "Abnormal Psychology" class, phobias usually require some type of de-sensitization in order to be resolved.
One cartoon published per day seems like a proper prescription.
Posted by: 11B40 at March 15, 2008 12:49 PM
With Rabbis like that, Jews are doomed to be d'himmis again.
Posted by: Dumbo at March 15, 2008 1:09 PM
It's one thing to quote scripture. It's another thing altogether to speak on God's behalf:
... God holds back and allows us to act as mature beings ...
What? Did this clown get a phone call or something?
"Hey, Marmur ... this is the boss."
"You mean ... ?"
"Yeah, listen Dovy boychik, I just want you to know, the only reason I'm letting you walk around free is because I think it's better that I hold back. You know, restrain myself. I'm tempted to butt in, of course, but well, it just doesn't seem right to do it just because I can ..."
What breath taking arrogance!
This is the one thing I find hardest to understand about believers, at least some believers.
It seems to me a given that if you believe at all, you are believing in a consciousness that is by definition way beyond your own powers of comprehension.
But attributing thoughts and intentions, even sentiments to the diety is commonplace.
I might make an exception in the case where somebody is puzzling over a quote from scripture, the commandments themselves being a prime example, and asking, "hmmm... exactly what do I think he meant by that".
But this Marmur crap is a whole other ball of wax. And it's common.
I'm an unbeliever (atheist has become such a hot buzz word these days) but I don't particularly object to belief as such, at least not most of the beliefs that I'm exposed to on a regular basis.
But this stuff really ticks me off.
And I really find that most of the time it's used to rationalize some really objectionable idea. It's really more of a way of cutting off critique than seeking anything that could be regarded as truth.
"Hi. I speak for God. And God wants you to do the following dumb crap ..."
I want to see the official deity endorsement at the end of the video.
Posted by: joeblough at March 15, 2008 2:46 PM
No, Dumbo, (and I almost hate calling you that, just in case your feelings get hurt)the Jews are the canaries in the gas chambers again. The same delusional thinking by Jewish leaders of the 1930s where Hitler was concerned is the same suicidal thinking of the very same self-appointed Jewish leaders of today where Islam is concerned. Lest anyone think I am being antisemitic in saying this, I remind you that the same, liberal Christians of the 1930s were self-deluded about Hitler, and the same magical thinking peace-loving Christians of today are equally doomed. Hitler hated Christianity and Jews with equal vim and vigor. The delusional revisionists would have us think that Hitler was a good Christian....but they would be wrong, and it is up to us to educate ourselves and not leave the task to a bunch of warm and fuzzy kindergarten teachers.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 15, 2008 2:46 PM
The comments about the rabbi, tend to ignore the fact that he is of the 'reformed' jewish faith. Meaning, he doesn't believe in the
Torah and beliefs as orthodox rabbi's and adherents believe.
That's where his errant beliefs come into play. His particularly errant beliefs. I bring this up specifically because that is the source of his statement that Hugh slashes so rightly, but because the
same notion, as applied to the muslims and Islam, of cleaning it up by 'reforming' the faith are rather equally doomed to a similar type of failure.
For the Qu'ran is the source, and Mohammad is the source, of the evil, that seeks to 'submit' all others and then semantically justify
the actions. And ridding the hadiths or commentaries would never end the tyranny of Islam, the 'submission' mission of Islam since the root, the Qu'ran, and it's 'prophet' spoke voluminously, and acted accordingly to make any reformation, rather, just another excuse for men to do the same thing... but semantically cleaned up to appear as if were for 'world peace'. This is the picture in the articles about the conference in Africa of the OIC, at this moment.
They wish to 'reform' the world, and help the poor and shut up the world's criticisms of Islam, in any way, and in every shape.
Posted by: mgoldberg at March 15, 2008 3:21 PM
Jauhara
It's okay to call me Dumbo, and I am a pretty thick Jew so my feelings don't get so easily hurt. And I go by Dumbo so people won't take me too seriously. As far as Hitler and Christians go, even the RC Church gave him a pass, inspite of Hitler's animosity towards his birth religion and Christians in general. A bunch of revisionist Catholics are trying to portray the Church as the forefront of anti-Nazism. But even after Rome was liberated by us in 1944, the Church never directly condemned the Nazis; supposedly out of fear for the safety of Catholics in Germany, as if the Catholics being murdered in occupied Europe didn't matter. Compare that to the way the Church directly condemned the Bolsheviks. So accomplices to evil are not restricted to liberals, not by a long shot.
Even more conservative and orthodox rabbis have been reticent in confronting Islamo-nazism. Chasidic Jews don't even accept Israel as valid and more religous Jews tend to interpret Israel's wows as wages of the Jews shortcoming. Reform Rabbis tend to be more social workers than religious leaders.
at March 15, 2008 9:15 PM
Too true, Dumbo. All you have to do is look at the sordid state of the Russian Orthodox church and its Bolshevik handlers and apologists, and you begin to understand why there was an underground church in the USSR. And when you see the collaboration between the Nazified Church in the Third Reich, you can understand why Niemöller and Bonhoeffer had to go underground as well.
I recommend the book "Sinisterism: Religion of the Lie" by Bruce Walker...it is a good book to discuss the use of deceit and word creation to villify political opponents. And if you haven't read it already, Eric Hoffer's (Patron secular saint of those who teach themselves) "True Believer" is worthy of your attention
at March 15, 2008 9:56 PM
A bit of history, Christianity has two opinions not necessarily mutually exclusive about involvemnt with the world, leaders and politics.
One says that believers should seperate themselves from the sordid business of politics, this is the tact that the pope during ww2 exercised. The other part has a long tradition of the preacher (prophet) upbraiding the venal follies of those in authority.
Of course when it comes to adversarial politics, either of those two options can be berated by adversaries, either as imposing church morality using the state, or as a silence meaning complicity.
The Mahometans also have a sort of duality with regard to religion and government, Muhmad spoke against oppression early in his career, then instituted dire oppression after he siezed power.
Much of the disarray in the world ruled by the mosque are both sides claiming the mantle of the prophet, though paradoxically Muhmd was the last of the line, Therefore the saudi king can claim religious inspiration for whatever he needs to do to put down al-kida adherents who also claim religious inspiration for their rebellion.
I must admit a bit of surprise that Mullah Omars trying on the prophets cloak was not seen by most religious Muslims as similar to Christian reactions to Sun Myung Moon claiming to be Christ reincarnated. That is probably because followers of Muhmd have had many instances of those claiming to be doing Muhmds work, much as the west has many who claim to be doing Gods work.
One of the most telling differences is that the western Idea that what you do in Gods name is as if you are doing it to God, is absent where doing Gods work involves rape, murder and looting all things that men come by naturally as animal instincts of power and privilege.
It seems to me that the nature of men is the same, but that Mahometans instead of resisting or transforming that nature instead have made a religion of it.
Posted by: stickman at March 16, 2008 2:51 PM
If Muslims are offended by Freedom, they should return to their states of regresssive Submission and leave advancing Civilization alone.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)