• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Robert Spencer: Bill Donohue: Those Cartoonists Had It Coming

Jan 9, 2015 11:17 am By Robert Spencer

Bill DonohueOver at Dana Loesch’s Dana Show site, I respond to the appalling piece by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, “Muslims Are Right to Be Angry.” Does Bill Donohue think that Jewish bakeries are also an intolerable insult and must be suppressed?

“It is too bad,” says Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, that Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnier “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.” In other words, as Donohue argues in an extraordinarily irresponsible article, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who were murdered by Islamic jihadists yesterday have no one but themselves to blame – and to avoid such incidents in the future, non-Muslims should be careful not to offend Islam.

Donohue bases these grotesque assertions on what he characterizes as Charbonnier’s “narcissistic” statement that “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Charbonnier, says Donohue, should have known better: “Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”

That, for Donohue, is the heart of the matter. “What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo,” Donohue asserts, “is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.”

But what if someone does insult Muhammad? Should he be killed? Islamic law mandates death for blasphemy, as the British jihadist Anjem Choudary explained in Wednesday’s USA Today: “The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’”

Donohue doesn’t go that far. He assures us that “killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated.” The only remaining option, then, is for non-Muslims to stop insulting Muhammad: “Madison was right when he said, ‘Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.’”

Liberty may also be endangered by the voluntary abandonment of liberty, and that is what Donohue is calling for. The Sharia death penalty for blasphemy is the heckler’s veto enforced with a Kalashnikov. It encompasses not just the deliberate mockery of Charlie Hebdo, but also far more innocuous and even unintentional insults. The Qur’an says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God (that is, essentially all Christians) are under Allah’s curse (9:30); thus to express this basic aspect of the Christian faith is arguably blasphemy by Islamic standards. And indeed, Christians in Muslim lands have more than once been victimized and brutalized simply for affirming this and other elements of the Christian faith.

A Pakistani Christian woman, Asia Bibi, is on death row now for the crime of responding to Muslim women who were insulting her and Christianity by saying: “I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Mohammed ever do to save mankind?”

For that, she is going to die. Bill Donohue disagrees with her being put to death, but he wants non-Muslims to respond to Muslim claims that they’re insulted by curtailing their own speech. Thus he would have Asia Bibi and other threatened Christians in Pakistan not make the slightest, most innocuous expression of their faith. He might argue that there is a world of difference between Asia Bibi and Stephane Charbonnier, and that is no doubt true, but where and how does one draw the line? How does Bill Donohue propose to distinguish between intentional and non-intentional insults?

Would he would leave this task up to Muslims? Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), recently designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, have cultivated the politics of insult, and regard as insults to Islam and Muslims virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been enacted or even just proposed, and every honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. They have skillfully wielded the claim of being insulted to shut down the NYPD’s legal and effective surveillance program in Muslim communities, and to foreclose on honest public discussion of the jihad threat by getting speakers canceled and making people afraid to explore these issues for fear of charges of “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

To rule Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of Islam (and other religions) out of the realm of acceptable discourse is unavoidably also to rule out any criticism of Islam, jihad, and Sharia oppression at all. The Leftists and Islamic supremacists who for years have consigned all examination of the motives and goals of jihadis to “bigotry” have made it so. Bill Donohue, by calling upon non-Muslims to avoid insulting Muslims, has strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. If his advice were heeded (and Western media outlets are already hastening to do the jihadis’ bidding by declining to show the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons), not only would Charlie Hebdo be stopped, but also legitimate counter-terror investigations and expressions of Donohue’s own faith.

As annoying as its manifestations may be, the freedom of speech is the fundamental bulwark of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can work his will unopposed and unimpeded. And in a society in which people of good will differ about what is the ultimate good, the ability to put up with insults patiently and without resorting to violence or threats is key to the peace and stability of the society. Donohue shows that he knows this when he says: “Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence.” Instead of preaching to non-Muslims a self-censorship that would only enable Sharia oppression and tyranny, he should try to spread among Muslims the idea that one need not, and indeed should not, respond to provocations with violence.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Catholic Church, free speech, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mortimer says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:28 am

    What’s the matter, Bill, you want blasphemy laws now to protect the pope? The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights needs a spokesman with a brain.

    Time to replace Bill as your leader. He hasn’t the intellectual apparatus to understand what ‘civil rights’ means.

    • mortimer says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 12:55 pm

      Neville Chamberlain treated the Nazis ‘as a gentleman’. The Nazis laughed at him as they invaded Poland.

  2. jihad3tracker says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:29 am

    For readers here who want to (politely, of course ! !) tell Bill Donohue what they think of his remarks, try this contact path :

    cl@catholicleague.org

    IT MIGHT BE A GENERAL CATHOLIC LEAGE ADDRESS — so perhaps you should put his name in the subject line.

  3. mortimer says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:30 am

    Anjem Choudary explained : “The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’”

    He did not explain that when the ISLAMIC STATE doesn’t kill the blasphemer an ordinary, private Muslim is authorized by Sharia law to commit a vigilante murder of a blasphemer.

    This means EVERY Muslim in the world is mandated to kill a blasphemer when the state has not acted.

    • voegelinian says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      “This means EVERY Muslim in the world is mandated to kill a blasphemer when the state has not acted.”

      Whew! It’s a good thing, as mortimer said not too long ago, that:

      mortimer says

      September 18, 2014 at 4:21 pm

      Nonsense. Most Muslims are much nicer and more moral than Mohammed. They believe theoretically, but most do not practice all the things required by Islam. Perhaps 85% of Muslims are non-practicing ‘hypocrites’. Only 15% are observant.

      • voegelinian says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 3:12 pm

        And no doubt mortimer knows how to pinpoint that magical 15% and cleanly differentiate them from the other 85% of harmless Muslims. Whew! It’s a good thing we can do that, and not be faced with such a promiscuous intermingling of the two (putatively distinct) populations that their abstract theoretical distinction becomes pragmatically worthless! Whew! What a relief! Et fucking cetera…

        • Bettina says

          Jan 9, 2015 at 6:23 pm

          You’re funny, Voegel

  4. mariam rove says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:35 am

    I guess he still does not know that tens of thousands of Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims. M

  5. Salah says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:35 am

    The Catholic Church has been infiltrated by these scum over the last 60 years or so.
    They have betrayed Catholicism just as our PC elites have betrayed the Western Civilization.
    They are the enemy from within, the most dangerous enemy ever.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 12:23 pm

      The Catholic Church has been infiltrated by these scum over the last 60 years or so.
      They have betrayed Catholicism.

      Oh yeah. All brought to you by the Holy See, which put the Church into the socialism business, and in so doing later into the anti-freedom bidness.

      ***

      The trouble with Donohue’s doggerel is this: the Moslems are in it for world takeover; the Church is in it to give away the freedom it brought to fruition.

  6. [FA] says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:39 am

    This is is the reason many good people have left the Catholic Church. This is one of the reasons I am joining. The Church needs good people to stand for what is right. Muhammad was a false prophet and therefore evil. I will never appease evil, nor will I be kind to it. How can you claim to believe in the sanctity of life with a total disregard for it? I’m sure if it was a cartoon bashing condoms he’d praise it. However it’s just poking fun at a religion that literally still nails Christians to a cross….. no big deal they must have it coming.

    • AnneCrockett says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 11:53 am

      “The Church needs good people to stand for what is right.” Yes, it does. Thank you for being one of them.

  7. Salah says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:43 am

    “…he should try to spread among Muslims the idea that one need not, and indeed should not, respond to provocations with violence.”

    Islam is cornered, the truth about it and about Muhammad is in the open. Yes, Islam has always been a violent ideology, but today it’s different. Today, Islam has only two options: Violence or Death. It’s like a dying beast in its last gasp; it’s extremely dangerous, yet it’s dying.

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/dying-islam-lislam-mourant.html

  8. Redbane says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:46 am

    To be fair to Bill, the cartoonist who died, in a 2012 interview, said he was ready to die for his work. They understood the risk.

    • nationalist says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      It was not “work’ worth dying for.

      • nationalist says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 12:34 pm

        i correct myself. Evidently he thought it was worth it.

    • Darren says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm

      The man had balls of steel. How can one not respect the man for his convictions and courage? I wonder how many of us if faced what he was faced with would keep banging on the anti jihad drum. They said they were going to kill him because of his right to engage in free speech, and he gave them the finger and kept at it. The man is a true martyr for the cause in my opinion, despite what the haters say.
      R.I.P brave anti jihad martyrs. Lets try to make their deaths not be in vain and redouble our efforts.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 5:36 pm

      The vacuous Redbane wrote:

      To be fair to Bill, the cartoonist who died, in a 2012 interview, said he was ready to die for his work. They understood the risk.
      ………………………….

      Charb and the other cartoonists died for *your* freedoms, you idiot. I suppose you feel that Robert Spencer or any other brave Anti-Jihadist here is expendable to Muslim savagery in just the same way. Who is going to be left to save you from dhimmitude, or are you already ready to either convert to Islam or begin paying the Jizya? How disgusting…

      • Redbane says

        Jan 10, 2015 at 8:11 am

        I can take of myself, but thanks for the concern. And you have no idea what my own personal convictions surround ‘freedom’ are. I’m pretty sure they are not the same as yours. You die for your yours, and I will die for mine.

      • Redbane says

        Jan 10, 2015 at 8:21 am

        Oh…and btw way. Charlie Hebdo fired a columnist,Maurice Sinet, for writing an ‘anti-semtic’ column. So much for ‘freedom’ of speech. Hebdo clearly had their on line in the sand, just like the Jihadists. Ironic no?

        • Mirren10 says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 9:24 am

          ”Charlie Hebdo fired a columnist,Maurice Sinet, for writing an ‘anti-semtic’ column. So much for ‘freedom’ of speech. Hebdo clearly had their on line in the sand, just like the Jihadists. ”

          So, according to you, firing a columnist for writing an anti-Semitic column ( notice I don’t put it in sneer quotes, as you did) is on a par with **murdering cartoonists** in order to ”avenge mohammed”.

          You’re a witless, moral equivalencing moron. Take your crap elsewhere.

        • Angemon says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 10:01 am

          Redbane posted:

          “Charlie Hebdo fired a columnist,Maurice Sinet, for writing an ‘anti-semtic’ column. So much for ‘freedom’ of speech. Hebdo clearly had their on line in the sand, just like the Jihadists. Ironic no?”

          The column stated, without a shred of evidence, that Jean Sarkozy, the son of Nicolas Sarkozy, was planning to convert to Judaism before marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of a huge electronics chain. It added “He’ll go a long way in life, this boy!”. The director of Charlie Hebdo received complaints and considered that the column could be seen as perpetuating old stereotypes and gave the author the choice between apologizing or being fired.

          The author of the column, Maurice Sinet, an old pro”palestinian” leftist who, in 1982 said “Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it. I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die” said that he’d rather cut off his testicles than apologizing. And so he was fired. And he sued for wrongful termination. And he won.

          He allegedly got one death threat from the JDL but, as far as I know, is still alive and well today.

          Now, one can argue whether the column was anti-semitic or not, or if attacking the president’s son was the decisive factor in the whole situation, but comparing the firing of one columnist with the killing of 17 innocent people is as disgusting as it is stupid. The Hebdo has no qualms in satirizing Jews, and no harm ever came from it.

          Out of curiosity, is there even one act of islamic terrorism where empty-headed buffons don’t try to link it to Jews in any way? Are we supposed not to feel sorry for the people killed because the director fired a self-proclaimed anti-semitic member of staff years ago? Is that supposed to be the equalizer? “Oh, they were killed but they fired someone who criticized jews so it’s ok”?

          Disgusting.

        • nationalist says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 11:21 am

          Yes, it is ironic. and no we dont belong here.

        • nationalist says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 11:28 am

          Mirren and your buddy what’s your name. You two either deliberately or as a result of stunning stupidesse do that fallacy where you misstate someone’s point- and than attack that instead of the discussing the point someone is making. What is that called? ” Burning Man” fallacy or whatever? Perhaps you are incapable of subtle thought. Or you have a pathology of your own. You are cruel little hyenas. no offense to hyenas.

        • Angemon says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 12:09 pm

          nationalist posted:

          “Mirren and your buddy what’s your name. You two either deliberately or as a result of stunning stupidesse do that fallacy where you misstate someone’s point- and than attack that instead of the discussing the point someone is making. What is that called? ” Burning Man” fallacy or whatever?”

          Hi “nationalist”. Would you like some cheese to go with your vintage whine? Now that I got that out of the way, I’d like to inform you that your style, content and spelling lead me to believe that you’re semeru/semereu/semeu, a pathetic indonesian muslim troll who got his ass handed over to him repeatedly and who is not known for his intelligence – you can change your screen-name but you can’t change your style, improve your domain over the English language or avoid picking a losing battle with the ones you never managed to beat in the past.

          So how about you go and explain me and Mirren how we allegedly got RedBane’s point wrong, or how we are allegedly doing the “Burning Man” fallacy? I doubt that you’ll do that, being the hit-and-run offender that you are, not to mention your atavistic fear of us – surely you remember the thrashings you got on your other accounts. In fact, it’s quite likely you’ll spill more of your vitriolic rants for having being outed as semeru and refuse to man up and stand by your words. Oh well…

          Meanwhile, I’ll keep considering that firing a self-proclaimed anti-semite who refused to apologize for a text that was quite likely meant to be anti-semitic and killing 17 innocent people are not comparable at all. And I’m guessing Mirren feels the same.

          BTW semeru, I’m still waiting for your apologies.

    • Wellington says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 6:10 pm

      Graveinimage is correct, Redbane. You are vacuous. Defending Donohue at all on this matter misses the HUGE PICTURE, that being the importance of liberty. You missed this COMPLETELY. Shame on you.

  9. Angemon says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:48 am

    I don’t know who this guy is, but he’s a serious contender for “Dhimmi Of The Year” – and it’s only the 9th of January.

    If Counter-Jihadis point out that islam has a death penalty for “insulting” muhammad then we’re “enabling the radicals”, “justifying extremist” and “no better than the terrorists”. But Mr. Donahue here suggests we abide by the laws that the terrorists hold dear. Who’s enabling who? Who’s justifying their actions? The people who say “those guys say that it’s justifiable to kill those who criticize islam” or the people who say “then don’t criticize islam, problem solved”.

    Blow it out your ass Mr. Donahue.

  10. rage against injustice says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:54 am

    This is clearly the opinion of someone who’s not doging bullets, someone who’s doesn’t have a price on his head, someone who hasn’t seen his community slaughter and someone who’s not suffering opression, unlike catholic priests in the middle east and mexico.

    • rage against injustice says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 11:58 am

      Oh and of course cathilocs in africa.

  11. Georg says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:57 am

    Looks like a fundamentalist cohort to me.

  12. William says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Freedom of speech, it seems to me, is a major part of the conflict involved in the massacre. However, it is not the only part. There is always conflict concerning freedom of speech. We are often conflicted with how much speech is or should be free. Is there complete and absolute freedom of speech? Some people may be offended by what others may say about them or about something they hold dear. That causes tensions and if the offended person feels stirred enough, he can have his grievance judged lawfully and resolved. That is the lawful way to deal with speech.

    The other more serious aspect of the conflict is the degree to which some will take their grievance. I believe that is where the difference lies when compared with the normal procedure we are accustomed to in a civilized society. The Mohammedans do not view the concept of freedom of speech as we do and they do not believe they are under our laws. Because they are driven by their holy book on how to deal with many aspects of life, and which includes enforcement of edits using violence and murder, it introduces something into our countries that is alien and destructive. It is the threat and willingness to use violence. That is the important aspect to the current conflict. Mohammedans are not the only group of people offended by speech. But they take their offense to the extreme and outside the bounds of law in a civilized society.

    So, yes, speech is under attack by the Mohammedans, but that is not new to us. It is the manner in which the conflict takes place. The Mohammedans will take their grievance beyond any limit acceptable in our society. This demonstrates that the Mohammedans are not fit to live among us. They do not feel compelled to live within the limits of our system of laws and morals.

    • mortimer says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 12:49 pm

      You said it. Mohammedans do not wish to live in a free society. They are in the West for economic opportunity, but the opportunity is a direct result of free expression. Freedom is the goose that lays the golden egg.

      Muslim want to kill the goose and still collect the eggs. Impossible.

  13. AnneM says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    From this Catholic, I am finding that Bill Donohue is becoming more and more of an “embaressment”.

    • katris says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 1:01 pm

      And this Catholic seconds that thought. Bill Donohue does not represent all of us.

  14. BodyBuildingGymWhore says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    He’s the same guy who’s been telling women not to use birth control in any form, that only men can be priests, and denying rampant paedophilia in the church.

    What a buffoon. I wish I could draw. I’d make a really great cartoon of him.

  15. Artie Galvin says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    “Time to replace Bill as your leader. He hasn’t the intellectual apparatus to understand what ‘civil rights’ means.” Good advise ,Mortimer. Unfortunately it won’t be heeded!

  16. Don McKellar says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    People with a vested interest in such things should, immediately, launch an overwhelming campaign for his resignation and a public apology for making such a ridiculous, anti-Civil Rights statement. He is clearly completely at odds with Civil Rights, and make the organization look like a joke.

  17. Wellington says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Talk about missing the big picture. Donohue does so completely.

  18. Eric says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    I think both Mr. Spencer and Mr. Donohue have a point they are trying to make here and they are both right. Spencer is advocating for free speech which indeed must be protected, and Donohue is arguing that needless insults and speech meant purely to offend is morally wrong, and every Christian should agree with him. This is not the same as saying political cartoons should be banned. Political cartoons can have a point to them without being needlessly insulting.

    The vast majority of people are being unfair to Mr. Donohue who is simply stating that speech that is meant purely to offend is unwise and immoral. I won’t deny, however, that perhaps his timing was foolish.

    • Thinking From First Principles says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      The error lies in assuming a universal and shared definition of “speech that is meant purely to offend.” I think it important to discuss the Islamic position on pedophilia = pedophilia does not exist in Islam as the Quran gives sanction to marriage and sex for girls who not yet begun having their period. A discussion so that folks realize the implementation of Sharia includes decriminalization of what are currently deemed underage sex acts … Google a little bit and you will find current (last few years) fatwas and sermons that there is no minimum age. And there cannot be given that Allah’s apostle married and used Aisha for “the pleasure of the thighs” at age six.

      Get a group of Muslims and non-Muslims together and start the discussion. Just of the facts and objectively comparing Sharia and Western views on pedophilia. See for yourself how the Muslims in the group perceive your speech.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 6:07 pm

      Eric wrote:

      I think both Mr. Spencer and Mr. Donohue have a point they are trying to make here and they are both right. Spencer is advocating for free speech which indeed must be protected, and Donohue is arguing that needless insults and speech meant purely to offend is morally wrong, and every Christian should agree with him. This is not the same as saying political cartoons should be banned. Political cartoons can have a point to them without being needlessly insulting.
      ………………………………………….

      Unbelievable. Bill Donohue was not talking about “needless insults and speech meant purely to offend”. Charlie Hebdo first showed up on murderous Jihadists’ radar when they reprinted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

      Although these cartoons have become known as the Danish MoToons, *none* of them explicitly depict the “Prophet” at all. Instead, every single cartoon addresses the violence of Islam and its threat to freedom of speech.

      Do you consider this “needless insults and speech meant purely to offend”? And if you *do* consider voicing fears over Islam’s violence to be offensive, they you are apparently ready to fully surrender to Shari’ah.

      And what is “needlessly insulting”? Under Shari’ah, any criticism or even questioning of Islam is completely Haram, and is considered blasphemy punished by death. Things that Infidels would consider no perfectly acceptable criticism would never be acceptable by pious Muslims.

      This means that you are willing to accept the standards of homicidal Jihadists to determine what is and is not acceptable in the free West.

      More:

      The vast majority of people are being unfair to Mr. Donohue who is simply stating that speech that is meant purely to offend is unwise and immoral. I won’t deny, however, that perhaps his timing was foolish.
      ………………………….

      Bill Donohue is *not* just saying that such speech is immoral—he is blaming Charb and the other cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo for causing their own murders:

      “It is too bad,” says Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, that Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnier “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.”

      Repulsive.

      • gravenimage says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 6:14 pm

        “No” should be “to be”. Posting too quickly, I’m afraid.

  19. Michael Copeland says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Donohue objects to “the vulgar manner in which Mohammed has been portrayed”? Is that a surprise? When Mohammed encountered a talking donkey – yes, that is the received account – he asked it “Do you desire females”? That is the polite translation.
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/yafoor.htm
    Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of little boys.
    Al-Adab al-Mufrad, Al-Bukhari 1183
    “He (the Prophet) lift up his (al Hasan’s) shirt and kissed his (little) penis..”
    He (the prophet) kissed the (little) penis of al Hasan or al Husein
    He (the prophet) put Husein’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis
    http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m005/07…

    • St. Croix says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 2:40 pm

      Whoa! Out of the horse’s mouth. No pun intended.

      Now if that were put in a Charlie Hebdo issue Muslims would be tearing their hair. Yet their own writings condemn the Proph! I guess Al-Bukhari et al. should be guilty of “blasphemy.”

  20. Dracula says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Dr. Michael Savage, a radio dude who often links to jihadwatch.org, often asserts that American Jews are the most willfully ignorant and suicidal voting bloc in the USA. It would seem with recent statements and events made by prominent Clergy over the last couple of years that the Roman Catholic Church is poised to take that dubious honor.

  21. eib says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Mr. DONOHUE, you have called profane worship sacred, you have entertained satan. Blasphemer.
    How dare you call darkness light.

  22. Omar BEDDALI says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    I am listening to a lot politicians and others on french media saying that islamism and terrorism has nothing to do with the true islam. That’s not true. Terrorism is the core, the soul of Islam and It’s time to admit it. But I also am sure that zionists despoliate the land of others even if they are devils. Two wrongs don’t make it right.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 6:36 pm

      Witless false moral equivalence. Muslims slaughter Jews in a bakery in France, and this Muslim apologist is ranting about how Zionists supposedly “despoliate” the land of others. *Ugh*.

      • Omar BEDDALI says

        Jan 10, 2015 at 2:25 am

        Labelling me as Muslim apologist ad saying that the moral comparison is witless make you rushing ahead without adressing the problem. Ben gourion himself said(in other words of course) that the land was despolited. Can we escape from the truth?

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm

          I rarely comment on stories that have fallen into the archives, but it seems worth doing here. Ben Gurion said, “the land was barren, despoiled of its ancient fertility, the people dispersed…” about the land of Israel as it was under oppressive Ottoman rule, *not* under the Zionists.

          Even Israel’s enemies have noted the blooming of the land under Jewish husbandry. It is not called the “Green Line” for nothing.

  23. Jeff says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    The only good that could come from blasphemy laws, would be that the teachings of Islam and its Qur’an would fall under the blasphemy laws and be outlawed.

  24. jim hasson says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    all these fairy tale believers have to cover for each other. i dont respect islam or the prophet (piss be upon him). I also dont respect anyone that believes the earth is 6000 years old, or that adam and eve actually existed, or that virgins give birth or that men come back from dead or that horses fly. or that any part of you survives death. childish wish thinking.
    donohue is a particularly grotesque little troll. he is the only person to call the report on child rape by the irish catholic church “catholic bashing”. he can’t see the manifold sins of his own church and evidently has no idea what freedom of speech means. (that’s some the happened after the enlightment. what were we being enlightened from? the backwards ass thinking that his church kept europe in a stranglehold of fear and ignorance and superstition. i wish all the religons of abraham would just die and go away. the world would be a lot better place

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 6:43 pm

      Christians have fought the depredations of Islam before. If brave Christians such as Charles Martell and Jan Sobieski had not fought off the invading Muslim hordes in centuries past, you would not enjoy the freedoms you have today, but would be living under Shari’ah law, either as a Muslim or as an oppressed dhimmi—assuming your ancestors had survived the conquerer’s slaughter.

  25. Peter B says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Hugh Hewitt interviewed Donohue about this and called him on it on the air. He did a beautiful job of it, too.

    Audio and transcript here: http://www.hughhewitt.com/heated-argument-bill-donohue-catholic-league/

  26. Joe says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Why not call the Anti-Catholic league and register your disgust, at

    (212) 371-3191

    and/or email them at cl@catholicleague.org

  27. bobm says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    the angry Jesuit picks his dentures clean with his dagger… beware; chrislam cometh.

    • St. Croix says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 2:44 pm

      Well, I’ll be! The Chrislam idea is not looking so far-fetched now, is it? With people like Donohue as friends who needs enemies? They can count me out of Chrislam.

  28. Stuart Smith says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    “non-Muslims should be careful not to offend Islam” What? it is my duty as a Christian to insult these camel shaggers at least10 times a day, muhamed a paedophile, goat fucking oxygen thief.

    • voegelinian says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm

      And now, Catholic bozos like this should be on our list to mock, deride, and offend with words and images, and if well-meaning, intelligent Catholics don’t agree, or object, then shame on them.

      • John C. Barile says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 4:41 pm

        No argument from this Catholic. I don’t believe in anti-blasphemy laws, howsoever disguised, anymore than I believe in the archaic union of Altar and Throne.

    • Bettina says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      And it is my duty as a Jew to back you up to the hilt, Stuart.

    • Antonius Tanoso says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 10:40 pm

      I read the Koran or rather translated Koran and found out that our core Christian belief, i.e. Jesus died at the cross, is antithesis to their belief ( Surah 4 : 157 ), so basically our belief is anti Islamic, so as a Catholic I offend them every time I say my Creedo. So how worst can it get ?

      • Western Canadian says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 11:57 pm

        And everything that islam (RTC) preaches, insults and threatens all legitimate belief systems, and all decent human beings. But this such-up won’t say a word about that….

  29. Lenin-McCarthy says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Are you siding with the muslims Bill? Doesn’t the Bible say that we turn the other cheek if we are offended? Remember the Last Temptation of Christ fiasco? There were no terrorist repercussions from it. Get over it Bill! No blasphemy or shariah laws period. BTW Bill I left the Catholic church. I hope many follow suit.

  30. TH says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    Accoding to the Webster Dictionary blasphemy means:

    a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
    b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
    2
    : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

    Now anyone who has even cursory knowledge of who Mahommed was or the official islamic narrative regarding Mahommed can easily see that he is someone who deserves absolutley no reverence, nor do muslims claim that he is a deity. So, the cact all muslim understanding of balsphemy should not be accepted. After all, it is their own official sources which tell us what kind of a despicable character he was. In fact for muslims offending means saying or writing something which they consider offensive.

    • voegelinian says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 3:06 pm

      Even if it could be shown that a historical personage (who may happen to be important for some religious tradition) deserved reverence and respect, a free society should still protect the right of anyone who wishes to criticize, condemn, satirize, mock, or insult that personage. These are two distinct (though related) issues; and the defenders of Islamic Sharia (whether they be Muslims or their Useful Idiots like this man and his Pope Francis) thus fail to understand not just one crucial point, but two.

  31. Tasma Ranni says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    I am a traditional Catholic. I was appalled by Donahue by an article he wrote about Irish Magdalene Laundries a while back, when he denied any wrong doing by the Church and intimated that the ‘wayward women’ had it coming to them. Fortunately, conservative Catholic Michael Rose wrote an excellent rebuttal.

    I cannot take anything Donahue says seriously.

    • Bill says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 10:43 pm

      The history of political liberty and dissent in Roman Catholicism is called PROTESTANTISM. There are no Popes, no infallible teachings ex cathedra, no infallible councils, no infallible Bishops and no anathemas for dissenting over, in some cases, minute points of theology like the curses of The Council of Trent against Protestants within Protestantism. Donahue represents Catholicism accurately, although, as you pointed out, not exclusively. The Catechism (841) expresses that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. There are no curses placed against Muslims in the Catechism like the Council of Trent places on Protestants. That’s because, Islam is in many ways acceptable to many Catholics.

  32. Jasken Park says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Charlie Hebdo was indeed a vile operation, a real cesspit of a publication, so I understand where Donohue is coming from. It is heartening, though, that most of the world has come to champion free speech even where the speech being persecuted here is so truly revolting and unpopular. Freedom of speech will obviously prevail against all comers.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 7:01 pm

      What could possibly be more “vile” than reprinting cartoons decrying Muslim violence towards anyone who dared say that Islam is violent? Surely only a “cesspit” would dare say such a thing…sarc/off

      And isn’t it odd that Charlie Hebdo offended lots of people, across the religious, social, and political spectrum, but only pious Muslims have firebombed their offices and massacred their staff?

      And what of Robert Spencer? He is always measured and scholarly in his criticism of Muslim savagery, but that hasn’t stopped pious Muslims from sending him a never-ending stream of death threats.

  33. John says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    The truth: Mohammad was a Lying, murderous, thieving, pervert and the Koran is the instruction book to become just like him.

    • Bill says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm

      Correct!

    • Larry A. Singleton says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 11:22 pm

      “The truth: Mohammad was a Lying, murderous, thieving, pervert and the Koran is the instruction book to become just like him.”

      I’m stealing this.

      (What is with these hard to see words????)

      “Islam” is synonymous with “atrocity” The Fruit of Islam: Murder

      Islam is a disease and Muslims are the symptom

      “TEACHING ISLAM WITHOUT WARNING LABELS IS LIKE STORING DRAINO IN A SUGAR BOWL.”

      “Mein Kampf reads like a love story compared to the Quran,”

      Islam is a totalitarian, aggressively expansionist ideology wrapped within a facade of religion.

  34. Jeff says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    What a clown this guy is!!

  35. Wich says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    Robert says it as it is kudos Robert. This is true as Anjem the extremist said without blinking his eyes in usatoday.com.

    “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

    Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

    Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

    However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

    Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
    The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

    So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

    It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.”

    Anjem Choudary is a radical Muslim cleric in London and a lecturer in sharia.

  36. gary fouse says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Donahue is a disgusting jerk. He was also an apologist for the priest pedophilia scandal.

  37. JS says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Mr. Donohue, I think your heart is as twisted as your tongue.

  38. message defence says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    This man is probably manipulated through donations.

    A traitor.

    These type of Catholics need to decide should they continue Interpreting the old testament or the new testament Which one is the message of jesus?

    How stupid of these catholic types which still exist conflating The old Hebrew Law which is there only referencing The context of which jesus either upholds or abrogates.

  39. vlparker says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Saw him on Megan Kelly last night. This is about the third time I’ve seen him on TV and every time he has come across as a very angry, bitter man.

  40. gravenimage says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    Robert Spencer: Bill Donohue: Those Cartoonists Had It Coming

    Over at Dana Loesch’s Dana Show site, I respond to the appalling piece by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, “Muslims Are Right to Be Angry.” Does Bill Donohue think that Jewish bakeries are also an intolerable insult and must be suppressed?
    ……………………………………….

    Good question. These fine cartoonist-murdering Jihadists were, no doubt, offended by the presence of a Kosher bakery in France, and had every right (I’m sure) of murdering some of the bakers and customers.

    And I’m sure that many others have been angry at the irreverent Charlie Hebdo over the years, who twitted people regardless of religion or political orientation. Yet only Muslims found the appropriate response to the anger to be cold-blooded murder.

    Moreover, look what they were angry *at*—initially, the reprinting of the Danish MoToons, which just pointed out that Islam was violent and represented a threat to freedom of speech. Does Bill Donohue believe that Muslims are justified in rage over such obvious statements?

    In that case, he must believe in Shari’ah law, where no criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, is allowable.

    More:

    “It is too bad,” says Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, that Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnier “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.” In other words, as Donohue argues in an extraordinarily irresponsible article, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who were murdered by Islamic jihadists yesterday have no one but themselves to blame – and to avoid such incidents in the future, non-Muslims should be careful not to offend Islam.
    ……………………………………….

    This is *exactly* what this craven tool is urging. And how much is *enough* self-censorship to stave off homicidal Muslim violence? Surely, that is only to be determined by the murderous Muslims themselves. Even a dhimmi like Donohue could run afoul of Muslim “sensitivities” if they become pronounced enough—as this appeasement is guaranteed to enable.

    More:

    Donohue bases these grotesque assertions on what he characterizes as Charbonnier’s “narcissistic” statement that “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Charbonnier, says Donohue, should have known better: “Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”
    ……………………………………….

    That means that no one can criticize *anything* about Muhammad, because that is considered an “insult”—even noting that virtually all Muslim violence can be traced to the model of the “Prophet”…

    More:

    That, for Donohue, is the heart of the matter. “What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo,” Donohue asserts, “is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.”
    ……………………………………….

    What crap. Not only are the initial Danish cartoons very mild, but none of them actually depict the “Prophet”. Death threats against Charlie Hebdo date from this period—and Jyllands-Posten cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was attacked by a Somali Muslim armed with an axe who broke into his home and tried to murder him.

    More:

    But what if someone does insult Muhammad? Should he be killed? Islamic law mandates death for blasphemy, as the British jihadist Anjem Choudary explained in Wednesday’s USA Today: “The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’”
    ……………………………………….

    That’s *exactly* what mainstream Islam says—critics of the “Prophet” should be murdered, and many have been.

    More:

    Donohue doesn’t go that far. He assures us that “killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated.” The only remaining option, then, is for non-Muslims to stop insulting Muhammad: “Madison was right when he said, ‘Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.’”

    Liberty may also be endangered by the voluntary abandonment of liberty, and that is what Donohue is calling for.
    ……………………………………….

    *So* true. And there are *many* cowards—and appeasers—calling for just that in the face of this Muslim massacre of cartoonists and journalists.

    Some of us are defiant. I say:

    Je suis Charlie

  41. somehistory says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Jesus said that with whatever judgment someone is judging, that one will be judged (Matthew 7:2). this fool has made the *judgment* that the cartoonists basically asked for what happened because they had the nerve to *offend muslims* with the truth of what their false prophet was, mocking his position as *prophet.*
    If the muslims find that he has *offended* them, and find him, and give him the same treatment, will he then see Jesus’ words are true? Perhaps there is a muslm who believes that by his words about the late, not so great, muhammed not being *sacred* to him is enough to be an insult.
    We can “recognize* someone’s fruit, whether it is rotten or fine, but it is up to God to *judge* what punishment is deserved, what one has *asked* for by his/her actions and words.

  42. Bill says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Donahue’s comments are typical of Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is soft on Islam, and is authoritarian, like Islam, being that the Pope and the Bishops are considered infallible when speaking “ex cathedra” of through Councils of the Church. The history of dissent and political liberty in Catholicism is called Protestantism.

    • Medina says

      Jan 9, 2015 at 11:21 pm

      Bill, let’s not make this a judgment of Catholicism instead of that overbearing equivocator named Bill Donohue. Remember, your host Robert Spencer is a Catholic who like me, does not agree with Donohue’s ridicule or a lot of the foolish tripe put out by Pope Francis I.

      • Bill says

        Jan 9, 2015 at 11:52 pm

        As usual, Catholics first reaction is to defend Catholicism at all costs. If I said, which I do believe, that large portions of the Protestant churches are Islamophiles you would heartily agree. Well I do say this. But, saying this and believing this does in no way threaten my faith, since my faith does not include an authoritarian system of belief that even conveys infallibility to ecclesiastical bodies and a pope. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is horribly weak and even complicit with Islamicists like the Palestinians who want to destroy Jews and Israel and who murder and rape Christians everywhere. Both the current and former Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem refer to the Israeli presence in Israel as “the occupation” and the RCC has cozied up for years with the PLO, PA and Fatah and the likes of killers like Arafat and Abbas. This propensity in many Catholics and the strong propensity in the hierarchy is precisely why Bill Donahue’s error not only fails to surprise me, but is typical of Catholicism.

        • Western Canadian says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 12:16 am

          “As usual, Catholics first reaction is to defend Catholicism at all costs”

          I am no lover of the catholic church, but this comment simply makes no sense. It is not a reply to a very reasonable post, it is merely a smear of someone making a valid observation and comment. You are a waste of time.

        • eastcoast*Hebrew* says

          Jan 10, 2015 at 1:21 pm

          Bill and Justin are eager to blame the Catholic Church and all its followers with some unscholarly attacks. As a Jew, I am familiar with these attacks myself. It is obvious that Medina WAS defending Catholicism, because her entire faith was being blamed for the actions of some individuals within her church.

          Seems that this was an opportunity for Bill and his chum to do just what the jihadists do. We get that you both hate Catholicism and Catholics alike. See you at the mosque.

  43. Say No 2 Mo says

    Jan 9, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    So Bill do tell us does Raif Badawi also have it coming to him?

  44. Heather says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 12:27 am

    What a shocking thing to say by Bill Donohue. There is never an excuse to murder, NEVER. I don’t respect nor would ever respect anything to do with the Islam cult. It’s seems to me to be a made up, hateful load of rubbish by a despicable, backward madman. And anyone who follows it is just ignorant to that or just as hateful themselves. Shame on you, Bill Donohue!

  45. tgusa says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 12:50 am

    Those Hedbo heretics, err cartoonists, had it coming!

    Sincerely,
    Bill (your friendly neighborhood inquisitor)

  46. jay says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 12:55 am

    How hysterical is it he sounds like a typical left winger/SJW! This world is just insane.

  47. john albertson says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 1:32 am

    Although Bill Donohue’s Catholic League is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Donohue pays himself a salary and benefits of $408,000 per year.
    Donohue pays himself $408,000. The low end of the salary range for Catholic League size nonprofits is $62,691 (10th percentile) and the high end of the salary range is $259,063 (90th percentile).

    Donohue’s salary is a whopping 340% above the median for nonprofits of his Catholic League’s budget size. The Catholic League’s revenues are under $3 million. During the same time that millions of American are struggling to make ends meet, Donohue gave himself a nice cost of living increase, putting himself well over the $400,000

  48. Dapto says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 2:39 am

    What angers Christians most is traitorous scum like Bill Donohue and his mate the dhimmi Pope

  49. gerard says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 3:07 am

    The authority of Bill Donohue in the Catholic Church is zero. He has a big mouth. That’s it.

  50. David says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 3:13 am

    Thank you Robert!

    May God bless you and protect you and your family!

    Jesus Christ IS Lord!

  51. No Fear says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 4:00 am

    If only they had not depicted Mohammed ……. no one would have died.
    If only the woman had covered herself from head to toe with a burka……she would not have been raped.

  52. Anon says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 4:03 am

    What unites Muslims in their anger, and I’m referring to worldwide, is ANYTHING that is non-Islam or any disagreement with Islam, even the drop of a hat. People who are already 99.9% angry, from reading the unholy ‘quran their entire life being trapped in a harsh deception, only need 0.1% anger to go from dormant to berserk.

    • Dave says

      Jan 11, 2015 at 3:58 pm

      Islam is a cult. The founder of Islam (Mohammad) was a thief, murderer, rapist, and child molester. Today in many jurisdictions he would be sitting on death row for his crimes. What can you expect of the followers of a harden criminal.

  53. Thomas F Mills says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 4:15 am

    With Moronic Bozos like Bill Donohue Representing them no wonder why the
    Catholic Church is Losing its Flock. Know of what you Spear before Opening
    Your Fat Mouth

    • Antoinette says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm

      Totally agree with you Thomas. This kind of reasoning is more dangerous than the REAL enemy. This guy’s reasoning is responsible for more evil because looking for a reason for evil deeds is fuel to the “disatvantaged” evil doers,

      • Thomas F Mills says

        Jan 12, 2015 at 3:16 am

        Totally Agree with you on The West, murdering all its Babies but Still
        Standby my original Post. With the present leadership siding with barry’s
        Immigration and not taking a strong stand on the slaughter of innumerable
        Christians, Coptics and Jews, The Catholic Religeon is doomed.
        They are treating islam like as legitimate which I learned in my almost 30
        Years in the Middle East is not. It is pure fashism.

    • Augustine Thomas says

      Jan 11, 2015 at 11:52 pm

      The Church is still growing. You know what is dying? The Secularist West, because it murders all of its babies.

  54. BC says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 8:29 am

    Well MR Donahue you are a Catholic but not a Christian obviously, and your Jesus is not sacred to me either, even though I was braIn washed in childhood by religion, I even had a toy Noah’s Ark and my family was not really religious. Christian indoctrination is very insidious. What about all those hymns I had to sing every morning when my mind was still developing?
    We do not get riots and death when somebody ‘insults’ Jesus, so why is Islam especially deserving of
    respect considering its history.

    • Juan Jose Rivera Díaz says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 3:31 pm

      Oh! poor you! all those “hymns” and “choirs”… how horrible must have been for you…
      Who dared to hurt such a delicate flower like you?

      That’s the problem with the West. Effeminates everywhere. And that’s why islam is attracting so many young fools. They see strength and determination. Deluded and stupid, but at least they see that in islam.
      Christianity needs to go back to the Doctrine, THE HARD CORE DOCTRINE. The Catholic Church needs to take back what She has lost in these 50+ years.
      We need people like Charles Martell, like Saint Francis, Saint Ignacio de Loyola, like those Lions of the Faith. Not the effeminate stuff in the “modern” protestant-ish church .

  55. Roha Waha says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 8:41 am

    Well yes , I am very offended when I see blasphemy , the Christ piss “so called art” and Atheist statements are many times vile and hurtful.
    But I understand that I worship an Almighty God who claims the justice of righteous vengeance as his
    and his ways and thought are much higher than my ways and thoughts.
    I then pray that God take my anger away and give me knowledge and understanding.
    Because their sin of blasphemy does not excuse me of sinning by harming them physically, or threatening them.
    I sometimes regretfully recall my Marine Corp days and mutter to myself ” He will smoke a turd in hell for that one” I guess I am only human !
    Gunny Waha

  56. Thomist says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 10:10 am

    At the very least, Donohue does indeed seeem to mitigate (if not altogether justify) the attack on Charlie Hebdo by criticizing the latter for deliberately offending Muslims. He does not seem to realize that, in principle, Muslims are offended by the very existence of non-Muslims. That said, I can understand Donohue’s ambivalence towards Charlie Hebdo. Donohue is always on the look out for anti Catholic bigotry in society. He understands that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It can be misused. There are things you cannot say without getting thrown into jail or fined or pressured to apologize. Charlie Hebdo is a publication that would violate American obscenity laws with ease. It’s main target is the Catholic Church in general. In France, Charlie Hebdo can get away with its highly offensive cartoons against the Catholic Church because the justice dept. of France is also anti-Catholic. I suspect Charlie Hebdo wanted to appear egalitarian in its obscene satire, so it began to attack other religions also. But when it targeted Islam, Charlie Hebdo did not attack Islam as such — as it does all the time with the Catholic Church. Instead, it went after Islamic terrorists. And they did so without being obscene. But what C.H. failed to consider was that, when you target Islamic terrorists, unlike targeting Catholics, you had better arm yourself and prepare to kill those who try to kill you. Speech, however free its exercise, can have consequences. Yell fire in a movie theatre when there is no fire lands you in jail. Depicting the Prophet will incur the wrath of Islamic terrorists. Unfortunately, the good people at Charlie Hebdo (both the living and the dead) were (and are) dyed-in-the-wool leftists: they are all in favor of an unarmed citizenry. So, when you exercise your right to free speech against those who are armed and willing to exercise those arms against you, you might want to consider obtaining a more robust defense than a couple of unarmed policemen and a door with a security code.

  57. peter says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 10:16 am

    There is no excuse for cold blooded murder over a cartoon. When the Nazi propogandists published distorted images of Jews as part of their anti-semetic campaign of genocide, should those lampoons of the Jewish people have been protected speach? I think Bill Donahue is simply saying that not all speech should be protected when it inspires hate, and in the case of the Nazi’s murder. Catholics are constantly the brunt of this kind of “art” Piss Jesus, Elephant Dung Mary. They protest taxpayer money supporting this vile speech, they write letters etc. but dont kill people. Freedom of speach carries some responsibility– and he himself said, the penalty for offending with speach can never be murder.

    • Angemon says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 11:10 am

      peter posted:

      “I think Bill Donahue is simply saying that not all speech should be protected when it inspires hate”

      Do you consider that the Hebdo cartoons were made with the intent of inspiring hate, like the nazi propaganda in WWII (which, BTW, still lives on in the muslim world)?

      And who decides what “inspires hate”, or even if it’s meant to inspire hate?

      • PatnTrucks says

        Jan 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm

        And who is to serve at this magical JUDGE, JURY and EXECUTIONER of the CONTROLS over FREE SPEECH? Do we need a RELIGIOUS POLICE such as the barbarians in the mid-east have? GESTAPO FORCES OF “WHO SAID WHAT?” NO thank you we have had that already and it took bombing Europe to dust to get those bastards out of power. Then What next? Mandatory veiling of women? And the RELIGIOUS police in these barbaric cesspits beat the CRAP out of any offending woman in her black gag bag burka or nijab who may show a wisp of hair or lipstick they judge as too much? The mohammadans elected themselves as the enforcers of all that is Psychopathic Mohammed. Nothing make them happier to beat women, mutilate genitals of young girls or rape them calling it ‘marriage’. and then howl that frigging call to prayer? Makes me cringe just thinking about it. Worse than NAZI Germany. Now, as Mohammed didn’t like to be mocked and ordered the execution of poets that offended him. And here we are 1,400 years later with the mohammadans trying to get control of us yet again. 1,400 years and it still bites us in the ass. If we don’t call a stop to the murdering mohammadans and their WRETCHED SOCIETY/RELIGION, we won’t be able to sneeze and say “God Bless You”, without fear of losing our heads.

  58. Thomist says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 10:53 am

    Billl Donohue is in the business of calling peddlers of anti-Catholicism to account. He understands all too well that freedom of speech is not an absolute right that one can exercise without any adverse consequences. Yell fire in a theater where there is no fire will land you in jail. Defame someone in print might cost you (if you lose the lawsuit). Engage in bigotry might lead to such pushback that you are forced to apologize.
    Bill’s mistake is to sympathize with Islamic jihadists: they were offended just as I have often been offended. The difference, however, is that what Islamists find offensive is not at all what Donohue would find offensive. Moreover, Donohue’s response is proportionate to the offense, whereas that of the Islamists is disproportionate to the offense.
    Let’s look at this from the perspective of Charlie Hebdo. In general, it is an obscene publication. Its main target is the Catholic Church. It targets Catholicism in general. Its anti-Catholic cartoons would violate American obscenity laws. But in France Charlie Hebdo can get away with their highly obscene and offensive “free speech” because the Justice Dept. in France is also very much anti-Catholic. Anyone who tried to sue Charlie Hebdo because of its obscene attacks on the Catholic Church would lose because of this virulent anti-Catholicism.
    Now, in order to appear egalitarian, Charlie Hebdo also has gone after Islam and other religions. But when it targets Islam (or what it thinks is a distortion of Islam), it does so in a way that is not obscene. Of course, depicting the false Prophet is itself offensive to radical Muslims these days. As far as they are concerned, such depictions merit the penalty of death. Given the 751 mini muslim states in France, all of which have cultivated radical muslims who are willing to carry out such a penalty, Charlie should have dropped its leftist stance on gun control and prepared to defend themselves with more than a couple of unarmed cops and a door with a security code.
    Words do have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are just, sometimes not. Donohue is wrong to think that C.H. was irresponsible to offend Muslims, perhaps because they are irresponsible when they attack Catholics. But C.H. (to say nothing of the French government) should have been better prepared to withstand the inevitable deadly force brought to bear on its operation.

    • Dave says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Well put. With rights of course come responsibility (perhaps even great responsibility). I would hope that concept at least resonates with all people of mature reason if not completely self evident. To understand and accept this responsibility takes a good deal of reflection and humility by each and every person, something that both our modern western culture and the Islamic culture appear to be in rather short supply.

    • William says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 4:37 pm

      Thomist:

      I think you made a good analysis of this issue.

      My main problem with what Mr. Donohue said is with the timing of his press release. He could just condemn the massacre and some days later publish another note about the issue of the abuse of free speech cartoons like that of CH really are. He even could show how his methods to deal with anti-catholic cartoons are differents from the muslims.

      Condemn the attack — which he did after all — and bring the issue of the cartoons in the same press release put him in a very bad position, like we was excusing the demoniac jihadists. I wonder how he couldn´t see it coming…

    • Jack Gordon says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm

      Your comments here are spot-on. CH in the past has published some anti-Catholic ”cartoons” so virulent that I would not even choose to describe them here for fear of committing blasphemy myself. I think you are right that, at least in the minds of the leftists who work there, the Muslim cartoons offered a simulacrum of even-handedness (not true, of course, because they were barely offensive in anyone’s rational opinion).

      Donohue should have left this question alone because, regardless of what he actually meant, he SEEMS to providing excuses for bloody murder. Merely throwing in a sentence contradictory to this notion doesn’t pass muster in the circumstance. It’s a little like noting that in a mafia hit, the gunman used a clean head shot to save his victim any excessive pain. Why in heaven’s name would it even occur to someone to bother making such an inane comment?

      All that said, I think the Mohammedans may have made a serious misstep here. This time they aimed their bullets at an icon of the European Left, and thus split the surrender-monkeys’ party right down the middle. It’s obvious that the ”progressives” in the West are scrambling to find some fig leaf to cover this with, some way of explaining how Muslims are a peaceful bunch while at the same time defending the practices of left-wing rags like Charlie Hebdo. Not an easy task, even for a bunch accustomed to distortion, half-truths, outright lies, and sheer irrationality.

  59. Dave B says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 11:30 am

    I think Bill is foolish here. When group of people has a rule book (the Koran) and a reviled founder (Mohamed) who suggest that subjugating other people is OK and spreading your rules by force on others is acceptable, then this group needs to be mocked, resisted, and called out on every occasion possible.

    Thank goodness for those who will stand up and mock these Muslims who seek to affect our way of life.

    It is one thing to mock a defenseless group who does not fight back and who is not generally causing trouble. It is quite another to mock and resist a group who would do us harm.

    • PatnTrucks says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 7:40 pm

      Well said Gentlemen, so very well said. And don’t forget on May 20th, Draw Mohammed Day. I submitted my entry last year and am happy it is on their webpage, among other fine examples of humor at Mohammed’s expense. We cannot ever give up free speech even after our EMBARRASSING Leader of the Free World says, “there is no room for those who criticize the prophet” and the totally inane, “it is my job as President to protect islam.” Geez what a monumental presidential jackass.

  60. Lioness says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Does Bill Donohue also suggest that anyone who mocks Jesus should bring upon him the wrath of Christians and be killed? I don’t see the same passion in protecting Christianity from blasphemy. Another usefull PC idiot for Islam. Did not expect it from Donohue.

    • Beth says

      Jan 10, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Neither did I. Very disappointing…

      • Thomas F Mills says

        Jan 11, 2015 at 12:38 am

        Moronic thinking like Donohue along with the pedofile Priest being supported by
        The Catholic Church are a couple of the reasons I’ll never accept Catholicism and
        They are losing their flock.

  61. Beth says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    Mr. Donohue seems to be prosthelytizing from a position of either ignorance or terror of true Islam. Or perhaps both…

  62. Thomist says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Donohue should not have said that he “agreed” with the Jihadists in any way. He gave the impression that maybe he approved of what they did after all. That said, we who cherish liberty should realize that, in the words of Steve Covey, “When we pick up one end of the stick, we pick up the other.” Actions have consequences. If a person wants to go out of his way to offend radical Muslims simply to show that he is free to do so, then he should also prepare himself for the inevitable bulllet to the head. This is not to say, of course, that we should never say anything that might offend someone. Confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, or that God is a Father will certainly offend radical Muslims, for whom there is no god but Allah, and we are all his slaves. Which is why Christian Europe, after centuries of suffering one onslaught after another from Muslim Jihadists, finally had enough and took the fight to them in what we call the Crusades. It was a hugely expensive undertaking in both blood and treasure, as well as difficult beyond imagining with little hope of success. But it was ultimately a defensive undertaking. Today, Europe will have to contend with Jihadis within its very midst. What we are seeing is only the beginning. It will get worse. Unfortunately, I ffear the secuarlist, value-neutral outlook of the West will lack the resolve to take a stand because it doesn’t believe there is anything on which to stand. Platitudes about liberty and free speech while rejecting practically every notion of the true, the good, and the beautiful will not stop the ever growing threat of Jihad. Besides, when freedom is divorced from any notion of truth, especially the truth about man, tyranny of one sort or another always results.

  63. OldVeteran says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    I don’t like when movies, art or whatever insults My Lord Jesus Christ. It is offensive. That being said, I’m forgiving of their trespass and idiocy and go about my daily business. I did read the koran last year in an attempt to get an understanding of why the mohammdans are butchering us right and left and our Leader of the Free World thinks its ‘my job as President is to protect islam, ” and the absurd “There is no room for those who criticize the prophet.” WHAT INANE STUPIDITY from the Leader of the Greatest Country on Earth. I was appalled. I could have fallen over and rolled into a fetal position. Never in all my years have I ever heard a politician say something so SEDITIOUS and STUPID. I thought his job as President was to ‘protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America.” Geez and I voted for that IDIOT and he says stuff like this? We cannot give up our freedom of speech or freedom of expression to anyone who think it offends them. Time for muslims to grow up. I think overall they are degenerates, inbred and illiterate – thanks to their own immans. I listen to them on the web and wonder if I’ve landed in Insane Land Mid-East??. One said 2+2=4 and therefore Islam is scientific. What? What a dolt. He then said 2+2=3 is Christian and 2+2=5 is Jewish so therefore Islam is scientific and that is why no churches or synagogues are allowed in Saudi Arabia, or where ever. IMBECILE. Pure Imbecile. I’d laugh but these bastards are serious about killing us, so what do you do with that? If I would have heard that in person, I’m afraid I’d have punched him in the nose – and I’m a woman. And don’t get me started on the islamic RIGHT to have men beat women. Thank GOD for our SECOND AMENDMENT! And the right to conceal carry!!! We’ll be needing it sooner than later I fear.

    • Joseph says

      Jan 11, 2015 at 1:54 am

      Agreed!

      And that second amendment right is under constant attack, scared to see where this country will be in 30 years without it, being replaced with policies created by these deniers of the truth.

  64. Thomist says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    In his piece, Donohue wrote: “Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.” This is factually correct. They can get away with it because of the antipathy of the French government towards the Church. Of course, they cannot get away with anything deemed racist or anti-semitic. There are laws against that. Not arbitrary laws, but laws qua “ordinance of reason” with a view to uphold the common good of society and the good of persons.

    Donohue continues: “While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.”

    It’s not because all muslims are offended that Charlie Hebdo is in the wrong. All muslims are, in principle, offended by the Christian profession of faith. And given the right circumstances, muslims will oblige Christians (indeed, all non-muslimss) either to convert, pay the dhimmi, or suffer death. Simply for being non-muslim, not for anything they do. Charlie Hebdo relishes the vile lampooning of non leftists of all sorts (except Jews). What they do is, on its own merits, an abuse of freedom. Spencer mischaracterizes Donohue’s position when he declares that he is calling for the “voluntary abandonment of liberty”. Actually, Donohue is calling for the responsible use of freedom. Hence, the Madison citation: “Madison was right when he said, ‘Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.'”

    As a strictly life and death practical matter, whether in poor taste or not, if you plan to offend those who will not scruple to kill you because of the offense you offer, then at least be prepared to return fire! Here lies the achilles heal of the über left leaning Charlie Hebdo editors. They wouldn’t think of arming themselves. By all means, die standing, but not without trying to defend yourself.

    • whitey says

      Jan 11, 2015 at 9:06 am

      Yes Thomist, as I understand it, Muslims are offended by the existence of Christians and Jews who are therefore eligible for the death penalty. To Muslims, violence, deceit, lying are all legitimate tools when dealing with non-Muslim infidels. Killing Americans is at the top of their list but any non-Muslim westerner will do just fine, especially those who have offended Allah. Offending Allah is very easy to do, just draw a picture of him. Not an obscene picture. Not an insulting picture. Just a picture. There are tons of these”fundamentalists” out there who are happy to prove their devoutness by killing you and nailing your picture to your chest.

      Immigration to non-Muslim countries, with the goal of taking over/converting such countries by violence, deceit, etc. is encouraged by the Koran. Therefore when we tell complaining Muslims to return to their home country if they don’t like life in Western countries, we are not understanding their motivation. They are already in full compliance with the Koran because they are living in our countries IN ORDER TO EVENTUALLY CONVERT THEM TO ISLAM.

  65. noahnoah says

    Jan 10, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    Bill Donohue, is also stuck back in time just as many as the jihadists Neanderthals.
    To sum up Bill Donohue in one word his is an IDIOT !!!!!

  66. gfmucci says

    Jan 11, 2015 at 8:38 am

    The likes of Bill Donohue is why I will not be Catholic. Fools. Billy ignores the fact that minor insults earn murder by Muslim. Is he going to parse which type of insult is most worthy of Islamic killing?

  67. sidney penny says

    Jan 12, 2015 at 6:29 am

    “Instead of preaching to non-Muslims a self-censorship that would only enable Sharia oppression and tyranny, he ( Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights) should try to spread among Muslims the idea that one need not, and indeed should not, respond to provocations with violence.”

    Not try but……..

    “Should spread among Muslims the idea that one need not, and indeed should not, respond to provocations with violence.”

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Michael Copeland on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.