Opuscula Characterizations Of Mohamed banned But others promoted?

WHY IS IT “OK” TO DEPICT JEWS with hooked noses or blacks as simpletons or Orientals aS subservient but it’s forbidden to make a caricature of Mohamed.

Moses is caricaturized. Jesus caricaturized. Buddha is caricaturized

No one runs to kill the artist or the publisher.

But Mohamed …

Caricaturize Mohamed and the Muslims will kill you.

Moses with cell (Richard Codor @ https://tinyurl.com/yx9bs4os)

Water vs. wine (Reismueller @ https://tinyurl.com/yydx4p9k)

Buddha in a sombrero (Bodin Sterba @ https://tinyurl.com/y2oob335

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, neither Moses nor Buddha is (a) god or claimed to be a god. Paul claimed Jesus was Part 2 of a trinity of god, Jesus, and a holy spirit, but — I am not a scholar of Jesus — I don’t know that Jesus himself claimed to be god.

Mohamed, worshiped by Muslims on a level with Jesus, claimed only to be a prophet of god, although he elevated himself above both Jesus (whom most Muslims claim as a prophet) and Moses.

So what sets Mohamed above all others? What makes a caricature of Mohamed sacrilege worthy of death?

What religion allows, encourages, its followers to murder others simply because they object to a cartoon?

Is Mohamed such a minor entity that he is offended by such things — and given that he has been dead for centuries, how could he care?

Granted, the Roman Catholics were no better: the Inquisition, the Crusades as but two examples.

The early Protestants were equally bigoted.

Neither followers of the “peaceful” Jesus tolerated non-believers. In early America, people who failed to “toe the line” were branded as witches and, in New England, drowned in “dunking chairs.”

Even today, there are Protestants who fear any Catholic in any position — the recent clash over a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, Paul’s followers now rarely murder someone “in Jesus’ name.”

Has anyone heard of a Buddhist killing people in Buddha’s name? Not recently, anyway.

IT IS UNFORTUNATE for thinking Muslims that a few of their coreligionists are so extreme that they take it upon themselves to slaughter non-believers and not a few believers who had the temerity to do something the fanatics oppose (e.g., wear modern clothes, drive, have social intercourse with non-believers).

It is human nature to tar with a broad brush anyone who is “different” from ourselves for any reason: religion, dress, skin color (or lack thereof), education, etc.

One (pick an attribute) does something against society’s standards and all people of a similar attribute are, if not guilty, then at least suspect.

As for cartoons about Mohamed — I find nothing funny about the man or the religion founded on his name.

---

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

Comment on Mohamed

Opuscula Whistle blower cites Unknown persons As “crime” witnesses

Pot calls kettle black and tv heads ignore facts they don’t like

I just watched the Democrat-controlled House attack a Trump appointee for nearly an hour.
The basis for the attack was a whistle blower’s letter that claimed President Trump threatened to withhold aid to the Ukraine unless Joe Biden’s son was investigated.

AS A FORMER NEWSPAPER reporter and editor I saw so much wrong with the hearing.

ATTRIBUTION

The whistle blower cited multiple unidentified sources for his information. It was pointed out to the Democrats that NONE of the whistle blower’s sources were identified. In a court of law, that information would be inadmissible; not accepted.

In a newspaper (from my day, at least), the information would be disregarded. Best case, the reporter would be chastised and told to attribute the claims or, alternatively, find supporting evidence. No attribution, no hard evidence, no story.

The whistle blower DID cite tertiary sources: various media outlets that also failed to attribute sources.

BULLYING BULLY PULPIT

The House Democrats tried, and generally failed, to bully the former Navy Seal into answering Yes of No to questions that could not be answered truthfully with a Yes of No answer.

When I was a kid, such a question was “Are you still beating your wife.” No matter what the response, the responder was guilty of beating his wife.

I have seen the Democrats at work before and today’s exhibition was no exception. (That is not to say Republicans would not badger Democrats given the chance.)

Circa 1500, A prisoner undergoing torture at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. Monks in the background wait for his confession with quill and paper. Hulton Archive/Getty Images (http://tinyurl.com/yyk6owku)

THE CRIME

According to the whistle blower’s unsubstantiated letter, Trump allegedly asked the Ukraine’s new president to investigate a company in which Joe Biden’s son was involved. The Ukraine already investigated the company and had, on more than one occasion, fined it for its dealings.

The Democrats are making two claims:

1. That Trump was trying to influence the U.S. 2020 elections by giving Biden’s son a bad name, and by implication, involving Obama’s VP and possible 2020 Democrat candidate for the White House and

2. That Trump was threatening to withhold U.S. aid to pressure or “push” the Ukrainian president to investigate the younger Biden.

Democrats, of course never interfere in foreign elections. Obama never interfered with Israeli elections — although he tried really heard to get Netanyahu defeated.

Never mind that the U.S. has a very long record of interfering in others elections and even removing a head of government who failed to toe the U.S. line.

Trying to influence an election is “the American way.” Think of Chicago’s corrupt Democrat politics (and Obama); think of New York and the Democrats' Tammany Hall,

Trump also was accused of trying to hide a recording of the call to the Ukraine.

Shades of Hillary and her emails (which Trump allowed to slide).

AS REPORTED ON TV

Immediately after the grilling by Democrats, the tv talking heads gave their interpretation of what was said — or not.

Mostly it was a rehash of what the generally leftist media wanted to emphasize at the expense of the full story.

As King Solomon is alleged to have said: “There is nothing new under the sun.” (You didn’t know Solly spoke English?)

REPUBLICANS JUMPING SHIP?

According to the talking heads, a number of Republicans in the House and Senate are abandoning ship; 2020 is, after all an election year. They are betting that the Democrats will finally get SOMETHING on the president. So far they continue to come up empty.

What is likely to happen is that in the privacy of the voting booth, many Democrats will consider how well off they were under Obama and how well off they are under Trump and vote to give Trump another four years in the White House.

That won’t stop the remaining Democrats from hounding the president, nor will it stop Republicans from giving the same treatment to a Democrat if one ever gets into the White House.

Trump, unlike his predecessors, does not have D.C. credentials. Unlike LBJ, he doesn’t know “where the bodies are buried.” He is not charismatic a la JFK (although unlike JFK, Trump gets things done) or a relatively handsome actor a la Reagan (who Democrats said couldn’t do the job). Trump simply lacks the proper “school tie” and for that he is hounded. It will be interesting top see the outcome of the 2020 elections, although I think I’ll pass on most of the campaign lies.

Editorial cartoon by Gary Varval for 9/26, 2019

---

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comment on No attribution