The militant Islamists command us not to draw cartoons or any other kind of picture of the prophet Mohammed, and our Drive-By Media and Democrat Party readily agree, "Ain't no way that should happen! It offends them, and we shouldn't do it. And when anybody does, and they get shot at, it's their fault." To which I ask, "Well, now, wait a minute. The same militant Islamists who do not permit the drawing of pictures of the prophet Mohammed also do not permit homosexuality and do not permit gay marriage."
And we know what their attitudes toward women are.
Why don't we respect those? Can you imagine? If you turn on MSNBC, all you're gonna see, given the day -- maybe not every day, but the odds are, at least a portion of the day -- you're gonna see a total devotion to the concept of gay marriage. Isn't that insulting to the Muslims who would be watching? Would it not then be understandable if the Muslims watching take some kind of action against MSNBC for offending them?
They're not tolerant of gay marriage.
They're not tolerant of homosexuality, and you turn on MSNBC or CNN or any other Drive-By Media outlet and all you get is total support for it. Is that not offending our Muslim friends in the viewing audience? Why is there no concern for that? When people draw cartoons of "the prophet," it's, "Oh, Rush that's intolerable! You can't accept it. You gotta stop! Oh, my God, that's horrible!" But we can taunt them with gay marriage, and we can taunt them with women's rights and feminazism, and we can taunt them with homosexuality, and we are somehow not concerned about how that offends them?
My question is: Where do we draw the line on this?
Where do we draw the line on those aspects of Islam that we're going to respect and not offend them, and then on the other hand say, "We don't care if it offends 'em; we're gonna do it anyway"? But that's not the totality of my thought. I was also thinking about this. The left respects and applauds militant Islam's effort to shut down free expression, i.e., the drawing of cartoons of the prophet.
The same left, however, demands that Christians (say Catholics; Hobby Lobby is an example) pay for health insurance that would pay for abortions and things that make them happen. Well, by the same token, if the left is to be consistent, shouldn't Muslims be forced to pay for these cartoon contests? Now, follow me on this. I am the mayor of Realville. As such, I am possessed with logic sometimes to my own detriment because other people aren't.
But if the left says that Christians, despite opposition rooted in their religion, must pay for people who want to have abortions to have them -- if the left says that Christians say, like at Hobby Lobby, must pay for any drug or whatever is necessary that facilitates an abortion even though they have a religious opposition to it -- by the same token, does it not make sense that the left should be demanding that militant Islamists pay for these conventions that have cartoon contests with the prophet Mohammed?
If the left in this country can make Christians pay for people who want to have abortions when Christians oppose it, my only question is: Where do we draw the line here in areas and various different religions on what we'll tolerate of them and what we won't? I'm just asking. I'm not advocating anything here.
I know asking makes people nervous and that is when they lash out.
It's what happens when you hit the bull's-eye, folks.
They come for you.
Read more at RushLimbaugh.com
2 comments:
The only effective measure is a counter-offensive -- when the Left declares some word or concept "offensive," it should immediately thereafter be on everyone's lips. But that takes actual courage, and a dedication to freedom that few possess.
I'm offended by statism, but I guess that doesn't count.
Post a Comment