I reported on Saturday that a group in Denmark was planning to burn an effigy of Mohammed — instead of a witch — at the traditional midsummer festival.
I have just heard from a reliable source in Denmark that the burning did indeed occur, and that he (and the Danish media) are awaiting the video of the event with great anticipation.
As soon as someone sends me photos and/or a video link, I will post them here.
[Nothing further.]
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
28 comments:
Gotta go find a Dane to hug! WoooHoo!
Kransekagen for breakfast, Havarti for lunch, Danish Ham for Dinner!
Viva Vikingur!
Now that is how to deal with Muzzies. Denmark again leads the way. Now if only a few others would follow.
Kransekage for breakfast would be rather unhealthy - kransekage is about 90% Marzipan...
It sure is tasty though...
I think you are going to confuse our jihadist friends. Creating an image of Mo is blasphemous. Destroying the image should be halal. Try adding pork to the mix ...
How do you say "Get over it" in Arabic? I need to practice.
That is going to be interesting. Where's Islamic rageboy at?
A shame that we need the Danes and the Aussies to show Americans what it looks like to possess a pair of gonads.
I'm gonna go get me a case of Carlsberg, and then prob'ly another.
I Heart Denmark!!!
Darrell
Toronto, Canada
I'm so very proud (yet again) of my heritage! Certainly explains a lot about my outspokenness..
I cant wait for updates on this story..
iPosty.livejournal.com
i <3 Denmark
Bring on the outrage!
As an aside ...
I've often considered that old Puritan saw that "Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live!" as being too dated ......
Substituting "Bitch" would cover a broader demographic!
Oh this is going to be the "mother of all outrages"
I can hardly wait!
Shouldn't Mohammad be stoned instead of burned?
Have you ever heard of something called the golden rule and maybe love thy neighbour? As fair as I am aware, those two concepts were very heavily emphazised by Jesus. So preaching hate towards the muslims and at the same time talking about defending christianity really reeks of double standard. Unless of course christianity is only used as a cover for plain xenophobia.
Self-preservation is not xenophobia. If someone has a stated intent of destroying your civilization unless you capitulate, there is very little common ground to work on.
So love thy neighbor and do unto others is fine when you're talking about people that live like people. For those that choose to live like barbarians, all bets are off.
Burn baby burn, congrats to Denmark for rejecting the ridiculous idea of chatting this problem out.
1. "Love thy neighbor" is not a suicide pact.
2. If we assume that 'muslims' also believe in the golden rule, what might their actions tell us about how they wish to be treated?
I am stone-cold rational about the threat of Mohammedism. He was, indeed, demon possessed and filled with evil.
Christians who claim that people who "live like barbarians" aren't people anymore simply ARE NOT Christians at all. Indeed, YOU GoV commenters are the evil-filled followers of the Koran, now.
Jesus Christ actually dealt with demonically possessed people quite a bit. Did you know that, Morgan? And many of these encounters are recorded in the Gospels in great detail.
Jesus never burned demoniacs in effigy, or struck them down, or killed them. Jesus loved (and still does) all humanity so much -- and hated (and still hates) Satan so completely -- that he cast the demons out of the demoniacs.
"When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick"
But of course, Love Thy Neighbor is not a suicide pact. Provoking Muslims with aggressive, angry behavior will surely help -- won't it, Martin? Anyhow, their abusive actions show they want to be abused in return, so it's only right to oblige them .... in a relentless spiral of hate.
Of course, to do so you must first renounce Jesus Christ. He didn't come to hate and abuse people -- even though every one of us is unworthy. He came to save us. Even the demon-possessed among us.
"As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis* how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed."
*Cities of the pagans
Scot --
I would advise you to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
The challenge of Islam, Jihad, and Muslims is one not of religions but political
Muslims claim universal domination and the ability through force (basically, killing people) to dictate what people will do, say, read, speak, and so on. This especially includes non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries. This includes Denmark and the US and all other Western Nations.
This is a political issue (who rules Denmark, Muslims or non-Muslims). Who will determine what limits there are to speech, thought, action, and so on? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who will enforce Muslim speech codes on Comedy Central? Will Muslims use fear of their death threats to censor South Park or will I be able to see it without censor?
Muslims interjected themselves into domestic Western Politics, and now will have to take the consequences. Muslims demand our submission to Allah and Islam, our slavery in effect. No surprise since they themselves call themselves the slaves of God and say their God demands only unconditional, unquestioning obedience. Muslims demand we submit to them.
Given the profound individualism and freedom inherent in Western Civilization this is a declaration of war. So be it.
What this has to do with Christianity, Jesus, or the Gospels escapes me. Since at the heart this is a political not spiritual matter.
Though the suicidal pacifism, feminized appeasement, cowardice, and surrender in the face of aggression is a long standing streak within Christianity. Pacifist Christians argued to surrender to the Huns, barbarian tribes, Muslim aggressors, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, and so on was better than fighting because thus they would have the moral high ground. Something Gandhi advised the Jews after the Holocaust: better to have surrendered meekly to the SS so they would be morally pure. An easy advice for a man not facing the prospect of the extermination of his people and memory of his people. So perhaps it's universal among those who fetishize weakness and victimhood. Though I suspect you will not find that many takers for the actual status.
I'm not arguing surrendering to anyone.
I'm pointing out the hateful glee of the commenters on this site at the provoking of Muslims in Denmark by burning their religious figure in effigy.
That their religious figure gave himself over to Satan, and that "they" - some percentage of Muslims in Denmark -- are involved directly and indirectly in the war against the west, is no justification to treat them collectively in a hate-filled manner.
You think religion isn't "political" (tell that to Pilate, OK?), You think it is NOT "weakness and victimhood" to mock and taunt your enemy ("Then they spat in his face and struck him, while some slapped him,; saying, 'Prophesy for us, Messiah: who is it that struck you?'")
You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the words of Christ. And your argument is akin to the precept of the Koran, to smite all, man woman and child.
Hi to my Danish friends, I'm Lebanese girl
and I support you 100%, I saw with my own eyes 75/90 what the umah el islamieh can do, they raped my country Lebanon,
they are not friendly
Europe protect yourself...
Lebanese People are pro Europe and pro US
Scott --
I don't see hateful glee. I see a required counter to demands, that are ultimately political, by Muslims world-wide who say they may determine what I in my own country may see, read, hear, say, speak, and act.
Muslims have said they have the ability to determine how I live the most fundamental aspects of my life.
In order to maintain our freedoms, Mohammed MUST be burned in Effigy. Salman Rushdie's books MUST be published. Theo Van Gogh's films MUST be shown. The Cartoons MUST be shown.
Precisely because Muslims work themselves into a rage and threaten us with death. And often, carry it out.
THAT is not a fight that can be walked away from. You can either surrender your freedom as a man in the West to say and think what you want, or you may fight.
But crawl in obeisance to Muslim demands on this matter and soon it will be booze, women, pork, and many other things that Muslims deem "offensive" and forbid the West to indulge in lest they be offended.
Again, this is political. You may quote the Bible all you want, but it's outside that book's spiritual purview.
Scott,
You forget that Jesus himself was not an emasculated, weak man.
He drove out the money changers from the temple, with a whip, which he made himself, which shows premeditation and planning.
He had mercy and compassion for the sick and oppressed, yet raged against the religious oppressors. I think the Muslim radicals and mullahs, had Jesus lived today, would have received as many calls of "Woe upon you!" and "You hypocrites!" from him as the religious leaders of his day.
Let me quote one particular passage that would fit Muslim oppressors quite well:
"And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11:46)
Ultimately, Jesus did not come to establish a political kingdom, but a spiritual one. That is why he did not resist his own death. Nevertheless, he still had choice words for religious hypocrites. Why is it so wrong for people to mock such an evil religion, when Jesus openly mocked those of his own religion?
You have no examples of Jesus mocking others, because there are none.
Of course Jesus was not - and is not - weak in any way. And so He would not take delight in mocking and provoking.
His zeal in protecting His Father's house has no bearing on the fear of being burned to death that the Danes are putting into their Muslim neighbors.
On the contrary, there are at least 20 passages in Scripture that describe the Lord as being mocked, all of these passages assuming that mocking is a given negative, none of them holding it up as a positive behavior.
The Lord's strength was such that He even - almost especially - showed kindness and mercy to those His fellow Jews most despised or feared - Samaritans, the Syrian woman, lepers.
So, Abraham, if you were a mother of young children, and a Muslim, and Danes were burning effigies of your religion's leader outside your door, well, you would deserve it, because you subscribe to an evil religion.
Jesus is (not just "would have") indeed calling us to see the evil and hypocrisy and the danger of Muslim leaders and mullahs.
But you think Jesus died and went away, that Christ isn't "political" and therefore you of course don't heed what are, after all, Christ's clear instructions. I know someone from Scripture who agrees with you:
"But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'"
I'm sorry, Scott, but your sanctimoniousness reeks from a thousand miles away.
You think you are so loving and everyone who dares to criticize something, or make a statement of defiance, in a way you don't like is a bigot. Therefore you think you are above us all and have thus become, yourself, a bigot.
This is literally a war between good and evil. At least you agree on that. But no one (sane) is talking about burning Muslims. We are not talking about imposing our religion on them by force. We are talking about making a statement of defiance of THEIR attempt to impose on US, by burning their leader in effigy. Thousands of crosses burn every day, but I don't hear your outrage about that.
Far too often, people like yourself over-apply the rule, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Ridiculously, I've heard it applied even when discussing murderers. Yet, in other parts of the New Testament, it tells us clearly that we are to discern or judge what is evil and what is not. We are not trying to pass judgment on individuals, necessarily, many of whom may just as well be considered enslaved by their religion. We ARE discerning and judging that the religion of Islam is evil and we are standing up to its ridiculous claims on our civilization.
One more thing: if you don't think Jesus strikes a mocking tone, read Matthew 23. The whole chapter is a rant, filled with sarcasm and hyperbole, against the religious leaders who oppressed the people. Mohammed would certainly have fallen into that category. It is precisely because we love our Muslim neighbors that we want them to be rid of such a cancerous religion.
We are not trying to pass judgment on individuals, necessarily, many of whom may just as well be considered enslaved by their religion.
Ah well, at least you've come that far, Abraham. And you are absolutely correct about this:
We ARE discerning and judging that the religion of Islam is evil and we are standing up to its ridiculous claims on our civilization.
We need to be discerning, and we need to understand who is the "Allah" of Islam. He is, indeed, the evil one himself. And God wants us to realize this.
And we also need to be discerning as to who is the Christ of Christianity, who is the Teacher teaching us discernment, and giving us His wisdom. God wants us to know this, too, so much so that He has had it written down:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
But He couldn't have meant that about Danish Muslims, could He? He just meant that for you personally. In your personal relationships.
So, "It is precisely because we love our Muslim neighbors" that intimidating Danish Muslims (many of whom may just as well be considered enslaved by their religion.) is okay.
This line of thinking is congruent with Mohammed's version:
"So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson."
I think our conversation is over Abraham. As I understand these things, after labeling me a sanctimonious bigot, your next move is to cry "Troll." Yes, of course.
Scott,
You're missing the whole point of this activity. Or, perhaps misrepresenting it.
The point is to show a message of defiance in the face of extremists' hypocritical demands that we conform to their standards, when they never show us the same courtesy. The point is not to go around intimidating women and children, or inciting hatred. Apparently in your mind, the two are the same.
How do you suggest we should react when the "Arab street" erupts in protest, boycotting a whole country, for a silly cartoon? (You should see some of their cartoons.) Should we give in to their rage? Or should we stand defiant? I think entirely the wrong message was sent from far too many quarters, that we are ready to acquiesce to their insane demands. But I'd like to hear what you think would be the way to handle this.
Moving on, somehow you equate what I've said with the Islamic radicalism. That is exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about earlier, and you went and proved it again. This kind of moral equivalency is what will be the downfall of our civilization.
What is my point in raising the more "radical" or stern or harsh side of Jesus? It is just to counter-balance the one-sided image of Jesus that far too many have, that he was all warm and fuzzies and love and harmony and meekness. We need to see a more complete picture of his character. There are two sides to his nature. Jesus is described as both a lamb and a lion. I'm not trying to downplay the softer side of Jesus, but point out that he wouldn't necessarily just roll over in a situation like this.
(For those of you to whom this means nothing, you are probably laughing at Scott and I having our little religious argument. Bear with us.)
Now, if Jesus were a cartoonist, I can totally imagine him drawing a cartoon showing the religious leaders holding a cup containing a gnat and a camel. They fish out the gnat, then smugly drink the rest of the water in the cup, oblivious to the camel that they are about to choke on. THAT would be a picture worth seeing!
Admittedly, burning an effigy of Mohammed might be going a little far for some tastes. And I don't like hearing people refer to "Muzzies" that way any more than you. But if we show some glee, it's only because finally someone has the guts to stand up and defy the hypocrites.
Here's a book that might be good for you. Go to tinyurl dot com slash 2gv9zu. The book is entitled "No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice--Instead of Good--Hurts Men, Women And Children." The basic thesis is that we have been taught, especially in the church, that above all else we must be "nice" (which often just means to be politically correct and give in to others, regardless of the reasonableness of their demands). Instead, we should seek to be "good"-- which sometimes involves tough love and fighting evil. Just like Jesus did.
Here's a nice cartoon that's been making the rounds:
http://savecivilization.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/westsuicide.jpeg
It might "offend" some liberals. So, grow up.
In typical cartoon fashion, it is hyperbole and overstatement. If I were to redraw it more accurately, liberalism would be a pair of handcuffs around our wrists, and Islam would be the gun pointed at our head.
Still, it makes a very valid point. Liberals are so judgmental of our own civilization and actions (which, of course, are not perfect!), and so guilt-ridden, that they don't have the will to fight. And they stand up and loudly judge anyone else who might try.
And a great essay on "Why Mock Islam?"
http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/introduction.htm
I don't agree with it totally, but it does give some good reasons why mocking Islam is a good thing, and is not hateful like you seem to think.
Post a Comment