U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

The U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

On the back of Modified and Enlightened and Evolved Christian tradition.

So not directly from the Bible, but it was done by children raised within the general European Christian tradition that's true.

When I examine who on the social & political landscape supports a.) the freedom to draw Mohamed, and b.) the publishing of such cartoons, the list is very small: Libertarians who're mostly conservative, and a few very (very) lonely leftists.

When Obama states that his preferred future belongs to people who never talk smack about Mohamed or the prophets of other religions, he's turning his back on the principles of The Enlightenment, principles which allowed America and it's Constitution to exist in the first place. He's also turning his back on all the people who want to (f-ing) leave abusive cults like Islam (& Mormonism & other highly abusive religions).

more info:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho

So, it's true that ex-Muslims / atheists who pop up, rather naturally these days, within Islamic theocracies are little gems who should be valued & protected. They exist & live within countries which are essentially meat grinders, grinding against all opposition to the status quo.

Here's a special vid of an atheist visiting Mecca:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ5x0vAEaCw

I'm sure that Obama would be upset by such a vid, as per his past comments about the supposed strong need to never offend a devout cult member.

Before 9/11 I had mostly zero idea what Islam was about. After 9/11 I woke up & realized that people in Islamic countries sometimes find their lives to be so shitty that they lash out in unhinged ways - misdirected anger. The 9/11 attacks were performed by men who were angry - but they should have been angry at their religion rather than at 3000+ innocent people in those towers.

The Enlightenment human tradition is a unique one, and one that should be valued. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom of commerce (mostly). Governmental transparency (hopeful). Freedom for science to progress. Freedom for science to question traditional religious dogmas & doctrines regarding literalist interpretations of a god. When leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky (& many other 'regressive' leftists) blame America first for all that is wrong with the Middle East, they're also turning their backs on the Enlightenment tradition which allows them to speak & exist in the first place.

Mr. Greenwald is gay for example. If he lived in an Islamic theocracy he'd be suppressed at the very least or killed at worst.

The cold war abuses of America are not responsible for every single thing that ails the world. Religious theocracy, that of a specific religion, is largely to blame. And yes, it's a religion - that is Islam is a religion.

Before 9/11 I sat in my little ex-Mormon chamber and just thought about ex-Mormon things. I knew Joseph Smith was a charismatic charlatan. I know Brigham Young was an abusive authoritarian theocratic bozo. I relished the works of people like Monty Python with their general criticism of Christianity (eg: Life of Brian), and of Mormon specific humorist organizers like Steve Clark (operator of Latter-Day Lampoon now renamed The Salamander Society).

Consider what Muslim versions of the following works of art would look like?

Life of Brian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian

Latter-Day Lampoon (aka Salamander Society):
http://salamandersociety.com/

Would Obama approve?

How about your average MSNBC & CBC & BBC presenter?

So I was raised in an itty-bitty religion which has as it's key tenant a required cult of personality revolving around this guy named Joseph Smith. Then when I got older I wised up & left that religion.

That whole experience provided greater insight into the entirely of the situation with Islam, it's followers, and those who want to leave it and be free of it.

A communist who left it (Maryam Namazie):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/

A libertarian (Ayaan Hirsi Ali):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Another libertarian & big Ayn Rand supporter (Bosch Fawstin):
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

And some people stay in to varying degrees, or are just 'marginally' in:

Maajid Nawaz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Tawfik Hamid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA

Maajid is considered an 'Uncle Tom' by hijab-loving Muslims though. And Tawfik is a former hard line Muslim w/key info re how Sunni flavor Islam prompts young men within it to consider getting virgins in paradise via suicide as a viable option for sexual expression (check the vid linked to above).

Charlie Hebdo was mostly killed off, and it's remaining members have given up publishing drawings of the prophet of Islam. So Obama's preferred future has been fulfilled re Hebdo. Hebdo was and is an ultra-leftist publication, but one which was 'very lonely' on the left - lonely like Bill Maher is, and lonely like Sam Harris is, and like Salman Rushdie is. Lonely leftists who could never get a Mohamed cartoon published in any mainline leftie publication if they tried.

In any case, I was raised an American Democrat. Now I'm a general middle of the roader. A moderate Republican/Libertarian, or a very very blue dog Democrat. But as per the response of the left to Hebdo (the murder of the artists) & Garland (Garland, Texas cartoon contest attempted to be shot up by Islamic adherents) though I'm a bit loath to refer myself as a Democrat at all. The response of the left to those events shows that the left, as it stands today, as nothing to offer people who want to a.) leave Islam, or b.) criticize Islam exactly the same way we've been criticizing Christianity for hundreds of years.

Also America isn't a full democracy. It's a republic. A representative democracy. There republicanism helps to quell craziness & chaos & stupidity which can come from 'full democracy.'

When 'democracy' came to the Islamic middle east, the secularists were mostly drowned out by the thoecrats (so far).

Where in an Islamic 'democracy' is one free to draw Mohamed? Nowhere? Then the principles of the Enlightenment are not being fully engaged. Freedom of speech. Freedom of though. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom for science to examine & critique literalist religious claims which touch upon the physical world. And so on.

There's slight bright spots here & there. Example:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/30/egypt-president-calls-for-islamic-reform-again-in-muhammad-birthday-speech/
http://www.clarionproject.org/videos/egypts-president-el-sisi-calls-islamic-reformation

But in which Islamic country can one be an atheist openly? Criticize Mohamed? Draw Mohamed? Lampoon Mohamed - EXACTLY the way Monty Python did regarding Anglican Christianity? Nowhere yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530920/You-parody-Islam-says-Palin-Monty-Python-star-believes-religious-sensitivities-increased-impossible-make-Life-Brian-today.html

But some ex-Muslims (and friends) somewhere shall do this someday soon I hope (parody Islam in total Life of Brian style & more).

DeWayne Wickham, Coward and Murder Apologist - Regarding Censorship of Charlie Hebdo

Greetings,

I am writing to file a complaint regarding the following employee of Morgan State University: DeWayne Wickham. The main focus of my complaint is one of journalistic malpractice, where this man who's the head of the journalism department in my view advocates for the murder of artists - such as the artists recently murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

A journalist should report the facts, not censor them. It's not your job to treat religion and cults with kid gloves, or to "protect" people from well-founded honest opinions about religions and cults.

Recently Mr. Wickham published the following article in USA Today:

Wickham: 'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/19/charlie-hebdo-cross-line-free-speech-covers-islam-limits-wickham/21960957/

Here's my reply to that article:

De facto apology for, and support for, murderers and their actions. In the wake of the murder of 12 people this is the best you can do?

Papers which refused to show the art of artists just barely murdered for their art need to find useful apologists for their despicable and cowardly actions. USA Today has such a man on staff apparently.

Want to know about Islam? Ask an ex-Muslim. You'll get more honest answers about the totality of the situation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and so on. Also you'll get more honest answers from people who left other cults such as Mormonism. Ex-Mormons usually more easily sympathize & empathize with the plight of people in other cults. The two main differences between Islam & Mormonism are time-since-founding and that the core edicts of Islam are more dangerous & destructive & abusive than Mormonism.

Apology for murder. Apology for censorship. Apology for having a new de facto sharia, a new "Islamic-State-Light" in America and Europe. That's what people like DeWayne Wickham are apparently advocating for.

As for me I'll stand with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Caroline Fourest.

Here's a related article by Ms. Fourest:
Violence Against Charlie Hebdo: The Globalization of Moral and Intellectual Confusion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fourest/violence-against-charlie-_b_6509802.html

Cowardly "journalists" who aren't really journalists quickly apologize for murder and their own pusillanimous actions, search, find, and scratch for every possible reason for their cowardly actions. It's lame - but you're part of the "old media." Old-media is who's doing the censoring of art artists were just barely murdered for. Thank goodness for the Internet, where we need not ask amoral cowards to be our filters.

The "left" really does *nothing* to help Muslims leave the abusive cult they're in. So-called "journalists" stand by and watch murder happen, and then quickly go on and apologize for (and de facto support) the actions of the murderers. It's your job to report on the facts - that's it - not to be cowardly rear-end-covering filters in the wake or terrible murder and murder-enabled artistic censorship.

Additional related articles:

We Are Charlie: Free Speech v. Self-Censorship
by Douglas Murray
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5016/charlie-hebdo-attack

Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/

Salman Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo: freedom of speech can only be absolute
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/15/salman-rushdie-on-charlie-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute

Charlie Hebdo Editor To Chuck Todd: When You Blur Our Cover, 'You Blur Out Democracy' - Hebdo Editor Scolds Outlets For Not Showing Cover: ‘You Blur Out Democracy’ With Censorship
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/18/hebdo-editor-scolds-outlets-for-not-showing-cover-you-blur-out-democracy-with-censorship-video/

Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/men-without-chests-how-c-s-lewis-predicted-charlie-hebdo-censorship/

Sam Harris' new entry on the murder of Hebdo artists, and the subsequent censorship.

After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts

Discrimination again atheists in Islamic countries

Moohamed didn't like detractors. In his Quran he states:

"...4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise..."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#56

Even today, in Islamic countries atheists are threatened with death or jailed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Islamic_countries

For example, we have the case of Alexander Aan - jailed in Indonesia for posting "God does not exist" on facebook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Aan

Group advocating his freedom:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/307997139292825/

Lars Hedegaard - Danish journalist narrowly escapes death:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273988/The-bullet-flew-past-ear-Danish-anti-Islam-writer-narrowly-survives-doorstep-assassination-attempt.html#axzz2KnjRINo9

A quote from Mr. Hedegaard:

“Criticism of religion is not only the starting point of all criticism. It is the prerequisite of any kind of criticism. In a society where religion cannot be criticized, everything becomes religion from the length of your beard to what hand to use when wiping your backside. Where there is no criticism of religion, life and society in their entirety become religious and the littlest squeak against the existing order is an act of blasphemy.”

Additional info:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21567059-ex-muslim-atheists-are-becoming-more-outspoken-tolerance-still-rare-no-god-not

Info about other people persecuted by Islam - about Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and 9/11 liberals:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/sam-harris-on-when-crazies-get-guns.html

Films, Cartoons, and Mohamed: Islam is a cult - just older and larger

A film comes out. Then some cartoons. Vociferous people demand censorship. Other people don't want "oil thrown on a fire."

Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.

Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.

Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:

Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about. 

Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.

Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that. 

When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?

Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?

Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.

They say: God gave me a message.

Reply: A message to do what?

They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.

Reply: What if I say no?

They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.

They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.

Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others. 

So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.

I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.

People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.

It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.

In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.

Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.

BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.

Related views:

By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.

Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg

Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:

--------------------- 1

Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.

The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.

Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8

A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders. 

--------------------- 2

Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.

We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian

--------------------- ps

The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.

--------------------- ps2

Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged. 

The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.