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
Showing posts with label muhammed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muhammed. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo
Hello,
I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.
It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.
This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.
You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.
You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.
We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.
So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.
Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.
We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.
Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.
p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?
Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.
Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.
What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families.
In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.
That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.
Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.
I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.
It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.
This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.
You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.
You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.
We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.
So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.
Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.
We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.
Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.
p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?
Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.
Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.
What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families.
In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.
That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.
Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)