This entire thing is becoming nonsensical is that how you spell it? How about what will be will be, or even still God is in control and they can't do a thing unless he allows it, at least that's what Jesus said when Pilate said: I have the power to crucify you!!
Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained
By John T. Bennett
Would liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads, abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group? Then why do they support censorship in response to terrorists?
It appears that some liberals want to offer Muslim extremists the benefit of voluntary, self-imposed censorship. Few violent groups in America -- or on earth, for that matter -- get such tender treatment. If the left responded to the above-mentioned groups the same way they respond to terrorists, here's how it would sound:
● Victims of wife beaters -- You can avoid abuse if you just shut up. Don't incite your spouse or boyfriend. Respect his volatile emotions.
● Victims of violent skinheads -- You shouldn't have gone outside; your presence incites those people. Consider the skinhead's perspective, and respect his deeply held racial views.
● Victims of abortion-clinic bombers -- You shouldn't be arguing for abortion so loudly. Quiet down your pro-choice views to avoid offending the sensitivities of abortion-clinic bombers. Respect the religious perspective of the clinic bomber.
● Victims of gay-bashing -- You should have stayed in the closet. Consider the perspective of the gay-basher.
As these examples show, it is a perversion of justice and morality to accommodate violent groups. Why, then, have some liberals decided to do exactly that when the violent group comprises Muslims? The short answer is that multiculturalism is strongly influencing foreign policy. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s "The Disuniting of America" described the process that led us to where we are today: any minority group that liberals label as "oppressed" will be treated with deference, to the point where some among us would rather surrender their freedom of expression than criticize an "oppressed" group. This is what happens in a society where toxic tolerance takes the place of values like free speech, free expression, and the Enlightenment belief in open inquiry and criticism. A cult of national self-criticism has become so dogmatic that we habitually equivocate instead of standing up for our own interests.
Thanks to multiculturalism, we can't even stand up for ourselves in a simple standoff between barbarism and free speech. We've become so obsessed with being unoffensive that we can't bring ourselves to make the most basic criticisms of group behavior, even when that behavior is violent. This applies both at home and abroad. In the case of the Libya attack two weeks ago, the resulting approach on the part of some liberals has been, in a word, cowardly.
As awful as the consequences are, liberals are really just expressing their priorities by advocating that we barter away rights in order to accommodate hordes of violent bigots. On one hand we have the right to speak and offend; on the other, we have the sensibilities of barbaric fanatics. So liberals prioritize the latter, and in the process have found a herd of bigots whom they'll essentially take sides with. Why did liberals choose this particular bunch? It could be that Muslim extremists are more culturally vibrant than wife-beaters, violent skinheads, and all the rest. The more likely answer is that liberals are glad to accommodate extremists who are non-white, or non-Christian, and it really helps if the extremists hate Israel.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/shut_up_or_die_the_muslim_protesters_explained.html
tob
