Draw the Prophet and Draw the Ire.

Two gunmen shot dead at 'draw the prophet Muhammad' contest in Texas | US news | The Guardian


I've had derogatory remarks aimed right at me. The worst was that of my father-in-law (I forgive him, he's Ukrainian) who once said that I was "the worst excuse for a human being he had ever seen." Ouch! I had moved his patch for growing tomatoes from the middle of the yard to the front. WTF was my only thought. However, my feeling is that of Patrick Henry, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The day we acquiesce to the Muslims' demands that we not draw the prophet Mohammad because it offends them, is day one of the American Caliphate.


Charlie Hebdo tried to distance themselves from  the drawing contest saying that they do not target Islam directly. Really Charlie? Before you start down this holier-than-thou road, why don't you give them a chance to hold a Draw a Mexican; a Cuban, an Ethiopian, or a Frenchman contest? Obviously, what troubles you is that you are unwilling to go to bat for the non-Muslim team a second time--I understand, but be honest.

We, here in America believe that our constitution is the best thing going. When I protested the Vietnam war, I often heard the cry, "Our country, love it or leave it." That was, of course, just jingoism talking but with a slight mod, you can ethically say, "Our constitution, love it, change it, or leave it." Indeed, when the foreign-born become U.S. citizens, they are asked to pledge allegiance to the flag and to that for which it stands for. At the top of the list of amendments for which it stands is freedom of expression. Yes, freedom of religion is there too but it is a freedom to practice a religion amongst yourselves not force it down the throats of others via intimidation.


Presently, we enjoy freedom of expression. Anyone who does not enjoy freedom of expression can try changing the constitution and when you fail--because you will fail--you should find yourself a more comfortable abode.


I think it is an extreme audacity to come into a country and demand that everyone uphold your religious beliefs. I don't know the Muslim mind very well but the mind of the Christian says that when you are in the minority and you have far less fire power than the inhabitants (sorry, Am. Ind.), you must shut your trap and bide your time. The majority in the U.S. will gladly allow you to practice your religion but the key word is "your" religion--Islam is not the religion of the majority in the U.S. and I hope it never will be. What if we were to say to you, "Mr/Mrs Muslim person, we find it offensive that your Koran says that Christian laymen must never be trusted," and what if we demanded that you never proselytize in public for that reason? I'd bet you dollars to chickpeas that you'd quickly quote the constitution and demand a separation of church and state. Of course you would, but when it comes to your religious beliefs, you immediately find fault with the constitution's guarantee of freedom of expression.


In this country, comedians make fun of every religion, every race, every party, every age, every sex. Everything is fair game. Recently, I heard Trevor Noah act indignantly in his act over being mistaken for a Hispanic. I turned the show off, I didn't go hunting down the man because I didn't like how he used his freedom of expression. Peaceful coexistence are the operative words here but without trampling our right to free expression.  Your intolerance has no place in the United States of America.

One last preemptive strike at those who say there should be limits to free speech and quickly state the "yelling of 'fire' in a crowded theater as a counter example. Bullshit, I say, along the lines of that other idiocy perpetrated by the justice department, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Yelling fire in a crowded theater would only be done by an idiot not by a person of average intelligence. The idiot will continue to yell fire because he is incapable of empathizing. It's a poor example to use. Are we to equate the possible harm done at the theater to that of drawing a picture of a mortal man? Both can result in death but the former was done by an idiot while the latter was done by intolerant zealots who can't even get along in a Muslim country unless they are of the majority sect.


Is the Muslim not capable of knowing that a particular religious ideology is intended for it's adherents and its adherents only? Were Christians offended when the artist immersed a Crucifix in urine? Of course we were, but we forgave and didn't bring out the killing squad.We, as Christians, are intelligent enough to know that all that is required of us is to keep the precepts of our religion; whether anyone outside our religion keeps them is desirable but never mandatory.


Honoring the prophet Mohammad in any way you want, is your prerogative but you should not impose your beliefs on anyone else in the U.S. who is not Muslim.


One last attempt at reason: what if I said that the period at the end of the previous sentence was a depiction of the prophet Mohammad? What if a third grader were to draw a picture of his friend Mohammad and labelled it as such while a Muslim classmate not privy to everything were to see it and tell his zealot father that a classmate had drawn a picture of the Prophet? Finally, not to get too theological on my readers but this business of "graven images" pertains to God, Allah, Jehovah. In the old testament, it did not pertain to mortals or sons or prophets of God. I can understand the Mosaic laws against graven images for who are we to profess to know the face of God--but a mortal even with a stature like that of a prophet should be allowed else what you are telling me is that a mortal is being made out to be equal to God and THAT is what I call blasphemous.