First Amendment of the US Constitution
"1. From the American diplomatic perspective the video explains everything. From the Muslim perspective, it fails to explain why the filmmaker isn’t in jail and facing blasphemy charges. The ad fails because it also fails to explain free speech to Muslims. Instead of explaining American values, it apologizes for them and fails at that too."
New York Art Gallery To Display “Piss Christ”…
"Rampaging Christians in 3… 2… 1… wait, wrong religion".
Weasel Zippers links to this NY Post article:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Obama’s Muslim Apology Tour Heads to Pakistan
"1. From the American diplomatic perspective the video explains everything. From the Muslim perspective, it fails to explain why the filmmaker isn’t in jail and facing blasphemy charges. The ad fails because it also fails to explain free speech to Muslims. Instead of explaining American values, it apologizes for them and fails at that too."
2. Airing a loud denial of involvement with manufacturing the video looks like a cover-up to Muslims. Dedicating the bulk of the video to such a denial looks like an admission of guilt.
3. The video makes it look like Obama and Clinton are broadcasting an apology to Pakistan. Such a show of weakness will only lead to more terrorist attacks as the protesters, rather than being pacified, will go on demanding the death penalty for everyone involved with, “The Innocence of Muslims.” More: The Future of Freedom of Speech in America
- YouTube under threat in Russia over Prophet film
- U.N. Human Rights Council Condemns “Malicious And Deliberately Provocative” Mohammed Cartoons And Film…
New York Art Gallery To Display “Piss Christ”…
"Rampaging Christians in 3… 2… 1… wait, wrong religion".
Weasel Zippers links to this NY Post article:
Andres Serrano's work — a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine” — first ignited controversy in 1989 when D’Amato complained to the US Senate that it was an “outrage,” an “indignity” and a “piece of trash” that had been funded by taxpayers. Serrano had won a $15,000 prize for his work, backed in part by the National Endowment for the Arts.
No comments:
Post a Comment