Because of the frequency of these stories, I have decided to assist the print media by supplying them a template they can use any time Muslims get violent because someone calls them violent.  Since the stories are pretty much identical every time they happen, all the reporter must go through the article, change the few things that are different every time it happens, add some casualty figures and "Presto" you have a Pulizer Prize story on Islamic riots.

And on top of it all, I will give it to you free of charge.  My license agreement will simply state that you agree to use the entire template, you may not add to it or change the body text significantly, or remove anything in the standard text.  Requests to change the optional text should be forwarded to happy.jake@yahoo.com

Instructions: Copy and paste the text of this template into your word processor.  The text inside brackets contains all of the options that may be used to make the story applicable to the specific situation.  For example where you see [quotation/picture/story/cartoon/song/movie script/anecdote] you are expected to choose one of those.

Text in parentheses is expected to be replaced as required or deleted.

So here it is, enjoy your Pulitzer.

(Insert Dateline Here) – Violent demonstrations and riots rocked the Muslim World yesterday in response to a(n) [quotation/picture/story/cartoon/song/movie script/anecdote] [by/from/printed in/attributed to/alleged to have come from] a(n) [prominent political leader/prominent religious figure/prominent businessman/newspaper/television news personality/radio talk show host/entertainer/athlete/average [American/(insert nationality here)] [guy/lady] on the street]. The [quotation/picture/story/cartoon/song/movie script/anecdote] was said by critics to have [been (highly) offensive to Islam/been critical of Islam/indicated that Islam was not the preeminent religion on the face of the earth] and [described/alleged/inferred/could have been taken out of context to portray] Islam as a violent religion that is to be spread by the sword.

The Leader of (Insert Muslim country here) demanded a full and immediate apology from the [prominent political leader/prominent religious figure/prominent businessman/newspaper/television news personality/radio talk show host/entertainer/athlete/average [American/(insert nationality here)] [guy/lady] on the street] for insulting Islam by calling it violent. He then went on to note that an insufficient apology would likely result in the grisly and gruesome murder of the [prominent political leader/prominent religious figure/prominent businessman/newspaper/television news personality/radio talk show host/entertainer/athlete/average [American/(insert nationality here)] [guy/lady] on the street] and all those with whom [he/she] associates. (Insert Terrorist Group here) issued a statement to (insert American News Organization here) saying “Bloodshed is the only way to counter these unwarranted attacks on Islam. By the grace of Allah, we will slit the throat of the infidel, break his crosses, burn his churches and synagogues, and conquer the world and rid it of this infidel plague. Praise be to Allah.” The statement went on to attribute the [quotation/picture/story/cartoon/song/movie script/anecdote] to a “Zionist-American plot to destroy Islam.”

Muslim leaders urged calm within their own borders while highly regarded clerics (who strongly resembled those leaders) implored their followers to intensify the jihad (the Arabic word for “struggle”) against the infidel and to riot in infidel streets.

(At this point, the writer should recount how many people are killed, how many US Embassies are vandalized.)

The American Press, the greatest of all institutions, criticized the [prominent political leader/prominent religious figure/prominent businessman/newspaper/television news personality/radio talk show host/entertainer/athlete/average [American/(insert nationality here)] [guy/lady] on the street] saying that [he/she] made a mistake in issuing the [quotation/picture/story/cartoon/song/movie script/anecdote]. In that criticism, the Press reminded the masses that this sort of thing is insensitive and bigoted. And that it does little to improve relations with the vast majority of Muslims who wouldn’t get violent if they weren’t sufficiently provoked.

 

I’m Catholic. If you read any of my posts, you probably already know that. I’m not generally comfortable openly criticizing the Pope, certainly not on matters of faith. I have a great deal of respect for both Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, the only two Popes I am able to remember well, John Paul II having ascended to the Chair of Peter when I was 6.

I do, however, have to disagree with some of Pope Benedict’s actions over the last several days. The Pope’s apology to Muslims – over remarks he quoted from a medieval text last week – ring hollow. One needn’t apologize when one does nothing wrong. And speaking a difficult truth, especially in the face of violent opposition, is not wrong.

Pope Benedict quoted a text from the 14^th Century recounting a conversation from a Byzantine Emperor and a Persian on Islam. According to the Associated Press’s account of the story on 15 September (“Pakistan's parliament condemns Pope”), the quote went something like this: “The emperor ... said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’”

The reaction was predictable. Threats of violence came from all corners of the Muslim world. The “moderate” Muslims called for the Pope to apologize for calling Muslims violent. The more mainstream Muslims simply called for his head, some literally. Perhaps the best, most telling quote came from Tansim Aslam, a spokesman (female, oddly) from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” (That from the same story.) I mean, that’s almost like when Al Sharpton calls me (a white, Christian Conservative) a bigot.

Read the quote again: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Think about that for a second. If you call Islam an intolerant religion, then the very tolerant people of that very tolerant religion will become violent. Is it my imagination, or have I just printed an oxymoron? Isn’t the point of tolerance accepting without violence views you don’t believe? Or, put another way, doesn’t threatening or committing violence because of someone’s disparate or even offensive view generally say you are intolerant of that view?

So, like everyone who ticks off the very tolerant people that are mainstream Muslims, the Pope says he was sorry that his remarks made people angry (I haven’t been able to get the actual quote, and I don’t have time at the moment.) That sounds an awful lot like “I’m sorry you’re nothing but a bunch of intolerant maggots who cannot accept any criticism, especially when it is true,” but I don’t like trying to tell what people are thinking. Even if I think they are thinking the same way I do.

My point here is that the Pope shouldn’t have apologized for several reasons. One: he did nothing wrong. He quoted a text that had an accurate depiction of the teachings of Muhammad: That they are “evil and inhumane” and that Muslims are instructed to convert others to Islam “by the sword.” The proof of that is out there for all to see. One should never apologize for the truth when there is evidence to back it up. Two: It did no good. The mainstream of Islam (as represented by the clerics who instruct the Muslim masses) still wants the Pope’s head on a platter (See point number 1). Terrorist organizations have declared that they will conquer Rome and kill Christians. One nun in Africa has already been killed. This from the Religion of Peace and tolerance.

In my view no apology should be issued to the Muslim world over claims that Islam is an evil, inhuman, violent religion until Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khameini, Mahmoud Abbas, Moqtada al Sadr, al Zawahiri, the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the leaders of every Muslim nation in the world, paying special attention to Mahmoud Amadinejad of Iran and Bashar al-Asad of Syria all get together and apologize for (A partial listing):

• The Palestinian intifada and wars against Israel, 1947 to Present (thousands dead)
• Syrian airliner in 1954 (Hijacked)
• El Al airliner in 1968 (Hijacked)
• Various hostages taken and murdered since the 70’s.
• Swissair flight 330, 1970 (Bombed, 47 dead)
• Swissair flight 100, TWA flight 74, PanAm flight 93, BOAC flight 775 (all hijacked), 1970
• attempted hijacking of El Al flight 219, 1970
• Sabena airliner,1972 (Hijacked)
• The Munich Olympics, 1972 (11 Israeli Athletes dead)
• PanAm flight 110, 1973 (Hijacked)
• Air France flight 139, 1976 (Hijacked, 3 passengers dead)
• Lufthansa flight 181, 1977 (Hijacked, Pilot dead)
• The assassination of Anwar Sadat – the Egyptian president whose crime against Islam was making peace with Israel – in 1979.
• The US Embassy in Teheran, 1979
• Pakistan International Airways airliner, 1981 (Hijacked, 1 passenger dead)
• Guarda Indonesia flight 206, 1981 (Hijacked)
• The US Marine Barracks in Beiruit (63 dead the first time, 241 dead the second time), 1983
• Gulf Air flight 771, 1983 (Bombed, 117 dead)
• Kuwait Airways airliner, 1984 (Hijacked)
• TWA flight 847, 1985 (Hijacked, 1 passenger dead)
• The cruise ship Achille Lauro, 1986 (Hijacked, 1 passenger dead)
• La Belle discotheque in Berlin, 1986 (3 dead, 230 injured)
• Egypt Air flight 648, 1985 (Hijacked, 60 dead)
• PanAm flight 103, 1989 (Bombed, 270 dead)
• Mir Aimal Kansi’s shootings at the entrance to CIA headquarters, 1993 (2 dead)
• World Trade Center, 1993 (6 dead, 1,000+ injured)
• The attempt to bomb 11 US airplanes world wide in 1995
• Khobar Towers, 1996 (20 dead, 370 injured)
• Hemus Air airliner, 1996 (Hijacked)
• The US Embassies in Dar Es Salam and Nairobi, 1998 (225 dead, 4,000+ injured)
• Indian Airlines flight 814, 1999 (Hijacked)
• USS Cole, 2000 (17 dead)
• Planned Millennium Celebration attacks, 2000
• 11 September 2001 (2,997 dead)
• Madrid Commuter Trains, 2004 (191 dead, 1,500+ injured)
• The elementary school in Beslan, Russia, 2004 (344 dead)
• London Underground, 2005 (56 dead, 700+ injured)
• Cartoon Riots across Europe, 2006

(Though a few of these events came from my own memory, most were found on Wikipedia.org. The death tolls in some of the aircraft incidents came from Airdisaster.com.)

(Author’s note: Catholics, especially, may notice that I did not add the 1981 attempted murder of Pope John Paul II by Turk Mehmet Agca. I omitted this for two reasons. First, the Pope forgave Agca and absolved him of his sin, and who am I to dispute the Pope on this matter. Secondly, according to Wikipedia, the Italian Parliament concluded that the assassination was carried out at the behest of the Soviet Union and Communist Bulgaria. The Communist Bloc has long been an enemy of the Catholic Church and the Church has long fought it on the ideological battlefield. That’s another story for another day.)

When the Muslim leaders of the world apologize for the dead and injured in their evil, inhumane attempts to convert us by the sword, and renounce violence, not just for the 10 years that Muhammad specifies, but forever, and act on that renunciation of violence; then, maybe, we might apologize for calling them violent. But as long as they demand apologies for speech and depictions that hurt no one, and threaten violence because of them, we will continue to rightly call them evil, inhuman savages who are called to convert people to Islam by the sword.

HJG

I realize it’s been a bit since I last posted something in this space, but it’s been a bit hectic in the Greene household. Between school, work, military duty, changing jobs, and a host of other distractions, I’ve found it difficult to concentrate on any one thing for a long period of time.

Having said that, however…

I recently read a column by Ann Coulter, one of my favorite columnists. I like her sarcastic style and she’s at her best when she’s angry about something. (I won’t comment on her looks because everyone else does.) In the column in question – “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln”, 31 August 2006 – Ms. Coulter, in her own special way, bemoans the support Senator Lincoln Chaffee (“R” – RI) gets from the White House despite the Senator’s nearly Democrat outlook on life and politics.

It’s stories like this, and anything about Arlen Specter (“R” – PA) and “Jumping” Jim Jeffords (I – VT) and a host of other “Republicans” who are as conservative as Bill Clinton, that make me believe that George Washington was right. Political Parties ought not exist. There are complaints across the board that it is becoming more and more difficult to tell the two parties apart. And based upon the people who are nominated as the Republican candidate for (insert office here) there is some truth to that rumor. We are so indoctrinated into compromise and bipartisanship that the presidential election is most often between a moderate liberal (President Bush) and an extreme Leftist (Senator Kerry). I, for one, hope we don’t see Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee in ’08. He has the right idea on National Defense, but little else, and I don’t want the choice between him and Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Edwards. I’m tired of the “Lesser of two evils” method of electing someone.

In addition there are far too many people who would vote for Adolph Hitler himself just because he has an (R) or a (D) after his name. People too often look at the party and not the person. That’s bad because there are a number of people, especially in the Republican Party, who are in that party just because being in the other party will cost them the election.

It would be better for the country if we had a more free-for-all approach to the elections. That would force people to at least take a cursory look at the candidates before casting their votes. It might require a change of election law to allow for a single primary election to weed out the people who don’t stand a chance (Al Sharpton, please call your office) and take the top X number of candidates or those who have at least Y percent of the vote and run the full election with them. If it comes down to 2 people that way, so be it. If it ends up with 5 or 6, so much the better. The electoral map will look as it did in 1860 when Lincoln won his first term against three other candidates who received electoral votes.

Add term limits to that concept and we might be able to put some sense back in the Capitol and the White House.

HJG