Guest Editorial


Bookmark and Share

Ambassador Stevens’ murder and liberal demands we surrender freedom of speech

roy wardenIn the wake of the murder of the American Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, maybe we should all take another look at the Left Wing's adoration of "cultural diversity" as the basic doctrine of their "New Age Religion."

Especially when the Left Wing demands we surrender such foundational American values as "free speech" and "viewpoint tolerance" in the name of political correctness.

No less a Liberal Brahman than The Huffington Post Senior Editor Paul Raushenbush himself, made the following comments to Sam Bacile/Steve Klein, who (allegedly) made the film the murdering "protestors" objected to:

"Your assessment of Islam and Muslims is un-American," wrote Rausenbush.

"In this country we embrace the idea of a religiously pluralistic society that welcomes people of all faith traditions and American Muslims are an important part of our democracy."

Raushenbush also says the "film compromises American security and reputation," not that, historically speaking, liberals have been known to take much of an interest in either.

A more direct slant was taken by The Baltimore Sun, which concluded the film was offensive, disgusting and inappropriate" because, amongst other things, it depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a "pedophile" and a "womanizer."

Now, wait just a darn minute!

Why do liberals always come to the knee jerk conclusion that "cultural diversity" is a "good thing," especially when it requires the surrender of core American values such as viewpoint tolerance and freedom of speech?

Moreover; if the film correctly depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a "pedophile and a womanizer," how can the expression of truth ever be "disgusting and inappropriate?"

I've spent many years in North Africa; my closest emotional attachments are to Moroccan friends and Moroccan families, so I know damn well what I'm talking about.

In the winter of 1972, for nearly a year, I wore a towel on my head and lived in the Sahara Desert with nomads; thereafter I spent the better part of my life in various business ventures going back and forth, yahoo like, between America and Morocco, a part of two cultures but a full citizen of neither.

However, none of my experience ever blinded me to historical truth and objective reality, fully embraced and verified by my more intellectual Arab friends, and the truth is: Muhammad married his first wife, Aisha bint Abu Bakr when she was SIX, although he did not consummate the union until Aisha was NINE!

In our culture, when you carnally "know" a nine year old girl, you are a pedophile, as so defined. However; in the prophet's day, such arrangements (and, in historical fact, it was an arranged marriage) were commonplace, as were harems.

One Turkish Sultan was said to have had 500 concubines in his harem. Does this make him a "womanizer?"

Would Hugh Heffner call the Sultan a "swinger" or a "playboy?"

Muhammad had four wives, and I believe 20 or so concubines. Was he not, then, a "pedophile and womanizer," by our "enlightened" standards?

Moreover, there is another, very important historical fact that, in the name of "political correctness," has been kept from public view – namely, our concept of savagery and the "historical fact" that once upon a time Muhammad, in his capacity as "warrior," subdued a village and commanded the chief to disclose where all the city gold was buried.

When the man refused, Muhammad had him staked out, on his back, "spread eagle" in front of his house.

Thereupon, the prophet went inside to "get to know" the chief’s wife a little better. (I hope those of you with more "tender sensibilities" get my drift.) Meanwhile; outside, Muhammad's men built a small fire on the chief’s chest.

Muhammad commenced to "make love" to the chief's wife, while outside, the chief screamed and slowly burned to death. (The poor man never did reveal where the gold was hidden; it wouldn't have mattered if he had.)

Subsequent to bedding her, Muhammad, following cultural norm, took the newly made widow to wife.

Historical fact and never denied by my Arab friends who, unlike modern liberals, never sacrifice historical and objective truth on the altar of "political correctness," at least they never have to me.

So, does "historical fact" and "objective truth" as cited above make Muhammad a "pedophile," a "womanizer" and a "savage," or was The Prophet simply a warrior of his time, making political alliances, accepting the customary rewards of victory, and very much engaged in the formation of what was to become the world's most dominant culture for nearly eight hundred years?

Liberals like Rausenbush are all for "cultural diversity," that is, until the truth of it offends their more "tender sensibilities."

Then, rather than question their own blind allegiance to doctrine, they begin to change the rules of the game, to lie, cheat, and hide the truth, while, in the name of tolerance and cultural survival, they demand the rest of us sacrifice our core American values.

Make no mistake about it: We are very much engaged in a battle for cultural survival.

So, let’s get a grip here. Subsequent to 911, and if you missed that, the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the subsequent violence in the Middle East, the lines between US and THEM, between viewpoint tolerance and savagery, are clearly drawn.

And to this point, the terrorists are whining; they're bringing the fight to us.

They're dictating terms to us, and the American Left Wing is surrendering.

Most Americans still believe the expression of truth is always good, even if it offends savages and the more "tender sensibilities" of others.

However, liberals like Rausenbush, (and frankly the much vaunted ACLU), engage in Orwellian "double-speak," demand Americans surrender core values to placate savages and support every sort of "diversity" imaginable, except the most important one: Diversity of Opinion.

And where would we Americans be, here in America, without the right to think and to speak on matters of political significance?

Hey, wait just a darn minute! Maybe "cultural diversity" is not such a "good thing," after all!