Another liberal terrorist symp speaks out
by digby
These PC Policemen are too much :
On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer speculated that the attack by radical Muslim terrorists on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo that killed twelve people may have been God’s retribution for the magazine’s blasphemy.
Given that the magazine, in addition to mocking Islam and Muhammad, also had a long record of running satirical articles and cartoons about Christianity and Jesus, Fischer raised the possibility that this attack was punishment for the magazine’s repeated violation of the commandment that “you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.”
“They made a career out of taking the name of God, the God of the Bible, the father of the Lord Jesus,” said Fischer, who has made the case in the past that instituting anti-blasphemy laws in America was entirely feasible.
Noting that Exodus 20 states that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain,” Fischer theorized that just as God regularly sent “idolators” to attack Israel as a “rod of correction” in order to “discipline his own people” for their transgressions, so too had God used these radical Muslim attackers as retribution for against Charlie Hebdo for its anti-Christian blasphemy.
So, here we have a Christian leader taking the cartoonists to task because they blasphemed against Jesus and the Bible, the ultimate authority, says that’s wrong. The cartoonists had it coming. On the other hand, we have seen some liberals affirming that free speech is a basic human right and that no authority, whether it be government or religion, should stop anyone from saying what they choose — but asking that people search their own consciences before ridiculing the less powerful or gratuitously insulting religious beliefs. Surely we can see the difference between those two ideas, can’t we?
Now we have the right wing defenders of Charlie Hebdo talking about next steps. I’m sure you’ll be impressed with their commitment to free speech. It’s quite inspiring:
Carlson: What should we make of the situation back at home?
Williams: I think it’s a very concerning thing when, you know, our fearless leader fails to acknowledges Islamic terrorism for what it is. it’s almost like a Trojan horse headed towards the west except this time we know the contents of the horse and our leader won’t acknowledge what’s inside.
Williams: We need to be concerned about those who are sympathetic, that approve of those committing violence. I think we should be asking questions like, ‘do you want Sharia law in the US and if you do, in what way would you support it? Would you support it with money? We got Megan’s Law for child molesters and rapists that might be a threat to our community.
Carlson: I can’t imagine any America who right now sitting at home who would say yea, I’m going to put up with this type of activity that we saw in Paris happening on a regular basis here in America.
Williams: Like I said before, Sharia law is the antithesis of the Constitution, it’s against freedom and so if we’re surrounded by people who really want to after our freedoms we’ve got Megan’s law for people out there who want to go after children and go after women and rape them. We’ve got an eye on them.
I think we need to be looking at people who want Sharia Law with a little greater scrutiny. There should be some kind of ‘Muhammad Law’ like…Sharia…something we need to be using to identify those that want to really try to overthrow freedom. “
Smell the freedom.
.