Catholic League President Bill Donohue has responded to criticism he received for saying that "Muslims are right to be angry" over the controversial prophet Mohammed cartoons by French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which led to a terrorist attack that killed 12 people, by arguing that the cartoonists "abused freedom" with the highly offensive material they chose to publish.
"My position is this: the murderers are fully responsible for what they did and should be treated with the full force of the law. Nothing justifies the killing of these people. But this is not the whole of this issue," Donohue wrote on Thursday in a statement.
"The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom. Quite the opposite: their obscene portrayal of religious figures — so shocking that not a single TV station or mainstream newspaper would show them — represents an abuse of freedom." more >>
At a press conference held on Tuesday this week, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired Atlanta Fire Rescue Department Chief Kelvin Cochran. How did we get here?
One year ago, Chief Cochran wrote a book discussing orthodox Christianity, including a mention of how God views homosexual practice. The book had been around for a year, with no problems. Yet when Atlanta's secret thought police secretly uncovered the not-so-secret book several months ago, a hullabaloo erupted and the chief was suspended. All the usual suspects contributed to a hearty round of hand-wringing and head-shaking.
Mayor Reed was "deeply disturbed" and indignantly proclaimed he would not tolerate such discrimination within his administration. more >>
Last night, The Weekly Standard tweeted "Print Free or Die" with a picture of the prophet Muhammed, whose physical iconography is the purported reason that the terrorist attacks were carried out in the first place.
Always willing to play the part of social media provocateur, I readied myself to re-tweet that image myself, ready to join in the chorus of those wishing to thumb their nose in an act of First Amendment defiance toward the offended party. As a liberty-loving conservative, I believe one hundred percent in the free exchange of offense. The condition of freedom enlists the possibility, and perhaps requires, that all shall be ready to be offended. The promise of freedom is that we can return such offense in kind. We live in a society where we are penalty-free from stating our convictions without recourse from the government (at least in theory; see Barronelle Stutzman). It does not mean, though, that our actions are entirely consequence free, as the tragedy of France proves. The promise of free speech means that the free exchange of ideas, and the attendant competition of ideas, allows the best ideas to surface to the top. That's why Christians defend religious liberty. Yes, we want the freedom to preach and evangelize. But we also believe that which is true shouldn't be stifled, and that the Christian gospel should be matched up against the prevailing philosophical and ideological champions of the day.
I decided against retweeting the image of Muhammed. Luke 6:31 came to mind: "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." As a Christian, I'm not so much offended as I am tired and exasperated at the disrespect and contempt for religion Writ Large when the representative iconoclasm of such things as the "Piss Christ" rear their ugly head. I'm not a Mormon, but I don't like seeing Mormonism mocked. Neither am I Catholic, but I don't like anti-Catholic bigotry. I'm not Jewish, but I don't like seeing Jews caricatured. I'm a Christian, but I believe in the valuable contribution that all religions bring to a free civil society. As I would not want Christ mocked, so I decided to not mock Islam's prophet. This is not a moment of Holier-Than-Thou Christian Do-Goodism. It's to suggest that the commodity of all religions is undervalued in Western society; and that refraining from offending religious sects isn't to bow the knee to political correctness or to become Sharia-compliant. more >>
Recently my long time friend, Lee Grady, highlighted in print the deaths of notable Christians. Ann B. Davis, beloved actress, was one of them. Yet at the same time in a publication on newsstands is the headline that she was really a lesbian!
I don't believe it.
In theaters across America right now is a movie called Foxcatcher dealing with the true story of multimillionaire John DuPont's killing of Olympic wrestler Dave Schultz. more >>
Kelvin Cochran was five-years-old when he realized that he wanted to be a firefighter.
"My family was very, very poor," Cochran told me. "We were living in a shotgun house in an alley – three big brothers, two little sisters."
One Sunday afternoon the Cochran children heard a fire truck stop across from their neighbor's home. Miss Maddie's house was one fire. more >>
Who are the leaders of the "white community"? Who are the leaders of the "Asian American community"?
These questions seem silly given the fact that whites and Asians Americans are considered to be free thinking individuals who do not need ethnic leadership. For reasons that I cannot understand, white progressives and conservatives alike seem stuck in the 1960s whenever they use phrases like "leaders of the black community." What is even more bizarre is the seemingly fetish-like attachment to the archaic notion that people in black communities look to someone like Al Sharpton as a leader.
If there is one thing black progressives and black conservatives have in common it is the shared opinion that Al Sharpton is irrelevant and does not represent "black interests" because there is no person who fills this role. Al Sharpton represents himself and whatever particular non-profit he leads. That's it. Nothing more. more >>