Two responses to the counter-jihad

After Breivik’s appalling act all I have is a voice to undo the folded lie, as WH Auden wrote in Sep 1 1939.

These two replies to the “counter-jihad” lunatic Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff probably won’t make it through moderation at her silly assed site.

Ooohh! Geert Wilders Cited Me!

Reply to “Geert Wilders mentions Elisabeth in his WSJ op-ed”, in which this pathetic loser boasts that Geert Wilders, the Dutch fanatic, mentions her in a WSJ op-ed:

Free speech is almost absolute, but not quite. There’s a reason why it is so often found with freedom of religion. You can’t have the one without the other: no free speech implies no freedom of religion for religion is a form of expression and speech, and no freedom of religion is a prohibition on a form of speech.

This is why one model of the USA’s First Amendment, itself a model for free speech guarantees world wide, was a town ordinance in colonial Baltimore. While Baltimore, unlike most of the colonies, permitted practice of all faiths including Roman Catholicism, it also prohibited aggressive attempts to convert people of other faiths and insulting and disrespect towards those people.

Baltimore’s city fathers anticipated something obvious one hundred years on to John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty: that not only is it “wrong” to exercise a freedom in such a manner that it diminishes the freedom of your neighbor, it makes no sense, since overall freedom is diminished by your actions.

“So act that your action can be recommended as a general moral law”: Kant’s maxim was an attempt to express moral instinct. People with common sense know that a looter does not have clear title to the HDTV he’s carrying down the street and can be relieved of this “property” under the law of the jungle, because the looter’s actions themselves if “recommended as a general moral law” remove the basis of private property.

Mill saw how to apply this to “freedom” including “freedom of speech”.

Your idiotic “counter-jihad” violates the freedom of religion of Muslims; it is an exercise of free speech that limits the freedom of speech of others and an assault on freedom. It creates a climate of threat to practicing Muslims. It scandalizes their children’s respect for their prophet and the symbols of their faith. It causes acts of vandalism and it has caused the largest mass murder carried out by an individual in history. The blood of Breivik’s victims is on your hands.

I’m not going to say that “with freedom comes responsibility” although that’s true. Pub bores, fat women, creeps, losers, the thugs of middle management and so forth have had anything like a super-ego and responsibility surgically removed by modern media and replaced with aspiration to consumer goods and various out of control addictions to food (of the sort that dietary proscriptions such as Halal, Kosher and the traditional meatless Friday of Catholicism can all help).

I will say that a child, struggling in freezing water, and begging for mercy, has no freedom because each atomic act of “freedom” that limits another’s freedom invites that other to reply in kind and lowers overall freedom.

For shame.

“I will not eat Halal food”

Reply to her absurd article about stalking out of a Halal restaurant braying “I will not eat Halal”:

“Halal” means simply that (1) the food is not of a prohibited category and (2) when it is meat it is prepared using a well-sharpened knife in a prescribed way. That’s all.

Which means that the Muslims operating the restaurant probably had a good chuckle, because logically what you said was “I will not eat food”. Most food is Halal.

The only way your assertion makes sense is that you will only eat positively non-Halal food. Do you dig on swine, lady? Do you drink blood? Must your animals be slaughtered slowly and painfully? Do you refuse to eat beef, lamb or chicken? All that pork and ham must be rather dull.

Note that if you are anti-Halal you can relieve the monotony of pork and ham with roadkill, because Muslims may not eat carrion.

And if I understand you correctly, you may not drink soda pop but must drink beer, wine, schnapps and other spirits morning, noon, and night. Coke is Halal, you will neither drink nor eat Halal, therefore party on, lady!

Must be a heck of a dinner table you set: Budweiser and Spam, and Bloody Marys and dogkill on Sunday. No vegetables and no dessert for you since they are Halal! No celery in that Bloody Mary and replace that V-8 with real blood!

News flash: Halal is a negative law meant to specify what Muslims may not eat, similar to Kosher and the Friday abstinence of traditional Catholicism. Part of its purpose is to teach self-control and self-restraint, something of which the grossly, obscenely fat Western body exhibits little. Part of its purpose is the assertion are we not men in the sight of God who can use our God-given free will to walk with dignity. We will not eat each other nor will we eat carrion.

The Muslims do not sprinkle Halal food with the blood of Christian children. Halal is a negative proscription.

Dig up on that dog and swine, lady!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Two responses to the counter-jihad”

  1. JohnJames Says:

    In your deliberate, and brazenly intellectually dishonest attempt at obfuscation of the intended meaning of the term “halal” as used by those concerned with the encroachment of Islam, you neglect of course to acknowledge that what anti-Islamists are specifically referring to is the abhorrent cruelty of halal slaughter of animals destined for consumption as food.

    Your blatant attempt at “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” is as much a failure as it would be laughable, were your intent not so evil.

    You will be among the first dhimmis to be utterly surprised and indignant when the Islamists come looking to slaughter their apologists – such as you. Rest assured that they will be unlkely to bother with an halal ritual before they separate you from your life.

  2. spinoza1111 Says:

    The “abhorrent cruelty” to which you refer is a clean cut INTENDED, as is Kosher, to minimize the animal’s suffering.

    But, maddened by false promises and soured by true miseries, on you come like the Night of the Living Dead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: