Here's a chance for the Bear to polish his interfaith / political correctness credentials, as many wobbly conservatives are doing. What's that? The Bear doesn't have any? Oh, dear. Well, it is Bear Danger Awareness Month.
First, here's Pamela Geller's Bear-Approved website. What she did in Garland, Texas was indeed provocative and dangerous. It also proved a point that people still fail to grasp. It exposed just how close the Muslim threat is, and how fragile free speech is. As a bonus, we flushed out two dangerous jihadis at no loss of innocent lives. The Bear bets we're already gathering valuable intel on the next level up.
The condemnation of Pamela Geller's free speech exercise in Garland, Texas by L'Osservatore Romano was unintentionally hilarious, as were thousands across the globe. They might as well have said that Muslims are mad dogs who can't control themselves when something (Muhammad drawing, accidental Quran burning, the historical fact of First Crusade, Friday) triggers their irresistible urge to kill. Because in their warnings not to do anything that might offend our delicate Muslim cousins, they not only damn free speech, but could not be more condescending to the very people they're trying to protect. They're like Bear Safety Tips.
The Bear would not be the first to draw a comparison to someone blaming rape on the way women dress. "Geller had it coming." Oh, come to think of it, the last person the Bear remembers doing that was Chief Australian Muslim cleric Taj al-Din al-Hilawi in 2006.
Sheik Hilawi was quoted as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the back yard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem." Yep, ladies, better keep that cat-meat covered!
Pope Francis, who never saw a religion he didn't like -- except some elements of Catholicism -- has said you cannot make fun of another religion.
Drawing a picture of a supposedly historical figure is not making fun of any religion. Giving some group advance veto power over speech is the end of free speech in principle.
It has since come out that Simpson was on probation for lying to the FBI about trying to travel to Somalia to further his interest in jihad. The Government put on plenty of evidence of Simpson's determination to engage in jihad, through an informant at Simpson's mosque.
Interestingly, the imam at the mosque warned members of a possible informant. This imam looks like gang boss Avon Barksdale from The Wire, obsessing on wiretaps and snitches. Why is he more concerned with uncovering the FBI than terrorists? Was this a "bad" mosque, or typical? (The Bear supposes it's a pretty good one to post $100,000 cash bond for Simpson. Do you think your parish could or would do the same for you?)
The case against Simpson fizzled when the Government relied on an FBI agent for the second part of its case. It had to prove that Simpson's destination, Somalia, raised the terrorism flag. The Government used the same FBI agent who had investigated the case. The the judge was unimpressed with his expert witness credentials. (The Bear can promise you it would have been enough before the federal judges he practices in front of!)
Simpson should have been in a federal prison, not Garland, Texas, armed to kill as many innocent people as he could.
But the more religious he became, he quickly became more radical.
It is difficult to read these testimonials without a sense of exasperation. With all due respect for the grieving Soofi family, and for loss of human life – no matter how misguided or evil – in the Garland attack, these are very obvious warning signs. Nadir Soofi was ranting about America’s role in Middle Eastern conflicts, sending his mother DVDs of sermons from one of al-Qaeda’s top recruiters and spiritual leaders, and hanging around with a man who got busted by the FBI for trying to join the jihad in Somalia.
Texas Terror Shooters Parents Say He Was Pushed Into Jihad, Brietbart.
Their mosque didn't stop them, and their parents didn't stop them. Somebody should have tried. Especially Soofi, it seems, might have been stopped at some point.
There is a group of Muslims who want to live here, but they don't understand freedom. We believe the cure for bad speech is better speech. What if every time there was a drawing of Muhammad, Muslims would use it as a teaching moment and explain the role Muhammad plays in their religion and lives?
Just to say that is to bring a sigh of hopelessness. That's not the way they are. Catholics endured horrible discrimination and ridicule in our nation's newspapers. But we hung in there, blended into the societal fabric, and today, well, today we are attacked for other reasons, after a brief peace. But we are able to use free speech to defend and educate. Muslim's aren't in that program, however. They use violence, and by hate-shaming us into silence. They're the group that needs to be in a discussion, if not as part of one, then as the subject of one. That's why we need to protect freedom. But it doesn't look good. Here's what Facebook did to the winner of Geller's contest.
Bears get irony.