ISIS attacks people in Texas drawing Mohammed cartoons and the left is crying foul that the people drawing are inciters.


Since when does art NOT incite?

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.



From the beginning of time art was meant to represent and also motivate the gds or GD. To incite even GD. To represent people and to initiate change.




Remember when Madonna came out with a music video to accompany her hit single “Like a Virgin”?


Did any faith-loving Christian seriously threaten her life? Her career is one the oldest professions: artist. She created something that people could either purchase and enjoy or shun and criticize.


But ISIS doesn’t want to criticize: it wants people who draw a raging mass-murder lunatic pedophile DEAD.


And when an Israeli diplomat reacted in protest several years back to an art installation in Sweden celebrating and glorifying suicide bombing who was to blame?


It was not the artist!


Why is it acceptable to attempt to murder people for drawing Mohammed but not acceptable to destroy the “art” of the artist?


Someone on the left needs to explain this to me.


I am sorely confused.


But those who claim drawing Mohammed is “Islamophobia” or “causing terrorism” or “inciting hatred” or “targeting Muslims” are more confused than I.


Those who claim drawing, a creative act we do from as young as the age of 1, is an action of incitement, means if a child decided to draw GD or Mohammed--on their own, without instruction--this would also be an act of incitement. No? The child, according to Islam, would be deserving of death.


The lines between free speech and incitement are becoming blurred.

As a war between Israel and Iran looms in the near future the Ayatollahs incite their entire population against all Jews, against Israel, against America.


People who claim ads like this should be banned:


pamgeller1.jpg



But advertisements like this, below, are respectable have little to no understanding of the 1st Amendment to the constitution.


busphoto.jpg


The 1st Amendment allows for both.


The idea that planning and sponsoring an event to ‘draw Mohammed’ has created a “yelling fire in a movie theater” type danger is mistaken. In the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater which then is the catalyst for a stampede danger: one person is using their voice and action to initiate a resulting potential action that is a public danger.


In the case of an event, of which Islamic Jihadis do not approve, and arrive armed with deadly weapons and deadly and murderous intent the Jihadis are attempting to impose their will--their dogmatic, religious-political will--upon other members of society. The “fire in the crowded movie theater” example does not give legal permission for someone to murder the person who is about to, in the process of, or already did shout such. It just protects the public against certain specific instances of danger.


It also protects the public against madmen intent on mayhem.


Likewise, if I told someone they should yell fire in that crowded theater and they do so, it is not my responsibility for their ramifications: it was their action and ensuing consequences are theirs. Ditto for the Jihadis.


No one endangered the public until they decided to show and open fire.


There is also a distinct difference here: the Jihadis are endangering the public by their actions and intent to murder, the other persons/party are celebrating art, even if inciteful art.


What if jews around the world no longer wanted to see swastikas anywhere? As in theater like the production of “The Sound of Music”:


soundofmusic.jpg


Or in museums? Or if Jews wanted to ban images of Christ-- whose death over millenia they were blamed and paid horrific price through the spawn of pogroms. If Jews said such they would be excoriated, ridiculed, criticized, lambasted!!


Yet, why do you think ISIS are murdering Christians worldwide?


For this very reason.


And in fact from the left’s ‘messiah’ himself, Obama said about the Sony movie ‘The Interview’ “...they impose their self censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities need to be offended. That’s not who we are. Thats not what America is about.”


If we applied here what Obama is referring to, and what the left is hideously and dangerously suggesting, is that artists--in fact everyone--self censorship!!!


The Left has gone bonkers!


I’d say ISIS needs their “sensibilities to be offended”. At all costs!


And, America is about making sure we are ready. Ready with security and guards if need be.



And to defend that liberty as needed. To defend that liberty with bullets if need be.


Especially those seeking to stifle our art, our expression, our truth, our way of life.



Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share