A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about ESPN. This follows this post about Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's chief assistant. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
You can follow me here.

ESPN sidelines Curt Schilling for tweet comparing “extremist Muslims” to Nazis

 By Robert Spencer 55 Comments

Curt Schilling is under heavy fire for this, and has been removed from ESPN’s coverage of the Little League World Series. He is repentant and apologetic, but it may do no good: he may be facing more punishment, and is taking a beating in the mainstream media for being “insensitive.”
But what exactly is so offensive about his tweet? Is it that he compared “extremist Muslims” to Nazis? Surely that can’t be it. The Islamic State hasn’t murdered six million Jews, but surely would if it could, and meanwhile its gleeful bloodlust, sex slavery, terrorizing of non-Muslims and all the rest of it make the comparison reasonable.
Or was Schilling “insensitive” for daring to suggest that peaceful Muslims aren’t doing much to rein in their violent coreligionists? Well, let’s see. Last month, Muslims in Ireland held a demonstration against the Islamic State. How many Muslims showed up? Fewer than fifty. And in October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.”
And back in 2005, a group called the Free Muslims Coalition held what it dubbed a “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” intending to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.” In the run-up to the event it got enthusiastic national and international publicity, but it ended up drawing about twenty-five people.
Contrast those paltry showings to the thousands of Muslims who have turned out for rallies against cartoons of Muhammad or against Israel. Here are some headlines from the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in January 2015:
Chechnya: 800,000 Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons; protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere
Pakistan: 10,000 Muslims protest against Charlie Hebdo’s Muhammad cartoons
Australia: 1,000 Muslims rally against Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of speech
Kyrgyztsan: 1,000 Muslims rally: “I am not Charlie, I love my Prophet.”
But given a chance to show how Muslims overwhelmingly reject “extremism,” only a handful show up.
So how exactly was Schilling offensive or insensitive, aside from having been a member of the Boston Red Sox? ESPN should restore him to active duty immediately, but it is much more likely that they will force him to issue a groveling apology first, or just fire him outright.
“Curt Schilling sends out insensitive tweet, deletes it minutes later,” by Israel Fehr, Big League Stew, August 24, 2015:

Curt Schilling, a 20-year major-league veteran and current analyst for ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball, is no stranger to giving his opinion on controversial and divisive topics.

This time however, even he realized he crossed the line.

Schilling sent out the following tweet Tuesday morning from his verified Twitter account @gehrig38 featuring a graphic that compared “extremist Muslims” to the Nazi regime, then deleted it minutes later as the backlash and questions began to pour in…

He has yet to address the tweet directly but has engaged with a number of people and has accepted responsibility for what was sent out from his account…
ESPN released this statement condemning the tweet and confirming that Schilling would no longer be broadcasting from the Little League World Series this week:

Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective. We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the attack in Paris. This follows this post about gay marriage. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

"Je Suis...?" - Violent Attacks in France - What About Our Freedom to Speak?

by Amanda Stiver

Source: freeimages.com/Gastonmag

During a murderous attack at the offices of  Charlie Hebdo , a French publication that specializes in satire, seven staff members were killed along with others in the building and police officers. Specifically targeted were political cartoonists who had created satirical cartoons of, among others, the founder of Islam, Mohammed. Four more were killed at a grocery store in the Jewish Quarter of Paris, targeted because of their Jewish ancestry and beliefs. Another policewoman was also killed in a related incident, which made a total of seventeen people, not including the three shooters who were also, finally, killed by police. (Lori Hinnant and Angela Charlton, “French Police Detain 9 in Massive Hunt for 2 Suspects,”  Associated Press News  at APNews.MyWay.com, January 8, 2015.)
Violence, on this scale and with such obvious malice aforethought targets those who hold a differing, even derogatory opinion of a religious figure or idea. This is a violation of the concept of freedom of expression as we know it. Should this change the way  we  express ourselves?
France and the United States both traversed the painful valley of revolution at approximately the same time in the 1770’s through the 1790’s. The Republic of France went through many years of tumultuous societal turmoil and finally, in the nineteenth century, emerged with a republic form of government that, at its core, valued the right to express one’s opinions freely. For the United States the result was a nation with governing documents that secured the rights of freedom of religion and of expression, among others. Through the decades, despite struggling with how much expression is allowed, the example set by these two republics has made a precedent for the world, and we enjoy many of our enduring freedoms as a result.
While not dismissing the obvious motivations of these murders, religious hatred and violent anti-Semitism, let’s take a closer look at how we wield our freedom to express our beliefs. Certainly, other’s opinions should be respected, no matter how contrary those opinions may seem, but as true Christians, should we be inflammatory in the way we express our beliefs and antagonistic of the beliefs of others, even if we know them to be false?
The answer is yes…and no.
The book of Ecclesiastes makes a very simple statement, “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven…,” followed later by this, “A time to keep silence, And a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes:3:1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:, Ecclesiastes:3:7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;, NKJV). There is a time to speak, and sometimes to speak with absolute firmness, even with button-pushing sarcasm. Our example: Jesus Christ.
Just before his death by crucifixion, Christ began to push the buttons of the religious leaders in Judea at that time. They were the Pharisees and Sadducees, who had departed from the core of God’s Law by, in the case of the former, adding to it, and the latter, by taking away from it. They were on the fringes of belief and were oppressing those they were leading. Christ knew that His words would make them angry, and in the case of the Pharisees, angry enough to have Him killed.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves… Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness…” (Matthew:23:15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves., Matthew:23:27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.).
These were  highly  inflammatory words, and Christ was justified in using them because they also happened to be true. Could He have used a softer approach? Certainly, and He does so at the end of the chapter when He laments His beloved city of Jerusalem (Matthew:23:37-39 [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
[38] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
[39] For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.). However, at this time anger and sarcasm were necessary. Christ knew His role and also knew that the leaders of the time had murder in their hearts, which needed to be visible for all to see, and as a result, He would die. And He had to, for the forgiveness of the sins of all human beings.
What about us? Does this give us free reign to run around antagonizing others of different beliefs simply because Christ did so at one point in His work? As a rule, no.
“…we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but,  speaking the truth in love , may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ…” (Ephesians:4:14-15 [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:, emphasis added).
The old saying goes, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” A loving approach is more palatable than a harsh, angry one. As a rule, this should be our approach to how we treat others in the Body of Christ, but also, by extension, those God may be calling in the world.
However, kindness doesn’t equal weakness. There is a time to be respectful, but firm about our beliefs and how we express them to others. The good thing is that we can call on God at any time to guide our response to others, and benefit from His wisdom, not just our own.
There is no justification for the attacks in France against the unarmed, innocent people who died simply because someone disagreed with their opinion or their ancestry. Let’s take time to digest and understand the lessons from this tragedy (and others, like the recent slaughter in the Nigerian town of Baga and the ongoing murders in Syria and Iraq), so that those lives, also, aren’t lost in vain.

---

Blog posts do not undergo review by the doctrinal review team of the United Church of God. This post represents the personal opinion of the author and should not be considered the official stance of the United Church of God. If you have any questions or concerns please direct them to webmaster@ucg.org.

• Vertical Thought Blog
• Youth

• Amanda Stiver's blog

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!