USA & France Do NOT Respect Religion


White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reading a prepared statement: “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this… We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

Muha Bad, or Muha Mad? Neither! White House suggests ‘figure resembles prophet Muhammad’!

This is the cartoon that the (fanatically Islamist?) White House views as “deeply offensive“. What about deeply offending the USA Constitution and the Founding Fathers? [Caption translates as: The movie that inflames the Muslim World; then the “figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad” according to the White House, says: “And my buns, do you like my buns?”.] 

Deeply offensive to many“? Many what? Grand inquisitors? Salafists? Did the White House see the picture of the burned ambassador, not quite completely dead? They have been shown in France. Atrocious pictures. That’s what “deeply offensive” means, burning alive innocent people, good people.


“We are aware… we know… obviously…questions… judgment…figure resembling the prophet Muhammad…deeply offensive”. In any discourse, one can gather a lot by the context the key words describe. (Those knowing combinatorial topology will recognize keys words describe a simplicial complex the faces of which define higher concepts…)

The USA administration’s  hostility to the famous French magazine Charlie Hebdo follows the administration’s September 14 effort to persuade Google to take down a short, cheap satirical video on YouTube that also angered a few fanatical Islamists. Thank god, for once Google lived up to its slogan:”Don’t be evil!

What basically the administration is doing is the following. Some Christian fundamentalists have killed doctors, because,  they said, they were offended by abortion. Suppose a cartoon came out, suggesting that the assassins are narcistic, and obsessed by whether they looked good. Would the White House have declared that such a cartoon was “deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory“? So why the pandering to fanatic criminals? A few days after an American ambassador and three other employees of the State Department got assassinated?

The State Department has been incredibly incompetent: incapable of defending a “mission” against 70 guys armed with diesel fuel. The USA ambassador and another US citizen died in the fire. The attack was on 9/11. In a second attack, a bit later, some of the attackers were carrying weapons bigger than Obama himself. Two ex Navy seals got killed.

The video describing the major contents of the Qur’an, made by an Egyptian, had been out for 6 months. Accusing it was untenable. Still, that is what the White House did, following the discourse of Islamist fanatics. Who is better at determining what insults Islam than Islamist fanatics? Nobody in the world, proposes the White House! No doubt the majority of Muslims, who are deeply hostile to Islamist fanatics, will thus find a new reason to dislike the White House, and to suspect that it’s there mostly to add fuel (diesel or not) to the fire.

Did the administration read the Qur’an? What’s in that video that is not in the Qur’an? I read one and watched the other, and I fail to see in which sense the video is not deeply respctful of the Innocence of Muslims, as revealed by scripture.

By insisting that the attack was caused by “Innocence of Muslims“, the administration made a joint statement with Al Qaeda: trailer kills ambassador. Same thing about condemning Muhammad’s sketches; so doing, the White House is insisting that the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam is the correct one.

Finally the administration recognized the obvious. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. After all. Al Qaeda.



Does the administration know the Constitution? Apparently not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution starts with: Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…

In an astounding contrast, the White House orders us to respect sketches of naked guys worrying about whether their buns look good, because, well, some crazed fanatics, somewhere, have it that’s against their superstition. Not just against their superstion, but their heavens high indignation gives them the right to kill whoever has displeased them. And the present White House approves? Why should we abhor sketches of naked guys? Why should we obsess about naked guys?

Jefferson, Third President of the USA, wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Calling the clowns in the white House “apes” (as the Qur’an does, speaking of Jews and Christians) would be too mild, because apes ape, and the White House boys can’t even do this.

In the Treaty Of Tripoli, worked on by all the Founding Fathers, and signed on by the first two presidents of the USA, George Washington, and John Adams we find this:

 As the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from RELIGIOUS OPINIONS shall EVER produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Not in any sense, no pretext ever from religious opinion“: get it, Obama? Learn. A corollary, obviously, is that the USA is not, in any sense, founded on the MUSLIM religion. So Muhammad’s buns, if any, are none of the USA’s official business.

Another corollary is that all the god stuff brandished since 1954 CE in the USA about Allah is unconstitutional. The present period will be viewed in history as the times when the presidents of the USA thought they were Caliphs!

On the whole planet, the total number of demonstrators against “Innocence of Muslims” and the French caricatures, so far, including government organized demonstrations in Sudan and Iran, is 150,000… out of 1.5 billion Muslims, that’s .1%. A tenth of one percent. Yet, when the White House, in the name of the American People, denounces free speech, as Carney did, that’s 310 million speaking, and a major democracy falling for the Dark Side of god.

The Administration insisted, initially that the lethal attack against the USA ambassador and other government officials, had everything to do with “Innocence of Muslims“. In other words, people  supposedly “denigrating” Islam caused the attack.

The White House and others kept on describing the trailer as “denigrating“, but they forgot to tell us why, and how, exactly. Wild accusations without explicit foundation are just devolutions of reason.

Here, watch me go explicit. The trailer was accused to represent Muhammad as a pedophile polygamist who got involved in combat with a bloody sword, and whose ideas came from a Christian monk, cousin to his wife. The trailer mostly follows impeccably the Qur’an and Hadith, as I explained in “Progress kills Killer Religions“.

Yes, Muhammad married a 6 year old girl. Yes he had many “wives” some from the battlefield, some Jewish, some from a irate subordinate. Yes, Muhammad was a raider of caravans, and led battles personally, resulting in the death of thousands. Including an entire Jewish tribe, annihilated. This is all in the sacred texts of Islam.



In 721 CE, the greatest army Islam ever had, invaded “Francia”. The Franks of the Dux of Aquitania retreated, setting a trap for the charging Islamist horde, which was annihilated. Two further invasions followed, with the same result, bold Muslim penetrations, followed by encirclement, entrapment and annihilation, hammered by Charles Martel, a Carolingian, grandfather of Charlemagne. Militarily decapitated, the Arab caliphate fell by 750 CE, and was never seen again (other Islamized nations became dominant, such as Iranian, Mongols and Turks)  

The White house kept on debasing itself. A somewhat haggard Clinton read a statement on Friday claiming the USA had nothing to do with the “Innocence of Muslims”. Meanwhile, in the center of civilization, Charlie Hebdo made another massive printing of its Muhammad cartoons. Disingenuously, USA media claimed the French government had condemned the cartoons “swiftly”. It was not ‘swift”, and it did not happen.(The New York Times just misrepresented what French foreign minister Fabius (a “Jew”) had said.)

Quite the opposite. Several days before Charlie Hebdo went on the attack, the French president, Hollande, inaugurating the magnificent museum of Islamic Arts in the Louvres, Paris, condemned religious fanaticism: “Les meilleures armes pour lutter contre le fanatisme qui se reclame de l’Islam se trouve dans l’Islam lui meme. Quand le patrimoine est saccage’, ceux sont toutes les civilisations qui sont attaquees…[ce qu’il faut condamner c’est] L’insondable betise qui rend chaque civilisation vulnerable. “

(Best weapons against the Islamist fanaticism are found in Islam itself. When patrimony is devastated, it’s all of civilization which is attacked… What one needs to condemn is the unfathomable stupidity that makes each civilization vulnerable )

The issue of Charlie Hebdo condemned by the White House had only 2 or 3 cartoons that could be religiously interpreted out of 30 or so in the issue. The weekly comments on the events of the week, it comes out on Wednesday. However, it proved so successful that it quickly ran out, and it was reprinted exceptionally for Friday, the day of the great prayer. So much for the French being terrorized by Muhammad’s buns.

The director of publishing at Charlie Hebdo pointed out that the great religions live out of the fear they inspire. Instead, most people publishing Charlie Hebdo  don’t want to live in fear, they want to live in fun and good humor, lightly. 

One thing the White House should pay more attention to is that to live lightly has to do with light and the enlightenment. Why should those who want to live in the light, by the light, and lightly, care about what master terrorists expert in the mania of crowds claim to worry idiotically about?


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , ,

27 Responses to “USA & France Do NOT Respect Religion”

  1. Martin Lack Says:

    I agree with President Obama: People should not set out deliberately to mock the beliefs of others. However, just as bullies pick on children whom they know will react most strongly, so satirists are drawn to mockery of those whom the perceive as the most sensitive.

    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the murder of the US ambassador to Libya was a planned piece of retribution for the death of OBL. Let us also assume that people have a right (and a reason) to be offended. Even so, this can never be an excuse for what we are seeing at the moment. And it is utterly ridiculous for politicians in Muslim countries to demand that a special case be made for Islam – and that satire be made illegal.

    Christians and Jews do not burn down mosques and set fire to cinemas when people mock their religion. The proportion of Muslims are outraged by mockery of their beloved prophet is not relevant However, this is a genuine problem and it needs to be solved: Those that are so offended that they are driven to civil disorder – whatever their number – need to choose not to be offended.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Obama is president of the USA, he has to respect the USA Constitution. People can deliberately do whatever they want as long as it respects the law. if Obama intervenes in RESPECTING RELIGION as USA president, he violates the USA Constitution. Simple.

      The truth is, the USA has instrumentalized Islam, as I have explained on the Internet for a decade. So the USA has milked, for all its worth, the indignation of a quasi infinitesimal group of fanatics (example: Khomeiny, and Bin Laden and their followers). Thus the self contradicting policies presently pursued.

      I have been brought and raised in Muslim countries, and even in a sacred city, where I was just what I was, offensive like hell according to Obama’s fanatic Abrahamic White House, but I was totally at peace and joking with the natives. Jokes on Muhammad’s buns would have taken the same turn as they would take in a French bar.

      But then the CIA and its Saudi equivalent financed the fanatics.

      Where I was from, and still am, in Africa, mocking people was, is, a religion. So I object to Obama not respecting my religion.


      • Martin Lack Says:

        Patrice, I agree with you that one of the best things about the US Constitution is the absence of an Established religion… and, by extension, one of the worst things about the UK is that it has a Church of England…

        However, I do not see it as a problem for the President to say that he does not agree with people deliberately setting out to belittle the views of other religions – this is a matter of common human decency and mutual respect.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Martin: Did you study the drawing that the so called White House found “deeply offensive”? There is nothing “deeply offensive” there. The white House wants to establish a terror Shariah worse than in Iran. The White House is simply blowing on the ambers of hatred a few people have, to make them brighter. Same for the video, which says absolutely nothing the Qur’an does not already say.

          I am sure you have no common decency and mutual respect for the god crazies who would be the first to kill you, and you certainly would not extend that to 99% of the religions that have existed. So why to be a carpet for the Slafist interpretation of Islam? The Salafists are criminal gangs and the White House thinks smart to be their prophet. Hey, they need one! Once they have made another 9/11 or two, the White House could proclaim the great fascist state, with the super patriot act, where bankers can shoot you on sight, if you disrespect the Prophet (whoever the Prophet is!), and the MIC gets all the money the bankers want it to have.


          • Martin Lack Says:

            If you are referring to the cartoon above, no, I do not know what the caption means; what the White House has said about it; or why you are so angry about it; and I am not sure I care enough to find out.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Martin: Well, since I started by quoting extensively the White House’s fanatical declaration, about that precise cartoon, and since you claim you know some French, please keep on not being sure. I will add some translation, though, as you remind me that some people are too “Anglo-Saxon” to understand basic French, even when they “try to speak their language”. I indeed find weird that someone spending all his summers in France can’t get the basics.
            OK, maybe not weird, byt just Anglo centric. Brits and USA citizens are those with the fewer languages. Insular, I guess comes from living on islands.

            I have studied and used more than half a dozen languages, as I view learning, and using, the language the essence of going to another country. Rest can be watched on TV. More ecological.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Martin: In an answer to your call to mutual respect, I did sharpen what was wrong about the White House attitude, by comparing it to criminal anti abortion killers. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY calls to NOT RESPECTING religion.
          Same in France. Only the Republic rules, it’s the true religion.


          • Martin Lack Says:

            If you are saying the US Constitution specifically prohibits favouritism being shown to any religion; I would agree with that principle (as I believe my original comment made clear). Therefore, although I may not have read the document you are referring to, I find it hard to believe that the White House would want to be seen to be making a special case for any religion. That would definitely be a hostage to fortune.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            “…make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.”


  2. Martin Lack Says:

    Quite separately from the above, Patrice, I would like to know why you always want to distinguish the French from those you insist on calling “Anglo-Saxons”?

    I love France, I grew-up being taken there every year on holiday; and there is hardly a single part of the country I have not visited. I like French people; and I enjoy trying to speak their language when I visit. I love their food and their wine; and I admire the way they do not generally over-consume either.

    Brittany and Britain do not sound the same by accident; the links go back thousands of years. Geologically, there is a good reason why the north coast of France is very similar to the south coast of England – in the timescale over which human civilisation has emerged they were not separated by water. Linguistically and culturally, western Europeans can all be traced back to Rome. The Normans came from Norway; and having conquered northern France, they did the same to Britain.

    I know you know all this; so why do you seem to try so hard to deny it – and make out that the French are somehow superior to everyone else?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Martin: I made very clear that England and France were, and are, part of the same polity. This was the case before even Caesar showed up on the scene. That’s why he had to invade (what’s now) England, twice. Five centuries before that Carthage was trading tin from Britian, mostly through the Veneti, based in Armorica.

      Technically the main bases of the present British state were actually laid down by the French/franks/Romans, as I explained countless times.

      Sometimes, though, one confronts self declared Anglo-Saxons and an exploitative mentality that seems related to their invasion of Britannia in the 5C and 6C. Charlemagne is the one who put an end to the agressive Angles and Saxons in Germany, by the way (~ 790 CE). William the Conqueror did the same in England (Angle-land) in 1066, re-establishing the Roman state.

      As far as I am concerned, Europe is one country. But when the City of London (an official plutocracy, BTW) highjacks the planet to conduct AIG style business, I points out where that mentality comes from.

      France is a Republic. Charlemagne was Republic friendly: after all, he let Venice thrive (among others). The USA is a republic, and a secular one. All the god stuff of Obama and his cabinet is unconstitutional, as I pointed out. britain is NOT a republic. It’s an official plutocracy. Taxes and corruption are darkly engineered to profit the likes of the Duchess of Hypocrisy, and the Prince of taxpayer paid to my pocket Ecology…

      They will say: oh no Britain is an aristocracy. That’s flattering themselves (aristos = best). And hypocritically deforming reality.

      A republic is superior to a plutocracy.Patrice Ayme ‏@Tyranosopher
      Inequality kills, plutocracy kills even more.

      Life Expectancy for Less Educated Whites in U.S. Is Shrinking
      A long rise in Americans’ life spans has reversed itself for white people who lack high school diplomas, an increasingly troubled group that has lost four years of life expectancy since 1990.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Martin: BTW most of Guillaume Le Conquerant’s army was made of French barons, and their following. Saying the Normands “came from Norway; and having conquered northern France” is a serious misrepresentation. It’s true the Northmen conquered at some point most of ENGLAND. Their toehold in Francia was minuscule (less than 5%).

      The Northmen were actually allowed to settle, in parts, and got naturalized, same old immigration process. In Normandy, the head Norman, Rollo (“Robert”) had to submit, and become the vassal of Charles Le Simple, in 911 CE. It was a very complex situation, as the Viking targetted the church, and the Franks tended to make treaties with the Viking, to the hysteria of the church. After a symbolic siege of Paris, and the main Frankish army negotiating instead of fighting, Rollo got domesticated (911 CE).

      The fact the barons were many and most of Guillaume’s (FRENCH) army meant that he had to make a direct treaty with the (“English”) people, and had to keep the barons happy and free (“Franks”). Thus the Parliament’s power, and the Magna Carta, etc… all the more since he was vassal himself to the king of the Franks…

      The rest of the civil wars between Paris and London, or Paris and Aquitania, or Guyenne, or Anjou, and god knows what, were not what one should call national conflicts.


      • Martin Lack Says:

        The Normands clearly came from Scandinavia and were assimilated into French/Christian culture before exporting the same to England. I think therefore, we are arguing about semantics…


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          No, history. You do not seem to know English history, as well as you should, and you did not read carefully what I wrote. So let me repeat slowly:

          1) the Vikings conquered most of England (except a few swamps). (And also Ireland.)

          2) Rollo became a vassal of the king of the Franks in exchange for settling in a piece of present Normandy (911 CE). That was in exchange for not getting his head bashed in and his life taken out (and related to the siege of Paris, and the near-battle thereafter). Contrarily to England or Ireland, Francia was NOT overrun, let alone conquered, by the Scandinavians.

          Seven generations later, for very complicated reasons, the (bastard) Duke of Normandy thought he had a casus belli with the upstart king reigning in England (as Guillaume viewed himself the rightful king). Guillaume led a vast army of French barons in which soldiers from Normandy were a minority. Precisely because Guillaume had no control over the French barons, and was NOT their overlord, English proto-democracy got launched right away.

          In Francia, by contrast, the monarch-emperor had Roman CONSULAR powers, plus the imperium of a Roman dictator, so all barons were vassals to Him/Her. In case of war, that meant pretty much life and death (Roman military law). Not so in England where the Dux was just Dux to the barons, but Rex to the population. In any case, he had no imperium (that was only in Francia). No wonder it was a creative mess.


          • Martin Lack Says:

            I am not disputing the fact that the Vikings and Saxons were fighting over England long before Guilluame’s audacious invasion. If you expect me to carry on discussing this, prepare to be disappointed.


  3. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, Islam is a serious matter. Since its appearance it is in continuous conflict with the surrounding world which it keeps in siege . It conquered Zoroastrian Iran, Christian Byzantine, Hindu India, Buddhist Indonesia, pagan Africa, you name it. All this did not happened because it is a religion preaching peace. Their expansion stopped only the European colonialism, when Europe succeeded to oppose the Muslim expansion tendency militarily.
    All the events in the last 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire, show that the Islam is back in the game. Probably you are right, and most of the Muslims want to live peacefully, BUT, it takes only very few to let the evil take over if it is not opposed. (Enough to remember what has done Lenin and bunch of his co-criminals with Russia).
    And this is all about the question, are you going to let the evil to take over or not?
    If your policy is to apologize for something you have not done, and have no responsibility what so ever, in the way you also mock your own most basic values like freedom of speech, on the other hand you let the Muslims freely publish all their ANNOYING!!! hate against all the non Muslims, (mainly Jews and Christians), it is quite obvious where this policy is heading too.
    In Libya the Muslims had their “Kristal nacht”, now it is up to the non Muslims to decide, what to do with it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Most of the “Muslims” are NOT Muslims. This goddamn Muslim myth is part of the Washington-Harvard organized myth called the “Clash of Civilization”. The guy who wrote that was a complete idiot, a peanut eating monkey, who did not even know that there is a difference between civilization, religion, and superstition. I am actually an African, that’s where I grew up. So I know, from inside.

      In truth, the average so called “Muslim” is a secularist. As I explained in the replies to Martin Lack, and for a decade now, the plutocrats in the USA have been using Abraham to stupidify the population of the USA, and the oil producing nations, and they did an excellent job that way.

      This has led to very complex situations. For example the war in Libya was not what it seems. It was more the revenge of Suez that anything else.

      France has instituted a clarity of discourse: France is a secular Republic, that’s the national religion. Those who come in have to respect that. If they don’t, that’s against the law.

      Now as far as Islam is concerned. The sacred texts have Muhammad explaining that the Persians and Greco-Romans have prevented them, arabs, to raid for more than a millennium, but that the time had come, because Persia and Roma were exhausted by a very long and nasty war (that Roma had won). Muhammad was a great strategist. The analysis was entirely correct. Then its successors got very lucky, especially against the main Roman army. (Hitler was also very lucky in 1940!)

      I agree with all you say. The USA has played a double game, with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, fueling to the max the Islamist fanatics, and then claiming they were a huge danger (once they were!) and then going to fight them (feeding the USA military industrial complex). the debasement of the basic USA values by the White House has no excuses… and is unconstitutional.

      Obama is apparently how-to-manipulate-the-Constitution-to-serve-my-masters professor… ;-)!
      usual University of Chicago plutocratic propaganda…


  4. Martin Lack Says:

    With reference to all your previous responses to me on this thread, I must confess that I did not read your post very carefully before offering you my opinions on the subject. However, having now read it more carefully, I am still unable to agree with your basic premise that the White House is in breach of the US Constitution.

    Since you find it necessary to question my ability to speak or read French, I feel free to tell you that I think there are two things preventing you from communicating effectively:
    – (1) the somewhat tiresome way in which everything you write makes you sound like you are very angry; and
    – (2) the poorly constructed sentences and strange word choices that suggest to me that English is not your mother tongue or that you had a bad teacher.

    Can I suggest as therapy, one of the funniest books I have ever read, which is Toby Young’s How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.


    • Paul Handover Says:

      If Patrice is able to convey the range of knowledge that he does with “poorly constructed sentences and strange word choices” then who knows what we could learn in the absence of such limitations!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Martin: precision is the key to rationalization. It’s easy to insult people directly or by innuendo. It’s harder to be precise.

      For example Pakistanis are hysterical about a video they did not see. They insult it, but they cannot point out to what they object to.

      I did not question your ability in French first, you did, first. That after claiming your tried to speak the language. So you confused me completely. The exchanges showed clearly that you had not read the essay as you wrote I made no quote of the White House, when the essay started with the quote. And then the incriminated cartoon.

      Also I did not make a premise, but drew a conclusion. USA Constitution says to NOT RESPECT RELIGION, White House says to respect Salafism. The White House clearly condemned what the Salafists could find “deeply offensive“. That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s uncivilized, despicable, completely in contradiction with what the Franks started to enforce in 486 CE. it’s also completely stupid, except if the aim is to reinforce the Salafists, and, thus, indirectly the MIC (Military Industrial Complex).

      I will try to read that book. Indeed, any serious philosopher has to make it a mission in life to lose friends and alienate people. Otherwise one gets all tied up in respect for other people’s religions (formal or not). So I think I am already an expert.
      What people mostly want from other people is that they stroke nicely their wisdom. This is in total contradiction with the nature of philosophy (excepet in emergency cases, such as comforting someone who is dying or hopelessly suffering by saying whatever).

      Philosophy is about new wisdom, not yesterday’s minds. It’s about devouring the feeble minded.

      Ah, language and my terrible English. English was the fourth language I studied. I would surely appreciate that the terrible flaws of my expression could be sometimes pointed out, but you surely have other things to do. For a number of reasons, some pertaining to WordPress, sometimes, there are often typos in what I write, which I detect later, on second or third reading. This is unfortunate, but the shrivelled blossom of the small works of one. The essays are somewhat improved in the first few hours. I actually made the last one more explicit after some of your complaints.


  5. Paul Handover Says:

    With our house move to Oregon coming up rapidly, a move that includes 11 dogs and 6 cats, time for reading posts carefully is severely limited! But sitting in bed I did read out aloud to Jean this morning both the above post and the conversation between Patrice and Martin. There is much that we learnt about history and the establishment of the republic of the United States of America.

    What struck both me and Jean, with some force I might add, is the power, as in a power of wisdom and order, of a country forming around a constitution that both welcomes freedom of speech and freedom of religious pursuit yet, in and of itself, may not legally respect any religion, viz:

    “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

    So until reading this essay, I had utterly missed this aspect of the country that is my new home. It strikes me that any President of the USA, as the custodial figurehead of the Constitution of the USA, should have a secular public persona.

    Fascinating! Thanks, Paul


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Paul: You are welcome. The point you emphasize forcefully, forgotten since the height of MacCarthyism, in 1954, is that the president should have a secular public persona.
      Thus the intervention of the White House on behalf of Salafism was deeply unconstitutional. I should put up a picture of the burned ambassador, while Libyans were bringing him to the hospital. To illustrate what the White House excused. That ambassador was definitively a friend of the Libyan people, he helped persuade Clinton to decide to support the French attack against Kadafi (one of many, but the first on Libyan soil). That was not easy as Bush II had made a pact with Kadafi: our torture and arresting powers, worldwide, against your oil.

      Local Libyans drew their own conclusion. Suffering more than a dozen killed, half of them policemen, people of Benghazi attacked the Salafists’ headquarters, trashed them and burned them. The Salafists have apparently fled Benghazi now, on the order of their chief… The White House knows very well that such people, the Salafists, are financed by feudal plutocrats they had an explicit alliance with since Spring 1945. Without USA support, Salafism would collapse mighty quick.

      The Pakistani government put up a $100,000 reward for the killing of the author of the “Innocence of Islam” video (more exactly the minister of railways did from Peshawar).Funny part is that the Pakistani government has long blocked the video, which, therefore, no Pakistani has seen. Too bad, it would have been an occasion for them to consider some aspects of the Qur’an.

      Besides the fact the video respects the Qur’an, just illustrates it, it is also interesting part that the author of the video is a Coptic Egyptian, representing a religion, culture, civilization and even alphabet and language original to Egypt, and much older than Islam. Coptic Egyptians are discriminated inside their own country against by the Islamists (there are about ten millions of them, 2/3 of the number of Jews worldwide).

      Where are the sanctions against the crazed Pakistani government? Are we waiting for the Pakistanis to atom bomb us?

      Good luck with your move to Oregon, you should arrive with the rains…


  6. Waltz, $treet! Perish, People! « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Intelligence at the core of humanism. « USA & France Do NOT Respect Religion […]


  7. No Rice, No Lice, No Dice « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] is wrong in several ways. First the concept that a “hateful video” can “spark” deadly […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: