Posted: December 2, 2007
5:44 p.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
An American evangelist has jumped into the fray over the fate of a British teacher facing calls for death over a teddy bear named “Muhammad.”
Bill Keller, host of LivePrayer, has posted a video on YouTube featuring a pink, toy pig named Muhammad after the Muslim prophet. (see video below)
Bill Keller of LivePrayer has named this toy pig after the Muslim prophet
“Indeed Muhammad was a man of murder,” the pig, voiced by Keller himself, states in the video. “He was a pedophile, having a wife at the age of six. And I came to find out that the Quran really is nothing more than a book of fairy tales.”
Keller, a vocal critic of Islam, made the video in response to the case of Gillian Gibbons, who was sentenced to 15 days in a Sudan jail after being convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her student to call a teddy bear “Muhammad.” 
Gibbons was moved to a secure location in Khartoum last week after street demonstrators called for her death.
UPDATE: Gillian is safely back in Britain!
No Compromise When You're Right! 
This type of provocations are simply wrong. Who is giving to this so called “Pastor” the right to insult the religion of many?
When we will understand that two wrong do not make one right? And when we finally learn how to respect others?
Are you kidding? Two wrongs don’t make a right? What are these two wrongs? Informing people that a woman is going to be beat because her students called a stuffed animal mohammed? Or was it when the radical clerics of the Sudan called for her execution? Where were you then with your outrage?
Were you asking the artist who placed a crucifix in a glass full a urine if he had the right to insult a religion of many? Where was your selective outrage then?
Or how about when Muslims stand on a British street screaming that Jesus is a slave to the moon god allah? Are you outrage over that?
It’s interesting that you liberals get outrage when Christians take a stand but you’re silent when Christianity is being attacked.
By the way, when Christianity is being attacked you don’t see Christians screaming for the execution of anyone for voicing their opinion even though their opinion maybe insulting.
She was a teacher who broke the laws of the nation she was living in.
What’s it got to do with you, Bill Keller, or Christianity?
Why are you cyberscreaming at me? Why are standing on a cybercorner and you are screaming that you are right? Have you ever thought that maybe Jesus was politically a liberal (considering He was standing for the outcasts) Who makes you more Christian than me? Just because you seem to hate Muslim and Islam? (which by the way I am sure you don’t know much about)but last time I check Hate is not part of Christianity.
Hence two wrong don’t make a right
No She didn’t break the laws in the nation which she lived. HER STUDENTS named THEIR stuffed animal mohammed. She didn’t do it!
As far as what it’s got to do with Keller, or Christianity: Keller is allowed to have an opinion just like you are! As far as Christianity is concerned when the koran states that Christians are to convert to the religion of submission/slavery or die–just ask the Christians of the Sudan–then it has everything to do with Christianity!
Why aren’t Christians allowed to have their faith in the Sudan? The facts are that the Imperialist Muslims did take over that country through a crusade against Christians, or does that fact evade you Christ-o-phobes?
Mr. grand,
oh, here we go again. . . I laughed so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. Cyberscreaming? Cybercorners? –That’s funny!
However, you didn’t answer the questions I asked, but conveniently play the race/bigot card like you liberals usually do when you start fights, but can’t answer simple questions.
And by the way, Yeshua was not a liberal, (as you define liberalism, I’m sure) but a Torah observant Jew who came out against the Jewish leadership who placed such heavy burdens on the Jewish people demanding obedience to man made laws instead of encouraging people to obey God’s Law.
Sort of like what the koran does to its people.
the name is Grande. Secondly why are you so convinced that I wouldn’t stand if someone insult my religion? Just because I think we should respect everyone?
I would love to get in a deeper conversation about Jesus (Yeshua)political tendencies. In respect, not in rage because trust me no one here is playing the bigot card.
Why do you libs always bring up rage when we answer your lunacy charges and accusations? You accuse, we answer back, you accuse us of being filled with rage. Do you actually win arguments accusing people of being filled with hatred and rage?
And, yes, I would love to get into a discussion about the Word of YHWH with you. Can you tell me what “political tendencies” Yeshua acted out on?
Any nation, religion or legal system that is this thin-skinned deserves not only some serious scrutiny, but some serious humor as well. Allowing school children to name a stuffed animal after their prophet is not an action that is deserving of legal action nor is it anything that is deserving of death threats and protests. It’s absurd. I can’t believe that anybody can take things like this so seriously.
In the end, what is religion? It’s mythology. It’s faith. It’s something that should be a personal experience. I don’t think that any religion should exert this sort of lunacy over other people. If they want to run around preaching the word of muhammad, so be it, but this oversensitivity really is getting old.
I’m unsure what you are trying to achieve with this comment:
“HER STUDENTS named THEIR stuffed animal mohammed. She didn’t do it!”
It doesn’t really matter who named the toy; surely the teacher holds responsibility for what goes on in her classroom.
Regardless of religious implications, if a person breaks the law of a country, they deserve to be punished.
When these monsters over ran the Sudan and mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people all in the name of islam the laws of nature were broken!
Might does not mean right! And just because it’s a “law” doesn’t make it right!
If what you say is true then why wasn’t she executed for her supposed crime against mohammed? Why was she not punished to the fullest extent of the law? Why was she allowed to leave the country?
Because money talks and bullsh*t walks!
The Sudanese government was more interested in keeping their British Foreign Aide than keeping their holier than thou laws!
Luckily for her, there is an abundance of people like you.
The government of Sudan must have decided that it is far easier to give a pardon, rather than have to deal with people like you.
Review my prior comments. And once again you still haven’t answered my questions.
I guess you’re only capable of throwing your ad hominem bombs.
get a life
Doesn’t it even bother you that when you’re challenged you can’t even defend your own positions? Things that make you go Hmmmm.
In the end, what is religion? It’s mythology. It’s faith. It’s something that should be a personal experience. I don’t think that any religion should exert this sort of lunacy over other people. If they want to run around preaching the word of muhammad, so be it, but this oversensitivity really is getting old.
Damnit Arclight you stole my thunder!
The crucifix displayed, however, doesn’t help a thing. It only makes the muslims angrier and somehow suggest christianity is better than islam… refer to above statement by arclight
damn you arclight!!!
TRM,
I have to take issue with you re: making the Muslims angry because I bring up the crucifix in urine example. Because of multiculturalism everything becomes equal. This includes cultures, religions, civilizations then sexes, etc etc etc.
Well, there are some things that are better than others, and Western Civilization is better than Islamic civilization–look at how human beings are treated. There are religions better than others. For example, normally when we pray to YHWH we come away encouraged knowing we have a personal relationship with the Creator and even when we screw up He is there to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness if we repent.
In the Gillian case, the Sudanese Muslim Clerics, the leaders, go to pray and come back wanting her executed. Why? Because they want the Koran to be fulfilled to the fullest extent. Where’s the love, mercy and grace for human life? There is none in this 7th century barbaric religion. Because a stuffed animal was named mohammed, the most popular name in islam?! That’s insane, erratic and demonic. There are some religions better than others
I recommend you read the book by Muslim author Nonie Darwish, “Now they call me Infidel,” so you can see for yourself that there are some things better than others.
Multiculturalism is destroying the world. It’s equalizing all cultures and that’s got to be confronted.
thanks, ~NC
I tried to comment earlier and hit the wrong button. Round 2.
Not everyone suffering in Sudan is Christian. This guy Keller is an idiot. His action is intentional and bigoted. He also comes off a little narcissistic which when you put it all together seems just plain old wrong for a pastor and or Christian.
The teacher “deserved” to be subject to the law but not “punished” The law was never going to lash her though imo. The political aspects of the story are important. The Sudan government gets more from Russia and China so I don’t think they were impressed by Britain’s sabre rattling. The government was torn though between showing some civility and respectability and bowing to the extremists.
As for multiculturalism destroying the world. It ain’t helping but that’s more that it is used as an ideology tied to other things. The simple acknowledgment that the world is a lot smaller now a days and we all have differences isn’t a bad thing.
in2thefray,
Yes, Keller’s action was intentional, so what. That doesn’t make him a bigot. Keller expressed his First Amdt rights just like liberal political cartoonists do everyday in this country re: conservatism or Bush or whatever they happen to disagree with. It doesn’t make the cartoonist a bigot!
I really wish liberals would stop calling everyone they disagree with a bigot! It’s silliness.
Keller did not mass murder anyone or threaten to beat them with 40 lashes because a stuffed animal was named mohammed.
The two are simply not equal.
Is it bigoted to slaughter a group of people because of their religious belief system? Will you call that bigoted? Are you equating what Keller did to those who are in power and clearly mass murdering in the Sudan simply because they are Christians and Animists. These groups are in the minority and like I said earlier Might doesn’t make Right!
Please read the links below, so you can see what is happening in the Sudan. You say that not all people who are being slaughtered in the Sudan are Christians there fore . . . what? What’s your point? It makes it okay, then?
It doesn’t matter if they are not all Christians. They are in the minority and they are not allowed to practice their Christianity. If they were Buddhists being slaughtered in the Sudan it would be wrong because the Islamists are the ones in control and they are the ones doing the slaughtering and they are the ones who are forcing others into Islam. Will you call that bigoted?
Here’s the link:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6560F4B3-DCE5-4609-8845-4CD1BF0FE115
Here’s a link to some demographics on who’s being slaughtered in Sudan:
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=11
Here’s a link to Amenity Internat’l–although they refuse to call a spade a spade, but I have provided it anyway:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540762004
Where on planet earth do you see buddahists mass murdering? Or Christians? or Mormons? or Sikhs? or Shintos? What other religion besides islam do you see mass murdering and maiming? Please! Just name one.
And here is the 1828 version of what a bigot is: (it’s funny how Webster names Mohammedanin aka Islam in his definition. It was a problem in Jefferson’s era and clearly in Webster’s era.)
BIG’OT, n.
1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.
2. A venetian liquid measure containing the fourth part of the amphor, or half the boot.
BIG’OT
bigoted
BIG’OTED, a. Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, practice or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal towards the opinions of others.
bigotedly
BIG’OTEDLY, adv. In the manner of a bigot; pertinaciously.
bigotry
BIG’OTRY, n. Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed, or to certain tenets; unreasonable zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect or opinion; excessive prejudice.
1. The practice or tenet of a bigot.
First of all I’m not a liberal. The accusation you make towards liberals could easily be placed upon you.You’ve instantly taken a position and make that the issue.It doesn’t take a liberal to see the pastor is out of line.
Keller is clearly a bigot in the context of his words and actions albeit in this limited instance. He is fully embracing a creed falsely (Christianity)and attacking another. He meets the definitions you’ve provided.
As for the next part.It is not bigoted per se to engage in civil war.Barbaric,horrific and many other things for sure. The motives/ emotions behind it could be called bigoted though. History is full of this though. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to kill them,to want them dead. So Nazis with the Jews,USA against the Indians (Native Americans if people insist)and on and on.
As for the “there not all Christians” part. I was just qualifying the truth.When over 80% meets 5% 80 wins. The country is under treaty of separation,this still allows the official Northern govt. to support rebels in the South and that should be scrutinized. It’s not solely a moral issue when one looks at it in a detached unemotional analysis of a bad situation.
It could be said that any number of the formative factors of Western Civilization were based on religious based motives including the killing involved.
And last and most important. Might does make right. It is the essence of Real Politik. Might created the world as we know it.Is it “right” ? That question isn’t on the test.It’s reality.
In closing. I am not defending Islam. I do insist on truth though. The brush people paint one thing with can’t become suddenly lost when it comes to throwing a coat on something they believe in.
Yes NC I see your point, maybe I was in a hurry and rushed my words. I agree some civilizations are better than others, one could argue however, thats relative.
I do not agree, however, some religions are better than others. They are all man made therefore subject to man made interpretations, therefore subject to being presented in ways to serve man made goals. That make any sense? I think they all start in a very well meaning place and then we get ahold of it and twist it to suit our desires….
(I love these types of conversations!) Okay, TRM, just cuz someone says that my stating a fact that some civilizations are better than others might be relative is simply a moot point. Here’s why: according to that person everything anyone says is relative and they are the epitome of phoniness. That doesn’t take away from the fact that some things are good, some are bad, some are worse, some are better. You and I seem to agree with that.
However, where’s the philosophical honesty anymore? Multiculturalism and PC is destroying valid debate; and from speaking one’s mind, it’s destroying right from wrong, and good from bad. If someone disagrees with you you’re labeled a bigot or racist and the actual point is dismissed; questions and challenges go unanswered.
For example, (I’m going off topic for a moment to make a point about relativism) Why do people get so upset when a kid goes into a school and slaughters other kids with guns? Why? They’re taught that certain life is disposable, right? That might makes right? If it feels good do it? The survival of the fittest? Isn’t that what’s being taught in our gov’t schools? Then why get upset when a kid actually goes out and acts according to what he was taught? Because even the hypocritical moral relativists believe in a right and wrong. So if they believe in a right from wrong who gets to decide what that right and wrong is? Well the relativists don’t want it to be based on anything that has to do with God’s Law, that’s for sure. So they deny there’s a God, like that’s going to make YHWH disappear into thin air, so who gets to decide? Well, according to them those who are in power and control get to decide; never mind that there are absolutes and never mind that there are transcendent standards by which to live.
Here’s a quote I love: “Moral or ethical relativism is a ‘myth.’ That is, no one really believes in moral relativism, in spite of what one might say. All one has to do is look at the ‘actions’ of the moral relativist instead of concentrating on the beliefs espoused. Self-proclaimed moral relativists appear to be guilty of hypocrisy, saying one thing but practicing the opposite. And, finally, moral relativism is just another example of ‘intellectual insanity,’ (remember Michael Savage stated that liberalism is a mental disorder–well this is why. ~NC emphasis) the attempt to remake and reshape reality into what one wants it to be, rather than accepting reality as it is and dealing with it rationally. There has to be at least ONE rational, objective standard by which human beings can judge the rightness, the correctness, or the appropriateness of human actions. There may be more, but there has to be at least one. It is the discovery of this rational, objective standard that is the object of what we call moral philosophy or ethics.”
Dolhenty, J. The Myth of Moral Relativism.
So who gets to decide? The Islamists? The Culture that slaughters every living thing in its wake? The Secularists? Those who want all religion out of the public domain, and want every disgusting behavior legitimized?
A religion that teaches us to love YHWH with all our heart, soul, and mind and to love others as we love ourselves is not the same religion that teaches the powerful–the ones in control– to slaughter ALL who don’t submit to their ways. They are not equal. One is clearly wrong and one is clearly right and the reason why one is wrong and one is right is because Human Beings are created in the image of YHWH and thus their lives are to be respected and protected. That is the standard by which we live, and no matter what the moral relativists say they will never understand that there is a priori transcendent standard by which ALL is judged.
Here’s a question for you: You state that all religion is man made, but if that is so, then how can they all be equal? Since every other product of human craft are never equal to each other?
First of all I’m not a liberal.
Neither was Hitler and Nietsche, but you all evidently share the same postmodernist
political philosophy of Thrasymachus, Machiavelli, and Hobbes.
“Liberal” is an unfortunate choice of words, since the meaning of the word “liberal” has been radically redefined by Machiavellian social engineers within the last 100 years in America, for the purpose of advancing progressive secular socialism.
The accusation you make towards
liberals could easily be placed upon you.You’ve instantly taken a
position and make that the issue.It doesn’t take a liberal to see
the pastor is out of line. Keller is clearly a bigot in the context
of his words and actions albeit in this limited instance. He is
fully embracing a creed falsely
(Christianity)and attacking another. He meets the definitions you’ve
provided.
But what if your ideology, religion or culture really IS better than another by several objective measurable standards?
As I have stated in another post, bigotry consists of prejudging an individual based merely upon their membership within a particular group.
If a person severely disparages or satirizes a particular ideology or religion, it does NOT qualify as bigotry because we are not discussing any particular individual that may belong to the disparaged ideology or religion, but rather the subject of the derision is the ideology or religion itself. It is too common for an ideology or religion to be quite toxic, and it is not bigotry to honestly recognize and admit this fact, but at the same time recognize that thousands or even millions of individuals happen to be victims trapped inside these vicious and evil cults, through no fault of their own.
It is not bigotry to recognize the true nature of the spiritual disease that they are afflicted with, but rather it is true compassion.
In contrast, the postmodernist Machiavellian powermonger will sacrifice the well being of the human individual at the altar of any toxic ideology that is convenient to furthering their own demonic will to power (per Nietsche), in this case, radical Islam. Never mind the actual flesh and blood women that are beaten, raped, and killed, but you must never insult Islam! It is demonic because other human lives are sacrificed by the powerful in the name of Islam.
This is not true for the renewed Covenant of Yeshuah of Nazareth, Who by the sacrifice of His own blood on the cross for our sakes, and being risen from the dead, has redeemed us from bondage to any human or demonic ideologies or religions.
No, it is definitely NOT the same or equal! One IS better than the other. In one the individual exists for the sake of the religion, in the other, the religion exists for the sake of the individual.
Bigotry would include elevating any ideology or religion in priority over the welfare and eternal blessedness of any individual precious human life created in the image of Elohim.
As for the next part.It is not bigoted per se to engage in
civil war.Barbaric,horrific and many other things for sure. The
motives/ emotions behind it could be called bigoted though. History
is full of this though. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to
kill them,to want them dead. So Nazis with the Jews,USA against the
Indians (Native Americans if people insist)and on and on. As for the
“there not all Christians” part. I was just qualifying the
truth.When over 80% meets 5% 80 wins. The country is under treaty of
separation,this still allows the official Northern govt. to support
rebels in the South and that should be scrutinized. It’s not solely
a moral issue when one looks at it in a detached unemotional
analysis of a bad situation.
The problem with this “detached unemotional analysis” that postmodernists commonly engage in, is that the moral aspects of this conflict are usually disregarded entirely, or so distorted as to make both sides of it morally equivalent. All for the sake of preserving their multicultural neutrality and moral relativism.
Aristotle and Plato were very objective and detached in their analyses, but they are not under the postmodernist (but very ancient) delusion and sophistry of moral relativism that Thrasymachus suffered from. See Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, and Plato’s Republic, Book 1
It could be said that any number of the
formative factors of Western Civilization were based on religious
based motives including the killing involved. And last and most
important. Might does make right. It is the essence of Real Politik.
Might created the world as we know it.Is it “right” ? That question
isn’t on the test.It’s reality.
Sorry, but there are 2 parts to this test, and you missed the second part!
The first part are the descriptive questions, of which you answered, but you thought you were done and forgot to turn the page over and answer the prescriptive moral questions! You got 50% and flunked!
Might and Right are two entirely different things, and one is not the cause of the other. Might and Power are defined descriptively as what is, and Right and Justice are defined prescriptively as what should be. This is a common postmodernist philosophical error, to discount prescriptive and moral questions as somehow not worthy of intelligent consideration in their own right. The proposition “Might makes Right” is a textbook example of a Naturalistic fallacy that derives prescriptive moral conclusions from descriptive facts. The truth is that prescriptive moral principles are independent of and prior to descriptive reality. Horrors! Could it be that the Universe (and ourselves within it) actually has a prescriptive teleological purpose and reason for its existence?!
In closing. I am not defending
Islam. I do insist on truth though. The brush people paint one thing
with can’t become suddenly lost when it comes to throwing a coat on
something they believe in.
Ontologist,, I feel stoopider after having read your post… not because the content was necassarily disagreeable, but because I had to look half of it up because I couldn’t understand it!
Your either really smart, or full of shit…
either way I enjoyed it…. I gotta read that Plato book….