CURB YOUR ANGER

NOTE TO ALL

This site and our project, “The Muhammad Paintings Collection”, is a serious and honest attempt to understand, to come to terms with Classical, Orthodox, Historic Islam (in short, the words and deeds of Muhammad).  And we do so as Infidels (whom we understand Allah despises) –

There is no second agenda here, no dismissal of groups or individuals.  Our only concern is with Muhammad, the Qur’an and, of course, Allah – and their consequential impact on the (our) world.  Our conversation, via words or oils on canvas, is with them, not with “communities” or individuals.

It seems that everything about Islam (including its 1400 year history) can be reduced to one primary question:  Who is Allah? 

What is Allah’s nature and character.  Is he worth simple recognition, a nod of the head, let alone obedience and worship?

Therefore, this site, and our project, focuses on unfolding Allah’s nature and character – and their consequential fallout upon the world, past and present. 

* * *

Yes, we have reached a judgment.

Nothing will change regarding the relationship between Islam (the House of Allah) and the rest of the World (the Land of War) until Allah changes his nature and character. That is the most urgent civil and political chore before us. 

As for we, standing with brush in hand before the ease (after much prayer and fasting, and honest thinking) we have found that character and nature – that is, we have found Allah – wanting. 

* * *

Along with our honest hard looking about, it is our hope that the Muslim community worldwide will see the wisdom of rethinking the totalitarian foundation of Islam.  It is our hope that Muslims sit down and engaged in our serious and honest discussion, albeit with oils on canvas.  In short, Muslims must task themselves, do the hard work of rethinking Muhammad, of rethinking the Qur’an, of rethinking Allah, himself. 

ADDENDUM: Our apologies for using the third person pronoun for Allah.  He makes no claim upon BEING and PERSONHOOD.  He refuses to receive the claim that he is a personal god, that he is father to anyone. 

Dear Christians, be forewarned, Allah is not a god “who so loved the world” that he gave . . .

* * *

I AM AN ISLAMOPHOBE!

I Fear the Words and Deeds of Muhammad

You have yet to give me a reason not to. 

But, then, can Allah, the non-BEING beyond all BEING and REASON, reason me out of this fear? 

He cannot.  Beyond BEING, beyond PERSONHOOD, beyond SPEECH, Allah is nothing to me – for I am nothing to him. 

Allah is no father to me, I am no son of his. 

Give me a God who muddies His hands and enters the womb of a Jewish Maid of Israel.  I want that God.  I want a God who gives a damn about lost coins and lambs.  Allah doesn’t give a witch’s tit about the very breath I breathe. 

I want a God whose Face I can see.  A God whose lips burns with WORDS, falling like fire upon my tongue, quenching this dread, this fear that God has nothing to say to me.  For it is to me that God must speak.  It is I – I am the lost coin an lamb; I am the whole world that God so loved.

Kiss me with the kisses of thy mouth, for thy love is sweeter than wine“.  Damn gods who hit the high grass beyond PERSONHOOD and BEING.  Damn collectives.  F_ _ k Totalitarian Oneness.

* * *

HERE’S THE RUB:  Islam cannot change until Allah does.  Islam cannot civilize its culture, tame its totalitarian worldview, until Allah civilizes his nature and tames his character.  It all comes down to Allah – not some war on terror, not Jihad or Sharia, not even Muhammad -but Allah.

* * *

HEY ISLAMIST/LEFTIST/FASCIST GUY

(you Three Evils Man, you)

CURB YOUR ANGER. 

THE MISSION OF THIS SITE – LET ALONE OUR PROJECT, THE MUHAMMAD PAINTINGS COLLECTION – IS TO CALL ISLAM TO RETHINK THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD, TO RETHINK THE QUR’AN, AND TO RETHINK ALLAH, HIMSELF.  ONLY WHEN ISLAM SUBMITS TO THIS HARD WORK WILL THERE BE PEACE UPON THE EARTH.

THEREFORE, WE PUT OUT THIS BOLD DECLARATION:  ONLY WHEN ALLAH CHANGES HIS NATURE AND CHARACTER CAN THERE BE A HONEST CONVERSATION BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS; FOR OUR PRESENT TROUBLES WITH ISLAM IS SIMPLY THE UNFOLDING OF THAT NATURE AND THAT CHARACTER.

THE JEWS IN MEDINA WERE SLAUGHTERED AS A BURNT OFFERING TO ALLAH’S NATURE.  THOSE PLANES SLAMMED INTO NEW YORK TOWERS TO REVEAL ALLAH’S CHARACTER.  WHY ELSE WAS THERE SUCH JUBILATION IN RAMALLAH AND GAZA CITY ON 9/11?  THE FALLING TOWERS WERE A KIND OF PRAYER.  THE ERUPTING JOY IN PALESTINE WAS A KIND OF WORSHIP.  9/11 WAS A MISSIONARY ACT OF ISLAM.

* * *

 THIS IS WHY WE PAINT OUR PICTURES. 

OUR OILS ON CANVAS IS A KIND OF UNDERSTANDING – A COMING TO TERMS.

* * *

“Why and How Islam is a Fraud “

(Amil Imani)

DID I JUST GET MY OWN FATWA?

Why Islam Celebrates Murdering Children

Andrew McCarthy (National Review Online)

WHY WE MUST, MUST COMPLETE THE MUHAMMAD PAINTINGS COLLECTION. AND DAMN THE THREAT OF ANY FATWA.  ALLAH CAN TAKE A HIKE!  FOR DESCRIPTION OF OUR PROJECT GO TO “THE MUHAMMAD PAINTINGS COLLECTION” PAGE.

* * *

Did I Receive My Own Little Fatwa?

Highlighted in RED, no less!  Someone please send me an exegesis.  Thanks.

* * *

For Summary of Our Nine Paintings, go to “The Muhammad Paintings Collection” PAGE.

* * *

Re: Question on images

Monday, August 16, 2010 7:25 AM
From: “London Fatwa Council” <londonfatwacouncil@gmail.com>
To:  “Steve Golay” <@.com>
Good day to yourself,
I understand you enquired whether it is permissible to draw the picture of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in your paintings, which is to reflect upon his words and deeds. Islamic law maintains that it is not permissible to draw/paint a representation of  Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), in any shape or form even if the intentions are good.
Such a course of action is not adviseable, as this would have a detrimental effect on your future travels abroad to the Islamic countries and then having to face charges in the country concerned, if they have the penalty law endorsed nationally. People of religion regardless of race or creed, are an undeniable part of the fabric of the global earth. Therefore, every consideration should be taken to respect their religious view. It is a different matter if the Pope in Rome, or the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish faith or even the grand Mufti of Al-Azhar in Cairo, give a verdict of permissibility, then the matter is within. This is the reason ‘freedom of expression’ is not considered a religious slogan, rather a secular view, which no doubt is in direct conflict with religious ideology. Today, we witness a terrible norm emerging of a quick way of becoming rich and famous, through the attacking of religion, and dare i say it, Islam is at the forefront, of course views vary.
As for the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him), removal of the Jewish community in Medina, such an interjection in history has absolutely no basis. On the contrary the Jewish and Christan communities were respected and their faiths were not attacked. There was absolutely no compulsion to convert to Islam. Rather,  the Jewish community was taken aback by Prophet Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) compassionate and charismatic character. People who wished to leave were free to go and were subject to no persecution whatsoever.

In every society there exist vigilante fractions, who try to hinder the well being of the community due to their own shortsightedness. And such people existed then and were dealt with, only after reasonable and practical options were given to them.  Therefore to suggest the contrary, is an Islamaphobic remark, reflecting an innate jealousy and hatred of Islam. One should avoid such baseless talk, that has no reality in any of the truthful pages of history.
One may choose to smear as much negativity and criticism he so wishes, believing that he is safe from the rath and anger of the angry people. Rather, the individual forgets that the Lords grip on the day of judgement is very tight indeed.
Thank you for your query and I hope I have provided some clarity. Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you require any further advise.
Kind Regards,
Mohammad Yazdani Raza (Misbahi)
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Steve Golay <@.com> wrote:

Good morning,What is the penalty for painting (oils on canvas) the image of the Prophet Muhammad?  This regards a series of works on the words and deeds of the Prophet.The central work concerns the story of the Prophet’s removal of the Jewish tribes from Medina, focusing on the revelatory nature of the event.

Thank you for your quick reply.

Stephen Golay
California

9/11/10: the Day After


GROUND BREAKING DAY

Poor Imam, Poor Daisy – they don’t understand how what’s sitting in California (at my place) will pull down their little Cordoba victory mosque.

* * *

Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan may not have broke ground yesterday for their Victory Mosque at Ground Zero.  But I did – broke ground, that is.

Opened the door.  Walked into my studio and did a bit of groundbreaking.  Not with shovel and dirt but with oils and brushes on canvas.

Broke ground on the epic painting, “The Genesis of 9/11: the Massacre of the Jews of Median by Muhammad.”  The central work of our project The Muhammad Paintings Project.

You lost, Imam.  Standing at the door of the Burlington Coat Factory, shovel-less, here I am (little old me) sketching, dabbing, brushing away.

Next year, on the Tenth Anniversary of the Great Muhammadan Horror over the skies of New York, I will be exhibiting “Genesis” – maybe down the block from Ground Zero – where will you be?

Still,  maybe you can assist.  I’m a bit stumped.

In composing the painting I was not going to show the Prophet’s face as he stands before a heaped up pile of beheaded Median Jews mingled with the JUMPERS of the Towers.

Now I think I will!

But help me out here.  Whose image should I use as a stand-in for Muhammad?  Need a working model.  Any suggestions? Dead or alive will do.

Toss me a passing note, Rauf.  Love to hear from you.  Now’s the time.  You or Daisy never did answer my earlier messages.

Had sent those emails via “AK”.  If “AK” never delivered them you need to pop him a tweet.  Sit him down and ask him what’s up!

Sincerely,

The Artist/ The Muhammad Paintings Collection

For God’s Sake, Please Question the Qur’an.

??? THE KORAN/QUR’AN ???

* * *

The Koran/Qur’an must be questioned.  It’s truth-telling time.  The Koran/Qur’an is not the word of God.  The book is incoherent, irrational, without logic.  Worse, the Koran/Qur’an does not tell a story worth telling, let alone dying for.  Nothing within speaks of that grandest of narratives – of a God who shows his face.

This essay by William Kilpatrick must be read:  “Questioning the Koran”, (FrontPage):

At the Guantanamo Naval Base prison, American military personnel are required to wear gloves when touching the Koran. It’s the perfect metaphor for our official culture’s obsequious behavior toward Islam. Terrorists the world over cite the Koran as the motivation and justification for their terrorist acts, yet journalists and government officials reflexively jump to the Koran’s defense whenever it seems to be implicated in terror. Instead of thinking, “Hmm, let’s take a closer look at that book,” they assure us, on no evidence, that the terrorists have misunderstood the Koran.

Considering that large chunks of the world are sliding into the Islamic camp, it may be time to take off the gloves. We don’t have the luxury any longer of living by pre-9/11 niceties such as “we must respect religious differences”—a formula which has come to mean that we mustn’t even look into them. On the contrary, you respect differences by taking them seriously. And if the Koran is the motive force behind Islam’s militancy then the Koran deserves serious examination, not perfunctory gestures of esteem.

“Why bring religion into it?” you may ask. Well, because religion is what it’s all about. Sincere Muslims believe that God wants the whole world to be subject to Islam. They’re free to believe that, of course, but it would be very much in the interest of non-Muslims if they stopped believing it. If an unbeliever refuses to submit to Islam, Allah requires that his head be separated from his body. In light of this, it seems only reasonable that unbelievers should start thinking of ways to separate Muslims from their faith. We have a—shall we say, vital—interest in encouraging Muslims to reflect critically upon the facts of their faith. We can help them to do this, not by telling them we have deep respect for their religion, but by telling them we have deep misgivings about it. (Read the whole essay.)

* * *

THIS SAYS IT ALL

“If what Puin and Rippin say is correct, then the consequences are again “devastating,” a fact recognized by R. Stephen Humphreys, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who argued, “To historicize the Koran would in effect delegitimize the whole historical experience of the Muslim community. The Koran is the charter for the community, the document that called it into existence. And ideally—though obviously not always in reality—Islamic history has been the effort to pursue and work out the commandments of the Koran in human life. If the Koran is a historical document, then the whole Islamic struggle of fourteen centuries is effectively meaningless.”   ( “Historical Methodology and the Believer”, Ibn Warraq. New English Review)

 

* * *

QUESTION:  Did the Qur’an murder Theo van Gogh?  Just mulling the thought out-loud here.  In answering it, think I’ll paint a picture. Add it to my Muhammad Paintings  Collection.

The Declaration

I DECLARE THE FOLLOWING.  I DO SO UNDER THE NATURAL LAW OF LIBERTY, THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH.  I SO ACT AND DECLARE:

* * *

  • That Islam is not an Abrahamic Religion.
  • That Islam is, in fact, a double heresy: Jewish and Christian.
  • That Allah is not the God of Jews and Christians.
  • That Allah’s oneness is not that of the God of Jews and Christians.  That Allah’s sovereignty, such as it is, is without grace.
  • That Allah does not participate in Being (Personhood).  Therefore ‘his’ character, such as it is, and ‘his’ will, such as it reveals, is arbitrary and totalitarian.  Allah’s does not give of ‘himself'; ‘he’ only dispenses law which, reflecting ‘his’ character, is also arbitrary and totalitarian.
  • That Allah seeks no intimacy, fellowship, with men and women – ‘he’ takes no joy in their prayers.  Allah only watches out for the doing of his will, to obedience to his arbitrary and totalitarian law.
  • That much about Muhammad’s life is legendary:  the sources cited for his words and deeds are late and, in addition, have been corrupted over time.  Muhammad is, based on critical/historical/source analysis, a constructed figure.
  • That the Archangel Gabriel did not reveal to Muhammad.  Impossible as an event within history; impossible theologically.  Any claim to authentic divine communication is both unprovable and internally contradictory.
  • That the Quran is a corrupted text; that its “Mecca” portions, for instance, are pre-Islamic, located in oral and/or written  Jewish, Christian and pagan sources.
  • That Jew-Hatred is integral to Islam’s self-understanding, to its theology, its history, and its ways and means of building the Ummah (the grand collective).  Without Jew-hatred Islam looses its place within the world and ceases to be a force in history.
  • That the Quran must be subjected, as all literature, to the canons of critical/textual/historical analysis.
  • That Islam does not acknowledge separate “spheres of sovereignty”, especially that between the religion and the state; that, under Islam, the state is subservient to the religion.  Therefore, Islam, as a movement in history and within societies, tends towards totalitarianism, towards the subjection of every aspect of society, of all individuals (in their persons, property, and relations) to the will of the religion.  That the female sex must always be subjected.  That non-Muslims must always be subjected.  That lands and peoples not subjected must be pressed into submission by all acts of Jihad
  • That if Islam, as a political religion, does not aggressively subject societies and individuals – in short, to do Jihad – the religion has failed and stands condemned before Allah.

* * *

AS A FREE PERSON UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, I ASK:

  • Should the above Declaration, its contents and act, be criminalized?
  • Should all public statements about Islam be in conformity with Islam’s own self-definition?  Should all books, commentary, and images regarding Islam be first approved by an Islamic authority?
  • Should all laws (Constitutional and administrative) first pass an “Islam Test”?
  • Should the author of the above Declaration be compelled by law to make a public apology and issue a capitulating statement that he will not hold in mind and heart a belief that it is contrary to Islam?
  • In short, should Islam’s doctrines, and the testimony of its Jihadist gains throughout history, subject and override the Constitution of the United States?

Open Letter to the law firm filing suit aginst the publisher of the Danish Muhammad Cartoons

Motivation for writing the letter below came from reading (with some trembling) this article by Bruce Walker.  It is worth your time and pondering:  “Democracy and Freedom”, Bruce Walker (American Thinker)

Postings regarding the suit:

“Defamation Case . . .” (Atlas Shrugs)

“Defamation Case . . . “ (Vlad Tepes)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE SUIT AGAINST THE PUBLISHER OF THE DANISH MUHAMMAD CARTOONS

Dear Faisal Yamani, Esq.

I will be following your suit against the publisher of those Danish Cartoons with interest.  Will do so with care and much thought.

I am writing from protest, to express my support for the publisher of the Muhammad Cartoons and the artists, especially Kurt Westergaard.  In short, I am, by this letter, throwing my hat into the resounding ring of Liberty.

Any collective (maybe especially Islam’s own ummah) falls under God’s judgment if it denies and tramples upon the sovereignty of the human person.   The personhood of an individual is defined and secured, not by his participation in any political or religious collective (which is secondary, if that), but by his standing upon his Original Solitude before God from which he was created.

Hence the gift of Liberty.

Your suit against the artists and publisher of the Danish Muhammad Cartoons disregards this foundational truth of human personhood.  It rebels against God’s original covenant with man.

Any human fellowship worth the nod must take this as its foundation and starting point.  Any collective, any community, any nation-state, receives its nature and justification from the consent of the human person.  When such seeks to usurp that prior and greater sovereignty it does the work of Satan.

That is the lesson of Eden: God walking in the cool of the evening with our first parents – not the collective, not no ummah!

The publisher of the Danish Cartoons, and the artists, did God’s work in trumpeting the sovereignty of the human person over the collective will with its whoring after tyranny and crushing totalitarian oneness.  In their evening walk with God, both publisher and artist heard their calling to defend the primacy of the human person against the collective with its sneaking, snaking threat to hack a stony byway through the arid desert of submission.  The collective knows nothing outside the wreckage of its demand of crushing submission; it knows no liberality, no joy.  The human person is fodder to its totalitarian ways and means.  In its arrogance, the collective takes a try at God, pouncing on the goodness of his grace, shackling his easy-going evening strolls, bottling up the liberality of his conversation with lost coins and sheep.  These past 1400 years, has Islam’s ummah been such a collective?

In answering this question there was much work to be done with pen and ink.

In fact, I have my own questions.

I, too, am an artist.  Can’t help but take a serious look-about at your attack against the publisher of the Danish Cartoons.  Will the outcome, or, simply, the very act and process of a suit, forestall or modify what’s sitting in my own studio?

Here I am all pumped up and rearing to go with my own series,  “The Muhammad Paintings Collection”: a collection of seven major works with their sketches and drawings.

Living off the fat of American Liberty, will (or should) the proceedings in London forestall or dampen this project of mine?

The central piece is titled, “The Genesis of 9/11: the massacre of the Jews of Medina by Muhammad”.

This work is a painterly investigation into the tap root that, volcano like, spewed such horror into that sparkling bright Tuesday September morning.  In locating the perfect image for that day (and, therefore, my painting) I’ve settled upon the linkage between it (that is, 9/11) and Muhammad’s attack against the Jews of Medina.  His words and deeds on that other fateful day spawned its evil imitation in New York City.

The fit is perfect in all ways: in its politics, historical continuity, in its theology.  9/11 was in no way the missionary act of Muslims, but it was a missionary spawn of Muhammad’s Median words and deeds.  At Medina Muhammad fine-tuned and tidied-up Islam’s political theology.

So what did happen in Medina, and how is it the mother of 9/11?  That is the pivotal image that aches for the copulating craft of oil and canvas.

This is the thought that crouched in my mind on that eventful September morning.  Though crouching raw and impressionistic I trusted its instinct.  The thought needed investigation, the image its evacuation.

Of all the events in the Prophet Muhammad’s career, Medina settled, for all time, Islam’s theology and, above all, its political ideology.  To dismiss the historical and theological linkage between 9/11 and Medina is to diminish Islam’s fundamental convictions and character.

The result of all that investigation and evacuation?

It came down to the who and what of the Prophet Muhammad, to that man’s very words and deeds.  And through him, since we have no other source, to the words and deeds of Allah himself (if such a god who refuses to show his face can speak and act).  It came down to locating the outcome (theological, political, cultural) of Islam’s temptation to match its political, cultural totalitarian oneness with Allah’s.  It came down to Islam’s warring fear against the sovereignty of the individual human person:  mine, yours, our neighbor’s down the street, all standing upon their Original Solitude before God.  (The phrase belongs to Pope John Paul ll.)

It is that standing, mankind’s Original Solitude, which matters, for it is the origin of each person’s being.  It is the foundation and fountain of his dignity.  It is the scooped out place of his liberty as an individual man or woman.  It is why God made Adam and Eve before any devilish busybody could cobble together notions of collectives and ummahs.

God’s particular affection crosses men and women here, not within the strangling crucible of collectives and ummahs.  This paradox is paramount:  the sovereignty of lost coins and sheep settling dearer to God’s heart than collectives and ummahs; of God laying down his own sovereignty as he picks up humility; the building of true human fellowship upon the foundation of the sovereignty of human personhood and the humility of a laying aside God.  Within this intersection Liberty is both a gift and a stewardship.  Regarding such Liberty, no totalitarian collective or ummah possesses the right to define or has the authority to pull asunder.

How do we know this?

We know because God has buried a hard truth within the heart of that paradox – his particular affection for Israel, his election of the Jew.  Here, in his midst of his Chosen People God scooped out Liberty’s greatest, most fruitful habitat.  Here, in Israel’s heart, God deep rooted his particular affection to bloom into a universal canopy.  We know God loves Tom, Dick, and Harry – Debbie, Mary, and Alice – because he chose Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.  Nineveh was saved because Israel the Jew carried the message.

[How the Christian falls into and under Israel’s election is another conversation.  For now we shall simply confess, with St Paul, that “salvation is of the Jews” – even in Arabia.]

So, i the midst of Arabia God had planted his particular affection for all to see – he settled the Jew in Medina.  Muhammad saw this but rebelled against God’s universal witness of himself in the singularity of his election of Israel.  Muhammad refused to read the great sign of Liberty.

Muhammad refused the knowing that the Danes knew.

Any human fellowship or community worth man’s care and participation begins here, with God’s particular affection, with his own choosing, with his own settling habitat in the midst of his people.  God gives first his particular affection so the nations of the earth be blessed.  The universal in servitude to the particular, the nations in service to Israel..  All this images Genesis, the creation of mankind – when Adam and Eve stood within their Original Solitude before God – and no other.

Muhammad erred in enthroning on earth God’s Oneness (imitating here what cannot, should not be duplicated in this world’s politics and culture).  God has laid aside the prerogatives of his Oneness for the riotous delight of creation’s multiplicities.  At the heart of creation God placed creation’s crown – the human person.  No collective, no ummah can dethrone what God stood up as the delight of his eye and the love of his heart.  God scooped out a Garden of Liberty for his walks with man in the evening coolness.  Why would anyone, except Lucifer, wish for something other, or more.  Is it not enough that God showed his face?  He has such an easy look about him.  Why insist that God straddle that Garden Path armored up on a stead snorting the smoke of tyranny, stomping all under its leaden hoof?

Muhammad erred in assuming that what God wanted, on earth, was a hard, brittle, cruel, faltering, insulting replication of his Oneness – an interior unity no man has seen.

The Jyllands-Postem and Kurt Westergaard are guilty of no offense before God or man.  They simply took up residence in the Garden of Liberty, did what comes by nature to those who know their dignity, their worth, their standing upon their Original Solitude.  Such is their by grace and right.  No collective, no ummah, no community organizer, can damn what God called good.

Noone, no political machinations of state or religion, can dethrone the human person of his sovereignty.  Each man or woman standing within his Original Solitude comes first, has priority over any standing before and with others – certainly before the collective, compulsive power of state or religion.  In point of fact, any fellowship or community of men begins here.  The individual’s Original Solitude is the guarantor of the gifts of fellowship.  Mankind’s founding upon his Original Solitude is his crowning – one the collective cannot offer, nor dare snatch away.  History shows us that Collective Man wears crowns poorly.  This includes any assumed collective power of political Islam.

As for myself, I come to this.

After nine years of careful thought and directed prayer, it is time to express the raw thoughts of that fateful day – to witness to the truth of the Falling Towers.  Since I do poorly with words, oils on canvass will do.

At this stage the paintings are sketches and drawings.  Frankly, much of the collection sits as images and notions in my head, waiting for their incarnation in paint and canvas.

As I stated, it will be interesting, watching your ordeal in London, to see what happens to those images and thoughts of mine.  Will London call judgment upon my calling as an artist  – even here in California?

Nothing should happen!  There should be no fallout, no modification, no termination of my own calling and duty.

I am an American sitting and working under the protection of the Constitution of the United States –  history’s ‘almost’ most glorious human fellowship.

Why the glory?  Because America was founded upon the covenant of mankind’s Original Solitude.  America got governance right!

Like ancient Israel, America understood that, with both God and man, the Particular comes first; that outside and without the grounding of the Particular  the Universal falls into tyranny, Oneness into crushing totalitarianism.

In view of your attack in London,  upon Liberty, what action should I take?  No problem.  No question.  I will continue the work I began.  I will do what God does, place his affection upon the Particular, and damn the Universal.  I will simply proceed with the work at my easel, as you beaver away in London.

Exhausting work for the both of us – but, in the mind, I think you who wins.  For God has already tossed the wreath of victory on what he has already crowned – the personhood of man and woman.  It will set that has my prize.

Good-by.  Good luck.  We already know God’s will.

In time I will be planning exhibitions.  Should I come to London to exhibit my collection I’d be happy to give you a private viewing.  Afterward we could have a nice chat over coffee.

Cordially,

Stephen Golay
California

_________________________________________________________________

Remarks are encouraged in the interest of free speech. Comments are not moderated, but comments that are “off-topic” and “slanderous” will be removed. Replies and comments that are posted DO NOT imply endorsement by the creator and owner of this site, the site’s provider, or the author of its Posts or Pages. Likewise, linkage to other sources do not imply endorsement of those sources,nor do those linkages imply endorsement of those sources to the content of this site.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.