Da Nile
There often things you hear that, while you’d love to think that they’re true, you don’t allow yourself the luxury of believing. Sometimes they’re plain silly, and sometimes it’s uphill in a politically correct sense. But sometimes events follow such an interesting and distinct course that those apparent frivolities return to your mind and coalesce. And when they do, they’re not so silly any longer.
Let’s begin here (where we will return later)
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them
and this is key:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
OK, now on to the list:
1/21/2009
The president, a Christian whose father was a Muslim, deflected an urban legend during the campaign that he too was a Muslim.
1/18/2009
Obama will be sworn in as president with his full Muslim-sounding name of Barack Hussein Obama, in keeping with White House tradition.
1/27/2009
Obama reaches out to Muslim world on TV
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gave his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network, saying that when it comes to Middle East matters “all too often the United States starts by dictating.”
June 2, 2009
Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said.
June 4, 2009
Obama in Egypt reaches out to Muslim world…
At Egypt’s Cairo University, Obama quoted from the Quran as he expounded on Islam’s glories and rights, the legitimate rights of Israel and the Palestinians, Iranian nuclear aspirations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, women’s rights, economic development, and religious rights and democracy in the Muslim world.
Obama seeks ‘new beginning’ in Muslim world
CAIRO — Invoking the Quran and his rarely used middle name, Barack Hussein Obama declared Thursday that America has a common cause with Islam
August 4, 2009
Obama Administration Reaches Out to Muslims Worldwide
Washington — President Obama has said he seeks a new beginning with Muslims worldwide “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect” and also “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”
Novermber 17, 2009
Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts
U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.
Aril 15, 2010
Obama administration reaches out to Muslims
* The Obama administration is revising national security guidelines that strip references to “Islamic radicalism” and other terms deemed inflammatory to Muslims.
* Officials reversed three-month-old guidelines that singled out passengers on flights arriving from 13 Muslim countries, and Cuba, for mandatory screening.
* Controversial scholar Tariq Ramadan entered the U.S. for the first time in six years after being barred by the Bush administration.
* The Obama administration has dispatched American Nobel Prize winners to advise Muslim scientists, economists and other professionals on how to improve their research and better manage their institutions.
* At the end of this month, the U.S. government will host some 500 mainly Muslim business people for intensive seminars on entrepreneurship.
April 18, 2010
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.
Then finally, this- July 2, 2010
Obama tasks NASA with new mission- making Muslim nations feel good
When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
During the Presidential campaign both the White House and the press promptly attacked anyone who even hinted of Barack Obama’s Muslim background.
Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
Anyone daring to question The One got it:
One year ago in June 2008, Floyd produced a television ad which asked the simple question, “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?” The Obama campaign came unglued. It earned Floyd prominent placement on a special Obama Web site called “Fight the Smears.”
The news media jumped on the bandwagon. Newsweek reported: “Barack Obama has never been Muslim and never practiced Islam. But rumors about his religion intended to frighten some voters persist, and they mostly return to one point of fact: his name.” The Boston Globe wrote: “Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. His Kenyan paternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim, but he attended secular and Catholic schools and was never a practicing Muslim.”
The attacks on Floyd grew personal; Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, all but called Floyd a racist, saying, “This guy hides under a rock every couple generations, shows up again with another ad against a black candidate.” (There never was a black nominee to do ads against before Obama, but facts are not important to Matthews.) Obama even blamed Floyd for breaking his pledge to use public financing for his campaign saying, “527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we’ve seen them — there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown I think where it took a speech that I had made extolling faith and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation.”
But once Obama was elected, his Muslim background took the stage:
In Cairo, Egypt in his highly anticipated speech to the Muslim world Barack Obama quoted the Quran as commanding, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” He then said he shared that conviction, as “rooted in my own experience.”
So now we return to where we started:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
The Presidential election of 2008 would likely have had a very different result had Obama extolled his Muslim background. It would have been interesting had Obama promised he would bend over backwards for Muslim countries. You want to dismiss the “stealth” aspect of all of this except for the most recent event. That was the clincher. The retasking of a Federal agency for the purpose of massaging the self-esteem of Muslim nations is dramatic. Krauthammer called it “childish” but it’s worse than that. It’s as though all of the worst fears are coming to pass.
The masthead of the agency says:
NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
But not any longer. Now the NASA mission is to “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
Would Obama have been elected had he been honest and told Americans that he planned to shut down the manned space program and use its budget to make Muslim countries feel good? Would he have been elected had he told America that it could be considered to be a “Muslim” nation? Would he have been elected had he promised that he planned to install “devout Muslims” in high level national security positions ?
I think not. I think this country elected the most dishonest man ever to sit in the White House. Of course they will be those who dismiss this opinion. But who among them would have told you that Obama would turn NASA into a Muslim nation nurture center? What’s next? Will Obama order the Department of Education to focus only on the importance of Muslim nations? Really-how far away is that possibility?
Cloward-Piven isn’t looking so far-fetched either.
Da Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Bees
Just another example of political correctness run wild!
suek: hi, thank you,bye 🙄
DID I read sometimes ago, there was a big community of muslims in that STATE, and if they favor them over CHRISTIANS : THAT means, it’s getting real bad, 2 person in GOVERMENT disallowed a representant of THE LORD JESUS ,BELOVED SON OF GOD , being shy away from prayer.
TORY: hi, YOU have to understand something very important,: THIS subject is as hot as fire itself
and many of us get burned at it’s point of view: MATA is the excellent MODERATER as also AUTHOR and we all respect her and her profound knowledce of the LAW, in every shape or form:
I agree that winning with the law is whithout EMOTIONS, but with legals raws arguments
and SHE is the only one I know who can bring legals truths to any problems;
and her clients must be saving a lot of money, because SHE does’nt pretend , or delay, no,
SHE goes right to the point, and we all like her as with MATA we know where we stand on issues she want to tackle, no hidden agenda. bye 🙄
Mata, you are sadly intent in distorting what I am saying, and I must wonder you are expending so much energy in evading, twisting, and distorting? Would your point not be more credibly and expediently made through some reliance on facts, instead of the tired reliance on mischaracterizations? Thus far, you have established through fiat, apparently, that I am a whiny member of a childishly Islamophobic self-righteous herd, with the only rationale for that being that you said so. So—POOF!!—it is so. I went through that stage with my kids and I am rather unmoved by it now. Sorry, you can continue to use words and descriptors like that, which have all the argumentative firepower of a mushy, overcooked noodle, and continue to assert that you can spell words like “clueless”, etc., in lieu of real argument. The zoning laws are immaterial in the sense that the bigger issue is in smacking down the building through challenging that mosque’s classification as a religious institution. Islam, again, is not like any other “religion”; the Koran is a political coda with little to nothing to recommend it in the form of spirituality. The imams function as political figures; think of them as mayors or burgomasters of their little outposts. So, now, we’re not quite talking inequal application of the law as it relates to religious structures. Nuances.
““Islamification” is not defined by allowing mosques to be built”‘. You are the only one, to my observation, that has struggled to manipulate the entire definition into that one small sentence, before, again solely by fiat, asserting what the real and immovable definition is. What was that word you asked if I could spell? Just sayin’…but you are quite correct to that small extent; building mosques is but the most obvious physical manifestation of Islamification, and mention of mosques was made in deference to your request to show examples of Islamification. You, after making that request then rather inexplicably and virulently dismissed all of the more subtle myriad increments through which Islamification is encroaching in America, and the even more culturally devastating ways in which it has already established itself in Europe. Be careful with all that twisting, you could pull a ligament. Seems to me your self-espoused and repetitiously touted devotion to objectivity and the rule of law is precipitating a rather oddly out-of-place tone of petulance that belies pure objectivity. Would you be averse to practicing a bit of introspection to understand why you are torturing logic and law in order to justify what many—most??—Americans recognize viscerally, if not intellectually, as a Trojan horse that would be better left outside the gates of Vienna?
Islamophobia? Or is it that what I—and so many others— know about the structure of Islam exceeds the parameters of political correctness?
And, dear…I’m not a “bubba”, whatever that is, as you neglected to define that for the clue deficient herd. Bubbette, perhaps? I forgive you though, because “Tory” is one of those troublesomely androgynous names…but I’m a chick.
A phobia is an irrational fear, and thus Islamophobia is an irrational far of Isalm. There is nothing irrational about fearing Isalm since we know that its fundamental tenets include world domination. Islamorejection is a much more useful term, connoting the fact that we reject Islam, we reject what it stand for, we reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation, and we insist on the removal of all Muslims from our nation as a simple security measure for the country. Islam is every bit a political movement masquerading as a religion. It is more dangerous than communism.
It seems clear that Obama is working to bring Islam to the US in many of the things that he has done. His refusal to allow a proper investigation into the shootings at Fort Hood show him covering for a fellow Muslim. His insistence on refusing to call the war on terror Islamic terrorism is another example. When you refuse to call something by its proper name, you cannot possible deal properly with it. His insistence on absurd Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and the idea of a medal for Courageous Restraint show an utterly absurd approach to prosecuting that war, one that is intent on giving the war to the Muslim terrorists with a total disregard for Christian lives lost. His even mentioning social welfare work for the Muslim world in his charge to NASA is absolutely inappropriate. NASA is supposed to be a science and technology agency, not assigned to pamper any ethnic or religious group and to make any such assignment was absolutely beyond the pale.
Only the willfully blind will insist that Obama is not trying to accommodate the Muslims at every opportunity.
So did communism. So does the progressive critter that walks the halls of our Congress. However our “rejecting it’s right to exist within our nation” is contrary to everything the founding fathers stood for, short of a treasonous act, or reason for legal deportation as adjudicated in our courts.
So I suggest you take another gander at our Constitution.
Tory, you’re yet another embarrassment to our Constitutional principles… i.e. “…Islam, again, is not like any other “religion”. I’m sorry but who died and made you a founding father… er mother? Ergo, what gives you the right to alter “freedom of religion” into “freedom of religion, except Islam”. Your emotional arguments are the reason I have a lot of male friends who insist the downfall of the Republic was when they gave the vote to women. The mosque – the prayer room part – as part of the cultural center is not circumventing the law anymore than a church who has an attached rec room or private school. If the zoning permits that activity, it’s permitted. Simple as that. The only federal repercussions is what percentage of their reported income may, or may not, be considered tax exempt.
You guys are a real hoot. You’re willing to tear our Constitition to shreds if it doesn’t allow you to set up a different set of laws and standards for Muslims. And you call yourselves educated or conservative?
TORY: hi, YOU are so well written, and as the time bring all clooser to the fall season, it will be harder to contain the passion and the exaltation that many will feel more and more, and
we will be encline to debate what we see wrong doing, and there is always diffrent views on it
depending on many factors playing in it; i think it’s totaly normal to happen too, : i like to read your comments also, hope you keep it going. bye 🙄
Mata, think about what you just wrote…”but our rule of law is everyone’s rules in this country.” Yep, but first extricate yourself from the fixation on local zoning ordinances, which are, BTW, highly malleable and mutable in many communities. Variances, anyone? More power to the marvelous Pam Geller for sticking her neck out to challenge this architectural middle finger to American sentiment. However, you’re not breaking any news to me, nor would there be any need to; you rather laboriously took my statement out of its context, in which I explicitly wrote “LOCAL building regulations”. In view of that, what would lead you to suggest that I somehow believe the aforementioned regulations are Federal directives? Perhaps you missed that while mentally compiling that list-of-things-to-call-people-whose-viewpoints-can’t-be-beaten-into-submission-through-churlish-invective?
Furthermore, again explicitly, I qualified my use of the term “immaterial” with “almost”; significant nuance there because it ackowledges that the laws are there on the books. But, neglecting that qualifier—again—completely changes the meaning of my statement.
Links? Pertaining to what? They can be of dubious value, don’t you think? For instance, you listed several links previously that were rather conspicuously devoid of the entire realm of facts; for example, the story regarding the Boston mosque failed to elaborate on the documented association with Hamas and the American arms of the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist organizations, dontcha know. Rather a critical laxity of objectivity. I also feel rather confident that any substantiating sources will be the impetus of yet another round of Tourette-like “Islamophobe!”
Speaking of which…do you feel confident enough in your knowledge of Islam to continue with predictable repetition to mischaracterize all criticism as “phobic”? What do you know of Shariah? Is it inextricable from any school of Islamic practice? What do you know of the critical concept of abrogation in undersanding the Quran? What strictly spiritual practices characterize Islam? What do you know of the Islamic symbolism in the location of its mosques? I’ve asked this one before, however since it went entirely ignored, it merits being asked again…what is the political significance of Cordoba in Islam, and specifically to the proposed NYC structure? Would you continue to be comfortable in your amusement with “unmitigated ignorance”? This is one of those pot-meet-kettle moments, I believe.
And dear me, I’m not a “bubba”, whatever that is. A “bubbette” maybe…I’m a chick.
@ Mata #70
I am pretty familiar with the Constitution, but thank you for your concern.
I still think it is proper to reject the right of Islam to exist in the US because Muslims are, a priori, disloyal to the USA. They are, by definition, traitors, and have no place in American society.
Any group that openly espouses world domination is clearly not loyal to the USA because the USA has never, ever been about world domination. Admittedly there are others who are disloyal to the US who are not nearly so obvious about it, but to make such a clear statement that you belong to a group that has world domination as its goal makes you clearly disloyal to the US.
You might say, “but they are willing to swear loyalty oaths, such as when they join the US military” (I suppose they do), but we know that lying is a standard part of Islam. The sworn word of a Muslim is absolutely worthless, as taught by their own scriptures.
It is for this reason that I say that they have no place in the USA. Their loyalty is not with us.
Your are too kind, Bee!
Mata, you in all seriousness believe that communism is compatible with the wishes of the founding fathers? The rejection of totalitarianism in all its forms was the precise catalyst for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights. You’d be well served to take more than a mere gander at any of the founding documents. It may be bizarrely entertaining to play fast and loose with the facts of our history, but it is sadly ruinous to credibility.
As to who died and made me a “founding father/mother”, I’m rather too young to have inherited that mantle from the originals, but since you rather paradoxically assume that apparently divine and exclusive knowledge of their intentions, one might quite logically ask that question of you, mightn’t they?
I haven’t altered the definition of religion in relation to Islam; it is Islam that does not fulfill the definition of religion. Carelessly parse my words and statements to your heart’s content; happily, that has no effect on my statements. You have constructed a bit of incorrigible dichotomy here, though; you feel free to rather groundlessly rebuke me for “emotional arguments”—a delightfully charming phrase to cover your seeming displeasure with pesky facts—, while embracing some unabashedly emotional rhetoric to rebuke me.
Is there some reason why you are leaning over so spectacularly backwards to justify giving traction to Islamification here? Your male friends’ perception of women is embarrassingly misogynistic; in fact, rather in sync with the more deplorable aspects of Islam that we’ve been discussing. But women do have the vote and that’s the rule of law, in spite of their reticence about equality. right?
Tory, really you must slow down in your speed reading. Talk about careless parsing. So far everything you accuse me of is the image of your commentary. I didn’t say communism was compatible with the founding fathers. DrD said that it’s “proper” to “reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation…”
My response to DrD was that communism also sought to overthrow our nation. We did not do, as DrD suggest not so subtlely we do, “..insist on the removal of all Muslims from our nation as a simple security measure for the country.”
BTW, DrD, the definition of “phobia” is not exclusive to “irrational”. You will find it also relates in grammar to both “illogical” and “exaggerated”…. both of which is in serious high gear here.
Mata, you think then that concern about Islam is illogical and exaggerated? Have you checked to see what is happening in Sweden, the UK, France, and elsewhere in Europe? They are well on the way to being totally overrun with Muslims.
One of the things that has been observed repeatedly is that when the number of Muslims is small, they work within the legal structures of the host society and demand their “rights.” When they reach approximately 5 to 6% of the total population, they begin to demand special rights, total control of certain geographic areas that they now claim, etc. The just expands and expands. This process is well underway across Europe. Their understanding is that once they acquire a piece of land, even the lot for a house, it belongs to Islam for all eternity and can never be returned to the rest of America. They will begin to demand that ordinary Americans be excluded from their areas, that the police not enter their areas, that no dogs be allowed in their streets, etc. And then they will demand sharia courts, ostensibly just for their own people, but that too will enlarge and grow.
There is nothing at all illogical or exaggerated about extreme concern over Islam. If you have not been following what is happening in Europe, I recommend that you read Gates of Vienna blog for a good start.
DrD, you are preaching to the choir. My old Sea2Sea blog archives back since before 911, as well as lots of my old stuff here in FA in the past couple of years is filled with the dangers of Muslim populations not assimilating. Why it is you have to ignore my protests to your argument? They have nothing to do with my own feelings about Islam. But they have everything to do with *your* feelings about Islam and the Constitution.
Let me be as clear about this as I can for the final time, and then I’ll leave you and Tory together to figure out a way to expel all Muslims and mosques together, okay?
1: Yes, I find the 911 mosque location choice tasteless
2: No, I don’t believe the increasing trend to want to ban mosques is American in principle
3: No, I do not support creating one law for Muslims and another law for the rest
4: I don’t like Islam as a personal choice. I don’t respect the religion as a personal choice. But I’ll be damned if I shred the Constitution because of those reasons. Equal application of law, freedom of religion… you know, all that stuff.
5: And yes, I think your kneejerk reaction toward all Muslims because of your fear/ “concern” are illogical/exaggerated …. whatever – take your pick. It is also contrary to everything the founders intended in allowing the freedom of religion… including those you don’t like.
Tory… sigh… You’re not getting any better at this, girl
You use lots of big words and construct pretty little sentences. Too bad they are jam packed with half truths and complete miscomprehensive about most everything about zoning. Variances, my dear, are a government waiver granted to allow something not currently allowed by the zoning regulations. They are usually done to avoid a soft eminent domain type result for the property owner… i.e. a regulatory taking. So you now want a variance to reverse what IS legally allowed.
Brilliant.
Secondly, I did not overlook, miss or ignore your “almost immaterial”. Laws are not “almost immaterial”. Not unless you are a member of a jury, and decide to practice jury nullification. It’s not a “well yeah, that’s the law, but I don’t like it so it’s not important” moment. Rule of law is *always* relevant.
Speaking of devoid, where are your facts? Were those “associations” a documented trail of money, which would be illegal? Or was it they knew someone? Perhaps the Boston article left out what you say because those associations were “immaterial” since they did not constitute any illegal activity. Well, how about we kick out Obama because we know he associates with Louis Farrakan, Jones and Wright? That’s an “association”.
Look, you’re a newbie here, kid. My suggestion is that you do some digging around in archives and you’ll find ample criticism, and information imparted by me on the global Islamic jihad movement for at least a decade. The difference between you and I is I reserve my harsh criticism for the global Islamic Jihad movement. You blanket yours across anyone of that religion. I know the difference. You don’t want to see any difference.
I don’t need lectures from a self enamored new commenter who doesn’t bother to even get to know the community and their individuals by reading some prior comments. And in my case, it’s even easier since there’s an entire author archive at your fingertips here… and elsewhere.
[Well hey, I disagree too but I’m just a newbie. 😉 I’ve been an FA fan for a long time, but am neither a seasoned political scholar nor a frequent FA contributor. So there’s my disclaimer. 🙂 ]
I don’t think that I’m an ‘Islamaphobe’ but I do see many problems with catering to this ‘religion’. As has already been pointed out, there are several Islamic beliefs that dictate legal and political action more than religious perspective. Those mandates make it difficult for me to accept it as a true religion. It is my understanding that many scholars of Islam agree that Shariah violates the entire principle of the religion. But just as many (if not more) feel that Shariah is crucial to the practice. When we offer our refuge and religious tolerance to Muslims, which school of thought are we fostering?
If the argument here is for the same law to be applied equally to all parties, then wouldn’t the practice of Shariah law be a direct violation of that concept? I don’t feel an obligation to foster a religion that believes it has a duty to ignore and/or contradict our laws. When it comes to certain interpretations of Islam, I feel that what I am expected to offer is not religious freedom and tolerance, but freedom of rebellion against the founding ideals of this country.
I understand the difference between Islam and extremist Jihad concepts. What I fail to see at the present time is how we are to distinguish one from the other, at least at the onset. How do we know which ‘cultural centers’ are merely gathering to worship in a common faith, and which are political indoctrinations to violence and treason? I feel like two very different ideas can be readily disguised as a different book with the same cover, and yes, that scares me. I understand that there are fringes of every faith, but I am not familiar with one that so clearly advocates violence and domination or poses such a threat to the country we hold so dear. I also don’t understand why followers of a peaceful and just religion would allow themselves to be associated with some of the other interpretations of Islam and that troubles me. I don’t feel that there’s a way to accommodate the peaceful Muslims without facilitating the violent believers.
The discrepancies between the the prevailing schools of Islam are huge. The fact that these variations exist, that is often hard to distinguish one from the other, and the threat that the more militant interpretations pose is enough for me to fear it. I suppose if the question of Islam in the US will leave me tossing and turning at night, I would rather be wrestling with a crisis of Constitution and conscience than one of the safety of my children and my country. Personally, I see it not as a phobia, but an intense drive to protect what I love.
RICH WHEELER: LONG TIME NO SEE: I absolutly reject thoses words coming from you being from the LEFT, which are “FAR RIGHT FRENZY” specialy on this POST, which bring the rightfully concerns of very well read peoples, who are
respected for their views; you call them “FAR RIGHT” okay for your decision to conclude it:
BUT THE perception they have is real to them and many more, their sense of protection for their own family is there specialy for their children who need their guidances even more when they are
left with a crowd in school or universite where some are breeding hate and element of propagande to educate young minds fragile and observing those with a judgement not yet ready to deal with it. SO, yes the FAR RIGHT play an important role in being the eyes of the common people, going to their every day routine of their life be it insignificantly doing nothing or
too busy to think outside of their every day scedule.
MATA: hi, LET me sayTHIS: YOU are like a LIGHTNING ROD, to keep almost all the posters in
check to prevent us to go beyong what the law would be applicable for what is said, wished,
and sugjested, and envisionned, by us: I have to say, here on this POST, it is a huge position you
put yourself in, as a MODERATOR, and AUTHOR, as we make it hard for you to not reveal your own emotions, but to stick with the LAW in your responses: I and many at THIS blog FA,
are APPRECIATIVE of thoses efforts to keep us UNIFIED, as WE will need to be, IF we want to change the wrong we see, in NOVEMBER. that is the END to ACHIVE VICTORY.
Mata, your view of the Constitution seems to be that it is a suicide pact, one in which we must continue to remain blindfolded until our enemies kill us. That is not what our founders intended at all. It is not a suicide pact.
I don’t wish to shred the Constitution either, so stop the false accusations. That is simply in the category of name calling. I want to see our republic preserved in the face of an enemy that does not play by our rules in any sense of the word at all. Specifically, (1) he calls a political agenda a religion, and (2) he makes lying and deception a virtue.
Neither of these things were considered by the founding fathers of this country who were honorable men and would never have given a thought to doing either of those things. They were completely out of the realm of possibility, so they did not make any attempt to provide for them. Today, we must take the Constitution that they wrote in the 18th century and make it work in the face of a new, different situation. We can, but we cannot do so if we are blind.
Mata, please respond to what I have said with out the name calling, without the personal insults such as “kneejerk” etc. I am surprised to hear such disgraceful comments from you; I would have expected you to stay on the topic and refrain from the personal attacks.
@Dr.D:
Or perhaps need glasses so we don’t “kill” those who aren’t our enemies.
So, is Islam itself the enemy, Dr. D?
This is wonderful! Let’s just update these signs, shall we:
I’m sure these fine, patriotic Americans also felt they were doing right by this nation. Saw nothing at all damaging that conflicted with our values and Constitution.
I recall in the earlier “Grand Mosque” argument threads, some of y’all (Hey, Mike! Care to weigh back in?) driving the Pearl Harbor-Shinto shrine (re: “Flawed”) analogy.
@Wordsmith said : “Hey, Mike! Care to weigh back in?) driving the Pearl Harbor-Shinto shrine (re: “Flawed”) analogy.”
I don’t really care to weigh in.
Your flawed straw man Islamophobia argument, which you now take to new heights with old photos about the Japs, is so deeply discredited it’s not worth mentioning.
But I see you are busy digging the hole deeper without any help from me.
Well, at least sanity continues to reign in some corners at F.A.
How very disappointing to find this level of immaturity at FA. I have come to think that I would find better, more constructive thought here, rather than simple one-upsmanship, but that seems to have fallen apart here. There is no interest in addressing the problem, only in mocking the speaker.
There is no point to continuing the discussion. Good bye.
The Constitution ought to be interpreted in such a way as to keep the country going. That was surely the intent of the founding fathers; not to either make scrupulous literal interpretations that end up being self defeating, nor to be totally ditched every time new conditions arise. In other words, retain balance and individual freedoms as a principle, and the details of accomplishment can be modified. Considering the difference in the world since it was written, it’s doing quite well.
But not as well as the Bible and its transcendent motifs of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, which apply to both Judaism and Christianity, and are implicit in Buddhism, Confucianism and other religions. How about Islam? It is a mass of contradictions because of its basic schism of authority and because opinions contradictory to the Ten Commandments/Golden Rule are allowed to have equal weight. For instance: Thou shalt not bear false witness. (no lying, period) vs. the principle of Taqqiya: It is not only good but required to lie if you think you are being threatened about religion. Once lying is allowed for any reason, there can never be full trust. Likewise, Thou shalt not kill. (period) vs. Kill all those who do not believe in a certain way(which contradicts another semi rule, only God gets to judge who are the true believers).
When all (or at least 80%) of Islam rejects everything in their canon that contradicts the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, I will trust them. Until then, the whole edifice is enabled to do the work of the Devil equally as the work of God, and it can’t be otherwise, they have compromised the basis of religion, not just Judeo-Christian, but any. They have put in loopholes that allow an argument for any action they care to take. And Dr. D. is therefore right; in small numbers they behave. But in large numbers, they want the things of Caesar’s and of God’s both; and only their Caesar/Caliph, and only their God. Have you ever thought about how many times Jahweh is described as loving and caring about people? How about Allah? I think I’ve seen enough to conclude that the best thing I can say about Islam (taking Martin Luther’s advice about false witness) is that it is seriously flawed in its structure and message.
WORDSMITH: HI, I was looking at your pictures, and it occur to me to say THIS: WHEN you see your loved one ,be it ,CHIDREN, FATHER, BROTHERs and SISTER, and mother, and others like friends and relatives, go and fight to death or enjurys till the end of their still young lifes, and
come back to resume life in their cherish country: WHAT else can we expect for them to do.
BLAME the ennemy and their sames for what they fought for and endure for the FREEDOM
of their owns loved one, which is legitime. bye 🙄
“You use lots of big words and construct pretty little sentences. Too bad they are jam packed with half truths and complete miscomprehensive about most everything about zoning.”
Mata, permit my “self-enamored” self to point out that you may want to make at least a halfhearted attempt to emulate me, in this regard. Ahem. A well-constructed, i.e., “pretty”, sentence tends to enable one to make a point and convey an opinion without resorting to the seventh-grade sophistry and mudslinging that are apparently your preferred devices to evade actual discussion of the issue. Perhaps you’ll loosen your bite on the zoning issue when you realize at some point, that I never mischaracterized the scope and definition of zoning laws and variances, so if you want to repeatedly exert the energy to stoke the flames of an issue that never existed…have at it, but it’ll be a solo exercise.
” I didn’t say communism was compatible with the founding fathers. DrD said that it’s “proper” to “reject its right to exist within our nation because it seeks to overthrow our nation…”
In attempting to dress down DrD, you asserted quite explicitly, albeit erroneously, that any such rejection was “contrary” to the intents of the founding fathers. Overtly and implicitly, you are admitting compatibility to their intentions, particularly since you seem averse to considering any gray area. Odd, given your seeming sympathy with your male friends’ belief that equal rights should be, well, unequal.
Dr D’s definition of “phobia” is contextually correct and relevant. One almost suspects that the sudden tortured broadening of the definition to include the grainier notions of “exaggeration” and “illogical” is a backhanded apology for the rampant and thoughtless use of the term “Islamophobe” in response to any criticism of Islam.
“Newbie” or not… doesn’t mitigate the validity and veracity of the points I’ve made, but it makes for a comfortable evasion of the more uncomfortable elements of discussion, doesn’t it?
Wordsmith…predictably tired tactic with the pictures; perhaps you’d care to elaborate on the context of those sentiments as they relate to World War 2? Perhaps, as well, you’d feel comfortable posting some pictures culled from Islamic rallies and protests on American soil against both America and Jews?
This is funny sutff
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/07/nasa-logo-makeovers-new-arabic-sensitivity-administration/
@Tory: You keep at them Tory…. We need more “newbies” like you!
Surely Mata and Wordsmith can make their points without resorting to snide remarks. After all, I thought I had the copyright on that? But at least I only direct that attitude at liberals!
@drjohn: Good find john!
WIN or LOSE, AN ARGUMENT amongs same party, always leave a sour taste in my mouth,
I have learned to compromise or back up instead of losing a compatriote: we are debating with passion and determination to put our point across because this point is so important for us, so much that we feel treathen as long as we live with it. SO the best way is to fix it according to the possibility to do it with the tools we have, AND because we need to be united behind a leader which
the people have’nt decided WHO, YET. bye to all who are ready to fight for FREEDOM. 🙄
Islam is religion. Islam is politics. They two are not separable.
There is no “Islam.” There are a thousand “Islams” each with its own interpretations. The problem for us is that we really never know which one is in front of us.
Once before this country extended its kindnesses to 20 Muslim men who appeared to blend into society until one sunny and fateful day. The courtesies of this country were used against it.
How do you know who’s planning again? Does anyone doubt that something is going on somewhere in this country right now?
And yet some of you argue that reasonable caution and skepticism is unreasonable, xenophobic and racist and we all ought to let bygones be bygones. Maybe we should dismantle all of TSA as well. It seems we’re all just imagining a threat.
I agree with Mike. We can disagree without the condescension.
@ Wordsmith #83
I really do need to add one comment about these pictures that you have posted here.
I have not seen those pictures previously, but I have not doubt that they were made somewhere in the US, probably on the West Coast, during WW II. I am also pretty certain that you are too young to have lived through at time of actual, declared war, such as WW II.
You are scandalized by those anti-Japanese pictures. To your modern, PC conscience that is not allowable because it is judging a class of people, even some of whom may be American citizens, by their appearance. Oh, the horror!
First, it represents the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of association. These people are saying that they do not want to associate with people of Japanese appearance, ancestry, whatever. Similar things are done today by all manner of minority groups and nobody raises an eyebrow. It is only when White people express a desire to be by themselves that this is considered wrong. The double standard here is really glaring.
Secondly, and more importantly, I think it an understanding of the times and the meaning of the pictures in those times. At that time, Japan was definitely, unquestionably, the enemy of the US. They had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and we were fighting them all over the Pacific. There were grim battles being fought to conquer each tiny island in the Pacific. The Japanese were formidable enemies, and they were killing our people wholesale in brutal ways. Word was getting back about what they had done in China in the late 1930’s and that did not sit well with Americans. Anyone who had ties to Japan, including Japanese Americans, was suspect. Many Japanese Americans had maintained strong connections with Japan prior to the war and those connections made them particularly suspect at this time. So, horror of horror, many of them were interned. In the same way, members of the German-American Bund were suspect and watched very carefully.
We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time. Words like “violation of civil rights” and “shredding the Constitution” get bandied about. It is easy from our comfort today to forget that the real operative words from that time were “survival of the nation.” It is only because they did what they did to assure that the US survived that we have the luxury to sit around and criticize today.
So, go ahead an mock those “ignorant,evil white people,” “those benighted, bigoted people” in your photographs. But, please, do remember why you do not have to speak Japanese or German unless you choose to do so.
Dr John, I hope you don’t mind me piggybacking a bit on your already well-documented original article. The following relates to the “Muslim outreach”, established as a priority for NASA…
One more tributary of Da Nile.
It also opens up questions as to how a Federal agency, which could now be headed up by Oprah Winfrey, is permitted to “reach out” to a “religion”, which have been assured, ad nauseum, in one of “peace”. Certainly, that explains NASA’s outreach to the Amish…
Now, we can listen through the painfully deafening silence for the ACLU, et al., to have hysterically litigious vapors over the interjection of religion into goverment policy.
Here’s something to ponder:
Which would you prefer ?
More illegal immigrants, most of which are Mexican, which means a vast majority are Catholic ?…and not likely to convert.
(which just might be the stumbling block to any significant level of Islamafication here in the states…)
Or
The Muslim communites multiplying, getting a serious foothold, and becoming a Big problem ?
SBSmith: I dont there is any choice to make, none of either. bye 🙄
I agree; interesting thought, but nonetheless, I don’t think that there has to be a strict “either/or” proposition. There is a paradox, though, in that Mexican’s Roman Catholicism would lead one to think that their vote would align with the more tradtionally conservative values of the GOP, but the data indicates that this demographic still trends Democratic…so actually, bad news for voting out the progressive Dems who are enabling Islamification. When you look at that way, it’s a lose/lose proposition.
>>Mexican’s Roman Catholicism would lead one to think that their vote would align with the more tradtionally conservative values of the GOP, but the data indicates that this demographic still trends Democratic…>>
What you say is true, but it ignores the factor of uneducated workers who are in positions usually organized by SEIU. They don’t really read/write English well, and are ignorant of the issues which are probably not clarified to them in a way that you and I would recognize as the GOP positions.
In other words, yes they’re voting, but they have no idea what they’re actually voting for. Also remember “Patrone” is a spanish term…! They understand _that_ concept quite well.
By the way…
Not exactly on topic, but I don’t know where to put it….
I heard the other day that Meg Davis’ campaign ads that are in written in Spanish say that she is _against_ the Arizona SB1070, and _against_ Prop 187 in California (in principle, since it was struck down). This is directly opposite to what she is saying in her English campaigning – does anyone know anything about this???
Christians are worried about Mosque building because they don’t want the competition;)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/wish-you-weren-t-here?xrs=synd_facebook
@Mike’s America #84:
No, Mike. Let’s talk about this. Why is it a “strawman”? When mathman writes: Let there be no doubt. We are on course to become a Sharia nation, under an Imam named Obama, what is the correct perspective that I should take from this, Mike?
Since the old photos about “Japs” is “so deeply discredited”, and since you did “weigh in” here, anyway, please indulge me and explain why “it’s not worth mentioning”. I’d like to know where I erred in bringing the comparison.
Yup. If it weren’t for Mata or myself “weighing in” with our two cents, some might actually think we conservatives are living up to the MSM charge of bigotry, racism, and intolerance.
@Dr.D:
Dr. D, understand that some of the more barbed points comes out of exasperation from being down this road repeatedly in the past. In a sense, I may be talking past you, and for that I apologize. But those on your side of this argument constantly do the same thing, here and elsewhere, speaking as though Mata or myself are newbies to Islamic horror stories and lunacy and PC-pushers rather than speaking to us specifically as individuals who have arrived at a different place than some of you; or, as I see in Mata’s case, her having to repeat herself over and over again because it doesn’t seem like people are understanding her from a legal perspective.
There’s a history of debating here that is being carried over from previous threads.
Examples here and here.
@Tory:
First, you have to accept the premise that Imam Rauf supports Islamic terrorism. If he shares the same goals of “dominance and conquest” through violent means that the jihad movement has, then it would be a “thumbing in the eye” of Americans by having an Islamic cultural center in the heart of Ground Zero. However, if their goal is to actually “thumb their nose” at Islamic terrorists, then regardless of whether it is a bad idea and insensitive or not, can we not at least acknowledge the motive to be maybe misguided rather than devious?
Islamic jihadis and Islamic non-jihadis may both romanticize past Islamic greatness with differing perspectives. So what?
@Tory:
So…um…no mosques? Anywhere in the States?
If the mosques aren’t funding and supporting Islamic terror, you’re still against?
“Islamification” or “Islamophobia”…what’s the difference? I think you mentioned “newspeak” earlier in regards to the latter term…but isn’t the converse just as true, making the former term more palatable to your conscience of not being labeled an “Islamophobe”?
I think vigilance is called for; but “Islamification alarmists” (i.e., more pc for you than “Islamophobe”?) are dangerously close to crossing a line, imo.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I have no problem with killing the enemy; nor in some sense, “demonizing” the enemy (“Nips”, “Japs”) to make the killing easier in war. But I do have a problem with a failure in correctly identifying the enemy.
So were Japanese-Americans Americans first, or aligned with Japan?
@Tory:
Been there, done all that. So what was it you were harrumphing about a moment ago, regarding the “newbie” label?
Yet Mata and I are the condescending, insulting ones here? Okay. I’m fine with that.
@Mike’s America:
Why should you have all the fun? I decided to plagiarize from your playbook.
Mike, you know I’m with you when it comes to arguing with liberals. But you yourself have argued with fellow conservatives when you believe they are hurting the conservative movement. You and I are on the same page when it comes to the conservatives who threaten to vote third party or sit out an election.
Joining the amen chorus of conservative voices on FA is easy. Going against the grain and rubbing your conservative allies the wrong way isn’t fun, but I think the debate is sometimes healthy and necessary.
Especially when you believe your side is wrong on a couple of points.
@drjohn:
Part of the problem here does overreach into the realm of “phobia”. So, when we don’t hear enough vocal condemnation of Islamic whackos by Muslims, we cry, “Where are the moderates? Why aren’t they speaking out?” When decent Muslims do speak out and tell us they oppose Islamic terror and say all the wonderful things we want “moderates” to be saying, we then give the suspicious stare and say, “Must be taqiyya…”
And that says……what exactly about the 1.5 billion practicing Muslims in the world?
No, Dr. John, that’s not what I’m saying. This, in part, is why Mata may get a bit snippity and come across to y’all as snide; or I may feel exasperated.
Do you honestly believe we’re saying “don’t be cautious”; don’t be skeptical? That there’s only an “imagined threat”?!
@Dr.D at ninety-three:
Waitaminute…didn’t you just end comment #92 with, “let’s do without the condescension”? 😉 I’m not complaining; just not seeing why y’all are acting like Mata or myself “started it” (maybe we did), or are the only ones engaged in it.
Anyway, you’re right. I am too young to have lived through that time. But I’m living through this time, right now. And on conservative blogs, I see people on “my side of the political aisle” making blanket statements against practitioners of Islam that I feel are based on educated bigotry.
You might be missing the point I’m making with posting those photos. And I’m probably on your side regarding race issues.
1)In a previous debate in a previous thread (or two), others were making an analogical comparison between the Ground Zero and Pearl Harbor, and whether or not we’d tolerate a Shinto Shrine at the latter anymore than we should tolerate a “mosque” at the former.
2)I really don’t have a problem with bigots who may own a private business hanging signs that say “no Mexicans wanted”, “no fat chicks allowed”, “no short people needed here”, etc. People should have the freedom to be idiots, assholes, and racists.
The point is, it’s still bigotry and racism that drove the signage.
Tory, are you listening? Keep in mind that when Dr. D writes this, and Mata calls you a “newbie”, this is what she’s driving at about “not knowing us” and drawing assumptions.
@Dr.D:
A related point which I made repeatedly to Gaffa in this post. He never got it; but I’m with you on this.
WORDSMITH: hi, I can see YOU where focusing to be the one to hit the 100th number:
I was trying also to do it; BUT I have to say that you surely hit it with a grand way of expressing
thoses views, that it’s so easy to loose the prime focus while we get to comment on hot subjects like YOU all AUTHORS bring to us, AS you all capture our interest on your many POST:
IT show that we are all a good groups eager to take big chunk in the food YOU all AUTHORS serve at the table which we are gracefully invited to share:
I would have been hurt if you would have not address to my name along with the others:
I will conclude that you will have to be more present from now on while MATA takes her time out
because we will continue to debate, and our blood will continue to get hot at times;
SO we’ll look for your comments, when we get ready to break the dishes and the table.
thank you for the wisdom talk. bye 🙄
@Wordsmith
The post you gave up on? lol
I think that’s a lazy excuse for the mistakes and the abuses of the past. Of course we have a different view now – but history isn’t always a march towards more progressive (small p) values. And how do we remove ourselves from our armchairs? So we can’t criticise the past now unless we have a time machine?
Do we excuse the Nazi’s because they didn’t know any better – and things were different then? Lol. One way to look through the window of the past is to look at the writing of the time – and see what opposition there was against percieved norms. Slavery was hotly debated at the time. Surely it wouldn’t take much of a deep Christian thinker who cherished their freedom that to own other people and forcibly make them work was wrong. To own and break up families – even separate children from their mothers in some case – was wrong then as it is now. I pretty sure those slaves would of felt pain and loss as keenly as if that had happened today.
I don’t have a problem with mosques. Just another brain-washing centre along with churches. For those who disagree with Sharia Law – I wonder if they also disagree with Jewish Courts (Beth Din) which operate in the UK and US? There are no legalised beheadings etc in UK as part of Sharia Law! I would rather there was no Sharia Law or Beth Din – as justice should be secular – with one size fits all. I wish there was no state funded Christian, Jewish or Muslim schools either – teaching myths to children – forced to listen to such tripe under the guise of ‘culture’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm
It says you can’t tell who’s who. And we too get exasperated.
@GaffaUK:
This is exactly what I referred to. I might as well ram my head repeatedly against the nearest brick wall. There’s nothing to add that hasn’t already been said repeatedly in that other thread. If you don’t “get it”, you don’t get it.
Uh….yeah? And in the Christian world of Britain and the U.S., the first real anti-slavery movement was begun. Didn’t begin 1600-1800 yrs earlier. Well, actually it did…but the process took a while, didn’t it?
Jesus Christ, Gaffa….. 🙄 Lol right back at’cha!
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Nope. I’ve been slowing down on the blogging and don’t plan anytime soon to write more or comment more than I’ve already stepped into.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes, bees, that was my goal all along. 😆
I can now abandon this post and leave y’all with the last word.
@DrJohn:
Well, I guess profiling is a waste of time, then. They’re all guilty. Just convict and condemn 1.5 billion and let God sort ’em out.
WORDSMITH: NO NO NO and no, we wont let you get away from your responsability to moderate this groups of HARD HEADS, just think of us a bit instead of yourself; BEING selfish wont solve your problems, and running away either, we need you here or we will cut your paycheck. bye 🙄
It is disingenuously muddying the waters by interjecting the irrelevant, seemingly mandatory, snidely intellectually dishonest jab at Christianity and its perceived overarching dogma of hypocrisy and bigotry; it’s not clear why some continue to believe that some abuses or misapplications of theological dogma are a basis from which to sweepingly dismiss a religion and or its proponents as a whole. Tit for tat doesn’t really cut it. Poor Mother Teresa of Calcutta…a life’s work for nought, having labored under the auspices of institutionalized bigotry and groupthink. Similarly, your comments about American slavery betray a deep ignorance of the moral and pragmatic debates over both the practice of slavery itself and how best to remedy an institution that was, for obvious reasons, problematic on so many levels. It also betrays an ignorance or a willful omission of the reality involving the vital sway Islamic traders and tribal heads held in the slave trade. Also ignored is the fact that tribunals, Beth Din, et al., function as arbitration venues ultimately subservient to civil law and whose scope is limited to matters of spiritual and comparatively mundane civil issues. The same can not be said of Shariah, neither in theory nor in practice, as civil law is held as subservient to civil law. The fact that there is no such thing as “legalized” beheadings is entirely irrelevant ( nor is that strictly true under interpretation of Shariah); there is no such thing as “legalized” burglary, rape, murder, arson, in civil law yet they all occur with dismaying frequency.
To accurately compare Beth Din courts, or even Roman Catholic tribunals, to Sharia courts would also involve acknowledging the patently disparate differences between the Judeo-Christian systems, which are primarily spiritual and independent of any codified legal system such as is essential to Islam…faithful practice of Islam is contingent upon affirming Sharia.
The good imam heading the infamous Ground Zero “cultural center” is on record as affirming his affinity with “fundamental” Islam and explicitly condones his wish for Shariah. The funding for this “cultural center”, intended, we are told, to engender a good feeling in and from the local community, is, thus far, primarily or completely through unnamed foreign sources. Connecting the dots in regard to funding again, as in the Roxbury facility, points to a series of donations and transactions tracing back to various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now a global population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion Muslims, a full 10% of whom candidly support militant jihad…over 100 million Muslims, not operating under the doctrine of taqiyya, openly acknowledge militant jihad (read as “terrorism”). Global jihad is ostensibly reprehensible, but it couldn’t. wouldn’t,hasn’t ever extended domestically…has it?
@Wordsmith:
Sigh, 🙁 .
I know you are busy, busy, just letting you know you are missed while away and appreciated while here. Loved your vacation e-mail, thanks for sharing! 😉
I”d like to clarify an error I made in my previous post…the editing window is glitchy and jumpy and I couldn’t seem to capture and correct the phrase I wrote that rather makes no sense! I intended to say that Shariah dictates the subservience of civil law to it. Sorry for the confusion and possible headscratching…
@Wordsmith
Oh yes I get why certain people and organisations like the Texas schools Board want to rewrite and dumb history down. In that particular case they want to rename the Slave Trade to The Atlantic Triangular Trade. They are too uncomfortable with the past and want to paper over the crack with revisions from their armchair. Why be an apologist for evil?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history
The US and Britain getting lauded over banning slavery is like BP getting lauded when and if they finally plug all the oil pumping out into the Gulf of Mexico. If you make a mess – clear it up. And because so and so – also did it doesn’t make it a valid excuse for the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
@Tory
Nope – I’m being serious here. Christians are being hypocrites in a lot of the issues wrapped up in the panic against muslims. Just look at the history of Christianity & Islam and look at the Bible as well as the Koran – both books incite and encourage acts of violence against others. Fortunately thanks to such things as the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the seperation of Church and State, democracy and the rise of secularism in the West – the worst aspects of Christianity have been contained. What the islamic world (a religion centuries younger than Christianity) desperately needs is a similar process so the vast majority of peaceful muslims can continue to practise their faith whilst the radical nutters are isolated.
As for Mother Teresa? http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
Yes slavery was ‘problematic’. Interesting word you use. Why not use ‘rephrensible’ as you do when refering to jihad? Was slavery problematic because Southerners wanted labour on the cheap and didn’t care for the ‘unalienable’ rights of others? I’m not ignorant of the islamic slave traders – but you don’t care for tit-for-tat and then use that yourself! lol.
So where in the UK is Sharia Law not subservient to civil law? As far as I can see (and I’m not from the jewish or islamic community) the Sharia Law and Beth Din in the UK both deal with the same relatively mundane matters. Sharia Law is more eye catching because people associate it in how it is carried out in the Middle East. My point with beheadings – is that is accepted in other countries with Sharia Law but not in the UK. As I say – I would rather both were banned – wouldn’t you?
GAFFA UK: ON your99, the CHRISTIANS could easyly have come with the idea of building a church, but out of RESPECT not COMPETITION, refrained because of so many who belong to many
DIFFRENT religions from all over the globe ,where mourning their loved ones and will
continiue to do so for generations to come, as so much blood was spilled from thoses terrorists
criminals. that is why, there should’nt be nothing connected cloose or far with the terrible disaster
of 9/11, nothing should be built,that will be connecting by association their minds with the actions of the criminals. IN the NAME of DECENCY and RESPECT for fellow AMERICANS and other
who where from other COUNTRYS,
@Ilovesbees
If you are refering to Ground Zero then I agree – I don’t believe a Mosque should be built there as that would be insensitive and unnecessary. But for other areas in the world including the US where there are religious communities – then I don’t see why they can’t build their places of worship.
GAFFA UK: yes this is specificly for GROUND ZERO. the other argument are another story to debate on a diffrent post, yes, one thing at the time. bye