Few people know that this giant crescent actually points to Mecca, or understand the religious significance of this orientation. A crescent that points the direction to Mecca is a very familiar construct in the Islamic world. Because Muslims face Mecca for prayer , every mosque is built around a Mecca direction indicator called a mihrab. The classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Here are the two most famous mihrabs in the world:
Left: the Mihrab of the Prophet, at the Prophet’s mosque in Medina. Right: the mihrab of the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain.
Face into the crescent to face Mecca
As with the Medina and Cordoba mihrabs, a person facing into the Crescent of Embrace will be facing Mecca. In the image below, superimposed red lines show the orientation of the Flight 93 crescent. The green qibla circle is from an online Mecca-direction calculator:
Cordoba Center, is it a symbol of Muslim imperialism or a gesture of friendship and understanding? Only Imam Rauf has the answer; if it is a symbol of Muslim imperialism, he will never admit it, if it is a gesture of friendship and understanding, he has almost no one convinced. If Imam Rauf is manipulating our laws to build his Coroba Center as a method of asserting the omnipotence of Muslim influence in the land of the Infidel, a strict reading of the Constitution and our laws can find precious little to prevent this travesty from transpiring. Thus we find ourselves echoing Antony’s cry in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “O Judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts…”. If Imam Rauf is genuinely reaching out a hand of friendship to the Great Satan, he has already generated enough ill will to neutralize any feelings of compassion and understanding the Cordoba Center might have generated and his idea is at best ill conceived.
Like the building of the Islamic Crescent that points to Mecca over the crash site of Flight 93 as a memorial, the building of a Mosque or Islamic Community Center near the site of the Twin Tower atrocity is circumspect causing resentment and anger among Americans and especially among the relatives of those who perished. Understandably, no Muslims have been bold enough or stupid enough to suggest an Islamic Memorial on the grounds of the Pentagon, to commemorate the Islamic struggle in North America nor a Muslim Prayer room to commemorate the site Major Hassan’s homicidal Jihad contribution to the improvement of relationships between Muslim and Infidel.
If the Imam is truly concerned with showing compassion, he should have realized by now that his great plan has failed miserably and that his idea might be better served by building a University and offering scholarships to the relatives of those killed and to the first responders and their children who suffer health problems because of these cowardly Muslim assaults on America.
Americans would be more likely to trust the extended hand of a Muslim, whose Koran encourages Muslims to lie to the Infidel, if the offers of compassion were actually helping to undue the effects of Muslim atrocities, rather than building a community center/mosque that can be interpreted as a monument to the blood lust of the Muslim and their quest to subjugate the Great Satan that will provide a new sense of pride to the braggadocio inclined illiterate and perverted Muslim mind of the Middle Ages.
The public feeling against Imam Rauf and his overtures of compassion and community goodwill are obvious, if he wants to really work to reverse the resentment and distrust Americans have for the Muslim, it is obvious he should try a different strategy; if he refuses to change course, his plan will come under even more scrutiny and and distrust. In America, his plan is distasteful and disrespectful, like it or not, that is the country he emigrated to and that is the culture of America; perhaps Imam Rauf should consider assimilating into the culture rather than changing the culture.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
The Obama regime must think everyone is an ignorant Kenya.
Minuteman26: hi, SPECIALY In a time of war, should have a interrupted the trafic
coming and going to land of opponents of AMERICA, and keeping an interested focus on sympathiser of ennemies, like there is a lot on the stage, where our owns are fight and getting hurt forever, and where others are dying on that stage, should command restraint for building thoses multiple MOSQUES around this benevolent superpower of AMERICA:
NO ONE who is confirm IMMIGRANT should forget the GRACE they have been given by AMERICA and not becoming demanding, or impose theirs convictions to this beautifull and most TOLERANT AMERICA.
@jeff:
No, Jeff. The problem is what you think you see; the problem is with your inability to distinguish just who it is that I am labeling.
Do you feel yourself silenced? Cowed? Is it only a tact of the left? I may have missed it, but can you point me in the direction to where you’ve taken other authors here (self included on this one) to task on posts where we’ve “pulled the race card” on Democrats and liberals?
If it looks like a duck, why not label it as such? You disagree? You think I’m doing it to silence debate? How are you not engaged in the same by trying to attack me in the manner that you have?
Tell me why it’s not a duck rather than quack “fowl”.
Thanks for the mischaracterization. Tell me where I have said all opposition have been based upon Islamophobia. What I did challenge Mike to do is to distance himself from those aligned with him who are Islamophobic. But he never did. He’s either turning a blind eye or is in silent, closet agreement with the more hateful rhetoric and views regarding Islam.
Some of the commenters make no apologies about their feelings regarding Islam. They are honest and open about it, even if they reject the term “Islamophobe”. Don’t even see why an Islamophobe wouldn’t be proud to wear the label as a badge of honor. I’ll call it “Islamophile” if it makes you feel any less offended, Jeff.
As for the journOlist comparison and attempt at an insult, this is a blog, guy. Not the editorial page of a newspaper.
Where is the debate being shut down? You’re distracted by a label. Get over it. Address the actual substance and don’t make the distraction the substance.
Then time for you to move on if that’s how you feel.
Yeah, I can tell it’s really stuck in your craw. Don’t know why, but oh well.
Sorry to make you feel like a victim, Jeff. You keep fighting the good fight against being shamed into silence by taking the branding iron and poking yourself with it, then saying you don’t appreciate that.
@Minuteman26:
Who is the enemy?
@Skook
Regarding #52. Instigating infighting? LOL.
My comments in #4 withstanding, the Constitution and local laws must be adhered to, or we risk becoming the intolerable we are fighting against. If America changes it’s very nature by allowance of fear, no matter how strongly supported, to contort our views on religious tolerance, I suspect it might become a country quite different than the one we are fighting for, both in ideas and words here, and in action overseas.
@Word
I am an Islamaphobe. I detest the very idea of Islam and deem it nothing more than a VERY large cult promulgated for over a millenia for the express purpose of societal control. It’s very history shows that. Are there some who believe in a god and get swept up in the ‘religious’ aspect of Islam? Sure. Probably more so than the ones doing the controlling. It has never been a religion of peace, as some would claim. There is no moderation on the part of the Imams. The religion does not allow for moderation, but only the strict adherence to principles as laid down by Mohammed. Those principles include the subjugation or destruction of all non-muslims.
But, the world accepts Islam as a religion, and thus, we, as a country, must accept it as well. That in itself is why although I oppose the building of the mosque/non-mosque based on personal ideology, I am not opposed to the building based on adherence to law. One can both oppose the building and not oppose it, if one sees the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Seems contradictory to some, I’ll admit, but nonetheless, is how I’ve reasoned things out.
Word – IMHO the enemies to this nation are threefold. In order of threat: 1. Obama/Soros and their Marxist minions. 2. Illegal immigration and lack of border security and 3. Islam in all its forms. These three threats need to be defeated as they threaten the sovereignty of the Republic.
The Great Mosque at Cordoba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
Geez, does this have a familiar ring to anyone else? I have no doubt why the current project is called Codoba as well.
I WOULD be quite suspicous if thoses in the COUNTRY try to impose their wishes,
knowing a good majority are against that wish.
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY SHOULD REMEMBER, THAT FRENDLY PERSUATION WAS used on them on their closes RELATIVES , not so long ago, BEFORE having given their votes on the building.
@Bees
They’re called Democrats, Bees. 😛
drjohn: thank you, I must add, that SENIORS who are unable to make concerned judgments are
very vulnerable to friendly persuation also.
@Minuteman 26
Your three threats to US sovereignty and their order of importance is spot on!
I despise any group that seeks to foist its views on others through intimidation, coercion, violence or misrepresentation… if that makes me an Islamophobe because it describes Islam, then I’m one of those proud to wear the label… now print me up an official certificate and I’ll have it framed for display.
Minuteman, I would argue these three components are not mutually exclusive:
keema: hi, THANK you.for the gift, bye
keema – The three do overlap, don’t they. Guess you can’t go after one without paying attention to the others. The sooner the better.
@drjohn: Does that mean that women are born democrats?
@Minuteman26: TO ARMS, TO ARMS! Time to call up the Minutemen (and women) and defend ourselves against the invaders. TO ARMS, TO ARMS!
I sent a donation to Arizona governor Brewer and some other politicians around the country. I can’t give much, but $15-20 from a lot of people around the country to help defeat the liberal politicians is a cheap price for freedom. The liberals have donated over $1,000,000 in a short time to defeat Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Pick your fight and help supply the ammo for our Freedom Fighters. Like the song says, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition,”
@Donald Bly: I want to be number two on the list for “Official” certificates. I want to be certified. The Muslim religion should be declared a terrorist organization because it teaches their followers they MUST convert or kill everyone else. No exceptions.
@johngalt #64:
Hmm….what should the actual definition of an Islamophobe be? Certainly everyone is entitled to formulate their opinions and merely disliking/hating Islam based upon one’s own experience and readings just makes you anti-Islam; not necessarily ‘phobic. There’s also what I had called “educated” bigotry, from an overabundance of slant-sided readings on Islam. If you read negative stories and histories on it and nothing but, what opinion of it do you expect to formulate?
For me, I think what constitutes a phobia of Islam, as opposed to a rational, reasonable fear and vigilance, is the idea that majority Muslims are out to get us because of our readings and interpretations of the koran, Islamic history, wahhabism, and fundamentalist loonies making headlines over Danish cartoons, teddy bears named Mohammed, etc. Those are the headline grabbers, but they don’t define nor characterize most Muslims.
Does anyone seriously believe we are in danger of being taken over by “stealth” jihad? That sharia will supplant the U.S. Constitution? That most Muslims living amongst us are conspiring in the secret depths of their mosques while they put on a “religion of peace” facade of innocence in our presence? Then behind closed doors and behind our backs, they are plotting and planning, convert or kill?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
And if that’s indeed accurate, then the reality would remain that the majority of Muslims are apostates to Islam; and the only true adherents are the Taliban and salafi fundamentalists who preach and practice a puritanical form of the religion not adhered to by the vast majority.
If the “moderates” are the “radicals” to the religion- oh, excuse me, I mean political system 🙄 – of Islam, then let the non-wahhabi reformists live in their delusion of “religion of peace”, so long as they are practicing as they preach.
@Minuteman26 #65:
Thanks for your candor. To a variance in degree, I share your concerns.
I just think opposing “Islam in all its forms” is counterproductive. Why bother with Muslim allies? With helping Iraq and Afghanistan people? Pro-American Muslims in Kosovo and the Balkans? What do we do with 7 million Muslims in our own country? Do you doubt that most are assimilated better than European Muslims? That most who are citizens are patriotic and thankful to be here? Do you wish to widen this war and lengthen it? Should we nuke Mecca and Medina? And if so, what does it say about who we are as a people? Are we on the side of the angels? Or are we to become the hate and evil that we say we are fighting against?
Minuteman 26:hi, I was reading your 65 comment and what came in mind is that; THEY are all related, and dangerously also. bye
Another example of the “tolerant” Islamists. Thread’s startin’ to lag. Thought I’d throw some gasoline on the embers. 😆
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1301016/British-woman-doctor-people-shot-dead-Afganistan.html
RIDE A PALE HORSE: this is terrible,how low can they get. bye thank’s for the news we must
all know thoses news to stay aware.
@Rides A Pale Horse:
The enemy kills people….which is the main reason that we’re in Afghanistan to begin with.
In other news, dog bites man, water is wet.
Come on now Rides…if you’re gonna stoke the embers, you can do better than that. 🙂
@Aye Chihuahua:
Ok…..if you insist 😉
Don’t know if anyone has posted this or not. Just ran across it tonight. Thought it kind of interesting.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html
Didn’t Mata already address that one?
What’samatter, Rides? Got your debate juices flowing, all dressed up and no cyber rumble to attend? LOL OK, I’ll bite.
Different article, same uninformed, under researched pundit. Claudia… who didn’t know (and still apparently doesn’t) about Cordoba Initiatives interfaith events now says:
Well duh, Claudia. There are no pennies to report because – again – the fundraising stage has not yet been started. Even the non profit set up has not been done. See my my comment and links above to Hard Right.
And she wonders why, after dogging him down in Malaysia to ask yet another dumb question, that he doesn’t want to talk to idiots like her? Amazing…. personally, I just would have referred her to AOL news so she could play catch up.
@Wordsmith:
Well, the link you provided goes to a site relating to Cordoba History, NOT the disappearance of “Imam Feisal”.
The link I provided is to an article at Blooombeg dated 7-30-10
So, apparently not.
He’s not disappeared, Rides. She found him quite easily by just calling a different office. What would you like him to say? He can’t answer a question about funding that doesn’t exist for a non profit that hasn’t been created. And if the woman would read something other than her own drivel, she might know that.
Sorry that should have been “Forbes”, not Bloomberg.
Duh.
@MataHarley:
Nah, Mata. Just sitting around with nothing much else to do but stir up trouble.
Insomnia will do that to ya. 😛
@word
My point in that post was, in case you missed it, that although I have strong feelings against Islam in general, and that I have a right to speak out against it if I wish(and I don’t mean specifically here on FA), I also believe more strongly in the Constitution and the rule of law in our country. As such, I can support the building of the mosque/non-mosque.
Whether or not my fears and knowledge of the ‘religion’ are ‘tainted’ by negative reporting of history or stories of Islam does not matter. I don’t believe it’s negative, just factual. You may think otherwise, and that is fine. I respect yours, Mata’s, AC’s, Mike’s opinions and posts on all topics. You all are what makes FA, and gives me a chance to voice an opinion, and I thank you for that. Just don’t denigrate my opinion on the matter at hand by choosing to focus on my negative views of Islam instead of the support for the building I have stated. In the end, I value America and the Constitution much higher than my thoughts on Islam, or any religion one wishes to adhere to.
I got that point, that you oppose personally, but support the Constitution and the rule of law. I only addressed what I chose to address. I did not mean to “dis”acknowledge the rest of your comment.
I hope It doesn’t come across that I’m denigrating your opinion; just challenging aspects of it. I have negative views in regards to Islam also, share some of the anxiety and eye-rolling over political correctness, etc. But I also think too much Robert Spencer and negative reading makes one’s views predictably unbalanced, ending up with a lopsided perspective of the actual reality. (I’m speaking about anti-Islam folks in general, and not you).
Mata – and others who think as she does…
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought…. Putting aside the actual mosque issue for the moment, I’d like to ask you about the underlying issues. Those of us who strongly object do so because we see islam itself as the enemy – a religiously driven political agenda which intends to reform the entire world according to its shariah law. There are muslims in large numbers in nearly every country in the world, under numerous political systems, and in fact the US cannot declare ourselves at war with all of them. Yet, it seems to many of us that islam has declared war with _us_. You seem to disagree. You attribute it to only a certain element of islam, even though that element is also spread throughout the world. They have no single leader who speaks for all of them. If OBL were to die tomorrow, someone else would take up his cause – but it would still be an unofficial leadership, because they do not have a single designated spokesperson or a single political leader. In a sense, they can declare war on us, but we cannot declare war on them without declaring war on almost every other country that contains muslims.
So…if in fact _they_ have declared war on us, what are we to do? simply guard against their attacks? Could you see _any_ conditions under which we might be justified in declaring islam itself the enemy? (I’m not asking if we _should_ do it – that’s a separate problem issue) We declared war against the Taliban because it was the government in power and was intent on giving OBL the protection of the government – would something of that nature be your requirement?
Are you willing to accept shariah law if there are enough muslims in the country to vote for the politicians who would enact it? While I agree with you about the Constitution being our underlying foundation, our courts seem willing to abrogate that foundation. You dismiss the Kelo decision, and the judge who decided in favor of the shariah law case. That’s because the case came before him and his decision became known. Suppose it hadn’t – perhaps _he_ would have been on that appeals court. There seem to be many judges – including Ginsberg on the Supreme Court itself – who are willing to consider international law, and perhaps the cultural laws of shariah as well. We can’t “unelect” them – so…what are we to do? They infiltrate our systems – if we permit that, are we not consenting to their agenda? How do we protect ourselves against them? (you _are_ aware that one of the determiners of the content in the texts used for all the California public schools was muslim, aren’t you? And that there is modification of history to make islam look more “friendly” rather than warlike? And that such phrasing as “Christians _believe_ that Jesus Christ is the son of God”, but “Mohamed _is_ the messenger of God” have been inserted? small things, but insidious)
So … are you ready and willing to accept shariah law, so long as it is imposed “Constitutionally”?
>>If you read negative stories and histories on it and nothing but, what opinion of it do you expect to formulate?>>
Word…if you’d be so kind…
Tell me _one_ good thing islam has done for mankind in it’s 1300 year history.
Or tell me _one_ good thing islam does today.
>>The enemy kills people….which is the main reason that we’re in Afghanistan to begin with>>
They were non-combatants. There were a medical team doing charity work. How were they “enemies”?
One way and one way only – they were also Christians. They were accused of missionary actions – that is, preaching to the Afghans they treated in order to convert them to Christianity. That’s it. They denied even that. But even assuming that it’s true – _that_ justifies killing them all?
@suek:
Are you suggesting that we should be more like them?
suek: hi, I would think this killing spree is on the name of theirs hate and fear profess to them in their religion leading them to commit violence to non beleivers.
@suek: The only good thing I can think of that Islam gave us is the zero. Until that time, when counting something, it was 1-9, then they started all over with 1-9, then they had to add up all of the 9s. The Islam religion came up with the idea of adding one more number and that was the zero.
What is ironic is that the number they gave us that started the metric system is the same number of good things I can think of that they have done for the world since.
I am one who says that Islam should be declared a terrorists organization if only because of their “convert or kill” teachings. If there are non-violent Muslims who want to keep their religion, then they need to break away from the main religion like other groups have done from other religions and form their own “peaceful” religion. Like I have read many times, have you ever heard ANY Muslim Iman condemn 9-11? NO!! So much for their “peaceful” religion.
I still don’t know why a woman who knows how the Muslims treats women would want to join it.
@suek: The medical team were non-Muslims that didn’t want to convert to Islam. That makes them the enemy of Muslims. I am an enemy of the Muslim religion even though I don’t have ANY religion.
The way it is going now, if I have a zealous Muslim try to convert me and I convince them that I won’t, and they try to kill me (a MUST for their religion) but I kill them in self defense, I will be charged with murder. If not, then the Muslims will target me for execution as they have for others, even over a cartoon that I have in my iPhoto collection. Please don’t tell them I have it.
Under the laws of the USA the Muslims can build a mosque anywhere they are granted a permit. Since they are a terrorist organization they shouldn’t even be allowed in our country. They are not a religion any more than communism is. They both have the same goal of wold domination. At least the communists treat their women better than the Islams do.
@ilovebeeswarzone: The Muslim koran teaches that they MUST “convert of kill” the infidels. They teach that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel. You are on there list. Convert or be killed by the religion of peace.
Cary…you’re being insulting. Is it deliberate?
http://neoneocon.com/2010/08/07/coming-soon-to-a-country-near-you-decoy-jews/
@suek: just asking a direct question. Your answer?
SMORGASBORD: hi, I say, peace be with you. bye
AND a murfy’s law” INCOMING FIRE HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Not if we can stop it. Until our King-in-Chief came along the US military never ran from incoming fire, they ran to it, and we ran to it all over the world.
Heavens… it seems that some of the cries to just let this be really isn’t the case. It is still a subject that motivates thoughts and continued posts. And with this being a very long process even if it goes thru, and with the litigation (and more future litigation) that will occur, I suspect we will all be living with this issue – and it’s repercussions – for years.
@suek, what I like about you is you are honest about your feelings on Islam in general, and yet I do see you trying to work thru reconciling that along with respect for our laws. I think that’s very healthy, and I applaud that you do want to see any battle against this being the path our legal system allows us to take. Therefore, while we differ on the blanket belief that Islam is the enemy, we are actually aligned on ways to tackle the problem… as long as the legal recourse is not one that rewrites laws to discriminate against a particular religions.
And BTW, I know that many are using the talking point that Islam is not a religion. Setting aside whether that is a valid observation or not, I can only point out that if you consider Islam a political party (so to speak), the discrimination that quite a few here freely justify is not any better. Discrimination and denial of Constitutional rights is not any better if it’s based on political leanings than it is if based on religion.
Now to some specifics you asked.
Because gangs really have no single leader that speaks for them, and is made up of a particular race or nationality, doesn’t mean that everyone who shares that race or nationality is also a gang member. Nor if someone is sympathetic to the gang’s beefs, they are not necessarily a gang member either. Leaders in extremist movements come and go. What remains are those that replace them, and continue to foster the underlying hate and resentment.
The formal declaration of war in 1998’s World Islamic Front Statement was not by Islam, but signed by five jihad leaders:
Those sucked up into the fatwa net of guilt are those that actively seek to advance this war… not those who may have some sympathy for their attitudes. After all, we’ve had a very strong lib/prog anti-war movement in this country since post 911. Because I disagree with many friends on whether Afghanistan or Iraq was a proper strategy doesn’t mean I consider them part of the enemy because of their attitudes.
And you also need to remember that the greatest amount of life lost at the hands of these jihad cockroaches have been Muslims. While jihad was revered before we went into Afghanistan, the charm for modern Muslims wore off with the ongoing Muslim bloodbaths at the hands of these monsters in not only those two countries, but in others.
But the US of A is not Afghanistan, not Pakistan, and not Iraq. Many of you envision us emulating these countries merely by the building of mosques. It’s a bizarre vision to have, considering who we are, and how long Muslims have lived here with only a few events of local terror cells. Their attacks still lag far behind simple ordinary murder or domestic abuse in this country.
So no, I do not share your belief that Islam declared war on us. And on that point, I doubt we will ever agree.
No. Not if we are to remain true to our founding principles. In your example of the Taliban ruling power in Af/PAK, again war was not declared on Islam. It was declared on those oppressing their citizens, and providing shelter to a declared enemy of the US… bin ladin and zawahiri. The Taliban wasn’t even recognized as a legit government by most nations, and they certainly didn’t have an extradition treaty with the US.
The way you envision Shariah.. usurping our own laws against murder, etal? Of course not. No one does. Do I support a parallel court system like the UK? No. But neither do I believe that if we lost that battle, that all of the sudden stoning, beheading and dismemberment becomes acceptable here. But yes, I would fight against that attempt.
Now, what you fail to acknowledge is that there are already religious courts in this nation… i.e. the Beth Din of America rabbinic court system.
Muslims have the same quandary with US legal divorces, and their religion’s recognization of that separation. I think the difference between us is that you say Shariah, and most assume we’re going back to third world judicial system in the US. I think that any Shariah court proposed in a district needs to be examined as to what it is they are asking for. If there are rabbinic court systems, is it much different if there is a Shariah court system… as long as neither imposes punishment or judgments outside the scope of our laws?
I think this Shariah court bit has been, so far, a local battle. And each proposal needs to be examined. If they are asking for a fundamentalist kind of power, it should and will be struck down by our own Constitutional justice system, and any involved would be prosecuted for such crimes. I don’t anticipate that will change… unless we swing so far to the extreme that we lose sight of our founding principles.
First of all, suek, that is a wholly incorrect statement and misrepresentation of my response above to you about Kelo and eminent domain. I told you I was opposed to Kelo, and that what those you agree with … i.e. landmark decision and/or memorial demands… was nothing more than the same eminent domain. I asked you how you can be against Kelo, and for the landmark/memorial argument, and not see your hypocrisy. You did not respond. Therefore the one who “dismissed” the Kelo argument was you, not I.
Secondly the NJ case wasn’t reversed “because the case came before him and his decision became known”. It was reversed because the losing party appealed it to a higher court. All as is the way in our judicial system. You can keep appealing as long as the money holds out all the way to SCOTUS. After that, you’re up sheeeeeets creek. They are the High Court, and final word. No where to go after that.
You will not get any argument from me that lifetime appointments to SCOTUS have extreme drawbacks and on the surface seem very detrimental to the health of the nation. Then again, I’ve pondered the repercussions of something different…. what if every POTUS at the beginning of his/her term could totally replace the court? Not only could this leave many an issue unaddressed as you look for robed ones Congress agrees upon, but it makes the appointment process dangerously political.
For example, would you support this supermajority Congress and Obama to replace the court with their appointees for the duration of Obama’s term? Can you imagine the dangerous precedents they could set with opinions that following justices would have to consider in arguments?
No.. life time appointments are not overly appealing, but the alternative is far worse. However I fail to see what this has to do with Islam as an enemy. SCOTUS does not classify individuals or groups as enemies. It merely interprets law as cases are presented before them. And they address only the arguments made, and rarely expand much further.
I don’t know, suek. Is there a modifcation of history that would make Hitler look more like a hero, or the US look better for it’s condonement of slavery? History is history. You can’t change the past. However Germany, Japan and the US are not the same today as they were back in WWII. Nor are American citizens accepting of slavery and oppression based on race today, when they were less than just 60 years ago.
So when people assume that 1400 years of wars defines modern Muslims today, I have to scratch my head. As I’ve said many times, I don’t like Islam and would never choose it myself today. Why does everyone assume that the world, governments and human society morph and change, but Islam remains rooted in
17th(sorry, meant 7th) century ideals? I have done business with, and known many Muslims over my lifetime. I have never experienced all the hype you guys say happens. Different? Yup… so are my Mormon friends. Don’t know any Amish, but suspect I might find their lifestyle choices bizarre as well.As long as any live within the scope of our laws, I don’t have to like anyone or their choices of religion, politics or lifestyle. But I am not free to use my dislike to advocate Constitutional discrimination when that entire document was there to prevent just such behavior by politicians and the masses.
All in all, I deal primarily with American Muslims when discussing islam here in the states… not the tribal Muslims of other countries. Because these are the people in my backyard. And of course I keep a wary eye out. However I do not see American Muslims behaving the same as in Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. That’s because they assimilate into our country and rule of law differently.
Fact is many Muslims move to the US because they are trying to escape the Shariah in native lands that they find oppressive. And now we’re hearing from the self-educated infidel on the streets that they wish to import exactly what they escaped. WTF?
SMORGASBORD: YES, of couse, THE WARIORS In GOD’S ARMY, for FREEDOM for all. bye
SUEK: hi, You know if thoses decoys come in AMERICA,
IT sure will freak up the Illegals.
HOW about the MARINES SONG, can you give the words?. bye
@suek #94:
Well, I’d say Google is your best friend.
Yesterday’s NYTimes:
@suek #95: I don’t think you read aye’s response correctly.
And as far as the story of the 10 killed, it’s an example of the kind of extremist/militant we are all opposed to. Not an indictment of Islam, but of Taliban-style Islam.
@Smorgasbord:
Did you miss my post?
Maybe not all Muslim women are living under the stereotype you have of Islam?
According to John Esposito’s The Future of Islam, pg 153, majorities in some of the most conservative Muslim countries support equal rights. Majorities of both men and women surveyed in a dozen Muslim countries believe women should have:
Not all Islamic societies force women to wear head or facial coverings. Women who wear coverings by choice might even tell you that they feel more liberated, not less:
Muslim women might also tell you that they believe the Koran raised the status of women and puts them on an equal status with men. Disagree? Take it up with them. I’m not an Islamic scholar, but Sumbul Ali-Karamali argues the point in her book, “The Muslim Next Door” and cites passages from the Quran (Chapter7, Women in Islam) to support the claims.
We’ve yet to elect a woman president. Can you think of any Muslim countries that has a woman as head of state?
>what you fail to acknowledge is that there are already religious courts in this nation>>
I have no problem with religious courts, as long as ultimately they are not in conflict with the nation’s laws. There could be problems, but mostly surmountable, I think. Religions impose rules and restrictions which people choose to accept. If they violate those rules, then nothing happens other than they are ostracized by other members of their religion (don’t _even_ get me started on Pelosi – among others!). If you violate civil laws, you get punished by the society which makes the laws. Being of a particular religion doesn’t permit you to violate the society’s laws in order to conform with your religion’s laws. In this country. In shariah countries, it’s the other way around. So – I have a problem with religious courts only if they are presumed to have the overriding authority in society (in the USA), but not if they are accepted by the individual.
>>If there are rabbinic court systems, is it much different if there is a Shariah court system… as long as neither imposes punishment or judgments outside the scope of our laws?>>
Critical issue – “as long as neither imposes punishment or judgments outside the scope of our laws”. I have no problem with a shariah court that does not attempt to make decisions in contradiction to our laws, as long as those courts are making decisions based on their own freely chosen populations.
>>But yes, I would fight against that attempt.>>
Don’t you think it would be a bit late at that point?
>>Therefore the one who “dismissed” the Kelo argument was you, not I.>>
My apologies.
>>I told you I was opposed to Kelo, and that what those you agree with … i.e. landmark decision and/or memorial demands… was nothing more than the same eminent domain.>>
At least theoretically – and this gets a bit tricky, I think – the Kelo decision is now “Constitutional”. The decision changed the rules. Until the rules get changed back, it appears that private property ownership no longer rules supreme. “Society” now has a voice in property decisions. The bad comes along with the good – or vice versa. You expect us to be more moral than Ceasar’s wife. If the courts have made that determination, let us use it. Don’t like it? Fine. Change it back. In any case, this issue also gets wrapped up in the zoning issue, which is a horse of a different color, but very closely related. We should save it for another day.
>>It was reversed because the losing party appealed it to a higher court. >>
That was not my point. My point was that in this particular case, the judge’s position is now known. It weighs into future appointments. What if this case had _not_ occurred? What if he had been appointed to that very appeals court and _then_ the case was presented to him? Are there others out there who would decide the same way? I suspect there are – but obviously, I don’t know. How could _any_ judge make this decision? What school of law gives him the basis for this decision??
>>…unless we swing so far to the extreme that we lose sight of our founding principles.>>
Can you imagine even 50 years ago that the decision of a federal judge would have been in favor of SSM? Losing sight of our founding principles is _exactly_ what I’m concerned about.
>>…life time appointments are not overly appealing, but…>>
No – I definitely wouldn’t go with changing the court with every election. In fact, given the Dem majority, I’ve been holding my breath expecting a “packing the court” action ala FDR. I could go for a 20 or 25 year limit, though.
>>Nor are American citizens accepting of slavery and oppression based on race today, when they were less than just 60 years ago>>
60 years ago?? guess you’re younger than I am. American citizens were _not_ accepting of slavery and oppression based on race 60 years ago. Prejudice? yes – it existed. Oppression? on an individual locale, yes. But it was _not_ accepted nation wide. To make that statement makes me think you’ve accepted a lot of the victim history that is taught today.
If Hitler hadn’t decided to kill as many Jews as he could, history might have looked on him much more favorably. How bad do people think Mussolini is? And he was just as fascist as Hitler.
>>Germany, Japan and the US are not the same today as they were back in WWII.>>
True – but only because we defeated them both. Do you think they would have changed if we had not? Heck – as this blog has pointed out – the Japanese are redeveloping their ironclad racial purity ideals, and blaming only the US for the atom bomb instead of admitting their part in the conflict. Someone mentioned Nanking, but don’t forget Korea – the Japanese pretty well raped that country as well. Like little boys and cakes – a good beating made them both better.
>>Fact is many Muslims move to the US because they are trying to escape the Shariah in native lands that they find oppressive. >>
Granted.
>>And now we’re hearing from the self-educated infidel on the streets that they wish to import exactly what they escaped.>>
They know it – even if you don’t. But I am not accusing those trying to escape of wishing to do so – it’s those who follow them, remind them of their religious heritage and duties. In fact, I believe there are some who are desperately trying to alert us to the dangers of those who use their innocent populations to build their infiltration and deceit. Some assist us.
As I said before – one of the biggest problems with taqqiya is that once you accept the reality of it, you simply do not know who you can trust; who is on your side, and who simply _says_ he’s on your side. If you know a person is your enemy, you can do what you need to do. When they all claim innocence and you know some are not – it’s completely corrosive to any relationship. That’s where I find myself.
>>Maybe not all Muslim women are living under the stereotype you have of Islam?>>
Where?
Mata – Your missing the forrest for the trees. Islam does have one leader. Its called the Quran.