13 Aug

Kos: You Know, 9-11 Wasn’t That Big a Deal [Reader Post]

                                       

Kos opens a post with the suggestion that people are pretty ignorant about the Constitution:

Nearly every oath of service in this nation includes the phrase “Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America” in some form or the other. Not having a King we needed an object of loyalty, something bigger than the individual to focus our loyalty on. It was well planned by the Framers that when taking office each servant of the people would swear to uphold and protect the very document which created this nation.

It is therefore shocking how few of our fellow citizens actually get know or understand what the Constitution says

Now I am inclined to disagree. I think we have someone at the top who does think he is King.

And naturally, anyone who is opposed to building a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero is a religious bigot, as opposed to the symbolism of it all.

Now with the help of the radical Republican propaganda machine the issue of citizens of the Islamic faith are under the same kind of pressure. The intent of a long time Manhattan Imam to build a large community center two blocks (Two New York City blocks, not the dinky things that you and I have in our neighborhoods) from the former site of the World Trade Center has lead to at least one on the radical Right to call for a ban on all mosque or Islamic community centers across the nation.

And why are those bigots so sore? 9-11 just wasn’t that big a deal:

Given that they are such a small minority in this nation, it is odd that so many of our fellow citizens see them as such a threat. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm. The economy was already taking a hit before the Twin Towers fell. The reaction of the nation to seeing two major buildings in New York fall on T.V. has boosted the attack out of proportion. While the loss of even a single life is to be condemned and the devastation these deaths caused the families of those killed, more than this number of teens are killed every year incar crashes. These are also tragic losses but we do not make the kind of high profile issue of it that the 9/11 attacks are.

Damn. That puts the kibosh on Pearl Harbor. Only 2400 died there.

D-day? Only 2500 Americans.

I don’t know why we even bother with these events. They’re even smaller than 9-11 in terms of loss of life and they were soooo long ago.

The idea that just because a majority of people have a negative opinion of this group now is reason enough to give up the level of legal tolerance that we have enjoyed for more than 220 years. This is the worst possible outcome.

The Japanese-Americans interred during WWII don’t count. Hardly any of them died. And don’t get me started on slaves. None of this measures up to the anti-Muslim period we’re going through right now.

H/T Newsbusters via Gateway Pundit

.

About DrJohn

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.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Ground Zero "Mosque", Islam, Liberal Idiots, Politics, War On Terror, WtF? and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, August 13th, 2010 at 7:00 am
| 866 views

83 Responses to Kos: You Know, 9-11 Wasn’t That Big a Deal [Reader Post]

  1. Minuteman26 says: 51

    Aye – I’ll know when some imam issuses a fatwah against his ass and 800 other muslims are running around the countryside trying to kill him. Ain’t Islam great?

    ReplyReply
  2. MataHarley says: 52

    INRE the OT analogy between oppressed Muslim women and battered wives of infidels

    @suek: A side note. I agree with you entirely on the above, but it does make one assumption – that a person unintentionally put themselves into an abusive situation. It assumes that the individual has been conditioned to have normal healthy relationships with people.

    Not necessarily. I do think the majority walk into situations, never expecting this to be the case. There are also some that suffer from a personality disorder where they believe they deserve abuse… and being the battered spouse is just another way this manifests itself in their lives.

    As far as “conditioned”, the group you are referring to INRE Muslims, conditioning has every opportunity to change with exposure to different conditions… as Muslim women experience in the USA in particular. In Muslim/Shariah rule countries, they are unhappy with the conditions. They migrate to western nations where this is not as extreme, and they also interface with evil, infidel western civilizations. They generally come to a point where they have no desires to return to 3rd world Islam of the past.

    Therefore conditioning is not a permanent condition… in fact, none of them necessarily are.

    ReplyReply
  3. suek says: 53

    Yes…I did miss this:

    1) How many constitutes a “significant number” in your mind?

    Well…Three Percent comes to mind…

    2) How do you propose to determine which ones fall into the specific categories of peaceful and non-peaceful? Is such determination achieved through fingerprinting, DNA analysis, blood typing? Or would it be achieved through a less objective mushy squishy set of testing standards that lie mainly in the eye of the beholder?

    I guess _you_ must have missed the times I said that the real damage of taqiya is not so much the deception itself, though that’s bad enough, it’s the fact that if you accept that taqiya is a reality, you no longer know who to trust. It’s extremely corrosive to any relationship that requires trust.

    3) What do you propose that we do with this “significant number” that you claim exists within the US once they have been separated from the herd? Should we round them up and put them in camps ala FDR’s Japanese solution? Should we shoot them all before they have a chance to harm us? Should we deport them? If so, to where?

    Hey…assuming we could actually separate them from the herd – which I doubt – any or all of the above would be acceptable. That is – if they’re considered enemies of the US. _There’s_ the problem. We haven’t declared war, and due to the nature of the enemy, are unlikely to. So we’re limited to the usual legal maneuvers that can be used against any criminal. Unfortunately, as long as they just talk – or preach – we probably can’t take any action against them. Not even “hate speech” – though they’ll certainly use that one against us! Turn about ought to be fair play.

    4) Are you a believer in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” or do you subscribe to the “guilty by association” mindset?

    In a court of law, I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”. Outside of a court of law, I think we have to use our own best judgment regarding a person’s intent, and “birds of a feather” is often to be considered, though it isn’t a final unchangeable statement of intent.

    5) When the attempted bombing of Times Square occurred there was a movement afoot to deny the suspect of his Miranda Rights? Would you have agreed or disagreed with such a denial of Constitutional protections?

    Depends. Was he arrested as an enemy combatant or as a criminal perpetrator? At this point in time, _can_ a person present in the US be arrested as an enemy combatant? I don’t know what the requirements and/or limitations are. If he was arrested as an enemy combatant, then he is not entitled to Miranda Rights warnings. Yet. If he was arrested as a probable criminal perp, then he should be read his rights.

    ReplyReply
  4. Wordsmith says: 54

    @Minuteman26:

    Ref38- Watch that video and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

    Good Lord! You mean this:

    LOVE the big words. This is something you’re proud to trumpet around as a source for “where [you're] coming from”?!

    What is amazing to me is how it takes items that are factually correct, but taken out of context and draws distorted conclusions. It will happen every time from anti-Islamic readings. There is nothing “non-partisan” about the video. If you go to anti-Islamic sources, what else do you expect to get from it? The truth? Reality? It’s propaganda that is just as bad as the political correct reading of Islam.

    ReplyReply
  5. suek says: 55

    >> . Besides, if women are seriously abused and made second class citizens, it’s their own fault that they don’t face reality and get themselves out of that situation. I assume that includes the young girls who have clitorectomies

    Such a comment is tremendously embarrassing to hear from a modern woman. It tells me two things about you… that you’ve no personal experience with serious domestic abuse, and that you have an inherent belief that women are victims only. >>

    So…what was embarrassing for a modern woman to say? That some cultures exist where women are second class citizens?

    Are you saying that you think I believe that…”all women are victims” or that “all victims are women”? I don’t believe either…so I think there’s a misunderstanding. Quelle surprise!

    I’ve just been re-reading this. I think you misunderstood me. You highlighted my statement, which I _think_ you interpreted as my saying “if women…situation”, when in fact that’s what I understood _you_ to be expressing. I added the “young girls…clitorectomies” (by the way…spell check doesn’t recognize that word. Offered tonsillectomies instead) because I don’t think you give enough weight to the abuse of the women that the islamic culture imposes.

    Will islamic women with 2-3 generations in the USA make a difference? I don’t know. Word offers class differences as a factor. I have no idea if that’s a real difference. He suggests that the ghettos of (odd that we should use that term) Europe are a factor that encourages unrest. I can see that. Do we have conclaves of muslims here in the US? we seem to in some areas. That incident in Michigan where cops arrested Christians who were handing out literature at a muslim gathering of some sort was worth noting.

    ReplyReply
  6. suek: hi, I was thinking from a line MATA mentioned of UK’S muslims have found a way to get something across by finding a loophole to work for their demand and won:
    SO If you have the GOVERNMENT protecting them and even the mass of them in other countrys,
    the people should be very prudent and watch, what laws bills are slip under a pile of other non related bills, be it executive orders or others that even the MEDIA dont know of,
    and after it pass , someone stumble upon that secret bill pass;
    RIGHT under the nose of the usualy well informe public, and if that bill is against the will of AMERICA, and favored a country of haters of AMERICA, even help them to immigrate in
    THE UNITED STATES, at the cost of AMERICANS taxpayer.
    there is nothing anyone can do , It’s pass,so if there is nobody accountable to have read the bill
    BEFORE and refuse it a bill that is conseale from the opposition to read,
    THAT make a danger for the AMERICANS. bye

    ReplyReply
  7. ONE MILITARY was WORKING with sick militarys in hospital and there was suspicions from co workers that was not taken seriously and end up favoring the person by the higher command, he was selling islam to his patients from what was reveal : and time went by, until he was to go abrod to serve his mission, and he snapped and decide to kill many who had been living with him for quite a long time. this should tell us about how you will know, until they reach the breaking point,
    UNLESS you purpusley get them to demand to follow a special training that will bring them to that breaking point and how they will react at the time.

    ReplyReply
  8. Minuteman26 says: 58

    Word – I’m not non-partisan in anything. Appears the video got under your muslim skin. Please enlighten us on how the truth is taken out of context. This video should be shown in every classroom in the United States as its a good primer on what Islam is about.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 59

    @suek: So…what was embarrassing for a modern woman to say? That some cultures exist where women are second class citizens?

    Are you saying that you think I believe that…”all women are victims” or that “all victims are women”? I don’t believe either…so I think there’s a misunderstanding. Quelle surprise!

    :lol: Yes, suek. It seems we have a perpetual “failure to communicate” on Islam/jihad and priorities of focus.

    Yes maam, I interpreted your post to assume that women are victims with no choice. And yes, it’s embarrassing to hear a modern woman basically give a pass to supposed “victim” women who do not fight for their own survival. Are we independent and self sufficient? Or do we need others to rescue us?

    Part of our misunderstanding is probably because you like to speak globally (which is true of women’s victim status in places like Iran, but not in our country), and I tend to focus on America. So if there is a misunderstanding, I apologize, and we’ll just have to continue to work on saying things back and forth clear enough so we understand the exact… and not exaggerated… positions we hold.

    Ms. Bees, despite our language barriers, got it exactly.

    I was thinking from a line MATA mentioned of UK’S muslims have found a way to get something across by finding a loophole to work for their demand and won:

    SO If you have the GOVERNMENT protecting them and even the mass of them in other countrys, the people should be very prudent and watch,… snip….

    Yes, Ms. Bees. In our countries, our laws do protect those who do not wish to submit to any extreme Shariah rulings. That was my argument, exactly. Any Shariah council participation is voluntary, just as our American arbitration/mediation settlements are voluntary.

    While it may be very difficult for a Muslim woman to “not volunteer” to a Shariah court settlement, it is far from impossible. Just as it is difficult for battered wives not to succumb to spousal threats, and take the hard road to extracting yourself from a very bad situation.

    Muslim women in America, and other western nations, will then decide whether they value freedom, or religious oppression, more in their lives. It looks like the Canadian Muslim women have already made their choice, and seized their alternative paths by the throat. I’ll bet American Muslim women will do the same.

    And remember, suek… it all depends upon what kind of power and cases any Imam is requesting when they talk about Shariah civil courts. As you and I both agree, if they have the power to resolve their religious mandates in harmony with our national rule of law, then who are we to object?

    ReplyReply
  10. Wordsmith says: 60

    @Minuteman26:

    Appears the video got under your muslim skin.

    Bigotry gets under my skin. :wink:

    No, I just don’t see the video as some sort of remarkable piece of work. It’s neither illuminating nor revelatory. A real yawner. Just surprised you citing it as something worthy of 8 minutes of anyone’s attention span. C’mon…there’s “better” out there to recommend if you want to get people’s anti-Islam danders all fired up.

    Please enlighten us on how the truth is taken out of context.

    The video talks about how the “contradictory” peaceful passages contained within the Koran were written earlier; and that the violent ones come later; and that later passages supercedes earlier ones.

    My understanding is that the surahs are arranged by length and that scholars have tried to arrange them chronologically, but have trouble doing so without splitting apart some of the surahs.

    “Jihad” is a word used and abused throughout Islamic history. Nowhere in the Koran is it associated with “holy war”; but Muslim rulers with the aid of religious scholars for the sake of political power have used armed jihad to legitimize wars fought during periods of imperial expansion and conquest. Many of these scholars enjoyed royal patronage for giving rulers religious rationale and endorsement for their imperial overreach. These (along with current Islamic militants) were the ones who rationalized that the “sword verses” abrogate the earlier verses which limits armed jihad to wars of defense. However, the full meaning and intent of a verse like 9:5 (“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.“) gets distorted when cited in isolation from context and when applied to infidels. The verse specifically refers to addressing a specific group, Meccan “idolaters”, accused of oath-breaking and warfare against Muslims.

    Mohammad lived in a violent society, in a violent age where his people were being persecuted.

    Of the approximate 6,236 verses of the Koran, only 59 mention fighting or warfare in any context. Of the 59, at least 10 contain injunctions on not fighting. Only about 47 verses urge warfare. Not a very successful manual on murder if less than 1% has to do with the topic of violence. 114 verses urge for peace. The verses on warfare are in the context of fighting defensive, just wars. Majority muslims believe the fighting verses were revealed in a specific, historic context to allow for self-defense over self-slaughter.

    As for the literal interpretation where it talks about how Muslims must not alter any part of the Koran, this is true. Muslims take this very seriously. However, interpretation has been going on for centuries (which is why al Qaeda must look to justification for their violence not from the Koran but from the interpretation of it through selective scholars, like Taymiyyah and Qutb when you have other Islamic scholars condemning al Qaeda jihadism as going against the teachings of Islam) because of the flawed nature of man.

    Muslims will tell you that the Koran can only be known from the original Arabic. Anything else is interpretative by the very nature of translation.

    As Sumbul Ali-Karamali writes in her book, The Muslim Next Door, pg 64:

    they read the English interpretations, which are by definition imperfect, some more than others. For another, they have not consulted the books of Islamic jurisprudence, which interpret the Qur’anic verses and sometimes come up with results that do not seem to follow from the face value of the verses. These commentators cannot know the idioms of thirteen-century-old Arabic. They remove words from their historical, temporal, and cultural contexts. They would not know, unless they did further research, which verses of the Qur’an have been superseded by other verses or by other sources of Islamic law. Even native Arabic speakers cannot just pick up a copy of the Qur’an and understand its meaning.

    Muslims believe the Qur’an is the very literal word of God; not just divinely inspired words but the actual divine words as spoken by God directly to Muhammad. It is because of this that Muslims are adamant in their refusal to change a word of it. Translations introduce different interpretative meanings and human error into the understanding of the text. Making it no longer God’s actual words. Ali-Karamali further writes,

    Muslims are afraid of losing accuracy. Moreover, since God spoke in Arabic, the Qur’an itself can exist only in Arabic. For this reason, prayers, which involve recitations of the Qur’an must be in Arabic.

    ~~~

    For me and all Muslims, the Qur’an is the embodiment of God on earth. For Christians, it is not the Bible but Christ who is the embodiment of God on earth.

    As for point 2, not even Islamic scholars all agree on what constitutes Shariah. When the Spencerian Islamic scholars think of it, they conjure up beheadings, stonings, and all the other Islamic boogeyman horror stories (as relayed in the video).

    The divine, abstract Shariah is the path God wants Muslims to follow. The concrete man-made Shariah is made up of the Koran, the Sunnah, and the books of jurisprudence, and is fallible because it was developed by fallible human beings. And Islamic scholars all differ on the topic of Shariah. “Islamic law”, as Shariah, is not “law” by government, but religious guidelines developed by Islamic scholars, somewhat similar to Judaic law.

    Basically, point 2 in the video is merely parroting the same interpretation that jihadis and puritanical radical Islamists have.

    Point 3? Shi’a tradition (Shi’ites comprising about 10% of Islamic practitioners). Minority belief and practice.

    Also distorted by anti-Islam conspiracists.

    This video should be shown in every classroom in the United States as its a good primer on what Islam is about.

    More like sad primer on anti-Islam indoctrinating propaganda. There are far better anti-Islam stuff out there than this.

    ReplyReply
  11. Missy says: 61

    @Wordsmith:

    Thank you Mr. Deep Thinker, very interesting and helpful, much appreciated and love your style… you prolly knew that though.

    ReplyReply
  12. Wordsmith says: 62

    @Missy: I’ve said it before: I’m not an Islamic scholar nor am I interested in debating theology. I have no interest in memorizing all the “peaceful” surahs anymore than I do memorizing all the “sword” surahs and violent passages to claim how “evil” Islam is. I don’t want to defend the religion itself, since I’m an outsider. But since we don’t have a resident commenter who is Muslim and able to defend Islamic beliefs and provide a counterweight argument….there you go. My imperfect regurgitation of stuff I’d think the anti-Islam folk are (and should already be) familiar with (probably dismissed as “political correctness”, but it ain’t), as much as we’re all familiar with all the rehashed anti-Islam diatribe, fueling hatred and intolerance in the other direction.

    ReplyReply
  13. Minuteman26 says: 63

    If calling Islam an enemy of this country and any other society that is not under their thumb makes me a bigot; I’m your man. Am bigotted towards Communists/Marxists/Progressives and illegal aliens because they are also threats to this Republic. The rest of your post is bullshit as all you do is make excuses for Islam. If you ran that crap past Alan West, I suspect you will get a very interesting response. “The Quranic Concept of War” by Pakistani Brig. SK Malik is a more in depth primer. Suggested you read that in a previous post. Obviously you didn’t. Lastly, should you be muslim, know that we are on opposite sides of the fence. (Believe you are but seem to be afraid to admit it.)

    ReplyReply
  14. Wordsmith says: 64

    Very close-minded response. Go ahead and shape your readings around your partisan beliefs, then.

    “The Quranic Concept of War” is still on my to-do reading list. Hope it’s nothing at all like your “3 points” video. :lol: I’m willing to listen to both sides of a coin and will look forward to it, when I get around to it.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wordsmith says: 65

    @Minuteman26:

    The rest of your post is bullshit

    That is a great argument! I should borrow that next time I’m feeling too lazy to offer an actual rebuttal to something as silly as your 3 point video.

    ReplyReply
  16. Wordsmith says: 66

    @Minuteman26:

    Lastly, should you be muslim, know that we are on opposite sides of the fence. (Believe you are but seem to be afraid to admit it.)

    If I were, why would you assume I would be too afraid to admit it, given I’ve challenged you time and time again on your educated religious bigotry toward Islam which lumps every practitioner under one camp of jihadism? You’re singing with the amen chorus, here. I’m the one going against the grain.

    ReplyReply
  17. Minuteman26 says: 67

    Word – You and CAIR should form a partnership. They’re now calling everyone a bigot that speaks discouraging words about Islam.

    ReplyReply
  18. suek says: 68

    Regarding the mosque, this expresses my feelings better than I’ve been able to myself:

    “All bending over backward tells moderate Muslims is that the American political elite will abandon everything — even Ground Zero — to the radicals. It tells the Muslim world that the American elite, from cowardice or moral vanity will sell out anyone. And that doesn’t breed Muslim respect; it breeds universal contempt. Then they will turn to each other and say, “if you were thinking of fighting by America’s side, don’t”. With a guy like Obama as your shield, who needs a sword?”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/08/15/talking-down-to-a-bigoted-nation/

    >>I’ll bet American Muslim women will do the same.>>

    Certainly something to keep an eye on. Still, remember this: muslims encourage polygamy. In the US, we approve of “serial” polygamy – that is, divorce and remarriage. In GB, one of the practices is to divorce wife #1, import wife #2 while wife #1 is placed on welfare since she already has children. Wife #2 is then divorced, while #3 is imported, and wife #2 is then on welfare because _she_ has children. Etc. Your muslim man then can have his allotted 4 wives, religiously approved, 3 of whom are on the public dole, and cannot ever be gainfully employed because they are uneducated and probably don’t speak English. It’s a good racket. Is it being done here? I have no idea – but we certainly have plenty of individuals on welfare with no male living in the home yet producing more children. The muslim woman might not have any reason to fight this – as far as she’s concerned, she’s properly married and cared for. What you consider abusive, she may not.

    I don’t know.

    Have you read “America Alone”?? Very interesting.

    ReplyReply
  19. suek says: 69

    >>And yes, it’s embarrassing to hear a modern woman basically give a pass to supposed “victim” women who do not fight for their own survival. Are we independent and self sufficient? Or do we need others to rescue us?>>

    This is a separate question. Some women are independent and self sufficient. Some are not.

    I don’t know if you have children or not, but women with children fall into a different category. I don’t remember the numbers of children who are presently living in poverty, but the number is staggering. Most of them are in single parent homes, and most of those homes are with their mother. In order for a woman to change that, she has to work. In order to work, she has to either leave the kids home alone, or put them in someone else’s care. I consider either to be less than desirable, and a lot of the root of our societal problems today. I’m aware that my opinion is one that is not PC, and possibly may give you heart palpitations, but I believe that the family is the foundation of a culture and we have neglected it of late. This gets into the gay marriage thing as well…but we’ll save that for another thread!

    ReplyReply
  20. suek says: 70

    >>They’re now calling everyone a bigot that speaks discouraging words about Islam.>>

    Except in Canada, of course. In Canada, they bring charges of “hate speech”…

    ReplyReply
  21. suek says: 71

    This is a comment made on AT today, on this thread: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/holding_islam_to_account.html

    Withholding judgment, but offered into evidence:) (Ok…_trying_ to withhold judgment!)

    “Posted by: ked5
    Aug 16, 02:52 PM
    as regards your “most muslims just want to live” comment – you perhaps have not read the polls among those American “just want to live” muslm residents. they SECRETLY APPROVE of the jihadi’s murders. they want a muslim country (so why don’t they live in one?). Just because they aren’t killing people themselves, doens’t mean they don’t support it.

    There is a mosque next door to my church. we’ve been encourage to visit on their “outreach” days. (could it fall under ‘keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?”) I did it once, that was plenty thank you very much. These were jane ordinary muslim women I visited with. Most, were “proud” to have NO FREE WILL. Some were (these were WOMEN mind you – at a *VISITORS* day. Imagine what they’re like when it’s only them!) proud to go out and be demonstrating against israel. Only one would I have considered to be willing to live alongside us heathens. *she* was the exception, NOT the rule.

    there is a saudi woman in my homeschool group. a convert to christianity. she shut up one christian engaging in PC musllim defense with very graphic detail. She ended with stating her famiy is IGNORING the tenents of islam by NOT killing her for apostacy. “

    ReplyReply
  22. MataHarley says: 72

    suek: Still, remember this: muslims encourage polygamy. In the US, we approve of “serial” polygamy – that is, divorce and remarriage. In GB, one of the practices is to divorce wife #1, import wife #2 while wife #1 is placed on welfare since she already has children. Wife #2 is then divorced, while #3 is imported, and wife #2 is then on welfare because _she_ has children. Etc. Your muslim man then can have his allotted 4 wives, religiously approved, 3 of whom are on the public dole, and cannot ever be gainfully employed because they are uneducated and probably don’t speak English. It’s a good racket.

    Sometimes I’m stunned at how your mind leaps around, suek. Are you under the assumption that the American welfare entitlement programs are heavily overburdened with Muslims, when the statistics by race and ethnicity say quite differently?

    Now there has been a few high profile court cases in the past year or two with Mormons doing just what you have suggested…. so maybe you ought to change the choice of religion in that statement, eh?

    But here’s something interesting for you to consider. I have said quite a few times that Muslims are a very likely conservative voting bloc. INRE welfare specifically, they are actually more closely aligned to the conservatives than to the liberals. This is like a voter pamphlet for Muslims in the run up to the 2000 election… where the Muslim majority were in the GOP camp.

    Welfare: Democrats on this issue appear to be more humanitarian than Republicans. However, this appearance is superficial. Democrats created a welfare system to use as a tool to promote atheism and agnosticism by promoting immorality and irreligious lifestyles. For example, the government is paying more money to two unmarried individuals separately under welfare than what they would receive as a family, if they were married. Then, there is the famous marriage tax as part of the Federal income tax code, which requires that a married couple pay more income tax when filing jointly than when filing separately with the same income, creating an incentive for shacking up. Single mothers who have given birth to children out of wedlock that receive welfare checks are not questioned about marriage or about the father of the child. Therefore, the government is involved in subsidizing the performance of anti-religious activity, which in this case is living in fornication and adultery, thus rewarding this behavior. Islam supports a welfare system without promoting indecency, sin, transgression, injustice, begging, laziness, and parasitism.

    Republicans see all these wrongs but cannot talk of the real evils of the welfare system because it will appear that they are in support of religion and religious values – the greatest sin under secularism. Rejection of God and the divine values given by Him is a necessary condition to be a secular person. Accordingly, all Christian and Jewish clergy who support secular values or a valueless society look like hypocrites. The Republican Party, therefore, has taken a stand against all the evils created by the welfare system of the Democrats. However, the Republicans have not been able to present their ideas in a coherent way without looking hard-hearted. A good welfare system is supported by Islam but its use to promote immorality is not condoned. In this area Muslims may support the Republicans in reforming the welfare system so that it becomes a tool for bringing decency, God-consciousness and morality in the society.

    Considering the extended hype by conservatives against Islam in general over Cordoba House, the GOP just might find themselves without this same voters’ bloc in the future.

    ReplyReply
  23. SUEK : hi, On your 70, it’s a wow, you can realy dig them out; IT leaves a concern thought for the next generation who will maybe have to correct this problem,and they will have to show that they cannot be tolerant any more. bye

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 74

    suek: I don’t know if you have children or not, but women with children fall into a different category.

    ….snip…..

    In order for a woman to change that, she has to work. In order to work, she has to either leave the kids home alone, or put them in someone else’s care. I consider either to be less than desirable, and a lot of the root of our societal problems today.

    To the first, yes.

    To the second, economic times have removed many options for stay at home parenting. Societal acceptance of divorce being as commonplace as changing your underwear have also had their effect. So I’m actually with you on the detrimental effect it has on family. And I wish that we would spend more time and energy on assaulting the Dems on fiscal issues this midterms. At least we could work on removing the financial reason for a parent not staying at home.

    But nooooo…. the GOP is apparently thinking of making Obama’s Cordoba statement a campaign issue:

    While Republicans may not mention the mosque in campaign ads, they likely will include it as part of a larger narrative that Obama is “outside the mainstream,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and president of the Feehery Group political consulting firm.

    “This confirms the worst fears for the Republican base about Obama,” Feehery said. “This will help drive turnout for the GOP base.”

    Apparently this strategist is unaware that the hyped rhetoric far exceeds the offensiveness of the location, and has moved into pure anti-Islam in the GOP base. This will, of course, eliminate the Muslim voting bloc (@see my comment above) the GOP has enjoyed in the past because of shared family values.

    ReplyReply
  25. MataHarley says: 75

    @suek: “evidence” of what, pray tell? Wonder what kind of attitude was on display by this person when they wandered into the “outreach” day?

    It’s a cyber story… could be true, could be fantasy…. of one side of a meeting. Obviously this person is unaware as to how she/he may have been perceived by those meeting her on this day. In one moment, he/she claims that no one appeared to want to “live along side the heathens”, and in the next claims they were feeling comfortable and intimate enough to tell her how much they love and admire jihad, and pine for the old country?

    uh… right. From the construction of that commentary, I wouldn’t trust this person to give me accurate feedback on if my dog ate his dinner that night.

    Let’s stick to more acceptable research instead of heebie jeebie, one sided cyber accounts by who knows who in the Internet.

    ReplyReply
  26. MATA: I am sure they would have vote for OBAMA anyway and more because he side up with the building,
    I even think that he said it to reinforce his opinion with muslim publicly, to secure their votes,
    and thought to back up from it would be securing the non MUSLIMS vote also
    HE must find that game funny, when no one is watching, but I keep my confidence on those last
    voters, that they are finding his speech not so funny anymore, they begin to see his failiure to
    produce what he promised. Thoses who will vote for the conservatives, have already learn of what is the benefit for them to stay in. bye

    ReplyReply
  27. suek says: 77

    >>Apparently this strategist is unaware that the hyped rhetoric far exceeds the offensiveness of the location>>

    Possible, of course, but I think you’re misunderestimating the situation, not the GOP strategist. But who knows…I guess that’s a wait and see kind of thing.

    >>This will, of course, eliminate the Muslim voting bloc (@see my comment above) the GOP has enjoyed in the past because of shared family values.>>

    So you think they’ll vote against their principles because people are offended and angry about what is seen as insensitivity to the location of an attack on the US? Somehow, if they’re the people _you_ say they are, then they’ll know their own history, understand the anger and vote with their cherished principles. This time, I think _you_ underestimate them!

    >>It’s a cyber story… could be true, could be fantasy….>>

    True. Entered as hearsay evidence. Not admissible in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, definitely. I thought it had the ring of truth – but it seems to me that you are unwilling to _consider_ (not accept, but consider) anything that seems negative towards muslims. Your option, of course.

    >>Let’s stick to more acceptable research instead of heebie jeebie, one sided cyber accounts by who knows who in the Internet.>>

    And who do you consider “acceptable”?

    ReplyReply
  28. MataHarley says: 78

    suek: So you think they’ll vote against their principles because people are offended and angry about what is seen as insensitivity to the location of an attack on the US?

    Oh but were it portrayed that way. Voices like Geller and Gingrich didn’t stop at the Cordoba House, but loudly condemned Islam and Shariah. So let me think…. do ya think a religion will want to stand with a party who’s leadership is against not only allowing them to build their mosques *every where*, but is also characterizing Shariah as stoning, dismemberment, beheading etal?

    uh, pondering…. don’t help…. computing….

    And if you think I’m joking about that anti-mosque everywhere, you may want to pay attention to all the GOP Congress types, protesting local mosques.

    I thought it had the ring of truth – but it seems to me that you are unwilling to _consider_ (not accept, but consider) anything that seems negative towards muslims.

    There ya go off that extreme deep end again, suek. I have plenty of negativity against Muslims for jihad. Would love to slay one a day if I could. I just don’t see jihad behind every American Muslim door like you, and I prefer to wait for evidence, not thinking “it had the ring of truth”.

    So while I reserve judgment, it can be equally pointed out that you gleefully rush to judgment.

    And who do you consider “acceptable”?

    Now you’re bordering on the absurd, suek. What do you want, a list? Easier, and quite obvious, to say who isn’t credible. And some anony internet commenter, regaling the echo chamber with a one sided visit to a local mosque… with a serious headscratching story, to boot… isn’t credible. Even were it entirely true, how many women could they have met out of all the Muslim women in America? Are they from a podunk small town where everyone is afraid of Muslims and not familiar with international cultures, thus putting the Muslims on edge in general?

    We know nothing, and the personal count is neglible in the Muslim population. It’s a waste of bandwidth, and seriously disappointing you bothered to lift/paste it. Shall we start lift pasting the ‘phobe comments all around the internet as well for contrast?

    ReplyReply
  29. Wordsmith says: 79

    @Minuteman26 #66:

    Word – You and CAIR should form a partnership. They’re now calling everyone a bigot that speaks discouraging words about Islam.

    I’ve often described CAIR as the Rainbow-Push Coalition for Muslims. They no more speak on behalf of American Muslims than Jesse Jackson speaks for blacks. In 2007, membership is said to have declined by 90% since 9/11.

    On the issue of the GZM, I’m sure I find myself in the unenviable position of finding some common ground with CAIR, just as there are those opposed to the GZM who find themselves aligned with Islamophobic bigots.

    @suek #67:

    Regarding the mosque, this expresses my feelings better than I’ve been able to myself:

    “All bending over backward tells moderate Muslims is that the American political elite will abandon everything — even Ground Zero — to the radicals. It tells the Muslim world that the American elite, from cowardice or moral vanity will sell out anyone. And that doesn’t breed Muslim respect; it breeds universal contempt. Then they will turn to each other and say, “if you were thinking of fighting by America’s side, don’t”. With a guy like Obama as your shield, who needs a sword?”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/08/15/talking-down-to-a-bigoted-nation/

    There’s some merit in that last point.

    After 9/11, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar), and Sheikh Taha Jabir a-Alwani (chairman of the North American Fiqh Council) issued a joint fatwa, signed by American Muslim leaders and internationally prominent Islamic scholars, denouncing bin Laden and the events of 9/11. The fatwa also sanctioned Muslim participation in OEF, acknowledging that the U.S. retaliation was justified. The fatwa stated that every Muslim had a duty to work toward bringing to justice the perpetrators.

    As for the political elite, going by polling, it would be more politically advantageous (at the moment) to side with American public opinion that opposes the GZM project (as Harry Reid has done).

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 80

    @Minuteman26, #27: “Aye – Ref23 – That is exactly what I’m saying. When they refute the Quran, then I’ll know they’re not trouble. Until that comes to pass, I consider all muslims my enemy. Didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.”

    We spent 742 billion dollars and sacrificed 4,415 American lives in Iraq to liberate a nation of people who are our enemies?

    That pretty much takes care of the last justification for the war that still made any kind of sense.

    ReplyReply
  31. Minuteman26 says: 81

    Greg – Exactly. War was justified, just fought in the wrong manner. The war should have been short and intense with the goal being the destruction of all enemy forces. No nation building. Should have left Iraq a smoldering ruin, with a warning that we would be back should the need arise. If fought that way the conflict would have only lasted a couple of years and our casualties would have been a lot less. Afganistan should be fought the same way. Destroy the enemy and get out. There ain’t no winning muslim hearts and minds.

    ReplyReply
  32. Donald Bly says: 82

    @Minuteman… I agree, but with a bit shorter time frame. Non stop shock and awe 24 hours a day for 3 or 4 months… and then get the f’ out.

    ReplyReply
  33. Donald Bly says: 83

    Wow… the GOP loses the Muslim voting block… Big f’n deal… all .06 percent of em. The Democrats have more dead people voting than that!

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site