Posted on 10/21/2007 2:51:16 AM PDT by Posting
American Muslims Must Learn To Accept Free Speech
http://outsidethewire.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/20/american-muslims-must-learn-to-accept-free-speech/
And I'm not just talking about Muslims. A lot of people need to take a time-out instead of getting all upset anytime someone says something you don't agree with.
Almost every day, I read about some group upset something was said. It's called racist, insensitive, intolerant, and I'm finding I'm repeating myself on these points every few columns. At the same time, liberals call conservatives every name they can think of, because when THEY do it, that's okay because THEY are the enlightened.
Local Muslims upset by UW campus event Seattle Times religion reporter A controversial week of events, billed as Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, launches at the University of Washington and some 100 other colleges next week — drawing condemnations from Muslim groups here and across the country. The UW College Republicans, organizer of the local events, say the week is intended to foster awareness of the terrorist threat posed by a small number of extremists within Islam. But some local Muslims say the week fosters Islamophobia and racism and attempts to paint all Muslims as terrorists. Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, launched this year by a recent graduate of Duke University and sponsored by the Los Angeles-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, is intended to "confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat," according to its Web site. The Web site includes suggested campus activities such as holding sit-ins outside women's studies departments to protest "the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam" and holding a memorial service for the "victims of Islamo-Fascist violence around the world."
Again, we've bent over backwards for Muslims in America, and what do we get as thanks? Well, certainly not always "Thanks."
For example, Christians and Jews cannot pray in an American public school or on it's grounds without incurring the wrath of the ACLU. Conversely, Muslims have been given (in some public schools) designated areas within the building where they can pray, and they got this and other considerations (and concessions) within our society because they make persistent "demands".
In the United States of America, our First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech; a concept that can get you killed in some countries. Our First Amendment also guarantees freedom of assembly, so if some students want to have "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week", they'll just have to deal with it. Muslims are free to protest all that week if they want to, but because it's a topic that has merit and they don't want to hear it, doesn't mean anyone has to shut up.
I don't recall seeing Americans taking to the streets, burning Middle East nation flags, while chanting "death" to that nation. We could, as that's our guaranteed right, but we don't because we're better than that. The recent bombings in Pakistan, for example, were not a new phenomenon. The wanton killing of civilians by religious fanatics has been a consistent terror tactic used, and must be denounced without reservation or condition. That is what, I believe, "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is all about.
No where in the "Terrorist Awareness" literature and commentary does the word "all" precede the word "Muslims". If it did, they would be wrong.
Don't kill the messenger as the messenger is not the one doing the killing.
Muzzies are Muzzies world wide, and not to be taken lightly
Same goes for college faculty and administration, as well as most students.
Free speech works both ways. Just as many people on the author's side on issues throw up a storm when they are faced with dissent as the people he is criticizing.
ping
...in the same class as scientology.
Agree on the cult status, but Scientology is not quite as violent or intolerant as Islam.
- Bill Vance
*****
I would add Islamo-Fascism to the above list.
Liberals will never condemn their fellow travelers!
Like Grandpa used to say...”Guilty dog barks loudest”.
Does he not realize that some consider views on his side of the aisle as being indoctrinating, too?
And although the indoctrination of children is not the same as being deliberately and almost pointlessly offensive, often times the impressionable are affected by such comments, and there is a propagation of those views to new people or a new generation. So basically, it is the scope of the indoctrination where there is variance.
That is pretty improbable (creative bumper sticker, though).
“They’re trying to ‘X’ out the Jews!!!!”
< /over-sensitive hysteria>
Yes, free speech works both ways. However, when a group attempts to stymie free speech of those who disagree by threatening bodily harm - and actually following through on said threats, "their" speech is no longer free. This is the Muslim objective - to mitigate criticism of their beliefs by intimidation. Also, one would be prudent to realize that there are no “moderate” Muslims. Even those who are upscale professionals living in nice suburbs harbor the same beliefs as those who we characterize as “extremists” and many of those so called moderate Muslims support those extremists groups in one way or another.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there will come another “flushing koran incident”...
Check the archives and start reading the Terri Schiavo threads, you may change your opinion on that.
***I don’t recall seeing Americans taking to the streets, burning Middle East nation flags, while chanting “death” to that nation. We could, as that’s our guaranteed right, but we don’t because we’re better than that.***
I flush a page a day just on principle.
This bunch hates free speech. The left hates free speech. Is that why they get along so well?
Liberals are the enlightened about group rights.
Yes don't you see, liberals acknowledge cultural rights and cultural rights go beyond individual rights, here's why: Corrective justice demands that there be compensation rights, Why? Because individual rights, one-man- er.. I mean, one-person-one-vote leads to tyranny of the majority, minorities suffer and thus have compensation rights. Compensation is at the cultural, ethnic, race, or sex level. Otherwise compensation would be at the individual rights level and cultural rights go beyond individual rights, here's why: Corrective justice demands that there be compensation rights, Why? Because individual rights, one-man- er.. I mean, one-person-one-vote leads to tyranny of the majority, minorities suffer and thus have compensation rights. Compensation is at the cultural, ethnic, race, or sex level. Otherwise compensation would be at the individual rights level and cultural rights go beyond individual rights, here's why: Corrective justice demands that there be compensation rights, Why? Because individual rights, one-man- er.. I mean, one-person-one-vote leads to tyranny of the majority, minorities suffer and thus have compensation rights. Compensation is at the cultural, ethnic, race, or sex level. Otherwise compensation would be at the individual rights level and . . . .
And wiccans cars.
Is this a joke? I have never seen a better illustration of Liberal (Let’s call it Muzzie adopted Liberal) thinking, so I assume that this has been planted by someone wanting to make a point.
One of Liberalism’s favorite tactics is to draw false equivalences between some egregiously radical Leftist statement, thought or tactic and any attempt to evaluate those radical statements, thoughts or tactics. This is a textbook example.
Taking exception to the authors tag-line “American Muslims Must Learn To Accept Free Speech” by saying that “free speech works both ways” is simply asinine. So, those who DON’T believe in free speech have the free speech right to try and deny others their free speech rights?
But that’s not enough confused thinking. The same author opines again:
“Does he not realize that some consider views on his side of the aisle as being indoctrinating, too?”
More silly (and utterly false) equivalence. I heard it said that a Liberal is one who will take both sides in an argument, and that is no exaggeration. The Liberal/multicultural assumption is that ANY idea is equivalent to any other idea, period. (The only exception being Liberalism itself, of course. That is sacrosanct) So, teaching children about honest science and the scientific method in evaluating something like climate change is the same (In Liberalism anyway) as teaching children false science that adheres to a political agenda. Both “sides” are equivalent because Liberalism says so. There is no absolute right or wrong, only equally important “sides”.
Simply breathtaking.
“Loudest skunk smells his own stink.”
Coexist?
Nice thought, unfortunately the Muslims don’t play fair. It is okay to lie to the Infidel. As far as free speech goes, they want to everyone to be tolerant of their hate speech against Jews, but if anyone criticizes them, the are racist Islamaphobes.
And, if they don't?
So must Harry Reid and the other signatories!
Theres a whole lot of Killin going on in that there Holy Book Pardner!
Succinct, accurate and to the point.
We can’t afford the luxury of politically correct thinking on this subject any longer.
... and they abuse our higher moral ground.
This Howard Zinn style assault on reason is based on one premise: That life is supposed to be perfectly fair. Any outcome of any situation that deviates from that perfection is unacceptable and requires Liberal intervention to achieve the desired perfect outcome. So they invent “cultural rights”, which is a simpleminded way to justify government intervention in areas that government has no business being in. The government would have a hard time convincing the population that it is within the governments purview to make every aspect of life “fair”, but to say that they are simply upholding every groups “cultural rights” is a way to justify the totalitarian intervention so desired by the Left.
The high sounding phrases “corrective justice” and “compensation rights” (in the Liberal universe) have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with justification to achieve power. This means that Liberals present those things as de facto entitlements (no proof necessary - it is assumed) to be handed out to the competing groups by the Libs in government. So, in this Liberal universe, the more successful a person or group is the more they need to be punished and the fruits of their success expropriated and handed out to the unsuccessful groups and persons. It is a tyranny of the supposed “enlightened” elites over everyone else, which pretty much describes every Communist/Socialist country that has ever existed.
The thing the Libs fear most is the widespread adoption of universal standards - applied to everyone equally - within any society. They know that when the majority of any society sees themselves as part of a larger enterprise with shared values and norms they (The Libs) are seen for what they are - Power hungry narcissists who really care only about themselves.
fping, gotta post a nice pic a freeper made brb...have patience!!
Isn't it? The a priori presumption of "neutrality," leads the Moderate into the liberal camp.
The highest achievement of American Conservatism may be the idea of two sides, polarizing liberals into a defensive posture.
I can remember when the Walter Cronkites of the Old Monopolistic Media really did consider themselves as having a lock on truth, that any dissent was considered "extremist." This is progress.
As the angry liberal comedian George Carlin once said, "there's no two ways about it, there are two sides to every story."
Objective reality borne of the weight of historic evidence is nearly lost, and this is not progress.
Now the liberal still believe they have a lock on tolerance, intelligence, et.al., and still cling to their illusion of cohesive neutrality, but because this is an impossible position, they have finally begin fighting among themselves.A cult can be defined by it's strongest unifying aspect: Hatred. In the case of the liberals, hatred at Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, etc. Individuals flee to the collective, like Adam "running for the tall grass" have no ability to distinguish between Christian and Muslim except they know Christians don't issue Fatwahs.
It really is a cowardly position, a substitute for critical thinking and a substitute for self-confidence.
"What, me worry?"
Yes, now we can all worry.
Islam — Some Important Points
Extracted from Who is Allah in Islam? by Abd Al-Masih, (Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria, 1999)
More than 10 million Muslims working and studying in Europe as of 1999. (p.11)
“Islam,” translated means surrender, submission or subjection. (p. 11)
The Arabic words for a religious service, place of worship and worshiper are derived from the word for slavery. (pp. 11, 12)
Muslims do not thank Allah because he has already saved them through grace. On the contrary, they feel they must pray and keep the Law, to have the good will of Allah bestowed upon them. So Islam is a religion based on self-righteousness in which everyone tries to accumulate good deeds and so establish his own salvation by good works. (p. 14) Editor’s note: Remember that “good deeds” can include bombings, murderings, torturings, etc. In the name of Allah.
Islam is a religion underthe law of Allah. (p. 15)
In the past, the world, according to the strategy of Islam, was divided into two great areas: The House (territory) of Peace (Dar-es-Salam) and the House of War (Dar-el-Harb). Peace ostensibly reigned only in countries where Islam had become the state religion and where the sharia’, the law of Islam, controlled life. The “House of War”, however, encompassed the other nations who had refused to acknowledge Allah. In past months, pamphlets were distributed in a country of the Near East with the heading, “Aslim Taslam!”, which means: accept Islam and submit to Allah, then you will not be persecuted, but can live a peaceful life! Mission work in Islam does not only mean to convince a person intellectually by arguments that Islam is the best religion revealed by Allah; it utilizes pressure in all fields at its disposal — economics, politics and even the holy war! The Koran commands all followers of Allah to fight for the victory of their religion. (p.30)
Muhammed...repeatedly faught in person alongside his fighters until they conquered Mecca and the whole ofthe Arabian Peninsula. The spread of Islam is based on the sword! The Holy War in Islam is considered a direct command of Allah and is not merely an interpretation or misinterpretation of his will by the believers. Therefore, the potentiality of holy war in Islam still exists. (p.31)
There is no separation between throne and altar, between politics and religion. In fact, mosques are often the starting point for demonstrations and political upheaval. Friday sermons are not confined to the fostering of faith and spiritual life, but often voice strong appeals to stir up the people for political conflicts in the name of Allah. (p. 32)
Anyone not surrendering voluntarily to [the absolute sway of Islam] must be brought into subjection either by cunning strategy, economic persuasion or revolutionary force. (p.32)
If one compares the 99 names of Allah in Islam with the names of [Jehovah] God in the Bible, one must acknowledge that the Allah of the Muslims is not in harmony with our God. Therefore, if a Muslim [or an ignorant “Christian”] says, “Your God and our God is the same,” either he does not understand who Allah and Christ really are, or he intentionally glosses over the deep-rooted differences. (p. 36)
Allah is not a Father. The Koran (Sura 5:18) emphatically rejects such a relationship as [men] becoming children of God. (pp. 39, 40)
For a Muslim it is blasphemy to think or say that Allah had a son through Mary. God’s spiritual Fatherhood remains incomprehensible to their mind. ... [Mulims] do not know and appreciate the nearness of God, who in His love as our Father revealed Himself in Christ. (p. 42)
Allah has no son! The Sonship of Christ is another subject which outrages Muslims. ... The Son [in their thinking] could rebel against his Father at any moment.. Only Allah is the powerful one. In the Koran [Allah] is also called the arrogant and the most crafty of the cunning (Sura 59:23 and 3:54). Christ’s meekness and gentleness, as well as His self-denial, are regarded as weakness in Islam. (p. 43) Editor’s note: This is a point that should be looked at carefully by liberal and modernist “Christian” clergymen who have spent their ministries emphasizing only our Saviour’s meekness and gentleness, and skirting around His other attributes.
The spirit of Islam is full of pride. So a Muslim cannot understand the meekness and gentleness of Christ’s character. (p. 44)
The existance of a Son of God would also mean an encroachment upon Allah’s sovereignty. Allah forgives whom he wants, when he wishes and where he plans. He does not need a lamb, a mediator or a cross. Islamic reasoning declares the Crucified Christ unnecessary, because Allah does everything alone. (p. 44)
Muhammed’s denial of the Sonship of Christ includes the rejection of the historical fact of the crucifixion. He simply said without hesitation, “they crucified him not” (Sura 4:157). (p. 44)
The contrast between the holiness of God that demand the death of all who are guilty, and His love that longs to save all sinners, is concealed from Islam. Allah does not love sinners (a principle that is recorded 24 times in the Koran, Sura 2:190ff), but only those who fear him (Sura 3:76). For this reason, no Muslim can ever be certain whether Allah has prepared a place for him in paradise or if the gates of hell will stand wide open to receive him. (p. 46)
Islam does not recognize a crucifed Son of God. They have no concept of the Lamb of God who was the vicarious sacrifice for mankind. Therefore, no Muslim can perceive redemption; they remain without grace and abide in their sins. (p. 46)
Islam rejects not only the Father and the Son, but also asserts that the Holy Spirit is not God but a created spirit like angels and demons. (p. 47)
We must state that Muslims do not recognize the Holy Spirit, and that He does not dwell within them. Therefore, they cannot call Christ Lord and do not belong to Him (1 Cor. 12:3, Rom. 8:9). (p. 47)
The actual assurance of salvation...is absent in Islam. (p. 48)
The certainty that an eternal Father hears every cry of His children is missing in Islam. Personal contact with God is lacking. Muslims are not children of Allah; they are his slaves. (p. 48)
Allah —No Love! (p. 51)
Even in his mercifulness, which is Allah’s favourite name in Islam, he remains the Great and Exalted One who at best will condescend a little to help his needy creatures. Even in exercising his mercy he remains distant and impersonal. (p. 51)
Words similar to the Old Testament are used in the Koran; Such as, “An eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth” (Sura 5:49, Exodus 21:23, 24). [But see] ( Matthew 5:44). (p. 53)
The everyday language of Muslims abounds with expressions like, “I am in the right” (the right is with me), “You are in the wrong” (the right is upon you). There is no flexibility in deciding the right, and compromises are seldom possible. To compromise would be an injustice.
Consequently, every sin and mistake merits reprisal and punishment. (p. 54) [In other words, there is no concept of expiation or propitiation, or the satisfaction of justice that might free a sinner.]
In Islam blood revenge is the law of Allah. ... The Muslims do not understand the need for sacrifice nor that all demands of justice in God’s law have been fulfilled by Jesus, once for all time and for all people. ...since reconciliation with God through Christ is denied in Islam, the principle of blood revenge is perpetuated. ...unconditional forgiveness is regarded as unjust in Islam, grace does not supercede justice, but justice overrides grace. Anyone who has been in Islamic countries, the “House of Peace”, for a long period of time, knows of endless blood feuds—the revengeful murder of family members for the maintaining of another family’s honor. (pp. 54, 55)
In the Koran [Allah] commanded Islam to be defended with weapons, to carry out holy wars with bloodshed, and to kill every convert who leaves Islam by rejecting Allah and accepting Christ as the Son of God (Sura 5:9). The God of Islam is a God of retribution, and consequently a judge who is merciless in punishing iniquity. The legalistic reasoning among Muslims comes from Allah himself, as well as from a fanatical pride and the desire for retribution. (p. 56)
[In Islam] The wife is not a partner but a commodity for the man, a means to an end. This is all linked with the fact that in Islam a person is not made in the image of Allah b is only a slave For this reason the wife also does not stand on the same level as her husband, but is considered to be only a little higher than a maidservant. She is regarded as his field, in which he can sow whenever he wishes (Sura 2:223). (pp. 58, 60)
...75% of the Koran is composed of distorted laws and stories from the Old Testament. (p. 65)
...the Koran bears clear witness to the virgin birth of Christ but denies that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Mohammed claims that [Jesus] was created through God’s word out of nothing. Christ’s validity in Islam is simply as a great prophet who did mighty wonders. ... Without dying, Christ was supposedly lifted by Allah directly into heaven where he still lives today. According to the Koran, the living Christ is an article of Islamic doctrine. He is recognized as such both in this and the other world, from which he will come again to judge all Jews and Christians who have not accepted Islam. ...there is a radical denial of Christ’s deity and a rejection of the real purpose of his coming and also of his atoneing death. According to the Koran, Jesus was not the Son of God, and his crucifixion never took place. (pp. 66, 67) [See 1 John 2:18-23; 4:1-6.)
Good post devolve.
Thanks for excellent posting.
Ah, but it is. At least to those who desperately seek Liberal redemption, which is proudly devoid of substance and eschews reason for the piety of empty Liberal catechisms like anthropogenic glo-bull warming and “waking up on the wrong side of Capatalism” with their morning coffee.
They will exorcise their nihilistic compulsions like lemmings in a mad rush to fling themselves off the cliff, all the while supremely confidently of both their infallibility and their superior enlightened wisdom. The social momentum of modern Liberalism will lead to its own inevitable destruction, but in this age of mass communications and superweapons it has the ability to destroy all.
But what else are we to expect when they have been inculcated with the false ethics of this modern synthetic commercial culture and increasingly devoid of any willing connection to the ancient wisdom?
As Fitzgerald coined the term in this context, I credit him with seeing the coming “dissipation”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.