Posted on 08/14/2010 6:32:02 PM PDT by Islaminaction
In attempt to scare off those that speak the truth about Islam, Muslims and their supporters continually toss out the term “Islamophobia”. The other day a Muslim posted a link to the plan on my site, and I am not exactly sure why he or she did it. Either way it is all layed on the website of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago. One of their goals is to try and equate the term “Islamophobia”, with a hate crime. There are numerous points in their plan that we need to counter. There are obviously many lies in this list, but I will not bother to refute them all, we need the focus to stay on the actions we must take.
(Excerpt) Read more at loganswarning.com ...
You are welcome PG. :)
Like other FALSE religions, they always drag in illicit sex, harsh treatment of people and holier than thou attitudes even though they are ANYTHING but that. They are evil to the core. There is no love. There is no selflessness and the ONLY "suffering" they have is them IMPOSING it on someone else. It's a twisted "religion".
“My parents trained me to be afraid of perverted homos when I was a child.”
When I grew up, they were in the closet.
It wasn’t until I was an adult that I knew anything about them. That is the way it should be - STAY IN THE DAM CLOSET and stop trying to ELEVATE PERVERSION and IMPOSE it on others.
What needs to be understood is that it is the same club of Alinskyite and Edward Said Marxists who purposely decided to use these two absurd terms, homophobia and Islamophobia (homophobia was a used a couple of times before to mean a male’s fear of his own having same sex attractions).
Once the Alinskyites saw how stupid the public was in actually fearing anyone would perceive them as ‘bigoted” or see them as having a phobia over the issue, the Alinskyites decided to go for broke in their support of Islamic jihadists infiltration and physical attacks on America and attach the suffix onto Islamo- and see how that would fly.
They take the offensive; it’s time to expose their charade and their lies.
The Left perpetrate the charade they set in motion by pushing the use of these bogus terms as part of their brainwashing vocabulary.
Obama is a protege of both Edward Said directly when Obama was at Columbia and of Chicagoan Alinsky’s first generation disciples, such as Hillary.
One of their goals is to try and equate the term “Islamophobia”, with a hate crime. There are numerous points in their plan that we need to counter.
Muslim’s 16 Point Plan on Trying to Silence us by Using the Term “Islamophobia”
Can it get any clearer than the above statement? When it comes to Islam, they want to make free speech a hate crime.
One of their goals is to try and equate the term “Islamophobia”, with a hate crime. There are numerous points in their plan that we need to counter.
Article, # 5 , # 22.
I’ve got a one point plan on using the term “Islamderthal”. My plan is to use that or call them hog rapists.
Can I use “sandmaggots” its just too good!!!
Islamophobia!?
There is also “Christophobia”!
http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/christophobia.html
Christophobia and Culture: Weigel Looks at Europe
[...]
The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God
George Weigel
Basic Books, 2006
Reflecting on the two different inspirations for these monuments [the Grande Arche de la Defense and the Cathedral of Notre Dame], Weigel asked himself, “Which culture would more firmly secure the moral foundations of democracy? The culture that built this stunning rational, angular, geometrically precise but essentially featureless cube? Or the culture that produced the vaulting and bosses, the gargoyles and flying buttresses, the nooks and crannies, the asymmetries and holy ‘unsameness’ of Notre Dame and the other great Gothic cathedrals of Europe?”
This book is the result of the question he posed for himself in Paris.
Of course, Weigel writes as a convinced American Catholic with a tremendous love for all that Europe has meant. Like the great majority of Americans, he is descended from European immigrants. He has traveled throughout Europe, where he is frequently invited to lecture and teach. In addition, he both knew and wrote about arguably the greatest European of the past century, Karol Wojtyla.
At the same time, as a loyal American, Weigel is concerned for the future of the United States, fearing that the United States may follow the road Europe appears to have chosen. This book is motivated in part by his desire to help his fellow Americans avoid Europe’s mistakes.
Weigel then turns to “Christophobia” — a term coined by international legal scholar J.H.H. Weiler (himself an observant Jew) to describe a phenomenon clearly prevalent in many parts of Europe, where even a mention of Christ or the Church in private conversation, much less in a public forum, is enough to cut short public dialogue or private conversation. What a contrast with John Paul’s ringing proclamation in his first encyclical of Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of man!
Weigel distills from Weiler’s work eight components of Christophobia. In somewhat different ways, the reader will see that they also apply to North America, affecting our culture, entertainment, media, government, education, etc.
The first factor is the “20th century experience of the holocaust,” as if the Shoah resulted from a Christian-based anti-Semitism. Second is “the 1968 mindset” that many leaders of that generation took with them as they rose to important positions in government, the universities, and the media. These aging veterans of the spirit of ‘68 can echo the Ecrasez l’infame (Crush the infamous thing!) of Voltaire in the 18th century, the infamy being Christ and his Church. Third among the components of Christophobia, and more particular to Europe, is “a psychological and ideological backlash to the Revolution of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe; strangely enough, because the Revolution was largely fueled by Christians reacting against communism as the “embodiment” of secularism, psychological denial followed.”
Fourth on the list Weigel recounts is “continuing resentment of the dominant role once played by Christian Democratic Parties in post-war Europe … in the creation of the Common Market, then the European Community and so forth.”
As can clearly be seen from all of the above, “Christophobia” is part of a massive rewriting of a historical past, which includes the editing out of unruly realities that contradict the secularist interpretation of history. Certainly Europe would be something quite different today if Catholic statesmen such as Charles de Gaulle, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Alcide de Gasperi, and Konrad Adenauer had not steered post-World War II Europe during the years when the Soviet threat loomed largest over their countries.
The fifth point is “Europe’s tendency to parse everything right/left — and then identify Christianity with the right, which is the party (as the left sees it) of xenophobia, racism, intolerance, bigotry, narrowness, nationalism, and everything else Europe must not be.”
Similar name-calling is increasingly pervasive in the United States, with opponents throwing mud recklessly, instead of calmly discussing issues. Next Weigel lists resentment toward Pope John Paul II (now transferred to Benedict XVI) among both secularists and Catholic dissidents.
The popes and the Church are accused of being pre-modern, but as Weigel sagely points out, “The alternative possibility — that John Paul II was a thoroughly modern man with an alternative, and perhaps more penetrating reading of modernity — simply cannot be entertained.”
Seventh among the conditions conducive to Christophobia is that Europeans have been “fed by distorted teaching about European history that stresses the Enlightenment’s roots of the democratic project to the virtual exclusion of democracy’s historical cultural roots in the Christian soil of pre-Enlightenment Europe. Nothing new here. Since the “Whig” historians began propagating their view of the progress of human history flowing out of both the Reformation and the Enlightenment, mainstream historians have basically shrugged off the so called “Dark Ages” and Middle Ages as obscure wasted centuries full of Papist superstition and barbarian warfare.
For the eighth element in Christophobia, Weigel conveys Weiler’s suggestion “that the aging children of 1968, now middle-aged and soon to be retired, are upset that, in some cases, their children have become Christian believers.”
Of all his points, this is both the most hopeful and perhaps the least realistic.
[…]
This is scary and not sure if it can be reversed.
MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS.
You have to counter that talk with the term “Islamic Supremacist,” which immediately puts them on the defensive. It does away with pointless debates over what constitutes an “extremist” or an “Islamist.” Everyone knows exactly what “supremacist” means.
Thanks for the ping.
The Mohamadens need to seriously reevaluate their public relations strategies.
If “Islamophobia” is the belief that islam is a twisted death cult seeking to cover the world in 7th century ignorance ruled by despotic barbarism then count me with the Islamophobes.
I don’t suffer from Islamophobia, I embrace Islamodisgust.
“Islamophobic” thanks for the ping, LucyT.
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.