Robin Marty
Robin Marty is a freelance writer and editor from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Formerly, she worked as the Director of Special Projects for the Center for Independent Media, a progressive online news organization with sites across the country
Posted on 03/11/2011 5:00:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It seems like it was just weeks ago that the most important question to be asked in any senate debate was where the candidate stood on the issue of the Park51 "Ground Zero Mosque." Many of us signed in relief when the 2010 campaign was over, happy to see what we hoped would be a break in the Muslim-bashing that became a cornerstone of so many Republican candidacies.
Sadly, it appears that it will be back again with a vengeance as we look ahead to 2012.
Via CNN:
In the run-up to last November's elections, Republicans including Palin and Gingrich weighed in against the proposed New York Islamic center, while Oklahoma voters approved a Republican-led effort to ban Sharia law (though the ban was blocked by a federal judge).
In the months since, roughly a dozen other states have started weighing bans on Sharia, with all or almost all of those efforts led by GOP lawmakers.
Other high visibility Republicans have criticized Islam or aspects of the religion or the Muslim community. Mike Huckabee, likely a 2012 presidential candidate, last month called Islam "the antithesis of the gospel of Christ" and criticized congregations that allow mosques to use their churches for prayers.
There are disagreements about what has caused such critiques to become an increasingly important part of GOP messaging and policy efforts. But with the Republican presidential primary on the horizon, as well as the 10-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, political analysts say the trend is likely to accelerate.
Accelerate? Wasn't 2010 heated enough? Can the country handle even more anti-Islamic rhetoric in our national debate?
Not only can the country handle more “anti-islamic rhetoric”, but there NEEDS to be more.
The real question, can it handle more “Anti-judeo-christian” rhetoric ? I think not.
Robin Marty
Robin Marty is a freelance writer and editor from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Formerly, she worked as the Director of Special Projects for the Center for Independent Media, a progressive online news organization with sites across the country
I’m pro Zuhdi Jasser.
Obviously, this moron has never heard of 09-11-01. He/she is going to look good in a burqa.
I do not believe that I could be any more Anti Islamo-fascist than I already am.
But, I’ll work on it.
>Can the country handle even more anti-Islamic rhetoric in our national debate?<
.
If muslims chuck the teachings in the Koran, stop persecuting Christians all over the world and start joining the human race, they won’t have any problems.
I doubt that presently a sensible debate with them is even possible.
Please do, as will I.
Based on her picture, you are all too right! The beekeeper outfit will be an improvement.
Why spoil the fun.
The term anti-Islamic is also referred to as just simply telling the truth.
No demagoguing, not hysteria, not stereotyping or racism at all, but just the plain factual documented truth.
Are we expected to just let them pee on our heads and tell us it is raining? Should we just ignore everything they have written, and said, and done worldwide? What do all their countries look like?
Would it be best if we would just lay down and accept Islam as the ‘superior’ culture.
I don’t even understand what ‘anti-Islam’ means. Unless it means not being a blind idiot.
Anyone would have to be crazy to support or even condone that murderous death cult. They kill people constantly across the globe. Women are no more than slaves with no rights. And they are the single most openly proud racist organization on the planet.
Come on! I’m not a stupid fool. Of course I am anti-Islam. Who wouldn’t be?
You betcha! And here is just the individual to deliver it!
Can the country handle even more anti-Islamic rhetoric in our national debate?
After 9/11...you bet babe!
I never liked the idea or application of loyalty oaths except for taking such an oath in order to fullfill usual requirements of citizenship. However,because there is a need to separate any allegience to any law ,in total, from our Constitution and It’s structure of law(s) for separation of civil and religious laws, there has to be some means to have Muslims swear to the laws of our Constitution as paramount over any corresponding/conflicting part of Sharia Law.
I never liked the idea or application of loyalty oaths except for taking such an oath in order to fullfill usual requirements of citizenship. However,because there is a need to separate any allegience to any law ,in total, from our Constitution and It’s structure of law(s) for separation of civil and religious laws, there has to be some means to have Muslims swear to the laws of our Constitution as paramount over any corresponding/conflicting part of Sharia Law.
“I’m pro Zuhdi Jasser.”
Me, too!
GREAT!!!
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.