Postcard USA: Open Season on Islam

Daily Times [Pakistan] ^ | January 5, 2003 | Khalid Hasan

[Mrs. Obelix]

The latest insult to Islam comes in the form of a new book - "Islam Unveiled" - by Robert Spencer which rejects the thesis that Islam is a religion of peace or that it has been hijacked by a minority of extremists. It is open season on Islam in America.

[Jhoffa_]

Regards..

:)

[Odile]

Jhoffa_ wrote:

//I find it interesting that in answer to Islam's violence against innocents abroad, that many of my FReeper friends advocate more violence against innocents domestically.

It's a sad statement.\\

For once I agree with you. Any threat of violence is playing right into the enemy's hands. We don't want to hand YOU a victory by using tactics that are ill-advised at best.

Good point!

[Jhoffa_]

For once I agree with you. Any threat of violence is playing right into the enemy's hands.

Oh my, we do agree..

And if you look at the article linked by Swarthyguy there's a Muslim in there from Pakistan who's denouncing the Wahhabi's terror.

IMO, there's a good example of someone perfectly capable of worshiping Islam and not harming anyone in the process.

[Odile]

I understand that Islam's aim is to convert all non believers to Islam, or kill them. They've written it, they believe it and they've carried it out.

//I am against allowing foreigners to immigrate to this country who have no intention on "becoming" American and embracing our values and upholding our
Constitution.

//I am against all illegal immigration of any persons. Period.

//As far as American born or nationalized Muslims, as long as they stand up and fight with us fine, otherwise, they are against us.\\

BRAVO! I'm with you, sir, on EVERY point.

Neither YOUR message nor any of MINE suggest hate or violence. You -- and I are on the side of Common Sense and Prudence. Why our GOVERNMENT, apparently, is NOT (See the Ashcroft Dictum quoted in full above), I cannot comprehend.

That statement, G.W. Bush's numerous iterations of the imbecilic statement that "Islam is a religion of peace," and the Bush "Open Borders" Immigration Policy, make me wonder if, perhaps we didn't elect a moron AFTER all?

I find the government's unwillingness -- or inability -- to do anything SERIOUS and concrete to guarantee our safety here at home to be perplexing and depressing in the extreme.

[Odile]

SG to Jhoffa:

//As I said, they don't see it or get it and your comments exhibit the arrogance they [Muslims/Arabs, Palestinians, etc.] have of seeing themselves somehow as privilieged and outside the bounds of normal human relations.\\

I agree with everything you said to Jhoffa.

Good man!

[Eaker]

No Eaker, you are mistaken.

No, I am not.

In the eyes of fedgov, with regard to first amendment protections, there is no difference between these religions.

This is true, as the “fedgov” has its head buried in the “religion of peace” sand.

Don't misunderstand. It's easy to do, so pay attention.

You flatter yourself. After all of your posts on the subject you have not changed ONE SINGLE MIND. In fact, you have reinforced the feelings of hatred.

I am not equating them outside of that.. I will not put Islam on par with Christanity in any other sense.

You have this correct.

Simply because you “knew a guy”, doesn’t convince anyone of anything.

Eaker

[Jhoffa_]

Simply because you “knew a guy”, doesn’t convince anyone of anything.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't diminish the first amendment either.

[Odile]

//True. On one hand there are religions that preach peace and on the other hand there is Islam teaching murder and discrimination.

//You truly are clueless.\\

You are perfectly correct. Thanks for saying it. Of course, the guy we are addressing is only a Troll. I suppose he's loving every bit of this attention he;s getting, but the sentiments he expresses -- whether sincerely or not -- MUST be addressed and put down -- as you and I and several others are doing quite adequately, thank God.

When the day comes that no one has the will or the energy to stand up to tripe like this, we'll REALLY be in the soup.

[Auntie Dem]

And what crime have these Muslims committed?

What crime had the Mormons committed? There were no laws against polygamy when the persecution first started. And after the laws were passed the persecution amounted to ex post facto--also supposedly unconstitutional.

Yes, it was so ridiculous as to not merit a response.

Another gratuitous assertion, but no valid response.

You just don't like the idea that our constitution has been used to justify bigotry. You liked the decision AGAINST the Mormons, you just don't want the same treatment applied to the muslims, so you claim the comparison isn't valid. It is certainly true that two wrongs don't make a right, but until the polygamy decision is overturned, as was the Dred Scott decision, the rule stands, and the government is authorized (and should) to do the same to the muslims.

[Jhoffa_]

There were no laws against polygamy when the persecution first started. And after the laws were passed the persecution amounted to ex post facto--also supposedly unconstitutional.

(ahem..) And you wish to use this precedent to to have the federal government punish innocent Muslim Americans and call it good and Constitutional? You will support this?

You liked the decision AGAINST the Mormons..

Since you mention it the "one wife at a time" rule seems to be derived completely from Judeo-Christian principles.. for which I can find no scriptural basis.

[Auntie Dem]

Since you mention it the "one wife at a time" rule seems to be derived completely from Judeo-Christian principles.. for which I can find no scriptural basis.

You don't remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and many other of the patriarchs had more than one wife at a time? Even David's multiple wives were approved until he went over the edge with Bathsheba.

I never said it was GOOD constitutional law, just that it was constitutional. That is why I referred to the decision as a petard. The logic should blow up in the faces of those who supported the polygamy decision, but do not support the same reasoning against muslims. Who, BTW, are NOT innocent, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't want the same logic applied to muslims then get the ball rolling to overturn the polygamy decision.

We already have too many double standards pertaining to religion. Such as the leftist ACLU promoting Islamic presentations and prayers in public schools, but banning Christian?

[Jhoffa_]

You don't remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and many other of the patriarchs had more than one wife at a time? Even David's multiple wives were approved until he went over the edge with Bathsheba.

Oh, but I do remember.. all too well.

The only prohibition I am aware of is for specific church leaders, period. In fact, I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Regardless, this decision does in no way authorize the Federal Government to act against American Muslims because of their faith alone.

It has no bearing on the matter at hand whatsoever.

John Ashcroft was quoted earlier in the thread.. Go read what he said and you will see that there is not even a desire on behalf of fedgov to intervene here.

It's entirely inconsequential.

[Odile]

Dear Auntie Dem,

How I'd love to be able to hire you as my personal advocate! Your logic is impeccable -- your USE of it masterful.

To myself I questioned your application of the word "petard" earlier on this long, tedious thread. I thought you must have meant "canard," which, as you know, means a false story, an unsubstantiated rumor or a hoax -- something which CERTAINLY might apply quite easily to anything GOOD written about Islam and its barbaric and maniacal adherents.

"Petard" means an explosive device. To be "hoist in one's own petard" means you are caught in a trap of your own devising. I'm not quite sure that evolved from the explosive device, but it's a well-established idiom. I can see now what you meant when you said that a certain false argument blew up in someone's face.

Both these words seem to indicate the use of some sort of deliberate strategy designed to gain advantage over an opponent either through subterfuge or direct attack. Both fit the Muslim situation very well I should think.

Please forgive this digression. Words have always fascinated me, and I've never given up the search to find ways to use them ever more precisely.

Thank you for being such a big help in indicating to whatever readers there be the falseness and complete lack of logic in one incredibly enacious troll's incessant drumbeat in support of an egregiously unworthy cause.

[Squantos]

I've done it before.....duct tape yer scanner to the back of yer laptop and get an extension cord...yada yada yada yak yak yak and then .......wahlah !!

Stay Safe Eaker !:o)

[Odile]

Jhoffa said to Auntie Dem:

//. . . John Ashcroft was quoted earlier in the thread.. Go read what he said and you will see that there is not even a desire on behalf of fedgov to intervene here.

It's entirely inconsequential\\

The remarks by our illustrious Attorney General John Ashcroft, quoted in Post #306, unfortunately illustrate the TRAGIC degree to which this country has fallen under the spell -- and the THREAT -- of Political Correctness.

While I do not support vigilantism, such as the activities of the KKK, Aryan Nation and other similar redneck hate groups, I feel it was a dismal day for America when the first official response from our Justice Department regarding the OBVIOUS source of the monstrous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was the dishearteningly pusillanimous document quoted earlier. The stern rhetoric and dire threats of Draconian reprisal were entirely misdirected -- rather like pointing a loaded cannon at the very fort you are supposed to be defending.

That's WORSE than pusillanimous. It frankly borders on TREASON.




.

[Jhoffa_]

I thought you were busy ignoring me and making faces behind my back?

[Odile]

I dedicate this post to Jhoffa with gratitude and affection for the splendid recital of unabated and unrepentant pigheadedness he's presented to us all:


A tenaciously treasonous Troll
Had a notion exceedingly droll.
He went to the ball
In nothing at all
And BACKED IN as a Parker House roll!


Just picture that whenever you're tempted to lose patience or give way to depression. It SHOULD help.

Cheerio!

[Auntie Dem]

The only prohibition I am aware of is for specific church leaders, period. In fact, I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the prohibition TODAY only applies to the Mormons, that any other religion, including, or specifically, Islam, can practice polygamy within the U.S. with impunity?

Regardless, this decision does in no way authorize the Federal Government to act against American Muslims because of their faith alone.

In THEORY the government sanctioned persecution against the Mormons was not supposed to punish belief, but the implementation of that persecution in essence did. While only a small percentage of Mormons at the time practiced polygamy, the seizure of church properties was committed against ALL the members of the church who merely professed a belief in the principle of plural marriage.

You may be (or may not) be interested to know the federal government sent judges to try the polygamists, some of those judges were the most contemptible and corrupt of any human to walk the earth. They were notorious drunkards, adulterers and whoremongers, yet those judges claimed to have the moral authority to cure the "evil" of polygamy. I submit we have similar hypocricy in today's judiciary--just look at the 9th Circus.

It's entirely inconsequential.

That is precisely my point. PC has taken over even the supposedly conservative right to the extent they can ignore the precedent set with the Mormons, because the left would come unglued if the government tried to persecute a "minority" religion--TODAY.

If the government will not pursue Islam with similar tactics which were used against the Mormons, they are making a tacit admission their actions then were wrong, yet the government will not correct the mistake of the past.

Correcting the Mormon injustice would create a problem for us today however, and present the radical left with a golden opportunity to legitimize gay marriage. How? If the government admits it does not have the authority under the constitution to regulate marriage,(whether or not it is connected to a religious belief and practice) and what is defined as legal marriage, in America, then the gays have an open ticket to make gay marriage legal.

Such a situation makes for a somewhat amusing contradiction for the gays, because they would then have to sympathize with a right-wing religious organization whom they despise because that church preaches against homosexuality in no uncertain terms. </end of rant>

[Publius6961]

You can't violate the right's of others in the act of worshiping. You also can't conspire to commit criminal acts. It's illegal.

You have isolated the problem brilliantly!
And verbalized exactly why islam cannot and should not be classifed as a religion. It is a secular political system which routinely uses subversion as a tool; as well as the local laws of its intended victims.
This is becoming clearer even for the most dense.

You know that.

You should know that.