According to the International Islamic News Agency, in the next few months, the US will host a meeting with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to coordinate implementing UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on “combating defamation of religions.” (H/t: JihadWatch, Next 2 Cents) The report indicates the meeting will look at the following:
…how to prevent stereotypes depicting religions and their followers; as well as disseminating religious tolerance, which has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council last March, in agreement with Western countries. The resolution was adopted after lengthy discussions held between the OIC and countries in which the phenomenon of Islamophobia is in the rise.
The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced the intention of the U.S. State Department to organize a coordination meeting during her participation in the meeting which she co-chaired with the OIC Secretary General, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Istanbul on 15 July 2011. The meeting issued a joint statement emphasizing the dire need for the implementation of resolution 16/18. … the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN resolution.
The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.
It is natural to mentally connect the timing of this with the Anders Breivik attack in Norway, and there may be something to that. I suspect it may be related as well to the prospect of the execrable “Durban III” conference at the UN headquarters in New York in September. The Durban conference series — started in Durban, South Africa and nominally about racism and discrimination – has been dedicated to the crassest anti-Semitism and the propagation of lies about Israel. But it has also had a persistent side interest in “defamation of religion.” The US will not have a delegation at the Durban III conference because of its anti-Semitic, anti-Israel character, but Hillary Clinton may well be attempting to generate momentum for a separate, US-led effort to address “religious defamation.”
A number of commentators have warned that Resolution 16/18 is a pretext for shutting down critical, independent examination of Islam and Islamism – and with good reason, considering the case of Austrian Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. This case provides a peep into how national laws against defaming religion would work in the West. Ned May had a good summary of the outcome of her case at Big Peace earlier this year (emphasis added):
On February 15, 2011, the Austrian anti-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of hate speech in a Vienna courtroom. The original charge against her was “incitement to hatred”. On the second day of her trial, the judge decided to add a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” The latter count is the one on which Elisabeth was convicted.
That means what it sounds like. Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted by an Austrian court for “denigrating the religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” If you do any research at all about her, you discover that the background of her work is a lot of seminars and writings in which she simply adduces facts and discusses them. There are no drawings of Mohammed or burned Qurans or provocative videos lampooning Islam lurking in her closet.
Even if there were, most Americans would agree that there are no circumstances under which these should be punishable offenses. Christianity is relentlessly denigrated, after all, frequently in the most offensive terms, in the nominally “Christian” nations – including Austria – and no one is prosecuted for it. Intellectual freedom means, precisely, that people can criticize religions, and the form of such criticism is subject – and properly so – to very few limitations of law (e.g., libel laws that apply to any forms of “speech,” enforced on general principles and not on guidelines specific to commentary on religion).
The Sabaditsch-Wolff case illustrates perfectly why special limitations on criticism of religion are unacceptable. They are impossible to enforce reasonably. What “some people may be offended by” is not a sound basis of law and punishment: some people are offended by provocative depictions of Mohammed, and consider it reasonable to be so, whereas others are offended to the point of homicidal rage by the assertion that Mohammed was not God’s prophet and the doctrinal tenets of Islam are invalid. Yet one cannot be a believing Christian or Orthodox Jew without agreeing with the latter assertions.
Does holding one religious belief inherently constitute denigrating another religious belief? Pakistani jihadists who murder and torture Christian converts would say so. Do we agree? And what about atheists, who use their intellectual freedom to assert that the context of who is or isn’t God’s prophet doesn’t even exist? They would seem to be engaged in denigrating religion 24/7 – are they to be punished under law?
This is not merely a matter of people agreeing to remain silent about religion and each other’s beliefs – although that would be unacceptable enough. Colleges would have to close religious studies departments under a regime of such intellectual repression. Media outlets would find it virtually impossible to cover religious topics. Why could they not be punished for “denigrating” the Branch Davidians by implying that they were child abusers? Indeed, the New York Times, the UK Guardian, and Norway’s Dagbladet could all be prosecuted for implying that Christianity is what caused Anders Breivik to blow up a government building and shoot dozens of people on Utoya Island. In the entertainment realm, the Law & Order franchise would quickly find itself in court for its frequent insinuations against Christianity and its sometimes condescending depiction of Judaism.
But the problem will become worse than the impossibility of observing a rule of silence. A case is already in court in the United States in which a police officer was demoted by the Tulsa police department after he declined to attend a Muslim-sponsored event. It’s not enough to keep your opinions to yourself: to retain your civil-employment rank, you must make active demonstrations on command.
In a brief filed in response to the police officer’s subsequent lawsuit, the city of Tulsa alleges that he has an “anti-Islamic agenda” – which it deduces not from his professional actions but from his choice of legal counsel. “Brandi” at zTruth points out that Officer Fields and his legal counsel are concerned with political Islamism and not the religion of Islam, and thinks Tulsa should know better; but the significant point is that the city’s brief reverts so reflexively to the religious-bias argument in defending a lawsuit over an employment action. Fields, the subordinate in this situation, is not alleged to have mistreated any of his fellow officers or members of the public; he simply declined to attend an event.
Imagine a police officer being ordered to attend an event sponsored by a Christian organization, and being punished afterward for declining to do so. Imagine a police department being honored by a Jewish organization, and a Muslim police officer declining to attend the ceremony. Would the Muslim officer be punished for his choice? Of course not. In either case, the officer(s) declining to attend might very well have an anti-Christian or anti-Jewish agenda. Some people do. But their choices to not attend events would not be considered punishable, or indeed actionable in any way.
The outcome of the Paul Fields case in Tulsa is still unknown, but it will be informative. If you have never given much thought to what might constitute “denigration of a religion,” you will want to do so soon. Hillary Clinton will be hosting a gathering of people who already know what their ideas are regarding that question, and are prepared to forge ahead with laws against it. In that regard, there are two more interesting points to make.
One is that the head of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, is an unapologetic Islamist and Ottomanist. However Hillary Clinton may see the role of the OIC, he sees it this way. Ihsanoglu became secretary-general of the OIC in 2004, and it is on his watch that the OIC has launched its campaign to end “Islamophobia” by imposing laws against denigrating and defaming religion. Ihsanoglu’s effort and motives have been reported one way in the West, and another way in the Islamic world.
But what constitutes “Islamophobia,” or constitutes denigration of Islam, remains sketchy. In the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff – a Westerner-on-Westerner situation – the facts in evidence were that someone other than Sabaditsch-Wolff used the word “pedophile” in relation to Mohammed, and Sabaditsch-Wolff then engaged in a discussion of whether that word was appropriate or not, given that Mohammed had married a 6-year-old and consummated the marriage when his bride was nine. That combination of facts got her convicted of denigrating religion in Austrian court.
What other information do we have that can nail down what constitutes Islamophobia or denigration of Islam? Anjem Choudary and the UK’s Muslims Against Crusades have an answer. This is quite a long video – over an hour – but the first 15 minutes suffice to clarify what they consider Islamophobia and denigration of Islam: that is, resistance to the imposition of sharia. They recorded this “news conference” on 29 July 2011, just as their henchmen began to post notices around several areas of Britain proclaiming that the neighborhoods were now being administered under sharia law. Resistance may not be futile – but in the view of Choudary and his faction, it is Islamophobic, and it is what constitutes denigrating Islam.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.
The Optimistic Conservative 
opticon, from my brief scan of the correspondence, I think that you’ve entirely mischaracterized this one…..
” A case is already in court in the United States in which a police officer was demoted by the Tulsa police department after he declined to attend a Muslim-sponsored event. ”
the department issued an obviously lawful order to Captain Fields to see to it that police officers attended the event, a police appreciation thingee and Fields wasn’t demoted because he personally declined to attend, but because he refused to assign ANY officer to attend ….even after the order was re-issued and clarified to explain that participation was deemed to be part of the department’s public outreach mission and required no officer to participate in any religious ceremony or express any opinion concerning religion.
Fields is grossly mistaken and obviously unfit for supervisory duties if he can not separate his personal live and opinions from the professional responsibilities that he opted to assume.
Here’s the exchange of memos….see Webster to Fields Feb 18…..
Click to access fieldsmemos.pdf
—” It’s not enough to keep your opinions to yourself: to retain your civil-employment rank, you must make active demonstrations on command.”—
just a terrible mischaracterization of the issue here from you, opticon.
Are you sure that you’re not reading and following a web-site (zTruth) offering bogus info in this case?
Well done.
A devastating and complete demolition of an example of the dishonesty and distortion that these anti-American extremists are using to foment hatred against Moslems and anyone else who dissents from their narrow and blinkered world-view.
Yes, I’m sure. You’re correct that I didn’t highlight the fact that Fields declined to require subordinates to attend, and in retrospect, I should have done that, for completeness.
You’re incorrect to imply that that fact makes the employment action against him valid.
A fair-minded criticism of this post would acknowledge that Fields was within his rights to decline to attend, AND to decline to require others to attend. No one should be required to attend an event sponsored by a religious organization if he doesn’t want to. Nor should he be required to direct others to.
The Tulsa police department is wrong, and the city of Tulsa is wrong. It is impossible to imagine Fields being demoted for declining to attend a Christian-sponsored event or to direct others to attend it, and therefore it should be impossible to imagine the same situation with “Muslim” substituted for “Christian.”
No, opticon.
MR Fields is certainly within his rights not to attend, however CAPTAIN Fields, when on duty, is required to follow lawful orders….and you blew this one, opticon.
(You repeatedly fail to make the distinction between the rights of private citizens and the responsibilities of people voluntarily employed in public service.)
It’s entirely possible to envision the same thing happening if we substitute “Hebrew” or “Hindu” for “Muslim”.
The Tusla PD is entirely correct and Fields’ suit is going into the crapper,
So you regard it as a lawful order to require employees of a public agency to attend an event sponsored by a religious organization?
until you can point to how the order contravenes the law, opticon, you’re forced to regard it as lawful as well.
you can question as to whether it’s lawful, but until you stop beating around your wife, and put up an answer to why it’s not lawful, cops are still going to be assigned to the St Lucy’s School auditorium to give anti-drug lectures.
Didn’t they just convict a polygamous sect leader for “marrying” a minor and committing child sex abuse? How is that different from what Mohammed did? Can you criticize one but not the other?
could be that offenses against the laws of the various states of the US don’t apply to people living in the Middle East and living according to whatever laws might have existed there and then……
or maybe the statute of limitations has run.
In the middle ages in Europe it was common for very young girls to be betrothed and married at all levels of society. There was no such thing as an age of consent. The social realities were the cementing of alliances to protect and enhance land-holdings, a life-expectancy of less than 30 years, and high maternal mortality-rates. All of these things persist into the present day in primitive societies such as most of India, and have nothing whatsoever to do with any particular religion. I remember a particular American rock-and-roll singer from our own Bible-Belt who caused huge controversy when he visited England for a tour in the 1950s accompanied by his 13 year old bride. Thankfully, the “biblical” mores of that part of our native land have been replaced in quite recent times by secular values. But of course none of the concerned folk who are labelling the medieval religous mystic, Mohammed, a paedophile is ranting on about the rampant pederasty in the Bible-Belt in quite recent times in order to demonize Christians.
Of course, anyone who has a shred of honesty knows quite well that there is a concerted campaign afoot among the fring right to demonize moslems (in particular, the semitic Arabs) in exactly the same way as there was a concerted campaign to demonize Jews in the 1930s. It is sad to see the same methods in use now as then: The dredging up of every bit of negative news about any Jew/Moslem who has done anything offensive. The relentless dissemination of negative news interspersed with unsubstantiated and often nebulous and exotic conjecture and allegations. The fomenting of a climate of fear and threat (The Nazis and their ilk loved to distort Jewish birth-rates, and the numbers of Jews immigrating westward from the Pale and the Carpathians). Needless to say the hatists relentlessly drumm(ed) up the message of how the Jews/Moslems are different and alien from “us”, often illustrating their tracts with illustrations exaggerating the foreign/semitic features, dress, and hairstyles of their Jewish/Moslem subjects. The favourite allegation of the Nazi-types was of some vast Jewish conspiracy to subvert European society. This “Protocols of Zion” nonsense now has its echoes in the imagined and invented threat of “Sharia”. As anyone who might bother to research the facts (rather than rely on the innuendo and outright lies of the likes of Gaffney, Geller, and their apologists like JED) would find out, there is no place in the UK, the US, or anywhere else in the Western World where “Sharia” (whatever, that particular term actually means) has legal recognition. It doesn’t even have legal recognition in the Moslem enclaves of South Eastern Europe. Neither, of course does Hassidic law. Ypu will all be doubly glad to hear that there is nowhere in the Western World that there are any existing proposals to give recognition to Sharia, or Hassidic, or Tantric, or Roman Catholic Canon law. Period.
The case of Sabbaditsch-Wolff rather illustrates what is afoot. This lady (who has ideas generally about non-Europeans, and even Eastern Europeans, which are straight out of Mein Kampf) would have been similarly prosecuted had she fomented hatred against Jews. In fact, in the light of what happened in Nazi Germany, most European countries have anti-hate laws. By far the majority of those convicted and jailed under these laws have been jailed for anti-Jewish rather than anti-Moslem drek. Whether or not Europe should have laws curtailing “free” speech is a debatable point. However, in a continent where it is beyond dispute that hate-speech against Moslems and Romany is far more popular and widespread than hate against Jews, it is interesting that prosecutions for anti-Moslem hatred are rare. It is also interesting that JED would pick out the rather obscure and rare instance of such a prosecution in highlighting and implicitly sympathising with the throughly unpleasant Ms. Wolff.
According to the argument advanced by fuster and Paulite, slavery only became wrong when Brits and Yanks decided, in the 19th century, to condemn it and stop engaging in it.
Their argument further dictates that we not even call it “slavery” when we speak of what was practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Hindus, and the Abbasids, Umayyads, Ottomans, Mayans, Aztecs, European colonialists, and Americans before, let’s say, 1830. They didn’t think it was wrong, after all. It was normal for the cultures of the time. It is therefore offensive to their memory to call them slavers and oppressors.
It is unconscionably judgmental to decry slavery at all, considering how prevalent and accepted it has been in other cultures and times.
Exactly, Commander. And if you ask any Muslim he will tell you the word of God in the Koran is unchanging. So, Sharia law would have no problem with what Mohammed did –then or now. To Muslims, the polygamous fellow in Texas was only in error because his actions were sanctioned by a false god.
Of course, Paulite sees no threat in that. Perhaps he should consult people who actually live in countries or regions that claim to be instituting Sharia law. He might also want to consult Sharia law to see what happens to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and representative democracy itself. Finally, he may want to enter the debate in Britain about allowing Sharia law to decide disputes in certain Muslim enclaves. It sounds similar to how we allow tribal laws to apply on tribal lands.
I am not aware of any Moslem Country in the Middle East, North Africa, or Asia where sex with children isn’t considered a serious crime and is punished accordingly. I am well aware of places in Africa and elsewhere in the third world where, because there is no rule of law, the sexual enslavement of children is endemic. As for the fellow from the Bible Belt: he wasn’t involved in polagamy his one wife was sanctioned by the law of his US state. Thankfully we have all moved on, and I would not hang the abuses which took place in a small part of our country more than 50 years ago around the neck of Christians as a whole.
There is no “debate” in Britain about allowing Sharia law to decide disputes in “certain Muslim enclaves”. Legal relationships and legal status are decided by the Law of the United Kingdom made by the British Parliament (And the Scottish and Northern Ireland assemblies). However, private individuals can, if they wish, have their (not legally recognized obligations and relationships) adjudicated by Hassidic Courts, Sharia Courts, The Roman Catholic Marriage Tribunal, or, indeed, the rules of their golf-club.
In fact, this same situation has always pertained here and in the UK. Did you know that most shipping contracts stipulate that disputes will be decided by the Admiralty Division of the English High Court? Did you know that many of our Jewish citizens make contracts with each other that stipulate Hassidic arbitration in the event of disputes?
No, opticon, you’re heavily petting the pooch again.
My argument is not that slavery only became wrong in the 19th cent; it’s that slavery only became ILLEGAL then.
(And BTW, it only became illegal in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s)
I find sexual congress with little girls, even little girl wives, pretty damned wrong, but there’s so many things hat I find offensive that I would probably arrest dozens of people from the Old Testament.
Hell, there’s a big bunch of Popes…and that Joseph Smith grifter and all his buddies and Danites….the Inquisition….Henry VIII and the Tudor monarchs
Who cares when slavery became illegal? For thousands of years, people didn’t think slavery was wrong. (Some people in Africa and Asia still don’t.) How is that different from people not thinking it’s wrong to have sex with a 9-year-old?
You can’t have it both ways. If the “different cultures and eras” excuse works for one thing, it works for everything.
again and again and again…nothing in my first comment was an excuse for it’s wasn’t WRONG…..I was addressing legality…
I actually said in my last comment that I find it wrong….assuming that you read my comment before responding, I would have expected you to notice that and forego the “both ways” thing.
And again,,,,,,,,
You will realize if you actually read what I wrote that I didn’t say or imply any such thing. Very much the opposite in fact. What I did say (in so many words) was that if you are using this particular example to demonize Moslems (and you will be well aware that your hero, Ms. Geller has used this particular allegation to brand Moslems as paedophiles) you could more easily have found examples of such behaviour much closer to home, and far more recent.
No I didn’t. Neither did Fuster insofar as I can see, and it’s difficult to understand the mind-processes that produced your conclusion – other than anger at being exposed rather cruelly by Fuster.
I believe slavery (and Pedophilia) is wrong. Always have. Always will – irrespective of whether slavery etc. might have been legal in Roman times, and even in our own country at one sad time. Positing a social explanation for something is not to excuse it, then or now. But I am being somewhat disingenuous. I know you are quite well aware of this distinction. You are also well aware of the nasty game you are playing, and in which Fuster caught you out.
For the record, I believe that lying, distortion, and aiding and abetting hatred, are also wrong.
Thank you.
I am also wondering if the topic of Christianophopbia will be touched upon during these conferences. Probably that won’t happen because only those Muslim hating, crusading Christians can be intolerant of other behaviors. Never mind that Muslims behead those that disagree with Mohamed’s teachings, that Muslims promote unfair taxation against unbelievers, that they condone lying, cheating and anything else that would serve to bend them to Allah’s will. But that would not be intolerance, no, not at all.
Sadly, sin is everywhere – particularly lies. And while most civilized nations don’t execute criminals any more, some still do – including some (but not all) Moslem ones. As for discriminatory and intolerant laws – alas, these are almost universal throughout the Middle-East (excepting Turkey).
Incidentally, I am not aware of any nation in the Islamic world that executes anyone for acts which are not also crimes under our own criminal code (p.s. I am resolutely against capital punishment – whether by decapitation, posioning, electrocution, or shooting)
Indeed I stand thoroughly corrected by your superior wisdom and knowledge of all things. Particularly when that knowledge is applied to blaming Christianity and the hated Satan (US to the uninitiated) for all sorts of evil doings all the while awarding moral equivalence between us evil crusaders and impalers of the young and the lovely, tolerant religion of peace and, perhaps, even love.
So, pray tell us, wise one, is self immolation, oppression of women, intolerance of other religions to the point of outlawing them, polygamy, pedophilia, frowning on all customs that don’t follow strict Sharia by Muslim governments, calls for Jihad, the willful bombing killing and beheading of the INNOCENT and other tiny little sins also permeate Christian cultures here in the US?
NOTE TO MODERATOR: How can we make some text bold and/or underlined. It seems that this might help us communicate better some of the central positions in our posts to some here that have difficulty reading and/or understanding simple language.
On second thought, never mind. The worst kind of blindness comes from those who just refuse to see. Some things are beyond repair and beyond hope and no ammount of boldness or underlining will ever change that.
Check the penalty under Sharia for converting from Islam to Christianity, Judaism, or really anything else.
In Britain, Sharia courts may now enter orders enforceable by the Crown. I guess there is no thought that Sharia may be contrary to British public policy any more. It gets insinuated into the legal system as a form of “arbitration.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
Here is discussion of Sharia-ruled enclaves
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html
I checked. According to the right wing Council on Foreign Relations, the death sentence for apostasy is the view of traditiona Islamic scholars and prevails in some Islamic-ruled countries.
http://www.cfr.org/malaysia/religious-conversion-sharia-law/p13552
It doesn’t prevail under the law of any Islamic country no more than the right to murder doctors who work in abortion clinics prevails under our law. However, a tiny minority of religious fanatics think they have the right to take the law into their own hands.
P, apostasy is, by law, a crime that draws the death penalty in Iran and other nations
—-“In many countries apostasy from the religion supported by the state is explicitly forbidden. This is largely the case in some states where Islam is the state religion; conversion to Islam is encouraged, conversion from Islam penalised.
Iran – illegal (death penalty)[8][9][10]
Egypt – illegal (death penalty)[10]
Pakistan – illegal (death penalty[10] since 2007)
United Arab Emirates – illegal (death penalty)[11]
Somalia – illegal (death penalty)[12]
Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions[13][14])
Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)[15][10]
Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution[16])
Qatar – illegal (death penalty)[17]
Yemen – illegal (death penalty) [17]
Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)[18][19]
Mauritania – illegal (death penalty)[citation needed]
Nigeria – illegal in twelve of 37 states (death penalty)[citation needed]
Syria – possibly illegal (death penalty) although there is evidence to the contrary[20]”—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
hard to argue that it doesn’t prevail ….. or that the laws in lotsa nations with Islam as an established religion don’t really suck.
As for Captain Fields seeing to it that police officers attended the event, haven’t we been told, repeatedly, that government’s involvement in support of religion is something that goes against the First Ammendment or does that only apply to support of Christian beliefs?
Indeed, that was my point about the Tulsa case. If there can’t be prayer in the schools, police departments certainly can’t require officers to attend religious-sponsored events, or require them to order other officers to.
the police attend events sponsored by religious groups every day of the year. officers are assigned to give anti-drug lectures at Catholic schools and yeshivas.
police officers are never required to PARTICIPATE in religious ceremonies, but the separation of church and state isn’t a physical one, opt.
Captain Fields wasn’t told to “support” a religion”. He was ordered to attend in uniform at a certain place and at a certain time.
The police aren’t required against their will to attend events sponsored by religous groups, fuster.
You misunderstand the context of public liaison activities as well. Things like that are done in an atmosphere of professional voluntarism and cooperation, not coercion. Religious concerns are typically given wide latitude and tolerance.
No “physical” separation of church and state is at issue here. The issue is what an individual citizen can be coerced to do by a public agency.
The police are required to attend, in their capacity as police officers, such events, including community-liason events, as directed by their superiors. It is for the superiors to make (and be answerable for) these decisions. If our police were allowed decide on the basis of personal prejudice which orders they would obey and which they would disobey we would, as a society, be in a very pretty pickle indeed.
(But perhaps you don’t believe some Americans are part of our “society”?)
One wonders if Dhimmi Fuster or his like suck-up imPaulite would have the same reaction if a Muslim police officer declined an invite to an invitation to the Southern cultural phenomenon known as a Pig Pickin’?
I suppose if it were a Jewish police officer Paulite would be throwing shards of pork at him…
The Tulsa police department was wrong.
The disconnect is that the irreligious are clueless when it comes to analyzing religious motivations for anything. Snotty cynicism clouds their ability to understand that they face a Socio-religious death cult that wishes them either submissive or dead.
Errands to run… Keep up the good fight JE, you are right they are wrong…
r/TMF
Save your stupid “dhimmi” I don’t accept life on those terms any more than I accept yours. …… you can try arguing that the Tulsa PD shouldn’t accept invitations to a “police appreciation event” but you can’t really argue that middle management cops can refuse lawful orders, even if unwise or personally distasteful.
“…face a Socio-religious death cult that wishes them either submissive or dead. ”
The way Americans face such things is to …face them….. we allow all that is theory, argue against theorists and offer better ideas …and beat back criminal actions from the cultists.
We don’t deny equal protection or rights to citizens holding lousy views, we work to get them to accept ours.
It’s interesting that no one has commented on what is obviously the most important thing here: that our State Department will be “coordinating” with an international Islamic organization to “implement” a UN resolution against “defaming religions.” We should, obviously, be opposing such resolutions, and promising to interfere with their implementation, along with any other resolution whose implementation in our country would transgress our constitutional order; even more, we should be promising to support as forcefully as possible all possible victims of such an “implementation.”
I don’t know how rare prosecutions for anti-Muslim thought and speech crimes are, but they certainly seem to be high profile, as in the case of Wilders in The Netherlands, suggesting that there is quite a bit of social and political muscle behind them. Nor do I remember a great rush to the defense of the Danish cartoonists. God only knows what Paulite considers “anti-Moslem hate speech,” but his portrayal of a continent upon which Muslims are apparently under constant assault just highlights the absurdity of giving Muslims, leftists, or anyone else the power to decide on what will count as “anti-Muslim hate speech” for legal purposes.
adam, if our State Department is working on a UN resolution against “defaming religions.”, let’s find out just what their doing and why they’re doing it rather than assuming what our role in the thing might be.
There were similar and very obvious objections when we decided to take part in the rather hideous UN ‘s Human Rights Council rather than just scorn them and allow them to continue their bullskirt, but we’ve been able to do more effectively whizz on them from inside the tent.
I’ve got the hope that working on this “defaming religion” deal allows us to open the discussion to the religious intolerance in the Islamic states rather than merely letting the draft reflect the complaints from the folks who are too blind to offering protection to ALL religions.
Might be a real opportunity to get the people outraged about insulting Islam to have to discuss apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, laws that paint people as “enemies of God, and laws that disallow freedom of religion and criminalize proselytizing or even carrying religious objects
or writing pertaining to other faiths into some Islamic states
Joining in discussions about laws against defaming religion seems to me to be an extremely roundabout way of advancing religious liberty. I doubt we’ll ever get there. I also doubt that we’ve done anything more than some inffectual whizzing over at the HRC. Why not just support all the Christians and dissident Muslims being persecuted in Muslim societies, if that’s what we want anyway?
Muslims don’t “decide” anything. The legislatures of most western European nations have laws prohibiting incitement to hatred. These laws have their origins in the desire to stop a repitition of the sort of organized invective – in the name of “free speech” which was used by the far right in pre WWII Europe to stir up hatred against the Jews and other groups. These laws are enforced by the law-enforcement agencies – principally the police – against anti-semites, neo-Nazis, and anyone else who employs racially or religiously motivated intimidation, violence, or incitement to violence.
Whatever the reasons for the anti-incitement to hatred laws…..they don’t sit well.
Well, let’s see if we can’t straighten some of this out at least a tad.
If by the “far right in pre-WWII Europe” you mean The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) or, as we common blog-plebes know it, the Nazi Party, then I beg to differ. Interestingly, the locals knew it as the German Workers’ Party which sounds awfully left wing to me. But, again, if that is what you meant then I do beg to differ, if it isn’t what you meant, then I apologize. So, really, the Nazis were, by today’s political inclinations, definitions and standards as far right as, say, the Stalinists or the Maoists were.
I just thought I’d mention that.
By the way, I didn’t mention Castro here because I hate to apply the “ist” ending to the followers of Castro since the end result would sound a lot like something important had been snipped, which, although appealing at first, would end up being somewhat confusing.
Carry on, or, if you prefer, please drive through.
Some final thoughts on this subject:
Community outreach projects have several purposes. They serve to forge links between immigrant communities and the police. They communicate the message that these communities are part of the wider community – including the community of law. And they reassure these communities that the police and the law are there for their protection too.
I would have thought that those who claim they fear that some immigrant communities might turn to alien legal codes to police themselves would be most encouraging of the sort of outreach programmes that Captain Fields decided to stage his squalid mutiny over. But of course, logic and honesty were never strong points with those whose real purpose is to stir up hatred.
Police are not required to attend meetings or events of religious organizations for outreach purposes. Police departments invite community members to open meetings (not meetings with specific groups) for outreach purposes. Police are required to attend these events, but they are events sponsored by the police department and open to all citizens. If community organizations including religious ones decide to hold an event and invite police to attend as guests, that is not a police outreach event. Typically if police attend they do so not in their official capacity.
But to get back to the main point–are we OK with the idea that government should be policing or even monitoring citizens’ actions, or speech, or thinking that is based on “stereotypes”? If such a regime were adopted, it would seem that Fuster’s frequent carping at the military and Paulite’s free slinging of accusations of racism would be examples of behavior that is to be officially discouraged by government. Or maybe the young man I saw yesterday wearing a T-shirt with “religion” X-ed out on the front of it should be warned not to wear it in public–or at all? Or is the plan to decide that some stereotypes are to be prosecuted, while others are to be tolerated? One might think that only the “bad” stereotypes will be targeted, but once such power is given to government it can be used even against “good” stereotypes such as are often expressed by respondents to this blog. Besides being completely inconsistent with our First Amendment, the State Department’s enterprise is one that cannot be executed in a fair and rational way, as JED pointed out.
where do you live?
here in NYC, the NYPD, under Mayor Guiliani, greatly expanded outreach to “faith-based groups” and not only in the precinct houses.
NYPD is very active with a Clergy Liaison Program that even has clergymen ride around in patrol cars at times.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nypolice/ch3.htm
Commissioner Kelly has spent many a Sunday in houses of worship building ties and seeking recruits for the force. Because of that, the PD now is rife with Christians and not so overwhelmingly Catholic.
We’ve also attracted some more folks from other religions, which has been proven useful.
Beyond openly visiting houses of worship, there are now people going undercover into places where freckle-faced officers aren’t very effective.
If you don’t feel outrage about this, then you’re not an American. You’re an impostor, a Muslim devoted dhimmi waiting for their pat on your head, a gangster, a fraud, a parasite, and an idiot. When a tea party patriot takes the presidency, if it is not Herman Cain, then hopefully he will be our secretary of state and attorney general. Take the fifth column that is the Islamic crap in our country and flush it down the toilet.
even” flushed down the toilet” it’ll still be on top of you and your ugly and cowardly hysteria more suited to a six year old than an adult citizen of the United States.
bigotry and tiny little lumps of chickensh1t.
you’re running…scared…and soiling your underoos.
Megatron, I always want to give commenters as much latitude as possible, but I disagree strongly with any proposition that Muslims are “Islamic crap” who need to be flushed down the toilet. I don’t want this blog associated with sentiments of that kind.
I believe Islamism — including “cultural Islamism” of the kind being pushed by Anjem Choudary & Co — is a danger to our liberty and way of life. Muslims are typically the most vulnerable to being corraled into sharia-law schemes and being used and exploited to expand them in the West. Some Muslims embrace those schemes wholeheartedly. But there are many who don’t. I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are plenty of Muslims who live peacefully under Western law, and who are the first to suffer when sharia is extended de facto.
I have no qualms at all about stating that sharia is incompatible with Western liberty, and that it must not only be resisted but driven back. There is no “multicultural reality” in which it’s good for anyone. In fact, it does better than any other philosophical concept in history at keeping people in a state of hatred and anger toward each other. It cannot be tolerated in Western culture.
But that’s a different proposition from wanting to flush anyone down the toilet. In a way, I’m glad you used this wording, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify where I stand. But please don’t use it again.
If I may write something from the center of the storm here in T-town. I hate to see people criticise each other personally over this controversy because truthfully, its a close call. Reasonable minds really can differ on this.
For me, the legal position of the department is a strong one. For one thing, we go to religious stuff all the time and to interact with different adherents is part of our job. Its kinda hard to separate getting to know people from uncovering crimes and plots because in the real world, one so often leads to the other. Additionally, I think Fields position as the area commander for that particular part of town gives the department a solid claim that HIS personal presence is required not only to survey his own responsibility but also to see that subordinates who attend act within the bounds of policy and decorum. Its harder for him to justify requiring them to send a heathen Captain from another part of town or another shift because its not their area. Also, he was not being asked to do anything in particular except stand there. Its hard to argue your faith is impacted by the mere presence of other people.
That said, the police command really lost sight of the forest on this one. For one thing, the Islamic Center was really adamant that only people who want to come should come. They were trying to say thank you and didn’t want anyone to be uncomfortable. Its impolite to leverage someone elses hospitality in a way they don’t want and in a way that is sure to embarrass them. Another thing was the extent to which they underestimated how readily officers would respond voluntarily. I went to this event and there were at least 70 officers there and I think the total went close to 200 for the day. There were no religious ceremonies or prayers going on for about 6 of the 7-8 hours. For 45 minutes you could watch the prayers if you felt like it but you had to go looking for it to find them. They didn’t even speak of political or religious matters. All they talked about was how tough our jobs were and how grateful they were for us while we gobbled up all the Baklava.
Overall there was no need for this to be controversial. I think Fields was trying to preserve some autonomy at first but then got backed into a corner once the interest groups made him into a hero. I think the command was trying to put Fields in his place but should have backed off once more important matters started to get compromised. I felt the worst for the Islamic Center. Here they were trying to do the kind of thing that people in the US say they want to see from Muslims and contrast themselves to the radicals and in return they got insulted and embarassed by both Fields and the City.
thank you
One thing that was kind of interesting was that I sat next to a Syrian Immigrant and spoke with him for nearly an hour. We speculated and discussed the following deep political and philosophical questions:
Is the Ford F-150 the greatest machine ever built or simply the best vehicle ever built? We both have one.
How does the average man solve the dilemma of a fat wallet making your back hurt or a thin one that is missing stuff?
How as a parent you can find yourself immersed in the minutiae of a sport or activity, simply by virtue of the fact that your kid participates in it, sometimes far in excess of the kids interest.
After 20 years in Oklahoma we still marvel that one spot can be so hot in summer and so cold in winter. Our gracious hostess can, I am sure, attest.
I am inclined to agree. Fields was weak rather than bad, and allowed himself to be painted into a corner by people with a more sinister agenda.
it was good to read what you had to say
TJ — thank you so much for sharing your perspective. I have no doubt that the event was benign. I haven’t suggested that Fields’ complaint was correct in the sense that the event was intended to function as Islamist indoctrination. There may or may not have been a reason to suspect that; I don’t know. But that’s not actually the point.
The question is whether an officer who didn’t want to attend an event sponsored by any other religion would have been required to, or demoted if he did what Fields did.
I understand completely that the professional climate is one in which it’s normal and no big deal to participate in community outreach events, including those hosted/sponsored by religious organizations. However, I am 100% certain that an atheist who didn’t want to attend a Christian-sponsored event would be accommodated. Even if he refused to order his subordinates to attend the event, he would be held to have that right. The subordinates would in all likelihood choose to attend anyway, but the atheist would be allowed to act according to his conscience in that matter.
A Muslim officer who didn’t want to attend a Jewish-sponsored event, or order his subordinates to, would be accommodated as well.
I my experience, most atheists and most Muslims would have no problem with doing what’s normal in the department in this regard. It’s not like it would come up very often. But some with choleric personalities could well make an issue of it, and I am very sure that their concerns would be treated respectfully. (I’m not just making this up; I’ve seen situations in the military in which atheists or members of another faith objected to participating in something sponsored by a particular religious organization.) As long as their records were clean and their performance good, the great majority of police departments and city governments would bend over backward to make room for their preferences.
If I were in charge of Fields, I would probably have seen the issue largely as you do: that he ought to be present at an event in his area of the city. But I would have seen it the same way under any other circumstances — someone not wanting to attend a Christian or Jewish event, for whatever reason — and yet if the objection had been raised by the officer in question, the outcome would have been different.
I also understand that the initial reaction of the chain of command would probably be negative in any other case. I know that. People are human. I spent many years in a top-down organization, and I know how those things play out. But if the objecting officer didn’t back down, the outcome would still be different. No city’s legal counsel would consider it tenable to defend a case in which an atheist officer was demoted for refusing to order subordinates to attend an event sponsored by a Christian organization, or a Muslim was demoted for refusing to order subordinates to attend a Jewish- or Christian-sponsored event.
perhaps you want to peruse
349 F.3d 922: Benjamin P. Endres, Jr., Plaintiff-appellee, Andunited States of America, Intervening Plaintiff-appellee. v. Indiana State Police, Defendant-appellant
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/349/922/636854/
Sadly, in trying to contrive an argument to justify your position you only succeed in repeating your misunderstanding.
It is inherent in the concept of the rule of law that we are all, irrespective of race, color, or creed, part of the one community of laws and entitled to equal protection under it. An implication of this rule (which underpins all liberal democracies) is that those who are charged with enforcing and administering the law are objective, impartial, and (so to speak) colorblind – and prepared to obey the lawful orders of their civil superiors. If a police officer, ordered to attend at a Jewish event in his capacity as police officer (perhaps to lend symbolic reassurance that the police are conscious of that community’s particular concerns), refuses because of his or her personal prejudices in relation to Jews, he or she is not a fit person to hold the position of a law- enforcment officer in a society such as ours. Think it out.
Officer Field was unable to make the distinction between his function as a police-officer in a free society and his own personal prejudices. In the circumstances he could have at least had the courage of his convictions and resigned and taken up some form of employment more suitable to his temperament.
Neither can I agree that police superiors should “tailor” duties to the individual prejudices of officers (And police-officers, no less than the rest of us, have prejudices). The latter are none of the business of police superiors – other than ensuring that officers don’t allow any such prejudices interfere with the objective discharge of their duties as police officers.
Our police have their personal views and prejudices
I think there is a lot of merit in your observation. I believe that a hidden (or at least less discussed) dynamic is that when the objector is Christian and the demanders are at least nominally Christian also (as in this case) it is easier for the demanders to dismiss any claim that the origins of the refusal to accomodate lie in religious animus. When the objector is of a different faith or no faith, the powers who have the ability to accomodate or refuse are less sure of their footing.
Again, it really is a close call. The administration in weighing the risks of denying the accomodation simply had the luxury of being able to worry less about looking like they were picking on some minority. Having been involved in deliberations of this sort for many years I have seen it tacitly and not so tacitly play out.
yes, sometimes Americans tend to show more flexibility when dealing with minorities …..but of course that hasn’t usually been the case…. and it’s still not always the case.
see Goldman v. Weinberger for example.
Rafa asked:
NOTE TO MODERATOR: How can we make some text bold and/or underlined. It seems that this might help us communicate better some of the central positions in our posts to some here that have difficulty reading and/or understanding simple language.
I know you said “never mind,” but the answer, unfortunately, is to use html code (manually typed) in your comments. WordPress’ free hosting service doesn’t include a plugin for editing comments with bold/italics. etc. If you know html, go for it. A few of the commenters do. I don’t, and I absolutely refuse to learn. One day, this kind of plugin will be standard everywhere, and the web will have caught up with my aspirations once more.
There are many of us who don’t make the distinction between Islam and Islamism. We see the Muslim mosques and organizations in the United States using our freedoms to insist on their freedoms to the exclusion and finally illegality of our law. This is their tactic and it is a fifth column tactic. (Read your Dalyrmple. Read your McCarthy.) It has resulted in the loss of law in Europe, and those who are opposed to Christianity and Judaism think it a great thing. An honest opinion is immediately denounced. We’re not afraid of that. Rent your robes and wail into your bullhorns. People know BS when they hear it.
Islam is not getting better; it’s getting worse. I know it is terrible to contemplate that there are over one billion people in the world who want to rule or kill us, bu these are facts, not opinion. And in America, we value (or used to) the truth.
I heartily wish Islam could reform itself. The burden seems too huge. Don’t take my word for it because coming events will prove themselves. What would you rather have: Muslim spring or Irish spring?
When I referred to Islamic crap, I was referring to all the terrorists who have perpetrated their attacks on America soil (hence the term “fifth column.”) I do have sympathy for those Muslims themselves who are being terrorized, but it is a sympathy with no room for approval. Collateral damage. Hard truth.
You’ll notice that with white supremacy attacks, there’s no covering up and no dancing in the streets, and in fact, no changing or suppressing of the facts as it was with McVeigh. If I saw a white terrorist attack, I would stop it. I don’t believe the same for ordinary Muslim persons because they fear retribution. The bulk of Muslims are controlled by the extremists and hence they are conspirators because of their fear, and, unfortunately, I believe, their underlying sympathy for the cause. Because they feel resentment and are grieved–having heard that that had a great civilization that was stolen from them. Such is a lie, but if that is all you are taught, are you not a victim as well? But their answer is terror and killing innocents? This is bravery? Their answer is rape and gang rule of our cites? And the media and the progressives like fuster support them?
You’re an absolute fool and your ideas of the motivation of people are plainly confused.
You can’t contend that the majority is passive due to fear and immediately say that their passive due to sympathy with the criminals.
I support the right of people to live in peace and security and in conformity to our laws.
—‘Their answer is rape and gang rule of our cites?”—
is sorta nuts.
get some facts, find some spine, try to live bravely and freely instead of running scared of some folks who are far, far weaker than ourselves and far, far weaker than the enemies we’ve confronted and overcome in the last 70 years.
we’re not gonna give up our ideals and way of life because we’re scared of Islamists. we’ll stay steady and they’ll wither away because of the valueless of their POV.
I support fighting them when we must and scorning them always, and not doing their work for them by demonizing every Muslim on Earth.
Meg, you’re part of the problem because you’re accepting their basic premise and abandoning ours.
kinda disgraceful of you.
One of the problems that I see with Islam, the religion, is that it seems to lend itself to radicalism quite well. It promotes inequality between people and condones the mistreatment of certain classes of people just for being that class of people, something that most Western cultures find loathome. Actually, most cultures around the world find that sort of not too cool. Islam also promotes slavery, war and/or violence against these classes of people, all in the name of their chosen deity and its ambassadors. This, of course, happens now, in the twenty first century AC, not in ancient Babylon or in the deserts of Canaan or during the Exodus from Egypt.
Whether these bellicose views were justified political stances at the time in which they were written is a topic for another venue and for much better “scholars” than the ones that abound here (including me) but these war-hungry and domineering, imperialistic attitudes certainly are seen as quite dangerous in today’s modern world which is much “smaller” than it was back then, much less provincial and much more technologically driven which is just like saying much more dangerous than it was with sword and lance. The world is also way past that point of view in degrees of socio-political sophistication which includes the universal acceptance that wars are the thing of governments, not of religious zealots. Not that the bullet that kills you makes any difference, mind you, but it’s just that, in one case, war seems much more “conventional” and in the other you have that weird promise of the seventy two virgins which is kind of freaky in and of itself… 🙂
The other negative factor that I see with Islam, at least as far as I’m concerned, is that it has refused to develop at the same pace as the rest of the world. I am often surprised that liberals will embrace such a rabidly inflexible and antiquated belief, dare I say…conservative in the extreme?… and one that goes against many of the very things that they preach all the time: women rights and gay marriage just to name two. Of course, I understand that this is just a convenient use of something, anything at all, that rails against the things that they so love to hate.
Come to think of it, I wonder if a Muslim woman has the privacy right of aborting a baby that she doesn’t really want for whatever personal reason she might have…? Or a teenage Muslim girl if she were to get caught with her pants down (relax, it’s just a common, ordinary Western figure of speech…)
Hmmm…
But mostly I am kind of amused that the left’s moral equivalency argument is almost invariably one that leads them to compare our now distant past, say four or five hundred years ago, against their not-so-distant present, say two or three days ago or the isolated options embraced by real, true-to-the-core isolated instances brought about by lonley and isolated extremist with the almost everyday occurrences guided by the plentiful, almost club-like extremists that the religion seems to engender. The score, as far as this one single point is concerned, must be something like three acts of senseless brutality to thirty thousand two hundred and thirty five acts of brutality against others, certainly, but also against their own selves (that is, after all, what a suicide anything really is) and, also often against their close family members (which, again, is what the vaginal circumcision or the honor killing of a daughter really is: Violent and brutal. At least by Western standards – did I mention that I am Western in my own personal standards? Well, I am, which is why I say all that). But, back to the scoring…definitely not an even game from were I sit in the bleachers of life. No…not even a close call.
The argument is also not particularly even or even helpful when we compare the acts of some few among us against the act of many among us as well. I mean, I am sure that the score between the anti-abortionist that murders an abortion clinic doctor and the doctor that uses a pair of scissors to scramble a new born baby’s brain might be a bit one sided as well. But, alas, that is also a discussion for another venue and probably a waste of everybody’s time because you either “see it” or you don’t and I’m afraid that no amount of violence will ever change that type of almost secularly “religious” zealotry.
Best to all and to all a good night.
Maybe we could ask Mark Steyn to comment on the harmlessness of politically correct rules prohibiting negative speech about certain religions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AnnBarnhardt?feature=mhum
Soon, the scales will fall from the eyes of many.
The hopeful things that PC and multiculturalism promise are not being delivered. The Utopian things are becoming more and more realized as ugly. The ugly things that Islam brings are a reality. The hopeful, Utopian, but ugly reality of the impoverished and starving Muslim world is horrible. We should help, but after they stop trying to destroy us.
Without your, as usual, acute observation I wouldn’t have known that the Moslem World was starving. In fact, I had thought that it was feeding itself pretty well – at least as well as comparable non-Moslem states. Of course the situation in the Horn of Africa is tragic, but I had understood that the current humanitarian disaster in Somalia had all the usual causes of famine everywhere – drought exacerbated by civil conflict. Exactly the same as in nearby Christian Ethiopia a generation earlier. And the other great chronic ongoing humanitarian mega-disaster in Sub-Saharan Central Africa has ne’er a Moslem in sight. But thank you for your customary cool objective analysis, all the same.
I so wish you were right, fuster.
always a fair bet that I’m not gonna be right, but I invite you to consider things calmly for a bit, and see if you can give us a list of what great strength that the Islamists have.
all I can see indicates that they’re not all that much….and we have enormous weapons and wealth and offer a vastly better way of life.
but if you can point to what they offer or possess that makes them an enemy to fear as having the ability to even give us a real fight , please do so.
It is more accurate to say, the public character of Islamism, that tends to Salafism, in the Sunni ranks, and rather chiliastic variety of Shia religion,
As Amanda Foreman has pointed out in ‘World on Fire’ despite the fact that Britain banned slavery in 1807, half a century later, they still entertained intervening on behalf of theConfederacy, for commercial reason,
Nah, it wasn’t commercial reasons at all. They liked us Americans so much that they thought two American nations would be even better than one.
(I admit this isn’t an original comment. It’s a take on Mitterand’s comment about Thatcher’s less than fullsome welcome for the re-unification of Germany)
In their Arabic language statements, the OIC is clear that they consider defamation as applying only to Islam. (They are vague on this point in their English statements.) It is impossible to defame other religions because they are false, and cannot enjoy the same status. This interpretation is not peculiar to the OIC; it stems from Islamic law.
The definitions of slander and defamation need to be examined carefully, because according to Islamic law, truth has no bearing in cases of slander. If your statement is found (by Muslims) to be injurious in any way to Islam or to individual Muslims, you are guilty of defamation.
No, Steven. The OIC also specifically and expressly condemns anti-semitism.
And for to the likes of Steyn, Geller, Gaffney, Spencer, and Pipes, “truth” has “no bearing whatsoever” in their mission to whip up hatred and fear in respect of their Moslem fellow Americans. When, for example, Gaffney can’t dig up sufficient grounds to concoct the wherewithal on which to base a plausible allegation of some nefrarious Islamic conspiracy, he merely ignores this small technical shortfall and labels the victim of his hatred as “an unindicted co-conspirator”. In fact, you should hope and pray that the likes of Gaffney etc never get their hands on the levers of power. You too might one day be considered an “unindicted co-conspirator” in some matter which these “patriots” disaprove (such as being a lawyer defending a Moslem client against whom accusations have been made by Gaffney and company. (In case you think I’m being fanciful, Gaffney has been unrelenting in his attacks on the integrity of American lawyers daring to professionally defend Moslems accused – frequently, as it turned out, wrongly – of terrorist offences)
Do you think for one moment that there is any difference whatsoever between the motivation, methods, and mindset of Gaffney and company, and the motives, methods, and mindset or others who have attempted to whip up hatred against groups of people in other places and at other times? Even Abraham Foxman has (belatedly) come around to this realization in the aftermath of the Breivik murders.
As I said, the English language statements of the OIC are at variance with what they publish in Arabic. How’s your Arabic? I doubt very much it’s as good as mine.
Not having your undoubted fluency in arabic, perhaps you might be so good as to give me an authoritive and verifiable reference so that I can see the alleged statement in context and in its arabic original and I will have it translated.
I go to the bottom of the comments and Paulite is still blaming Gaffney. I feel like I haven’t missed a thing.
Let us consider the results if the Founding Fathers were Muslim and wrote the Islamist Bill of Rights and The Muslim Constitution several centuries ago.
I bet the living standards, science and technology, institutions of higher learning would be the envy of the world. (Please, Pretty Please someone write that Islam had cutting edge science and education 1000 years ago)
Of course we would have to kill all the Jews. Small price to pay right?
The gay people certainly would need a good stoning.
Oh yes, since the State, private enterprise, the military are a single Model of Mohammed, one needs to be devout Muslim to get ahead.
Gosh I don’t really hate Jews and non Muslims, but what is a guy going to do. I have a family to support, Allah Akbar, Kill the Infidels.
Hey,we are moderates. We don’t really believe all this stuff. We are just hanging.
The gigantic crowds of moderate muslims protesting Middle Ages thinking is impressive.
Finally, the role of women in the Muslim World is a beacon to the universal goodness of the Islamic Religion.
Note for J.E.: The Westbro Baptist Church will be in Edmond Thursday for a military funeral. I believe the soldier that died in Afganistan was gay. It is just like a friendly visit from the Revolutionary Guards.
Okay Paul, start whining.
wreed — I’m disgusted that those Westboro clowns will be at a military funeral in Edmond. I hope the Patriot Riders are there to drown them out. Those guys are awesome. I think they have a pretty sizeable Oklahoma contingent too, so they won’t have far to go.
The Patriot Riders WILL be there, along with many other respectful Okies!
The FOOLS of Westboro will not have the opportunity to ruin this day for the family of this brave man!
Thatnks, DReed, I’m glad to hear it. You any relation to wreed?
“You any relation to wreed?”——
oh, such an unkind accusation…
F.Y.I. EDMOND, Okla. — An estimated 1,600 people turned out for the funeral of an Oklahoma National Guard soldier from Edmond who was killed in action in Afghanistan. The Services were Thursday at Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond for 33-year-old 2nd Lt. Jered Ewy.
…this is amazing! (taken from KFOR-TV) the WBC had no chance!
no relation to wreed
Thanks for the update, DReed. I’m glad it was a high-quality Okie turnout. No surprise.