Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Religions Rule

How can it be that so many who are ardent enemies of religion are now siding with those who want to build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Considering also that those who are the most outspoken defenders of this Mosque are also ardent defenders of abortion and homosexuality. And also considering that the religion of the future inhabitants of this Mosque would call for the stoning of homosexuals; and whose anti-choice stance for women go well beyond the womb, makes it all the more strange. Further, why would Muslims, who look forward to the implementation of Sharia Law, a law that reduces women to chattel, kills homosexuals, and outlaws abortion, ever find itself so allied, both concerning this Mosque and elsewhere, with a political party built upon these three pillows? And in reverse, why would that same political party ally itself conversely?

Most conservatives can kind of see that serious Muslims want to implement Sharia law world wide and that liberals provide quite a useful idiot toward such an end. That part is not confusing. Most everyone also knows that American Christendom is now irrelevant. One only need look at the institutionalized decadence and debauchery to get that. But why the liberal ideologue, riding on the crest of his half-century wave of triumph would side with a culture with which it is so vehemently opposed in every way may present more of a challenge to ones understanding.

With a little thought however, the liberal is not really all that difficult to grasp. Understanding his motives is just a matter of understanding his worldview. In his world one religion is just as good or bad as another and ultimately should be subjected to the liberal's idea of what a religion should be and do. Imagine a flow chart of sorts with one large box on top with lines drawn vertically to a row of smaller boxes underneath. The liberal sees himself in that top box with the lower boxes populated with what ever religion the "bitter clinger" (1) decides to believe in order to better deal with his miserable reality, or in his attempts to achieve some sort of inner peace. Also, with this in mind there should be no wonder why so many "Christians" can sit in churches and listen to a preacher say over and over there is only one way to heaven and not be offended, even though he"knows" it isn't true. That is exactly what he expects to hear from the preacher who holds to that particular truth. The "Christian" simply sees his religion as subject to the liberal's higher interpretation from the upper box. Incidentally, missing from that flow chart is a box for God. This is because there is no difference in the liberal's mind between God and Government when they are in control.

As the American Church, having been co-opted by this kind of thinking in the upper levels of its denominations and seminaries, has increasingly submitted itself to the upper box, there resulted a Christian retreat of sorts in the public square. Liberals soon found themselves, first in control of educating the children of an unsuspecting Church, then in control of executive offices, both private and public as those children matured. But they are still hindered by Christians. And many Christians and non-Christians alike, still see America as a Christian nation. This will not do; enter Muslims. By helping Islam better establish itself in America liberalism hopes to achieve two goals. One, it hopes to show Islam it means it no harm, that it hates Christianity just as much as they do thereby earning Islam's alliance and favor. Two, place Islam in a lower box next to the other religions and subject it to the rich liberal elite and in so doing further marginalize Christianity as just one of many religions. The New York city Mosque is but one high profile example of many that shows this to be true.

It is my take that civilizations have to ultimately be ruled first in the hearts of its populations by a religion. It is in man's DNA to be so ruled. But the liberal cannot fathom this. Having ridden into power basically unopposed with visions of a Utopian materialistically equal society-except for themselves of coarse-propelled by free hand outs that are bankrupting their Utopia before it even comes close to relegating God to subject, they are completely incapable of grasping the Islamic mind. Instead they project their own ideas of material injustice onto what they see as a people oppressed by their enemy, Christianity. They are completely unable to see themselves as a temporary fill in a vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity as the viable coalescing force required for the existence of a nation. Liberalism itself offers no coalescing values for a nation of people, only for itself in the hearts of the rich, atheistic and self proclaimed intellectuals in the pursuit of their green-hilled Utopia. As cultures go, liberals are no match for a culture glommed onto a violent religion whose adherents are born and bread into a hatred for them so deep that not even the liberal can plumb it. And they will not subject that hatred to a meaningless-floating-in-the-cosmos-I'm-OK-you're-OK worldview. If you do not convert, you are most definitely not OK, and they are most definitely OK with that position, political correctness be damned.

With this understanding of liberalism's worldview, along with the evaporation of any national vision beyond that of a post-nation-and-boundaryless -warless world populated by various belief systems subjected to the Utopian visionaries, every current event from free-for-all immigration to the defense of a murderous and threatening religion, makes perfect sense. But a nation cannot survive off a vision of its own annihilation with hopes that others will follow for altruistic reasons; especially when the very ones calling for it deny altruism's existence. And it is for this reason that the next half century, if it takes that long, will be a war of religions in the hearts and minds of the West. Will it turn again to the gentle religion that it now so hates, or will it be ruled by a murderous and totalitarian religion that will return the meaning of tolerance from its current morphed definition of total acceptance back to its original meaning as those who invited a religion in under the false notion that they would rule over it find out that they instead are being ruled by it? In the end one thing is certain, religion will rule.

(1)President Obama revealed his view of serious religious adherents by using these words to describe them in a speech to like minded rich San Francisco political donors.

38 comments:

LoneWolfArcher said...

Interesting perspective. I touched on this myself in a recent post:

http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com/2010/08/barack-hussein-obama-is-aino.html

I think the issue is much simpler, since liberals are so simple. That is Islam is seen as anti-American and therefore liberals are for it. Just like they were for Communism back in the day.

Great post, a very good read!

4simpsons said...

Very well thought out and written, Dan. I'll be linking to this soon.

Craig and Heather said...

In the end one thing is certain, religion will rule.

Interesting post, Dan.

My thoughts tend to run with yours concerning the above quote.

Historically, "religion" has been instrumental in shaping the culture of any society. And I maintain that even atheism is religious in that it simply replaces a transcendent Creator to whom we are all accountable with almighty man and whatever he happens to think at a given time.

I do hesitate to consider America a Christian nation simply because Christianity is not primarily a "religion" but a restored relationship. Many of our laws and unwritten moral codes find meaning in the Christian faith--but unless individuals are re-oriented on a heart-level, the activity remains an externalized religious effort.

Heather

Dan said...

Heather

So there you have it. You summed this whole post up to just a few words. It has been my take however that of all religions, atheism is a self defeating and ultimately self destroying one. It is, I think in short, a luxury enjoyed by wealthy nations who, in their self indulgence desire to cast off the restraints that come naturally with our existence, and worse, the delusional belief that it can be done at no cost.

Craig said...

Dan,

Thanks. Yes, your deleting skills are impeccable. Sorry again. I'm not the most savvy operator of the tubes.

First, I like to find common ground, even with those I may disagree with politically or philosophically. I think we may agree that Barney Fife is the greatest supporting character in the history of TV.

"Would it be fair to say Christianity spawned Tim McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Eric Rudolf, etc...?"

No, it most definetly would not be fair, but thanks for helping to make the point of the original article.


Neither would I but that's exactly what you are doing with Islam. I agree, there are far more crazy, murderous Muslims than Christians. Since Islam isn't going away, I think it is important to stand with the majority of Muslims who aren't bent on destroying us but recognize that America is where you are free to believe whatever and act however within the law.

By stereotyping all Muslims as conniving, radical, murderous outsiders plotting the implementation of Sharia Law, you are doing the Terrorists bidding. You can't kill or convert all of 'em.

My Congressman is Keith Ellison. I've met him on several occasions. He is either a tremendous actor or he's genuinely not interested in stoning the gay, forced pregnancy or covering his wife, Kim, in a Burka.

Regarding your original post. Since you like putting people in boxes, what box are you in?

Craig and Heather said...

Dan:

It has been my take however that of all religions, atheism is a self defeating and ultimately self destroying one. It is, I think in short, a luxury enjoyed by wealthy nations who, in their self indulgence desire to cast off the restraints that come naturally with our existence, and worse, the delusional belief that it can be done at no cost.

Good point. Your thought looks a lot like Psalm 2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us.



Craig:
... there are far more crazy, murderous Muslims than Christians.
It is true that, historically, there are some atrocious things that have been done in the name of both Christianity and Islam--and atheism, for that matter.

It is also true that it is not appropriate to judge an entire group based on the actions of a select few "extremists". Far better to examine the teachings of the religion and the actions of those who most closely observe them. Those who do not adhere tightly may not actually qualify as being "of" that religion, regardless of what they want to call themselves.

For the record, the visible, religious institution of Christianity is not necessarily an equivalent to historic, biblical Christian faith.

Heather

Joe said...

Craig: "First, to Joe. Your lack of trust in the American people (we'll just give in to Sharia Law. Right.), paranoia and cowering fear is indeed, frightening."

I am not cowered, nor am I paranoid. I just look at the facts of what is being done in the name of tolerance (which isn't really tolerance at all, but aquiessence) and draw the most reasonable of conclusions, given the direction and seriousness of what is being done.

The American PEOPLE are 70+% against building the mosque at ground zero...they're fine. It's the American "leadership" I'm afraid of.

You don't have to be Nostra Damas to predict the outcome, you just have to be intellectually awake.

If I'm around, I'll say, "I told you so." If I'm not, well, my "ghost" will come back and haunt you.

Dan said...

Craig

I was aware as I wrote this article that I was leaning heavily on the use of generalizations.

I keep this quote by the 19th century French author Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of "Democracy in America" close at hand for the purposes of those who point this out:

"God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude."

Tocqueville wrote this early in his treatise as a disclaimer for the extensive use of generalizations that were to come.

As for the box I fit into the best, thanks for asking. I purposely attempted to write this article from as objective of a perspective as possible, hence my frequent reference to "religion".

That said, I suppose I would have to say that I fit fairly well into the "Christian Right" box, or perhaps the "Evangelical Right" box, for the purposes of generalizations for brevity's sake.

continued:

Dan said...

"Since Islam isn't going away, I think it is important to stand with the majority of Muslims who aren't bent on destroying us...

1. Where do we go to join with those who are taking that stand? While agreeing with you that it isn't nobody denouncing the extremists, does who are could hardly be classified as a movement.

2. (absurdity for point's sake) Perhaps Christianity should become terrorists in order to gain some respect.

3. It is incompatible with reason for the nominal Muslim to ask a nation of people who recently had 3000 of its citizens indiscriminately murdered at the hand of a few of their more zealous brethren, and then watch on TV the cheering in the streets on distant shores, to treat them as though it never happened. The reasonable Muslim should understand this, and though some do, and have said so, it is suspicious that those who want to build the set up their building right there, and all the more so that they would originally call it "The Cordoba House", a name they have subsequently abandoned, and for good reason. That brings me to number 4.

4. 3. Tekeyya will always be a hindrance in determining who we should stand with and who we should suspect.


...but recognize that America is where you are free to believe whatever and act however within the law."

This is still true. They will probably get their Cordoba House, but at great cost to the relations that they are supposedly trying to heal in the process.

All this said, it is my sincere belief that the large majority of people who oppose this _________ (fill in the PC name of the day) would love nothing more than to join hands with Muslims all across this nation, and indeed the world, who are willing to take a stand against the insanity that has come to be known as Islam.

But in the mean time, my old grand pap had a saying for things like this:

"don't p*** down my back and tell me its raining"!


P.S. On the matter of Barny Fife, it is my take that it was Andy who was the supporting actor.

:)

christian soldier said...

Dan-found an historical video on the Church in Istanbul/Constantinople - that you will be interested in...just posted the link...
carol-CS

Dan said...

Recent article with a simular question, a question that this post, I think, answers.

Exerpt:


I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"

Craig said...

1. Where do we go to join with those who are taking that stand? While agreeing with you that it isn't nobody denouncing the extremists, does who are could hardly be classified as a movement.

You could start by joining with Imam Rauf.

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl. He said,

"We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values"

Source

He was sent on 2 diplomatic missions to the middle east by Pres. Bush. He's been thoroughly vetted by the FBI. The announcement of Cordoba House was made in Dec. 2009. For 5 months no one said a word and the project was praised by Laura Ingram on Fox. It wasn't until it was misrepresented by Pamela Geller and picked up by Republicans for political purposes that it became an issue.

2. (absurdity for point's sake) Perhaps Christianity should become terrorists in order to gain some respect.

A little bit Jihad envy, a little bit persecution complex.

Craig said...

3. It is incompatible with reason for the nominal Muslim to ask a nation of people who recently had 3000 of its citizens indiscriminately murdered at the hand of a few of their more zealous brethren, and then watch on TV the cheering in the streets on distant shores, to treat them as though it never happened. The reasonable Muslim should understand this, and though some do, and have said so, it is suspicious that those who want to build the set up their building right there, and all the more so that they would originally call it "The Cordoba House", a name they have subsequently abandoned, and for good reason. That brings me to number 4

Yes, there was some celebrating among some Palestinians. There was also world wide condemnation, including the Muslim world. Spontaneous vigils in Iran. A moment of silence for the victims from 60,000 Muslims at an Iranian soccer game.

The history of Cordoba has been distorted by the demagogues. It was conquered by the Muslims in the 8th century after it was conquered by the Romans and later the Visigoth Christians. Empires were always conquering other empires back then. The Visigoths built their cathedral and after the Muslim conquest it was BOUGHT by Emir Abd ar-Rahman I and turned into a mosque because, duh, there were now Muslims there.

When Cordoba was run by the Muslims, it was one of the most advanced cities in the world. It was the most populated city in Europe and was home to many Jews and Christians.

Then in the 13th century, Cordoba was captured by King Ferdinand III of Castile. The mosque was taken, not bought, and turned into a Christian church. Victory Church? The Christians then kicked out the Jews and the Muslims.

(to be cont.)

Craig said...

4. 3. Tekeyya will always be a hindrance in determining who we should stand with and who we should suspect.

From your link.

The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."

What sounds reasonable to me is made to sound nefarious by your author. Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah,

On Jews and Their Lies

(cont.)

Craig said...

(cont.)

Let me clarify using a parable.

In 2030, we have been conquered by the Taliban and I don't really care, being a Liberal and an Atheist. My next door neighbor, Joe, a real Christian Patriot is being hunted by the Taliban for Blogging Against the Caliphate. Since I'm a godless Liberal and have no moral compass, I don't really care. Joe comes to me for help. I tell him he can hide in my newly remodeled and sharply appointed basement. Again, not because I'm moral but because beheadings are messy and all that blood is icky.

The Taliban comes to my door looking for Joe. They don't care about me, naturally. After all, it was people like me who rolled over and let the Taliban take power. So, anyway, Mr. Taliban asked me if I know where Joe is. Should I lie or tell the truth?

This is still true. They will probably get their Cordoba House, but at great cost to the relations that they are supposedly trying to heal in the process.

No, they may get their Park 51 and people of all or no faith will swim, learn to cook, play some ball and some will pray upstairs. The city will benefit from a development in a blighted neighborhood. People will wonder what all the fuss was about and those who are trying to exploit this bigotry will never apologize and will have moved on to the next group to fear monger.

I find myself in the strange position of defending Islam. I'm really not. I'm defending an American value. If one religion can be bullied into acquiescing their constitutional rights, so can yours and so can my right to no religious belief.

You can try to paint this as just an issue of sensitivity but you can't without associating all of Islam with the terrorists. At best that's stereotyping, at worst, rank bigotry. From what I've read here, I'll go with rank bigotry.

Dan said...

"You could start by joining with Imam Rauf."

Whatever advances Rauf's might have achieved in the healing of the still open wounds that have been and are being inflicted on America in the name of his religion, they have obviously been squandered by this Mosque. And further, the poke in the eye that it is being received as, would give the truly reconciliatory, even if ineptly so, hearted person pause; one would think.

Craig said...

Dan,

The wounds were reopened by the cynical demagogues who are fear mongering this issue. Like I said, there was no problem with it until Pam Geller saw an opportunity to whip up the anti-Muslim hysteria.

I could give you a laundry list (I've pointed out some already) of the falsehoods and lies told to incite this negative response. It's a formula that's been used over and over by some on the Right and it's really ugly. Unfortunately, it works well.

Someone offering to build something for a community that has sat blighted and undeveloped for 9 years. Someone who has a history of trying to foster peace and love wouldn't be lied about and vilified because he's the wrong religion, one would think.

Dan said...

"The wounds were reopened by the cynical demagogues who are fear mongering this issue. Like I said, there was no problem with it until Pam Geller saw an opportunity to whip up the anti-Muslim hysteria."

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that Americans were having "no problem" with Islam/the Mosque due to the Twin Towers bombing, or the Millennium Bomber, or the 9/11 attacks, or the Bali Bombing, or the London subway bombing, or the Madrid train bombing, or the Ft. Hood shooter, or the foiled shoe and underwear bombers and Fort Dix attacks, or the oft shouted refrain "death to America" or the various and sundry other indiscriminate massacres around the world in the name of Islam, but rather because "Pam Geller saw an opportunity to whip up the anti-Muslim hysteria" and took it?

Is this your argument?

Side note:

It is a holiday weekend here. I want to respond to the rest of your comments but am, for the time being, enjoying my children; who incidentally are growing up way too fast. Go have some fun, and if you reside in this great country and are able, enjoy this end of the summer holiday weekend.

Just saying to ask that you be patient with my delayed responses. I will get to the rest of your other comments soon I hope.

Dan said...

I could give you a laundry list (I've pointed out some already) of the falsehoods and lies told to incite this negative response. It's a formula that's been used over and over by some on the Right and it's really ugly. Unfortunately, it works well.



If lies were told, I've not heard them. I've specified my reasons for thinking that the Mosque is a bad idea for the purported reasons, and none of them were the result of the influence of anything more than my own reasoning.


However, that said, I do agree with you that we are all subject in some degree to the messages with which we are constantly bombarded. But as to your implication that those who disagree with your personal and presumably unbiased assessment of this situation are all under the influence of some dark right-wing power brokers, I would simply assert that the opposite is true. And so there we both would be, and in fact are; sure of the other's misguidedness and naiveté. As an antidote however I do apply a saying of my own coinage to my own thinking and life: "If you don't want to be deceived, assume that you are"

"Someone offering to build something for a community that has sat blighted and undeveloped for 9 years. Someone who has a history of trying to foster peace and love wouldn't be lied about and vilified because he's the wrong religion, one would think."

Yea, nothing like a bunch of wild eyed Islamic fanatics driving airplanes full of kerosene and screaming victims into neighborhood buildings to bring about a little blight. This reasoning is akin to breaking someone’s leg and then becoming indignant when they spurn your offer for crutches. Still, your argument here would hold if not for the thousands of dead Americans, not to mention human beings, killed indiscriminately around the world in the name of Islam; or, if the Mosque were being built in one of the many areas nearby that were blighted long before radical Muslims decide to blight their own religion. If this were actually what was being attempted we would both be saying "what Mosque?".

So hey, there you have it. It's a holiday weekend here in the US, so go enjoy your family and/or friends if you can. I will attempt to respond to your other comments in this friendly discussion as I find time in the coming days. Please don't interpret my silence here as an unwillingness to respond to them. I will get to them, but for now I have young children who are growing up much too fast.

Dan said...

Yes, there was some celebrating among some Palestinians.

You down play this, I, and many other reasonable people do not.

There was also world wide condemnation, including the Muslim world. Spontaneous vigils in Iran. A moment of silence for the victims from 60,000 Muslims at an Iranian soccer game.

...and that was a reasonable response, good for them.

The history of Cordoba has...

Even if the name doesn't have any significant symbolism, not that I concede that it does not, the Mosque is still a bad idea for the the purported reasons it is to be built. It is obviously not bringing about healing, and is not going to. Even if the stick in the eye is a wrong-headed perception resulting from ignorance, bigotry, xenophobia, and all the other rotten attributes with which the unenlightened American people appear to be blighted, it would seem prudent to me to assuage those ill conceived feelings rather than to shove something through that is obviously aggravating it. But, then again, that seems reasonable and logical to me.

I say again:

"It is incompatible with reason for the nominal Muslim to ask a nation of people who recently had 3000 of its citizens indiscriminately murdered at the hand of a few of their more zealous brethren, and then watch on TV the cheering in the streets on distant shores, to treat them as though it never happened."

Dan said...

"What sounds reasonable to me is made to sound nefarious by your author."

Yep, the whole point of my original post.

Dan said...

Should I lie or tell the truth?

Parables work because they use one truth to show or explain another in which your parable doesn't work. What makes you think you're going to be, as an atheist, living in such nice digs in a theistic culture that hates atheists?

Still, I get your point, and as usual, your logic, wrenched from the context of this discussion, holds. What I mean is, don't you think Raul would do the same thing? Your parable then proves the point behind the accusation of "Tekeyya", and, placed back into context--that is the global bloodbath that is currently taking place in the name of Islam--why would you be so willing to defend him?

Perhaps I should give YOU a parable:

A young man, after being raised on a steady diet of "death to America" finds himself in a cell in the US. In the spare time he finds between plotting the indiscriminate killing of infidels, he has fun on blogs passing himself off as an atheist, you know, "Tekeyya" to be better received by the enlightened intelligentsia. He spends his time there vehemently defending his cherished religion, Islam, while attempting to pass himself off as a typical, objective, thinking, atheist. Someone becomes suspicious because of his apparent passion for Islam and its radical cause and so confronts him. So, shouldhe lie or tell the truth about his religion?

"No, they may get their Park 51"

Why not call it the "Cordoba House?

"and people of all or no faith will swim, learn to cook, play some ball and some will pray upstairs. The city will benefit from a development in a blighted neighborhood. People will wonder what all the fuss was about and those who are trying to exploit this bigotry will never apologize and will have moved on to the next group to fear monger."

One would hope, we shall see.

You can try to paint this as just an issue of sensitivity but you can't without associating all of Islam with the terrorists. At best that's stereotyping, at worst, rank bigotry. From what I've read here, I'll go with rank bigotry.

It is an issue of sensitivity and I have taken the time to show it as such even though the point of this post was not about the merits of the Mosque, pro or con.

At best that's stereotyping, at worst, rank bigotry. From what I've read here, I'll go with rank bigotry.

Ha! such hatred shown to me and I haven't even blown anyone up! Oh, us poor dim witted bigots, what are you going to do with the lot of us. How about a little diversity in viewpoint please? A little open mindedness? A little tolerance? Or do I have to start a bloodbath to get such things?

Craig said...

Hey Danj, (Hey, Barn)

It's a holiday weekend here in the US, so go enjoy your family and/or friends if you can.

I live in Minnesota and I had a swell weekend. Hope you did too.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that Americans were having "no problem" with Islam/the Mosque due to the Twin Towers bombing...

I'm saying there was no controversy re. the Community Center until it was branded the Ground Zero Mosque, it's neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. Lies were told about Imam Rauf's shady connections to terrorist Orgs. One of Rauf's benefactors is a scary Saudi Prince who's offer of aid money was turned down by Rudy G. after 9/11. The same Saudi Prince who owns the second largest share of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the Co. that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. By that logic, Fox and the WSJ are terrorist orgs.

Rauf worked closely with a Jewish Comm. Center in Manhattan as a model for his. It was being praised by some conservatives as the kind of outreach they wanted to see from 'moderate Muslims'.

But as to your implication that those who disagree with your personal and presumably unbiased assessment of this situation are all under the influence of some dark right-wing power brokers, I would simply assert that the opposite is true.

I'm not saying I'm unbiased although I am aware I have biases and do my best to examine any claims of fact I make for accuracy. Also, I'm not accusing you of being under anyone's influence. I am saying that lies have been told and distortions made to sway public opinion. Most people don't have the time or inclination to fact check each phony claim or half truth flung at the wall. Some invariably stick.

I think I understand your position. Muslim=violent terrorist.

(to be cont.)

Craig said...

Yea, nothing like a bunch of wild eyed Islamic fanatics driving airplanes full of kerosene and screaming victims into neighborhood buildings to bring about a little blight. This reasoning is akin to breaking someone’s leg and then becoming indignant when they spurn your offer for crutches. Still, your argument here would hold if not for the thousands of dead Americans, not to mention human beings, killed indiscriminately around the world in the name of Islam

First, you keep saying "in the name of Islam". While these atrocities have all been done by Muslims, they've said this 'war' is about the Wests policies in the middle east. They are convinced the West (Christians) want to wipe out Islam. I don't agree and I don't sympathize with their view one bit. I'm just restating their supposed rationale. Without going into geopolitical details; empire, oil, Isreal, etc. that have led to policies that have destabilized that region, some back ground is necessary.

Remember, it was the U.S. who meddled in Iran's business with the Shah. We backed Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. The Bush family is tight with Saudi Royalty (kissing and holding hands). It's been U.S. (not just Bush) policy to look the other way when it comes to their repressive regime as long as the oil keeps flowing. The Saudis allow the more extreme elements of Islam to do their thing there as long as they leave the Royals alone. The U.S. backed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan who became the Taliban. Before you accuse me of siding with the terrorists, I don't but the current blowback is not unexpected.

Now we have thousands of brave men and women over there trying to win hearts and minds. Back home, people are marching in the streets against a comm. center being built by someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 but you want to blame for it.

So, you want to associate all Muslims with crimes of a few. That is the definition of guilt by association. Your distrust of all Muslims based on some guys interpretation of the Koran reveals a willingness to accept the worst spin on a group that I can only attribute to a core dislike of the group on your part. The definition of bigotry.

By that standard I should distrust Jews since it's in their nature to lie and cheat. And that's from no less a source than the father of the Protestant Reformation, Luther.

One of Bin Laden's excuses for his crimes was the presence of The Infidels on sacred ground. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Sounds remarkably similar to the anti- rec. center complaint.

Why do you want to do Bin Ladens work for him?

(more to come)

Craig said...

There's really no point in my dragging this out any further. With this analogy, you make your position unambiguous and crystal clear,

This reasoning is akin to breaking someone’s leg and then becoming indignant when they spurn your offer for crutches.

You hold Imam Rauf, 500,000 Muslims living in NYC, the Muslims who died on 9/11 including some first responders, all Muslims really, personally responsible for 9/11.

Ha! such hatred shown to me and I haven't even blown anyone up! Oh, us poor dim witted bigots, what are you going to do with the lot of us. How about a little diversity in viewpoint please? A little open mindedness? A little tolerance? Or do I have to start a bloodbath to get such things?

Cute. Actually, I now hold you and every Christian responsible for any atrocity done by a Christian or condoned or not roundly and unanimously condemned by Christians. To not would be a poke in my eye.

Dan said...

"I'm saying there was no controversy re. the Community Center until it was branded the Ground Zero Mosque, it's neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. "Lies were told about Imam Rauf's shady connections to terrorist Orgs. One of Rauf's benefactors is a scary Saudi Prince who's offer of aid money was turned down by Rudy G. after 9/11. The same Saudi Prince who owns the second largest share of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the Co. that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. By that logic, Fox and the WSJ are terrorist orgs."

I see what you're saying. I, of coarse, disagree. But even if I'm wrong and you're spot on, the fact remains that its purported end is now being harmed. Like it or not, this discussion is taking place in the context of the list of atrocities brought on by Muslims, and this Islamic “Center” is not in fact bringing about healing and is, in fact, agitating against it. Rauf has a decision to make, do I continue with this project over the outcry of a majority of the nation--ill conceived though their outcry may be--or do I insist that I have a right to have my community center, their wishes be damned?

In the end of coarse he can do whatever he wants, but to move forward under the guise that he is doing it for reconciliation, I think, especially within the context of Islam’s uglier side permeating the news, is ludicrous. It only serves to further alienate those he is supposedly trying to reach while it does nothing to sway those who are in favor of it—they are already swayed.

So there, we have both given our views on that matter, I understand what you are trying to say and we disagree.

Moving on:

Dan said...

"I think I understand your position. Muslim=violent terrorist."

So close yet so far. Try this:

Violent terrorist = Muslim

Dan said...

First, you keep saying "in the name of Islam". While these atrocities...

I keep saying it because it is true. I don't get it. Do you deny this? The last thing a person in a crowded public place wants to hear is a Muslim suddenly yelling Allah Akbar.

Still, conceding your point, atrocities are committed in the names of religions. The real question that deserves an answer is does the religion warrant it? Islam is unique as far as major religions go in that it does.

Yet even still, even IF what you are saying is true, this group of people has declared war on America for its perceived and real past grievances, and they have done so, not as a nation/state, but as a religion.

Prudence and logic then would seem to dictate reasonable suspicion of all who share a brotherhood with that group. Remember, Nidal Hasan was a moderate Muslim this time last year. If reasonable suspicion had been the order of the day as opposed to blind, and as it turns out, dangerous, political correctness, 13 parents, brothers, and husbands and such might still be alive today. As it turns out, he gave plenty of warnings that were ignored, and, dare I say it, had to be. Worse yet, I can say with confidence, there will be more.

Dan said...

"Now we have thousands of brave men and women over there trying to win hearts and minds. Back home, people are marching in the streets against a comm. center being built by someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 but you want to blame for it."

built by someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 but you want to blame for it

He does not have "nothing" to do with it, and I don't blame him for it. 9/11 was done in the name of Islam. Rauf is Islamic. The terrorists who carried out the act were Islamic. That is a far cry from nothing, and it would do peace minded Muslims well to realize that very poignant point if they hope to achieve their purported hopes of reconciliation.

Are you making the argument that if people didn't march in the streets it would go better for us there?

Perhaps in some negligible way, but there are some things that might have a less negligible impact:

1. Outlaw all homosexual marriage. Muslims see this as the abomination that it is and want no part of it. They also, incorrectly, associate it with Christianity, since America is a "Christian" nation. They don't realize that it is no longer so.

2. Outlaw pornography. America is a large exporter of pornography, if not the world's leader. Muslims want no part of it.

3. Outlaw abortion. Muslims rightly consider it murder and so do I. Furthermore, 50 million dead with impunity erodes any moral high ground we may need in this great struggle.

4. Clean up Hollywood. Many see this nation through the lens of our entertainment media. They want no part of a culture that has cast all morality to the wind and that prides itself in showcasing decadence.

5. Do what we say we're going to do, or do nothing. Our friends around the world rightly see America as fickle. If we invade a country to rid it of some evil, then stay until we do. They know, as the South Vietnamese learned the hard way, that we might pick up and leave at any time and leave them to deal with the retaliation of those we were fighting.

6. Do not elect people who would cavalierly jeopardise the mission in attempts of political gain. Dick Durban, "we are worse than Pol Pot" Harry Reed "This war is lost" and various others who's words gave aid and comfort to those we were fighting, and discouragement to those who were on our side.

Of coarse none of these are going to happen which goes with the gist of this post that we are now commenting on.

Dan said...

"Now we have thousands of brave men and women over there trying to win hearts and minds. Back home, people are marching in the streets against a comm. center being built by someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 but you want to blame for it."

built by someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 but you want to blame for it

He does not have "nothing" to do with it, and I don't blame him for it. 9/11 was done in the name of Islam. Rauf is Islamic. The terrorists who carried out the act were Islamic. That is a far cry from nothing, and it would do peace minded Muslims well to realize that very poignant point if they hope to achieve their purported hopes of reconciliation.

Are you making the argument that if people didn't march in the streets it would go better for us there?

Perhaps in some negligible way, but there are some things that might have a less negligible impact:

1. Outlaw all homosexual marriage. Muslims see this as the abomination that it is and want no part of it. They also, incorrectly, associate it with Christianity, since America is a "Christian" nation. They don't realize that it is no longer so.

2. Outlaw pornography. America is a large exporter of pornography, if not the world's leader. Muslims want no part of it.

3. Outlaw abortion. Muslims rightly consider it murder and so do I. Furthermore, 50 million dead with impunity erodes any moral high ground we may need in this great struggle.

4. Clean up Hollywood. Many see this nation through the lens of our entertainment media. They want no part of a culture that has cast all morality to the wind and that prides itself in showcasing decadence.

5. Do what we say we're going to do, or do nothing. Our friends around the world rightly see America as fickle. If we invade a country to rid it of some evil, then stay until we do. They know, as the South Vietnamese learned the hard way, that we might pick up and leave at any time and leave them to deal with the retaliation of those we were fighting.

6. Do not elect people who would cavalierly jeopardise the mission in attempts of political gain. Dick Durban, "we are worse than Pol Pot" Harry Reed "This war is lost" and various others who's words gave aid and comfort to those we were fighting, and discouragement to those who were on our side.

Of coarse none of these are going to happen which goes with the gist of this post that we are now commenting on.

Dan said...

"So, you want to associate all Muslims with crimes of a few."

Reality associates them whether you or I want to or not. Sorry, but its true.

"That is the definition of guilt by association."

False. Just because all Muslims are not guilty does not mean that they are not associated.


"Your distrust of all Muslims based on some guys interpretation of the Koran reveals a willingness to accept the worst spin on a group that I can only attribute to a core dislike of the group on your part."

False again. My mistrust of Muslims is due to:

the Twin Towers bombing
the Millennium Bomber
the 9/11 attacks
the Bali Bombing
the London subway bombing
the Madrid train bombing
the Ft. Hood shooter
the foiled shoe bomber
the foiled underwear bomber
the foiled Fort Dix attack
the oft shouted refrain "death to America"
Egyptian Air 990 tragedy
various and sundry other indiscriminate massacres around the world in the name of Islam

"...The definition of bigotry."

False

If I wanted to kill all Muslims, or treated them all as if they were guilty, that would be Bigotry. Prudence is not bigotry. Keeping your doors locked while driving through certain neighborhoods is not bigotry. Tolerance is not acceptance. Refusing to accept is not bigotry, at least as it was at one time defined. If one wanted an example of a true bigot however, he need look no further than the radical Muslim, but he need not listen for the accusation.

Dan said...

"By that standard I should distrust Jews since it's in their nature to lie and cheat. And that's from no less a source than the father of the Protestant Reformation, Luther."

Really bad and fallacious argument, but here goes:

Yes you should distrust Jews, and you do distrust them because you are not stupid. Since MAN lies and cheats, Luther was only one/one hundredth, or whatever, correct.

"One of Bin Laden's excuses for his crimes was the presence of The Infidels on sacred ground. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Sounds remarkably similar to the anti- rec. center complaint."

The only link is in the word "sacred". Bad argument, an incredible leap, and you don't make it across the chasm.

"Why do you want to do Bin Ladens work for him?"

I don't, you are, this proves my original post.

Dan said...

"Cute. Actually, I now hold you and every Christian responsible for any atrocity done by a Christian or condoned or not roundly and unanimously condemned by Christians. To not would be a poke in my eye."

Just show me the list.

Dan said...

Imam Rauf had this to say about Islam:

At the core of Shariah law are God’s commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty.

Some excerpts from a travel site for Saudi Arabia, the most Sharia Compliant country in the world:

Visas for tourism are issued only for approved tour groups following organized itineraries. All visas require a sponsor. Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. Foreign residents traveling within the Kingdom, even between towns in the same province, carry travel letters issued by employers and authenticated by an immigration official or a Chamber of Commerce office. Police at all airports and dozens of roadblocks routinely arrest and imprison violators.

Crime is generally not a problem for travelers in Saudi Arabia. However, private Saudi citizens who perceive that conservative standards of conduct are not being observed by a foreigner may harass, pursue, or assault that person.

Islam pervades all aspects of life in Saudi Arabia. It is the official religion of the country, and public observance of any other religion is forbidden. Public non-Muslim religious services are illegal, and public display of non-Islamic religious articles such as crosses and Bibles is not permitted.

The norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are extremely conservative, and religious police, known as Mutawwa, are charged with enforcing these standards.

Dan said...

This post, summed up, begins with questions that ask why, given Islam's record on Liberalism's most prized ideologies such as abortion, women's equality, and homosexual rights, Liberals take a definitive stand for Islam, and why Islam is drawn so to Liberals.

I quickly answer the reverse puzzle as to why Islam is drawn so to Liberals. The rest of the article is dedicated to answering the question as to why Liberals feel an attachment to such a ideologically opposite group. I do this by setting the historic stage by laying out the cultural landscape, that of the historically predominate religion evacuating the culture leaving in its wake a void. I then describe that void as it relates to the liberal worldview by positing that the liberal's experience with a wanning religion does not prepare it for a religion that can and has, in its teaching and unlike the teaching of the out-going religion, been interpreted as a call to violence.

I opined that man kind has historically been ruled by religions and that that was the natural order of things and then contrasted the liberal Utopian view of the world with its bumper sticker understanding of cultures and their religions as "Coexist" with the incoming religion's harsh and hard views and projected that Liberalism would be no match for Islam.

Almost every argument against the truth of this post, and arguments on subsequent posts have served to affirm the assertions of this article.

Dan said...

Here is an interesting video that also confirms the gist of this post.

Dan said...

More here from Americans for Peace and Tolerance a self proclaimed "moderate" group consisting of "Christians, Moslems, and Jews, [who] are united by the need to keep America hate-free."

There are the people behind the previous video link. Interestingly, the supposed ardently anti-religious ACLU is sitting this one out. Why? I think I a pretty good go at answering that question in this post.

Dan said...

Interesting video here by Allen West who is running for congress in Florida's 22nd district.