Jerry Falwell and Kevin Jennings: Another WorldNetDaily attack fizzles
December 29, 2009 5:25 pm ET by Jeremy Schulman
The anti-gay bigots at WorldNetDaily are back with yet another recycled attack on Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. This time, WND "news editor" Bob Unruh is trumpeting a seven-year-old Concerned Women of America "report" that, in the words of WND's banner headline, "Jennings called Falwell 'terrorist.' " But like every other attack the right has leveled at Jennings, this one falls flat.
In the first sentence of his WND story, Unruh breathlessly writes: "Reports have been uncovered revealing President Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings once called renowned evangelist Jerry Falwell a 'terrorist' ..."
Not until the 12th paragraph of the story (the 13th, if you count the paragraph hocking The Marketing of Evil audio book, on sale in the WND superstore) does Unruh get around to providing the context of what Jennings is actually alleged to have said -- context that makes Jennings' quote (assuming he actually said it) a lot less inflammatory:
The documentation on Jennings' opinion of Falwell comes from a report posted on the CWFA website about a 2002 conference.
Report author Allyson Smith noted going undercover to the GLSEN "Teaching Respect for All" conference in Los Angeles that year.
The subject of Falwell, who founded the Thomas Road Baptist Church, Liberty Christian Academy, Liberty University and the Moral Majority, and died in 2007, came up.
Jennings said: "I have to stop and give my little homage to the Southern Baptist Church because one of its leaders, Jerry Falwell, two days ago just announced that the founder of one of the world's greatest religions, Mohammed, was a terrorist. Usually the religious right tapes everything I say, so let me make sure they get this [quote] down: Jerry Falwell, if you need to know what a terrorist looks like, go look in the mirror," according to the CWFA report.
Falwell had told CBS News earlier that the founder of Islam was "a violent man, a man of war."
For the record, here's the relevant portion of the 2002 60 Minutes report by Bob Simon that Jennings was allegedly referencing:
SIMON: (Voiceover) Falwell believes most Muslims want to live in peace but, he says, the lines have been drawn: Christians and Jews on one side, Muslims on the other. And, he says, those lines were drawn more than 1,000 years ago.
Rev. FALWELL: I think Mohammed was a terrorist. He--I've read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and--and non-Muslims, that he was a--a violent man, a man of war.
SIMON: So the same way that Moses provided the ultimate example for the Jews and the same way that Jesus provided the ultimate example for Christians, Mohammed provided the ultimate example for Muslims, and he was a terrorist?
Rev. FALWELL: In my opinion. And I do believe that Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.
Of course, this wasn't the first outrageous comment Falwell had made about terrorism. A year earlier, in the aftermath of 9-11, Falwell suggested that the United States deserved the terrorist attacks, famously telling Pat Robertson that "what we saw on [9-11], as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Falwell went on to "point the finger in" the "face" of several groups he claimed "helped this happen," including "the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle":
FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Someone claimed, seven years ago, that Jennings said something about Falwell being a terrorist, and that should disqualify him from public service? That's a really ridiculous stretch, in my opinion. Leave it to WND to find justification for removal from office based on name calling. Hey, WND? Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist. So, what should be done to Beck? Just sayin'.
Blaming Katrina and 9-11 on Gays, Lesbians, Gynecologists, Abortionists and Teddy Kennedy is about as silly as blaming W for being stupid and easily lead by people who had their own interests at heart.
At some point, confrontational politics will fail. I'd say that McCain/Palin should have been a point in time in which the republican party should have learned a valuable lesson. However, it appears that they have determined to stick with their old failed policies, perhaps out of pure animus? You'd think in the face of the last year that they could at least attempt to come up with a policy or two that hadn't been previously rejected by the electorate. Instead, we have republican blowhards shrilly pointing to the end of world without any attempt to engage the opposition or propose remedies.
This is not the way to honorably win the hearts and minds of America. Ideals, Ideas and honorable Intentions win the day. Republicans are doomed...
Get it, retiredinsf? So, if Falwell says "God allowed this attack because of gays and the ACLU" he is using terror to coerce people into believing as he believes. If Bush says that 9-11 was an 'opportunity' (as opposed to a catastrophe), and uses the threat of further terrorist incidents to invade Iraq, over legitimate opposition, then he is a terrorist.
Who took away our right to habeus corpus? Was it bin Laden? No, it was Bush/Cheney. Who took away our right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by wiretapping the entire nation? Was it bin Laden? No, it was Bush/Cheney.
So, aside from casting aspersions on my mental abilities, retiredinsf, what else do you have? Not much, huh?
“Cultural Dictionary
terrorism
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Can you now understand what normal people believe to be terrorism? Your problem is you live in a left wing fantasy world associating with only other kooky LWers so you are not able to realize what most people think is the norm. For you to say "Bush did more harm to this country than a thousand bin Ladens could accomplish in a hundred years." is ludicrous and completely confirms you are no more then a LW nutcase. Let me put it another way just for you, Cat. Your moronic statement negates any potential credibility of your argument having any merit because your statement is so preposterous.
Cat: “Was it bin Laden? No, it was Bush/Cheney. Who took away our right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by wiretapping the entire nation? Was it bin Laden? No, it was Bush/Cheney.”
Here again you are displaying, for all to see, just how ridiculous your LW brain functions. Normal people are more then willing to allow the wiretapping of their international phone calls in order to stop Islamic terrorism. A very small “price” to pay for the safety of me and mine – even if you could care less about you and yours.
You need to get out of your trailer more often to see how normal people feel about terrorism. Trust me, normal people don’t think what you think.
BTW: You asked yesterday how would I know if Al Quada wanted to saw off your head. I know this because you said you are a Christian. Anyone non-Muslim is considered an infidel by Al Quada. And Al Quada has proven more than once they will torture (I mean REAL torture – not your wimpy water boarding definition of “torture”), then kill as many infidels as they can (the sawing of ones head off usually kills them). You display a remarkable lack of basic comprehension skills Cat.
Actually, in Islam, Christians and Jews are "People of the Book" and are not Infidels. Which should tell you how distorted Al Queida's view is of Islam. So, I must question your comprehension skills, not Cat's. The Bush Administration did violate our rights to privacy in the name of security. Are you aware that the Bush Administration not only conducted illegal wiretaps, but they also seized ALL travel information and credit records of people who were in Las Vegas around New Year's of 2003 because they were worried about a terrorist attack? (Check out the Frontline documentary "Spying on the Homefront") And, no I don't think that "normal people" are willing to have their phone calls listened to or their credit card and vacation destinations scrutinized because they might be terrorists! Another thing, there have only been two decapitation murders carried our by Muslim groups that I know of. Decapitation isn't torture, it is murder. Torture is inflicted to gain something from the person being tortured, usually information or co-operation. Murder, no matter how grisly and grusome, is still murder. In this vicious mess, the U.S. is the only one who has used systematic torture, and that shames me, and it should shame you, too. Can you please explain why rapid conservatives are so fixated on those two murders? I have seen numerous rightwingers bring this up, over an 18 month period, and it is always the same thing-"Al Qeida is evil, they torture you by cutting your head off!" The fact is, they have used terror as a weapon and the fear they created in people like you has led to the diminution and abrogation of our rights and our personal freedoms in the name of stopping terror, and we've done it to ourselves! Word is, Dick Cheney was fundamentally changed by the 9/11 events and turned into a scared, irrational, venegeful person. Through his office, he inflicted his fear, his terror onto us. He started to use the terrorists' weapons against the people he had sworn to protect. And the big problem with giving up freedoms and rights for "a little while" in order to catch the terrorists, it leads down a slippery slope, especially when the intended war on terror has no exit plan, and is meant to go on for years, if not generations, as the Bush plan was. And Falwell, well, Jerry was just a grinning religious bigot; no different really than some of the more rational Jihadis; you just happen to agree with him. That is why you don't find his views foul and distasteful. However, this should make you more sympathetic to radicalized Muslims, since you share so much. Remember what Ben Franklin said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Do you even know what happened on 9/11? 3,000 people were killed by Al Quada simply because they were American infidels. Why does this not bother you? Is it because you did not have any family or friends killed, so your attitude is 3,000 dead is no big deal?
And why are left wing fringers so concerned about having a few of their phone calls monitored? What are you hiding?
Regarding the sawing off of heads, this is meant to be much more painful and torturous then quickly cutting ones head off. And 'only' two that you know of? How would you feel about these murders if one of them were a bother of yours?
Oh, word is Dick Cheney had the courage to actually fight Islamic terrorism in spite of all the left's attempts to stop him. In fact he and Bush were successful, as history has shown.
You leftists are so naive.
"Oh, word is Dick Cheney had the courage to actually fight Islamic terrorism in spite of all the left's attempts to stop him."
dick cheney had the courage to fight terrorism? give me a break, he didn't even have the courage to fight for his country when he got he deferrments. it's easy to fight an enemy from the comfort of your couch whilesending others to die for you.
"In fact he and Bush were successful, as history has shown."
actually, using your logic, i could say that bush was a complete failure. after all, clinton kept us safe after the 93 bombing and it was bush who let us get attacked again in 2001 after clinton left office. i know that this is a stupid arguement i just wanted to show you how stupid yours is about bush keeping us safe.
"And why are left wing fringers so concerned about having a few of their phone calls monitored? What are you hiding?"
maybe we are hiding nothing and maybe were hiding a lot. it's really none of your business or the govenments. i love how you wingnuts hate any govenment intrusion into your lives. is: taxes, healthcare, but you have no problem with that same government violated our civil rights just so you don't have to be so scared of the boogeyman all the time.
maybe you should get a clue and actually give some consideration to the people that you respond to and that respond to you. you might actually do something very few on the right can do. you know, learn something about reality.
Anyway partner, you can have your opinion and I can have mine. But based on polls most folks agree with me.
As to your work history and such, let me repeat what one of your LW friends told me when I described my past: "anyone can make up anything and post it here".
BTW I never hyperventilate and drool over anything - especially never over cowardly Muslim terrorists who target civilians. I'm an old guy who is ready to cash in but this doesn't mean I don't care about my kids and grandkids. They will be the ones who pay the price for Obama's weak policies on terrorism as well as his many other destructive decisions.
Gallup: Majority Thinks Torture Justified
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/gallup-slim-majority-favors-torture-probe/
------------------------------------
Poll: Most Oppose Terror Trials in Open Court
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5687306.shtml
Dang you people are thick!
i get so sick of seeing nutjobs post that this or that poll shows americans don't mind torture. your exactly right, it does not matter if it makes you feel good or not to torture our so called enemies. if we let torture slide and accept it we leave ourselves wide open to other countries following suit as well as giving a crack that may enable our own government to begin that practice on our own citizens. sadly, i don't think you will ever convince the nutty wingers that come here of that. they have to much hate for anyone not like them.
72% favor an investigation into the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys
62% favor an investigation into government databases of telephone numbers dialed by Amercians
82% favor an investigation into oil company profits
70% favor an investigation into government response to Hurricane Katrina
51% favor an investigation into torture of detainees.
In view of this, I think you'd have to agree that most Americans don't think like you do, do they? Especially since a majority favor an investigation into the torture of detainees.
About that CBS poll? The opinion of the average American on who should conduct the trial is interesting enough, but hardly relevant. We actually already have laws about how incidents like 9-11 are handled. They go to civilian criminal court, just like those that bombed the U.N. building in 1993. They are tried, convicted, and jailed.
Why didn't that happen to those who planned and carried out 9-11? Well, because Bush/Cheney needed justification for a war in Iraq. To that end, they built a detention facility in Gitmo, and proceeded to torture people, some of them to death, to get somebody, ANYBODY, to say that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda to justify a completely illegal war. Nobody told that lie for them, but they kept on trying, like fools. Until they were caught at it, and forced to put a stop to it, that is. By which point, they'd dragged their feet enough to be able to hand off the problem to the next administration.
Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans. Bush and Cheney have caused the death of 4300 American soldiers in the needless and illegal Iraqi war. So, whose side you on, anyway?
Regarding your other comments, quite simply you are wrong. We went to Iraq because we ALL thought they had WMD they were soon gonna use on us or one of our allies. If you want, I can list for you all of the liberal politicians who agreed with Bush and Cheney. And, if you have any sense of fairness at all, you have got to agree that things were different back then. We had just been attacked by Islamic fanatics, so Bush may have errored on the side of caution, which I personally fully agree with. We know now a lot more then we knew then and it gets tiresome when all you leftists keep Monday morning QBing.
And don't talk to me about senseless deaths in our military. I was in VN where over 58,000 of us were killed over a lot less then what is at risk today - by JFK and LBJ Democrats.
Not that I should answer your smart-arse question but I am very much on our side. The question is, whose side are YOU on?
I'm on the side of freedom. I'm on the side of those who told the truth about Iraq's decided and obvious lack of WMDs before the war was started. I'm on the side of those who stood against the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. I'm on the side of all those who are still homeless in New Orleans. I'm on the side of rational thought, and reasoned choices, and an awareness that 9-11 changed absolutely nothing except the New York City skyline. I refuse to cower in fear, or to let my freedoms be stripped away by those who would hold that fear over my head to further their own power. Bush and Cheney wanted us afraid, because it made it easier for Republicans to get elected. They used that fear to their own ends, making them no better than the terrorists who attacked us.
I'll talk about senseless deaths in the military just as long as I please, retiredinsf. Viet Nam was a mistake almost as big as Iraq, and I don't think that war was a good idea either. Saying 'Oh look, Democrats did it too!' does not excuse the Republicans in the least. I don't support either party, to be honest.
These fanatics may have called themselves 'Islamic', but that doesn't make it true. We aren't at war with Islam, and we need Muslims on our side if we are to rein in terrorism.
Talk about heartless! What has happened to all those touchy feely compassionate liberals?
Oh, that's right. That has always been a big facade anyway. You know, like how republicans always give more to charity then libbies. And there are more democrat millionaires in Congress then republicans. You libbies are supposedly compassionate for the "little" people yet you support Al Gore, a guy who steals little people's money, as he becomes a billionaire. The greedy hypocrite multi-millionaire gave "like" less then $400 to charity on an AGI of almost $200,000.00 in 1997, which we found out only after he was shamed into releasing his tax info for his fraudulent run for the Presidency. This guy Gore is phony top to bottom and you gullible leftists just keep paying him. He makes me wanna puke every time I see or even hear his monotone elitist voice. BTW, his latest book has sold 40,000 copies – Sara Palin’s 2,000,000 (see what I mean about us conservatives being normal?)
In the fall of 2002, sure, the best info we had was the intelligence, which turned out to be faulty.
No one should blame Bush, or Congress, for saying that unless we got better info that proved to us that Iraq didn't have WMD's, we needed to invade.
But then the UN Weapons Inspectors talked to Iraqi politicians and scientists and traversed the country and looked at all the most likely places for WMD's to be, and lo and behold, there were no WMD's. The Iraqi's told us that they hadn't had any WMD's for a decade.
But Bush still invaded.
And that's the flaw that you can never excuse or explain.
Also, Cheney's so called war on terrorism is unwinnable as terrorism is a philosophy. If you have the magic eight ball to answer that question, let me hear it.
Lastly, what exactly is Obama's weak policies on terrorism? Sounds a lot like the talking points the uninformed throw out sans proof.
I've met some informed, intelligent, and reasonable conservatives - unfortunately, you are not one of them.
If you are as intelligent as you claim to be, why can't you see your hypocrisy?
Time to wake up and smell the coffee and realize Dick Cheney was probably the best VP in history - who kept all of us safe.
You mean except for the worst terrorist attack on American soil right?
I was aiming at a group of men with a great deal of money and power and public position. You were taking cheap shots at a ordinary person posting on this message board. There is a difference. You called someone mentally challenged in the first lines I ever recall reading from you. (see above) I came in after you had already stunk up the joint with your verbal flatus. And I was a great deal nicer to you, than you were to Cat.
Neo-Cons have gotten us into a hell of a mess, that will cost us trillions of dollars because George W. wanted to defend Daddy's honor and DICK wanted to strike back because he was scared. Look into what you are talking about. You might want to check out "Cheney's Law" another Frontline documentary, available on line. Or perhaps try reading a book, like "Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich. He started out as a Conservative. Or there are several books by the reformed Republican operative, Kevin Phillips. Dick Cheney is an evil man who wanted to subborn the Constitution. He is a believer in the Unitary Executive and doesn't care what he does or did to increase the power of the Executive Branch. He invaded and abused some of your rights, and you don't care. If you are half as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you should realize you need to do some basic research into what you're talking about. I would think the cost of an unnecessary war (Iraq) which will be paid for by your children and grandchildren, and which has damaged our economy would be enough to change your tune, or do you just believe that these things aren't supposed to be paid for, just like Orrin Hatch's recent assertion?
However, I did enjoy reading your posts. Because I like to learn for one. And for another, I like hearing about different lifestyles and ways of being in this world. It's a little thing us "LWers" call intellectual curiosity. ;-)
You know it would be nice if people like Jerry Falwell were more interested in helping to bring people to God and transcendence. But instead they're more focused on fighing out a war with other religions and peoples who they don't have any understanding of. And demonizing them, rather than doing their part in creating a real healing.
And they're definately more interested in making God into their own image, which is a little thing called paganism, not that they'd acknowledge that of course.
epkklk851, had a lot of fun reading your posts, as always!
Not that it matters one wit to fringe hypocritical leftists but here is exactly what you said epk: "You were nasty, you are nasty, and you are drooling over things you don't understand."
And I can guarantee you I "understand" far more than you and most of the others who post on this site. It is you types who will be scratching your heads in bewilderment a couple years from now - consoling each other with comments like "sure wish we would have listened to Mr. Grumpy McOldbutt a couple years ago about terrorism". But knowing how you guys think, it'll be more like "it was Cheney and Bush’s fault that Al Quada nuke took out Miami" or “I sure miss my grandkids that were blown to smithereens by Al Quada in Portland because of Bush”.
epk: “I'm happy to cite my sources, and they won't be some Rightwing Blog of Eternal Stench, which is the level of research that a lot of the nutjobs out there (site – sic).” I agree. Your sources are some leftwing docs of eternal stench such as Frontline of PBS, which a confirmed leftist organization!
You know, I have figured out what the problem is with folks like you. You never venture outside of the comfort of those who agree with you. You simply read and surf only left leaning subjects and such. Why don’t you crawl out of your lefty cocoon to get some knowledge of how others think? – like me who has the courage to challenge leftists on this extremely liberal site.
BTW: Any chance you can split your posts into a few paragraphs? I get a headache reading them. You claim to be a teacher and ‘well read’so this should be easy for you.
To resist them, retiredinsf, is to say "You will not frighten me into giving up the liberties that my fellow Americans have fought and died to protect. You will not frighten me into changing my country into a police state just like the one you live in for the pretense of a mythical safety that can never be achieved. You will not frighten me into fearing anyone who follows the religion that you have perverted to your own evil ends. Rather, I will insist that my freedoms are worth dying for, just as all those who have gone before me. Rather, I will insist that the government use only legal means to catch and prosecute those who would plan the downfall of my country, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists like you win. Rather, I will reach out to those of different faiths, working to find common ground, to promote good will among all who are willing, and to reduce the potential hiding places for those craven terrorists who would kill innocent civilians. Rather, I will continue to live free, and to maintain my courage in the face of the fear you try uselessly to instill in me, because I live in the greatest country on earth. Fly all the planes into all the buildings you want. You are doomed to fail in your goals of destruction and fear, because I refuse to be afraid of little men like you. Because I believe that to remain true to these principles will appeal to a vast majority of the citizens of this world, and the tiny minority like you, while you will never be eliminated, will find no sympathy and no succor in such a world."
Nope. You are not even close to being right. I seek a reasoned approach to combating Islamic terrorism. With over a billion Muslims on our planet (or about 1/6 of us), we have got to win this fight or us infidels will eventually be wiped out. Since these terrorists refuse to fight fairly - military against military - a couple ways to effectively help our cause is to monitor their plans to blow us up and use aggressive interrogation methods. What is so terrible about these? Heck, your guy FDR locked up thousands of suspected enemies without habias corpus and used military tribunals for those Germans who were executed in the 1940's for being ‘spys’. All I ask is some common sense here. Not the repeal of all our rights and equalities! Talk about an exaggeration of what I'm trying to say.
And you forgot to provide the source for the eloquent quote you cited in your post - but based on what it says I'd estimate it to be at least 50 years old. While I agree with the concept behind it, times have changed so some of it just doesn't fit in today’s world.
Force of arms is the very last resort, the least likely to work, and the most expensive. Perhaps I am just old fashioned, but I have never cottoned to the 'Ready! Shoot! Aim!' form of diplomacy too often practiced and too eagerly advocated by some in this country.
Plus, I fully agree force of arms should be the very last resort.
"fringe hypocritical leftist" Again, name calling and snarky remarks and a really pouty attitude, you must have missed your nap today. You started with Cat, then you whined when I gave you back a small amount of attitude. You accused me of being trailer trash in your first line to me. And your writing reeks of petty meanness. I don't really care what you want to call me, I just find it funny that you squeal because you can dish it but you can't take it. Frankly, you had it coming; it just came from me and not Cat.
No, I can guarantee you that I will NOT be saying that I regretted not agreeing with you in a couple of years, even if there is another terrorist attack against the U.S., because terrorism is a cheap weapon, and easily used by a minority group. It is likely to happen again. However, if Al Qeida does ever get a bomb, they will probably have gotten it from Pakistan, which has become increasingly unstable since the US involvement in Afghanistan. Had we done something in Afghanistan 8 years ago, it might not be the threat it is today. Al Qeida isn't the real threat, though, it is probably a few hundred guys hiding in caves. The real threat is the young men who see and hear people like you and become angry with and threatened by Americans.
The funny thing about Frontline, it does make its source material available, you can check them out. You can research the research if you have a mind. PBS is only a known left wing outfit to wingnuts. It is one of your bete noirs, however, research shows that PBS viewers are much more aware of what is going on in the world than Fox viewers on a good day. I also read books but they have annotations and footnotes. You can check out the research there, too.
I used to post on QnA, and it would take me about 15 minutes to find the rightwing blog that someone like you posted as their source. And very often, they didn't even know that their source, if they knew them at all, self-sourced. An article that sources another article from the same person that makes stuff up, isn't a fact. It's a lie with publicity. The Rightwing is VERY good at it. I think you are talking to yourself, however in your assertion that I don't discuss things with people who disagree, it just usually proves to be pointless because they repeatedly spout Fox talking points, blog lies and discount facts as opinions of the vast left wing media conspiracy. It gets really bori........ng. Sorry, I dozed off.
As to your last paragraph about going to war against Islam, well, do you really want to go to war with 1/6th of the planet? Did you know that the terrorists in Mumbai didn't even know how to turn on a bathroom sink? They came out of the deserts of Pakistan to kill for Islam because of the hatred they had been taught. We have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, or they have died because of our presence in Iraq, no one has mentioned the Iraqis today. It's 4000 American soldiers, but it's tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Don't you think if you start killing Muslims for being Muslim, that you will make more radicals and terrorists than we already have? Do you think the other religions in the world will band together to help us? Because, if we go back to Inquisitions and burnings at the stake, they will not support us. What you are advocating is the war to end all, not just wars, but all. Now, who is being naive? retiredinsf, I'm really bored now. So I'm going to bed now.
The MMFA software occasionally does this. I can't do anything about it.
And I am not against Muslims for being Muslim. I know I'll get heat for saying this but nonetheless I will tell you one of my best friends is Muslim. His name is Ramsin Os----a and I know he would do anything for me as I would for him. If you think I'm worried about Muslims then you are very wrong. Only thing I got to say about Muslims in general is they need to be more vocal about denouncing Islamic terrorism. My friend Ramsin agrees with me on this.
Time for bed. Goodnight.
You will usually see a much more slanted apostrophe from copied text than the actual apostrophe that MMFA fonts use.
I am guessing that you are using a text program to write out your responses before posting them. Whatever you are using as a word processor is not compatible with the text in MMFA posting.
Try pasting your posts into a simple program like notepad and then copy from there before posting them if you don't want to take the time to correct them or worried you might miss some of the punctuations.
Note that Jerry Falwell didn't say that Mohammed looked like a terrorist or acted like a terrorist or shared any quality with terrorists: he just flat out declared that Mohammed was a terrorist.
There is a significant difference between saying that someone is a kind of person and saying that someone looks like a kind of person. If Jennings had wanted to directly accuse Falwell of being a terrorist, he certainly could have. I take his careful and deliberate statement -- and he was aware that his words were being documented by critics -- to be a reminder that terrorism doesn't inhere in any one ethnicity, religion, nationality, language or any demographic category whatsoever. Keep in mind that this was a reply to Falwell's claim that Mohammed was a terrorist, which was an attempt to paint all Muslims as followers of a terrorist and, by extension, proponents of terrorism.
Sorry, I still think that type of critical thinking is still too subtle for most people, much less some of the religious right, to understand.
It is the same reason that they can't understand the comment:
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
They just can't understand that a lot of things in life depend on your viewpoint.
Pardon?
o Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." as quoted in Ed Magnuson, "The Brethren's First Sister," Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
Torquemada was too compassionate. (?)
Roy Bean was an activist judge. (?)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/15/politics/main563247.shtml
Not sure where he got his divinity degree (or whatever designation), but it sure calls into question his credibility on talking about sin, morals, etc.