Quinn: Islam is a "Neanderthal religion" that "enslave[s] black people"

by epkklk851 (July 02, 2009 3:44 pm ET)

7

Speaking of Neanderthals, this guy gives Neanderthals a bad name. I am a liberal and a feminist, and personally, I would not ever choose to wear a burka, but then I am not a Muslim. I thought the U.S. was a free country and people were free to practice their own beliefs, including religion as they see fit. Mr. Quinn is free to find a Burka threatening but he is not free to deny a woman the right to wear one. He seems to forget that allowing someone freedom means allowing them to make choices that you wouldn't and might not like. We have to understand other cultures and tolerate their practices because those two points are actually hallmarks of our free society.

Reply Report Abuse

by wookie (July 02, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
8

Quinn follows the typical right wing format of believing in his own freedom to get his way all of the time. The burka isn't a heck of a lot different from a nun's outfit and Christians participated in the slave trade. Not that Quinn will see it. He will be back to railing about how our "socialist" government is persecuting groups like the Branch Davidians and the Mormons tommorow.

Reply Report Abuse
- by canaanxing9025 (July 02, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
  5 1
  
  wookie:
  "The burka isn't a heck of a lot different from a nun's outfit..."
  Interesting point. If you look at the nun's outfits (before nuns started wearing regular street clothes, back in the seventies) they were not that different from what medieval woman wore, way back when.
  
  The nobility, and those who could afford the fabric, copied the Muslim dress. My only quess is; it was considered exotic, and quite fashionable.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mefirst (July 02, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
    4 1
    
    i have no problem with people who truly want to wear it, but i don't see the burqa as the same as a nun's outfit. burqas are in effect a shroud. nuns also choose to enter their orders. there are areas in the islamic world where women are forced to wear the burqa. and there is no doubt there are countries, saudi arabia for one, which is the cradle of islam, where women are legally inferior to men, unable to drive, and are punished severely if they are in the presence of a man who is not their relative. in the jordanian legal code, a man can kill his wife, with no penalty, if he catches her in an adulterous position with another man.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by canaanxing9025 (July 02, 2009 9:04 pm ET)
      4
      
      mefirst:
      
      Agreed: the burka is different. However, women do not wear the burka in most Islamic countries. In only the most repressive, and fundamentalist do the women were burkas.
      
      Muslim women, according to the dress code (and I am no scholar of Islam) must be covered from head to foot, literally. Heads, arms, and legs down passed the ankles are covered in order not to tempt men. Again, think of a nun's habit.
      
      The burka goes beyond that - whereas you said a shroud - I think of their individuality being supressed. All women are identical.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by canaanxing9025 (July 02, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
        2
        
        That would be: wear burkas
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by mefirst (July 02, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
        1 1
        
        i know it's only some countries that the burga is required, although it is worn in others, but to a lesser extent. but again, what a nun does is voluntary. whether it's a burqa or the head to foot covering, in many muslim societies it is not an option. that is my point, along with the fact that women are legally inferior by law. you can also be killed, man or woman, in some muslim societies if you are born a muslim and then decide you want to convert to another religion.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by loonz (July 04, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
        1
        
        I know being a nun is voluntary but is the clothing optional once you're a nun?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (July 04, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
        2
        
        does it matter? if you sign a contract with the new england patriots, you wear the uniform. in most cases now, nuns do not wear the full outfit. but the choice to join is theirs. and you can always leave. it's voluntary, unlike many of the muslim societies where there is no opting out. there is no comparison. one is forced and one is voluntary.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:11 am ET)
        1
        
        it's voluntary, unlike many of the muslim societies where there is no opting out.
        Actually only a few. The dress is "forced" as much as wearing a yarmulke is "forced" upon Orthodox Jews. Often on Muslim women you may see only a head scarf worn. And that isn't "forced," either.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:12 am ET)
        1
        
        Obviously, I'm not saying a head scarf is the only item of clothing worn. I mean the only clothing worn in deference to the religion.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (July 05, 2009 7:36 am ET)
        1
        
        you're wrong. it is forced in some. no one has to be an orthodox jew. they have chosen that. muslim dress is forced in many cases. again, we are talking about the difference between forced and voluntary. so to say it is not forced is entirely wrong.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by vysotsky (July 05, 2009 9:54 am ET)
        1
        
        There's a significant distinction to be made between the enforcement of dress by a religion and the enforcement of religious affiliation by the state.
        
        The question of whether or not "it is forced" doesn't really get us anywhere. The question of who imposes the force and with what legitimacy seems a bit more relevant here.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (July 05, 2009 10:34 am ET)
        1
        
        it's a distinction without a difference. when women cannot be seen with another man not a relative, and must be covered from head to toe [and i am not just talking the burqa], and when the "religious police" enforce that, like in saudi arabia, there is no difference between the state and the religion. the saudis would tell you of course it is based on islam. and the question of whether "it is forced" is more than legitimate. people are being repressed in the name of religion. it's not some academic discussion. go try and hand out a bible on the streets of many muslim societies.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by vysotsky (July 05, 2009 11:15 am ET)
        1
        
        I agree, this is not an academic discussion, and the questions I posed aren't academic: people's lives depend on them, and interventions concerning human rights depend upon understanding the answers. And as you point out, the answers are always local: the specific relationship between state law and religious authority is different in every state.
        
        But Quinn's indictment of Islam is a global one: he claims that it is the religion that enslaves people, not the states that enforce their own interpretations of Islamic laws. Even in Saudi Arabia, it's not that there's no difference between the state and the global religion of Islam; it's that the Saudi state legitimates its violence by citing its official interpretation of Islam. That's a distinction with quite difference that -- as you point out -- is hardly academic.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mefirst (July 05, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
        1
        
        first of all, i was not even defending what quinn said. i had a post yesterday that noted the difference in some countries. but we are going to disagree on the distinction. the saudi courts, and other countries, enforce islamic law, or their interpretation of it. but to say you can differentiate their interpretation of it from the religion is false. it's like saying that the inquisition had nothing to do with the catholic church. was that in every catholic country? no, but it was accepted in too many. in fact, many would tell you that the saudis are really being true to the religion, in that they enforce the true interpretation.
        
        if you want to see it as some big coincidence that so many muslim societies repress their citizens, then that's up to you. i even pointed out iran as one of the more moderate countries [in comparison]. but when it came down to the election, was it the independent courts of iran that said the elections results would stand? no, it was the grand ayatollah. i've been more than willing to criticize the religious fundamentalists here. but here, they don't run my life. in many muslim countries they do, how strictly is one question, but the fact is that it's still tied to the religion. to say that one country forces the burqa and others some less restrictive but still cumbersome dress, does not mean that there's not a problem. when i start seeing the religious leaders in islamic countries coming out in large numbers and saying women are equal and we respect your right to follow another religion, then i might believe differently. but that's not the case, because those leaders are few and far between.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:06 am ET)
        1
        
        I know being a nun is voluntary but is the clothing optional once you're a nun?
        It depends upon the Order. Many nuns who work in the secular world do not wear habits.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by loonz (July 04, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
        1
        
        The burqa's existence is largely due to tradition and culture. Mohammad's wives started wearing covering (because men were lusting after them) and other Muslim women followed and it became a fashion trend. From a fashion trend it morphed into a requirement and became a part of their tradition and culture. Today, most Muslims have abandoned it. As for the Quran, it only requires that women [and men] dress modestly.
        
        Reply Report Abuse

by USAarmOf1 (July 03, 2009 11:17 am ET)
4 8

I think you are missing the point the author is trying to make which is freedom. Islam is not a religion of freedom, its a religion which enslaved citizens in God's name according to Holly Quran. I am from Sudan and I am sure you have seen what's happening in that country, special in the Dafur Region, where genocide is taking place as we speak in the name of Islam, but what do you know you have to live under the Shariah Law to fully understand the true concept of the Islamic religion. Under the Shariah Law, women are considered properties if not second hand citizen or worst subhuman. Can you call that freedom?

Reply Report Abuse
- by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
  1 8
  
  How can anyone give this a thumbs down? The progressives are either blind or moronic!
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by bilbo_dies (July 04, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
    1
    
    Who said progressives were giving the thumbs down?
    
    As for me, I don't not agree with everything that USAarmOf1 seems to imply, in the above post but; that is pretty much the definition of freedom. Free to believe the religion you want and free to practice those beliefs. I may not agree with the way women are treated in certain Islamic states but; it is their country not mine.
    
    Think Pakistan, they took the time to develop their constitution and make it work with the Quran and Islam. For the Taliban that wasn't enough, since it did not meet with their version of Islam or their interpretation of the Quran. Now the whole nation is having to deal with the results of the decisions that were made. It is messy, it is ugly, and people are suffering and being killed as a result. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong, it just is.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by fairliberal (July 05, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
      1
      
      "I may not agree with the way women are treated in certain Islamic states but; it is their country not mine."
      
      So you do not care about human rights?
      
      Reply Report Abuse
  - by solon (July 05, 2009 3:17 am ET)
    3
    
    Because it is bigoted and stupid. Just like you and most other conservatives
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by fairliberal (July 05, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
      5
      
      No it is fact but in your politically correct world it should not be mentioned and swept under the rug.
      
      Many on the left do not have the courage to speak out against the abuses that take place in the name of Islam. And whan someone does, they are labeled a bigot. What hypocrits.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by mefirst (July 03, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
  3
  
  i'm going to kind of split the difference here. obviously, with my comments above, i'm not giving any slack to the islamic fundamentalists, who hold sway in too many places. and i don't buy the argument that it's "culture". it may be, but those cultural practices are based on the religion. however, i don't think you can say it's every muslim society. there are countries that are more moderate. turkey for one. and even iran is less restrictive than others. lebanon is fairly open. the goal should be to get to the point where you have the choice. you're correct in the sense that in places, too many for anyone to dismiss it, it is not a choice. but not everywhere.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by snoopy (July 04, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
  4
  
  Darfur, Darfur, why does that ring a bell? Oh, I remember...
  
  •On the August 21, 2007, broadcast of his show, a caller said to Limbaugh: "I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur." Limbaugh responded by claiming Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." The caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."
  
  O'Reilly then claimed that "Darfur is the left cause. They see the evil there and want to confront it, yet they don't want the evil confronted in the Islamic world. That's a very interesting situation." He added: "Now, Darfur is a disgrace, and that is Islamic driven. It's the same soup, but because people of color are being slaughtered and harmed in Darfur, the left is on the bandwagon. Interesting, isn't it?"
  
  COULTER: It's anti-human. They want all of America to look like Amagansett [New York], where they -- the beautiful, rich people -- live in their homes, and there are a few maids. Well-tempered maids will come in and take care of them, bicycling to work. But they want to destroy the middle class of America.
  
  And, I might add, I know they hate the middle class of America, but it would also wipe out their little friends in Chad and Darfur, who need energy to eat, to live, to have -- to go to the bathroom indoors in winter. It has nothing to do with Priuses or candle power. The energy is what allows humans to live.
  
  I can see why you thought it necessary to chastise us liberals about Darfur. After all, you have such overpowering support and respect from the reich in regards to that embattled region...
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by loonz (July 04, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
  1
  
  You can say the thing in regards to the conservative take on Christianity.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mefirst (July 04, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
    3
    
    that's always true. the question then becomes, are you forced to participate in things you do not want to participate in. are you able to do things without having them restricted by religion. that is not the same answer in some muslim societies.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by loonz (July 05, 2009 9:55 am ET)
      1
      
      We're not forced to do that because progressive still have a lot of power here. If radical right had their way, we would be living in the Christian version of Afghanistan.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by mefirst (July 05, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        1 2
        
        and that is my point. the "radical right" is in charge in too many muslim countries. women are legally inferior to men, and it's all based on the religion. there's no argument that women, and men to a degree, are repressed. when you cannot leave the religion and freely join or promote for another religion, then that is repression. and there is no equivalency to that here.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by solon (July 05, 2009 3:17 am ET)
  3
  
  Religions do not enslave people. People enslave people and use religion as a tool.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by DixieRose (July 03, 2009 2:59 pm ET)

epkklk851, You say you are "a feminist, and personally, I would not ever choose to wear a burka, but then I am not a Muslim."

First, what is the definition of "feminism?" One source I found said "Feminism is a belief in the right of women to have political, social, and economic equality with men." Another source said, feminism is "aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women." Another says feminists "advocate equality for women and campaign for women's rights and interests." How can you, with a clear conscious, support a religion, culture, or organization that clearly debases its females and places men in superior power positions? And it's not just the burka; it's also the female circumcision, the Honor killings, and the “shut-up-and-do-as-you’re told” mentality operating through a heavy-handed patriarchal rule. No true, clear-thinking feminist would use the cop-out of "I am not a Muslim" so I'll stick my freaking head up my posterior cavity and repeat "I see no evil..." Come on – get real!

You also say "we have to understand other cultures and tolerate their practices." Really? If a culture allows the practice of human sacrifice, do we REALLY have to try to understand that? If a culture allows the enslavement of others, would you argue “Now, now – we must be politically correct and accept them into the fold?” If a culture allows the practice of mutilating a young girl's genitals via circumcision or the despicable practice of honor killing of young girls, are we truly supposed to understand and ignore?

Lastly, if we really DO have to understand the cultures and practices of everyone in this country, then please understand that in MY culture, some of the practices we uphold include embracing capitalism, patriotism, equality of gender and race (which means NO discrimination OR elevation), and a love of country and citizenship. It also includes upholding the Republic for which our American Flag stands, supporting the idea of country first, and the firm belief that the American Dream is still found through personal responsibility and hard work, and NOT through government control, government takeovers, or government bailouts.

Reply Report Abuse

by blk-in-alabam (July 02, 2009 4:13 pm ET)

7

let me straight if someone is enslaved to your beliefs they are free, but if they believe something different than you they are slaves.but i have one question what is the difference? is a slave who practice the same religion as the one who enslaves him free,or is he a slave because he believes the same religion says he should be free

Reply Report Abuse

by blackoctopus20005285 (July 02, 2009 4:40 pm ET)

9 3

This guy is a particularly ignorant individual. As far as I am concerned, burkas DO represent the prison DRAG of a repressive and superstitious religion. That being said, people that believe in a christian "sky god" are just as moronic. Religious people deserve each other.

Reply Report Abuse

by OnceYouGoBarack (July 02, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
3 3

Word!

Reply Report Abuse

by magnolialover (July 02, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
7 1

Not so much really. Because in lots of Muslim nations/societies, the women CHOOSE to wear burqas and the hijab because they want to be observant, and respectful of their religion. It's where they are forced to wear it, that I have the most problem with, but given the choice, I do believe that MOST Muslim women would wear the "appropriate" clothing.

I don't personally believe in religion, or god, or gods for that matter, but I do respect the people that do, as many of them are my friends, and family.

Reply Report Abuse
- by blackoctopus20005285 (July 02, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
  3 3
  
  Maybe I would have more respect for them if their superstitious, repressive and frankly IGNORANT views didn't hold so much sway on the making of LAWS/POLICY in this country. Ask the people religions hurt DAILY about "respect".It's not as if they are harmless and merely delusional. THEY and their neurotic beliefs EFFECT other people who want nothing to do with them. DELUSION is harmful by NATURE.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by haywood jabuzoff (July 02, 2009 5:01 pm ET)

3

“I think these people were black.”

Nothing twisted about this talk monkey. Seems clear, he enjoys the objectification of women, and what is this “our culture” he speaks of and why his fascination with “snap-on tools?”

Reply Report Abuse

by NdlovukaziThor (July 02, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
3

He can't snap on his tool to a woman in a burqa.

Reply Report Abuse

by NdlovukaziThor (July 02, 2009 5:05 pm ET)

4

Oh, good gravy.

So... people came to this country to escape persecution. People still come here for "opportunity". We have our lovely FIRST AMENDMENT protecting a person's right to wear a yarmulke, nun's habit, Om, crucifix, burqa, whatever. Usually not all at the same time... but Americans have the freedom to do so.

This sort of crazy discrimination should apply to everyone, you can't be picking and choosing how people are allowed to express themselves when we made it #1 in our Constitution... FOR THIS VERY REASON.

There are a lot that certain people do as part of their religion, and abandoning something that acts as such a huge part of their lives can be a traumatic thing to let go. You're threatened and afraid of the woman in the burqa, Jim? How do you think she feels about you, glaring at her and calling for her to throw away part of her culture, no matter how warped you think it is?

Reply Report Abuse

by magnolialover (July 02, 2009 5:38 pm ET)

5

Funny Quinn, how in this country, it was the Christian men who actually enslaved people. You know, whips, forced labor, rapes, and "nice" little things like that.

Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
1 6

Look at the whole story:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

And where is slavery accepted today, what permits it?

Reply Report Abuse

by rwmacdonald2091 (July 02, 2009 5:55 pm ET)

5 1

Quinn just doesn't get what the United States is. It's a country that welcomes all peoples from all religions, and ethnic groups. Our culture is what ever it is at a given time, depending on the diversity of the population.

He just wants to go back to the time,when European white men who owned property ruled the country with impunity.

Reply Report Abuse

by vysotsky (July 02, 2009 5:58 pm ET)

8 2

Whereas Christianity only colonizes them?

Seriously: what kind of company executive actually employs a man who says this kind of crap and sleeps at night?

Reply Report Abuse

by solon (July 02, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
7

The same kind of man as the one who says this kind of crap ans sleeps at night

Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
8

The one who says, "Let's employ the guy that crushes his timeslot".

He sleeps well knowing that the owners of the stock of the company (little old ladies, retired workers' IRAs, rich white, black, red, and yellow guys, unionized teachers pensions) can sleep better as well.

Reply Report Abuse
- by solon (July 04, 2009 3:26 am ET)
  4
  
  I am sure successful bankrobbers sleep well at night to but it is as much because they dont have a concience and dont care about the harm they cause as that they have lots of money. Same can be said for Quinn and whoever puts the weasel on
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by vysotsky (July 04, 2009 7:42 am ET)
  6
  
  So let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we lived at a time when organizations that proclaimed white supremacy brought in good money and helped put food on the tables in their members' houses. You wouldn't criticize them? You wouldn't suggest that perhaps the dollar alone isn't sufficient justification?
  
  It's only a dollar, PC. It's not moral antacid, and it's certainly not a certificate of having done good for your fellow man.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by proudconservative (July 04, 2009 11:04 pm ET)
    4
    
    Hey 'not vygotsky',
    
    Your arguement falls because Quinn is no racist and his show making money has nothing to do with your white supremacist comparison. No one supports that kind of racial division and hatred unless you are a socialist and like defining people by race first. I believe judging by race is.....being a racist, isn't it?
    
    For instance, imagine a nominee for the Supreme Court having served on the council of a group defined as 'The Race'. Now how does one square that with a supposed progressive mind?
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by Brabantio (July 04, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
      1
      
      You just throw out random words and phrases most of the time, I think. Racism is the belief that a race is inferior to another. "Defining people by race" isn't the same thing. What that would have to do with socialism is a mystery.
      
      It does take some amount of imagination to come up with that example. "The race" is not the only translation, so it is not "defined" that way.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by solon (July 05, 2009 3:20 am ET)
      2
      
      You constantly show how brainwashed you are and that you dont even know what socialism among many other things IS.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by vysotsky (July 05, 2009 5:49 am ET)
      2
      
      Hi PC.
      
      I never said anything about Quinn being racist. If I had wanted to call him a white supremacist, I would have. (If you've got something to say about Sotomayor, by the way, there's no need to be shy. We can discuss affiliations with groups like La Raza and the NAACP and why one can fight descrimination on the basis of race and nationality without being racist or nationalist.) Since you missed the point of my hypothetical example, I'll spell it out for you: despicable behavior cannot be morally justified by profit alone.
      
      But since you bring it up...
      
      PC: "I believe judging by race is...being a racist, isn't it?"
      
      If that's true, then you really should reexamine your defense of Quinn. Here's what he actually said.
      
      Getting back to this burqa thing, I mean I'm sorry, you know, I was just so taken aback by these two people walking into this TJ Maxx. Um, I mean I've seen, you know, I've seen Muslim women before dressed in -- but then this was just so -- I think these people were black. So this might be The Black American converting to Islam because they think they need to separate themselves from American culture as much as possible having been told of course that American culture hates them and is racist and bigoted and all that and we have to get even for slavery and whatever other claptrap they've fed to these people.
      
      What's amazing, what amazes me of course is the number of blacks in this country who embrace Islam. I mean we have the whole Nation of Islam thing with Louis Farrakhan, right? Islam is the only religion slash way of life on the planet earth that still engages in slavery. And guess who they enslave? They enslave black people! (rimshot)
      
      Now what was that you were saying about what it means when you judge a person by race alone? I personally have no idea whether or not Quinn is racist. I've never met him and I have no idea what's in his mind. For him this may all just be one big profitable performance. (Which, after all, excuses everything according to your previous comment.) But what Quinn said is remarkably disrespectful of those two individuals, African Americans, people of color around the world, and Muslims all in one swipe. He sees two people who "he thinks might be black", then assumes that they're Americans (?) who converted because they hate American culture (??), and then proceeds to speculate and judge their motivations (!!) and to attack their choice of religion based on race alone. His appeal boils down to, "How stupid and self undermining are American black people for converting to a religion that enslaves blacks!"
      
      P.S. "not vygotsky"? Really? I didn't pick them as an homage to Lev Vygotsky, so, yeah, you've accurately deduced that the pseudonym I use on this website is not to be confused with the name I didn't use. You get a gold star, a smile face AND a red apple sticker. Keep up the brilliant work.
      
      Reply Report Abuse

by DolphinMan (July 02, 2009 6:10 pm ET)

3

You know the saying "opinions are like @$$*#$!$". How cowardly to be threatened by a woman's choice of clothing. The burqua is worn to prevent other men from seeing the woman as a sexual object. Almost opposite of the west where a lot of woman dress to make themselves sexy or to attract the opposite sex. Religion is a choice, just as what we wear is a choice. Well I am put off by Mr. Quinn's turkey neck. He would be doing others a great service by covering his head. Muslim women that wear the burqua in public do not wear it at home. If as you say that Islam is a neanderthal religion then it is probably a good idea that women wear the covering in public lest they be dragged off by their hair and repeatedly savaged. To say such things on a show entitled the "War Room" is ignorant. The only one enslaved here is Jim Quinn in his bigoted small mind.

Reply Report Abuse

by Pinhead (July 02, 2009 6:22 pm ET)

3

Let me put this in a "historical" context for someone of Jim Quinn's limited intellect:

Neanderthals died during "the great flood" (along with the dinosaurs). Islam did not come along until thosaunds of years after the flood.

Reply Report Abuse

by loonz (July 02, 2009 6:23 pm ET)

6 3

In my opinion, religion of any brand enslaves people.

Reply Report Abuse

by Planted_earth (July 02, 2009 7:43 pm ET)

Why where clothes at all? Or perhaps we should all American uniforms.

Reply Report Abuse

by snoopy (July 02, 2009 11:55 pm ET)

3

Aww, gee guys and gals, don't you know that without right wing xtianity the south wouldn't be leading in anything?

Reply Report Abuse

by mjh (July 03, 2009 2:22 am ET)

2

Quinn: Islam is a "Neanderthal religion" that "enslave[s] black people"

Yeah, Jim; tell us all about how these people were "enslaved":

[http://www.malcolmxonline.com/images/malcolm_home.jpg]

[http://www.malcolmxonline.com/images/malcolm_home.jpg]

[http://www.inetmgrs.com/onepeoples/elijah_muhammad.jpg]

Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
1 7

Here's how:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

The article explains how Islam and its spread became the basis for much of the slave trade in the world. During our history of enslavement, slave traders brought captured 'infidels' to our shores. The despicable practice involved both evil whites and muslims in selling people of chattel.

There is no excuse for this having occurred but in its historical record, slavery was more than a white american endeavor. We forget or refuse to learn that truth.

Quinn's comments certainly point to the facts in the article above but also to what the west sees as a forced restriction on female liberty in the religious traditions of Islam. Most nuns have a choice either in entering and leaving a convent. The close they wear are the choice or style of the group but they are free to leave without reprisal. It happened in my family. However, in Islam, there is no choice to freely leave the faith or order. It comes with a death sentence.

Reply Report Abuse
- by loonz (July 04, 2009 7:48 pm ET)
  2
  
  "There is no excuse for this having occurred but in its historical record, slavery was more than a white american endeavor. We forget or refuse to learn that truth."
  
  If there is demand for a "product" somebody will come along and fill that need just to make a profit. It doesn't make it acceptable that they captured other Africans for White Americans but how immoral and wicked does one have to be to demand such a product?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by solon (July 05, 2009 3:22 am ET)
  2
  
  You know nothing about the truth. Look how Christianity was spread. Remember the Inquisitions? You hate Islam. You are uninformed and brainwashed. How you can think for one second ANYONE in their right mind could take you seriously is a mystery
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 3:12 pm ET)

1 8

How do you respond to this, 'progressives'?

by USAarmOf1 (3 hours and 53 minutes ago)
1 1 I think you are missing the point the author is trying to make which is freedom. Islam is not a religion of freedom, its a religion which enslaved citizens in God's name according to Holly Quran. I am from Sudan and I am sure you have seen what's happening in that country, special in the Dafur Region, where genocide is taking place as we speak in the name of Islam, but what do you know you have to live under the Shariah Law to fully understand the true concept of the Islamic religion. Under the Shariah Law, women are considered properties if not second hand citizen or worst subhuman. Can you call that freedom?
Reply Report Abuse

Did you actually listen to Quinn's comments either?

Reply Report Abuse

by wookie (July 03, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
5

Do Sudanese citizens always name themselves after US army recruiting slogans?

Reply Report Abuse
- by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
  6
  
  I hope he explains and gives us an idea of his experience. And that people see what is done in the name of Mohammed in Africa today.
  
  How many know that slaughter of people in Darfur is a muslim endeavor?
  http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18616
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by vhw28672478 (July 03, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
    4
    
    I can the same for christianity
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
      6
      
      Where is that happening now?
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by snoopy (July 04, 2009 12:18 am ET)
        6
        
        Let's see...
        
        There's Rwanda...
        And Srebrenica...
        Australia (aborigini tribes by christian rulers)...
        Argentina...
        Sabra and Shatila...
        Khojaly...
        
        And those were just the christian initiated wars that were declared genocides.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by fairliberal (July 05, 2009 1:35 am ET)
        3
        
        Thre is that anti-Christian bigotry of the left surfacing again.
        
        Funny how you ignore the articles that PC mentions, but I wouldn't exect anything else from you.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:25 am ET)
        2
        
        There's that deliberate misunderstanding from you again, Commode Boy.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Brabantio (July 05, 2009 7:53 am ET)
        2
        
        I'd love for you to try to explain how citing those examples in response to PC's post about Darfur is anti-Christian bigotry without establishing that PC's post is anti-Muslim bigotry.
        
        How many know that slaughter of people in Darfur is a muslim endeavor?
        
        And those were just the christian initiated wars that were declared genocides.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
  - by blk-in-alabam (July 04, 2009 7:40 am ET)
    
    mohammedism is not islam. mohamed taught the old religion,the religion of abraham. the jews also teach the religion of abraham.I ofeten hear about so called islamic funedamentalist talking about the infadels in america. The meaning of the word muslim is one who surrenders to god.There are more churces per square mile in america than anywhere on earth. True muslims and true americans(those who belive god is diety,insted of a politician),might have a few things in common. Because,the christan fundamentalist,the jewish fundamentalist,and the islamic fundamentalist are the same in so many ways.
    
    Reply Report Abuse

by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 04, 2009 10:01 am ET)
3

How do you respond to this, 'progressives'?
I respond by saying the opinion of one person does not outweigh the billions of Islamic people who live normal lives and want to be left alone, just like most of us.

Conservatives want to be left alone, too, but it's usually so there are more government resources left to investigate what goes on in the bedrooms and doctors offices of liberals and progressives.

Reply Report Abuse

by seroquel (July 03, 2009 5:23 pm ET)

2

Sarah Palin Stepped Down!
HEEEEEEEREEEJHHHHHEEE...
OK seriously, I don't need to listen to this guy to know he's full of it.

Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 03, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
7

That kind of investigative thought acquistion is what we call 'drinking the koolaid'.

Rather than just taking some progressive thought control czar's operative truth at face value, demand a little more of yourself and check into it.

Reply Report Abuse
- by solon (July 04, 2009 3:28 am ET)
  5
  
  Probably the most obvious case of projection I have ever seen in my LIFE. You are so brainwashed you dont know your left from your right till Rush tells you.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by proudconservative (July 04, 2009 11:22 pm ET)
    3
    
    By why be afraid to listen? If you do your own exploration, listen and judge what he says without the guidance of a thought czar telling you what to say, then you have an opportunity to speak of personal experience. To just say. "OK seriously, I don't need to listen to this guy to know he's full of it." either shows weakness in one's own ability to ascertain content or fear that maybe they could have been wrong all along.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:38 am ET)
      1
      
      It's called "learning from experience." I don't have to keep eating lima beans to know that I can't stand lima beans. Quinn does nothing but spew bigotry and lies. I don't need to listen to him again to know he's spewing bigotry and lies.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by loonz (July 05, 2009 8:40 am ET)
        1
        
        A lot of these people are talking out of their ass. They really don't know anything about Islam.
        
        Reply Report Abuse

by snoopy (July 03, 2009 10:56 pm ET)
4

Saw that just now. Only someone who is willfully ignorant and woefully incompetant would think she's presidential material. The epitome of hypocricy on family values and religion just threw her hat in the ring.

Reply Report Abuse
- by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 04, 2009 11:32 am ET)
  2
  
  And of course, snoopy, she's leaving because of that constant stream of attacks on poor little Trig. Strange that I haven't heard any of those attacks--maybe they're just the voices in St. Sarah of Wasilla's head?...
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by snoopy (July 04, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
    2
    
    Poor little trig, who she puts out front like a political prop every chance she gets? "Look at what a good christian girl I am! I knew this baby was defective but I had it anyways, unlike those mean ol' liberals who would have terminated it at the very last minute of the third term by pulling it out during the birthing process and putting a bullet in it's brain! Aren't I the perfect example of right wing family values?"
    
    But it is fun to watch, especially the part about the federal indictment coming her way because that Wasilla recreation center was made out of the exact same materials as her home was. Built by the same company, and what a discount she got on that house...
    
    Reply Report Abuse

by anthony123 (July 03, 2009 5:45 pm ET)

hes pretty stupid...the majority of black americans are christian & catholic, i dont think he has friends of color lol

Reply Report Abuse

by jlmincey (July 04, 2009 2:30 am ET)

What a horrible, despicable person. First of all; who said anything about denying Jim Quinn his rights? Second, am I the only one who thought it strange that in the same breath he went from saying that burkas are oppressive against women or something like that (I cant bring myself to listen to that dribble again to get the exact quote), and then said how fine it was to have pin-up calenders of girls in skimpy outfits? (oh but they are wholesome) I absolutly think the French are in the wrong on this one. I realize they don't have the 1st ammendment in France, and I am not sure what protections the french have under their constitution, but not letting muslims wear burkas is like not letting christians wear crosses. (oh man that would make some people's heads explode)

Reply Report Abuse

by empower (July 04, 2009 2:55 am ET)

The thing that surprises me the most is instead of embracing cultures and putting the hate aside we have people like this who encourage to hate and cause more issues. Burka's are used to cover the woman from other men to see and to keep them from being seen by others its a way of keeping them to yourself. To me its a bit extreme but some people accept it. Some have moved on and just use Vails but with due time it happens. But to think you can just ban it thats the worst move it just gives people a reason to attack and try to further there cause of terrorism to countries that defy there religon. You cannot expect people to change if your not a saint yourself.

Reply Report Abuse

by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 04, 2009 11:33 am ET)

1

Short version: Quinn and his radbid follwers like PC hate Islam and will do anything in their power to start a war against it...

Reply Report Abuse

by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 04, 2009 11:35 am ET)
1

Also his rabid followers like PCon! Hmm, neologism for "radbid"; radical right-wingers with the rhetorical equivalent of rabies?... :/

Reply Report Abuse

by proudconservative (July 04, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
2

I think that one of the statements of the 9-11 commission was that the muslims had already declared war on us, while we considered this a police matter. Next thing, the morons highjacked those planes.

So we don't hate Islam and aren't looking to start anything. They hate us and have made it a religious war for a long time.

Reply Report Abuse
- by Brabantio (July 04, 2009 11:02 pm ET)
  1
  
  Oh, so we should have been waging war against the entire religion of Islam in order to prevent an act of terrorism by the fringe element of the religion?
  
  I'd also like to see the quote from the commission that you're referring to, where they say that "muslims" declared war on us, as opposed to Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by proudconservative (July 04, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
    3
    
    No, but our return to a 9-10 mentality of considering this war as just needing police work is dangerous and that was part of the commission's report. Osama was more than a criminal, but that is 20/20 hindsight. No one imagined that awful act of cowardly terroism he conspired.
    
    He also seemed to have a ready audience of followers to jihad and I don't think they were Mennonites from Ohio that jumped on the bandwagon.
    
    Again, our war is not against Islam, but the fundi-wackos that seem to be taking the lead politically and spiritually against the west. There seems to more resistence to that now with our defeating Saddam and winning the war in Iraq that hopefully will lead a mobilization of free democracies in the region
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by Brabantio (July 04, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
      2
      
      So when you use the general term "muslims", you mean "radical Muslim extremists". It's good to straighten these definitions out for the understanding of everyone.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 05, 2009 2:42 am ET)
        2
        
        "Proud Conservative" (who really has no reason to be proud, but pride goes before a fall), from now on, will be referred to as "Humpty Dumpty," because he believes words only mean what he says they do.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by vysotsky (July 05, 2009 5:57 am ET)
      2
      
      PC: "Again, our war is not against Islam, but the fundi-wackos that seem to be taking the lead politically and spiritually against the west."
      
      So NOW you think it's important to make the distinction between Islam and violent fundamentalists, but when Quinn pours them all together in a big pot with "American blacks" you've got no criticism.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by loonz (July 05, 2009 8:51 am ET)
      1
      
      [i]
      No, but our return to a 9-10 mentality of considering this war as just needing police work is dangerous and that was part of the commission's report. Osama was more than a criminal, but that is 20/20 hindsight. No one imagined that awful act of cowardly terroism he conspired.
      [/i]
      
      It seems like you're assigning special powers to these people. They used box cutters to take over a plane and that was the extent of the operation. It wasn't sophisticated at all; they just caught us off guard while we had a dunderhead in the White House.
      
      Reply Report Abuse

by rkcomments (July 05, 2009 2:35 pm ET)

1

Clearly this joker does not know anything about Neanderthals. I suggest he look in the mirror, or better still, take a good look at his kids or his parents.

Reply Report Abuse

Quinn: Islam is a "Neanderthal religion" that "enslave[s] black people"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

Quinn: Islam is a "Neanderthal religion" that "enslave[s] black people"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share