What Fox has wrought: Anti-Park51 protests full of right-wing hate
Fox and the right-wing media have led the opposition to Park51, often using inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and comparing Muslims to Nazis, among other things. Recent anti-Park51 protestors have echoed the right-wing media's rhetoric and imagery, invoking Nazis and anti-Muslim smears.
Fox, right-wing media compare Park51 planners, Muslims to Nazis, hate groups and wartime enemies
Sekulow compares Islamic center to "monument to kamikaze pilots" at Pearl Harbor. On the August 4 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott said, "The mayor says it would show what a great and tolerant country America is if you allow the building of a mosque in this site. Do you have an answer for that?" Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, responded, "That argument is like saying this: It would be appropriate and show tolerance to allow a monument to kamikaze pilots at the site of the Arizona at Pearl Harbor." Sekulow later described the Islamic center as "a 15-story monument to what happened on 9-11."
Buchanan compares Park51 to Nazis marching through Skokie, IL. On the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, contributor Pat Buchanan compared the Park51 center to the Nazi march through Skokie, IL, claiming that it was a "provocation" and said the center is "deliberately insensitive." Buchanan said "I don't know why the Islamic leaders don't see this isn't bringing us together and it's not helping, and take a unilateral step and pull back."
Buchanan invokes Nazi march in Illinois while discussing Islamic center. On the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan said, "I don't think there would be a real -- these objections if a Catholic community center was put where the mosque -- or where the Islamic community center's going to be, or a synagogue or something like that. There wouldn't be the objections." Buchanan went on to say, "We had a real controversy about three decades ago, Joe, and I was involved in it. Should the Nazis -- open Nazis -- be allowed to march through Skokie, Illinois? And I argued they ought to have a -- they certainly have a right to meet, but that's a provocation because that was a Jewish community, and so I said no. Now, I don't know that this is a provocation, or can be called that, if you could get a synagogue there. But I do know it does seem deliberately insensitive, and I don't know why the Islamic leaders don't see that this isn't bringing us together and it's not helping, and take a unilateral step and pull back."
Limbaugh compares Islamic center to the Klan building a memorial in Gettysburg. On the August 3 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh asked a caller, "What would happen, do you think, if the Ku Klux Klan established a memorial at Gettysburg?" Limbaugh later said, "They wouldn't get to first base. Nobody would put up with the Klan building a memorial anywhere, much less Gettysburg."
Gingrich compares Islamic center to Nazis erecting sign near Holocaust museum, Japanese site near Pearl Harbor. On the August 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Newt Gingrich said, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."
Shepherd, Geraghty tweet multiple analogies to Islamic center. On August 4, NewsBusters managing editor Ken Shepherd and National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty tweeted scenarios they alleged to be similar to the construction of the Islamic center, such as "Harry Truman War College, Hiroshima campus"; "David Duke rally in the same hotel as NAACP convention"; and, "Dylan Klebold Memorial Nurse's Office, Columbine High School."
McGuirk: You wouldn't build "a sushi stand at the Pearl Harbor memorial." On the May 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity, radio host Amy Walter said, "You would never build something like a German cultural center outside of Auschwitz. You wouldn't do that, even 50 years later. It's wrong. It's in poor taste. You just don't do that." Imus in the Morning producer Bernard McGuirk replied, "Or a sushi stand at the Pearl Harbor memorial." [Transcript from Nexis.]
Right-wing media promote baseless accusations that Park51 will be a "command center for terrorism"
Morris: Park 51
will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become
terrorists." On the August 19 edition of
Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox
News contributor Dick Morris cited a study that he claimed said "80 percent of
the mosques...teach Sharia law as the main event at their mosques." Morris later
claimed that Park 51 will be used to "study and promote and train and recruit
Sharia law advocates, which, who become terrorists."
Morris: Park51 would be a "command center for
terrorism." On the August 18 edition of
Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor,
during a discussion of Park51, Morris claimed "these Sharia mosques ... have
become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be,
too."
Bolling: Park51 "may be a
meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist
minds." On the August 19 edition of Fox &
Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling claimed that Park51 "may be a
meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist
minds."
Kilmeade: "The next Hamburg cell could be
right downtown." During the discussion with Bolling on the August
19 Fox & Friends, co-host
Brian Kilmeade said of Park51, "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." A terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany, whose members would later
become the 9-11 hijackers, is believed to be the origin of the 9-11
plot.
Limbaugh suggests Park51 would
be a "recruiting tool for domestic extremists." On the August 3 edition of
his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that if the
Guantanamo Bay detention center "is a recruiting tool for foreign
extremists, what about a World Trade
Center mosque being a
recruiting tool for domestic extremists?"
Nugent: "The mosque will attract extremists and
radicals who will try to harm America." In an August
19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque
will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent
repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If
additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who
supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love
death and destruction in the name of Allah."
Cal Thomas repeatedly suggests Park51 would be a
terrorist front. In an August 3 column, conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote: "Ask
yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to
rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and
establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under
the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as
'tolerance,' which is being used against us?" In a July 21 post on The Washington
Post's On Faith blog, Thomas wrote:
A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths.
[...]
Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?
Hoft dubs Park 51 the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque." In an August 16 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's criticism of Obama's comments about Park 51 and described the Islamic community center as the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque."
Right-wing media's anti-Muslim rhetoric echoed at recent Park51 protest
AP reports on anti-Muslim rhetoric at Park51 protest, including protestors who believe Sharia law to be based in violence and that the organizers behind Park51 are "the same people who took down the twin towers.." An August Associated Press article on an anti-Park51 which occurred that day, reported:
Signs hoisted by dozens of protesters standing behind police barricades read "SHARIA" -- using dripping, blood-red letters to describe Islam's Shariah law, which governs the behavior of Muslims.
Steve Ayling, a 40-year-old Brooklyn plumber who carried his sign to a dry spot by an office building, said the people behind the mosque project are "the same people who took down the twin towers."
[...]
On a nearby sidewalk, police chased away a group that unfurled a banner with images of beating, stoning and other torture they said was committed by those who followed Islamic law.
A mannequin wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, was mounted on one of two mock missiles that were part of an anti-mosque installation. One missile was inscribed with the words: "Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion"; the other with "Obama: With a middle name Hussein. We understand. Bloomberg: What is your excuse?"
[...]
"This is sacred ground and it's where my son was buried," the native Israeli from Queens said. She said the mosque would be "like a knife in our hearts."
She was joined by a close friend, Kobi Mor, who flew from San Francisco to participate in the rally.
If the mosque gets built, "we will bombard it," Mor said. He would not elaborate but added that he believes the project "will never happen."
Reuters: One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11." According to a Reuters report on the August 22 protest, "One sign read: 'Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11.'" From Reuters:
Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."
One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."
Protest sign: "Islam + Shariah Law = Barborism (sic)." Fox news aired footage of the August 22 protest showing a sign which read, "Islam + Sharia law = Barborism [sic]." From the August 23 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Numerous signs depict "Sharia" written in blood: As the AP reported, during the August 22 protest, "Signs hoisted by dozens of protesters standing behind police barricades read 'SHARIA' -- using dripping, blood-red letters to describe Islam's Shariah law, which governs the behavior of Muslims."
Installation featured Muslim in keffiyeh riding a missile that said "Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion." The AP reported that at the August 22 protest, "A mannequin wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, was mounted on one of two mock missiles that were part of an anti-mosque installation. One missile was inscribed with the words: 'Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion.'" The AP added that the second missile said, "Obama: With a middle name Hussein. We understand. Bloomberg: What is your excuse?"
Sign: "No clubhouse for terrorists." A Reuters photograph of the August 22 protest shows a man holding a sign, saying, "No Clubhouse for Terrorists."
Protest sign: "We don't need a monument to those who attacked our country at ground zero." A different Reuters photograph of the August 22 protest shows a man holding the following sign:
Protest sign: "Islam is no longer a legitimate religion." From the New York Post:
Previous Park51 protests also featured inflammatory imagery and rhetoric
Protest sign: "Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is Like Building a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz." The August 2 broadcast of Fox News' Happening Now featured footage of a recent protest against Park51, which included a sign that read, "Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is Like Building a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz." From Happening Now:
Protest sign: "Proud to be an Islamophobe." Happening Now also showed footage of an anti-Park 51 protestor which read, "Jesus died to save you Allah wants you to kill for him! Proud to be an Islamophobe." From Happening Now:
Protest sign: "Islam = Hate"; "Islam = terrorist"; "Islam = Killing." Eye on the World blog posted a "photo report" from Pam Geller's June 6 Park51 protest. Geller linked to the "photo report" in a blog post touting her protest. From Eye on the World:
Protest sign invokes Nazis, calls Islam "the Enemy." From Eye on the World's "photo report":
Protest sign: "Mosques Breed Radical Islam...Radical Islam Breeds Terrorists." From Eye of the World:
Protests sign compare mosque to a toilet, asks, "Do you want this built on Ground Zero? I don't!!!!!" From Eye of the World's complete "anti-mosque protest" photo gallery:
Protest sign: "Islam Kills." From Eye of the World's complete "anti-mosque protest" photo gallery:
This is an anti-mosque protestor? The only people having their freedom targeted by religion are those who want to build the center. Besides that, the "proudly made in USA" on the missile seems to confirm the idea of the U.S. as an accessory to terrorism.
These people look like they out quite a bit of work into their little parade float, but mostly from the neck down.
I heard another good one on the radio today, in an audio clip from the protests, which was somehting close to " They say they want to bring people together, so why do they want to build it so close ??"
But, if you have your way, surely not your last.
Failing to support it is evidence of bigotry.
I've documented since this topic came up how it's hypocritical to object to this site when they haven't objected to the Pentagon site. I've documented how if there's hallowed ground to protect, it's at the Pentagon.
And they've dropped that argument.
I've documented how there's no basis for the argument that someone can protect this group's freedom of religion if they aren't allowed to build it wherever the zoning people allow it to be built.
I've destroyed bogus arguments about other churches that supposedly were denied the right to build or expand because of their challenging religious beliefs. That hasn't happened.
I've pointed out the bogus arguments about this building being dedicated/opened/construction starting on 9/11/11 - not going to happen - they don't even have an architect.
I debunked the argument that there aren't sufficient Muslims IN the area, with specific links from lower Manhattan showing all the residential construction going on down there.
I've refuted the argument that they're getting funding from Saudi Arabia.
So all that's left is bigotry. They've thrown everything they could at this, and everything has failed, because all they have had from the beginning is bigotry.
And so, when I point that out, 6 trolls feel the need to thumb down my post, like the little babies that they are, because they can't refute a thing I've written!
Oh for pete's sake, take your paranoid thread derailing freak outs elsewhere. Nobody cares anymore.
Oh for pete's sake, take your paranoid thread derailing freak outs elsewhere. Nobody cares anymore.
But thanks for showing everyone, once again, how controlling your personal animus is!
Please, don't let the fact that you got some respectability back when you posted some reasonable things stop you from regressing back and losing all that ground gained by going off the deep end like you did above!
Please, keep digging, you fool!
You know you really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to like Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the University level. Like where Freud studied and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once a week for eighty bucks. No. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock thinking about you, having conferences, observing you, like the way they did with the Elephant Man. That's what I'm talking about because that's the only way you're going to get better. -Jerry Seinfeld
You know you really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to like Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the University level. Like where Freud studied and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once a week for eighty bucks. No. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock thinking about you, having conferences, observing you, like the way they did with the Elephant Man. That's what I'm talking about because that's the only way you're going to get better. -Jerry Seinfeld
So Jerry Seinfeld knows Sue?
Like you think THAT'S a good plan of action?
I swear, don't they give you guys ANY training on how to react when your first salvos don't succeed?
THIS is undeniable.
The patriotic, American thing to do is to fully support this peaceful Sufi sect's attempt to build this Islamic Community Center!
Failing to support it is evidence of bigotry.
And yet 7 people thumbed it down. If YOU think that the rest of us don't understand why that happened, and if YOU think that me mocking those who stupidly think that it's a good plan to behave that way, then you're an idiot.
Here's a little hint for ya: people give you thumbs down to encourage you to post one of your insane rants. (see above). It's entertainment value. It's amazing and comical that you're too stupid to realize this. . .
Here's a little hint for ya: people give you thumbs down to encourage you to post one of your insane rants. (see above). It's entertainment value. It's amazing and comical that you're too stupid to realize this. . .
But it's fun watching DDS get all worked up about the down thumbs, which I'm sure is one reason she gets them ;-)
Here's a little hint for ya: people give you thumbs down to encourage you to post one of your insane rants. (see above). It's entertainment value. It's amazing and comical that you're too stupid to realize this. . .
Dell, you just don't get that a lot of folks here regard you as nothing more than comic relief, & you NEVER fail to deliver.
any
time
now ...
CLUELESS.
What is equally horrifying is that Fox, among others, can sit in their cushy broadcast studios with comfy couches watching videos rolling as they safely comment and opine on this mosque and their opposition. They are absolutely complicit in lighting this fuse of hatred, tossing it out for these deplorable bigots to scribble horrendously offensive signs.
Do they have no conscience or moral responsibility to understand that this isn't some cute little tax or spending issue that they can bat around, but this stirs emotions and fears of 9/11 and should be addressed and discussed honestly, with reverence and respect?
Obviously, No.
I gave you a thumbs-up, but I'd like to know - Who are you and what did you do with the real right ON?
<j/k>
(I like it! ;) )
Well I do hope they put a few of these "mosques" on Ground Zero, afterall where are the people there going to use the bathroom?
I wonder how many of these protesters know this?
As I explained on another thread, and as Politifact echoed later on Monday, if there are prayers 5 times a day, 7 days a week, and if there are Sabbath services, then it's a MOSQUE.
If it's only a prayer room that has like one prayer a day in that room, then it's NOT A MOSQUE.
So, the thing in the Pentagon - not a mosque. The thing there at Park51 now? A mosque. The thing in the Islamic community center once it's built? A mosque.
It's almost like Factcheck and Politifact are cribbing off me - first with their story that there's no Mosque in the Pentagon, and then this story that there IS a mosque currently at this location, and that there will be a mosque in the community center!
But of course they aren't. They are simply reporting the facts, and debunking myths and urban legends and false memes, just like I do!
It's not the way that I determine the lines should be drawn. I simply informed people here about how the lines ARE drawn! Educating people is not a bad thing, you know.
Does that mean Pat would support it?
Yep, because terrorists always pick a high profile, open to the public location to do their secret planning.
If you're talking about the protesters I agree.
As for the liberals here, of which I am not one, I do think the double standard is interesting. Can you imagine any of them going to bat for a Christian church of holy worship like they are for this mosque? I can't.
I can't speak for all the liberals here, but I can only assume that they value freedom of religion far too much to stage such a protest.
I support this Community Center but not because I support Sharia, I find that repugnant. I support it because I fully endorse the Constitution of the United States. There is this little bit called the establishment clause that I find very important. If *I* get to dictate to my Islamic friends how they can worship and believe then someday, they or someone else may be in a position to do the same to me.
I believe that allowing a moderate Sufi group to create a center that is open to the public will help shift Islam toward modernity and away from the extremists who dominate parts of it now with some very backward ideas.
And definitely, I believe that the vitriol on FoxNews is a fantastic recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. What better example to prove to young impressionable Arab men that the US hates them and is out to get them than an hour or two of carefully selected clips from Fox?
They see resistance from the left when they try to subvert the constitution and legislate their religion, and they misinterpret this as " anti_Christian".
Then they see the left standing up for the constitution again, when the Christian right tries to trample on it to restrict the freedoms of non-Christians.
Naturally, this completely consistent defense of the constitution is called out as "liberal hypocrisy!!" by those who feel they own the document, but never seem to have read it.
ps: I sort of skimmed over most of Snicker's post earlier, as it was obviously a tired re-tread, but in re-reading it, I have a new appreciation for a big chunk of BS in the middle; The idea that "the left" is missing a great opportunity to join in with "the right" in fighting discrimination against gays and women, and attacks on freedom . That's adorable. So that's their problem with Muslims ! LOL.
The right seems to presume that defending someone's first amendment rights is akin to full out endorsing what they say. For some reason the right-wing has never understood this seemingly obvious delineation. I have little hope they will start anytime soon by reading some of their posts above.
Nonetheless, liberals (like the ACLU) often defend Christian churches, it just doesn't make it into the conservative chain mails you guys seem so often to depend on for the bulk of your education about liberals.
I still can't imagine the going to bat thing.
I am glad for you, being behind the ACLU 100%.
Can you show me a case where we would have the opportunity? Last I looked, Christians were anything but persecuted in this country. I know of no cases where a Christian Church was denied a building permit where Muslim or some other church was not.
Turns out he was either lying or ignorant of the facts, or both. His church was sanctioned because they were hosting for-credit college classes at their church, which is a violation of zoning rules. And they had other zoning issues that had nothing to do with the way they celebrate their religion.
Can you imagine a group of Americans in a hate-filled protest against a Christian community center being built anywhere ?
That is one of the weirdest imaginary double standards I've ever seen, righton. But your other posts here were quite decent.
Another favorite I saw just in the past couple of days: commenting on some right wingers racist statements this week, while completely neglecting to mention Sen. Robert Byrd's KKK membership over half a century ago in the same post. LOL !! Librul hypocrisy !!
Sorry, open mind, off topic, but did you see the Laura Ingraham/Ralph Peters clip ? Perfect example.
Liberals protect everyone's rights, even Christians.
You're a dishonest paid troll who, when confronted with reality, runs from it by parsing words.
I just did an "artful backflip" to confuse you. Heh.
Well, when the "left" scolds one of their own when "they launch into diatribes about the right that are based on nothing more than stereotypes and prejudice", I will take your criticism more to heart.
"Liberals are always right there to valiantly shout freedom of religion, except when it comes to Christianity, which is usually met with a "meh".---RO
How do you know this and what examples do you have to support this statement? Christian liberals have fought in all our wars defending this countries principals one of which is freedom to practice the religion of your choice. I'll wait for your examples showing me wrong.
It doesn't bother me, but if the whole idea of unfair generalizations bothers you so much, then show some consistency, instead of your partisan nonsense.
No the idea of generalizations don't bother me nor the idea of being partisan. I'am guilty as charged. You wwere caught making a bigoted prejudiced statement with no proof to back it up other than some mysterious post by other posters and now you want to justify your bigotry by blaming it on others I call that nonsense.
No the idea of generalizations don't bother me nor the idea of being partisan. I'am guilty as charged. You wwere caught making a bigoted prejudiced statement with no proof to back it up other than some mysterious post by other posters and now you want to justify your bigotry by blaming it on others I call that nonsense.
What you are is a hypocrite. You go off the rails when liberalism is generalized about, but you couldn't care less if the same is done to conservatism, whether it's fair or not.
Thanks for proving my point. lol. C'mon grumpy this is getting to easy. Since you are not here to observe my every post you have no idea WTF or who I critized for doing or saying what and without concrete examples you got nothing. Weird standard you have I should be responsible for all left or liberal posters here but you get a free pass on conservatives. Everytime Sealugs post I'll expect a rebuttal from you. How ridiculous is that? lol. I smell something,you need to change your Depends it's affecting your thinking.
Like you just did.
If I did, and I let some con's rhetoric slide by, then I would also be a hypocrite.
Like you are.
Is this what this is all about? Your're hurt because I didn't let your BS slide by? Oh OK!
Go on I'll hold my hands behind my back and let you have the last word. Feel better?
And, Topeka, Kansas, where the Westboro Baptist Church is from, is my hometown. And, I have actually spoken up for the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to do their sickening protests on public property. It is their right. I hate that they do it, but I love that they are allowed to do it. That is America.
No one will ever dare to bring Sharia Law to the floor of Congress or any state legislature. It's a ridiculous argument.
That said, your case fails on multiple levels.
1.) Most Muslims don't accept the standards of Sharia law. Not as it is practiced by extremists.
2.) Liberals defend the right of those Americans who choose to live by the standards of Sharia law to do so. That is clearly NOT the same as supporting Sharia law.
3.) The Park51 community center doesn't advocate the installation of Sharia law.
4.) Liberals accept the reality that Muslims have the Constitutional right to practice their religion and act in accordance with its teachings as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
5.) There is no argument being leveled against Park51 on anything but an emotional basis. Liberals don't favor laws that are instituted on that basis.
Your sense of logic is appallingly absent.
Sharia is the law of Islam, if you don't accept it you are not a Muslim. It's part of the definition of being a Muslim. A Muslim not accepting sharia law is like a Christian not accepting that Jesus was the son of God. Sharia law denies women their basic human rights and advocates the slaughter of homosexuals. I can't say I'm really surprised that liberals would support this behavior in order to push their progressive agenda but I am disgusted by it.
In your post you attempt to separate the right to practice sharia law from the reality of sharia law. There is no right to practice sharia law in this country. Inasmuch as sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution and its supporting laws it cannot be practiced here. We do not allow Satanists to practice human sacrifice and we do not allow husbands to beat and rape their wives. That is the reality of sharia, you cannot pretend that Muslims have the right to break the law just because it is a tenant of their faith.
You should investigate how many US Muslims support Sharia law. Then get back to us.
But don't forget that the religious whackos are all for imposing Judeo-Christian laws on this nation - and we're much closer to that type of theocracy than a sharia-based one.
2) The answer to your question is all of them. If they don't support sharia law then they are not Muslims.
3) What was the last law you remember that attempted to impose Judeo-Christian theology on the nation? No, seriously, I'm eager to know because I can't think of one that's been passed in my lifetime. Your assertion that we're much closer to a Judeo-Christian theocracy seems to me to be more something you pulled out of some leftist talking point than an actual legitimate concern.
3) Imposed Judeo-Christian theology - TODAY'S STORY
Stem cell research, a field in which I bump into about once a week, has important implications as a possible cause of metastatic cancer. Europeans (and others) are researching this field. US medicine is falling behind and we have had a brain-drain from US to Europe since Bush played theologist.
When your family member is dying of metastatic breast, colorectal or ovarian cancer, be sure to thank the U.S. Judeo-Christian theology. Then book your flight to Europe for treatment.
As for your thinly veiled wish that a family member gets cancer you'll be happy to know that we're set up well genetically. I don't believe I've ever had a relative that had cancer despite massive amounts of smoking and drinking. Liver failure, now that's another story.
Denying the right to fund that research IS AN IMPOSITION.
That's undeniable, yet you deny it.
That makes you a troll who's not interested in participating in a fair and reasonable debate.
You don't know the difference between Wahhabism and Sufism, do you?
You know why people aren't up in arms about the Hindu religion, or Buddhism, or Voodoo, or Native American religious practices, etc? Because none of those religions violate the basic principles of the Constitution. The tenants of their various religions are compatible with this nation's laws. Sharia law isn't.
Secondly, it is indeed about preference. Just as Islam has no presumptive right to "violate the rights of others", they have a right to believe what they like (even if it is wrong!). How are you planning on controlling their thoughts? In this country we recognize the difference between mere thoughts and action.
I agree that some aspects of Islam appear to be at odds with the fundamental aspects of Democracy, but this is hardly a new phenomenon. Fundamentalist Christians have many of the same beliefs, but just cloaked in Christian doctrine. Fortunately, the Constitution does not abide by either one and will not abide by it.
However wrong fundamentalist Christians are about the nature of our government, I have never once advocated them being silenced for it. The Constitution is not the fragile document many conservatives seem to believe it is. The same protections that allow for free speech and religion also prevent the Constitution from being undermined by self-serving religious wackos (Christian or Muslim).
You seem to be of the belief that Sharia is some absolute. That is about as ridiculous and assuming that all self-identified Christians believe the same things. Imagine equating Mormons, Christian Scientists, Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Calvinists and the Amish - what a crazy idea!
Snicker, are you suggesting that building mosques is unconstitutional? I'm asking you this because every time someone has affirmed muslim's right to practice their religion you've replied with some variation of "you have no right to force your religion on others", as if the two were one and the same. Are you just hearing what you want to? Or do you genuinely believe that the building of this mosque constitutes forcing Islam on others? You seem to be in an agreement with the guy with yellow sign that said "Islam is not entitled to constitutional protection".
I'll draw a comparison between Islam and the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy of the military. In the military you can be as homosexual as you want. You can desire to have sex with same sex partners, you may believe that it's a great and good thing. As soon as you act on it you've violated the law.
You realize when the data does not seem to support the premise, it is entirely reasonable to abandon that premise.
Poor analogy. A better would be like a Christian not accepting God's law according to the Bible.
How is Sharia different than God's law from the Old Testament?
2) Sharia differs from God's law in the Old Testament because in the Christian faith the Old Testament is more of a historical document. For example, Christians don't sacrifice livestock to God even though that was the practice in the Old Testament. It's even called the Old Testament because there's a New Testament that is used now. There would be no Christian religion if there was no New Testament.
Oh really? To whom? Oh scholar of the Torah, educate us about how we too can blow smoke out our anus, too.
Amazingly, he returned to fail some more.
The Old Testament is MORE than a historical document. It also provides us with God's Laws as found in the Ten Commandments (Which Christians are required to obey), It also give proposed punishment for various sins.
I thought Christianity was the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior only.
I'm looking for the part where ScienceBuff stands up for Sharia Law, but I just can't find it. Help me out here, cuz if you can't come up with that, everything you typed after that is just nonsense. ( See " begging the question")
This might be another case of the right wing brain seeing contradiction or hypocrisy between reality and things happening in your head.
There is no right to abstain from adultury, beer and pork? I can only assume you mean that there is no right to impose sharia on others, since your comment makes no sense otherwise. And SciBuff was definately not arguing for that. In fact, no one is arguing for that. This whole argument does indeed seem to be between you and your figments.
Do you think the mere practice of Islam is a violation of the constitution? Perhaps you think that supporting the right to build a mosque neccessarily means supporting the right to practice sharia which necessarily means supporting the right to stone adulterers and homosexuals? Perhaps you're so brain-washed you felt no need to clarify these points, because you think it goes without saying? As you can see, I'm struggling mightily to make some sort of sense out of what you've written so far.
Please be more clear, otherwise we will never be able to identify the error in your thinking that causes you to say crazy things like this:
Supporting the building of a mosque is supporting sharia law, is supporting the violation of human rights.
Do they have a right to build on that spot? Of course. It doesn't mean I have to support it. Their whole ideology is based on the violation of basic human rights and I don't agree with that. Maybe you do, personally I believe you'd cut your nose off to spite your face.
I'll admit, that's a pretty tall order.
Sorry, Snicker's logic got the best of me for a second there. You see, I really do understand, unlike Snicker's, that you can't judge an entire group on the actions of a few extreme members.
I can only guess that you're basing your whole concept of Islam on the Taliban.....but really it just sounds like you're completely deranged.
1)Who the hell was saying that? They certainly have a right to build houses of worship wherever they please. Are we in disagreement here? If you must argue with the voices in your head, it's much easier to do that alone.
2)Not all muslims believe the same things as wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the Iranian Ayatollahs. In fact, very few in America do. But even if they all did, their freedom to express these ideas remains unchanged. Having beliefs that are incompatible with the law is not same as breaking the law. This is one of the many distintions you appear to be having serious trouble with.
You seem to think that there are some Muslim sects that don't believe in the violation of basic human rights, I do not agree. If a Muslim were to come talk to me personally and repudiate all the parts of sharia law that violate human rights I still would not believe him. Of course that's because another basic tenant of sharia law is the policy of lying to the unbeliever to advance the cause of Islam.
Muslims are permitted to conceal their faith only under threat of persecution or torture. The fact that you believe they are permitted to lie simply to advance Islam, shows that the koran and muslim writers are definately not your only source of "knowledge" about Islam.
Conservatives rarely attack people for what they say they believe, they usually need to speculate about hidden motives.
Funny how liberals attack conservatives for what conservatives actually say they believe. We do not often resort to the kind of paranoid mind reading they so frequently do to just about everyone they oppose.
All that can be a thing of the past if you could just say it in plain and blunt English exactly what your positions are. Don't blame us for that.
But then again, it makes sense that someone who writes so many incomprehensible posts would see hidden meaning in the posts of others.
Let me know when I can trash it. Until then I will just stock up on tape.
"taxes should be higher on the weathy"="success must be punished"
"All children are entitled to quality free education"="No child should be allowed to recieve a better education than the one provided in government schools"
"One ought to refrain from racial slurs"= "The PC gestapo must be vigilant and well-funded"
"Healthcare is best administered by government"="I'm a librul, government always good"
"Safety regulations have made many appliances less dangerous"="people can't be trusted to choose safe products on their own, the government must protect them from themselves."
Seriously, did I not just nail down my impersonation of righton?
Let me know when I can trash it. Until then I will just stock up on tape.
I'm afraid I got busy last night and didn't even get to read replies until this morning.
I should have differentiated between the version of sharia law as practiced by the Taliban and other extremist sects (which is what most westerners think of and what I had in mind in my post) and that practiced by the more moderate majority of Muslims. Most westerners don't think of sharia law when thinking of the more moderate practices. Most Muslims don't practice wife-beating or the slaughter of homosexuals, but still consider themselves to be practicing Muslims. They do so with good reason. They don't share the same extreme interpretation of the Qur'an as do the Taliban. The imam who is trying to get the Park51 community center built certainly doesn't.
You're trying to pretend that there is one monolithic interpretation of Muslim law that is shared in common with all sects of the religion. That's nonsense.
There was no contradiction on my part. Liberals do not support sharia law as public policy. However, as I also stated, anyone who wants to conduct their own lives according to its teachings should be allowed to do so. I also very clearly stated that they should be allowed to do so only as long as it didn't interfere with anyone else's rights. If a woman who believes it's required by her religion wants to wear a full burqa, she should be allowed to do so. If her husband forces her to wear one, that would be illegal by US law and he should be stopped. A Muslim fundamentalist can even be allowed to believe that homosexuals should be killed, just as many Christian fundamentalists do, as long as none of them ever act on those opinions.
You really should be past your overly simplistic, black and white point of view to look at the entire picture.
My question to Snicker was only to determine if he had misread you post, or was just so locked on to his own prejudices that nothing else mattered. Looks like it was a little of both. He seems to think somebody needs to prove his beliefs wrong to him.
I'm not sure how Snicker is able to make the leap from acknowledging the right to build a mosque ( which , according to him, shows support for Sharia Law) to claiming to allow that right while saying that he's against the right to believe certain things.
I don't know if I want to get into the disinformation-based "Thought Police" zone he's in.
Thanks for letting me rant!
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
First, he wanted to raise the ratings for FauxNoise and thereby increase the value of his NewsCorp stock.
Second, being a donor to Park51, he also realized a savvy real estate play when he saw it. If Park51 has to bail out of their development, he can buy the property at a discount and sell it to Scaife or one of the Koch brothers for the symbolism.
</sarcasm> I know MBAs who would do this
First, he wanted to raise the ratings for FauxNoise and thereby increase the value of his NewsCorp stock.
Second, being a donor to Park51, he also realized a savvy real estate play when he saw it. If Park51 has to bail out of their development, he can buy the property at a discount and sell it to Scaife or one of the Koch brothers for the symbolism.
</sarcasm> I know MBAs who would do this
Boycott Turkish Goods and Products?
What the heck is that all about?
Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal who owns a 5-7% share in NewCorps and is rumored to be helping finance the Park51 project. Which if you saw the Daily Show last night tells you that FoxNews is funding the Park52 project.