AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Islam is an Oppressive, Totalitarian Ideology Which Should be Mocked and Ridiculed as Much as any Other Ideology

A great discussion in the comments in response to this post at Gateway Pundit: Florida Church Vows to Burn Korans On 9-11; Receives Death Threats (Video)

It is interesting to note many people in the comments who come across as dhimmis and prove the point that Islam is not a “religion of peace”. If it were, then there would be no reason to worry about the safety of the members of this church, correct? Christians and Jews and Mormons are insulted every single day all across the nation in print media reports, in TV media reports, in movies, in TV shows, in songs and by liberal politicians. All this is done without worry of violence. Yet, no one dares to say anything even midly critical of Islam, despite the fact that every liberal claims that Islam is a “religion of peace”. If it were so, then Islam would be mocked, ridiculed and smeared equally. The fact that it is not is proof that Islam is not peaceful at all.

The fact is that were this church to announce that it were holding a “burn Mein Kampf day”, no one would care. “Burn the Book of Mormon Day”? No one would care. “Burn the American Flag Day”? No one would care. “Burn the Jewish Flag Day”? No one would care. But, since they are insulting a liberal PC protected class, there is “outrage”. Pathetic.

Now, while I may not completely agree with this church’s chosen way to show their disgust with Islam (which I share), I think they prove 2 great points. (1) They show that Islam is not a “religion of peace” at all, what with the threats of violence directed their way in response to this. (2) They expose the hypocrisy of liberals, who never have a problem mocking, ridiculing and insulting every other religion on the planet, save for Islam.

I also agree with the person in the comments who noted that we are in a war. And yes, it is a war against the totalitarian political ideology of Islam, regardless of the people who are too PC-ified to admit it. During WWII, no one would have cared were people to burn copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, burn literature about NAZIism or burn literature about Japan’s religion of Shintoism. No one in their right mind would come to the defense of oppressive, totalitarian ideologies. Yet, 9 years after the worst Islamic terrorist attack on American soil in history, people are still defending the oppressive, totalitarian ideology of Islam. Pathetic.

Some of the comments with which I agree wholeheartedly:

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:09 am | #17

Burning Old Glory is fine. Burning American citizens is fine. But burning the one book that has more hatred inside than Mein Kampf is bad?

Without the koran there wouldn’t have been 9-11. Yes, it’s that simple.

Maybe this action isn’t in the best spirit of Christianity. Maybe, I don’t know, and frankly I don’t even care.

It’s time that the west strikes back.

How long are we going to take the abuse coming from the mohammedans? Look into Europe, I dare you. Mohammedans just need to pout at whatever they want and the media and the politicians double over hell bent on making sure the screaming babies get whatever they want.

Saying something against that is racism and makes you a nazi in Europe these days.

Why do you think Geert Wilders is becoming more and more popular, all across Europe?

Because more and more people in Europe are sick and tired of this pre-emptive surrender. Because more and more people in Europe are sick and tired of islam. Yes, despite the media and our politicians trying to sell us the fairy tale of a moderate islam people are rallying against islam.

Burn the koran?

Why not? What makes it so special? Why shouldn’t we burn it? Out of respect? Respect for what? Respect for a fascist ideology that hides behind the shield of religion? An ideology that, without this shield, would be banned right away in all civilized countries?

Burn it I say. This book deserves no respectful treatment. It’s as vile and full of hatred as Mein Kampf.

And Mein Kampf is banned in Germany and Austria…

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:27 am | #26

Jerry, the koran represents only one thing: kill the infidels where you find them. That’s in it. That’s the order. That’s what every mohammedan must do. Why? Because Mohammed, who is considered to be the perfect human being in islamic mythology, wrote it down. Because the bloodythirsty idol called allah told him so.

If supporting burning something like that makes me intolerant, so be it. Then I’m intolerant. And I don’t care. Islam is intolerant to the bone. Islam is hatred on a level worse than the Nazis. Why should I be tolerant to that?

By the way. Faith and believe? That’s no argument against burning it. There were people who prayed to Hitler. Not for him. To him. There were people in Nazi Germany BELIEVING that Hitler was second coming of Jesus. It was their FAITH.

As for calling islam “religion”… don’t make me laugh.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:33 am | #27

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:25 am | #24

Although I have no respect for islam as a religion/political system, it’s just as sacrilegious to burn a koran as it is to put a crucifix in a jar of urine. I consider burning the American flag highly offensive. People who act in this manner do not gain respect; they lose it.

Uhm, you do realize that the leftsits and mohammedans don’t respect any of us in the first place, right? So what’s there to lose?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

If they could they would kill all of us right now, even without burning that stupid book.

Why? Because we’re infidels. We are already committing the worst possible crime under sharia law: we refuse to follow allah. That crime is worse than murder, worse than rape, worse than genocide.

It’s sacrilegious? I piss on islam. I piss in the koran. Now what? What’s the islamic moon deity going to do about it? Nothing.

Tolerance is a bad thing. Look at the roots of the word. Latin for “to endure”. Sorry, I’m tired of enduring. It’s time to strike back and speak with them in the only language they understand: force.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:37 am | #31

Let me add this:

Most of you people don’t see the “joy” islamic “enrichment”. I see it on a daily basis. And I’m sick and tired of it. Every day it’s on the news. Mohammedans assaulting our police officers. Mohammedans raping our women. Mohammedans murdering our people. Mohammedans stealing our money. And when we say something against it, the media and the leftist are all over us screaming “racist!” and “nazi!”

Our crime rates are exploding, thanks to them. But we have to be tolerant. We have to live with it. We have to endure it.

And this has been going for years.

My patience is slowly but steadily coming to an end.

Come to Europe and see it with your own eyes.

You’ll have a different point of view afterwards.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:40 am | #33

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:37 am | #30

Andreas K:

Stopping the building of this mosque would be the best revenge here. They care about that.

Then the media and the leftists will scream “racist!” again and everyone will be quick to make sure the mohammedan crybabies will get what they want.

It’s happening here on a daily basis.

Take the Swiss ban on minarettes. The majority of the Swiss people was for it and at once the islamic world screamed murder and the rest of Europe quickly joined them.

Talk I hear from the UK and the Netherlands speaks already of armed resistance. Yep, in the liberal Netherlands a growing number of liberal Dutch people are thinking of picking up arms against this nonsense. Same in the UK. Similar things I hear from Germany where secret police reports leaked to the public suggest civil war, thanks to the mohammedans.

But let’s be tolerant, eh?

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:43 am | #34

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 6:39 am | #32

Wading, pacifists allowed 12 million people to be slaughtered during WWII for the crime of being born “other.” Good “Christians”, most of them were.

And then there were those who put on their armor and went to war to stop it. . . .

Something tells me that the heroes who did their little bit to end the abominations of Hitler have a much better welcome waiting them than those who wrung their hands & pretended not to see.

Granny, that was a direct hit.

Pacifism has never stopped fascists. Chamberlain went all pacifist on Hitler, what was the result?

It allowed Hitler to build up his military might and to occupy two sovereign nations before the war even started.

Pacifism works only if everyone’s a pacifist.

A mohammedan following Mohammed’s orders won’t be impressed by it. He’ll just kill you and rape your wife and daughter, after which he’d enslave them.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 6:53 am | #38

Expat, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. At least this week. Not taking an action because you think it will give the muslims cause to complain virtually guarantees that you’ll be bowing to Mecca before you can spit. If they do not have “cause” to complain, they will find cause and if they cannot find it they will invent it as they have done innumerable times previously. If you don’t understand that, then you understand nothing at all.

Robert
August 21st, 2010 | 7:01 am | #43

This ideology is NOT a religion, it is a totalitarian regime of world domination. The terrorists are the front-line soldiers, receiving widespread financial and theological support. The rest submit to the dictates and profess piety while murder and mayhem are waged on behalf of world domination in their name.

This tyranny would only permit religions to exist as subservient, second-class citizens, and paying extra taxes.

To Wading Across, it seems as if you are not only preaching pacifism, but trying mightily to convince others to be so as well.

We’re all well aware of the Christian message of tolerance and good faith. Do that for too long, and you end up in bondage, or dead.

Ken
August 21st, 2010 | 7:02 am | #44

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:25 am | #24
There is a group of people who can stop this outrage in its tracks – Union Labor.

Labor unions by definition hold out for more pay, they will eventually build it. Labor unions support the democrat party, who in turn support the moslems and sharia law. Don’t put any faith in the unions to do the right thing, they’ll disappoint you.

We all need to fight this attack on whatever front is available to us. This 911 victory hamosque is no different than a dog pissing and marking its territory.

If the moslems get their way burning flags will be the least of our problems.

Granny, thank you for your insight.

JR Dogman
August 21st, 2010 | 7:06 am | #45

This is a great idea. Yes, it’s a crude gesture to burn Korans; but Islam is hardly a refined faith. The majority of its followers are neither respectful nor tolerant of those of other faiths, and so they do not deserve our kind treatment.

As for the rare “moderate” Muslims (isn’t it sick that there’s such a term in common use? Sick, that we get excited when we hear a Muslim come out and call a terrorist organization a terrorist organization), I feel for them. It would be wonderful if Islam could be reformed as they hope, but I have my doubts, as for such to happen, Muslims worldwide would have to repudiate much of the Koran and the Hadiths. I myself am an agnostic; I practice no religion. But I know faith is important to most people. So, if moderate Muslims seek to maintain a relationship with God, perhaps they might find fulfillment by converting to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism — to any religion that does not divide the world into a House of Believers and a House of War.

Though in fact, a lot of moderate Muslims are already doing just that. We may not hear about it much, but the rumblings are there: conversions out of Islam are on the rise, and the trend looks only to increase. And no wonder: It must be a terrible burden for many Muslims, to feel obliged to hate and wage eternal war against non-Muslims in the name of God; and they must feel such tremendous relief, when at last they find a gentler, more personal and spiritual way to worship.

The Elector of Saxony
August 21st, 2010 | 8:03 am | #58

“Come to Europe and see it with your own eyes.”

Andreas, our media hides the situation in Britain and in Europe from us. During the Islamic insurrection in France, the media here reported “unemployed French youths are burning cars in the suburbs of Paris”. The murder of Theo Van Gogh was only reported on through the blog communities, and of course, anytime Geert Wilders or the BNP are mentioned…you guessed it. Nazis.

Individual Americans are smart, but collectively we are quite stupid. We are already allowing our borders to be overrun in an invasion that is destabilizing the economies of our Southwestern states, turning vast swaths of America into 3rd world hellholes that resemble Somalia today more than they do Houston or Los Angeles of 30 years ago. Yet, almost half of us mumble some nonsense about fairness and equality, and hope and pray that things will get better, and if they don’t? Well, we’ll get a taco while Rome burns.

Islam is coming in what can only be described as the second arm of a pincer movement, and yet even our conservative party wants to mouth the platitudes of “religion of peace”, equality, justice, diversity, freedom of religion, blah blah blah.

Our media is helping by hiding the fact that Islam is imposing its will on Europe and Britain so that we won’t insist upon stopping it here. I don’t care what my Lefts masters say, Islam is a barbaric, backward, vile tribe of people who should be kept away from us by any means necessary.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 8:39 am | #65

Chip, this is not just about spreading the Gospel. This is about your right to even have a Gospel to spread. This is, in fact, a war.

All during WWII, hundreds of thousands of our Jewish brethren made no attempt to lift a finger in self defense, in the name of these very same principles. It wasn’t just Chamberlain who tried to appease Hitler. It was Jewish communities all over Europe. It was people right here in the USA.

Our Founding Fathers & Mothers did not appease the British King. They fought for what they believed. The fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto, those who rebelled at Sobibor, the Bielski brothers, who walked into ghettos and rescued more Jews directly under the noses of Hitler’s minions that even Schindler saved – they all fought for what they believed in. And in every single case there were those to say that this was against religion, it wasn’t “correct”, that is was useless or crass or a stunt. And yet, they won.

There comes a time when you must not only pay lip service to what you believe, you must lay your property, your reputation and even your life on the line and fight for it. To do otherwise is to deny your belief. Our founders knew this. Those who won through in WWII knew this. Every generation must win freedom anew.

The members of this little backwater church have decided that their time has come to stand and fight. Every single time that we as a society allow ourselves to be cowed & silenced we deny the very principles on which we were built.

Gail F
August 21st, 2010 | 8:51 am | #71

Sorry, this is an idiotic thing to do. “Burn a Koran Day”??? Give me a break! That’s not free speech, that’s deliberate provocation, inciting unrest and inviting an attack.

Like all fights, the fight against the expansion of Islam requires prudence. This isn’t a prudent act it’s a STUPID one.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 8:58 am | #73

Sorry Gail – virtually ALL political speech is “free speech”. Even if it is provactive. In fact, political speech is the reason we have Freedom of Speech.

StrngernFiction
August 21st, 2010 | 9:25 am | #80

Wow there is so much to say regarding this topic. One of the most interesting discussions I’ve come across on the net.

For starters, this is a great example of how widespread the brainwashing is. To read some of these comments you’d think that Islam IS a religion of peace. Ah, but they don’t call it a cancer for no reason.

As would be the case for burning one of the Bamster’s autobiographies, the only legitimate argument for not burning the Koran, if these folks are truly aware of the consequences and still want to follow through with this, is that it would amount to bad PR and thus hurt our side and help the enemy (mooslims and the left). That is the ONLY reason, and that point is probably worth debating.

But it is my opinion that we are long past the point where we should be taking stands based on our principles (and like many others here have said islam is an obamination), letting the chips fall where they may and the sides be formed. So if these folks have their eyes open and want to take this courageous action, more power to them.

redc1c4
August 21st, 2010 | 9:31 am | #83

i don’t understand why anyone is worried about this event causing a problem, let alone some sort of violent response…..

after all, islam is a religion of peace.

bg
August 21st, 2010 | 9:50 am | #88

++

we are damned if we do, damned if we don’t..

we had better wake up & take sides..

fact is we cannot see the forest through the trees..

Islamists burn Churches, Bibles
& Christians around the Globe..

self defense & the turn the other cheek myth

There is a difference in giving up personal
revenge and confronting evil in self defense.

foreigners no longer come to assimilate themselves to the American way,
they come to demand that America not only assimilate to their way, but accommodate & assist them in their struggle to dominate US..

we must defend ourselves against evil, not assist
it by turning the other cheek against ourselves..

StrngernFiction
August 21st, 2010 | 10:32 am | #110

Granny and Andreas K, you’ve taken some real nice cuts on this thread. Here are some of the highlights for those who might have just tuned in:

Without the koran there wouldn’t have been 9-11. Yes, it’s that simple. – Andreas K

Why shouldn’t we burn it? Out of respect? Respect for what? Respect for a fascist ideology that hides behind the shield of religion? An ideology that, without this shield, would be banned right away in all civilized countries? – Andreas K

By the way. Faith and believe? That’s no argument against burning it. There were people who prayed to Hitler. Not for him. To him. There were people in Nazi Germany BELIEVING that Hitler was second coming of Jesus. It was their FAITH. – Andreas K

Something tells me that the heroes who did their little bit to end the abominations of Hitler have a much better welcome waiting them than those who wrung their hands & pretended not to see. – Granny

Pacifism works only if everyone’s a pacifist. -Andreas K

Not taking an action because you think it will give the muslims cause to complain virtually guarantees that you’ll be bowing to Mecca before you can spit. If they do not have “cause” to complain, they will find cause and if they cannot find it they will invent it as they have done innumerable times previously. If you don’t understand that, then you understand nothing at all. – Granny

Chip, this is not just about spreading the Gospel. This is about your right to even have a Gospel to spread. This is, in fact, a war. – Granny

There comes a time when you must not only pay lip service to what you believe, you must lay your property, your reputation and even your life on the line and fight for it. – Granny

Every single time that we as a society allow ourselves to be cowed & silenced we deny the very principles on which we were built. – Granny

bg
August 21st, 2010 | 10:35 am | #111

++

the enemy of civilization, as we have been repetitively warned by both anti-Islamist Muslims & non-Muslims in the know is Political Islam aka: Sharia Law… Islamism is a religious cult of POLITICS…

[Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in order to provide a Muslim American voice that would genuinely advocate and defend the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution. He has taken the fight against radical Islam to heart and sees it as a responsibility of all “true” Muslims. Where many U.S.-based Islamic organizations, such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, claim to support the U.S. Constitution but provide dodgy answers and shoddy excuses for terrorism when the rubber meets the road, Dr. Jasser’s AIFD is based on the founding principles of the United States. Where CAIR’s rhetoric tends to create a tension between Americans and its Muslim members, the rhetoric of Jasser and AIFD refers to Americans as an “us” and not a “them.”

“I have always looked upon myself, long before 9-11, as a Jeffersonian Muslim, if you will,” Dr. Jasser answers when asked about his identification as a Muslim. “Along with the ideas of liberty as embodied in the works of our founding fathers, naturally emanating from that is a deep antipathy for Islamism (political Islam), salafism, jihadism, governmental sharia, and the global collectivist movement of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Terms such as “moderate,” “secular,” and “radical” are innately controversial as any group is able to contort them to mean what they want. For example, Jasser posits, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being non-violent or anti-terrorism. But this is an oversimplification that blinds Americans to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the cogs and gears of terrorism.

“I know everyone is looking for an easy label to know the ‘good Muslim’ from the ‘bad Muslim,’” Jasser continues, “but … I believe that the ‘anti-Islamist’ or at least ‘non-Islamist’ Muslims are on our side and the pro-Islamist Muslims, those who believe in the Islamic state and governmental sharia, are not on our side but on the side of political Islam.”]

rtwt..

anti-Islamist Muslims have been reaching out, they have been, and still are warning US… unfortunately, the powers that be are not only silencing them, but for all intents & purposes, are in communion with Islamists against them…

UPDATE 22 AUG 2010: Great article by Doug Giles regarding feminist active smears of Sarah Palin — whose life is the epitome of feminist ideals — while they are silent on Islamic Shari’a Law, which is the absolute antithesis of feminist principles:

Nope, the fems’ fixation remains on Palin. Palin is the threat. Palin is the She Devil. Palin is the one who gets the nasty jabs — and not Islam and the potential spread of Sharia from sea to shining sea.

I know what you fembots are thinking: Sharia can’t happen here, right? Cha? Yes, we’d never allow Muslims to take us back to Bedrock legislatively. And I’m equally sure that’s what our snaggle-toothed feminist cousins in the UK thought right up until September 2008.

Facts be damned, however. For the feminists, the menacing foe they have to stave off remains Sarah and not Sharia.

Last time I checked, liberal lassies, Mrs. Palin does not believe that …

– Women are inferior to men.

– Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.

– Women count for one-half of a dude in giving evidence in a court of law.

– Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.

– Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.

– Women can’t say squat in regard to whom they’ll marry, what they’ll wear, where they’ll live, or whether or not they can divorce their cheating and/or abusive husband.

– Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.

– Women should be cool with hubby having a couple of hoochies or female slaves on the side.

– Women, on the pretext of “honor,” should be locked up, isolated and unable to have a girls’ night out at Mango’s on Ocean Drive.

Yep, last time I checked, Miss Sarah ain’t down with the above, but you know who is? I’ll tell you (because your lack of Ground Zero Mosque angst is auguring for the return to the cave man era): the Crapslinger Extraordinaire, Ground Zero’s grand zero, male chauvinist Imam Abtool Rauf.

Another great article today in the American Thinker by Sally Humhorth: Islam is the New Communism

Paul Hsieh wrote an excellent article about America’s weakness in regards to the war against terrorists. However, he claimed that the mosque is distracting us from the real issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I respectfully disagree. The real issue is that we are fighting a war with Islam. The mosque, rather than distracting America, has brought her full attention to it. [ … ]

This is has been a difficult road, because Americans are benevolent and naïve concerning Islam. They are used to freedom of religion and they find it hard to condemn one. And that is precisely the problem, Americans see Islam as only a religion. It is not just a religion, it is also a sophisticated, detailed political ideology with the expressed goal of taking over the entire world by any means at its disposal, even if it includes lying and killing. Americans need to think of it as a social/political ideology, but they are so used to separating religion from politics (which was a first at the time of our country’s founding) that they keep giving Islam the benefit of the doubt.

Frank Langan, site superintendent from Queens working at ground zero, says he is on the fence on the matter. When construction workers started to protest working on the mosque, he made a statement that is typical of people who are undecided about this issue, “It’s a tough debate. I sympathize with workers’ position, but at the same time, you can’t single out all Muslims because of a small number of terrorists.” That would be like saying, you can’t single out all Communists because of a small number of Communists. They are all Communists if they subscribe to the Communist ideology, and just like Communism has an ideology, so does Islam. Any Muslim who is truly innocent, must renounce Islam like other courageous Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan. Not to do so, means that he still considers us as the enemy and supports the downfall of the United States.

Separation of church and state is something we take for granted. Islam does not separate the two. And Islam is the new Communism.

The always excellent Andrew McCarthy has a great take on this issue as well, in his latest article (via BigPeace): Which Islam Will Prevail in America? — That is the real question at hand in the Ground Zero mosque debate.

The real battle for religious freedom lurks beneath the Ground Zero mosque controversy. It is sadly ironic that our public debate presents the mosque proponents as the partisans of liberty: That includes everyone from imam Feisal Rauf, the project’s sharia-touting sponsor, to President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and the rest of the Islamist-smitten Left, to the GOP’s own anti-anti-terrorist wing. Yet, wittingly or not, when they champion this mosque and its sponsors, it is the agenda of an alien and authoritarian Islam that they champion — an Islam against which many American Muslims chafe.

When it comes to liberty, no one in this society has been given a wider berth than the Islamists, the purveyors of this authoritarian Islam, which is the mainstream Islam of the Middle East. Their vise grip on the American Muslim community has been cinched for two decades by the government, the media, and the academy. For our post-American ruling class, “Islamic outreach” means prostituting themselves for Saudi largesse; it means putting the “moderate” label on the Muslim Brotherhood — the Saudi-backed saboteurs whose American operatives boldly promise to “eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within.”

The victims of this lethal charade include American Muslims. They, too, crave religious liberty and Western enlightenment. Our elites abandon them to the sharia-mongers. That freedom destroyers have been allowed to pose as freedom defenders ought to tell mosque opponents something: We have done a poor job of explaining the stakes.

[ … ] By contrast, American Muslims grasp that 9/11 was an attack on their country, too. Their emerging leaders, such as Zuhdi Jasser and Steven Schwartz, have started organizations — respectively, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the Center for Islamic Pluralism — that promote freedom and offer Muslims an escape from the Brotherhood’s clutches. As Messrs. Jasser and Schwartz relate, American Muslims understand the significance of Ground Zero to our nation, to the families of those who were slaughtered, and to the enemy against whom we are still fighting. They know that, in contrast to the innate intolerance of sharia states, the United States opens its arms to people of all faiths, including Muslims. Like Ms. Manji, they are struggling, against daunting opposition, to forge an Islam that embraces Western values, that reveres religious faith but denies it temporal authority.

The Ground Zero mosque controversy is not about religious liberty for Muslims. It is about which Islam will thrive in the United States: the one that is fighting Americans, or the one American Muslims are fighting for.

Advertisements

August 21, 2010 , 1:04PM - Posted by | Christianity, Dhimmitude, Ground Zero Mosque, Islam, Islamofascism, Muslims

8 Comments

  1. I think you’re making a lot of wrong generalizations here. You say: “Yet, no one dares to say anything even midly critical of Islam, despite the fact that every liberal claims that Islam is a “religion of peace”.

    Liberals (and many conservatives) are highly critical of many elements of many branches of Islam…from the violent extremists to those oppressive of women’s rights. Virtually all feminists (who would all be labeled by most people as “liberals”).

    Don’t make a strawman argument.

    Islam is complex. Liberals are complex. Conservatives are complex. People whose views disagree with yours deserve to be treated intelligently and with respect. The minute you stop respecting people just because they disagree with you, you start looking like a you-know-what.

    Comment by zorach | August 21, 2010 , 2:29PM

    • I know of no feminist movement against Islam’s oppression of women, subjugation of women, “honor killings” of women (which are happening here in Western nations as well as Muslim nations), etc.

      Feminist groups such as N.O.W. are highly vocal about abortion and ‘women in the workplace’ issues and sexual harrassment issues, etc. But they are silent when it comes to Islam, especially issues like male dominance over women in Islam, Islamic dress codes, lack of equal women’s rights in Islam, etc (ie, Islamic shari’a law). For liberals, their liberalism — and acceptance of Islam — takes precedence over their principles of feminism.

      Comment by Michael in MI | August 21, 2010 , 2:44PM

      • Let me give you some concrete examples. Phyllis Chesler is a women’s studies professor at CUNY, and a liberal feminist. She comes down particularly hard on the mistreatment of women under conservative Islam–especially in Afghanistan (she speaks from personal experience here too). An interview about her views and experience here; the Wikipedia page also has some relevant information.

        You mention N.O.W. I actually was active in a N.O.W. chapter at the University of Delaware when I was a graduate student there. N.O.W. takes a strong stance against the oppression of women under Sharia law…N.O.W.’s fact sheet re: Sharia law in Nigera. In their 2009 workshops they had a session called “Islamic Fundamentalism and Its Attacks on Women’s Rights”, focused on Afghanistan in particular, which had speakers from the Women’s Freedom Forum (which, if you check their site, also tackles issues in Iran), and the Feminist Majority Foundation. These are solidly liberal groups but they are taking strong stances and actions about women’s rights under Islamic Sharia law.

        I took a women’s rights course in undergrad as well. We talked at length about these issues. It is simply not true that liberal feminists accept the oppression of women in Islam. These groups are all very strongly opposed to it.

        Comment by zorach | August 21, 2010 , 4:30PM

  2. Also…

    “Liberals (and many conservatives) are highly critical of many elements of many branches of Islam… from the violent extremists to those oppressive of women’s rights.

    Wrong. Liberals are not highly critical of anything when it comes to Islam. They are, however, highly critical, demeaning and insulting to anything regarding Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism. The same disgust, criticism and offense is not given to anything regarding Islam.

    All one has to do is compare and contrast how the “entertainment” industry treats Islam compared to any other religion. Start with Comedy Central. Then look to the situation in New York at Ground Zero. The city is denying a church to be RE-built at Ground Zero, but completely behind the desire of a radical Islamist to build a mosque in the ashes of American dead, killed my Muslims.

    Plain and simple, Islam is a protected class.

    Comment by Michael in MI | August 21, 2010 , 2:50PM

    • I also challenge your claim that “liberals” are not necessarily critical of anything regarding Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism.

      The very notion of a liberal Christian disproves this. You may not personally believe that liberalism and Christianity are compatible (I don’t know whether or not you personally believe this or not) but it is impossible to deny that there are large numbers of self-identified Christian liberals, as well as liberal Jews. In fact, American Jews tend to be more liberal than conservative.

      As an example of liberal Christins, look at the United Church of Christ. The UCC has 1.1 million members, and their official position is highly liberal on a number of issues–they even officially support same-sex marriage. The UCC is large and diverse, and has many conservative members as well, but it’s impossible to deny that it is a predominately liberal denomination.

      The Christian faith in the U.S. spans the full range of political views. I am Christian and have attended churches of a number of denominations, including UCC, Episcopal, Baptist, and United Methodist. This diversity is even true of Baptists–there are Baptist churches that accept gay marriage (I attended one such church), and an even larger group of Baptist churches (including ones that are conservative on other issues) that are strongly peace activists: the Baptist Peace Fellowship.

      Stereotyping does not get us anywhere. More of my friends are liberal than conservative, and I speak out when they incorrectly characterize conservatives. For proof, read my post on Sustainability: building a consensus between liberals and conservatives in which I come down hard on liberals for (incorrectly) characterizing conservatives as anti-sustainability and (absurdly) claiming that liberalism represents the only legitimate approach to protect the environment. Now I’m calling you out for incorrectly characterizing liberals.

      The world is complex. If we want to solve the world’s problems, we need to see the world the way it really is. The first step in this is refraining from inaccurate characterizations and sweeping generalizations about groups of people. You wouldn’t like it if someone pigeonholed you–so don’t do it to others.

      Comment by zorach | August 21, 2010 , 4:44PM

      • Where did I claim that liberals were NOT critical of Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism? My main point is that liberals do nothing but criticize, ridicule, mock and smear those religions on a regular basis in every medium of information dissemination — from the print media to TV media to movies to TV shows to music to politicians. The main criticisms have to do with these religions’ stances on prohibiting the redefinition of marriage, abortion and promiscuous sex.

        “You may not personally believe that liberalism and Christianity are compatible (I don’t know whether or not you personally believe this or not) but it is impossible to deny that there are large numbers of self-identified Christian liberals, as well as liberal Jews. In fact, American Jews tend to be more liberal than conservative.”

        This proves my point. For liberals, their liberalism takes precedence over their religion. For example, a friend of mine has a sister-in-law who is Catholic, yet supports abortion, pre-marital sex and redefining marriage. She supports stances that are in complete opposition to the Catholic Church and its doctrine and teachings. Yet, she still calls herself Catholic. The fact is, she is not a “liberal Catholic”, she is simply a liberal who attends Catholic mass. But she is in no way a Catholic. If one doesn’t follow Catholic doctrine, one is not a Catholic, plain and simple.

        The same goes for “liberal Jews” and other “liberal Christians”. If one’s liberalism trumps their religion, then they in good conscience should not consider themselves a part of that religion. Religion is not about picking and choosing which rules one wants to follow. That is why there are different branches of religions. If one religion is too strict for one’s beliefs, then the person is free to leave that religion (unless they’re a Muslim) and choose another one which better fits their beliefs.

        Comment by Michael in MI | August 21, 2010 , 5:32PM

  3. Oops, sorry, my wording got muddled. (I’m a bit tired when responding to these as blogging and discussion is not my main job).

    You said that: “Liberals are not highly critical of anything when it comes to Islam. They are, however, highly critical, demeaning and insulting to anything regarding Christianity, Judaism and Mormonism.”

    I meant to give examples that liberals are not necessarily critical of things in these religions as they are actually often members of these religions.

    You said: “For liberals, their liberalism takes precedence over their religion.”

    Is this really necessarily any more true of liberals than conservatives?

    The core tenents of most religions are neither “liberal” nor “conservative”–especially not as these terms are narrowly defined in the context of the American political debate. The core tenet of Christianity is Jesus’s gift of His own life for the forgiveness of sins, and the message and commandment to love God and love all people. If someone does not believe this, then, in my humble opinion, they are not Christian (some “fringe” Christians will disagree).

    This is pretty broad, I can see someone being very conservative, very liberal, or anywhere in the moderate realm, and still identifying as Christian.

    As an example, liberals tend to see a broader role for government and they tend to want to support progressive taxation. A (politically) liberal Christian might feel passionate about progressive taxation and social welfare programs because of their love for all people–including the poor. They may see the poor as having fewer resources, fewer choices, and a harder life, so they support progressive taxation as an expression of their beliefs. A (political) conservative Christian might have differing views on taxation and government…they may believe that a better way to express love for all people is to create incentives for people to work hard and become self-sufficient, and thus they might support a setup with lower across-the-board taxes and smaller government. The liberal and conservative could legitimately argue with each other–but both could be sincere in their Christian faith.

    But I want to point out that it is also true that both liberalism and conservatism can trump a person’s faith, Christian or otherwise. Many liberal Christians believe that the Iraq war was an example of this–as virtually all mainstream denominations came out in opposition to the war. See Iraq war ‘unjustifiable’, says Bush’s church head (2002).

    Ahh I must go…I will return later.

    Comment by zorach | August 21, 2010 , 7:05PM

    • My point is that you can find examples of both liberals and conservatives letting their political views trump their faith.

      Conservatives and liberals have legitimate ideological differences. But I think it’s important to hold everyone to the same standard.

      Is George W. Bush not a Methodist, because he went ahead with the Iraq war when the head of his church (and a number of other other churches as well) came out very strongly in opposition to it? He said, quote: “Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies ‘war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing.” Is Bush he picking and choosing, in the same way as Catholics who pick and choose views on abortion?

      Both liberals and conservatives do this.

      If these people are to be criticized, they need to be criticized from a neutral standpoint. Make sure you are not “picking and choosing” whom you are criticizing.

      Comment by zorach | August 21, 2010 , 7:09PM


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: