 |
| "Pure Religion, and undefiled," as practiced by an infidel: The Good Samaritan. |
As violence raged through Gaza, Esther Najjar feared that her family -- which included two young girls -- would be the next target of the mob that had just firebombed the local Catholic church.
Riled up through the expert ministrations of professional agitators, the mob of Palestinian Muslims assaulted several Christian houses of worship in protest of papal remarks taken as an affront to those who revere Mohammed. Esther, like many other members of Gaza's embattled Christian minority, was all but helpless. If not for the intervention of their neighbors, she and her daughters may well have been massacred.
"I was afraid," Esther later told a wire service reporter. "First they attacked the church, and then there was that protest against the pope.... Some of the protesters tried to come down this street, and we were terrified they'd attack the houses. But our Muslim neighbors stopped the protesters." (Emphasis added.)
Those who acted to defend the rights of Esther and her children didn't see them as adherents of an "infidel" religion -- one they might regard as the fighting faith of their political enemies. Instead, they saw those Christian Palestinians as neighbors threatened by criminal violence.
Incomprehensible as it may seem to those whose bearings on reality are defined by Fox News and GOP-aligned talk radio, the government of the Palestinian Authority -- which, thanks to the Bush administration's intervention, was controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization created from the CIA-backed Muslim Brotherhood with the help of Israeli intelligence -- didn't exploit the controversy to call for a pogrom against the Christian minority.
In fact, Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian Prime Minister at the time, did exactly the opposite, admonishing his fellow citizens to rally in defense of the besieged minority: "All Palestinian citizens must prevent all harm to all Christian churches on Palestinian land. Our Christian brothers are citizens of Palestine. They are Palestinians."
 |
| An unlikely Samaritan: Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. |
But there is nothing hypothetical about the neighborly virtue displayed by the Muslims who protected Esther Najjar's family in Gaza four years ago, or about Haniyeh's commendable call for righteous interposition on behalf of Palestinian Christians.
Haniyeh's actions were all the more remarkable, given that (not to put too fine a point on the matter) there is little in Hamas's ideology or established tactics that can be reconciled with the Sermon on the Mount.
Americans who profess to follow the One who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan should soberly consider this question: Can we display toward our Muslim neighbors the same kind of Christian love that was extended -- at least on that one occasion -- by Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas?
On the available evidence it would appear that a large portion of America's Christian population, in dealing with our nation's tiny and largely powerless Muslim minority, falls short of what we could call the Haniyeh Standard -- that is, recognizing them as fellow Americans and preventing harm to their houses of worship. In fact, many Christians consider it their neighborly duty to rescue American Muslims from religious error by relieving them of their burdensome individual rights.
Thus it is that Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, perhaps the most influential Religious Right organization, demands that the government forbid the construction of any new mosques anywhere in the United States. Although he's studiously coy about the matter, Fischer clearly would prefer to see the demolition of every existing mosque as well, since he considers them to be "improvised explosive devices" rather than actual houses of worship.
"If a mosque was [sic] willing to publicly renounce the Koran and its 109 verses that call for the death of infidels, renounce Allah and his messenger Mohammed, publicly condemn Osama bin Laden [and] Hamas ... maybe then they could be allowed to build their buildings," sniffs Fischer. "But then they wouldn't be Muslims at that point, would they?"
Fischer apparently believes that the only right Muslims possess is the right to refudiate their rights (as St. Sarah might put it).
What Fischer insinuates, Peter J. Johnson states with admirable candor. Johnson, a legal analyst for Fox News, is the living incarnation of Ellsworth Toohey, a columnist from Ayn Rand's definitive novel The Fountainhead who serves as the fictional embodiment of collectivism.
 |
| Collectivism incarnate: Fox News legal analyst Johnson. |
"We are proud that we are one of the few countries in the world which allows the free exercise of religion," mewled Johnson. Of course, this was merely a prelude to the inevitable qualifying conjunction -- "but" -- that nullifies everything coming before it: "... but when we resort to legalisms instead of common sense, or compassion, when we invoke our First Amendment as a sword, not a shield, it means we have lost sight of and broken faith with our national identity and strength."
In a fashion that would have caused a knowing smile to crease Toohey's overfed face, Johnson thus defined an unqualified assertion of individual liberty as a form of aggression against the collective. He then asserted that sacrifice of one's individual rights is "the essential principle of our nation's endurance": "When it comes to our national interest, we are neither Christians, nor Jews, nor Muslims; we are Americans first, who make sacrifices for each other."
There is nothing essentially "American" about that formulation; in fact, it could very easily be transposed into the idiom of Soviet propaganda during Stalin's "Great Patriotic War": "When it comes to our national interest, we are neither Christians, nor Jews, nor Muslims; we are Soviet citizens first, who make sacrifices for each other."
What distinguishes the American ideal from any variety of nationalist collectivism is the sanctity of individual rights, not the supposed virtue of self-sacrifice in the service of the putative common good. Johnson, however, is firmly committed to the Soviet perspective.
"Why has the notion of `we' been replaced by `me'?" whines Johnson, who -- borrowing a riff from Big Brother's "Two Minute Hate" -- goes on to offer a tortured insinuation that the Park51 community center would have some connection to "our implacable enemy, the nation of Iran." (Note that he indicts the "nation," not the government ruling that country.)
The only way that those seeking to build the Park51 facility can behave as "neighbors becoming good neighbors," according to Johnson, is to surrender their rights.
"Any American can assert a right," Johnson concludes. "Great Americans give up their rights to help those they share nothing else with but a love of this country."
Like Rand's literary creation Ellsworth Toohey, Johnson appears to have made a deliberate choice to evangelize on behalf of collectivism in terms calculated to appeal to the basest impulses of the mob. After all, if "sacrifice" is a virtue, why doesn't Johnson urge critics of the Cordoba House to offer their hurt feelings as a sacrifice in the defense of individual rights?The logical answer is that Johnson is paid to promote statist militarism, not individual liberty -- and do so in a nearly pitch-perfect imitation of Toohey.
"Look back at history," commented Toohey in The Fountainhead. "Look at any great system of ethics. Didn't they all preach the sacrifice of personal joy? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven't they all had a single leitmotif -- sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial? Haven't you been able to catch their theme song -- give up, give up, give up? Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men."
In the parable taught by Jesus, the Good Samaritan exposed himself to risk by ministering to the victim of mob violence; he likewise used his own funds to obtain lodging and treatment for his wounded neighbor. This was compassionate charity. It was not the collectivist counterfeit called "altruism." The Samaritan's generosity didn't involve a renunciation of his own individual rights and fundamental worth; rather, they were carried out in harmony with the Great Commandment to love one's neighbor "as himself."
Ayn Rand may have had a similar distinction in mind when she warned: "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction --- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good."
Some might insist that Rand would be offended by the suggestion that her individualist ethics can be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I suspect that Rand would take much greater offense over the fact that her supposed "intellectual heir," Leonard Peikoff, is up to his wattled neck in subjectivist heresy regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque." In his comments about the contrived controversy, Peikoff has asserted the primacy of hurt feelings over the principle of property rights -- to the point of suggesting that in the event the facility is actually built it should be destroyed in an act of state terrorism.
Rand's description of altruism as metaphorical self-immolation is uniquely appropriate to this discussion.
Peter J. Johnson Jr. Esq. didn't urge Imam Rauf and the others behind the Cordoba Initiative to strap on dynamite vests and blow themselves to a bloody mist, in the fashion of "martyrs" deployed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, his formula for self-sacrificing "patriotism" -- "great Americans give up their rights" -- is close kindred to the exhortations used by schismatic Muslim clerics to recruit suicide bombers.
Whatever else can be said about the teachings and practice of Islam, this much should be understood: The evil practice of murder-suicide bombing has been condemned by traditionalist Islamic clerics as an apostate innovation of recent vintage that is incompatible with Koranic teachings condemning suicide and assaults on innocent non-combatants. This reflects the fact that terrorists and those who support them account for a tiny percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.
By way of contrast, most conservative American Christians support unending military aggression against the Muslim world, including the use of tactics (such as bombing civilian population centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the imposition of murderous blockades against Iraq and Gaza) that can only be described as state-sponsored terrorism against the innocent.
Muslim extremists are the ones who countenance criminal violence against the innocent -- whether they're "infidel" Christians and Jews, or Muslims perceived to be apostates. The marginalized "extremists" among American Christians are those of us who see American Muslims as our neighbors, and oppose criminal aggression against the rights of Muslims living abroad.
(Note: The final paragraph was slightly expanded from the original version. Also, the fifth paragraph has been expanded with additional details regarding the origins of the Hamas terrorist organization. )
A personal note
It has been roughly one year since my near-death experience and, coincidentally, the end of my most recent long-term freelance writing gig. Since that time, this blog has been my family's only consistent source of income. Thank you so much for your kindness and generosity.
There is a very good chance that in this coming week I will be starting a new part-time editorial position that will provide a consistent, if modest, income. This is a timely and most welcome development.
In recent weeks I've been working at various part-time jobs as they have become available, and not merely as a writer or editor: I recently spent a Saturday morning collecting, and disposing of, canine digestive residue -- something I was eager to do, because there was a paycheck involved.
Even in better times it is a challenge to provide for a family of eight, even when the sole breadwinner has a steady job. Even in better economic circumstances my employment options would be limited on account of Korrin's difficulties: My wonderful wife is a diagnosed schizophrenic who often simply cannot function as a mother. This helps explain the occasional irregularity of my output here at Pro Libertate.
Assuming that everything falls into place, my new job will relieve some of the pressure -- but we've reached a point in our household finances where the bucket is bringing up sand from the bottom of the well.
Korrin is receiving assistance for her medical needs (a decision that was taken from me the first time she was hospitalized in 2006), but I have refused to make a hypocrite of myself by accepting food stamps or other forms of government "welfare."
Where I can offer charity, I eagerly do so; when it is offered to my family, I thankfully accept it. But as far as I have any say in the matter, I will not knowingly receive stolen property. My family and I will be profoundly grateful for any help any of you can offer us to get through the coming month. Thanks again, and God bless you always.
Dum spiro, pugno!
51 comments:
Step up, guys: our brother William Grigg, who has fought hard for your freedom, (unlike people who were sent overseas by the gunverment to kill brown people 4,000 miles away) could use a little help. You come here and read his stuff, and though he does it voluntarily, you do benefit. He's not a government, he won't force you to pay him. So do the right thing and help him out. The Paypal box makes it so you can use your credit card, if you don't have a PayPal account. Takes a minute, tops, and I think his stuff is worth it.
Dear Mr. Grigg -
I find myself in rare disagreement with you over this post. FYI, I am not a supporter of American aggression against Islamic states, by any stretch.
The story you cite is a wonderful anecdote of human decency on the part of Muslims, but it is far outweighed by the hundreds of anecdotes of human depravity carried out by people of that same "faith"...
It would be naive to expect such things to happen often, or to lower our guard against the assault against the West by radical Islam.
I cannot find any affront against the First Amendment in denying permission to build the "ground zero" mosque - after all, the First Amendment is there to prevent the very oppression that results wherever Islam gains a foothold. If Islam were merely another religion, there would be no controversy. You know well that Islam is not merely another religion - it is, first and foremost, a violently oppressive system of government, thoroughly inimical to our own. Our laws, to be considered even remotely moral, must protect us from such things, not embrace them.
I welcome your thoughts...
fireplace guy, I appreciate the respectful fashion in which you've expressed your disagreement.
The Constitution, whatever its other weaknesses, doesn't authorize government action pf any kind against any system of belief. As Jefferson might put it, government's legitimate role is to deal with those who pick pockets and break legs, not to punish those who believe in the wrong god or no god at all.
Individual Muslims who commit crimes of violence or fraud are subject to the same sanctions the rest of us would face in similar circumstances. And individual Muslims who practice their religion peacefully (that is, nearly all of them) and honor the rights of others enjoy the same legal protections as the rest of us.
This principle must apply to Muslims -- or it applies to nobody at all.
Edmund Burke once commented that he found it difficult to draw up an indictment against an entire nation. I find myself similarly incapable of indicting 1.5 billion people who adhere to the Muslim religion.
We have immeasurably more to fear from the lawlessness of the government ruling us than from the ambitions of marginalized Muslim fundamentalists -- the worst of whom, let us not forget, have been recruited, equipped, and sustained by the same government that supposedly protects us from them.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/346/why-is-america-hated-in-the-middle-east
fireplace guy,
how many times have you read the Qur'an cover to cover?
0.
I thought so.
This is typical fox crap christian zionist BS. Did the fAKE aMERICAN cHRISTIANS, WHO ARE BLOOD THIRSTY SUPPORTERS OF THE ZIONIST APARTHEID STATE WHICH INCORRECTLY CALLS ITSELF ISRAEL, defend even the Palestinian Christians being murdered by the jews in occupied Palestine? No.
These fake Christians would sacrifice their own infant children to the god Molech known as modern 'israel'.
I can guarantee you that this guy who is calling on Moslems to show their goodness by suicide, would never even think, let alone utter, to demand the same of jews. Remember the attack on the USS Liberty? Most Americans have never heard of it.
Whenever I see any attacks on anyone, especially Muslims, I want to know who is behind it and who stands to benefit fron it. In my experience it is always jews.
Jews manage to bribe or blackmail many Gentiles in being their Golem, which is exactky what the West has become for the jews.
I doubt very much that this comment will be posted.
At least the owner of this blog will have proved himself by his choice: 'fear Christ, or fear pharisees'.
The AFA bit about forbidding the building of mosques would be laughable if it weren't so "cryable". I wonder how the AFA, Focus on the Family, the ACLJ, etc. would react if the ACLU were to demand a moratorium on building churches.
Thank you for your reply. I agree with every point you made in your response, but my unease remains...
I understand, as you observed, that "the Constitution, whatever its other weaknesses, doesn't authorize government action of any kind against any system of belief." Agreed. In fact, I would say that it is written to preclude such actions. However, I remain stuck in the belief that Islam is much more a system of government than a religious belief system. Constitutionally, there is no issue with acting against hostile governments, which is to at least some degree what we face in this situation.
Also, there is little discernible civility or tolerance in the practice of Islam, anywhere in the world. See other mosques in NYC, where worshipers who don't fit inside the building simply lay prayer rugs in the streets - blocking traffic for hours at a time.
This is anecdotal, of course, but as I said earlier there are enough of these anecdotes to cause grave concern. If Islam is, as I suspect, utterly hostile to my faith and way of life, then it is a profound error to allow it to take root here.
I don't necessarily hold the radical Muslims up as the scapegoat for 9/11 and all terrorism, but there is no doubt that they play a significant role in our oppression. Whether that role is played as puppets or free agents is irrelevant to me - we are still oppressed.
I understand full well that this is a problem we have inflamed, and that the greatest threat at this point (and at any other point in my 51 years) was/is our own government.
That understanding does nothing to reassure me that this will work out OK, and in fact I wonder to what extent our government is behind this mosque mess. Clearly, there is at least some preferential treatment for the Muslims over the Greek Orthodox folks who have tried for years to get permission to rebuild their church. Why is that?
Could this be the prelude to a false flag "terrorist" attack that results in a further theft of our liberty and serves as a pretext for a broader war??
Still more questions than answers...
FPG
Could this be the prelude to a false flag "terrorist" attack that results in a further theft of our liberty and serves as a pretext for a broader war??
I'm so cynical that I would be surprised if this weren't the case. That's not to say that Abdel-Rauf is a conscious player in a scheme of that kind (a possibility I'm willing to entertain), but rather that this is the use to which this controversy is being put.
Hey bro. TOTALLY in agreement with you about protecting religious liberty, including MUSLIM religious liberty. Totally on board with you when you warn againts totalitarian ideas flying the flag of nationalism.
However, even though the Muslims have every right to build the Ground Zero Mosque, that begs the real question. The real question is...SHOULD they? Or, in doing so, are they displaying the WORST kind of cultural insensitivity?
Also, I remain unconvinced of the purity of their motives. I mean, let's take a page from history here. When they conquered Constantinople, they destroyed Saint Sophia's to build a mosque on the site. When they gained control of Jerusalem, where did they build a mosque? On the site of ancient Israel's holy of holies, The Temple Mount. And there are numerous other examples. It seems that this kind of thing has often been used as a symbol of Muslim triumphalism. Like pissing on someone's grave. Not sure I dig that too much. Kind of makes me wanna smack someone...hard.
Hey, Hoosierdaddy -- I love your nom de cyber. I used to play your Toby Keith-composed theme song in a bar band back in Wisconsin. :-)
The Cordoba House isn't going to be built on or anywhere near Ground Zero, so I don't think the idea of a "victory mosque" applies here.
Furthermore, is Ground Zero a shrine in any way comparable to the Temple Mount or St. Sophia's? If so, our official religion is embittered nationalism.
I can't address the unspoken motives of Imam Abdel-Rauf or anybody else. He has repeatedly and explicitly denounced Islamic terrorism; even more remarkably, he has pointedly recognized Israel's right to exist.
Addressing the funeral of Daniel Pearl (the American Jewish reporter who was brutally slaughtered by terrorists in Pakistan), Imam Rauf actually uttered the words "I am a Jew" -- in the sense that he believes in the God of Abraham, the mission of Moses, and the commandment from the Torah to love God and his fellow man.
While not supporting religious syncretism, I have to ask: Is this the behavior of a stealth jihadi?
On the subject of actual desecration it's worth pointing out that the U.S.-subsidized government afflicting Israel is building a "Museum of Tolerance" literally on top a very old Muslim cemetery --
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/08/shameful.html
People who act in packs -- tribes, gangs, nations -- often commit arrogant acts of vindictive triumphalism. That's not a distinctly Muslim trait; it reflects impulses to which all of us can succumb.
Think of the treatment inflicted on conquered Indian communities -- the obscene war trophies made from the genitalia of defenseless men and women slaughtered in the Sand Creek Massacre, for instance. Or think of the ATF planting its agency banner in the smoldering remains of Mt. Carmel as people responsible for that atrocity posed for photographs.
We can only guess at the motives of others. This controversy is no exception to the rule that we should focus on what people do, rather than presuming that we have some privileged insight into their hidden intentions.
Will –
Like fireplaceguy, I too, have my problems with this.
First, it IS being built near ground zero. It is 2 blocks – 600 feet – away. See these two pictures.
http://inewp.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ch_map1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zm6JXvXXze4/TGgAJacKGQI/AAAAAAAAMuk/eN77T7O33H4/s1600/GroundZeroMosquelocation.jpg
And while you correctly state we cannot know the motives of Imam Abdel-Rauf or anyone else, I tend to believe this is an "in your face" tactic, and since lying is a tactic that Muslims use against us "infidels" (the same way Jehovah's Witnesses or cops are trained to lie), I have no reason to believe anything they say about this.
There are many factors here (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property rights, our foreign policy, etc.), but it's late, and it will have to wait until tomorrow or the next day. In the meantime, I'd like your opinion of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4
I think I basically agree with him (except for what he says about Islam actually being a political movement hiding behind the term "religion," and about Muslims hating our freedom) regarding why they are building it and where.
I also know this guy is a vehement atheist and hates Christianity as much as he does Islam, but I think he does happen to be right on this issue – it's kind of like how Keith Olbermann is wrong about everything but he got it right about the Iraq invasion. So let us know what you think of his comments.
LLAP
Mr. Spock, as always I value your opinions.
Mr. Condell begins his presentation about Islam by offering several serious mis-statements of fact.
The first -- as you, Mr. Spock, have been known to say -- is an "exaggeration" that amounts to a lie: He says that the Islamic center would be built "a few yards" from ground zero, as if it were the proverbial stone's throw from the crime scene. That's obviously not true, and it's difficult to dismiss this opening sortie as mere hyperbole. As a friend of ours once said, "A lie is a poor way to say `hello.'"
He compounds that relatively minor misstatement by ranting about the insult to the memory of the 9/11 victims that would occur were "the religion that murdered them [be] allowed to built a towering triumphalist mosque on the ground where they died."
The first problem here -- as you, the most logical biped I know, would recognize -- is the "fallacy of composition," which in this instance is used to impute collective guilt to every Muslim -- living, dead, or yet to be conceived -- for the criminal acts that took place on 9/11. Presumably this would include the Muslim victims of that atrocity as well. In what sense is this logical, or morally defensible?
The second problem here is that Condell has now rhetorically relocated the "mosque" so that it would be built on the very spot where the victims died. This is manifestly untrue -- but Condell's on a demagogic roll, so facts are no longer important to him.
More to come...
Mr. Condell makes reference to his unease ("it really makes me sick") over the notion that "Islam is going to be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero."
In fact, there were -- once again -- Muslims murdered at that site on Black Tuesday; there is also a mosque nearby that has held worship services for decades.
This statement, which occurs near the beginning, is a specimen of the fallacy of distraction. So his presentation is already front-loaded with fallacies -- and it gets worse from there.
Condell insists that Islam uniformly rejects "despises what America is, it rejects everything that America stands for, including freedom and diversity -- and any Muslim who denies that is a liar." That last statement, incidentally, is a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy; this guy seems determined to run the table of logical errors.
In any case, that characterization is overbroad to the point of bigotry. It is manifestly untrue of Imam Abdel-Rauf. Whatever else can be said about him, he has a long, detailed, and verifiable public career promoting precisely those values.
I don't want to elevate him to the status of paragon ("I've never met a paragon"); I'm suspicious of anyone wired into the Power Elite and friendly with the FBI.
But Rauf has pursued a career devoted to pluralism and peaceful dialogue. He's also a member of the Sufist sect within Islam, which emphasizes introspective mysticism, rather than political activism.
Yet more to come....
At 4:01 into his harangue, Condell uncorks a very potent false analogy that pivots on the meaning of "Cordoba House": Condell refers to the great mosque built in that medieval Spanish city as a symbol of Muslim conquest, and he claims "the Cordoba House is intended to serve the same purpose in America."
For Roddenberry's sake, Mr. Spock -- are we really in a position akin to that of medieval Spain following the Saracen conquest?
Muslims are a tiny minority in this country; practically the only growth that religion enjoys is a result of prison conversions (a side benefit of the War on Drugs) or through relocation of refugees from Muslim countries as a result of our insane interventionist foreign policy. We're not living under the shadow of the Crescent nor will we anytime in the foreseeable future.
For an atheist, Mr. Condell certainly emphasizes the "evidence of things not seen" -- in this case, things that just simply aren't there, or thoughts that remain unspoken but are somehow known to him. He's a substandard rhetorician and a tragically inept logician, but he would make a superb Inquisitor.
What I find mysterious is that no one in these comments so far has asked: Why do so many people accept the official version of the 9/11 events at face value, despite its mile-wide gaping holes and the feds' blatant refusal to fully disclose all known facts surrounding the attacks? Why do people just automatically assume that it was in fact "Muslim terrists" who committed the attacks against the WTC, rather than federal/Israeli agents provocateurs (despite the lack of any conclusive forensic evidence that the "nasty nineteen" actually perished on board any of the airliners)? I would have thought that anyone who is a regular reader of this blog, of all people, would know better than to swallow at face value such "facts" as issued by agencies of the State or their kept media.
You may find this of interest: Fox News co-owner funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0821/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/
DixieDog, please forgive me: I mistakenly deleted your comment (I was working the computer with one hand while trying to grab a bite of lunch with the other).
Here's the text:
dixiedog has left a new comment on your post "Is the Muslim My Neighbor?":
I can't address the unspoken motives of Imam Abdel-Rauf or anybody else. He has repeatedly and explicitly denounced Islamic terrorism; even more remarkably, he has pointedly recognized Israel's right to exist.
Do you honestly believe he really means all that and would not be in the crosshairs of so-called "Islamists?" BTW, is that makeshift term supposed to distinguish b/w a real Muslim and a fake? Anyhow, You certainly can examine in detail (like your intense investigations of Amis you've detailed in your past pieces) the deeds he's done or is involved in, his background, ideology, philosophy, etc. Of course one shouldn't judge anothers character by mere words, yet you seem to be doing exactly that with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Mouths are like dungholes, crap oozes forth from both. Also, it might help to clear away any of the fog and see the genuine Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by juxtaposing his Arabic utterances to his naturally more genteel English versions (for Ami consumption) and see if there's congruence. Just a thought.
Anyway, my cynicism runs deeper and much wider (e.g. way beyond grand abstractions like "government") than yours obviously. A history of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Yes, I know its a blog, like yours, but who can you believe these days is telling the truth in reporting so-called "facts?" Take this piece as with all well sourced pieces for what one thinks they're worth, I reckon. I guess this is precisely why I attempt to understand someone's drive, background, who he/she partners with (guilt by association? NO! A simple association is not necessarily a damned partnership) for doing something, anything and thereby make a determination of whether I can believe that their interpretation of the "facts" is an accurate one. As I've heard more than I care to in recent memory, "The science [history] doesn't lie!" True, but any given damned humanoid "expert" supposedly interpreting it for us "mere" mundanes certainly can and does, or at the very least will embellish or equivocate. Ergo, agenda, personal bias, ideology, philosophy that the person(s) in question subscribe to are all important metrics, even though some of those attributes are very difficult or sometimes impossible to ascertain sufficiently, yes.
[No problem, Will, but since that text you posted anyway leaves out the link and my emphases, could you please post this new one and delete the former up there? TIA]
I can't address the unspoken motives of Imam Abdel-Rauf or anybody else. He has repeatedly and explicitly denounced Islamic terrorism; even more remarkably, he has pointedly recognized Israel's right to exist.
Do you honestly believe he really means all that and would not be in the crosshairs of so-called "Islamists?" BTW, is that term supposed to distinguish b/w real Muslims and fakes? Anyhow, you certainly can examine in detail (like your intense investigations of Amis you've detailed in your past pieces) the deeds he's done or is involved in, his background, ideology, philosophy, etc. Of course one shouldn't judge anothers character by mere words, yet you seem to be doing exactly that with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Mouths are like dungholes, crap oozes forth from both. Also, it might help to clear away any of the fog and see the genuine Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by juxtaposing his Arabic utterances to his naturally more genteel English versions (for Ami consumption) and see if there's congruence. Just a thought.
Anyway, my cynicism runs deeper and much wider (e.g. way beyond grand abstractions like "government") than yours obviously. A history of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Yes, I know its a blog, like yours, but who can you believe these days is telling the truth in reporting so-called "facts?" Take this piece as with all well sourced pieces for what one thinks they're worth, I reckon. I guess this is precisely why I attempt to understand someone's drive, background, who he/she partners with (guilt by association? NO! A simple association is not necessarily a damned partnership) for doing something, anything and thereby make a determination of whether I can believe that their interpretation of the "facts" is an accurate one. As I've heard more than I care to in recent memory, "The science [history] doesn't lie!" True, but any given damned humanoid "expert" supposedly interpreting it for us "mere" mundanes certainly can and does, or at the very least will embellish or equivocate. Ergo, agenda, personal bias, ideology, philosophy that the person(s) in question subscribe to are all important metrics, even though some of those attributes are very difficult or sometimes impossible to ascertain sufficiently, yes.
"Do you honestly believe he [Imam Rauf] really means all that and would not be in the crosshairs of so-called `Islamists?'"
One interesting aspect of Rauf's background is the fact that his mother and father were kidnapped -- twice -- by Muslims who took offense over the elder Rauf's outreach to "infidels." I think that fact was omitted in the Pajamas Media overview.
The author does mention that Rauf's Egyptian father was "a contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana," which means ... well, what, exactly? I'm a contemporary of Barack Obama; does that mean I'm his disciple?
The supposed "firebrand interview" Rauf gave in Australia consisted of a foreign policy critique indistinguishable from those offered by the likes of Michael Scheurer (who headed the CIA's analytical unit devoted to Islamic radicalism) and Ron Paul.
Rauf has multiple connections with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given Washington's efforts to promote and sustain that group, they're a little hard to avoid. And this underscores one of my chief concerns about Rauf's associations, which I've previously pointed out -- his chumminess with the FBI and his coziness with Power Elite groups (Aspen Institute, CFR, etc.).
liberranter, this may sound odd but I tend to take it on faith that most people at least know that the official conspiracy theory re: 9/11, is so full of holes you could fly a 757 through it. Whenever I come across someone who still believes that idiotic story of cave-dwelling, freedom hating Muslims knocking down 3 skyscrapers with two airplanes, and I still do from time to time, it's like meeting someone who still believes the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Even the most cursory research will show enough to prove that the whole thing is a big fat lie. I suppose the ability to follow the money has been lost. There is a country in the M.E. that hates our freedom and has infiltrated our govt. to the point that they have been able to erase much of it in a relatively short amount of time. Funny thing is, they aren't Muslim, just a look at the names will tell you all you need to know. Who did 9/11? Cui Bono? It's not rocket science.
There is a country in the M.E. that hates our freedom and has infiltrated our govt. to the point that they have been able to erase much of it in a relatively short amount of time. Funny thing is, they aren't Muslim, just a look at the names will tell you all you need to know. Who did 9/11? Cui Bono? It's not rocket science.
It might as well be rocket science to the proletardiat that laps up the propaganda, as if it were mother's milk, urinated by the same organs (owned/controlled by the same "Middle Eastern" people you mention) that issued the "official" version of "facts" surrounding 9/11.
Once again, what I find so disappointing is reading responses to Will's article here, the province of intelligent people who normally see right through the state-corporatist-Zionist BS surrounding 9/11, responses that mirror the panic-driven "them-thar-Muslims-hated-us-for-our-freedoms-and-tried-to-kill-us-all-and-enslave-us" mindlessness that is characteristic of the Faux News and National Refuse crowd who are incapable of critical thought. Really, Will's regular readers should know better.
Whenever the "media", or politicians for that matter, in this country foam at the mouth about anything then I know it's a LIE. Conversely when they ignore or pooh pooh something then I feel it's worth investigating and probably is the truth.
I could not say this any better than David Franke on LewRockwell.com:
"Over the decades, I have seen as many stupid issues grab the spotlight as there are repugnant politicians willing to capitalize on them for perceived political gain – from flag burning to, well, the World Trade Center "mosque." These "patriotic" and "social" issues have had one continuous effect – to divert voter anger and activity away from the biggest scandal of the past 60 years.
"That scandal is the systematic looting and destruction of the American Republic and economy by the globalist elites that have risen to power over the past 60 years or more. This destruction incorporates issues such as national sovereignty, the military-industrial complex, perpetual war, an unsustainable welfare state, "entitlements," the Federal Reserve, mercantilist trade pacts disguised as "free trade," and much more."
Being a Jew, of course, he never mentions that particular word in his otherwise excellent essay. Neither do most of the commentators above here. Instead we tiptoe around the word, calling them "people from the M.E." or some such euphemism. Why are we afraid? And of what exactly? Is it that THEY are so powerful they can destroy the lives of anyone who even points out their existence much less theri vile crimes? Well, yes, actually.
Tell me, why is there such a cacophony of cackling in America about Hamas and Hezbollah, and nary a word about Lashkar-e-Taibi or any of the 40 other terrorist organizations operating in Pakistan?
That's because America is run from top to bottom in every sphere by Jews whose primary loyalty is to the Zionist entity Israel, guilty of worse crimes against humanity than their nemesis Hitler or their stuff-of-nightmares Hamas and Hezbollah.
Which death is worse for an innocent civilan, woman or child - being blown to fragments by a satchel bomb in a restaurant or being burnt through the bones into the inner organs by a white phosphorous warhead fired from an American-gifted Apache helicopter? At least the first is quick.
And the ratio of Israelis killed by Arabs, versus Muslims and Christians killed by Jews in that beinghted shitty little country is about one to three hundred. (I am counting in the 40,000 or so Lebanese civilans murdered in cold blood by Israel SINCE 1967.)
Let us not mention the Americans murdered by Israelis in the Liberty incident, the Lavon Affair, or any of the hundreds of terrorist actions Israel has mounted against America, Russia, Argentina, Britain, and many other countries, who are too terrified of them (except Russia) to confront them with it.
And their objective is a One World Government with its capital in Jerusalem, run by a small elite who think they know better than us how we should live our lives. And who of course will need to control all the world's money, and all the world's media and movies and books and television, in order to enforce their vision of their own sanctity as the Master Race. And our cretinous Christian fundamentalists endorse this, because they think Jesus will then come and clasp their bloodstained hands and lead them into Paradise.
(Sound familiar? All that's missing are the 42 virgins.)
Everything that the media reports, from "9/11" to the "9/11 mosque" is one more act towards that end.
JEW. JEW. JEW.
There. I said it. Tear away the cobwebs of timidity and call the People Chosen to Rule the World what they are: Jews.
Lemuel Gulliver.
Mister Spock,
You said: "And while you correctly state we cannot know the motives of Imam Abdel-Rauf or anyone else, I tend to believe this is an "in your face" tactic, and since lying is a tactic that Muslims use against us "infidels" (the same way Jehovah's Witnesses or cops are trained to lie), I have no reason to believe anything they say about this."
===================================
You are no doubt unfamiliar with the most solemn declaration a Jew can utter, the Kol Nidrei prayer, repeated THREE TIMES each year at the Passover service in every synagogue in the entire world:
From Wikipedia:
"The cantor then chants the passage beginning with the words Kol Nidrei with its touching melodic phrases, and, in varying intensities from pianissimo (quiet) to fortissimo (loud), repeats three times (lest a latecomer not hear them) the following words (Nusach Ashkenaz):
"All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
In other words, they solemnly swear and affirm before Almighty God that they will lie, cheat, and deceive in everything they say and every promise they make, until they reaffirm the same pledge at the next Passover service.
Any comments???
Lemuel Gulliver.
Fireplaceguy,
You said: "I don't necessarily hold the radical Muslims up as the scapegoat for 9/11 and all terrorism, but there is no doubt that they play a significant role in our oppression."
You have GOT to be kidding. You mean the financial elites, the banksters, the politicians who suck at the tits of the corporations, the military contractors - Halliburton, Blackwater, et al - the fundamentalist Christian preachers who endorse torture and assassination, all these you overlook in order to place our loss of liberty at the feet of Muslims? What planet are you living on?
There is no monolithic "Islam," any more than there is a monolithic "Christianity." You cannot conflate a Quaker with a Pentecostal with a Catholic with a Mormon. All of these claim to be followers of Christ.
There are Moslem women in bikinis on the beaches of Beirut. There are Moslem women with lipstick and jewelry on the streets of Tehran. There are Moslem women in head-to-toe burqas in Afghanistan and Yemen. There are Moslems drinking alcohol in Istanbul. There are Moslems beheading women for adultery, and men for witchcraft, in Saudi Arabia. (Anyone remember Salem, Massachussetts, 1650?)
Like any religion, Moslems create their image of God according to their own culture and personal failings. If they are an angry people, they envision an angry God. (Witness Jehovah in the Bible. No race is more resentful of disrespect and holding of grudges and given to everlasting vengeance than the Jews. And their god Jehovah is just the same.) If they are a peaceful people, they envision a peaceful God. If they are a fogiving people, they envision a forgiving God. If they are a violent people, they envision a violent God. All under the same religious umbrella.
So Muslims from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan envision an Allah of vengeance and hatred, just like the isolated tribal traditions from which those people come. Muslims from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and Jordan envision a forgiving and peaceful Allah, just like those cosmopolitan societies, which have had close contacts with Europe since the year 1100.
Moslems are people just like us. Exactly like us. Creating Allah in their own image, just as we create our own personal God in our own image. Angry Christians create an angry God. Loving Christians create a loving God.
Come down off your cloud of ignorance and smell the coffee.
Lemuel Gulliver.
Fireplaceguy,
You said: "I don't necessarily hold the radical Muslims up as the scapegoat for 9/11 and all terrorism, but there is no doubt that they play a significant role in our oppression."
You have GOT to be kidding. You mean the financial elites, the banksters, the politicians who suck at the tits of the corporations, the military contractors - Halliburton, Blackwater, et al - the fundamentalist Christian preachers who endorse torture and assassination, all these you overlook in order to place our loss of liberty at the feet of Muslims? What planet are you living on?
There is no monolithic "Islam," any more than there is a monolithic "Christianity." You cannot conflate a Quaker with a Pentecostal with a Catholic with a Mormon. All of these claim to be followers of Christ.
There are Moslem women in bikinis on the beaches of Beirut. There are Moslem women with lipstick and jewelry on the streets of Tehran. There are Moslem women in head-to-toe burqas in Afghanistan and Yemen. There are Moslems drinking alcohol in Istanbul. There are Moslems beheading women for adultery, and men for witchcraft, in Saudi Arabia. (Anyone remember Salem, Massachussetts, 1650?)
Like any religion, Moslems create their image of God according to their own culture and personal failings. If they are an angry people, they envision an angry God. (Witness Jehovah in the Bible. No race is more resentful of disrespect and holding of grudges and given to everlasting vengeance than the Jews. And their god Jehovah is just the same.) If they are a peaceful people, they envision a peaceful God. If they are a fogiving people, they envision a forgiving God. If they are a violent people, they envision a violent God. All under the same religious umbrella.
So Muslims from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan envision an Allah of vengeance and hatred, just like the isolated tribal traditions from which those people come. Muslims from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and Jordan envision a forgiving and peaceful Allah, just like those cosmopolitan societies, which have had close contacts with Europe since the year 1100.
Moslems are people just like us. Exactly like us. Creating Allah in their own image, just as we create our own personal God in our own image. Angry Christians create an angry God. Loving Christians create a loving God.
Come down off your cloud of ignorance and smell the coffee.
Lemuel Gulliver.
Fireplace fool, I HAVE read the Quran, you apparently haven't read either the Quran nor the Old Testament.
There is NOTHING in the Quran as vile and inhumane as those tales recorded in the Book of Joshua. In that book, Joshua and his followers Murder every Man, Woman and Child, often all the animals to boot. They do this under a deceitful rouse, conspiring with a whore where they are invited dinner guest, murdering first their hosts then all the cities inhabitants.
Again, nothing in the Quran, nothing in Muslim history compares to this.
This doesn't condemn Jews or all who believe in the Bible. But rather shows it to be an equivocal work.
Mr. Grigg wrongly states that there is nothing in Hamas or Muslims generally that would have them follow the Golden Rule, this is another false statement born of ignorance, though I appreciate his sentiments here generally.
The very first commandment states that we should worship nothing of this Earth, no man, no nation, nothing. I dare say we should use the Golden Rule to test the morality of everything.
I won't claim that the Quran is without error, nor that it has no verses that aren't problematic. I challenge you fireplaceguy, to get a copy of the Quran and to check the passages you've no doubt been offered out of context. Just read the verses immediately before and after the "kill them where you find them" quotes. You will find them so qualified, so limited you will know utter sophists have torn those verses (iyats) out of context you'll know you've been played for a fool.
scott in Dallas
Will - God bless you and your family! These are trying times for many of us. God will make things right again in the world.
Fantastic column and even better comment debate.
There is no place in the interpretation of the law for the word 'should'. 'Should' something be done leaves the determination up to a person or group, in effect imposing their belief or opinion on someone else.
'Should' a filthy show like 'Bachelor Pad' be broadcast on TV? Who makes that determination if not the market?
I would like to see the Pentagon dismantled and a Mosque, Synagogue, Church, or giant convenience store erected in it's place.
accidentally delete my post too? Scott in Dallas
Boy, so much for reasoned debate. You're looking like a fraud. If for some reason you've not seen my first post, yet, no need to include these last two, but, it's not looking good for you.
Scott in Dallas
Scott -- sorry about the delay in getting your comments posted, but even I have to get at least a little sleep sometime. :-)
Excellent post as always, Will. I would like to touch on something you wrote in one of your comments.
"I'm so cynical that I would be surprised if this weren't the case. That's not to say that Abdel-Rauf is a conscious player in a scheme of that kind (a possibility I'm willing to entertain), but rather that this is the use to which this controversy is being put."
We know that Imam Rauf has worked for the FBI in the past. Is it possible that this "ground zero mosque" issue was manufactured expressly for the purpose of whipping the population into an anti-Muslim frenzy so that they would be more willing to support a war against Iran?
And on top of this "issue," the regime propagandists in the media are now hyping the "threat" posed by Iran's Big, Scary Predator Drone.
The neocons are itching for a war against Iran. Do you think it's possible that this entire "controversy" was created by the state to serve as anti-Muslim war propaganda?
The neocons are itching for a war against Iran. Do you think it's possible that this entire "controversy" was created by the state to serve as anti-Muslim war propaganda?
I think it would be safe to bet a year's salary on that.
Cody, I find it cynically comical that Uncle Sam rattles his thousands of nuclear sabers at Iran that has none while also crying foul about their developing the very same type of drones that the US uses mercilessly to kill everyone, including civilians. That our political pimps continue to spew their lying bilge with a straight face is amazing. Even more amazing are the purported "polls" that tell us that the majority of Americans believe Iran has to be stopped. Stopped from doing what? In fact I doubt that the polls are even real anymore but are likewise psyops used to manipulate and cover the lies with a veneer of "authenticity".
William, I always love your LRC postings but you, and many of the regulars on LRC have gone to the darkside on this one.
First and foremost, there is not a constitutional issue to be found in this debate. The fact is Mosques ARE allowed to be built in this country and Muslims have the right to own property and fully exercise it best I can tell. The issue of the SPECIFIC location of this ONE Muslim community center is nothing more than a zoning consideration. That alone makes it a municipality issue, while you, an alleged libertarian, make it a commentary on the entire country, in direct defiance of the state sovreignty you preach.
Also, your attempt to extrapolate one Christian extremist's viewpoint to the whole debate is disingenuous and invalid. Not every person who has a conscientious objection to this community center is a Fox News watcher or the likes of Mr. Fischer, but if you choose to engage in this type of mindless sloganeering then maybe YOU should be the one working for Fox News.
Finally, and most dispicibly, you spend the first several paragraphs describing Muslims firebombing a Catholic Church over some comments someone half a world away made about Mohammed. Then you wash that away with no remourse to move on to villifying Americans. And villify them over what? Having a perfectly rational debate about how tasteful it would be to build a muslim community center just a few blocks from the site where a similarly violent and senseless violent attack in the name of Islam took thousands of innocent lives. Excuse if we can let go of rampant and senseless killing in the name of religion as easily as you. Muslims ARE MORE GUILTY OF THIS IN THE HERE AND NOW. PERIOD. There is no caveat or wiggle room on this fact. Look at Gaza. Look at Darfur. I never would have guessed you falling to the depths of such cognitive dissonance to make a point so void of logic or perspective, but there it is.
Shame on you William Gregg. You and the LRC regulars are fighting the wrong fight and alienating even the most staunch libertarians like myself to make an inane point. Its a zoning issue. Period. Not a soap box for attacking your political enemies with generalizations or "playing to one side". We already have two parties clouding logic and reason that way.
That said congrats on the new job. I, of course, still have a lot of respect for you and am happy to hear that you are making it in these tough times. All the best....
Deuce, thanks for your thoughtful and candid comment -- and particularly for your kind words about my family.
The issue of the SPECIFIC location of this ONE Muslim community center is nothing more than a zoning consideration. That alone makes it a municipality issue, while you, an alleged libertarian, make it a commentary on the entire country, in direct defiance of the state sovreignty you preach.
First of all, I consider the practice of zoning -- like "eminent domain" -- to be abominable. (In this connection I have to point out that I consider "state sovereignty" useful only insofar as it enhances protections for individual rights, rather than detracts from them.)
Secondly, it was the GOP's Department of Mass Agitation (or whatever they call that apparat) that nationalized this issue.
Newt Gingrich has never represented any constituency in New York, nor has Sarah Palin -- yet they cynically turned this "municipality issue" into a national furor, and almost every Republican candidate has joined the parade.
During the past several days, the "Ground Zero Mosque" has been practically the only subject of discussion on both national and local radio talk shows broadcast here in Idaho. I'm as disgusted as you appear to be that this has become a national issue, but here we are nonetheless -- and this issue is being used by both branches of the War Party to promote collectivist hatred.
If this is only about the "Ground Zero Mosque," why are there similar protests underway against Muslim houses of worship and culture across the nation?
Furthermore, are you comfortable with Mr. Johnson's view that "great Americans" are those who sacrifice their rights to placate the sensibilities of others? How is that materially different from the left-wing version of political correctness?
It's a little difficult to believe that Muslims anywhere are engaging in violence comparable to that inflicted on Muslim countries by our government. Averaging out the death toll of the past 20 years, Iraq has endured the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
It's difficult to see how even the likes of Hamas and al-Qaeda (as well as Islamic terrorist groups that weren't created with Washington's help) could compete with that kind of track record.
Will, thanks for letting us know about your possible part-time editorial job. You are so overdue some good news for a change!
This was another thought-provoking post. Your point is well taken regarding our need to be ‘good Samaritans’ to those we encounter, regardless of race or religion.
As a theonomist, my hope is that one day the Christian law code will become the norm for governments. This wouldn’t mean that the church would rule over the civil government, but instead all institutions would be directly under the authority of God, including the civil government, the church, the family, businesses, and so forth.
Of course, since the Christian law code is intended for the maintenance of an already Christian society, it wouldn’t really be feasible in a godless society like our own, which was largely founded on abstract notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’, instead of organic ‘real’ things like religion, culture, and language.
And because the Christian law code wouldn’t allow any other religions to be practiced, this would eliminate so many of the problems that plague our nation. Rather than acknowledging that neutrality is a myth, our government tries to claim neutrality, while practicing the religion of humanism! Trying to maintain any kind of order in this pluralistic society is an effort in futility.
If Haniyeh's support of Christians was motivated by love, it was probably of the Marxian type. The presidents of Iran and Venezuela appear to share this same love for each other even though they should be ideological enemies if one is a true theocrat and the other a true socialist. It sure does make one wonder. If it is real love then there is hope. If not, the same old politics is at work.
It's more than a bit nasty that we incite a civil war in Afghanistan and Iraq and then condemn them for fighting among themselves. It's more than nasty that we install dictators, demand they betray their people and then condemn them for fighting.
In truth, the Quran doesn't permit this behavior, but the Declaration of Independence does. The Dec. of Ind. say those living under tyranny have a right and duty to alter and abolish that tyranny. Furthermore, since WE are sponsoring these dictators, in violation of our supposed support for democracy, they have a right and duty to fight US. Not by the the Quran, but by our own traditions.
Remember that other lesson of Jesus, don't point out the splinter in your neighbor's eye, when you have a log in your own.
Scott in Dallas.
I've written some controversial stuff, why don't you guys address it? Or, are your convictions that watered down?
Thank you William for this forum, inshah Allah, you will find deliverance from your hardship.
"I've written some controversial stuff, why don't you guys address it?" - SiD
Scott, maybe there isn't anything to "address". I post a lot over at antiwar.com, such as yourself, and don't get a response very often, if at all. I'm simply grateful that Will, yourself, and others, even bother to hammer out these essays and comments with the weight of daily life pressing in on us from all sides. That's also why I fully expect there to be another incident just around the corner to sidetrack the country's masses and get them focused on fresh bogeymen and not peer to closely at the lies that are growing and are harder to hide. Why bother covering up old lies when you can create NEW ones with fresh corpses! It's the American way.
It is funny to think that modern day nationalist "Christians" would invade and overthrow Israel circa the books of Judges or Kings/Chronicles for either being "failed states" or having non-democratic governments, etc.
Military power beyond what is necessary to protect oneself is a very bad thing. It leads one to get very inventive in finding ways to use it on others, usually increasing the need to protect oneself.
Jim O'Connor
I've written some controversial stuff, why don't you guys address it? Or, are your convictions that watered down?
HAHA, please, my sides ache. Everyone's convictions are somewhat watered down, some more or less so. Everyone on the 'net writes "controversial" (by PC wonk sensibilities anyway) stuff every now and again.
Speaking for moi, I'm not one who tends to follow a " humanoid herd," whatever the makeup of said herd. I'm probably more of an individualist than even our gracious host here and becoming more so every day.
That said, even though I'm techno literate, I'm also more akin to so-called "rednecks" and/or mildly educated country folk in general than high-minded, educated (thoroughly indoctrinated), arrogant blue-bloods and/or otherwise urban jungle savants. I know I don't fit any of the convenient stereotypes.
I grow ever more tired of "mere" mundanes of every and any creed blaming an upstream abstraction like "government" for their own greed, their own lawlessness, their own rage, their own lack of self-control, their own self-delusions, their own ignorance, etc. I also loathe this idea from some corners that Leviathan is the only enemy and that it divides us. Pure nonsense as there are plenty of damned mundanes I have ZERO in common with and wouldn't partner with EVER, PERIOD, regardless of where, or how, the grand abstraction called "government" stands.
That said, Muslim mundanes, "Christian" mundanes, pagan mundanes, et al ALL play by Lenin's maxim, "Who does [gets] what to [from] whom" as Will has mentioned before.
Self-government/self-control means that someone possesses a viable (God-ordained) moral compass in which they choose to do or not to do something based on it being an absolute right or wrong and/OR it being wise or unwise. In essence, just because I CAN (legally) do something, doesn't mean I WILL (morally) do it. Or the converse, just because I CAN'T do something doesn't mean I WON'T do it.
Our republic was only possible for folk who could manage to generally educate themselves, collectively (private collective) or individually, and self-govern. After all, that's really the only way Leviathan can be kept to a more or less limited, minimal state. Since the aggregate of modern folk can't self-govern and Leviathan is their true "god," even though they'd deny it, Leviathan thus grows like a cancer. No surprise. Chuck Baldwin wrote about this unfortunate reality.
Speaking on just the economic materialistic aspect of these sins, commoners can't blame politicians for their own greedy desire to obtain stuff they can't really afford themselves through debt OR with other folks' money using Leviathan as a proxy. The politicians (upstream reflection of the "mere" mundanes) merely follow through with what the damned mundanes demand to start with, unless a particular mundane demand in question runs counter to their own agenda(s), of course. Since mundane greed and depravity actually helps a power monger politician's desire for more power (sigh...), it plays right into their hands and makes their agenda (more control) MUCH easier to attain.
Ergo, welcome to pagan America!
In fact, Scott in Dallas, I'm looking for Islam to make some serious headway in this country as I would suspect that most weak-minded, indecisive and increasingly effeminate societies to eventually succumb to anyway. Matriarchal societies are not generally viable long term. Some of the bombastic, matriarchal Celtic tribes, led by "power" mamas, learned that the hard way by the hands of patriarchal and disciplined Romans.
Naturally, there were specific, God-ordained, exceptions in history where women played key roles, like Esther and Jeanne d'Arc, but these women were influential ironically because they lived in a patriarchal society (d'oh!).
The West will die because of their debauchery and weakness of the mind or by the attendant demographic realities that currently plague it. So be it.
Death to Amerika!
"It’s the Jews! It's the Jews!"
Apparently anti-Semite Lemuel Gulliver blames the Jews for everything. Sad. In his rage against the Jews, he was unable to see that in the very same Wikipedia article he quoted, it is made abundantly clear that the renunciation of oaths and pledges has exactly the opposite meaning than the one he attributes to it.
LG's statement,
"In other words, they solemnly swear and affirm before Almighty God that they will lie, cheat, and deceive in everything they say and every promise they make, until they reaffirm the same pledge at the next Passover service,"
is a lie in addition to being exactly wrong. As the same Wiki article states,
"Introduced into the liturgy despite the opposition of some rabbinic authorities, attacked in the course of time by some rabbis, and in the nineteenth century expunged from the prayer-book by many communities of western Europe, Kol Nidrei has often been employed out of context by some to claim that Jews cannot be trusted…
"Philip Birnbaum, in his classic edition of the Mahzor (High holy day prayer book) comments on this passage: "It refers to vows assumed by an individual for himself alone, where no other persons or interests are involved. [my emphasis] Though the context makes it perfectly obvious that no vows or obligations towards others are implied, there have been many who were misled into believing that by means of this formula all their vows and oaths are annulled…"
"The Kol Nidrei prayer has been used by non-Jews as a basis for asserting that an oath taken by a Jew may not be trusted…
"Rabbis have always pointed out that the dispensation from vows in Kol Nidrei refers only to those an individual voluntarily assumes for himself alone and no other persons or their interests are involved in. [my emphasis] The formula is restricted to those vows between man and God alone; they have no effect on vows made between one man and another. No vow, promise, or oath that concerns another person, a court of justice, or a community [my emphasis] is implied in Kol Nidrei. According to Jewish doctrine, the sole purpose of this prayer is to give protection from divine punishment in case of violation of the vow…
"As pointed out above, many rabbis state that the vows referred to are applicable only to the individual, and not interpersonally. It refers only to vows between the person making them and God, such as "If I pass this test, I'll pray every day for the next 6 months!"
"Because this prayer has often been held up by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are untrustworthy, the Reform movement removed it from the liturgy for a while. In fact, the reverse is true: Jews make this prayer because they take vows so seriously that they consider themselves bound even if they make the vows under duress or in times of stress when not thinking straight."
(Sorry for the length of this post, but it was necessary to point out LG's dishonesty, which, unfortunately, is all too typical of collectivists like him. Back to the subject at hand asap.)
On 911 I was working, we were told to follow the boss outside and bow our heads and listen to his prayer words without being given any option to do otherwise.
I didn't bow my head because I was being forced to, it wasn't right to be forced by a boss ( a stranger really) to pray. I think that is why I lost the job. Is that the type of action people are afraid the Muslims will bring to the U.S.?
One of the other guys did the same. He made the comment, "they don't do this for the people killed on the roads everyday, why are these people so special and of higher value than the kid who died by himself after a car wreck?"
This Ground Zero mess is much like the spot on the side of the road where my friend died. It's not a holy place, or a grave yard, it's just a spot on the side of the road. There are millions just like it and when someone else builds another road or a building on top of that spot (not down the block mind you) no one says anything, nor should they. I don't see how this Ground Zero spot is any different than any other spot where someone died.
Only, their deaths are being used for political purposes, and that seems very very wrong. Are they being used the same way suicide bombers are, "over there" in the Mideast?
The worst part about the recent Islamophobia epidemic is that Mr. Grigg hasn't been able to write about more pertinent incidents; namely, the murders (and ensuing cover ups) of Trevon Cole and Erik Scott by the LVPD.
JP
Mr. Grigg hasn't been able to write about more pertinent incidents; namely, the murders (and ensuing cover ups) of Trevon Cole and Erik Scott by the LVPD.
JP -- Check back in about an hour or so....
Mister Spock:
I refer you to this link, which is part of a website written by a Jew who has converted to Orthodox Christianity, and now does street demonstrations against Zionism and Jewish exceptionalism. He calls Himself Brother Nathanael:
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=156
Here he quotes certain verses of the Talmud. Now, this comes from a Hebrew-fluent Jew, not a goyisch white man who misunderstands what he is reading. Quotations cited from the Talmud:
* “If a ‘goy’ (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)
* “If a Jew finds an object lost by a ‘goy’ it does not have to be returned.” (Baba Mezia 24a)
* “If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a)
* What a Jew steals from a ‘goy’ he may keep.” (Sanhedrin 57a)
* “Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a ‘goy.’” (Baba Kamma 113a)
* “All children of the ‘goyim’ (Gentiles) are animals.” (Yebamoth 98a)
* “Girls born of the ‘goyim’ are in a state of ‘niddah’ (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth.” (Abodah Zarah 36b)
* “The ‘goyim’ are not humans. They are beasts.” (Baba Mezia 114b)
* “If you eat with a ‘goy’ it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)
* “Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.” (Soferim 15)
* “Sexual intercourse between the ‘goyim’ is like intercourse between animals.” (Sanhedrin 74b)
* “When it comes to a Gentile in peace times, one may harm him indirectly, for instance, by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice.” (Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De ‘ah, 158, Hebrew Edition only)
* “‘Yashu’ (derogatory for ‘Jesus’) is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)
[’Yashu’ is an acronym for the Jewish curse, ‘May his (Jesus) name be wiped out forevermore.’]
* Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)
* “Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)
* “Miriam the hairdresser had sex with many men.” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only)
* “She who was the descendant of princes and governors (the virgin Mary) played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sanhedrin 106a)
* “Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)
Brother Natanael concludes:
"I WAS RAISED AS A JEW. Christendom has fawned all over the Jews for the last 60 years. But all of this is now coming to an end. Christians are waking up to the fact that Judaism and the Jews are haters of Jesus Christ, Christianity, and fervent Christians who preach the Gospel.
Do you wish to get a Talmudic Jew raving mad? Simply Tell That Jew That If He Does Not Accept Jesus Christ As His Lord & Saviour
He Is Going To Suffer In Hell!"
Any more comments?
Yours in Christ,
Lemuel Gulliver.
A couple of quick replies to scott in Dallas and Lemuel Gulliver, if Will will permit me:
Lemuel - You could not have quoted me in context and still justified your ridiculous assumptions. What I do or do not know about all the players you mentioned has not been discussed by me. When it comes to what I know, I should be your source - if you're honest, that is. Said assumptions reveal much about you, and nothing about me. Perhaps you'd care to come down off your cloud of condescending presumption and ask? More cleverly still, you could have followed my name to my own blog, and discerned where I'm coming from prior to putting your foot in your mouth.
scott - you start with name calling, then expect anyone to consider your position? Do you actually believe that such behavior will interest anyone in anything you have to say?
What you have unwittingly revealed, in your words to both myself and to Will, is the in your face nature of Islam's adherents that gives reasonable people pause.
Such wisdom in your methods, both of you...
Post a Comment