by Jack
Yesterday Libby (our resident liberal spokesperson for the far left) reminded me that America ought to do a little house cleaning first before we go criticizing human rights abuses in other countries (those being mostly Arab). This prompted me to take a hard look at what is happening inside our own country and see if she was right. Well, I found some things, but they are no where near the barbaric stuff we hear coming from North Africa and the Middle East. So, Libs statement is not without some merit. Maybe it’s time we encourage some of these religious entities and individuals that are lagging behind the civilized world in both legal obligations and civil rights to get up to speed?
From rattlesnake handlers in the Ozarks to Voodoo animal torturers in Miami, America is full of eccentric religions with crackpot leaders. Remember the Rev. Fred Phelps? He was an anti-gay activist and used the funerals of fallen soldiers to get media attention. Minister Terry Jones gained notoriety for being a Koran burner, which did little to improve relations with Muslims here and abroad. Even President Obama’s best pal and religious mentor, the Rev. Wright turned out to be black power kook. Remember Rev. Jim Jones & Jonestown? America can handle these characters that come and go, because they are just anomalies against a backdrop of tens of thousands of sane and responsible religious leaders that help protect the moral values, conscience and character of this country.
Of course the right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of the principles that founded this country, so we have tread carefully on this subject. But, religious freedom was never meant to be a license to violate the anyone’s civil rights.
The U.S. has about 6 millions Jews, and about 600,000 are Orthodox Jews. That smaller number, living in closed communities, doesn’t get the same level of scrutiny as their counterparts, but maybe they should? One of their traditional practices is, you don’t report wife beatings to the cops, period. A wife who rats out her violent husband will be labeled dead to her family, totally cut off from physical contact and emotional support. Ironically, it’s generally Muslims that come to mind when we hear about wife beatings. Project S.A.R.A.H. addresses the issue of partner violence within the Jewish Orthodox community and it’s the first of it’s kind, and it’s a step in the right direction. But, there’s a lot of work ahead before this community enters the 21st century.
A recent article on Orthodox violence summarized the problem thusly: Shame-The woman possibly blames herself for the problem, believing that she is a particular cause of the abuse. Shalom Bayit (“Domestic Peace”)- The belief that it is the woman’s responsibility to maintain peace in the home, and her feeling of failure due to the abuse; the wrong belief that it is the victim’s job to get the batterer to stop battering. Shanda- Fear of the family’s embarrassment in the larger community. Shidduch- Worry about who will be willing to marry her sons if the abuse is made known. Social Forces-For example, the pressure to appear as a good Jewish family unit at social functions and holidays. These misconceptions have morphed into traditions that are difficult to correct, but it is happening.
Next house cleaning issue – Civil Rights Violation Via Forced marriages: Indians (India) don’t have a good reputation when it comes to supporting women’s rights either. They still practice arranged marriages and if the participants are not cooperative, it can mean serious family consequences. “Separating one’s own priorities and values from expectations of others — family, parents — I think can be very challenging.” Jasbina Ahluwalia
More Spousal abuse: “Her husband and his brother shut her in a darkened room, removed the furniture, threw in rats and insects, locked the door and hoped she would go crazy. Terrified, she still braved their cruelty. Annoyed by her fortitude, the brothers then beat her-pregnant and defenseless-black and blue. Despite the torture, Nayana stayed quiet. But finally, three days after the birth of her child, when her husband wouldn’t let her in the house, she went to the police. Nevertheless, the beatings continued. At last, refusing to suffer any more, she “screamed hysterically”-reads the case report that documents her breaking point.” This account is not uncommon in India and immigrants to America often bring with them their traditions, good and bad. And sometimes the bad thrives in cloistered ethnic communities for decades, unknown to the general population and the law.
Unfortunately, I know of no such programs as the Orthodox Jews have in the Muslim or Indian community. Spousal violence is even more common in their communities and it rarely is reported .
America is supposed to be the great melting pot, but more and more, we find our culture is fragmenting into religious and ethnic sub-cultures that do not interact well with the general population, especially when language becomes a dividing wall.
The strength of America does not come from diversity by itself, it comes by diversity united by a shared idealism as expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we don’t have that fundamental agreement of understanding on what it means to be here in America we’re not going very far before we have trouble.
Naturally, we should never tolerate human rights abuses even if its part of a religious tradition.
Human trafficking (Asian prostitution), civil rights abuses, discrimination, spousal abuse, exploitation of children, immigrant abuse, Priest abuse… these things and more need to go, they don’t belong in America…period. (How’s that Libby?)
NOTE: This is about equal rights and Constitutional protections! Don’t read anything else into it…(Dewey).
Interesting article, a lot of it’s foundation, even beyond human rights issues of the article goes right back to Government and the way they regulate, or use these problems falsely to try and prove through common sense decency we can on our own hold divisive practice in check. To me it is nothing more than a ballot box “look what I am doing for you” issue with no more legs than the political snakes that spawn it. Tina pointed out a while back how Liberals (her article focus was on one particular issue and their use of it), will ride a issue to unimportance of voter concern and just drop it with no resolve ever. And then we forget it was even a concern
I am going to go for a More humor intended example to show how the Government agencies bum rush us when it;s to their benefit, with the same results of nothing really done outside a hoopla song and dance.
Have you ever been driving along on the highway and realized that everyone going slower than is an old lady and the everyone going faster than you is a maniac? It is the same thing with what you believe, at least when it comes to “conspiracy theories.” Anyone who believes less than you believe is “asleep” and everyone who believes more than you believe is a nut.
Take for instance, the poster child for conspiracy theory nut-cases, the “tinfoil hat wearer.” Well, did you know that the US Government, or more specifically, the US Air Force, actually owns a patent for putting “voices in your head.” It is right there on Goggle Patents as US 6470214. There is also a further development patent, filed in 2002, that has a human head in the artwork for the patent. From the original patent:
Have you ever been driving along on the highway and realized that everyone going slower than is an old lady and the everyone going faster than you is a maniac? It is the same thing with what you believe, at least when it comes to “conspiracy theories.” Anyone who believes less than you believe is “asleep” and everyone who believes more than you believe is a nut.
Take for instance, the poster child for conspiracy theory nut-cases, the “tinfoil hat wearer.” Well, did you know that the US Government, or more specifically, the US Air Force, actually owns a patent for putting “voices in your head.” It is right there on Goggle Patents as US 6470214. There is also a further development patent, filed in 2002, that has a human head in the artwork for the patent. From the original patent:
“Have you ever been driving along on the highway and realized that everyone going slower is an old lady and the everyone going faster than you is a maniac? It is the same thing with what you believe, at least when it comes to “conspiracy theories.” Anyone who believes less than you believe is “asleep” and everyone who believes more than you believe is a nut.
Take for instance, the poster child for conspiracy theory nut-cases, the “tinfoil hat wearer.” Well, did you know that the US Government, or more specifically, the US Air Force, actually owns a patent for putting “voices in your head.” It is right there on Google Patents as US 6470214.
There is also a further development patent, filed in 2002, that has a human head in the artwork for the patent. From the original patent:
So my point,(wink) if any :)(and I’ll lament that comment I betcha) is that we only seem to jump on the band wagon when “lifted up” by our temporary moment of concern first, then begin to rattle our keyboards in despairing those who are slower or faster, and sooner than later ,without any resolve, move along to the next bright light of media exposed and politically driven conflicts.
It really is a shame that we have let media along with todays inept elected control our thoughts as they do!………….
if anyone needs it, I have some extra tin foil you can use.
oops typo, again. It should read:
“to try and prove. Through common sense decency”
Thanks for your comments Harold, I’m not surprised that Libby has nothing to say, even though this was basically her idea. It would seem that by her silence she subscribes to, if you can’t say something nasty, then don’t say it at all, especially if it involves conservatives.
What was I supposed to say? I could gloat. Finally! I’m making headway … if you’re acknowledging that a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, that that the ideology is very nearly irrelevant … because I’ve been telling you that for years.
But Harold’s comment seems to be responding to something I don’t see (three times), and I am bewildered.
Libby, I thought you could just acknowledge that I looked into what you said because I cared. And further that I found a couple of things that were indeed disturbing and going a bit further… I demonstrated that yes, we do need to do some housekeeping here, you’re right! I thought you would be happy that we could agree to a certain extent? However, I’m in no way putting this stuff here in the USA that’s wrong on some kind of a moral equivalency with the barbarism that occurs daily in the Arab world. Our society generally finds those things I pointed as being wrong to somewhat wrong. In the Middle East there’s a lot of agreement about Sharia Law and its brutal (and fatal) treatment of so-called offenders against Islam. Now you think a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist and you can’t draw any difference between a Baptist and a Taliban. There is where we disagree…strongly!
Liberals have made sure we have done what we can. They have spoken out for civil rights for fifty or sixty years. They have worn ribbons and held protests and given seminars on the rights of women and minorities with the goal of giving those people a personal sense of power. Our society supported and in many cases joined with them…agreed…made accommodations and adjustments. After decades of effort Libby believes “we” haven’t done enough to clean our own house.
I submit that there is little more that “we” can do unless the “oppressed and abused” go to the trouble of helping themselves. The physically abused must go to the authorities themselves and file a complaint. If they don’t, indeed if they choose to embrace the offensive tenets of their religion, what can we do? Law enforcement is primarily reactive. Officers show up during and after a crime has been committed. In the case of abuse, in most instances, unless the abused is willing to press charges there is little the police can do.
I suggest that Libby is simply engaging in a typically leftist blame American harrumph. “What business do we have,” she asks, “criticizing and butting in when we have our own crazies to deal with?”
Jack America would love to live and let the Arabs live. We have a problem, though. Our “crazies” are limiting their craziness to their own little lives. The crazies in the Arab world terrorize the entire world and threaten to send us all back to the thirteenth century. So we have to find a way to deal with craziness in other nations.
One thing we could do that would make a big difference, and should have started doing five years ago, is drill baby drill.
We should have been supportive of the coal industry.
We should have built the Keystone Pipe Line
We should have become a stronger exporter of coal, gas, and oil.
We should have begun construction on new nuclear facilities.
We should have completed the Nevada nuclear waste storage facility.
We should have seen to it that America and the rest of the free world don’t need to rely on ME suppliers AND we should have had a President that could use the bully pulpit to let the leaders of the ME know they had a choice: Kill, capture and imprison the terrorists in your region, eliminate the terrorist threat and join us in this century or suffer the fate of total revenue loss.
Instead we have a president that enables radical elements while insulting allies and oppressing the economies of the free world.
We do have religious freedom in this nation. People are allowed to be kooky and nutty if they so choose. We arrest and prosecute when they break our laws and we can catch them. We don’t always catch even non-religious criminals.
America is not perfect but the attempt to compare America as “like” and something we should address instead is off base.
If Libs thinks house cleaning in American needs to be done first how about we start with the liberal controlled universities like Brandeis. Protest stopped Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking against the abuse of women and awarding her an honorary degree.
They based their decision on religious freedom violations they said she’d committed while denying her the same religious freedom rights. She wanted to inform women of the same abuses Jack listed above and that living in American they didn’t have to put up with it, because our laws were there to protect them.
But, the women of Brandeis didn’t hear her message because a group of liberals were successful in silencing her.
Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls Brandeis decision to cancel speech ‘deplorable:
“BOSTON — Brandeis University has transformed an accolade into “a moment of shaming” by withdrawing a plan to give an honorary degree to a Muslim women’s advocate who has made comments critical of Islam, she said Wednesday.
The university decided late Tuesday not to honor Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the May 18 commencement after receiving complaints from some students, faculty members and others, including an online petition.
Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion: “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”
Brandeis, outside Boston in Waltham, Mass., said it had not been aware of Ali’s statements earlier.
“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”
“What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming,” she said in a statement Wednesday. “Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles.
“The ‘spirit of free expression’ referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014.”
Read more: Some alumni, students and faculty did voice support for honoring Ali, who was raised in a strict Muslim family but renounced the faith in her 30s after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/9/brandeis-u-decides-against-honor-for-islam-critic/#ixzz34prg7Prs
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brandeis’ Double Standards:
“In a pusillanimous capitulation to the jackboot enforcers of political correctness, Brandeis University President Fred Lawrence announced Tuesday that an honorary degree to be awarded to woman’s rights champion Ayaan Hirsi Ali at this year’s commencement has been rescinded.
Hirsi Ali made waves when, as part of her efforts to promote women’s rights, she teamed up with friend and film-maker Theo Van Gogh to make the movie “Submission,” which depicted the oppression of women under Islam. Following the showing of the film on Dutch television, both Ali and Van Gogh received death threats over the Internet. On Nov. 2, 2004, Van Gogh was murdered, shot and then stabbed several times by 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan Mohammed Bouyeri, who pinned a letter to Van Gogh’s chest.
The letter was addressed, not to Van Gogh but to Ali, calling her an “infidel fundamentalist” who “terrorizes Islam” and “marches with the soldiers of evil.” It further stated that her “hostilities,” had “unleashed a boomerang and it’s just a matter of time before this boomerang will seal your destiny.” In capital letters it said: “AYAAN HIRSI ALI, YOU WILL SMASH YOURSELF ON ISLAM!”
Shortly thereafter, Ali fled to the United States. In her book “Infidel,” she explained why. “I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and emancipation. … I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values,” she wrote.
As far as Brandeis is concerned, those fundamental values take a back seat to the values of those who invariably demonstrate that declarations of diversity, tolerance and understanding are nothing more than empty rhetoric. Bernadette Brooten, a Brandeis professor in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department, epitomizes such hypocrisy. She used her Facebook page to denounce Ali, noting that she is “deeply saddened by all that this selection has meant for Muslim students, faculty and staff at Brandeis, and for your non-Muslim allies.” Brooten further notes that a group of 86 faculty members signed a letter sent to Lawrence, “asking him to rescind the invitation.”
Aside from the phoniness, the move to rescind Ali’s honorary degree reeks of a blatant double-standard. Brandeis honored Desmond Tutu who, despite his good work on South Africa’s behalf, was an overt anti-Semite. He asserted that the Holocaust’s gas chambers made for “a neater death” than did Apartheid, regularly accuses the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insists that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” Playwright Tony Kushner was also honored, despite his equally overt contempt for Israel. He also accused the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insisted its creation “was a mistake.”
Tellingly, both men received honorary degrees despite the reality that Brandeis is a Jewish-sponsored university with historically close ties to Israel. Moreover its namesake, Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, led the American Zionist movement. Yet when Kushner’s nomination generated controversy, former Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz stood against it:
‘Brandeis bestows honorary degrees as a means of acknowledging the outstanding accomplishments or contributions of individual men and women in any of a number of fields of human endeavor. Just as Brandeis does not inquire into the political opinions and beliefs of faculty or staff before appointing them, or students before offering admission, so too the University does not select honorary degree recipients on the basis of their political beliefs or opinions.’
TruthRevolt’s Daniel Mael, a Brandeis student, wondered why the same standard wasn’t being applied to Ali. “Hirsi Ali was not being honored for her views on Islam,” he explained. “She was being honored for her commitment to women’s rights and real justice. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of the University administration and their inability to distinguish between her view on Islam and her efforts in this world. This highlights their shallow commitment to ‘Truth, even unto it’s inner most parts’ which has been replaced with the empty buzzword ‘social justice.’”
A statement from Hirsi Ali released late Wednesday reveals that Brandeis was also dishonest in its explanation to the public about its decision. In its initial press release, the university claimed they “discussed” the situation with her before making the decision. Hirsi Ali says otherwise. “I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision,” she revealed. “On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me—just a few hours before issuing a public statement—to say that such a decision had been made.”
Once again, a university has shamefully surrendered to a mob of tolerance totalitarians. No one illuminates this travesty better than Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself:
“What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The ‘spirit of free expression’ referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-brandeis-double-standards/
Peggy, this does not fit with the liberal agenda, just the opposite. It makes them look bad, so guess what? We won’t hear a peep about “house keeping” on this one! I knew that when I wrote the original article at Libs suggestion, but you helped me make the difference between liberals and conservatives very clear with your post.
Actually, it was the CAIR that raised a stink. And it was shameful of Brandeis to cave.
And, that woman has live a life and a half.
Thank you Libby it was shameful. Unfortunately, it isn’t limited to Brandeis or this issue. Our universities have become hotbeds of activists and propagandists rather than institutions of learning. it’s a shame, we once had some of the finest universities in the world.
She has! Students could have benefited greatly from her experience and knowledge.
What Brandies did is shameful, because they let a handful of liberals destroy the mission of this university to educate and turned it into a political agenda arena.
But, it also exposed that the liberals “war on women” isn’t coming from Republicans it’s coming from their own party.
Wake up people. You’re smarter than this. Figure out what’s going on instead of believing the lies coming out from both parties to get your votes and money.
Peggy, do me a large favor and go read the Wiki entry on this women.
You don’t know what you’re taking about, and you should go find out.
Ok Libby, I read the whole Wikipedia article on her.
What was I supposed to find that was so terrible about her. (My words not yours)
Was it her childhood raised by a moderate or her grandmother who against her father’s wishes had her genitals mutilated? Or was it her early adult life when she learned about other religions and the western culture? Or was it her lying on the Dutch application for asylum to escape an arranged marriage and the controversy about her parliament service, security expense or the threat to revoke her citizenship because of her application statements which ended with her citizenship retained?
Or did you find the Brandeis information troubling? I’ll post it all below, and add I agree with it and find my statement above about Brandeis is supported by many in it?
Brandeis Commencement Controversy[edit]
“In early 2014 Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced that Ali would be given an honorary degree at the graduation commencement ceremony. However, in early April, after pressure from the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) and lobbying by Joseph E. B. Lumbard Head of the Islamic Studies Department, other faculty members and several student groups, the offer was rescinded, with university president Frederick M. Lawrence claiming that “certain of her past statements” were inconsistent with the university’s “core values” because they were “Islamophobic.”[78] Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who started a petition that gained support from 75 out of 511 professors, claimed a “university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.” Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, who refused to sign the letter, argued that it would have been great for the university to honor “such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women’s rights, who has put her life at risk for those values.”[79]
The move[clarification needed] generated a firestorm of controversy and widespread condemnation of Brandeis.[80][81][82][83][84][85][86]
According to Brandeis, Ali was never invited to speak at commencement, she was only invited to receive an honorary degree. [87] However, Ali said that after having spent many months of planning for her to speak at the commencement, she was shocked that Brandeis used some of her past statements as an excuse to withdraw the invitation, especially since her views have been readily available to the public via the World Wide Web.[88] Ali said she was not surprised at the letter issued by CAIR with its selective quotations “designed to misrepresent me and my work.” [89] [90] She stated that the university’s decision was motivated in part by fear of offending Muslims with some “repercussion.” [91] Ali argued that the “spirit of free expression” referred to in the Brandeis statement has been betrayed and stifled. [92]
While some commentators such as Abullah Antepli, the Muslim chaplain and adjunct faculty of Islamic Studies at Duke University, applauded the decision and warned against “making renegades into heroes,”[93] other academic commentators such as Chicago University’s Jerry Coyne[94] and the George Mason University Foundation Professor David Bernstein (law professor)[95] criticized the decision as an attack on academic values such as freedom of inquiry and intellectual independence from religious pressure groups.
In an open letter written to Dr. Fred Lawrence by notable writer and historian Jeffrey Herf, who received his PhD from Brandeis, he criticized Lawrence’s decision as “an act of cowardice and appeasement… and it has done deep and long-lasting damage to a university.”[96] In another open letter by Lawrence J. Haas, the former communications director and press secretary for Vice President Al Gore, he maintained that Lawrence “succumbed to political correctness and interest group pressure in deciding that Islam is beyond the pale of legitimate inquiry… that such a decision is particularly appalling for a university president, for a campus is precisely the place to encourage free discussion even on controversial matters.” [97]
Or was the fact she converted from Islam to being an atheist you found troubling? I think going through everything she did growing up it’s completely understandable. I hope some day she’ll find comfort in a new faith that will bring her comfort.
Did you read in Wikipedia that she knew nothing about the Holocaust and wanted to set up an educational organization to teach others in Muslim nations the truth about it?
Social and political views[edit]:
“Hirsi Ali is a member of the VVD, a Dutch political party that combines classically liberal views on the economy, foreign policy, crime and immigration with a liberal stance on drugs, abortion and homosexuality. She states that she is a great admirer of one of the party’s ideological leaders, Frits Bolkestein, a former Euro-commissioner.
She states that her personal views are for the most part inspired by her change from Islam to atheism. Hirsi Ali is very critical of Islam, especially of its prophet Muhammad and the position of women.
Islam[edit]
Hirsi Ali is very critical of the position of women in Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. She considered herself a Muslim until 28 May 2002, when she became an atheist.[98] In an interview with the Swiss magazine Das Magazin in September 2006, she said she lost her faith while sitting in an Italian restaurant in May 2002, drinking a glass of wine: “…I asked myself: Why should I burn in hell just because I’m drinking this? But what prompted me even more was the fact that the killers of 9/11 all believed in the same God I believed in.” Despite that, in the television programme Rondom Tien of 12 September 2002 she called it “my religion”. She has described Islam as a “backward religion”, incompatible with democracy. In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qur’an and the Dutch constitution.[citation needed]
In an interview in the London Evening Standard,[17] Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as “the new fascism”: “Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism.” In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not “a fringe group of radical Muslims who’ve hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. […] Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.”
At the Sydney Writers’ Festival in June 2007, she balanced her arguments, saying “I am a Muslim” because she understood why Muslims were silent when the Qur’an was “invoked to behead captured aid workers, journalists and other Western wanderers,” as silence is “better than an argument with the author of the Holy Book who has given the command to behead infidels.” Hirsi Ali stated that she was also “not a Muslim” as she had lost the fear of the Qur’an and of Hell and lost respect for “its author” and messenger; and that she felt a “common humanity” with those she once “shunned”, such as Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, and sinners “of all stripes and colours.”[29]
In the magazine Reason, Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated that not just ‘radical Islam’ but ‘Islam’ must be defeated. She stated: “Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”[99]
I would love to hear her speak. It’s a shame Brandeis students were denied that opportunity.
Splendid. Now, who raised a fuss about her as a commencement speaker?
According to the NYT Editors blog, “Taking Note,” it was the result of a petition placed on the open internet platform, Change.org.
Another petition to “Reinstate Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Honorary Degree” was also posted to change.org following the universities decision.
The point is that universities should places where all views can be heard. Brandies caved to pressure rather than honoring their original decision which I would bet was made with a great deal more serious consideration and thought than anyone “voting” on an online petition.
Libby, Who stopped her from speaking? The liberals did.
Here’s the info. on just one of them. You can check out the rest yourself .
Chicago University’s Jerry Coyne:
“Jerry Allen Coyne (born December 30, 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on intelligent design. A prolific scientist and author, he has published dozens of papers elucidating the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[5] He is the author of the text Speciation and the bestselling non-fiction book Why Evolution Is True.[6] Coyne maintains a website also called Why Evolution Is True.[7]
Born to Jewish parents, Coyne considers himself a secular Jew,[14] and an outspoken proponent of atheism, metaphysical naturalism and the conflict thesis. He claims that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea “that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time”. He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.
Influenced:
Mohamed Noor
In 2008 he was awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal from the Linnean Society of London.”
(He sure doesn’t sound like a conservative.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne
I saw her on the Megan Kelly show and she was very supportive of her and outspoken about Brandeis being wrong in cancelling her.
No one has stopped Ali from speaking, and no one is entitled to an honorary degree. To act as if Brandies has somehow violated Ali’s first amendment rights by not giving her an honorary degree is to display the utter childishness of the modern conservative movement’s idea of free speech.
It goes too far to even say that the “spirit of free expression has been stifled.” Ali and her supporters have the right to free expression; so do the students of Brandies University who opposed her. No one was denied that right. Both sides were heard, and the college eventually made a decision that they felt was right. This is tyranny? Spare me the drama.
Ali has apparently lived a tough life and has faced very real persecution. This is not an example of said persecution. There are real problems to complain about; it’s sad that Ali has allowed herself to be used as another faux victim in the right wing’s martyr drama. I wish her well in raising awareness about abuse of women within the Muslim world, but I think proclaiming that we are “at war with Islam”–something even Bush was wise enough to deny–is the wrong way to go about it.
Oh brother, the ass is back …
Re #17 Chris: “To act as if Brandies has somehow violated Ali’s first amendment rights by not giving her an honorary degree is to display the utter childishness of the modern conservative movement’s idea of free speech.”
Who is saying (or acting as if) any free speech rights were violated by Brandeis University?
Fact you jackass: Liberals simply stopped Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking against the abuse of women.
This was not a violation of any 1st Amendment rights, it was simply and example of the sort of crass, intolerant, an illiberal behavior we have come to expect from “liberals” like you, Chris. The liberals at Brandeis should be ashamed, and so should you, but of course you and they are not. Liberals have no sense of shame.
What a jerk.
Here is one for the ass to consider (but he won’t for fear of being “propagandized”). A worthwhile read for everyone except the usual liberals with their heads …
The Shame of Brandeis
And of a culture that has lost its way
By Charles C. W. Cooke
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375450/shame-brandeis-charles-c-w-cooke
OMG Chris where do you come up with this “stuff?”
No one said she was “entitled” to an honorary degree. Brandeis announced they were going to award her one. Then, because of a bunch of radical liberals withdrew it.
Liberals have been stopping conservatives from speaking on college campuses all over the US and Canada by forcing their participation cancelled before or disrupting them while speaking.
Name one time conservative have stopped liberals from speaking at a college campus. I don’t recall ever hearing of any. If you come up with any I’d be very interested.
Ann Coulter Canada Speech Cancelled by Angry Mob, Skittish Police:
“Canada is supposed to be a democracy. Free speech, even by those that many find objectionable, is necessary to preserve democracy. And yet it appears that the Canadian authorities, who are supposed to defend the rights of anyone on Canadian soil, dropped the ball and allowed an angry mob suppress the free speech of a public figure through threats and displays of violence.
Ann Coulter points out that left wing figures, such as Michael Moore, who if anything are even more provocative than she is, are not treated in such a fashion. Coulter can be forgiven if she concludes there is a bias against conservatives in Canada which is reflective in the way they are treated.”
http://voices.yahoo.com/ann-coulter-canada-speech-cancelled-angry-mob-skittish-5704766.html
Censorship at UC Irvine:
“Recently Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, who is an academic historian and a political moderate, was invited to speak at the University of California at Irvine. I know Michael well and have heard him speak many times. He is one of Israel’s most effective advocates, particularly on university campuses. He speaks about peace, about the two-state solution and he brings a historical perspective to his analysis. Because he is so effective, anti-Israel zealots try to prevent him from speaking and his audience from hearing his views.
That’s exactly what happened at the University of California at Irvine when Oren began to speak. This tactic of censorship will be tried at other universities as well, if it is permitted to succeed.
Let there be no doubt about it, these radical anti-Israel zealots are trying to censor Michael Oren. After repeatedly disrupting his speech and making it impossible for him to continue, eleven of them were arrested and now face possible disciplinary action from the University of California, a public institution.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/censorship-at-uc-irvine-3/
At link #19 Pie, Mr Cook related the purpose behind Brandeis honorary degree:
“…bestows honorary degrees as a means of acknowledging the outstanding accomplishments or contributions of individual men and women in any of a number of fields of human endeavor. Just as Brandeis does not inquire into the political opinions and beliefs of faculty or staff before appointing them, or students before offering admission, so too the University does not select honorary degree recipients on the basis of their political beliefs or opinions.
Their purpose is clear and intended to be open. Unfortunately it seems Brandeis knuckled to protest “on the basis of…political beliefs or opinions”
Ooops …
Having exposed himself yet again as a silly, slur mongering hypocrite, the ass withdraws. Good.
By the way, here is something similar that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have spoken to had she not been gagged by a intolerant, despicable, and shameful cabal of free discourse hating liberal thugs at Brandeis (whom Chris, of course, defends and champions) —
Sudanese mother smiling with relief after an international outcry prevented her hanging by Islamics for converting to Christianity —
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665929/pictured-meriam-ibrahim-freed-Sudanese-mother-sentenced-death-converting-Christianity-freed-international-outcry.html
If the “liberals” at Brandeis had their way, this evil would have never been brought to anyone’s attention.