by Jack
Written Wed, January 7th, 2015……
Today I was deeply wounded by Chris S., a frequent commenter, who pointed out something I did terribly wrong and I had to agree. That’s what wounded me, I hate to agree with him! Of course I think Chris is crazy as June bug and he has an axe to grind against people of a conservative bias like me, but that’s another story! He rightly called me on my transgression and in my haste and under emotional duress, I believe I crossed a line of responsible journalism and for that I am really upset at myself….seriously I am. The rest of what follows you can guess if its tongue in cheek or serious. Consider this modern art in words and see what you will.
What awful thing did I do? Well, I took exception to a Muslim being appointed to Homeland Security. And I’m beating myself up as I write, how dare I raise the eyebrow of suspicion on an Obama appointee! I realized in hindsight this was an emotional reaction, not a logical one and its not my style. Fatima Noor, the appointee in question, actually has very good qualifications for the job. Its not my place to judge her potential job performance based on her religious/political affiliation.
Yes Chris, my emotions got the best of me. I bet your trilling your tongue and dancing in the street about now? Sorry, there goes another bigoted inference…see, I just can’t help myself, I’m totally losing it.
But, if I may put my transgression into some sort of context when I said that awful thing it was triggered by what I might call the final straw… this would be the murder of French journalists, not Obama’s appointment.
I heard about this vicious terrorist attack first things this morning as I woke up. And then later in the morning my emotions rose as I investigated this story. I was trying to compile a comprehensive overview, incorporating as much factual and relevant background information as I could. And the more I wrote, the more I read, the angrier I became. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an outrage against humanity by barbaric thugs! I was losing my perspective Chris, I was angry, but that’s still no excuse for saying that about Fatima. Hey, wrong is wrong and I have to call em like I see, even if its me that is the offender.
To make matters worse, hours ago I watched a video on the internet of a Muslim woman in her 30’s bound with a rope, led into a shallow grave where she was stoned to death by other Muslims, including her own father. It was an honor killing according to Sharia law. I didn’t intend to watch it, it was just on a site I found seeking information about terrorism. I won’t offer the link because nobody should be exposed to that sort of barbarism. But, the image of that woman was still stuck in my mind when I slipped up and said something inappropriate.
Previously, (I would say over many years) I’ve been exposed to thousands of atrocities in bloody detail as they were published in newspapers, magazines, or they appeared on TV and the internet and always it was committed in the name of Islam. This too has hurt my perspective – its corrupted my mind and pushed me towards harboring resentment toward Muslim fundamentalists.
Again, this is not an excuse for my terrible behavior, its only an explanation of events that led to it. Its ben shocking and frustrating to witness how otherwise normal people could be transformed into ruthless killers in this modern age, simply due to their religion and what is written in the Koran. 25,000 Muslim rioters that torched Buddhist temples and homes in Bangladesh! That’s nuts. Or how about the Muslims in England and Germany that planted bombs? They aimed at destroying innocent men, women and children. That’s nuts too!
Is it fair to note that some of the terrorist bombers were highly educated people? I recall one of the terrorists in England was a medical doctor. He took the Hypocratic oath to do no harm – how could this man, a healer, become a killer? All indications were his faith triggered it. That is scary, but hey….we can’t label them just because they happened to be Muslims, right?
And I wondered, how could one of our own Army officers, a psychologist become a killer of unarmed soldiers? That’s nuts. But, the common link to this globalized insanity was always the same fundamentalist Islam. So what is it in radical Islam that could do this to people? What is it that motivates them to be barbaric and so completely out of step with modern civilization. This stuff has been making me into a bigot, because I am starting to harbor a prejudice against radical Islam and I have to fix this, right Chris?
If I may continue….There have been no end of Muslim inspired decapitations or videos of American captives dying cruely at the hands of some Muslim terrorist. I could fill pages just detailing the terrible murders of completely innocent people by otherwise “nice” religious people who know the Koran chapter and verse. They all profess to believe that God (Allah) wanted them to do it and it was okay with God to kill, because the victims were not Muslims. Or if they were Muslims then they were obstructions to Jihad or something and so it was okay again. But, lets not focus on them now, this ought to be about me, because I’m the bad guy…I’m the bigot. I’m the one you single out for just retribution. You’re so wise to see my shortcomings without being swayed by the carnage that got to me to this low point.
Prior to 9/11 I never really thought much about Islam or Muslims. Oh, I had heard some things about their Islamic and/or Arab culture, mostly they were nice things about their generosity and hospitality. I liked that part. So, when the opportunity presented itself I made it a point to once to visit with a Muslim gentleman for about an hour at his home. It was very enjoyable. Later there was a second Muslim family I spoke with casually in their home as well, and I found them to be very nice people too. They were folks I would like as my neighbors.
After 9/11 and my continued exposure to the butchery done in the name of Islam caused me to question this religion/political organization and their long range motives, even though I knew a few nice people who attended the local Mosque and never viewed them or the Mosque as a problem. Yet, I found myself taking a harder stance again the broader religious/political entity. Oh, I tried to not prejudge a Muslim simply because they were a Muslim. I know that is wrong (seriously I do) and although I began to harbor concerns about the religious/political movement and what was going on inside their Mosques by Imams that would make these followers of the Prophet kill people for the sake of terrorism. I heard they were somehow standing up for Islam or advancing Allah’s will. So here it was and the seeds of bigotry were being sown.
When soldiers in our own armed forces, who were Muslims, started killing their fellow soldiers, it made me angry and sick. Again, I thought, how could this be? It was surreal. If there was one isolated event it could chalk it up to mental illness or something of that order, but there were a number of killings, all by Muslims. I tried to dismiss it as pure coincidence like those on the left and our President did…well, actually he called one event work place violence once and I forget what he said about the other killings. Yet, here was this question in mind that kept nagging at me. How could American born people who were no soldiers, who at some point converted to being a Muslim be turning against other Americans? I have no answer…perhaps you do?
As you know, there have been no shortage of green on blue killings in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were Muslim people vetted by us and allowed to be close to us. We trusted our lives to them and they turned on us, not once but many times. Again, how could this be? All of this death and destruction was very disturbing to me. The evidence of Muslim atrocities seemed to keep piling up. I was being over whelmed by it, I was up to my eyeballs in it and I couldn’t keep my fair and balanced perspective like you.
However, in my most recent article I repeatedly focused on radical Islam, so that I could somehow separate the non-violent, law abiding, peace loving Muslims from the violent Muslims killing babies and stoning women. We can’t indict all Muslims, right? Bigotry and you know your bigotry! We must look at everyone as an individual, we dare not lump everyone into a category, not ever. However, I hope you will understand this, I went wrong only after seeing so much carnage, so many violations of human rights, so much repression and murders in the name of Islam!
Yes Chris, I found it as difficult to discern the good guys in Islam from the bad guys in Islam. In WWII it would have been difficult for me to discern good Nazis from evil Nazis, or more recently, good Klan Members from bad Klan members. I am a flawed person I admit. But, since this time we are talking about a religion (that incorporates politics) - therefore, we ABSOLUTELY can’t lump them into a category or put a label on them otherwise its bigotry.
I don’t ever want to be guilty of thinking someone might be a risk to our safety just because they’re members of anything no matter what vile acts are attributed to them. Be it Islam or the Mafia, the Communist Party to the Nazi Party, or the Anarchists Party to the Pizza Party, the KKK, or even Al Qaeda! Hey, there could be good people in Al Qaeda too, right? I’m not judging anyone anymore! I can’t do that, if I can’t then its wrong for our government to ask those bigoted questions on their employment applications like, have you now or ever been a member of the communist party? Why bother to ask if they are a Nazi, a Klan member or Communist when its the content of their character that counts?
I can’t write here anymore until I get my mind right and I owe it all to you Chris.
I need to recover my fair and balanced approach to all people. Everyone is an individual – that’s my new mantra! Everyone is an innocent lamb, to be viewed with trust and love until they slaughter somebody.
So, bye for now and I will be back when I learn how to be a better person and I owe it all to you Chris.
I think I will have a talk with a Rabbi and an Imman and see what they have to say. Maybe I will go see a Christian pastor too, I dunno, but it couldn’t hurt. I’ll be back when I have some answers.
Thank you for editing this piece to clarify what was genuine and what was sarcasm. It was hard to tell in the earlier version.
I am glad you realize that your statement about Fatima Noor was bigoted, and I hope you mean it when you say you will try to do better in the future.
I understand that your suspicions about Muslims are based on the very real threat of radical Islam. I have never tried to downplay that threat. I have only tried to explain that an overreaction that lumps all Muslims in with the radicals is exactly what the terrorists want. Their goal is for a war between the West and Islam. Bush was smart enough to refuse to use that framing and explicitly said many times that we are not at war with Islam, but at this blog and others I have seen disagreement with that principle. This seriously worries me. Terrorists live on a cycle of hatred. They feed on it. They WANT cartoons like those of Charlie Hebdo to be published because they want to feel victimized. When actual anti-Islam rhetoric dominates the conversation, that only validates their victim complexes, and the terrorists win.
We cannot allow genuine, rational caution to transform into xenophobic fear. That’s what happened when we interned the Japanese during WWII, and during the McCarthy hearings. The threat was real, but our reaction was disproportionate and ended up hurting a lot of innocent people. We need to learn from history and do better. Viewing all Muslims with suspicion is unjust.
I have never said that I am perfect and that I do not have my own bigoted assumptions. I have made it clear many times that I believe all people, including myself, have certain bigoted assumptions that we inherit from society. I think we all have a responsibility to reflect on that and do better. I am glad to see you taking your first steps toward doing that. Even though much of this post was defensive and sarcastic, you have identified a problem and that is always a good first step. I wish you well.
Jack you’ve said something that is key in my own distrust of the religion and Rauf. First your comment; I’ll highlight the significant portion:
Who and what are the final authority in this religion? Rauf certainly speaks as if he is an authority. One of the things he has said is that our American Constitution is “compliant” with Sharia. It struck me when I first heard (read) it that an immigrant (I assume he’s an immigrant I could be wrong) would place our (secular) guiding document in the lesser position. It’s significant to me because many Muslims believe the future belongs to them in the form of a world wide caliphate.
I’m not assured by Rauf’s remarks; I am suspicious. I’m suspicious of his intentions. He is not assimilated to America and American values if he believes his religion takes the higher political position.
How does he square his belief that it is wrong to criticize Islam and the Profit and our Constitutional right of free speech?
Rauf has endorsed Muslim leaders who support the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim strategy of “Dawa”:
Discover the Networks goes on to report that Rauf has said “The only truly clashing area” between the Constitution and sharia law is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America.” And yet, “In December 2007 Rauf promoted his book at a Malaysia gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir, an organization that seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide.
This is so unlike the speech of Muslim American Zuhdi Jasser who clearly and definitively stands up for our Constitution and denounces the radical tyrannical elements in his religion. Dr. jasser openly calls for radical reforms in his religion.
Dr. Jasser’s life is threatened and he has been issued warnings, even from within his mosque, for his willingness to criticize the radical elements of his religion. This is not a religion that tolerates free speech if a mosque attended by a peaceful religion does not support free speech.
The right to question, doubt and criticize is covered under our right of free speech (and thought). It’s an important area in this war brought to us by those who take the extremes of the religion to heart and act on them, whether by violent means or peacefully through “dawa”. The seeds of distrust are planted by the religion itself; a religion that condones, according to radical Muslims and leaders in apparently peaceful Mosques, the spread of the elements of domination and tyranny within the religion.
I have questioned Rauf motives. I have not called him a terorist, and yet, just for questioning and disagreeing with his choice of the 911 site, I too am branded by Chris.
I have to question his understanding of the value in our Constitutional freedoms.
Tina: “Who and what are the final authority in this religion?”
No one is “the final authority” on Christianity, so why would you expect there to be a final authority on Islam?
“One of the things he has said is that our American Constitution is “compliant” with Sharia. It struck me when I first heard (read) it that an immigrant (I assume he’s an immigrant I could be wrong) would place our (secular) guiding document in the lesser position.”
Once again you are taking the least charitable interpretation of his words. I don’t see anything in there that puts the Constitution in a “lesser position” to Sharia. But even if it does…so what? Many American Christians believe that the Constitution is less important than the Bible. Should they be viewed with suspicion too?
It’s very strange to see you taking a statement where Rauf clearly says that he believes in the Constitution and that it is consistent with his own values…and somehow twisting that into a slight against the Constitution. It makes it look like there is nothing he could say that you wouldn’t take as a negative statement.
“He is not assimilated to America and American values if he believes his religion takes the higher political position.”
He has never said that his religion “takes the higher political position,” and his words don’t imply that.
“How does he square his belief that it is wrong to criticize Islam and the Profit and our Constitutional right of free speech?”
Can you point to where Rauf has said that it is wrong to criticize Islam and the prophet?
“Rauf has endorsed Muslim leaders who support the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim strategy of “Dawa”:”
First, it is wrong to get your definitions of Islamic words and concepts from blatantly anti-Islam sources. Second, even by the definition put forward by Discover the Networks, Dawa simply means proselytization. Many religions proselytize–there is nothing inherently sinister about that.
“And yet, “In December 2007 Rauf promoted his book at a Malaysia gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir, an organization that seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide.”
I already addressed this claim in another thread, Tina. Rauf was tasked by the United States government under the Bush administration to spread the message of moderation. This included speaking to radical groups. And the reception he recieved from Hizb ut-Tahrir was hardly welcoming; the group called him an “American agent” and a “propagandist” who spread the “lie” that the U.S. Constitution supports “freedom, justice, equality and fraternity.”
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/08/nyc-hti-claim/
This claim is deceptive, Tina, in that it intends to paint Rauf as sympathetic toward this radical group when in actuality they disagree wildly. Perhaps you should be at least as skeptical of your sources as you should be of Rauf.
I slid by that comment post about Fatima Noor and had to back wind to find it. Perhaps a Muslim filling the position of a special assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security is a good idea. Who better to help identify Muslim terrorists than a non-terrorist Muslim?
Seriously, I do not think her duties will involve identifying Islamic terrorists but no matter, this is just idle speculation. (OK, really really idle speculation.) Maybe her duties as a special assistant will be along the lines of Muslim outreach. You know, the job Obama expected to come under the purview of NASA when he told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, etc.”
It would be very interesting to learn what actually comes under her purview. In any case it is no mean feat for a university graduate to be awarded such a position and she should be proud to serve and proud of her exceptional achievement. Noor was one of THREE University of Memphis graduates receiving Presidential appointments. WOW!
“The University of Memphis graduates exceptional students who make significant differences in the world. These three students are stellar examples. They competed with students from the country’s most elite institutions and they prevailed. More importantly, these three will do a superior job for the Obama administration.”
“Noor majored in psychology with minors in Spanish and international relations. She recently completed a month-long research fellowship in psychology hosted by Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh; her research will be ongoing for this program. Noor was a leader in many honor societies at the U of M. She has done volunteer work with World Relief Memphis and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.”
Above quote sources: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fatimanoor.asp
Perhaps in her own way Fatima Noor will follow in the footsteps of her sister Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize award receiver Malala Yousafzay.
****
Rather than an example of true bigotry, as the mean little kid asserts, I think Jack’s statement is more of an example of jumping the gun given the recent events in France and Jack’s knowledge of the history of the strife, disruption, hate, intolerance, sexism, medieval Sharia law, violence and terrorism that contemporary Islam brings with it as it migrates all over the globe. Of course Chris leaps to his own conclusion about Jack because it is his sole intent and purpose here to attack and harass Post Scripts in any way possible and discredit the authors. I have never known anyone so relentless as Chris in scanning for any possible avenue of attack, no matter how niggling. He really hates Post Scripts, the Tea Party, conservatives in general, and of course Republicans. That extreme hate is palpable in everything he posts here.
Jack, unfortunately, handed him an exceptional opportunity and of course Chris lunged at that opportunity to speciously draw blood, as is his habit.
Why specious? Well, because Jack actually has a long history of actually doing just the opposite and not lumping all Muslims together in these pages – nor any religious, cultural, or ethnic group for that matter. In fact, he has time and time again sought to be fair and open-minded. At least from my perspective he has. I would say that from any reasonable person’s perspective he has. And especially with the ever-in-attack-mode Chris. Jack has the patience of Job, and so does Tina for that matter. Those admirable qualities are not undone by one unfortunate post in another thread and the ever present thorn labeling Jack a bigot. The thorn is full of it. Period.
Shortly before Chris had called Jack a bigot over some other issue and then issued a remarkable denial. It was a stellar example of left wing tactical weasel-wording from The English Major. Denying calling Jack a bigot while effectively calling him bigot in the same sentence in the very next phrase! I was roaring with laughter. I expect Jack was not.
Chris has a very long history of accusing Post Scripts of bigotry and racism and that is not going to change. He has also charged that Republicans and the Tea Party are bigoted racist organizations. Surprise, suprise! Those are the twin swords the left always falls back on in order to discredit anyone who disagrees with their policies and politics. For instance, it wasn’t long ago that the left tried to insulate Obama from any criticism by claiming critics must be racist bigots. Heck, they still try to float that nonsense.
Jack, if it is any consolation, you just got the Mau-Mau treatment from Chris using the classic Alinsky attack, Rule # 4 –
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Jack, your own personal rule is to be fair. It is a rule of Post Scripts. If Post Scripts has not been fair by allowing vicious extreme left wingers like Chris to post here, then what is Post Scripts? Unfair? Chris well knows his chosen enemy’s has a rule is to be fair and saw this as an opportunity to thump you with it. So I guess score one for the blood thirsty Chris. He must be quite pleased with himself.
Being called a bigot by anyone – even if it comes from a completely ridiculous, arrogant, and consistently rude person with all the personality of an open sore – is, to say the least, unpleasant.
Jack, you are no bigot, you had a momentary lapse of reason. To err is human, to swoop in and jump all over that err with obvious glee is Chris.
When it comes to subjects like racism and bigotry, Post Script fans should remember it was Chris who stated he “would be first in line to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire” if he crossed his sensibilities. Wow, with the well known and shameful history of the burning and hanging blacks in this country I think Chris (who loves to pose as “Mr. Sensitivity” what a farce that is!) really revealed his true nature on that one.
In Jack’s absence I would like Tina to please consider this: As long as Jack is on hiatus give the rest of us Post Scripts followers a break from the relentless din from the self-appointed man burner, double sword wielding hero of the extreme left, by banning Chris from these pages. (Yeah, I know, you won’t do it and I do not really expect you to.)
Lastly, Jack suggesting in the above there might be “good” Communists, Nazis, Anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, or Al Qaeda??? Oh c’mon Jack, fer cryin’ out loud! You can’t be serious. Are you pulling an Obama and seeking to make these evil and twisted fringe groups feel good about themselves and their “contributions” to humanity?
70% tongue in cheek Pie, sorry if I was not making myself clear. However, in every criticism there is something to be learned, so I’ll just chalk this up as a learning opportunity. Oh, and it was another opportunity for me to expose Muslim terrorism for what it is, a pariah on humanity! There are many hundreds of thousands, perhaps several million of these sick SOBs who wallow in self-glorification while killing defenseless people. I hate em… I will always hate em. They are monsters, why should anyone show any respect for them? They have no excuse for their criminal depravity.
Re #1 Chris: “I am glad you realize that your statement about Fatima Noor was bigoted, and I hope you mean it when you say you will try to do better in the future.”
Oh Jeeeeezus. What is the internet symbol for “enormous eyeroll.” Moses has come down from the mountain.
Jack has been chastised by the mean little kid and the mean little kid hopes he is properly contrite.
I think I am about to vomit.
If this doesn’t portend the end I don’t know what does. The ever arrogant and condescending extreme left-wing attack dog Chris demanding contrition from Jack and then giving him a reserved pat on the back for having “identified a problem and that is always a good first step.”
Ya know, I think I am done with Post Scripts (please, please, hold the cheers and jeers for a moment). It has degenerated into a third rate melodramatic farce.
Frankly I don’t wish to stick around and watch it get even more maudlin and slowly sink into sideshow oblivion. Score two for Chris. Hell, hand the blog over to him and retire.
I think I’ll take a gander at what is going on beneath the big top. I hear the show this year is pretty good and even features an elephant.
Jack, comparing Islam as a whole to Nazism or the KKK is inaccurate and offensive. To be a Nazi or a Klan member, one must buy into the ideology that certain human beings are inferior to others based on their immutable traits. Now certainly there are some strains of Islam that have a similar ideology, but there are millions of Muslims who do not believe any such thing and reject Islamofascism. There are not millions of Nazis and Klan members who reject the idea of racial supremacy.
Once again I thank you for acknowledging that your pre-judgment of Fatima Noor was bigoted, but your comparison to Nazis and Klan members here is just as bigoted as it equates the members of the world’s third largest religion with members of fanatical hate groups. Islam contains hate groups within it, but it is not in and of itself a hate group.
I should stress once again that I don’t believe saying bigoted things makes one a terrible person. I do not use this word to discredit you, shame you, or claim superiority. I use this word because I feel it is accurate, and because recognizing bigotry–in both ourselves and others–is important if we really believe in an equal society.
This discussion of bigotry might be helpful:
http://amptoons.com/blog/2014/12/29/being-called-racist-or-sexist-does-not-destroy-people-and-joseph-levines-defense-of-calling-someone-an-awful-human-being/
Well, Jack is back! I may stick around yet. (All may go ahead and grumble.) 70% tongue in cheek? Lord Chris is not going to like that at all. It is insufficiently contrite.
I just got done tying up a few loose ends and was headed for the door until I noticed this. I am still headed for the door, I have other issues to deal with today that must be attended to.
By the way, Muslim terrorists are not the only one who wallow in self-glorification. There is the President to consider, one or two visitors to these pages, Barbara Boxer of the 1000 accomplishments, the entire left in this country, and the Democratic Party.
Jack, I don’t believe you were being a religious (or racial) bigot at all. Calling you a bigot is so very much like calling someone a racial bigot for disagreeing with Obama’s policies.
I too am concerned about having a Muslim in a position of authority within the government. Ironically the more they seem to follow their religion the more I’m concerned. If you read the Quran (which I have) you realize that the radicals are the true Muslims. The Muslims that portray Islam as a peaceful religion apparently have not read their own holy book. The Quran is very clear that all Muslims have an obligation to promote Islam and to destroy all other religions. In doing so, they are allowed to use lying, deceit, and violence. If you don’t believe me read the Quran! You have to read it all, not just the sections that Muslims identify as support for their contention that it is a peaceful religion. The Quran starts out peaceful (although even those sections have very negative and disturbing things to say about nonbelievers). It then gets progressively hostile. There are verses later in the Quran that contradict these peaceful verses. So which verses do you accept? The Quran is very clear that in cases of contradiction the later verses should supersede the earlier verses. I wish everybody would spend the time to read the Quran. It is frightening.
So let’s get back to the bigotry claim. I believe you really need to take into account someone’s beliefs when you put them in a position of authority. If they follow a belief system that sanctions lying and deceit then there would always be doubt about truthfulness and motives. Would you hire a babysitter that believes in corporal punishment? Would you hire a baby sitter that believes kids should be able to do whatever they want with no limits? Beliefs matter. Just because they are in the scope of a religion does not make them immune from scrutiny.
I believe in freedom of religion and would never interfere with the religious rights of a Muslim (or the follower of any other religion). But that is up to a point. There are limits. If the practice of their religion would harm another person all bets are off. Being concerned about someone in a position of authority that believes they have a moral right (or obligation) to deceit is about caution, not bigotry!
1000% agree with #6. Well said, Jack.
Chris: “No one is “the final authority” on Christianity, so why would you expect there to be a final authority on Islam?”
God is the final authority in Christianity. The Holy Bible is his word. I assume it is the same with Islam (Allah and the Qur’an).
The next level of “religious” authority in either religion would be those who study to become expert regarding the teachings and then rise to positions of prominence and leadership. It is incumbent upon these leaders to call for reforms, to monitor and alter teachings. There is little evidence, over centuries of time, that any of them have any such intentions. I have to presume they are in accord with current practices whether they publicly say so or not. That leads me to a fairly solid conclusion, the leadership believes absolutely they deserve and are destined to be the worlds leaders and all people must submit and come under the authority of Allah.
I don’t know of a single Christian group that believes in stoning, cutting off heads, world wide domination or waging war, either overt and violent or covert and devious. I ask who is the final authority that would set aside these ancient and barbaric practices and ideals and bring Islam into this century. Christians have made reforms and in this nation have embraced a secular government and freedom with respect to religion. If there is no authority with the power to bring all of Islam together to reflect that nice little description, “the religion of peace,” then I suggest that it is not only wise but necessary to be suspicious and to guard against radical elements. It doesn’t take many of them to inflict chaos, horror, economic failure and wide spread despair and that is exactly what their tyrannical ideals and methods will bring if appeased and left unchecked.
“I don’t see anything in there that puts the Constitution in a “lesser position” to Sharia.”
You don’t want to see it…not even as a possibility!
“Many American Christians believe that the Constitution is less important than the Bible. Should they be viewed with suspicion too?”
Absolutely IF they start undermining our legal structure, waging wars overt and covert to fundamentally change our nation to be Bible compliant, demand submission, or start lopping off heads to intimidate and terrorize! Get a clue Chris, this is NOT about bigotry! This is about a very real and deadly threat to our liberty, our inalienable rights, our lives, and our children’s futures regarding same!
Your next question ends it for me. You demand a quote from Rauf where he says it’s wrong to criticize Islam. Geez Chris is there a lefty that doesn’t take that position? And why is that? You don’t have a problem criticizing Christianity. And if you can’t tolerate criticism of Islam why would you think Rauf would think differently?
This is getting a bit ridiculous. This may be the most ridiculous:
“There are not millions of Nazis and Klan members who reject the idea of racial supremacy.”
If you can find enough KKK today to fill a row boat I’d be surprised. Your comparison is silly. Also, even if there were millions, the people would rise up and be squarely in favor of and defeating them and shoving the rag tag remainder back into miserable ineffective hideouts. Same goes for Nazi’s, a group much admired by radical Islamists, by the way. We in the west rejected and defeated them and rightly so. What IS your problem!!!
I would like to end this comment by noting that Fatima Noor’s specialty is Spanish and the Latin nations. Most likely this is the main reason for her appointment.
Look for big things on the Presidents agenda regarding the influx of immigrants and fundamental transformation.
Jack, you had a reason to be wary; you just noted the wrong element in the transforming process. I do understand the frustration that led you to leap.
I cannot comment on Chris’s post on this subject, as I stated prior, I do not read many of them, I do however read the reply’s to his trite remarks, which often appear to be written in anger.
The smack down to his bias ideologue temperament by those who take the time to help potty train his poor aim, while he sprays his indifference toward others opinions with no more concern than pious disconnect is fun, plus their replies actually provide informative information on the subject.
Jack, it is apparent that Chris just has the need to push everyone’s button, for what? Just to noticed by Post Scripts and its readers.
But the image he has created for himself is better likened to EEYORE of POOH, and “I’m telling you. People come and go in this Forest, and they say, ‘It’s only Eeyore, so it doesn’t count”
Tina: “The next level of “religious” authority in either religion would be those who study to become expert regarding the teachings and then rise to positions of prominence and leadership. It is incumbent upon these leaders to call for reforms, to monitor and alter teachings.”
…Which is exactly what Imam Rauf has spent his entire career doing. You know that, right?
“There is little evidence, over centuries of time, that any of them have any such intentions.”
Really? Even though Rauf has made such intentions abundantly clear?
“If there is no authority with the power to bring all of Islam together to reflect that nice little description, “the religion of peace,” then I suggest that it is not only wise but necessary to be suspicious and to guard against radical elements.”
Again, guarding against radical elements is exactly what Rauf is doing. The guy has done more to fight radical Islam than you ever have or will.
“You don’t want to see it…not even as a possibility!”
Tina, don’t think I haven’t noticed this little game you play. Every time you fail to provide sufficient evidence for one of your accusations, you simply attack the person who points out your lack of evidence by saying they won’t consider the “possibility” that your accusations are correct.
This is absurd. Of course anything is possible. It’s “possible” that you yourself are a radical Islamist bent on implementing sharia law, and you are fomenting anti-Islam furor as a false flag in order to fuel Islamic radicalism. That’s a possibility. But it’s not likely, so such an accusation against you would be pretty useless.
By the same token, you are interpreting Rauf’s words in a way that is extremely unlikely to have been his intent, and does not match the literal interpretation of them either. Rauf said that there is no contradiction between the Constitution and sharia law. He has praised the U.S. Constitution on many occasions. You interpret that as a secret Islamist message that the Constitution is “politically inferior” to sharia law. Now, it’s possible that that’s what Rauf really believes, in the same way that it’s possible that you believe that all liberals should be sent to forced labor camps. But there is no evidence that either of you believe such things, so why act like either is a reasonable or useful premise?
You need more than “possibility” to make your accusations credible. You need evidence. I notice you did not acknowledge the many ways your attempts to provide evidence of Rauf’s radicalism in Comment #2 failed; specifically, your misleading claim about Rauf speaking in front of a radical organization was designed to make it seem as if Rauf agreed with them, when in fact they vociferously disagree.
“Get a clue Chris, this is NOT about bigotry! This is about a very real and deadly threat to our liberty, our inalienable rights, our lives, and our children’s futures regarding same!”
Do you understand that these are not mutually exclusive? As I said before, Japanese internment was also a response to a very real and deadly threat. That does not make it any less bigoted of an action.
“Your next question ends it for me. You demand a quote from Rauf where he says it’s wrong to criticize Islam. Geez Chris is there a lefty that doesn’t take that position? And why is that? You don’t have a problem criticizing Christianity. And if you can’t tolerate criticism of Islam why would you think Rauf would think differently?”
I find it astounding that you think it is unreasonable to ask you to provide evidence for your accusations against others! Of course if you accuse Rauf of believing it is wrong to criticize Islam, you should be willing to back that accusation up with evidence. “All lefties believe this!” is not evidence of what Rauf believes; it’s not even true.
I do not believe it is wrong to criticize Islam, and have never implied any such thing, so now you are back to making strawman arguments.
Your remarks about the Nazis and KKK only show the initial ridiculousness of Jack’s comparison.
Pie at #5 I agree with you. Chris’s lecturing posture is bad enough but when he then takes on the pastoral robes to pat someone on the head his already lofty arrogance slides up another hefty notch!
Harold at #6:
This is the only reason I indulge and tolerate Chris. as long as he’s willing to be such a useful tool for the left, not to mention terrorists, I am willing to use his comments to advance freedom as being far superior to fairness, political correctness and the tyranny that both intend to inflict! I appreciate the feedback.
Another perspective from The Weekly Standard points to the wisdom in being suspicious of motivations in Muslims in leadership. The title: “Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque, and National Security – It would be a bad idea to allow an asset controlled by American adversaries to be built anywhere in the United States.” Rauf has been characterized as an asset controlled by our adversaries. While our government has used Rauf, as an intermediary under Bush and Obama that does not mean his loyalties are to America or that he places freedom above the tenets of Islam. An excerpt:
If the only motivation for Rauf’s duplicitous posture is the flow of money, power, and influence he may not be a man committed to the terrorist goal of domination and tyranny…but he certainly would not be against it either.
It seems proving people like Jack are bigots is more important to liberals than the fact that members of a certain religion brutally murdered 12 journalists for exercising their freedom of speech.
Here is a clip I watched last night of Bill Maher. Yes, the liberal Bill Maher is actually calling out “that certain religion” which I dare not name lest Chris pontificates and Libby pukes.
Not sure if you can watch the clip from this pasting but it is a must see on this subject.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-bill-maher-tackles-paris-attacks-bill-cosby-on-jimmy-kimmel-live-20150108-story.html
Thank you Steve.
Steve: “It seems proving people like Jack are bigots is more important to liberals than the fact that members of a certain religion brutally murdered 12 journalists for exercising their freedom of speech.”
This is incredibly fallacious logic. The fact that I and other liberals are commenting more on anti-Muslim bigotry by conservatives than on this particular terrorist attack has nothing to do with degrees of importance. It’s about degrees of influence. Jack is a fellow American, and I believe he is basically a good person; I believe that about most conservatives. I believe that the type of everyday bigotry we see in America is a problem that can be solved by greater awareness and discussion. That’s why I comment here.
Islamic terror is a very different problem. The bigotry of those who believe in killing innocents to spread a political message, or responding to offensive cartoons through murder, is never going to be solved through logic and discussion. I am not going to go to a terrorist-run website to argue that terrorists should be more sensitive and inclusive. That would be useless, and I would probably be put on a watch list.
Your comment amounts to nothing more than “Terrorists are worse, so shut up about the bigotry on my side.” Yeah, I agree terrorists are worse, obviously. That’s why I am talking to you instead of them. If your defense is nothing more than “We’re not as bad as actual terrorists,” then you really have no defense at all.
Just because we have a common enemy in terrorism does not mean it is invalid to bring up any problematic aspects of your side. The same logic you are using right now was used to dismiss bigotry against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
It isn’t about “proving” that anyone is “a bigot.” It’s about calling out bigotry so that we can work together to make the world better.
Chris,
My point wasn’t to say that because terrorists are bad we conservatives have a license for bigotry. The point I’m shooting for, which Maher actually stated better than I, is that we’re not bigots for pointing out the truth.
If we’re going to point fingers, I think there is a soft bigotry of the left which right now ignores the horrific crimes going on by a particular group of people.
If you watch the video, notice how Kimmel hesitated to call out the terrorists for what they were, and how Maher, a liberal, corrected him on it. Political correctness in this country has scared people like Kimmel so much that he’s afraid to assert his freedom of speech!
I get that you’re being the voice of opposition on a conservative site. Maybe you go on liberal sites and advise them to stop using political correctness to limit freedom of speech in the country, but we’re not seeing it here. Maybe you go on these sites and condemn radical islam, but we don’t see it as much here.
All we ever hear from liberals in general is how we are racists and bigots for being white and putting an R next to our name. Under the constant barrage one can get defensive.
Re #18 Steve: Thanks Steve! First time ever I have been able to last more that 5 minutes listening to Maher. ( But not by much 😉 )
Jack dont dare quit! I take it you were being sarcastic? I enjoy this place and all the comments, except for Cris. He has it in for you and Tina. My advise is dont talk to him. I wont.
Steve: “Chris,
My point wasn’t to say that because terrorists are bad we conservatives have a license for bigotry. The point I’m shooting for, which Maher actually stated better than I, is that we’re not bigots for pointing out the truth.”
Well, sure, but I’m not sure what you mean by “the truth.” I brought the bigotry charge up because Jack implied that Noor should not have her position simply because she was a Muslim. I don’t think that’s the truth, and Jack, to his credit, no longer does either.
It is the truth that radical Islam poses a large threat. It is not the truth that we must therefore condemn all Muslims. Most of the time, the bloggers here realize that. But then there are times like Jack’s statement about Noor where people slip and, intentionally or not, make a bigoted comment about Muslims in general. Again, that does not make anyone a bad person. Bigotry is something we are all capable of; it is generally useless to divide the world into “bigots” and “non-bigots.” Doing so is actually counterproductive as it makes people accused of bigotry unnecessarily defensive. It’s hard to critically reflect on one’s own behavior when one thinks they are being called a monster on par with Hitler.
I admit that I was wrong to call Jack “a bigot” instead of simply critiquing his bigoted statement. That was uncalled for, and I am sorry. The fact that he did reconsider his position and changed it is to his great credit and proves that my labeling of him was unfair. His statement was bigoted, and he recognized that; giving him credit for that was not intended as a condescending “head pat,” but a genuine compliment.
“If we’re going to point fingers, I think there is a soft bigotry of the left which right now ignores the horrific crimes going on by a particular group of people.”
I disagree that those crimes are being ignored. The Hebdo shooting in particular Drew a strong reaction from liberals. Many, like Kimmel and Stewart, praised the journalists for their bravery even though they disagreed with the content of the cartoons.
“If you watch the video, notice how Kimmel hesitated to call out the terrorists for what they were, and how Maher, a liberal, corrected him on it. Political correctness in this country has scared people like Kimmel so much that he’s afraid to assert his freedom of speech!”
I didn’t see any fear. He used the word “presumably,” and Maher didn’t let him finish his sentence. He then agreed that it was an act committed by Muslim terrorists. That’s supposed to indicate a loss of free speech? I’m not seeing it.
“I get that you’re being the voice of opposition on a conservative site. Maybe you go on liberal sites and advise them to stop using political correctness to limit freedom of speech in the country,”
I don’t agree that there is a large effort to limit free speech by liberals in this country. I do call out liberal bigotry when I see it. I no longer even read the comments at Media Matters given how illiberal the commenters are there. I used to spend my time there calling out those who mocked Limbaugh’s weight and made transgender jokes about Ann Coulter. And when I do see liberals making generalizations about conservatives or Christians, I hold their feet to the fire (hi Pie Guevara!). I have many conservative and Christian friends and They are great people.
“Maybe you go on these sites and condemn radical islam, but we don’t see it as much here.”
If you haven’t seen me condemn radical Islam here, you haven’t read my comments very closely. For example, see comment #19, the very comment you were replying to, for an explicit condemnation of radical Islam.
“All we ever hear from liberals in general is how we are racists and bigots for being white and putting an R next to our name.”
Now this is simply a strawman argument. I had a very good reason for accusing Jack of making a bigoted statement here. He recognized that and revised his opinion. I was wrong to call him “a bigot,” and I am sorry. It is true that there are some liberals who believe all Republicans and all white people are bigots, but I have always stated here that they are wrong and they are showing bigotry themselves when they make such generalizations. (I do, however, believe that all people hold some bigoted ideas.)
“Under the constant barrage one can get defensive.”
Understood, which is why I will try to speak more carefully in the future. I am not immune to bigotry and I try to do some soul searching of my own from time to time.
Re #24:
There is only one phrase in this windy, extended, free-range drivel that has any value whatsoever —
“I admit that I was wrong …”
On and off I have witnessed Chris abuse Tina and Jack daily — if not hourly or even minute by minute — for years. His abuse has also been liberally applied to other participants of Post Scripts.
At the moment he is trying to pose as reasonable and thoughtful, but that facade won’t last. Trust me, this dog is rabid.
This is why I have nothing to do with Chris unless it is to return his relentless attacks with satire, ridicule, and a good dose of disgust. He deserves nothing more than that but Tina and Jack are such good folks that they continue to deal with him civilly and fairly.
Suffice it to say it will be a cold day in hell that I ever again treat Chris in a fair or civil manner. I will, however, continue to mine him for his wonderful comedic value. Chris is one of the most talented natural unintentional comedians I have ever witnessed, especially when he is at his most vicious.
The gift of laughter is the greatest gift of all. I am truly grateful or the gift Chris keeps on giving, and giving, and giving …
On many occasions I have advised Post Scripts to give him the boot for at least a while because even the best of unintentional internet cartoon characters can get tedious and tiresome. Sometimes I just think Post Scripts and their regular readers could use a well deserved break from this arrogant, strutting clown who seems to have an enormous need to stroke his own ego constantly.
Chris: “The Hebdo shooting in particular Drew a strong reaction from liberals. Many, like Kimmel and Stewart, praised the journalists for their bravery even though they disagreed with the content of the cartoons.”
Amazing and welcome as it is to see it, one has to ask, what took them so long? And does this mean that they now see the error of their PC insistence that we call violent terrorist acts things like “workplace violence” so as not to offend? Does it mean they will now refrain from insisting the right is anti-Muslim rather than anti-radical Muslim? Or will liberals continue as before when all of this blows over?
Let’s be clear. The journalists that were murdered and terrorized were/are satirists in the same business as Maher and others on the left who regularly issue bigoted remarks, sometimes very specifically, about conservatives and Christians. They are not called out for this, not seriously. In fact it’s been traditional and a matter of great sport with leftists to laugh uproariously over their bigoted, disrespectful “jokes” about the opposition. Over the last twenty or thirty years they have cheered and clapped even when really nasty and degrading “jokes” were leveled against the Tea Party, the Palins, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, the Bush’s and every other conservative politician or commentator that they think of as fair game. During the same period these leftists have insisted on politically correct language. This is not only speech control it is hypocrisy. Amazingly it is the very same trait of those of Islam who do not tolerate criticism of the religion or its founder but have no problem telling other people how they will live, speak, and worship.
I’m sorry but after decades and decades of such fair from the “nice” party that you support Chris, I’m not convinced that it’s possible to communicate much less come to understanding.
And as long as I’m again stating the case, I also resent the assumption that we as individuals need your help. (Yours or any other leftists) Adults would allow that other adults are responsible to monitor their own speech and correct as THEY think necessary. This is a political blog. We invite comments from any perspective. We expect the conversation to be contentious and we expect to read many opinions.
We are not group therapy and none of us is here to fix anyone else.
Re #27 Tina: “We are not group therapy and none of us is here to fix anyone else.”
Works for me!
Tina, I don’t believe a momentary lapse into reason and and reality for “liberals” and the left is going to change things much. In a week or so it will back to business as usual.
I concur with you 100% about PC, “This is not only speech control it is hypocrisy.”
PC is used as a weapon by the left to club people into submission. Chris himself is the perfect example. Just recently he has been tossing the “Islamophobia” slur around left and right and at every possible opportunity. Where does he get of with his dire warnings that Post Scripts walks the edge of Islamophobic bigotry? Good lord that makes my gut churn.
I bet in less than a week Chris will be back to wagging his finger and wielding the political correctness club. PC is a crucial core element of his song and dance, just as it is with all of the left.
“Suffice it to say it will be a cold day in hell that I ever again treat Chris in a fair or civil manner.”
This guy openly admits that he has no intention of treating another commenter in a fair or civil manner. How is this not a violation of this site’s rules?
Tina: “Amazing and welcome as it is to see it, one has to ask, what took them so long?”
Tina, you talk as if Stewart and other liberals have never condemned Islamic terrorism. That is simply untrue. If you haven’t heard them do so before, that is not their fault. You have accused me many times of refusing to condemn Islamic terror when in actual fact I can find dozens of instances of me doing exactly that on this blog. In another thread J Soden claimed that Obama never uses the word “terrorism,” which anyone can see is untrue with five seconds of Google.
The idea that liberals do not condemn Islamic terror is simply a false narrative constructed by the right and perpetuated by you.
“Does it mean they will now refrain from insisting the right is anti-Muslim rather than anti-radical Muslim?”
That depends. Will the right stop saying things like Muslims should not hold positions in government? That is clearly an anti-Muslim stance, rather than merely an anti-radical Muslim stance. Again, Jack was wise enough to change his opinion on this and realize it was bigoted, but you and others here, by all appearances, saw nothing wrong with it. I’ve said it many times; if you don’t want your party to be accused of bigotry, you should encourage the members of your party to stop saying bigoted things. It’s that simple.
This is not a game or a war for me. I don’t get any pleasure from seeing Republicans say and do things I think are bigoted, and I don’t point out bigotry to score cheap points. There is no winner or loser when either party engages in bigotry. Everyone loses.
“Adults would allow that other adults are responsible to monitor their own speech and correct as THEY think necessary.”
Tina, I can point to many instances in just the last week of you criticizing the speech of others. For instance, you spent a great deal of time dissecting the words of Imam Rauf, looking for sinister hidden meanings and even going as far as to twist certain statements, such as his remarks about the Constitution, into exactly the opposite of what they actually said. You and others here also frequently criticize the speech of liberals. You literally did that in this very comment by criticizing jokes that you believe are anti-Christian or bigoted toward conservatives. The idea that only liberals monitor speech, and that you never do, is simply ridiculous.
What you really seem to be arguing for is the right to criticize the speech of others while being shielded from criticism of your own speech. This is yet another example of you espousing a principle that you clearly do not follow in your own life.
Re #29: LMAO! Chris, the paradigm and pinnacle of civility and fairness gets out a great whine! I can sign out with a roar! Nice way to end an evening, dang I needed that!
Laughter IS the best medicine.
So I hate to ask this final question and keep this thread going any further, but after Bill Maher’s comments, and knowing that in the past he claimed that the real “axis of evil” was Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, does Maher qualify as bigoted under liberal standards?
Chris: “The idea that liberals do not condemn Islamic terror is simply a false narrative constructed by the right and perpetuated by you.”
What you fail to see/acknowledge is the duplicitous, hypocritical approach liberals take. When GWB was president liberals made HIM the greater evil and they did it for political reasons, which is truly despicable.
Sorry Chris, but that kind of condemnation does not translate to a solid unified front or to adequate criticism of an enemy that threatens the entire world.
Your side has also made political correctness more important than defeating the bad guys which is a colossal waste of energy during times of war. Win the damn thing and sort out the hurt feelings later…people are dying and being severely oppressed while you people diddle over niceties. Does it even occur to you that your nonsense is harmful to the larger more immediate goal? No! Your too busy worrying about small details that may or may not matter when it’s all over…after all, from my perspective, you assume bigotry where there is NONE!
For some reason you think a few comments now and then covers you on this subject. In my world it doesn’t work that way. The mission to defeat these barbarous monsters should have our unified, undying, unequivocal support no matter who is president and regardless the difficulties, or hurt feelings, involved. This is the real world, not the classroom, not a think tank. The threat requires more than sitting back and musing over whether or not people are insulted or hurt in the process.
It’s unfortunate, from my perspective, that we twice elected such a weak president in BHO but I supported, and praised, his early efforts to continue the policies of GWB. As he turned his efforts it became more difficult but I continued to refrain from criticism. That changed when it looked like his efforts were designed to undermine intentions to “defeat” this evil bunch. The result of his turning is obvious and over time verified my concerns. The enemy is not defeated; it is invigorated, it has spread, and it will continue to plague us and our (Oft insulted by BHO) allies for some time to come.
Steve at #32, yes I think it does. How clever of you to notice. As you know it doesn’t count though, not in liberal circles
Re #32 Steve : Perhaps the true axis of evil is egocentric liberals like Maher who dance and flitter about bathed in the beacon of free speech but who, in fact, turn that beautiful shining freedom into something dark, ugly, and evil.
“So I hate to ask this final question and keep this thread going any further, but after Bill Maher’s comments, and knowing that in the past he claimed that the real “axis of evil” was Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, does Maher qualify as bigoted under liberal standards?”
I’ve always believed Maher acts in a bigoted manner toward many groups. His comments about religion in general often cross the line, and I’ve never regarded him as anything more than a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh. That said, his comments on the Kimmel video weren’t that bad. He didn’t go as far as to say all Muslims are responsible for Islamofascism, as Rupert Murdoch did. Maher has said worse about Muslims in the past.
Courtesy Message: In case the great vicious and stupid one has not noticed, no one gives a crap about his idiotic opinions except for Tina and Jack who use them as a device to make their own points and show just how stupid and vicious the left is.
I suggest the great vicious and stupid bigot do some more soul searching.
Suggested Priority: First try to determine if you actually have a soul.
“great vicious and stupid one”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/01/04/rules-post-scripts-restatement-rules-2015/
To the great vicious stupid one —
Ilunga
Bantu word — A person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time