New details have emerged about the Dayton mosque incident. I explore them in detail at City of Brass v2.0.
(sorry no RSS feed for the new site is available yet. I am leaning on my editors to get me one soon. Please stay tuned :)
Showing posts with label jafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jafi. Show all posts
3/31/2008
how appropriately named
I don't think anyone could deliver a more damaging critique of Wilder's Fitna than this:
Ouch. especially since he was serious in his admiration. When you've made a film that makes a terrorist smile, you have to wonder what side you really are on.
(source: Financial Times, registration required)
Omar Bakri, the Libyan-based radical Muslim cleric who is barred from Britain, did not think the film was very offensive. "On the contrary, if we leave out the first images and the sound of the page being torn, it could be a film by the [Islamist] Mujahideen," he said.
Ouch. especially since he was serious in his admiration. When you've made a film that makes a terrorist smile, you have to wonder what side you really are on.
(source: Financial Times, registration required)
3/30/2008
the wages of fitna
Earlier, I mentioned that Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, of bomb-in-turban Mohammed fame, was suing Geert Wilders for copyright violation. Now it seems that Dutch businesses are following suit (pun intended):
The inclusion of the mention of cars being set afire seems pretty tangential to me, especially since it was isolated incidents and not widespread.
At first glance, a boycott seems rather harsh since the ordinary Dutch people - including obviously all Dutch muslims - were steadfastly opposed to Fitna and yet they would bear the economic brunt of a boycott far more than the jafi minority like Wilders and his cohorts.
However, in a free country a boycott is a legitimate instrument for applying social pressure, a form of speech in its own right. Just because you have the right to do a thing doesn't mean that there aren't reasons, of civility and honor, to refrain. If Fitna results in economic harm by voluntary (and legitimate) boycotts of Dutch goods from muslim countries then that is part of the price that the Dutch have to pay for their freedom. Wilders had every right to make his movie, irrespective of the harm it could have caused others, and muslims have every right to respond peaceably via boycotts.
And Dutch businesses suing Wilders over it seems rather just a comeuppance, doesn't it?
UPDATE: anyone inclined to argue that a boycott is unfair would do well to consider the alternative:
So not gonna happen!
Obviously Arab governments, being largely autocratic, would advocate criminalizing speech sine that is what they routinely do. Speech truly is dangerous, after all, and autocracy has reason to fear it. But the case of Fitna also shows that free nations also have reason to fear speech, and the corrective is applied not through government intervention but rather the power of the market.
The best answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean that bad speech doesn't have consequences of its own, regardless of whether you live in a free ocuntry or not. There is no such thing as cost-free speech - rights come responsibilities, as well.
Dutch businesses warned on Saturday that they would consider suing far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders if his anti-Islam film led to a commercial boycott of Dutch goods, while police said cars were set ablaze and graffiti called for Wilders to be killed.
“A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips, and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies. I don’t know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility,” Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the Dutch employers’ organisation VNO-NCW, told the Het Financieel Dagblad newspaper.
Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Muhammad on Saturday suggested a boycott of Dutch goods.
“If Muslims unite, it will be easy to take action. If we boycott Dutch products, they will have to close down their businesses,” he told reporters.
The media in Jordan has also called for such a boycott.
Two days after the Internet release of the long-awaited 17-minute documentary “Fitna”, Muslim nations, including Malaysia and Singapore, and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned it. Although there were no mass disturbances in the Netherlands, two cars were set ablaze in Utrecht overnight, with a slogan calling for the death of Wilders. Police said they could not say with certainty that it was connected to the release of “Fitna”.
The inclusion of the mention of cars being set afire seems pretty tangential to me, especially since it was isolated incidents and not widespread.
At first glance, a boycott seems rather harsh since the ordinary Dutch people - including obviously all Dutch muslims - were steadfastly opposed to Fitna and yet they would bear the economic brunt of a boycott far more than the jafi minority like Wilders and his cohorts.
However, in a free country a boycott is a legitimate instrument for applying social pressure, a form of speech in its own right. Just because you have the right to do a thing doesn't mean that there aren't reasons, of civility and honor, to refrain. If Fitna results in economic harm by voluntary (and legitimate) boycotts of Dutch goods from muslim countries then that is part of the price that the Dutch have to pay for their freedom. Wilders had every right to make his movie, irrespective of the harm it could have caused others, and muslims have every right to respond peaceably via boycotts.
And Dutch businesses suing Wilders over it seems rather just a comeuppance, doesn't it?
UPDATE: anyone inclined to argue that a boycott is unfair would do well to consider the alternative:
DAMASCUS, Syria, March 29 -- Islamic and Arab leaders denounced a Dutch film Saturday that portrays Islam as a ticking time bomb aimed at the West, calling for international laws to prevent insults to religions.
So not gonna happen!
Obviously Arab governments, being largely autocratic, would advocate criminalizing speech sine that is what they routinely do. Speech truly is dangerous, after all, and autocracy has reason to fear it. But the case of Fitna also shows that free nations also have reason to fear speech, and the corrective is applied not through government intervention but rather the power of the market.
The best answer to bad speech is more speech. But that doesn't mean that bad speech doesn't have consequences of its own, regardless of whether you live in a free ocuntry or not. There is no such thing as cost-free speech - rights come responsibilities, as well.
3/29/2008
Geert Wilder's Fitna
(welcome, Instapundit readers!)
UPDATE: The YouTube version was pulled offline, but I found another from Google Video via Rusty.
The ridiculousness of the film speaks for itself, I think. However, Ali Eteraz performed the thankless task of reviewing it anyway. Also, do not miss Thabet's link roundup about the subdued response to the film's release by muslims in Europe and elsewhere.
Warning, very graphic images. Absolutely NOT work- or children-safe.
The cartoon portraying the Prophet Mohammed SAW as a hook-nosed terrorist with a bomb in his turban, over which a lawsuit has been filed, appears in the first 15 seconds.
The tone and style of the film is lifted straight out of the most fevered swamps of the blogsphere and talk radio. I don't really see how this makes any coherent argument other than "terrorists are evil" which is hardly a point of contention. The link of Islam to terror is ham-handed and clumsy and at many times outright laughable. However, for someone with confirmation bias predisposing them to believe the link exists already, this will no doubt be seen as a devastatingly rigorous argument. To someone with no a-priori image of Islam, its actual persuasive value is practically zero. It is solely a guilt-by-association polemic, and a rude, ugly, obscene fear-mongering polemic at that.
Part II tomorrow.
UPDATE: I have received some emails from people asking why I would want to publicize this. (No, no death threats yet. Don't hold your breath.) As I discussed at a thread at Dean Esmay's blog, The film is it's own best counter-argument. It is so over the top that it undermines itself. If censorship against the film succeeded, then people would only know it exists and it would have some credibility accorded to it by virtue of the mystery and controversy. Like Janet Jackson's nipple, though, once (ahem) laid bare it's not that big a deal, and just kind of pathetic.
UPDATE: The YouTube version was pulled offline, but I found another from Google Video via Rusty.
The ridiculousness of the film speaks for itself, I think. However, Ali Eteraz performed the thankless task of reviewing it anyway. Also, do not miss Thabet's link roundup about the subdued response to the film's release by muslims in Europe and elsewhere.
Warning, very graphic images. Absolutely NOT work- or children-safe.
The cartoon portraying the Prophet Mohammed SAW as a hook-nosed terrorist with a bomb in his turban, over which a lawsuit has been filed, appears in the first 15 seconds.
The tone and style of the film is lifted straight out of the most fevered swamps of the blogsphere and talk radio. I don't really see how this makes any coherent argument other than "terrorists are evil" which is hardly a point of contention. The link of Islam to terror is ham-handed and clumsy and at many times outright laughable. However, for someone with confirmation bias predisposing them to believe the link exists already, this will no doubt be seen as a devastatingly rigorous argument. To someone with no a-priori image of Islam, its actual persuasive value is practically zero. It is solely a guilt-by-association polemic, and a rude, ugly, obscene fear-mongering polemic at that.
Part II tomorrow.
UPDATE: I have received some emails from people asking why I would want to publicize this. (No, no death threats yet. Don't hold your breath.) As I discussed at a thread at Dean Esmay's blog, The film is it's own best counter-argument. It is so over the top that it undermines itself. If censorship against the film succeeded, then people would only know it exists and it would have some credibility accorded to it by virtue of the mystery and controversy. Like Janet Jackson's nipple, though, once (ahem) laid bare it's not that big a deal, and just kind of pathetic.
3/28/2008
a disagreement among jafis
I find this rather bizarre - one of the original Danish cartoonists who portrayed the Prophet SAW as a terrorist in his cartoon, is now suing Dutch MP Geert Wilders over copyright violations in the latter's movie Fitna, which portrays Islam as a religion of terror.
I find it intriguing that Westergaard chose the movie to make his stand and to argue that his cartoon was only an indictment against terrorism. He was certainly, ahem, silent over widespread adoption of his cartoon (portraying the Prophet with a bomb in his turban) by exactly those vocal European groups which explicitly claim that Islam as a whole is a problem. And I dont see how you can claim you are not indicting the religion as a whole if you coose to portray the founder of the faith himself as a terrorist. Logically doesn't that imply that his teachings are also terror?
I think the more likely explanation for Westergaard's sudden concern for moderate Islam is revealed here:
In other words, he is really just afraid of the additional publicity. Since his cartoons did actually trigger a genuine StupidStorm of violence, whereas Wilder's Fitna is largely being ignored, I think his fear is understandable given his experience. Still, it's quite interesting that now he has basically endorsed the existence of moderate mainstream Islam, which will be a useful wedge to use against those who try to adopt his insulting cartoon as a weapon against ordinary decent muslims.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, says he will sue the maker of an anti-Islam film.
Mr Westergaard says his cartoon, which sparked riots two years ago, was used in the film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders without permission.
Mr Westergaard told Danish TV that his cartoon was a protest against terrorism, not Islam as a whole.
The Danish journalists' union is suing on his behalf for copyright violation.
"Wilders has the right to make his movie but he has not permission to use my drawing," Mr Westergaard told Denmark's TV2.
"This has nothing to do with freedom of speech," he said. "I will not accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one."
I find it intriguing that Westergaard chose the movie to make his stand and to argue that his cartoon was only an indictment against terrorism. He was certainly, ahem, silent over widespread adoption of his cartoon (portraying the Prophet with a bomb in his turban) by exactly those vocal European groups which explicitly claim that Islam as a whole is a problem. And I dont see how you can claim you are not indicting the religion as a whole if you coose to portray the founder of the faith himself as a terrorist. Logically doesn't that imply that his teachings are also terror?
I think the more likely explanation for Westergaard's sudden concern for moderate Islam is revealed here:
Mr Westergaard says he is once again in danger because the cartoon has been used in Mr Wilders' film.
In other words, he is really just afraid of the additional publicity. Since his cartoons did actually trigger a genuine StupidStorm of violence, whereas Wilder's Fitna is largely being ignored, I think his fear is understandable given his experience. Still, it's quite interesting that now he has basically endorsed the existence of moderate mainstream Islam, which will be a useful wedge to use against those who try to adopt his insulting cartoon as a weapon against ordinary decent muslims.
3/26/2008
fitna against fitna
As previously mentioned, Dutch MP Geert Wilders is planning to release a film entitled "Fitna" which purports to prove that Islam and the Qur'an are an "inspiration to murder" and the faith is fundamentally inmical to Western values. In essence, it is hate speech, which will test the boundaries of free speech in much the same way that (falsely) yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater does.
There are numerous restrictions on free speech - for example, in most of Europe, Holocaust denial is illegal. Still, I find myself repulsed by suggestions that the Qur'an and Islam should be placed beyond limits of critique, parody, or even mockery as a matter of law. However, there is nothing wrong with advocating opposition to hate speech in the marketplace. They say that the best answer to bad free speech is more speech, but what is often more effective as an answer to bad speech is less money. Boycotts, public pressure, and media scrutiny upon those affiliated with hate speech hits the purveyors of hate where it counts - in their pocketbooks.
This is why, though I am absolutely opposed to any restriction by law upon speech against Islam, I applaud this news:
And yes, I do believe that Network Solutions should follow suit on the other hate sites mentioned above, assuming that they have received complaints. This strikes me as a reasonable market response to a speech issue. Anyone who cries foul or censorship on Network Solution's takedown of the movie page is misguided in their understanding of what speech is. Wilders has no inherent right to force any company to act as vehicle for his (genuine) right to free speech. A company affiliated with him has every right to assess their own self-interest and determine whether they want to maintain that association, and take into account just how that association will affect its own image in the marketplace.
I think Ars Technica is trying to be fair in invoking other hate sites which remain in operation, but really it is pretty irrelevant that other hate sites remain online. If Ars were to file complaints about each of those, and NetSol refused to then do the same to those as they have done for Fitna, then the comparison would be relevant.
There are numerous restrictions on free speech - for example, in most of Europe, Holocaust denial is illegal. Still, I find myself repulsed by suggestions that the Qur'an and Islam should be placed beyond limits of critique, parody, or even mockery as a matter of law. However, there is nothing wrong with advocating opposition to hate speech in the marketplace. They say that the best answer to bad free speech is more speech, but what is often more effective as an answer to bad speech is less money. Boycotts, public pressure, and media scrutiny upon those affiliated with hate speech hits the purveyors of hate where it counts - in their pocketbooks.
This is why, though I am absolutely opposed to any restriction by law upon speech against Islam, I applaud this news:
Godhatesfags.com. JewWatch.com. KKK.com. These are all examples of controversial web sites that regularly stir up debates over religion and hate speech online. Generally speaking, if a site avoids making direct threats and is based in the US, it's usually allowed to continue operating in the name of free speech. Once site that has not made the cut is Fitnathemovie.com. It promoted a yet-to-be-released film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders that was critical of the Qur'an, and it has now been suspended by its US-based hosting company, Network Solutions, pending an investigation into the site's contents.
[...]
The company's placeholder page says that Fitnathemovie.com "has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation." The Acceptable Use Policy generally prohibits sites that contain "profane, indecent, or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature."
And yes, I do believe that Network Solutions should follow suit on the other hate sites mentioned above, assuming that they have received complaints. This strikes me as a reasonable market response to a speech issue. Anyone who cries foul or censorship on Network Solution's takedown of the movie page is misguided in their understanding of what speech is. Wilders has no inherent right to force any company to act as vehicle for his (genuine) right to free speech. A company affiliated with him has every right to assess their own self-interest and determine whether they want to maintain that association, and take into account just how that association will affect its own image in the marketplace.
I think Ars Technica is trying to be fair in invoking other hate sites which remain in operation, but really it is pretty irrelevant that other hate sites remain online. If Ars were to file complaints about each of those, and NetSol refused to then do the same to those as they have done for Fitna, then the comparison would be relevant.
3/10/2008
Al Qaeda Boogaloo II: Barack the House
Iowa Representative Steve King is a jafi of the highest degree:
The GOP War on (American) Muslims continues apace. Presumably, the inconvenient truth about what Al Qaeda really thinks about Barack Obama doesn't interest the gentleman from Ohio.
I don’t wanna disparage anyone because of their race or their ethnicity or their name, whatever the religion of their father might have been-- [but] I’ll just say this then: If you think about the optics of a"Barack Obama" potentially getting elected president of the United States, and I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world, what does it look like to the world of Islam?
And I will tell you, if he is elected president, the radical Islamists, and the al Qaeda and radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11. Because they will, they will declare victory in the war on terrorism. They will say the United States has capitulated, because we will be pulling our troops out of any conflict that has to do with Al Qaeda anywhere. And additionally it does matter, his middle name does matter, it matters because they read a meaning into that the rest of the world, that has special meaning to them, they’ll be dancing in the streets because of his middle name, they’ll be dancing in the streets because of who his father was, and because of his posture that says pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict. So there are implications that have to do with who he is, and the position that he’s taken.
If he were strong on national defense and said I’m gonna go over there and we’re gonna fight and we’re gonna win and we’ll come home with a victory, that’s different, but that’s not what he said. And they will be dancing in the streets if he’s elected president, and that has a chilling aspect on how difficult it will be to ever win this global war on terror.
The GOP War on (American) Muslims continues apace. Presumably, the inconvenient truth about what Al Qaeda really thinks about Barack Obama doesn't interest the gentleman from Ohio.
3/05/2008
Did the muslim smear hurt Obama in Ohio?
Obama carried the major cities in Ohio yesterday but lost statewide.I can't help but wonder how much the "cryptomuslim" whispering smear campaign hurt him. There are some clues in the exit polls. Using the data from CNN, we see the following:
The vote among Democrats was racially divided, with white Dems going for Clinton and black Dems going for Obama. Democratic party members followed the same breakdown, but white Independent voters were somewhat closer, preferring Clinton by 8 points.
Vote by Race
White (76%) - Clinton 64%, Obama 34%
African-American (18%) - Clinton 13%, Obama 87%
Vote by Party and Race
White Democrats (49%) - Clinton 70%, Obama 27%
White Independents (18%) - Clinton 53%, Obama 45%
Black Democrats (15%) - Clinton 12%, Obama 88%
Protestants and Catholics alike preferred Clinton by a very large margin. This held true regardless of race.
Vote by Religion
Protestant (32%) - Clinton 61%, Obama 36%
Catholic (23%) - Clinton 63%, Obama 36%
Other Christian (23%) - Clinton 46%, Obama 54%
Vote by Religion and Race
White Protestant (40%) - Clinton 67%, Obama 30%
White Catholic (20%) - Clinton 65%, Obama 34%
Interestingly, when you look at the age breakdown overall, there's a transition with Obama taking progressively less and Clinton taking progressively more as you go up in age bracket. The breakeven point was the 40-49 age group who went for Clinton by only 4 points. However when you factor race and age together, the numbers decline for Obama quite drastically, with Obama winning the youngest age bracket (17-29) by only one point, and then losing more and more to Clinton as you go up.
Vote by Age
17-24 (7%) - Clinton 29%, Obama 70%
25-29 (8%) - Clinton 41%, Obama 54%
30-39 (17%) - Clinton 49%, Obama 51%
40-49 (21%) - Clinton 52%, Obama 48%
50-64 (32%) - Clinton 60%, Obama 37%
65 and Older (14%) - Clinton 72%, Obama 26%
Vote by Age and Race
White 17-29 (10%) - Clinton 47%, Obama 48%
White 30-44 (19%) - Clinton 60%, Obama 40%
White 45-59 (26%) - Clinton 66%, Obama 32%
White 60 and Older (20%) - Clinton 72%, Obama 24%
So overall, the vote broke heavily across racial lines, regardless of party affiliation. The Christian vote broke heavily for Clinton, regardless of race. And the youth vote broke for Obama, except for the white youth.
It is of course very difficult to tease out anything concrete from this. What seems relevant though is that race, while a strong factor, had no effect on the religion breakdown, whereas it did tip the age breakdown. This suggests to me that religion was a strong barrier to Obama and operated independently of race. If religion was more flexible, then it would also have followed the racial pattern seen in the age grouping. Can we infer then that the muslim smear had some effect? It certainly wasn't negligible, but it probably was just one of a number of factors that combined to tip the state towards Hillary.
Hillary certainly had the opportunity to distance herself, and utterly repudiate, the muslim smear in a very public fashion before the people of Ohio and chose not to do so. So while her campaign probably wasn't actively fanning the muslim smear, it certainly was content to let it operate unhindered.
Earlier I argued that we as muslims should wait until after the primary ends to hold Obama accountable for distancing himself from muslim Americans. It's true that he has called the smear an insult to muslims, but he still has not said that whether he is muslim or not is irrelevant. I thought prior to Ohio that some distance between Obama and muslim Americans would help him, but now it seems to me that there's not much point. So why not press the issue now?
I think that prior to Pennsylvania Obama should confront the muslim smear and attempt to take it off the table by challenging the underlying islamophobia. I don't think his delegate lead is in any danger but I very much doubt he will win PA, a state with demographics highly similar to Ohio. Even the most committed Obama partisans must concede that losing OH and PA is going to be a significant liability in the general election - electability is a real concern, and the Democrat can't beat McCain without those two states. Therefore Obama has to look strategically at the electability issue and attempt to neutralize whatever forces he can that are undermining him in these blue-collar, predominantly white and Christian communities. The two things hurting him the most are the NAFTA problem and the muslim smear.
The real target is John McCain, and John McCain is no Alan Keyes. If Obama wants to counter Hillary's argument that only she can beat McCain by competing in battleground states (whose importance in the general election even a 50-state strategy can't diminish), he is going to have to make a serious play for PA. And that means it's time for him to channel his inner Jerry Seinfeld.
"I'm not muslim and never have been. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Senator Obama, you can't hide from the cryptomuslim smear forever. The time to confront it is now. If Hope, Change, and Unity aren't enough to defeat the Islamophobia within, then how much power do these key concepts of your campaign really hold?
3/03/2008
Obama: muslim smear offensive to muslims
I asked in January why Obama didn't do more to defend Islam rather than just distance himself from the muslim smear. Since that time a number of other articles in the popular media as well as the blogsphere have followed suit. Now, 60 Minutes had a segment yesterday that dealt in part with the muslim smear, in which Obama directly addresses the smear:
Obama doesn't go as far as the Jerry Seinfeldism we'd all like to hear him say ("not that there's anything wrong with that") but others from his church do make that explicit. As I mentioned earlier, muslims probably need to be content with this from him for now because the smear is indeed a barrier to the nomination. The Clinton campaign is not pure as driven snow here. But once the nomination is secured, we can expect much more from Obama. And we should.
UPDATE: Ali Eteraz also has the video and transcript up. He urges all muslim bloggers to do the same.
"This has been a systematic email smear campaign that's been going on since, actually, very early in this campaign. Clearly it's a deliberate effort by some group or somebody to generate this rumor. I have never been a Muslim, am not a Muslim. These emails are obviously not just offensive to me, but its also offensive to Muslims, because it plays into, obviously, a certain fear-mongering there."
Obama doesn't go as far as the Jerry Seinfeldism we'd all like to hear him say ("not that there's anything wrong with that") but others from his church do make that explicit. As I mentioned earlier, muslims probably need to be content with this from him for now because the smear is indeed a barrier to the nomination. The Clinton campaign is not pure as driven snow here. But once the nomination is secured, we can expect much more from Obama. And we should.
UPDATE: Ali Eteraz also has the video and transcript up. He urges all muslim bloggers to do the same.
2/24/2008
"Obamas and Osamas hate America"
Republicans hate muslims. Look at this disgusting example of a diarist at RedState who bends over backwards trying to insinuate the Obama-muslim smear without explicitly endorsing it. Liberals, muslims, terrorists, all are wrapped into one shiny and convenient America-hating package and equated with a deft exchange of consonants.
It's not worth quoting except to note that the author closes with a link to an essay ostensibly about the "maturing of patriotism post 9-11." The irony is surely lost on them.
It's not worth quoting except to note that the author closes with a link to an essay ostensibly about the "maturing of patriotism post 9-11." The irony is surely lost on them.
2/18/2008
no friends on the right
Though I consistently argue that we muslims need to keep some distance between ourselves and the political left, it must always be noted that the political right is far, far worse. Exhibit #15382 at RedState.com.
UPDATE: And here's exhibit #15383 - labeling Kosovo a "jihadist state".
UPDATE: And here's exhibit #15383 - labeling Kosovo a "jihadist state".
2/15/2008
muslims protest "wearily" against Danish cartoons
Pity the poor victimized Danish media, who now are deprived of victimhood itself - the expected muslim protest against their provcation of reprinting the offensive Muhammad SAW cartoons was not exactly the rabid violent mob they seemed to be hoping for:
Why, they sound like civic-minded reasonable people who just want to get along and would appreciate not being slagged off all the time. Go figure.
Still, I think some applause for Jyllands-Posten, true heroes of the Enlightenment and brave warriors for selective speech, is in order.
Many said they simply could not understand the motive unless it was hatred for Islam.
But the overwhelming mood was not so much anger but weary resignation; a sense that they have been through this crisis once before and nothing has been learnt.
Some Danish Muslims said they felt the problem was not the Danish people who were, if not well informed about Islam, at least generally liberal.
Instead, they pointed the finger of blame at the Danish media, saying it had stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations.
Why, they sound like civic-minded reasonable people who just want to get along and would appreciate not being slagged off all the time. Go figure.
Still, I think some applause for Jyllands-Posten, true heroes of the Enlightenment and brave warriors for selective speech, is in order.
2/13/2008
one stupidstorm was not enough! we must have more!
I confess to not caring about what the Danes do:
They have every right to republish the cartoons, but that doesn't absolve them of their role in any violence that may result. Provocation is not cost-free. With rights, come responsibilities. This is analogous to yelling Fire in a crowded theater and while I certainly hope that nothing ill comes of it, I am not going to gnash my teeth about my faith if some louts decide to accept the invitation and bait from Jyllands-Posten et al. It's not my concern, and I wash my hands of it.
UPDATE: Indscribe weighs in:
That's the central point - that the supposed "free speech" that the Danes purport to hold sacred does not in fact exist. To claim then that there is soe higher purpose to their provocation and deliberate insult - to muslims, not to Islam - is a lie.
The vast majority of muslims will look at Denmark and see something rotten indeed. That denmark is revealed to be a third-world country in terms of attitude, despite its first-world status in geography, is the ultimate consequence of their actions. That is the true consequence of this supposed fight for free speech to which they pretend to aspire.
Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world two years ago.
They say they wanted to show their commitment to freedom of speech after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings.
Three suspects were held in Denmark on Tuesday "to prevent a murder linked to terrorism", officials said.
The cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.
Danish embassies were attacked around the world and dozens died in riots that followed.
Jyllands-Posten and many other major newspapers - including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende - reprinted the caricature in their Wednesday editions.
The cartoon depicts Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.
They have every right to republish the cartoons, but that doesn't absolve them of their role in any violence that may result. Provocation is not cost-free. With rights, come responsibilities. This is analogous to yelling Fire in a crowded theater and while I certainly hope that nothing ill comes of it, I am not going to gnash my teeth about my faith if some louts decide to accept the invitation and bait from Jyllands-Posten et al. It's not my concern, and I wash my hands of it.
UPDATE: Indscribe weighs in:
The caricature is not just offensive because Islam forbids pictorial depiction of Prophet, but also because the 'bomb-shaped turban' in the caricature is a fascistic attempt and such hatespeak is unimaginable in a continent where the mention of Holocaust and doubts on its veracity can land a person in jail.
Clearly, when it comes to Islam, things are different. Hurting sentiments no longer remains an issue. Given the kind of furore the cartoon controversy had generated in the past, the irresponsible reprinting can severely hurt the process of reconciliation between Muslim countries and Europe.
That's the central point - that the supposed "free speech" that the Danes purport to hold sacred does not in fact exist. To claim then that there is soe higher purpose to their provocation and deliberate insult - to muslims, not to Islam - is a lie.
The vast majority of muslims will look at Denmark and see something rotten indeed. That denmark is revealed to be a third-world country in terms of attitude, despite its first-world status in geography, is the ultimate consequence of their actions. That is the true consequence of this supposed fight for free speech to which they pretend to aspire.
2/10/2008
They hate us for our freedoms
via thabet, comes indications that the bugging of UK MP Sadiq Khan was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg:
it's not just the UK, of course - here in the US we also have the fight over FISA. On one side we have the Constitution and our rule of law, and on the other we have those who would tear those thing asunder for the sake of "security". They hate our freedoms, indeed.
The covert eavesdropping of the MP Sadiq Khan is alleged to be just the first case in a far wider operation to bug terrorist suspects and other serious criminals introduced after the September 11 attacks.
Lawyers, including the human rights solicitors Gareth Peirce and Mudassar Arani, were allegedly "routinely bugged" by police during visits to see clients at Woodhill prison. Listening devices were said to have been concealed in tables at the jail.
Nationally it is thought that many more people may have been covertly recorded.
[...]
The scandal came to light after Mr Khan, a Muslim Labour MP, was covertly recorded during two visits to a terrorist suspect held at Woodhill prison in Milton Keynes in 2005 and 2006.
It led to a political outcry as the bugging of MPs has been prohibited since the 1960s. Mr Straw was forced to set up an inquiry. He insisted he had known nothing of the operation before last weekend, although it later emerged that officials in his department had learnt of the allegations two months ago.
Now someone with detailed knowledge of the operation claims that Mr Khan's visits were allegedly among "hundreds of conversations" bugged by Det Sgt Mark Kearney during his time with a four-man intelligence team based at the prison since early 2002.
The recordings are deemed so sensitive that copies are stored at a secret facility protected by armed guards.
Initially, only a handful of prisons implemented the alleged bugging policy - including Woodhill and Belmarsh - but over the past 18 months the secret policy is alleged to have been rolled out across Britain.
it's not just the UK, of course - here in the US we also have the fight over FISA. On one side we have the Constitution and our rule of law, and on the other we have those who would tear those thing asunder for the sake of "security". They hate our freedoms, indeed.
2/08/2008
Savage
Micharl Savage went on one of his trademark rants about muslims and CAIR:
CAIR has a lengthy rebuttal and an audio excerpt posted as well; listen to it by clicking here.
Savage was not amused by this and is trying to sue CAIR, invoking copyright law. As Ars Technica notes, this is a pretty blatant attempt at silencing his critics and the use of the audio is obviously fair use. The EFF has gotten involved and is helping CAIR defend against Savage's lunacy. Savage's actual legal filing was barely coherent, filled with
instead of anything actually resembling a substantive legal argument. presumably he'll blame his impending legal loss on the dirty liberals and their mental disease.
"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not gettin on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."
"What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."
"What sane nation that worships the U.S. constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."
CAIR has a lengthy rebuttal and an audio excerpt posted as well; listen to it by clicking here.
Savage was not amused by this and is trying to sue CAIR, invoking copyright law. As Ars Technica notes, this is a pretty blatant attempt at silencing his critics and the use of the audio is obviously fair use. The EFF has gotten involved and is helping CAIR defend against Savage's lunacy. Savage's actual legal filing was barely coherent, filled with
an extended rant about "CAIR and it's [sic] terror connections" and how the group was "tied to terror from the day it was formed."
Savage isn't just upset about copyright; in fact, he complains at one point that his remarks were taken out of context and that many other selections (i.e., more copying) from his show would indicate his regard for Muslims. Savage is upset that CAIR used the clip to convince some advertisers to pull their support for his show, a practice he seems to think is illegal.
He also makes a racketeering claim against the group and says that "the role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Whabbi-based [sic] Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."
instead of anything actually resembling a substantive legal argument. presumably he'll blame his impending legal loss on the dirty liberals and their mental disease.
1/24/2008
islamotrolling
Yelling fire in a crowded theater:
I make zero excuses for any islamafool who gets up in arms about the film and takes to the street over it. However, Wilders' film is essentially islamotrolling - a classic case of poking a hornet's nest, solely to elicit a response with which he can then use to "prove" the original assertion that Islam is intrinsically violent, etc. The fact that the vast majority of Dutch muslims will not riot in the streets is irrelevant to the desired, and manufactured, final product: a marketing ploy, with Wilders playing the role of Western martyr.
I used to have more ire for the inevitable idiots than for the instigators like Wilders, but I've come to realize that the islamofools are simply not capable of comprehending what tools they are. Premeditated mischief, cowardly wrapped in the mantle of free speech as if it were some noble enterprise, by someone who is clearly very intelligent, doesn't have any excuse.
Jafi Geert Wilders: pleased with himself
The Dutch Muslim Council has attacked far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders' politics as "racist and fascist".
The council, which includes 200 organisations, appealed for calm ahead of the planned release by the MP of a controversial film.
Mr Wilders says his film will show the Koran as an inspiration for murder.
The Dutch Muslim Council said its members' message to the Muslim and non-Muslim world was that conflict would do no-one any good.
I make zero excuses for any islamafool who gets up in arms about the film and takes to the street over it. However, Wilders' film is essentially islamotrolling - a classic case of poking a hornet's nest, solely to elicit a response with which he can then use to "prove" the original assertion that Islam is intrinsically violent, etc. The fact that the vast majority of Dutch muslims will not riot in the streets is irrelevant to the desired, and manufactured, final product: a marketing ploy, with Wilders playing the role of Western martyr.
I used to have more ire for the inevitable idiots than for the instigators like Wilders, but I've come to realize that the islamofools are simply not capable of comprehending what tools they are. Premeditated mischief, cowardly wrapped in the mantle of free speech as if it were some noble enterprise, by someone who is clearly very intelligent, doesn't have any excuse.
10/24/2007
Nonie Darwish vs the meanies
Nonie Darwish has a compelling life story, and if you don't know who she is, then her Wikipedia biography is worth your time. Her personal history, including a father who was assasinated by Israel and then indoctrination as a child by Gamel Abdel Nasser to hate Jews, is the foundation upon which she has constructed her world view and her opinion of Islam. That opinion is well summarized in this interview with Reform Judaism Magazine:
I have no condemnation or anger with Nonie Darwish for her beliefs. Her problem is that she is fundamentally (and probably permanently) incapable of understanding mainstream Islam, as a result of her personal history. So, I view the following with more pity than disdain:
I applaud the girls at Wesley who engaged in this restrained show of opposition to Darwish.
It should be noted that supposed defenders of the oppressed women in Islam such as Nonie Darwish predictably flock to Western audiences to preach the innate evils of Islam. There is no small amount of irony in this; Darwish is lecturing at Wellsley, the premier girls' college in the United States. The muslim women at Wellsley are the exact opposite of the women to which Darwish imagines herself the saviour of - these are highly educated, provided-for girls with every possible freedom and privelege that the West has to offer. That they do not tear apart their hijab after hearing Nonie speak down to them must be truly vexing indeed; for all Nonie Darwish sees is oppression, whereas the simple concept that a hijab might be - when freely chosen - a symbol of strength and empowerment is utterly beyond her comprehension. Again, Darwish's fundamental inability to comprehend this is most likely due to her tragic personal story, and not to any innate character flaw. Still, that hardly means that she should be feted as a "hero" when her purpose is essentially to do nothing more than harangue liberal muslim girls who are proud of being muslim and proud of their culture and faith, about what oppressed fools they are.
Were Nonie Darwish genuinely concerned with the plight of women and reform in Islam, she would work with the reformists in the Arab world - the emergent Muslim Left - and try to change things where it mattered. Instead she chooses the easy lecture circuit to harp at and condescend to muslims in the West. I suppose the latter is more fulfilling to her personal sense of victimhood, and probably more lucrative besides.
(via Jim Henley via Whiskey Fire)
Q. What was the Muslim response [to 9-11] in America?
A. The response was defensive, dishonest, and two-faced. The Muslim establishment engineered a massive public campaign in which Islamic scholars, distinguished clerics, and Arab intellectuals attempted to calm Western fears by painting a picture of Islam as totally benign. When asked about the roots of Islamic terrorism, they denied it had anything to do with the Koran. And when quoting from the Koran, they conveniently ignored passages that encourage holy war against infidels.
Also after 9/11 many Muslims in the West reinterpreted the meaning of jihad as an inner struggle for self-improvement. Yet this “inner struggle” business is hogwash, a PR ploy for Western consumption only.
I have no condemnation or anger with Nonie Darwish for her beliefs. Her problem is that she is fundamentally (and probably permanently) incapable of understanding mainstream Islam, as a result of her personal history. So, I view the following with more pity than disdain:
Last week, on October 18, 2007, our hero Darwish spoke at the all-female Wellesley College as the guest of Hillel on campus. She was not treated as a hero; then again, maybe she was, maybe her treatment is precisely how heroes are greeted on American campuses today.
About 80-100 students came. Far more Muslim than Jewish students came and “so many” of the Muslim girls were wearing head-scarves.
According to Darwish, the female students in head-scarves did the following: As she spoke, they made exaggerated, “mean girl” faces at her. They rolled their eyes, practiced “disbelieving” facial expressions—did everything but stick out their tongues. And they continued to talk to each other in loud whispers while Darwish spoke: “How can she tell such lies!” “I was never, ever indoctrinated against Jews!” “Can you believe what she is saying?” “We do not call Jews pigs and apes, how can she lie about her own people?”
In addition to the “mean girl” faces and the continual loud whispering, one by one, at least four to five head-scarved girls, got up to leave the room during Darwish’s speech. This meant that each girl took two minutes to move to the end of her row, physically causing the other students to get up or twist aside, causing the entire room to look at the departing student, not at their invited guest—and then each girl did precisely the same thing when she returned two minutes later, presumably from a bathroom break.
They quadruple-teamed Darwish and did not stop until Darwish ended her lecture. Twenty to thirty minutes of soft-core, well-choreographed, goon squad behavior. “They are Hamas-trained” says Darwish.
I applaud the girls at Wesley who engaged in this restrained show of opposition to Darwish.
It should be noted that supposed defenders of the oppressed women in Islam such as Nonie Darwish predictably flock to Western audiences to preach the innate evils of Islam. There is no small amount of irony in this; Darwish is lecturing at Wellsley, the premier girls' college in the United States. The muslim women at Wellsley are the exact opposite of the women to which Darwish imagines herself the saviour of - these are highly educated, provided-for girls with every possible freedom and privelege that the West has to offer. That they do not tear apart their hijab after hearing Nonie speak down to them must be truly vexing indeed; for all Nonie Darwish sees is oppression, whereas the simple concept that a hijab might be - when freely chosen - a symbol of strength and empowerment is utterly beyond her comprehension. Again, Darwish's fundamental inability to comprehend this is most likely due to her tragic personal story, and not to any innate character flaw. Still, that hardly means that she should be feted as a "hero" when her purpose is essentially to do nothing more than harangue liberal muslim girls who are proud of being muslim and proud of their culture and faith, about what oppressed fools they are.
Were Nonie Darwish genuinely concerned with the plight of women and reform in Islam, she would work with the reformists in the Arab world - the emergent Muslim Left - and try to change things where it mattered. Instead she chooses the easy lecture circuit to harp at and condescend to muslims in the West. I suppose the latter is more fulfilling to her personal sense of victimhood, and probably more lucrative besides.
(via Jim Henley via Whiskey Fire)
Facebook and free speech
Some of Facebook's resident jafis create a group called "F$%k Islam". What is the correct response?
A. Join the group and engage them in respectful debate
B. Ignore them, because what they crave is publicity
C. Create your own group called "F$%k Facebook" and demand that the other group be censored immediately.
In related news, I have coined a new term: MALI. It stands for Muslims Acting Like Islamophobes.
I am tempted to create a group called "muslims who demand that Facebook delete the groups F^&K Israel and F%^K Christianity" just as a social experiment. However, I have enough jihads on my plate right now.
A. Join the group and engage them in respectful debate
B. Ignore them, because what they crave is publicity
C. Create your own group called "F$%k Facebook" and demand that the other group be censored immediately.
In related news, I have coined a new term: MALI. It stands for Muslims Acting Like Islamophobes.
I am tempted to create a group called "muslims who demand that Facebook delete the groups F^&K Israel and F%^K Christianity" just as a social experiment. However, I have enough jihads on my plate right now.
10/12/2007
the Eid stamp
On September 1st, 2001, the US Postal Service issued a postage stamp commemorating the Islamic festivals of Eid al Fitr and Eid ul Adha. Ten days later, the twin towers fell. An enormous controversy arose, with a vocal xenophobic campaign arising to demand that the stamp be withdrawn and replaced with the images of the twin towers, but the stamp was saved, most notably because of the vocal and public support of the Bush Administration, especially President George Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. And ironically, the stamp was indeed discontinued two years later by the USPS, but not for any reasons of domestic pressure from the jafi lobby, but simple apathy. It is a tale worth retelling every Ramadan. Very few people, Muslim or otherwise, are even aware of the existence of the Eid stamp. visually, the stamp is iconic, simply beautiful. From the White House website, here is a description of the artistic process in its creation:
The Eid stamp, designed by Zakariya of Arlington, Va., features the Arabic phrase "Eid mubarak" in gold calligraphy on a blue background. English text on the stamps reads "EID GREETINGS."
Employing traditional methods and instruments to create this design, Zakariya chose a script known in Arabic as "thuluth" and in Turkish as "sulus." He describes it as "the choice script for a complex composition due to its open proportions and sense of balance." He used homemade black ink, and his pens were crafted from seasoned reeds from the Near East and Japanese bamboo from Hawaii. The paper was specially prepared with a coating of starch and three coats of alum and egg-white varnish, then burnished with an agate stone and aged for more than a year.
This beautiful, elegant work of art, intended to commemorate both the end of the Ramadan and the festival in which muslims honor the patriarch of all three major religions, came under immediate and vicious attack, after the attacks of September 11th. This was in hindsight rather inevitable, but it was obscene nevertheless.
The crux of the argument against the stamp was made in an editorial by Paul Weyrich, entitled "Why a tiny stamp deserves a huge backlash." Weyrich writes,
We are not at war with a gang of terrorists. Al Qaeda is not the Jesse James gang with Arabic surnames. It is not even that we are at war with Islam. Rather, Islam is at war against us.
The sooner Americans recognize this fact then the safer we will be as a nation.
[...]
Would our country have issued a swastika flag stamp in 1941? Would our country have issued a hammer and sickle stamp in 1955?
The answer is no on both counts. Actually, a flag stamp issued by our government featuring Nazi Germany's swastika or the Soviet Union's hammer and sickle would have been unthinkable.
That is why we raised the issue of the Eid. We wanted to encourage debate about what Islam really stands for and why we have good reason not to honor the religion. As a nation, we still need to have that debate.
This is very hard for most Americans to understand, but it needs to be said over and over again.
Islam at its core is hostile to the West and the values that comprise the Judeo-Christian tradition, including the emphasis on tolerance and peace that many in the establishment are now so eager to promote as being the true values of Islam.
There are many Muslims who are peaceful, but the fact is that the core of the religion itself is not peaceful.
Weyrich and his organization, Quixotically named the Free Congress Foundation, submitted a letter to various government officials making their case, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Of course, Muslim-American organizations responded, making the fairly obvious point that 9-11 had absolutely nothing to do with muslims, or Islam, or the stamp:
"I am writing to suggest that the current stamps be withdrawn, to be overprinted with the image of the Twin Towers and then reissued," foundation President Paul M. Weyrich wrote in letters to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
"I have no doubt a majority of Americans would find the altered stamps a more appropriate commemoration of Islam than the current celebratory version," he said.
But anyone who looks at the Arabic script on the Eid stamp and equates that with the terrorist attacks is "really playing into the hands of the terrorists," said Aly R. Abuzaakouk, executive director of the Washington-based American Muslim Council.
"Who dares to associate negativity with something that celebrates a religious festival?" he said. "The Eid has nothing to do with the terrorists, and we thank God that all of those . . . suspected to have done this have nothing to do with our community. They were not the known guys of our community. We have nothing to do with that."
It is incumbent upon muslim-americans to recognize however that the far more devastatingly effective response to the jafi zealots like Weyrich was not by CAIR or the American Muslim Council, but simply this:
CAPTION: Imam Yahya Hindi gives the opening prayer in the House of Representatives, November 15, 2001, the last day the House was in session before Ramadan. House Speaker Dennis Hastert listens with bowed head. (Associated Press).
and this:
Greetings From the President to Muslims Celebrating Eid Al-Fitr
The Festival of Breaking the Fast
This festival marks the end of the month-long fast of Ramadan, the holiest period of the Islamic year. Eid al-Fitr is a time to give thanks to God for the blessings of renewed faith, to perform acts of charity, and to share traditional food and good wishes with family and friends.
Islam is a religion that inspires its followers to lead lives based on justice, compassion, and personal responsibility.
During this joyful season, I encourage people of all faiths to reflect on our shared values: love of family, gratitude to God, a commitment to religious freedom, and respect for the diversity that adds to our Nation's strength. By working together to advance peace and mutual understanding, we help build a future of promise and compassion for all.
Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a joyous celebration.
Eid mubarek.
GEORGE W. BUSH
It's also worth mentioning that the US State Department has issued an entire booklet entitled Muslim Life in America, which documents the way in which Muslims have moved into the American mainstream, and integrated with their communities.
It's also worth mentioning that President George Bush has, on numerous occasions, expressed admiration for the faith of Islam, and affirmed the place of muslim Americans as valued members of our society. This is why, despite my often fervent and heated critiques of the Bush Administration's policies both at home and abroad, I cannot and never will hate George Bush.
And yet, in the end, the Eid stamp was indeed discontinued after 2002. The reason was straightforward; like any other special issue stamp, the decision was made based on the result of sales. And the Eid stamp simply did not perform well enough to justify its continued printing. It's probably safe to assume that the majority of muslims in America never even realized that there was an Eid stamp; if anything the controversy by Weyrich et al probably boosted sales, albeit briefly. If you will pardon the expression, the stamp simply failed to stick.
Until now:
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Postal Service today reissued the Eid stamp in the Holiday Celebrations series.
First issued in 2001, the stamp commemorates the two most important festivals in the Islamic calendar: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. On these days, Muslims wish each other "eid mubarak," the phrase featured in calligraphy on the stamp, which translates as "blessed festival" or "may your religious holiday be blessed."
[...]
The Postal Service produced 40 million 41-cent Eid stamps in sheets of 20 that are available for purchase at local Post Offices, online at www.usps.com/shop, or by calling 800-STAMP-24 on Sept. 28.
I urge my fellow muslims and non-muslim friends alike to show your support for this beautiful stamp, and the expression of happiness and celebration that it represents, by making a point of buying Eid stamps this year. You can order them directly online.
And, of course, let us not limit our expressions of mubarak to stamps alone. Thank you for reading City of Brass this Ramadan and over the past 5 years. Eid mubarak!
10/08/2007
Republicans refuse recognizing Ramadan
There's no better way for the GOP to paint itself as a monolithically Islamophobic entity than the following:
In other words, one in five elected Republicans refuses to affirm that muslims in America are a valued piece of the fabric of America. The reasons given by some of the caucus for their passive-aggressive stance were mainly complaints about political correctness and invocations (hilariously) of the separation of church and state:
Their dedication to the Constitution is as admirable as it is selective. But pray tell, why did not Messrs. Pence, Tancredo, et al vote No, rather than Present?
(incidentally, read loyal conservative blogger Rick Moran on how the hyper-religiosity on the part of the Republican candidates is a recipe for a rout in 2008.)
Forty-one Republicans, more than 20 percent of the caucus, and one Democrat voted "present" on a resolution recognizing the commencement of Ramadan on Tuesday.
The 42 lawmakers make up more than 10 percent of the members voting on the resolution. There were zero "no" votes, and 14 members did not vote.
The resolution recognized "the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world," rejected "hatred, bigotry and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide" and "[commended] Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence and terror."
In other words, one in five elected Republicans refuses to affirm that muslims in America are a valued piece of the fabric of America. The reasons given by some of the caucus for their passive-aggressive stance were mainly complaints about political correctness and invocations (hilariously) of the separation of church and state:
"This resolution is an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country," Tancredo said.
[...]
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, "I voted 'present' because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Their dedication to the Constitution is as admirable as it is selective. But pray tell, why did not Messrs. Pence, Tancredo, et al vote No, rather than Present?
(incidentally, read loyal conservative blogger Rick Moran on how the hyper-religiosity on the part of the Republican candidates is a recipe for a rout in 2008.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)