View Full Version : What the left doesn't get - fundamental individual rights...
I was, once again, speaking to my roomate, who is, apparently, while economically somewhat conservative, geo-politically somewhat of a moral relatavist. This brings me greater understanding of the fundamental thing that the left just doesn't get, and why they aren't winning elections in the US, don't like religion, etc.
They will not agree that, fundametally, every human being has the same intrinsic "rights" or "value." In other words, they don't believe in natural rights. Oh, communal rights, anthropology, etc. - that they believe in. So if another society says that one person is "worth" more than another - nu? That's that society! Its no better or worse than our society - they argue.
And here is where they are wrong. We are all humans, subject to the same human conditions. If you can take a Chineese Emperor and dress him in peasant clothes and move him out of the palace - should his intrinsic value change? I guess they would argue, yes, whoever is in the Palace has more rights, is a more valuable existance, than the peasant on the street. Not "more valuable to the country" - "more valuable - period." That's ok with them. The individual's human condition doesn't matter.
It is from the conception that we are all "equal" (not in ability or in character or action, but just by being human) (whether you want to give it a divine source or a logical one) that everything else in Judeo-christianity comes from. After all, "do onto others as they would do onto you" assumes the essential equality of man. this was Hillel's one line explanation of the Bible, and a key quote of Jesus. It is in Mill's and other rational, enlightenment writings. It is, in fact, in all societies, when you get down to individual relationships - the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes assumes that absolute - that both of you are inherently the same in terms of "rights" or "value."
Its funny that socialists, who will go a step further and demand equality in a ton of other things, won't acknowledge this one basic fundamental TRUTH. They just don't see it as truth. Its just an idea, a theory, no more true or false than any other theory.
We talked about Iraq. He's been media brainwashed - believes Bush lied about WMDs, does not understand the context of Iraq within the war on terror - does not have A CLUE as to what Pan Arabism and Jihadism are - when he thinks Jihadism he thinks of a group (Al-queda) and not THE IDEA. Thinks the war was decided upon and then "rationalized." Of course, there is the point about the horror of war, that more people are dying in the past couple of years than the past couple of years under Saddam Hussein - and he blames the US (even though he acknowledges that Saddam killed people, but he believes, and he is probably right, that less died on average each year than are dying in the current fighting now.) The issue that much of the killing is being done by Iraqis or terrorists; the issue of the oppression of the Shia and the Kurds, and the geo-political issues about Iraq, both in terms of the energy region and the trends of secular and religious jihadism simply don't bother him.
He also (again, US media) has no clue about what is being said in Madrassa or in Pal Arab textbooks (failure of Israeli Hasbarrah!!! Why isn't there a spokesperson who every time they are on tv brings out the books, or brings a records TV speech or news article!!??)
But it still comes down to the issue - are there societies that are "better" than other societies because they more respect the fundamental TRUTH of all humans created equal - this self evidence truth to our founders. (again, not equal in ability or character, just in equal value) If it is not a truth - then heck, what does it all matter. Its just machiaveli - take care of your own. Or not. Not an issue of "being for yourself," but an issue of "only being for yourself" and "yourself" being defined on a collective, as opposed to individual basis.
The essence of morality is balancing your need to look out for yourself and your family, and the morality of respecting the "equality" of others. If you don't have this principle.... to me, well, we're all kind of doomed.
Maybe the religionists are right. Maybe the secularism of the Blue States and Europe has taken away the basis for the belief that this fundamental prinicple is a TRUTH. Maybe logic alone is not enough for people to come to this conclusion - it is too abstract.
I don't know.
07-01-2005, 06:57 PM
What makes a nation safe from terror? Certain mechanisms are built into the fabric of the world, ensuring that a country that turns away from it's roots will unwittingly lower its own defenses. Itâ€™s how reality works.
â€¢ A secularized people forgets how to recognize evil. Hence America failed to
take evildoers seriously, which led to the intelligence breakdown that allowed the September 11 attacks.
â€¢ A secularized people forgets what it means to believe in something so deeply as to be willing to die for it. Hence we failed to understand our enemies and their beliefs till it was too late.
â€¢ A secularized people loses courage. Terrorists attacked American interests repeatedly during the 1980s and â€™90s but we feared to adequately retaliate. A message was sent: You can mess with the U.S.
â€¢ A secularized people loses confidence. Western self-hatred, taught in schools and universities, means an America that wonders if those who
hate us might be right. Self-doubt invites contempt from international criminals, who now feel no fear at assaulting us.
â€¢ A secularized people ignores the patterns in history. Before September 11, America indulged in wishful dreams of worldwide peace and forgot about the centuries-long struggle between the West and her enemies.
Taken from toward-tradition foundation.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin
07-01-2005, 08:04 PM
There are questions we need to ask ourselves. Why is the Western Left, not just in the U.S, but also in Canada and Europe giving selling out to the very people to seek to destroy our civilization ?
Why is the Western Left apologizing for and defending radical Jihadists ?
Why is the Left siding with people whose values are obviously contrary to their liberal views?
Why does the left support Palestine's so called "freedom fighters" and detest Isreal, when Isreal holds all the liberal views they do, and Palestine clearly does not.
Why are three, supposed Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which could otherwise form a natural alliance, based on shared values, finding religious Jews and Christians increasingly being pitched against Muslim ones.
Is there a UnHolly Alliance being formed between the Western Left and our enemies who seek to destroy us. Is the Left being used by those who seek to bring forth, our downfall, as a Political tool to advance their agenda?
There's definetly something going on here; that seems very odd.
On the other hand, the American founders who wrote "we hold these truths to be self evident" in the Declaration of Independence were secular. And religious states have committed many atrocities - between modern Arab states to historical Christian ones.
Religion can be a little too certain and too specific for my taste. Self-doubt can be ok. However, there should be some basic things that are not doubted.
The problem is, while I believe that pure reason can establish enlightenment principles (all men are created equal/life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), it seems that this is not enough - or that people have been confused about this principle..
BTW, proof is fairly simple. People inherently equal in value versus not. Each idea would have certain consequences. If people were genetically better or worse in internal value, (thus minorities or other groups have lesser "rights") then you would not be able to "switch the emperor and the peasant" - because somehow, naturally, the emperor would naturally be treated better regardless of the clothing, right? You could not have changes in power between groups that switcht he rights structure, either, because this would violate the precept that "It is true that group A naturally has more rights than group B". Mind you, I hate the concept of "rights" to begin with, however that is best approximation that I can make. All men are eqaul, for example, is clearly not true in terms of morality or ability. So we are talking about the human condition.
On the other hand, if the human condition is equal, then social mobility would be possible (not necessarily for every individual, in that choices and abilities do impact) and, more than that, people are able to put themselves "in anothers shoes."
A religious approach, "we are all equal before the lord" might be clearer (although, again, it does not account for actions, where we are not all equal) , but, again, many will use religion to say exactly the opposite.
07-02-2005, 02:26 PM
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
The real news here is how common this witless moral equivalence really is. This is why the jihadists could win -- the will to oppose them is not there. From WND,
In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
07-02-2005, 05:05 PM
They will not agree that, fundametally, every human being has the same intrinsic "rights" or "value." In other words, they don't believe in natural rights. Oh, communal rights, anthropology, etc. - that they believe in. So if another society says that one person is "worth" more than another - nu? That's that society! Its no better or worse than our society - they argue.For many years, I used to be a swinging voter which means that I voted for both leftist and rightist parties depending on the issues of the day. I must admit that nowdays I tend to vote more for the centre right party. However, to be fair to the left, my understanding of their phiplosophy is that they DO, at least in theory, believe in the principle of "all men are equal". I think though that their trouble is that in reality they don't seem to adhere to that principle, they only pay lip service to it. I suppose in that regard, the people who make up todays left, are a bit like the adherents of various religions. In principle, there are many worth while aspects encompassed in some of the leftist philosophy, just as much as most religions have (on the whole) been set up for the BENEFIT of humanity. The trouble with all these organisations/philosophies/religions is not so much with the theory but rather with how people choose to implement and practice these philosophies and religions.
That's why, lately, I have come to believe in the greater value of the ideas of the centre right. It seems to be inherently more honest and practical. It recognises the limitations of human nature and paradoxically even it's own politics. It does not pretend to be able to fix everything, it's philosophy is pragmatic and more honest. That's why, when they are lucky enough to be led by men of principle, they are more able to get on with the job of improving society because they are willing to strive and provide incremental gains. Unlike the left, they are not dazzled by a messianic frevour to create utopias which is an impossible dream. The left (at least today's left), on the other hand (especially the more extreme elements of the left) are driven by their own ideology and they have the tendency to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in their rush to solve all the ills of mankind.
I with the US had your Center right - I'd have a party I could easily vote for. Unfortunately, the American right, while in many ways more appealing, is overrly influenced by their ties to big business and Randian philosophy. To much "barbaric capitalism" - not seeing the pragmatic need for a degree of wealth re-distribution, and far too much in bed with big corps (see our new Medicare Drug Benefit, a monstrocity, as well as our unilateral disarmament in world trade - Hey China, we were just kidding about that IP thing... lol... just keep the cheap labor coming out so we can offshore jobs (like IBM) and make more profits - F the middle and lower classes!!!!)
Unfortunately, on economics, it seems that our right is not very pragmatic - for example, they don't understand why long term interest rates are down. Could it have SOMETHING to do with a low DEMAND for CAPITOL and a relative OVER SUPPLY of Investment capitol, too? If so, why is demand low - could it be that the trend of a shrinking middle class in an economy that is 2/3 internally consumer based has something to do with it? Could it also be that maybe the current wealth distribution system via taxes, etc., is taking a little but too little from the Investing classes and burdening the consuming classes a little too much?? No... couldn't be. Lets repeal the estate tax on > 4 million$ estates based on pure ideology and not the practical consequences thereof - after all, don't we all want a permanent American Aristrocracy??
07-02-2005, 06:02 PM
You guys should check out www.towardtradition.com (http://). It makes an attempt, although in a religious way, using Torah principles to find answers to American problems today. They have some very intelligent people, part of it.
07-02-2005, 07:49 PM
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
Odd since Williams is well known to be the White House's go-to guy when they want to get a favorable story out.
07-02-2005, 08:12 PM
Odd since Williams is well known to be the White House's go-to guy when they want to get a favorable story out.\
Saw this on dhimmi watch. I'll ask them abt it.
07-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Yes, I do agree with you that the right, even the centre right has gone too far with "unilateral disarmament in world trade ". I suppose that is their version being driven by ideology and of "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It seems to me to be a type of short term thinking which brings short term benefits (lower prices for goods) but my fear is that it will lead to long term disaster because it decimates local industries, jobs and it de-skills our labour force.
As far as patronising big business though I have mixed feelings. I did not use to think this way but nowdays IMO, a little bit of this is not necessarily bad. That's exactly what I meant by the right's pragmatism because again, IMO, creating a favourable environment for big business should create more investments, more enterprise and more jobs. Of course, this can be taken too far and overdoing it could end up just benefiting the few (big business) and exploiting of the many (the labour force).
I guess, that's why I do believe in the democratic system whereby ultimately the electorate punishes the side that carries ideology too far. That's why I still consider myself to be a swinging voter but right now I just happen to think that the centre right has got it's act more together than the left. The left will come into it's own again when they will become more pragmatic, less ideological and grab back power from their extremists who seem to have hijacked the agenda and are more intent to pursue the politics of envy and trying to reward the lowest common denominator instead of being more constructive and rewarding initiative and excellence.
Oh no, I agree, each party should make a business conducive environment. However, that doesn't mean that business should get everything it wants, nor does it mean that business interests should trump national/populist interests. Its all a matter of degree. (and there is too much short term profit thinking - for example the Republicans in the US are very pro openning the Alaskan wildlife reserve to oil exploration, knowing full well that openning it won't effect the price of oil, all the oil will be used up fairly quickly, and they oil there could, instead, be a useful emergency reserve....)
07-03-2005, 03:22 AM
I don't disagree with most of what you said. However, with regards to oil, I think that they should make much more of an effort to shift over to alternate forms of energy even if this would mean some short to medium term pain. Obviously that is more easily said than done, but after all, when a decision was made by Kennedy to land on the moon, it actually happened a few years later. It's the same with oil, a decision about it needs to be made and then pursue the goals seriously until we meet the full objective (probably many years from now).
08-21-2005, 07:13 PM
By Ali Sina
On August 1st 2005, Daily Telegraph published an article written by Jonathan Petre, entitled â€œThe Convertsâ€. In this article Mr. Petre described the Britons â€œclamoring to convert to Islamâ€ and forming a â€œlengthy queue to join religion that offers 'sense of direction'â€. He wrote that according to the latest estimates about 15,000 have converted over the last few years. â€œEven more remarkable, given the unflattering portrayal of Islam in much of the media, is that the majority of converts appear to be well educated, middle class, middle aged and female.â€ Mr. Petre wrote.
He quoted a Muslim who runs the New Muslims Project, an â€œafter careâ€ service for fellow converts who said: â€œThey are often attracted by the sense of stability, Islam offers a specific framework for living that provides them with a sense of direction.â€
With this rosy depiction of Islam even I would like to reconvert. Who does not want a sense of direction, stability and peace? But is this the real picture? Is the Media telling the truth?
Mr. Petre continues: â€œParadoxically, the terrorist attacks in America and Britain , as well as the conflict in the Middle East , have served to fuel the recent surge, and the new wave includes its own sprinkling of celebrities and offspring of Establishment figures.â€
What paradox? The Media is lying to people. The politicians lie to them. They all claim that Islam is a religion of peace, that it offers stability and sense of direction; that the terrorists have hijacked the peaceful Islam which is a â€œbeautiful religionâ€. They interview and publish the Islamist apologists who lie to promote their faith. The Islamists spend millions of dollars advertising and promoting their cult by projecting a very deceptive image of Islam. Yet, no one is even listening to the voices coming from those who know the real Islam and try to warn the world of its danger. These voices of opposition are often silenced and the critics are labeled as racists and Islamophobes. They are accused of inciting religious hatred. If a radio producer or a journalist dares to say a word against Islam, the Islamists rally and flood that radio or newspaper demanding resignation and apology and write to their advertisers asking them to boycott them.
Recently the Radio talk-show host Michael Graham was suspended by station WMAL-AM for describing Islam as a "terrorist organization" on his program. CAIR, the Islamic organization operating in America asked hundreds of Muslims to write to WMAL and demand the suspension of Graham. WMAL complied, but then the Muslims demanded that he should be fired. They also contacted the advertisers of the radio asking them to boycott WMAL if Graham is not fired. When the news reached the listeners of the radio, tens of thousands of them wrote and called WMAL to express their support for Michael Graham. Things got so heated that Graham wrote in his website begging his supporters to stop calling 630 WMAL, because the folks there were overwhelmed with all these calls and emails. This shows people are aware while the Media is still playing dumb and tries to appease the Muslims and be politically correct. It looks like that WMAL got the message loud and clear.
Mr. Jonathan Petre of Daily Telegraph did not tell the whole story. The truth is that most of those who convert to Islam, within months or a few years, realize they have been duped and leave Islam. Many of them rise with dedication and strive to eradicate his cult of lies and deception. I know hundreds of people who had converted to Islam but now have left it. Many of them started their own websites and weblogs and are exposing the ugly truth of Islam.
There are also millions of those who were born into Islam but now have left it. If Islamic apostasy can be called a movement, it is indeed the fastest growing movement today.
However, the voices of apostates of Islam are not heard. Judeo-Christianity was attacked and vilified for hundreds of years but Islam has not been exposed. Those who attack Islam are forced to live in secrecy or they will face the fate of Theo Van Gogh. The Western media that so eagerly accommodates the Islamists and promotes their lies dreads publishing the articles of the apostates and those who oppose Islam. The criticism of Islam is not PC.
Why is that so? it is because when someone tells the unflattering truth about Islam thousands of Muslims become hysterical and the media tries to avoid confrontation with these goons. In other words they are intimidated and afraid. But when they lie about Islam and rehash the "Islam means peace" nonsense, there is no uproar. The majority remain silent and there is not protests. The media is afraid to tell the truth but is encouraged to lie.
Islam relies on lies to promote its cause. A few days ago CBS and CNN interviewed the Islamists who in order to fool the public, issued a fatwa denouncing terrorism. These Islamists were given ample opportunity to lie and pull wool over the eyes of the uninformed American viewers. The anchorwoman in CNN asked the Imam about the verse 9:5 which says â€œslay them wherever you find themâ€. The Imam explained this verse is for those who kill innocent people and attack the civilians. The anchorwoman said, so you mean this allows us to go after the terrorists and kill them? The Imam was caught by surprise. He smiled and said, â€œOh well, it is better that we educate themâ€. So who should be slain wherever is found?
Why CNN did not invite anyone with opposing views to Islam to respond to these Islamic lies? The verse 9:5 was issued when Muhammad had already conquered most of Arabia. This is part of an edict called Bara'at (release) that Ali read on his behalf in Mecca during the pilgrimage a year after that city succumbed to Islam. In that pilgrimage the pagans were also present but this was their last pilgrimage. In that edict he claimed that Allah released him from all his treaties and obligation with Pagans and gave them, four months to convert. After the lapse of these four months, if they still did not convert, he said that they should be hunted and put to death wherever they are found. Here is the entire verse:
â€œBut when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.â€
He considered disbelief, rebellion against Allah and his messenger and the punishment of that is death. The disbelievers had to be killed unless they â€œrepentâ€ and convert to Islam and pay the tithes.
CNN and CBS allowed Muslims to lie and gave them the opportunity to spread that lie. But would these media allow those who tell the truth be heard? Not at all! In fact in the same article where CBS promoted the lies of the Islamists, it also mocked the flag of the USA by showing a crescent where the stars should be and placed a Muslim sitting on it using it as his prayer mat.
However, when The Peopleâ€™s Truth Forum, a non-partisan organization sponsoring the symposium The Radical-Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security tried to buy a commercial time to publicize the event, the official statement from CBS/Infinity Radio was that, â€œToo many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matterâ€¦Itâ€™s too controversial to be aired at this time.â€
08-21-2005, 07:14 PM
The reason Islam is advancing is because the Western Media is in cahoots with Islam. This is treason. They are the fifth column. They lie to their own people and they protect the Islamists from being exposed. These fools are playing with fire. Donâ€™t they realize that once Islam takes root in their countries they will be the first to lose their freedom and even their lives? What the Western and especially the mainstream media, controlled by the Liberals and the Leftist are doing is insanity. In their hatred of America and Judeo-Christianity they are joining hands with the Islamists and those who would eventually slit their own throat.
Europe is falling. The Western Civilization is facing its biggest threat and the culprits are the traitor Media and the ignorant politicians who call Islam "religion of peace", who allow the Islamists to lie and deceive the public while they are not letting the voices of those who oppose Islam to be heard.
Why people convert to Islam? It is because they are lied to. It is because they are told Islam gives direction to their lives and gives them stability. Yes Islam gives direction but that is to hell. Islam is not a religion of peace; it is the cult of terror. Muhammad was not a prophet of God. If he was not from Satan, he was a cult leader no better than Jim Jones, David Koresh or Shoko Asahara who advanced his reign with terror, murder and plunder. Islam is a lie. Muhammad was a terrorist, a narcissist psychopath no different from Hitler. Why the Media is not letting the truth to be heard? I have laid charges of assassination, pedophilia, lustfulness, misogyny, rape, deceit, theft, arson, slavery and genocide on Muhammad and proved my case with evidences taken from the Quran, the hadith and his biography. I am offering $50,000 dollars to anyone who can refute me and acquit Muhammad of these charges. Many Muslims have tried and all of them have failed. Why the mainstream media does not let the voices of those who oppose Islam to be heard and why they are so eager to promote the lies and deceptions of the Islamists. This is insanity. This is suicidal. This is like defending Nazism and silencing its critics. How much stupidity is enough?
I am talking to you Mr. Jonathan Petre. I am talking to you Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, CBS, CNN, Mr. Blaire and all those who know nothing about Islam and yet rehash the lies of the Islamists claming Islam is a religion of peace that is hijacked. What part of Islam offered direction and stability? Have you read the damn Quran? Have you seen the Sira? Do you know hadith? What knowledge you have about Islam to opine and make such a glowing remarks about it? You know nothing about Islam, so shut up! Do not become the apologists of this evil cult of terror. Do not mislead people. Do not betray your forefathers who gave their lives to fight Islamic invasion. They died to protect your country and now you are serving it in a platter to the same enemy. The Western Civilization is falling because of its own ignorance. You have taken the path of self destruction. If only you knew the danger that is looming over your heads you would be engulfed with fear and would rise to defeat Islam with all your might.
A friend of mine said a joke that describes you very well. "A wife returns home suddenly to find her husband in bed with another woman. Unfazed, the husband looks up from the sheets at her and, with great indignation, demands: Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes? It seems to me that right now almost the entire world is like that wife, looking down at that husband, who represents Islam."
To learn the truth about Islam all you have to do is to listen to Muslims when they describe their religion to each other. See this.
08-21-2005, 08:00 PM
Having spent the last year on some of the Islamic Forums I can say that Islam is on the march.
While all Muslims are not on the march, the ones that aren't are just waiting for a better moment. There is a sense (true) that the West is crumbling under its own decadency, and that Allah is priming his storm troopers to rid of the world of the infidels. It is only a matter of time and whether the Europeans will give up without a fight. It may be too late as a matter of fact.
In my opinon, the American Left's fascination with Islam is because the number one enemy of the Left is Christianity...a lesser enemy would be religious Judaism. They see that Islam has the moxy to destroy their number one enemy. The problem with that analysis however, is that the Left will be the first ones to get their throats slit when the Islamics come to power. They are trying to coopt the Islamics to their own designs...but the Islamics are not to be coopted; and will turn on the Left at the right time.
Essentially the West is in a Civil War. Just as Israel is in a Civil War. It is the battle between the Left and the Right. The Left is bringing in an outside force to suppliment their fight against the "religious fanatics on the Right." We have seen this often in history. The results of bringing in outside help are usually dangerous to the freedom of the country bringing in such help. Or at best it weakens the country enough that outside forces can defeat her.
Hatred for the Right is causing the Left to bring an unnatural ally to the table.
That is what we are seeing in the US and Israel today.
Ephraim, the former Alfred
08-27-2005, 03:43 PM
By Sher Zieve
Aug 26, 2005
For those who are still not familiar with the group CAIRâ€”the Council on American-Islamic Relationsâ€”Iâ€™ll provide some background information. Founded in 1994, CAIR is headquarted in Washington, DC and has thirty-one chapters and regional offices in the United States and Canada. Of note, CAIR was founded by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahwad, Rafiq Jaber and other former members of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). Jaber is also the current spokesman for the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Illinois; a mosque tied to the IAP and the Quranic Literacy Institute that were named in the 2004 drive-by murder of David Boim. The IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute were ordered by the court to pay Boimâ€™s family $156MM in restitution; money that had previously been raised in the US (as â€œcharityâ€ donations) by these Islamic organizations. *US donations used to finance terrorist activities and, subsequently, for the results of said terrorist activitiesâ€”most interesting.
Note: The IAP has often been referred to as the American wing of Hamasâ€”a terrorist group that has vowed to destroy Israel. Of interest, Hamas senior leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in a recent interview with Arab newspaper Asharq Al Awsat: â€œWe do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world. Let Israel die!â€ Suffice it to say, this is not an organization that has any desire or any plans for peace.
CAIR currently has enough political and â€œPCâ€ (political-correctness) clout to cow the US political and business establishment. Even though three of its (now former) members were convicted of federal terrorism charges, CAIR has greatly increased its influence in the US. Of note are CAIRâ€™s intimidation of the publication National Review to stop [its] running advertisements for the books â€œThe Life and Religion of Mohammedâ€ and â€œThe Sword of the Prophetâ€ and the recent firing of talk-show host Michael Graham from ABC-Disney Radio for making anti-Islamo-fascist comments. Is a trend being established, here? Are all Radio talk-show hosts no longer going to be able to speak against Islamic terrorism? Watch out Rush, Praeger and Hannity! You may be next.
Islamic education in the US (are these Wahabee schools?) also appears to be in the process of attempting to take over US private school organizationsâ€”at least in Texas. In 2004, the Islamic Education Institute of Texas sought inclusion into TAPPS (Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools). As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Edd Burleson (Director of TAPPS) had the â€˜extreme audacityâ€™ to ask questions of the Islamic educational organization. Quoting the Islamic Quran, which calls upon Muslims to be violent against Christians and Jews, Burleson asked in a letter containing ten questions to the group: â€œWhy do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?â€ and â€œWhy do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?â€ As if asking these questions werenâ€™t cheeky enough, Burleson went on to ask about the Islamic organizationâ€™s position on â€œthe spread of Islam in Americaâ€ and the objectives of the school â€œin this regard.â€ A week later, Burleson sent another letter that included the question â€œDo you teach your students to 'Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (Koran 8:37)?â€ These questions were enough to bring the ACLU flying to Islamâ€™s defense. The ACLU and CAIR demanded an apology from Burleson! It appears that questions directed to Islamic organizations are no longer to be allowed in the USA. However, as we already know, reverse situations are allowed. Christians may be asked any and all questions and are allowed to be brow-beaten unmercifully by both Islam and the ACLU. Christians are not liked nor accepted by Islam. And if we have learned anything at all from its myriad suits against the teaching or even displays of Christianity, neither does the ACLU. Remember the ACLUâ€™s threatened suit against the County of Los Angeles, for merely having a small cross on its County Seal? One has to wonder if the ACLU would have threatened the county if the Islamic crescent had been present. Doubtful. But then, the ACLU is increasingly joining with CAIR on a number of battlefronts and lawsuits. A few of these include the following:
The ACLU is working with CAIR and Amnesty International (a decidedly in-my-opinion Marxist group) to defend Ghassan Elashi and his brothers who were convicted of terrorism.
In 2001, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Islamic support groups to challenge the detention of potential terrorists.
In 2003, the ACLU joined CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups to challenge portions of the Patriot Act.
Also, in 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly â€œLiberty Flame Awardâ€ to the Ohio chapter of CAIR â€œfor contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties.â€
In 2004, the ACLU joined CAIR in demanding the FBI make its files public as to [its] surveillance of Chicago Muslim groups and â€˜expressed special concern today over the FBIâ€™s targeting of Muslims and Arabs in the Chicago communityâ€™. Note: Remember it was two Illinois groups (the IAP and Quranic Literacy Institute) that were convicted of terrorist murder.
In North Carolina 2005, the ACLU joined forces with CAIR toward including swearing on the Koran (as opposed to the Bible) for Muslims. Note: The push for Shariâ€™a law in Canada has already become a strong force. Will the US be next?
The above cites are only a few examples of the ACLUâ€™s increasing alliance with CAIR; an association that does not appear to have any indications of disbanding. Yet, the ACLUâ€™s affinity towards Christian groups and Christianity as a whole is nonexistent. Although some may wonder at the ACLUâ€™s agenda, I donâ€™t. Its current and past actions speak louder than any possible words. Donâ€™t believe me? Check the Net, yourself, for ACLU-CAIR alliances. The alignments are there for anyone willing to take the time to do so. I, for one, find it exceedingly troubling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.