[BOB] ABERNETHY: What are the major causes as you see them of the anti-Muslim feeling that’s going on now?
{PROFESSOR SCOTT] APPLEBY [of the UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME]: Well, we have to realize that one thing that’s similar to other periods in our nation’s history of nativism, of attacks against people perceived as foreign, whether they are from another nation or another religion, what’s in common is we’re in an economic crisis. These episodes flare up when Americans are feeling displaced or threatened that their economic well-being and even their citizenship is somehow called into question by a threatening minority. And, of course, Islam in America is a tiny, tiny minority. Why pick on Islam? Because for nine years, almost a decade, the popular mentality is we’re in some kind of war with Islam, which of course is a distorted reading that’s not sufficiently shouted down by the right people. We are not in a war with Islam. We are in a conflict with a tiny minority of radicals who are denounced by the majority of Muslim leaders and Muslims around the world.
ABERNETHY: Do you think that there is some justification, however, for thinking that there is something about Islam itself that condones or perhaps even encourages violence?
APPLEBY: No, there’s nothing about Islam itself that makes Islam stand apart from other religions.
Truly amazing. When it come to burning the flag, Jesus in urine or any thing else the liberal/progressives are for the 1st Amendment is absolute. When it comes to Muslims or any thing else the liberal/progressives are against the 1st goes out the window. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Isn’t there a tiny book called the Koran, that calls for us either accepting Islam, or being punished? That would be the thing that I have a problem with.. Or are we just supposed to ignore those parts?
Also, as a woman, there’s a lot to be considered.
Grannie Gloria
2. we are supposed to ignore the embarrassing parts (those that put Muslims in a bad light such as cutting off women’s noses etc.)
From what I have read in several news accounts, there are no shortage of mosques in New York City. Many agree that a new mosque could be built some number of blocks from Ground Zero. All across this country, hundreds of mosques have been built SINCE 9/11. So where is the Religous Intolerence so many are concerned about?
Why is it that the backlash against the mosque at Ground Zero cannot simply be the gut feeling of a country that saw a terrorist attack by radical Islamic muslims kill 3,000 to say, “no not here”.
The crys of “religous intolerence” comes from those looking to set up a strawman arguement that they can use to claim victimhood. The professional victimhood sympathizers pick up the cry and plead the cause, unmindful of how real people in the real world feel.
Don’t let the victimhood lobby play you for the fool. Let your feelings be what they are.
The more fertilizer that they spread, the bigger the rose blooms will be in November.
As usual a smug, comfortable Western Christian in a safely endowed academic chair pontificating about what he has never experienced::living your whole life under Moslem domination. Not one bit of concern for or memory extended to the Armenian Christians (1.5 million slaughtered), the Coptic Christians (who just had one of their monasteries violently attacked by the Egyptian Army), Assyrian Christians who have lost millions to Islamic bloodshed, Indonesian Christians ( who were just stabbed and bludgeoned for praying in a field outside their church boarded up by its Islamic government.
When people like this Appleby start showing some compasssion (or at least a little interest) for what Native Christians all across the Islamic world have endured and are still suffering they might be more credible.
And a couple of more things …
1. I don’t think there’s yet a Christian church of any denomination in
Saudi Arabia.
2. In addition to their regard for Mohammed as a prophet, he is
also esteemed as the most perfect man who ever lived. It’s
likely my benighted attitude, but I can’t square that perfection
with the fact he married and consummated that
marriage with the girl Aisha, who was 9 or 10 years old.
Mohammed was 50-ish when that marriage took place. I’m
already past 50. If I consummated a marriage to a 9-year
old girl, I’d be called sick, twisted, and evil. And I’d have
to endure that venom and invective from a jail cell. How can
our society tolerate such loathsome behavior as “perfection” ?
As Muslim immigrants become more numerous and vocal, will
we as a society be called upon to tolerate such barbarous
proclivities ? Perhaps, in the interest of multi-culturalism,
we will be compelled to modify our notions of “perfection” and
the treatment of women.
Considering the way Islam has conducted itself in the past and continues to conduct itself today, this Appleby is a blithering idiot.
A tiny minority? Does he not read the newspapers? A tiny minority? Apparently they don’t even have tv in ivory towers. But why do we continue to hear this nonsense? Why is it so persistent? Or is it just leftwingness who assumes that any minority, by definition, has to be good, has to be put upon, has to be abused, and has to be defended at any cost? Larry
Kendall, how long are you going to tolerate hate speech on your blog?
Remember when some of us were warning that the concept of hate speech would be used to undermine the concept of free speech and the 1st amendment. And we were assured that the concept would never be used in such a way? QED.
Hate speech is speech you disagree with. Unable to quell it by constitutional means, the left has chosen a very successful tactic: Label the speech with tags which are heavily laden with negative judgments.
This is a variation of an ad hominem argument, and as the labels homophobe, bigot have worked well, so now Islamophobe, bigot are doing their unsavory work.
Tell me,Dale, how do you recognize hate speech when you see it?
Larry
Here is some more hate speech for Dale…
—
Why is the U.S. government building mosques in Mali? From a official america.gov site:
[blockquote] A recent project supported by the Ambassadors Fund was the preservation of a mosque in Gao, Mali. The project helped support preservation of the remaining fragments of a mosque built in 1324 by Emperor Kankou Moussa, following his pilgrimage to Mecca. Designed by an Andalusian architect, the mosque bears witness to the exchange between the Sudan and the Mediterranean regions. The project included the construction of a protective shelter, the installation of interpretive site information and publication of a brochure on the history of the site.
“One of the most important impacts of this project was to raise local awareness and pride in Malian cultural heritage,†said Stephanie Syptak, a U.S. public affairs officer in Mali.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/arts-english/2008/December/20081209181427GLnesnoM0.923855.html#ixzz0zPeXpO8D%5B/blockquote%5D
And we paid for Imam Rauf to travel the mideast to raise funds for the GZM. One wonders if a group applied for funds to rebuild a church in a Muslim country, would the receive it? Of course, sharia law, which the liberals seem intent on allowing encroachment in Western Europe and here, doesn’t allow for dhimmis to rebuild churches. Could a Christian apply for funds to go on a world wide tour to build a victory church?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
So where is the screeching from the Left about the government supporting preservation of a Mosque and giveing a religious leader free travel around the world on the taxpayer’s dime?
What’s that I hear? Crickets?
Then there is this:
[blockquote]A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions.
Western governments and a broad alliance of activist groups have voiced dismay about the religious defamation text, which adds to recent efforts to broaden the concept of human rights to protect communities of believers rather than individuals.
Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a “delicate balance” had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.
The resolution said Muslim minorities had faced intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, including laws and administrative procedures that stigmatize religious followers.
“Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence,” the adopted text read, adding that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws “to deny impunity” for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and “to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.”[/blockquote]
In effect this guts the 1st amendment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326
RE: “Kendall, how long are you going to tolerate hate speech on your blog?”
Lol.
Yeh — so many haters. 10 on this very thread. One wonders why Dale Rye sullies himself so by reading this blog, with all the Hate Speech going on. Why, it’s practically every single thread that deals with most topics where Dale Rye disagrees with the majority of the commenters! It’s amazing how Hate Speech just fills all the comments around here.
The revisionists say the same thing about the conservative Episcopalians only they like the word “divisive.”
[i]Kendall, how long are you going to tolerate divisive speech on this blog?[/i]
Find a passage in The Koran that endorses violence against nonbelievers and those who don’t keep God’s law, and I’ll match it with a similar example from the Bible. Shall we dance?
Dan, you can only do that if you engage in dishonest Biblical interpretation and exegesis. I don’t think anyone here wants to engage in what would be a useless exercise. Most of the OT examples that you would cite are one time only examples that apply to Israel of the conquest or when ancient Israel was an independent state. They are examples of God’s judgment and are non-repeatable examples. Contrast that with Sharia law which implements the Koran today and now.
Dan, that’s quite the red herring you dance with!
Well, I’ll try Dan instead of Dale. How do you recognize hate speech when you see it? Or don’t you? Larry