by Jack
UPDATE: Sunday 18 May 2014. After a brief consult with Bob Evans and Larry Wahl (former council members) they convinced me that the city council would not be the appropriate venue for my resolution. Yes, the city has weighed in on issues that were not of local concern before, but the advice I received was more along the line that they should be laser focused on balancing our budget and anything the distracts from that would not be helpful. So, I’m not presenting this to the council, but I may propose this to Peace and Justice Center or send it to my Congressman, Doug LaMalfa for his consideration. I want to do something, because these atrocities should draw criticism from around the world. The people doing the killing in the name of religion should know how despised they are by the world community.
In response to the Sudanese lady, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, convicted of the crime of apostasy and sentenced to death. Her crime was for being a Christian and refusing to convert to being a Muslim. The court claimed she was a Muslim that rejected her faith, she says she was never a Muslim and was raised a Christian. Apostasy is defined in Islamic Sharia law as the rejection of the Muslim religion by a former follower and persons charged with apostasy face a wide range of penalties in Muslim run countries. Penalties can range from no action to death with many other forms of punishment in between.
Death sentences are carried out accordance to the country’s local interpretation of Sharia law, but stoning and crucifixion, along with other forms of cruel and unusual punishment are frequently employed. Currently Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Somalia support the death penalty for apostasy, adultery, and homosexuality. This is shocking to the conscience of people that care about justice and inalienable rights.
In the recent past, the City of Chico has felt morally compelled to ban nuclear weapons, or enact measures to reduce global warming or to extend their support for fair trade items. However, they have never taken a stand against the barbaric elements of Sharia law that denies equal rights to women, and promotes outrageously harsh penalties for adultery, homosexuality and apostasy.
We ought to confront evil – not deny it. And further, we ought to demonstrate our resolve by banning taxpayer funded commerce with any sovereign country that practices such barbarity. In the event council passes this resolution, a copy should be sent to President Obama to encourage his support. At the present time he doesn’t seem to have much to say about Sharia law and it’s inherent abuses of universal civil rights and we would like to se an improvement on that.
The following Resolution will be presented to council at my earliest opportunity with a request for it’s approval:
Resolution by the City of Chico Regarding Inalienable Rights
Whereas the City of Chico acknowledges that all members of the human family are entitled equal and inalienable rights.
Whereas the City of Chico understands that religious freedom is a corner stone of American democracy, but it does allow religious freedom to encroach inalienable human rights.
Whereas the City of Chico does recognize the inherent dignity which incorporates the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.
Whereas we therefore oppose in the strongest possible measure anyone or any government who would deny those inalienable rights to others.
Whereas discrimination in any form against inalienable rights is unacceptable, the City of Chico will have no business dealings with individuals or governments who espouse and subscribe to such repugnant discrimination regardless of the reason, including religious doctrine.
Whereas the City of Chico has determined that elements of Islamic Sharia Law are wholly incompatible with universal standards for basic human rights.
Whereas the City of Chico will have no business dealings with countries the embrace Sharia laws that denies or suppresses inalienable rights.
Whereas the City of Chico acknowledges that the road to peaceful coexistence begins with the recognition of fundamental human rights, embraced without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.
I’m confused. Are death sentences for apostates a big problem in Chico? Does your city not already have laws against murder and threatening behavior/harassment?
Chris, of course we have laws against murder. And apostasy is not a problem in Chico, maybe some day it will be, but right now this is a problem in many Muslim run countries around the world.
Now let me ask you a question, does your conscience for inhumane and unjust treatment of the human family end at your nation’s border?
What Muslims (males) are proposing to do to that innocent woman in my article is a universal moral outrage. If we do not speak up for her, who will? Certainly not the Muslims in her country and many liberals in this country don’t want to touch it either. However, the fact remains we as people of good conscience have a moral duty to do what we can when we come State sponsored murder of innocent people. I’m not asking us to declare war or even send troops, but I am asking this city and this country to take a moral stand for what is clearly a moral injustice.
Obama has been remarkably silent on this issue and many other outrages practiced, condoned or tolerated by Muslim leadership around the world because it’s just a cultural thing. I ask you, what kind of a moral leader do we have when he turns a blind eye towards Muslims doing evil regardless of the reason? Evil must confronted or it will spread.
I am not confused. Does Chris have a problem with an official city of Chico statement opposing such things as Islamic beheading?
Yep.
Thanks Jack,
By the way Mr. Lee, in my humble opinion that was post was brilliant. You plastic bag user.
Pardon me for the sloppy treatment of the English in the above. I am lesdysic.
Dear 18th Century Negro Burner Chris: Should the lovely melanin endowed human beings whom you have stated that you would torture-murder not be publicly expressed as a resolution against?
If Sharia Laws can make their way into London’s laws, which it has, it can also make its way into ours.
Protestors picket Law Society over Sharia guidance’:
“Lawyers have staged a protest over legal guidance issued to make wills compliant with Islamic Sharia law. The Lawyers’ Secular Society took their misgivings to the street and protested outside the Law Society’s building in London. They say that there is no place for Sharia-related guidance in the legal sphere.
“I’m protesting against the practice note that the Law Society has issued, which condones discrimination against women, against adopted or illegitimate children as they call it, and non-Muslims. Sharia law has many interpretations but the one they have chosen is very discriminatory. We think our society should represent everyone and should not condone this kind of behaviour and discrimination.”
The society says the guidance legitimises discrimination against Muslim women, adopted children and babies born to parents who aren’t married.
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_04_29/Lawyers-Secular-Society-protest-Law-Society-s-Sharia-related-guidance-6552/
Great idea Jack. Hopefully, it will be used in other cities across the country.
It is mind-boggling to hear progressives accuse conservative of waging a war on women and being homophobic while they support the Islamic life-style and Sharia Law.
Of course the biggest supporter sits in our Oval Office surrounded by Cabinet members who refused to put his hand on a Bible while taking his oath and our past Sec. of State’s top aid had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Peggy thank you for your support and Pie too. You get it. This is a big one. It pits the free world against evil done in the name of religion and right now that religion is Muslim and they don’t get a pass because it’s a cultural thing. Wrong is wrong. Evil is evil, ones culture is no defense for doing evil.
Jack, now that I understand your position more, I have no problem with Chico or any city making a statement or passing a resolution condemning such barbaric practices. I was thinking this post was more about efforts by some conservatives to “ban” Sharia law in the United States. Such efforts are redundant and fear-driven, and courts have already ruled against these laws because they single out one religion for scrutiny for no legitimate public purpose. But if you’re simply talking about a resolution that condemns such atrocities, and not a law that singles out killings and harassment by Muslims as somehow worse than other killings, then I see no problem with it.
(Interestingly, conservatives who wish to bring more attention to honor killings and the like could simply ask that they be prosecuted as hate crimes, since religion is a protected class and an honor killing is by definition an attack on someone for their religious beliefs. But most conservatives don’t believe that hate crime laws should exist, so this avenue hasn’t been chosen.)
I am not sure where you are getting the idea that progressives are any more “silent” on the abuses of radical Islam than conservatives. There are many progressive human rights and feminist groups who have spoken out against radical Islamic countries and terrorist groups, especially their abuse of women. Michelle Obama has attempted to draw a lot of attention to the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Ironically, her efforts were dismissed by many prominent conservatives who called it “hashtag activism.” Rush Limbaugh even claimed that Michelle Obama was “sympathizing” with Boko Haram by starting the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag, a claim so nonsensical that it defies explanation.
So it appears that progressives just can’t win. If you don’t hear us speaking out enough against Islamic terrorists (usually because you’re just not listening), it means we “support Sharia Law,” as Peggy ridiculously claimed. When you do hear us speaking out, we’re not doing enough and our feeble attempts to raise awareness are just silly. Can’t win.
Peggy: “It is mind-boggling to hear progressives accuse conservative of waging a war on women and being homophobic while they support the Islamic life-style and Sharia Law.”
Peggy, where is your evidence that progressives “support” Sharia Law?
“Of course the biggest supporter sits in our Oval Office surrounded by Cabinet members who refused to put his hand on a Bible while taking his oath”
Peggy, why do you post such lies? Obama put his hand on a Bible while taking his first oath of office:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/20/chain-email/obama-sworn-in-on-his-bible/
And for his second term, Obama put his hand on not one, but TWO Bibles, owned by MLK Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, respectively:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/obama-to-use-2-bibles-when-takes-oath-office/
Not to mention it’s pretty stupid to accuse a president of being the “biggest supporter” of countries with Sharia law when he is currently droning the shit out of such countries.
Who has been telling you these lies, Peggy? I think you need to tell us who lied to you by saying that Obama did not place his hand on a Bible when he took the oath of office.
“and our past Sec. of State’s top aid had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Nope. Another lie. Despite accusations by noted crackpots like Michelle Bachmann, Huma Abedin has no connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. And as a writer for the Daily Caller points out, the notion that Abedin, who is married to a Jewish congressman, is some kind of stealth jihadist is pretty hard to swallow:
“Abedin not only had a son with Weiner, but she allowed her son to have a Jewish ceremonial male circumcision, a bris.
The New York Post reports: “The couple used their new building’s 1,400-square-foot commons area, with a bar and billiards table, to host a the party for son Jordan’s bris earlier this year.”
No matter how deceptive Abedin might be in her quest to destroy Christendom, it strikes me as extremely implausible that a Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Islamic supremacist would allow her child to be the subject of a Jewish religious ceremony of any kind.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/weinstein-lets-stop-the-crazy-huma-abedin-conspiracies/3/#ixzz325tmiALC
Stop getting your information from McCarthyite conspiracy theorists, Peggy. Don’t you think you deserve better than that? Don’t you think you deserve the truth?
Peggy when the leader of the free world sends conflicting messages with his every move and shows himself to be hapless and weak in the face of evil it has broad repercussions.
Ronald Reagan turned every public appearance into an opportunity to be the champion for freedom and justice so that when he said, with established authority and confidence, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” it resonated all around the world. He, Margaret Thatcher, and the Pope created an air of certainty that the people could cling to and that served to intimidate any who stood against freedom and justice.
It is especially important when the world lacks strong leadership, and when the press has become so inept at recognizing great leadership, that the people find ways to make individual and community statements.
A recent story about radical Muslims taking control of English schools isn’t a distant problem in a far away land but a problem that’s already in our own backyard:
This is exactly how it began in England. Our appeasement friends will laugh and say we have “completely lost it”. They are the same element as those who believed Stalin and Hitler did not pose a threat to the free world.
Good idea Jack…fill the void.
Thanks Tina, we’ll see what happens soon. I’m going to present this to the City Council, but I doubt it will get much traction.
Tina, quoting the Digital Journal:
“On November 9, 2011 in a Raleigh, NC high school theater class students were asked to perform a small scene offered by the theater teacher. When two students read over the scene they were given, they refused and requested a different scene. The foundation of the scene refused by the students was an “honor killing” of a man’s wife. The students’ reason for refusing the scene was because it went against their mutual moral position on the subject. The theater teacher respected the students’ position and gave them a different assignment.”
So…what exactly is the problem here? I highly doubt the scene involving an honor killing portrayed it in a positive light. How in the world could such a scene be used as evidence of Islamic infiltration in our schools? Are you saying that scenes involving murder shouldn’t be assigned in Drama classes because they might offend students? Guess that rules out most of Shakespeare and Greek tragedies. The kids ended up not having to do the scene anyway. What is the objection?
“This type of material is becoming more and more common in everyday school lessons around the country. For example, in Marietta, Georgia, Campbell Middle School official’s made corrections to class lesson materials due to parental pressures. The lesson that parents of Campbell school objected to started with students addressing the pros and cons of school uniforms. However, one parent told reporter, Lindsay Field of The Marietta Daily Journal, it “positively slants towards Islam.” The parent drew this conclusion after reading a letter included in the lesson. In the letter, an Islamic woman praises the customs of dress codes enforced by Sharia law and how western women were shameful because of their lack of modesty in their clothing.”
If this was only one letter in the lesson, how could the parent claim that the entire lesson “slants positively toward Islam?” Certainly the class also read articles opposing a strict dress code?
Neither of these seem like examples of Islamic indoctrination. The complaint literally seems to be that students shouldn’t be exposed to ideas their parents might disagree with, which is shockingly anti-freedom and anti-education. This is no better than the parent who called me last semester upset over my teaching of “The Crucible” because she thought it promoted witchcraft. Ignorance abounds.
Chris, I didn’t say Obama didn’t us a Bible I said his Cabinet member didn’t. I was referring to John Brennan, not Obama. Brennan used a draft of the US Constitution.
“New CIA Director John Brennan on Friday took his oath of office behind closed doors, vowing to uphold and serve the U.S. Constitution. It seems like a very uncontroversial event.
However, Brennan is once again being criticized, this time for a symbolic gesture he made during his swearing in ceremony.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Friday that Brennan was “sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”
Brennan reportedly asked for a document from the National Archives that would adequately “reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took his oath of office as director of the CIA.”
Pretty cool right? Well, the only problem, as blogger Marcy Wheeler notes, the document that Brennan used at his swearing in is missing a very important part of the U.S. Constitution that governs the country today — the Bill of Rights.
The vitally important Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to bear arms, didn’t go into effect until December of 1791 after ratification by the states.”
Continued..
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/john-brennan-takes-oath-on-draft-constitution-without-the-bill-of-rights/
Also this.
Islam ‘Helped to Shape’ CIA Nominee John Brennan’s World View:
“(CNSNews.com) – As a college student in the 1970s, John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for CIA director, traveled in Indonesia where – he recalled in a speech in New York in 2010 – “despite my long hair, my earring and my obvious American appearance, I was welcomed throughout that country, in a way that is a reflection of the tremendous warmth of Islamic cultures and societies.”
Brennan’s Feb. 13, 2010 address to a meeting at the Islamic Center at New York University, facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), provided an insight into his views on Islam, a faith which he said during the speech had “helped to shape my own world view.”
Travels around the world over more than three decades had taught him about “the goodness and beauty of Islam,” said Brennan, whose 25-year career at the CIA until 2005 included a stint as station chief in Riyadh.
“Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to see Islam not how it is often misrepresented, but for what it is – how it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.”
In the speech, during which he drew applause after speaking in Arabic for more than a minute, Brennan used terms evidently designed to appeal to his audience, such as “Al-Quds” for Jerusalem, “Palestine” and “as the Qur’an reveals” – in keeping with the Muslim belief that the Qur’an was “revealed” directly by Allah to Mohammed through the angel Jibril (Gabriel).
He condemned what he said were negative stereotypes in the U.S. about Muslims and hostility towards Islam, adding that government actions and policies had contributed to the problem but saying this would change under Obama.
“Ignorance is a threat to our national security, prejudice is a threat to our national security, discrimination is a threat to our national security. And those who purport to be religious are frequently the most egregious purveyors of ignorance, prejudice and discrimination – and it must stop,” he said.
“We must also acknowledge that over the years the actions of our own government have at times perpetuated those attitudes,” Brennan continued.”
Continued..
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/islam-helped-shape-cia-nominee-john-brennan-s-world-view
And this about Abedin.
Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties:
Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.
“Despite mounting evidence of close ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Clinton’s close aide, Republican congressional leaders — particularly Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner — continue to target their ire not at the State Department but at Representative Michele Bachmann.
Representative Bachmann is one of five House conservatives who have raised concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of our government. Glenn Beck reported Tuesday that GOP leadership is trying to extort an apology out of Bachmann by threatening to boot her from the House Intelligence Committee if she fails to submit.
That got me to wondering: Any chance Speaker Boehner might take just a couple of minutes out of his busy jihad against Bachmann to focus on how the State Department — during Ms. Abedin’s tenure — has cozied up to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist?
Sheikh Qaradawi is a promoter of jihadist terror. His fatwas endorse terrorist attacks against American personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombing — by both men and women — against Israel. He is a leading supporter of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. He also runs an umbrella organization called the Union for Good (sometimes referred to as the “Union of Good”), which is formally designated a terrorist organization under American law. The Union for Good was behind the “Peace Flotilla” that attempted to break our ally Israel’s blockade of the terrorist organization Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch) in 2010.
That’s rather interesting — at least to me, though apparently not to Speaker Boehner — because Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s female division (the “Muslim Sisterhood”), is a major figure in not one but two Union for Good components. The first is the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR). It is banned in Israel for supporting Hamas under the auspices of the Union for Good. Then there’s the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC) — an organization that Dr. Saleha Abedin has long headed. Dr. Abedin’s IICWC describes itself as part of the IICDR. And wouldn’t you know it, the IICWC charter was written by none other than . . . Sheikh Qaradawi, in conjunction with several self-proclaimed members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Continued..
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312211/huma-abedin-s-muslim-brotherhood-ties-andrew-c-mccarthy
And this about Obama and his administration.
Downplaying Jihadism:
Obama’s tardy outrage over Boko Haram.
“President Obama’s aversion to any perceived “war on Islam” has consistently led his administration to downplay the problem of jihad. Its outrage over the abductions of hundreds of young women in Nigeria by the jihadist organization Boko Haram hasn’t changed that stance. The State Department is still reluctant to make mention of Boko Haram’s Islamic character. Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department hesitated to label the group even a terrorist organization, despite its long catalogue of terrorist acts.
This reticence came at a time when Obama officials had no problem accusing Christians of waging a “war on women” for merely resisting Obamacare’s free contraceptives mandate. Obama is willing to indulge war-on-women rhetoric for such imaginary offenses, but he doesn’t dare accuse Islam of waging a war on women for real ones.
The same administration fashionably worked up about the abductions in Nigeria has no qualms about supporting limits on criticism of Islam’s treatment of women. Professors on the Obama Left at Brandeis University recently put pressure on the school to withdraw honors from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam’s treatment of women. Ali’s criticisms were deemed at odds with the school’s “core values.” Had professors at Brandeis bothered to take her criticisms seriously, they wouldn’t today be so shocked at the abductions in Nigeria.”
http://spectator.org/articles/59198/downplaying-jihadism
Oh, and one more for good measure.
Muslim Brotherhood supporter gets Homeland Security promotion:
A controversial Homeland Security advisor who was recently promoted to senior fellow is a self-declared Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi supporter.
Mohamed Elibiary, who was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council by then-Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2010, tweeted Thursday that his appointment was renewed and his position elevated:
I’m honored to be reappointed to Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and promoted to Sr. Fellow position @DHSgov #Service
Elibiary’s tenure on the advisory council created controversy almost from the start. About a year after his appointment, PJ Media reported that he used his new federal security clearance to download information on the Texas Department of Public Safety and sell it to left-leaning media outlets as proof of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s “Islamophobia.”
The media didn’t bite; the proof existed only in Elibiary’s mind.
U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, joined three other congressmen to raise alarms about Elibiary and others in the Obama administration with apparent ties to, or at least sympathies with, the Muslim Brotherhood. The response was that the concerns smack of McCarthyism, according to a PJ Media report.
So is there any truth to the claims?
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of Elibiary’s Twitter profile photo is the black four-finger salute on yellow background located on the lower right. The Muslim Brotherhood adopted the logo to symbolize the Aug. 14 “martyrdom” of pro-Morsi demonstrators in Cairo, according to Front Page Mag.
If his sympathies were still in doubt, on Sept. 6, Elibiary re-tweeted a photo “with love” depicting a Cairo pro-Muslim Brotherhood rally as it made its way on a bridge crossing the Nile.”
Complete article with pictures..
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/13/muslim-brotherhood-supporter-gets-homeland-security-promotion-83259
Chris, you really need to stop reading those lying progressive rags and get your information from more reliable unbiased sources.
Good-bye. Have a good day.
Tina, it’s not just our schools we need to be concerned with and the integration of Common Core to promote the Islamic lies and distortion of our history.
CAIR also targeted out public libraries after 911 to spread their misinformation based agenda.
CAIR chief claims Muslims discovered America first:
“Muslims discovered the Americas long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, the head of a D.C.-based jihad-linked Islamic lobbying group told a Saudi TV station Dec. 27.
“There are historical accounts according to which the Muslims preceded Columbus, who is said to have discovered the U.S.,” claimed Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations.
“Some documents and accounts indicate that Muslim seafarers were the first to reach the U.S., [so] the bottom line is that Islam played a part in the establishment and development of the U.S.,” Awad told the Saudi interviewer, in an interview in a New York studio.
Awad’s group bills itself as a “civil rights” group, but five of its former employees have been jailed or deported for terror offenses, and FBI officials refuse to meet Awad because of his ties to jihadi groups, such as Hamas.
Awad’s claim was made during an interview in which he argued that Muslims can settle in the U.S. without violating Islam’s myriad Sharia rules about religion, diet, speech, friendships, work and political loyalty.
Also, Awad told his interviewer that he and his Islamist allies had provided half of the United States’ public libraries with books showing their description of Islam.
“After 9/11, we saw great interest among the American public in becoming better acquainted with Islam by studying and reading about it,” he said. “Very few books on Islam were available in the public libraries …. [and] most of these books were misleading or anti-Islamic.”
“We decided to publish several books on Islam … [and] decided to send them free-of-charge to the American public libraries. … We managed to provide this collection, free-of-charge, to half of the [16,200 U.S.] libraries.”
Awad’s statement that Muslims discovered the Americas is one of many unsupported claims of Muslim accomplishment prior to the European capture of Egypt in 1798.
The claims say that Muslims were the first to fly and to invent the compass, as well as the first to develop technologies that were fundamental to computers, cameras and the Industrial Revolution.
In 2009, President Barack Obama repeated the claim that Muslims invented the compass in his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo, Egypt.
“It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed,” he claimed.
Many of these claims are also being touted in the United States by a traveling exhibit, titled “1001 Inventions: Discover the Golden Age of Muslim Civilization.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/cair-chief-claims-muslims-discovered-america-first/
Islamic Common Core
And then this from a Florida parent.
“This is a video about the disturbing things I saw in my daughter’s high school World History class as offered through Florida Virtual School (FLVS). FLVS adopted …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o94l2PDhIcQ
Also worth watching.
Frank Gaffney – Center for Security Policy – CSCOPE/Common …
An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foSlNz22GGM
USA Today
Frontpage Magazine
Daniel Pipes
SF Gate:
You can take the causal, nothing to see here approach, Chris, if you want to but after decades of activists shoving all vestiges of the Christian and Jewish religions and history from the class rooms of America I’m not willing to roll over and let the left usher in Islamic indoctrination in the name of tolerance and inclusion.
Could this bring Jacks story closer to home?
Peggy, your sentence was unclear, as you seemed to be implying that Obama himself was Sharia law’s “biggest supporter.” I don’t see how Brennan being sworn in on a copy of the Constitution rather than a Bible is evidence that he is an Islamic radical, nor do I see how the fact that this copy of the Constitution preceded the Bill of Rights is evidence of that either.
It’s clear that Brennan was profoundly influenced by Islam, but that doesn’t show that he believes in RADICAL Islam. In fact, his statements seem to reject the radical interpretations in favor of a more peaceful, moderate one. Isn’t that what we all want? How is it helpful to go after even moderate Muslims? Do you believe, contrary to the statements of former President Bush, that we are “at war with Islam?” Do you believe that any follower of the religion is a potential enemy, or do you think we should be helping those who are attempting to reform from within?
In your send-off, you said this:
“Chris, you really need to stop reading those lying progressive rags and get your information from more reliable unbiased sources.”
This is deeply hypocritical, Peggy. I did not cite any progressive sources in my response to you. The three sources I used were Politifact, FOX News, and The Daily Caller. The first is non-partisan, and the other two are right-wing.
Meanwhile, every one of the six sources you cited is right-wing. How can you ask me to rely only on unbiased sources when you don’t do the same? Do you always hold your opponents to higher ethical standards than you hold yourself to?
Why do you believe you should be held to a lower standard than that which you demand from others?
I would like some independent verification of some of your claims that does not come from a right-wing blog. If these claims are true, that should not be too hard to find.
Tina, I asked you to explain how the instances you cited in Comment #11 were examples of Islamist indoctrination. Instead of answering that question, you posted other examples of what you see as Islamist indoctrination. I admit some of those examples do seem pretty inappropriate, but it seems that in each of them the school apologized and was held accountable, so I’m still not seeing the huge threat to religious freedom. There will be always be teachers and schools that cross the line and behave inappropriately; these instances should be called out, but it’s important not to exaggerate the threat or single out one religious group as uniquely threatening.
So I ask again: can you explain the problem with the instances you quoted in Comment #11? Because I still don’t see how either one is a clear violation of religious freedom. Trust me Tina, the religious freedom of students is a very serious issue to me, to the point that I have refused to tell my students what religion I am when asked. I strongly believe in students being allowed to form their own opinions without any pressure from me or any other school official to conform. But the examples in Comment #11 seem to me to be merely exposure to other religious viewpoints, not indoctrination.
I should clarify one comment from above:
“it’s important not to exaggerate the threat or single out one religious group as uniquely threatening.”
Obviously, Islam IS uniquely threatening in that the radicals are currently engaged in a guerilla war with our country, and the scale of their violence is unparalleled by any other group of religious extremists in the modern world.
But this threat is entirely physical. The “stealth” threat doesn’t really exist. America is never going to willfully embrace Sharia law like the slowly boiled frog. Typically speaking, minority religions do not pose the biggest threat to religious freedom. Rather, attempts to stifle religious freedom typically come from the dominant, majority religion. See the Alabama Chief Justice who believes that the First Amendment only applies to Christians. He is not alone in his belief; David Barton, the popular conservative pseudo-historian, has said the same thing. While many conservatives have rejected Barton–his Christian publishing company pulled one of his books from shelves after discovering numerous errors–he still maintains a position of respect in much of the right wing, and has been cited as an authority numerous times on this very blog.
There’s also the case of the University of South Carolina being punished by conservative members of Congress for teaching a memoir by a lesbian–a deliberate attempt by the religious right to shut down speech they see as clashing with their religion.
http://amptoons.com/blog/2014/04/25/south-carolina-conservatives-want-to-punish-university-for-assigning-critically-acclaimed-lesbian-graphic-novel/
So no, I do not see Islam as threatening free speech here in America any more than Christianity does the same. There is certainly more of a physical threat from Islam, but barring a nuclear war with radical Islamists, the idea that the U.S. will fall under Sharia is too ridiculous to take seriously.
There is one way in which radical Islam has been successful at undermining our freedoms. But this has been done with the collusion of our government’s most hawkish, anti-Islam members: those that believe we can win if we lower our moral standards by engaging in tactics that we know to be torture, by restricting the freedoms of our citizens in the interest of national security, by compromising our Constitution in order to make war more efficient. In that way, the radicals have managed to transform our government into something less than what we as free people deserve. It’s just that this has been done with little criticism from the left and full-throated support from the right.
“Obviously, Islam IS uniquely threatening in that the radicals are currently engaged in a guerilla war with our country, and the scale of their violence is unparalleled by any other group of religious extremists in the modern world.” Chris S.
Chris you make a number of good points like the one above, but I would have to disagree that Islam in America is no more a threat to free speech than Christianity. See, the problem with that statement is Muslims living in America often times still have relatives living in Muslim controlled countries and they dare not speak critically of Sharia Law or anything else Muslim without fear of repercussions for said relatives. Their free speech is under duress because they have something to lose.
The world is shrinking because we are so connected. The president’s free speech is carefully limited because of it. He has to measure his words far more carefully now than ever before for fear of antagonizing radical Muslims and causing a violent incident. Even in free and democratic European countries free speech is heavily influenced by the risk of radical Muslims going on a rampage and rioting. We’ve seen that happen over a silly cartoon and people died! The same level of dread does not extend to Christians. Christians are taught not to behave that way and turn the other cheek. We know that too, and for example, its why comedians, Hollywood celebs and radical liberal, can feel free to criticize or poke fun at Christians, but not at Muslims.
Not all Muslims are radicals, we’ve made that point repeatedly, but there are enough Muslim radicals out there to cause us serious trouble! And so, yes, our free speech is influenced (limited) by these religious bullies here and in Europe and many other countries around the world. They’re a big problem and too many things that they do in the name of their religion is sick and ruthless.
Chris: “David Barton, the popular conservative pseudo-historian”
Popular by what measure? Your comment suggests you believe he is widely recognized and followed. How do you know he is “popular”?
“has been cited as an authority numerous times on this very blog.”
Authority is an interesting thing. Look at the number of people who believe Eric Holder is admirable in his position of authority. I certainly don’t respect the man.
You seem to be under the impression that only those that you admire should free to have and express their ideas, thoughts, or even their understanding of our founding. And it’s all or nothing with you; thumbs up or down. You enjoy being the judge. But it doesn’t work that way in America, Chris.
I’m sure a lesbian memoir is fascinating to a certain small percentage of the population, particularly an acclaimed lesbian memoir. I’m just as certain that it has been chosen, at least in part, simply because it offends a larger percentage of the population.
Target teaching and special rights activism helps to explain the decline in education…and on Broadway!
“…the idea that the U.S. will fall under Sharia”
If we are correct in our concerns we won’t “fall” to Sharia, people like you will usher it in with a smile.
Jack, that is a good point. I remember a certain “South Park” episode was censored by Comedy Central for that very reason. The fear of violence by radicals in response to speech they don’t like is very real. I was thinking more along the lines of schools pushing a religious agenda on students. That is still more likely to come from Christian groups than anything else. The attempt to teach creationism (which is not science) in science classes, abstinence-only education, and even opposition to teaching students facts about climate change are all tied to the religious right.
Chris I’m glad we’re tracking along the same lines on this one. Free speech, equal rights and respect for the human family go hand in hand, they’re a catalyst for peace. Until we can build relationships with others based on that simple understanding we’re never going to have peace.
Muslim leaders have the authority to do something profound, but they can’t even agree on the most basic human rights and that’s a real big problem for us and the world.
Tina: “Popular by what measure? Your comment suggests you believe he is widely recognized and followed. How do you know he is “popular”?”
“A 2005 Time magazine article entitled “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals” called Barton “a major voice in the debate over church–state separation” who, despite the fact that “many historians dismiss his thinking… [is] a hero to millions—including some powerful politicians.”[13] Barton has appeared on television and radio programs, including those of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck. Beck has praised Barton as “the Library of Congress in shoes”.[14] In September 2013, POLITICO reported that he has returned to the political arena and is advising state legislators on how to fight the Common Core academic standards promoted by the Obama administration.[12]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29
“You seem to be under the impression that only those that you admire should free to have and express their ideas, thoughts, or even their understanding of our founding.”
No. You have got to stop conflating freedom of speech with freedom of criticism. I have never said or even implied that people I disagree with should not be free to express their thoughts and ideas. David Barton has the right to make as many inaccurate claims about history as he wants. By the same token, I have the right to call him an incompetent boob for it. That’s how free speech works in this country.
You’re not asking for free speech, you’re asking for a special right for people on your side to be exempt from criticism, while you would never extend that right to your own opposition.
“I’m sure a lesbian memoir is fascinating to a certain small percentage of the population”
My, what a subtly bigoted statement.
“I’m just as certain that it has been chosen, at least in part, simply because it offends a larger percentage of the population.”
Maybe. Or maybe it was chosen because the university genuinely thought it had literary merit. Maybe the idea that college students reading a memoir written by a lesbian in 2014 would be controversial at all didn’t even occur to them.
But even if you’re right…so what? What is your point? Are you saying that if the university chose the book in part to offend homophobes*, then censorship is OK?
If that is what you’re saying, I’m not sure how you can continue to pretend you have a general commitment to free speech. The idea that it’s OK for a state to prevent a college from assigning books that offend people of a certain religious/political bent is in no way consistent with a commitment free speech.
Your dismissal of this instance of censorship indicates that you only care about the free speech of people you like and identify with, while you are unconcerned with the free speech of people you do not like and identify with. That’s not principled. That’s tribal politics.
“If we are correct in our concerns we won’t “fall” to Sharia, people like you will usher it in with a smile.”
…Yeah, Sharia law’s my third favorite thing after free contraception and lesbian-penned memoirs. Man, do you even listen to yourself?
*And yes, a person who would be offended by the idea of college students being assigned a memoir written by a lesbian is a homophobe; there’s simply no other word to describe them. We’re not talking simple opposition to gay marriage at this point, we’re talking about people who believe that homosexuals shouldn’t even be allowed to write, or at least, their writing shouldn’t be allowed to corrupt the impressionable minds of adults attending an institution of higher learning. If that’s not homophobic, nothing is.
Chris his popularity with evangelicals is likely worldwide popularity. Second popularity among evangelicals doesn’t automatically translate to Republican votes. And third, it doesn’t even translate necessarily to Congressional Republican support. You have assumed broad acceptance from Republicans. As I have written before if I posted his opinion it was in support of that single opinion. I have no deep involvement or interest in him personally. I would bet that you share common opinion with Louis Farrakhan on at least one thing he has said. I doubt if that would translate to your endorsement of him or his overall stance. Get a grip; you aren’t the perfection police.
“I have the right to call him an incompetent boob for it.”
You do. You do not get to call me an incompetent boob just because he happens to share my opinion on a single point without the idiocy of your giant, high school hall monitor leap being called out. As you know I think most of the people you have decided have cornered the market on truth are far left idiots who denigrate our country and thrive on divisive politics.
Can we please put behind us this asinine need to complain about sources of information once and for all? Can you please just take responsibility or your own opinions and let me and others worry about ours? Our readers can figure it out…they don’t need a tattle tale tugging on their shirt tails to find information and background if they feel they need it.
“you’re asking for a special right for people on your side to be exempt from criticism, while you would never extend that right to your own opposition.”
You and I both know that if we had to I could find many more examples of leftists on campus attempting to stifle and limit ideas and speech that don’t fit the liberal narrative! Liberals have had at least thirty years of major dominance with regard to speech and decisions about what is and is not taught on campus and in education generally. YOU have had full voice on these pages! Your assertion is pure CRAP!
“My, what a subtly bigoted statement.”
DITTO! My disinterest does not translate to hate, a desire to discriminate, or refusal to befriend or work with people in the LGBT community.
“Maybe the idea that college students reading a memoir written by a lesbian in 2014 would be controversial at all didn’t even occur to them.”
I think that’s likely BS but will acknowledge the possibility as the way I expressed it does.
“Are you saying that if the university chose the book in part to offend homophobes…”
I’m saying that the university is there to educate people not become activists for special interest groups. The university has ceased to be open and unbiased in that regard and yes, I think it not only offends people but explains our falling education status in the world.
“Man, do you even listen to yourself? ”
Yes…and with a hell of a lot more real word experience about how this works than you have!
“We’re not talking simple opposition to gay marriage at this point, we’re talking about people who believe that homosexuals shouldn’t even be allowed to write, or at least, their writing shouldn’t be allowed to corrupt the impressionable minds of adults blah blah blah”
Another GIANT leap! No wonder you’re comments reflect apoplectic outrage so often! Your imagination runs away with you; your own need to hate and be angry is obvious, Chris.
Jack excellent points, including:
“Not all Muslims are radicals, we’ve made that point repeatedly, but there are enough Muslim radicals out there to cause us serious trouble!
We have made that point. Repeatedly!
Unfortunately too many on the left don’t. And they refuse to accept that people on the right do make the distinction.
They also go farther than simply taking care regarding speech that might inflame radicals. They insist that anyone who speaks about the threat of radicals is Islam-aphobic. They refuse to call the radicals by the names even the radicals have chosen for themselves! (jihadists) They refuse to recognize people and groups that are directly tied to these radicals. In short they like to pretend that all Muslims are alike and they do us no favors when they do so!
I am fed up with leftist who demean people like Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes, two people that have made it their life’s work to study terrorists and terrorist organizations so that we better know and understand what they are up to. I am fed up with leftist, including our President, who shun Netanyahu and kiss the likes of Arafat! I am fed up with people who refuse to recognize, as our legal system has, the radical ties and intentions of organizations like CAIR. I am fed up with liberals, including our President, who refuse to name deadly attacks on our citizens by terrorists, “workplace violence” or “a spontaneous response to a video”.
Are we now into appeasing appeasers?
Tina, it’s disheartening when so many Americans on the left try to make a moral equivalency between current Muslims terrorism and Christians that did something way back when or Timothy McVey who was no spokesperson for any church that I know or even pretended to be a member of one.
It is Jack…and it’s disheartening that they would create a moral equivalency among Muslims, hurting those peacefully practicing their faith, especially when they do it to discredit their political opponents.
It all comes down to honesty and accuracy. We get neither when people play PC games and refuse to recognize right and wrong!
Tina, you did not answer my question. Is it your argument that if the university chose to assign “Fun Home” in part as an attempt to offend people who oppose lesbian authors, then the state was right to pull funding?
Are you arguing that viewpoint discrimination is acceptable as long as the viewpoint that is discriminated against is one you do not share?
“Tina, it’s disheartening when so many Americans on the left try to make a moral equivalency between current Muslims terrorism and Christians that did something way back when ….”
What’s disheartening is that you do not see it, this moral equivalency.
It’s damnably irritating to have you all quoting “judge not” scripture out one side of your face, and then condemning out the other.
We got a lovely little “Christian” sect right here in the good ‘ol USA that treats females horribly. You want to go all righteous, you take yourself down to New Mexico and see if you can’t liberate a 12-year-old.
Tina: “It is Jack…and it’s disheartening that they would create a moral equivalency among Muslims, hurting those peacefully practicing their faith, especially when they do it to discredit their political opponents.”
Typically it is conservatives who draw an equivalency between radical Muslims and peaceful Muslims. For instance, Pamela Gellar, who has gone as far as sympathizing with mass murderer Anders Breivik:
“Breivik,” she wrote, “was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller
You don’t even have to look outside this blog for examples of conservatives equating peaceful Muslims with radicals. Here is what Peggy said on another thread last night:
“Democrats say they support gay rights, yet they also support the Islamic/Muslim faith that kills them. Which is it? Can’t be both.”
Obviously, this is wrong: the “Islamic/Muslim faith” can’t kill anyone; as conservatives frequently remind us, people kill people. Islamic radicals kill people. To say that the “Islamic/Muslim faith” kills people is to implicate all members of that faith as responsible for killing, which clearly draws a moral equivalence between peaceful Muslims and the radicals.
You know, that thing you just claimed you were against.
If you’re actually against it, you should ook to your own yard and criticize Peggy’s statements. If you’re not actually against it, but simply using this argument as a shield to protect your side whilst hammering the other side over the head with it at the same time, then you should be honest and admit that you don’t actually believe the argument that you just made.
More attempts by members of the Christian right to misinform schoolchildren come from Missouri, where non-scientist and life-sized Ken doll Rep. Rick Bratton has introduced a bill that would require parental notification for students before they can learn about evolution:
“Any school district or charter school which provides instruction relating to the theory of evolution by natural selection shall be required to have a policy on parental notification and a mechanism where a parent can choose to remove the student from any part of the district’s or school’s instruction on evolution.”
http://io9.com/anti-evolution-bills-are-defeated-in-missouri-1578474672?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
As the article points out, “evolution by natural selection is the unifying principal in the study of biology.” Yet religious fundamentalists like Brattin want to weaken this understanding of science by falsely suggesting that the existence of evolution is a matter of scientific controversy.
Luckily, the bill failed, but similar efforts have found success in other states. These efforts are far more common and more harmful to our children’s education than a few isolated instances of Islamic lessons gone too far (though I admit some of the examples Tina pointed out were disturbing).
Again, I’m not downplaying the threat of Islamic terror or suggesting any kind of equivalence with Christianity when it comes to actual violence. That is stupid, and liberals should stop doing it.
But when it comes to our schools and our children’s right to a good education, free from the influence of religious fundamentalists and their various conflicts of interests, I see far more of a threat from the Christian majority than the Muslim minority. That’s not because I view either religion as inherently “worse” or more prone to corruption than the other, it’s simply a matter of numbers. Christians–even good, well-intentioned Christians–are much more likely to be in positions of power in our country than members of any other religion, so of course most of the abuses of said power in our country come from them.
Interesting! In fact evolution is a theory taught in our schools as fact.
Homeschoolers do their homework
Adaptation is one thing; evolution another, as more than one scientists has observed.
Those with an interest will find “The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists Objections” interesting. An excerpt:
Tina, many of the comments you quoted are so illogical and scientifically illiterate as to boggle the mind.
This argument is especially ridiculous:
“The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. …”
If everything that exists MUST have a designer, then who designed God?
Evolution is the basis of nearly all modern science. It is a theory, but it is the best unifying theory we have. (And in most schools, that is exactly how it is taught.)
Creationism is not science. I don’t begrudge anyone who believes the universe was created. I’d like to believe it myself. But I’m not about to pretend it’s a scientific belief just to make myself better.
American school children have been falling behind other nations for decades. Do you think the higher achieving countries are wasting time learning about creationism or drawing ridiculous equivalences so that they may “teach the (non-existent) controversy?” No. At least part of the reason our children are falling behind is the attack on scientific literacy coming from creationists.
I just have to say more about that ridiculously awful source you cited, Tina. Here is the first sentence of the page you linked to:
“There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt.”
Wow, that doesn’t sound biased at all! So now creationism and evolution aren’t just two competing theories that should both be taught–evolutionary theory is completely “bankrupt?” Do you agree with this, Tina?
“Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it.”
The claim that Charles Darwin renounced the theory of evolution is unverified hearsay. If the people behind your source had actually “done their homework,” as you claim they do, they would know this. To report Darwin’s conversion as fact when it is completely unproven is equivalent to lying. Funny how many Christians think that lying is acceptable as long as it helps them spread Christianity–reminds me of your friend OneVike.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm#.U4iUQevgVhU
The rest of that site is similarly ridiculous. Here is part of their “statement of faith:”
“The authority of the Bible is not based on the testimony or tradition of man, but on God alone, who is Truth. It is therefore the highest authority, and can be depended on fully and without supplementation. The whole and complete counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for God’s glory as well as man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from Scripture and the the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.”
In other words, any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible can’t possible be true, and must be rejected out of hand.
This strikes you as an attitude of scientific openness, Tina?
You said, “Teaching evolution as fact closes the mind.”
Well, what about teaching the Bible as fact? Do you also recognize that it closes the mind to say that any scientific evidence which goes against the Bible can’t possibly be valid?
While it’s true that Darwin did not get the science behind evolution exactly right, the basic principles of evolution are still widely accepted and verified by scientists in almost every discipline. There is of course debate over the exact processes, but there is virtually no debate over whether evolution occurs. Similarly, the climate change debates within the scientific community are almost exclusively focused on the exact extent and effects of anthropogenic global warming. There is almost no debate over whether AGW exists.
Creationists and climate denialists (which overlap significantly) take advantage of the debates within the scientific community to pretend that the fundamentals are up for debate. They also misuse terms like “theory” to say things like “evolution is just a theory.” But in scientific terms, a theory isn’t just a guess; it has a lot of weight and explanatory power. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. Creationism is closer to a hypothesis, and not a very compelling one at that; it can’t be independently verified through scientific means, while evolution can and has.
These tactics work on the uninformed and scientifically ignorant. You’ve shown before that you don’t understand how to read scientific studies, Tina, and even when basic misrepresentations of scientific literature are pointed out to you, such as the James Taylor piece falsely claiming that a study in Alberta showed a majority of scientists skeptical of global warming, you don’t understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the obvious errors. So I would recommend staying out of discussions related to science until you educate yourself on the basics.