View Full Version : Cain Says Communities Have Right to Ban Mosques
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/17/cain-says-communities-have-right-to-ban-mosques/
Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.
Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.
"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.
Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.
"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.
Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."
But while Cain said he expects the case to come before the Supreme Court, a local judge has allowed the project to go forward.
Cain is taking heat for his comments about Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said Sunday that he should "apologize" for his latest remarks.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, describing Cain's stance on the Tennessee mosque as a possible "sign of desperation," said other Republican candidates and leaders should also distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric.
"It's incumbent on reasonable people within the Republican Party to come out strongly and repudiate these kinds of un-American unconstitutional views," he said. "It's just so bizarre."
Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is struggling to build on earlier momentum and break into the top tier of candidates in the 2012 Republican primary race. He expressed confidence Sunday that he could have a strong showing in an upcoming Iowa straw poll.
Roguish Lawyer
07-17-2011, 20:32
What a loon
What a loon
Maybe-but have you had the Pepperoni, Jalapeno and Anchovy? It's out of this world.
Communities ban stuff all the time - mostly through zoning or noise requirements.
Does a community have a right to ban stuff under the above mention things? Yes.
Does a community have a right to ban a Mosque while allowing the construction of a place of worship by a different religion in a similar area then I would say no.
I wonder how a new church would go over in some sections of Dearborn?
While I agree the "religious" aspect of it would allow anyone to build whatever building they would like to worship in, the law side would preclude it. What would you say if some one were to set up a police station to enforce National Socialist (NAZI) laws, or a Communist KGB type police station to enforce Communist laws? People need to wake up and realize that the word Islam means a set of laws, not a way to worship a deity, and that those laws are directly at odds with the laws of the western world. Islam, by LAW wants to enact sharia LAW on the WORLD, and if you don't subscribe, then you are to be killed. So let it be written, let it be done.
Eagle5US
07-18-2011, 08:50
Reading the article he RIGHTFULLY separates the "Religion" portion if Islam and worship, from the SHARIA LAW portion of the argument.
The title of the article itself is misleading. Though I am not the biggest fan of Cain, he is acting on what many States and communities are already having difficulty addressing - the indifference of some in the Islamic population to US Law, and the subsequent tolerance (i.e. SUBSTITUTION) of Sharia law in its place.
Ya, this guy is a real winner.
I'm not a fan of his either, but if we ran a poll and said you can choose Obama or Cain....I'd be a Cain man in a NY minute.
Ambush Master
07-18-2011, 20:38
What a loon
So you are prepared to start defending in a SHARIA LAW Society?!?!?!
I'd be willing to bet that you yourself would be drug into the court as an Infidel, before you could even begin to defend your Client!!!
Just watched an informed talk about Mr.Cains comments, he was talking about Murfreesboro Tn specifically.
The issue here is there is huge outside money (Saudi) building a huge Muslim complex in a community that doesn't have a large Muslim community compared to complex size. The locals don't want to limit religious expression but are afraid of Sharia (Islam being much more than next worldly)and believe those directing this are building it as an attraction to 'come on down' and that this might change the balance of their community.
There are valid laws (zoning) that prohibit building that may impact the community negatively.
Cain basically said it should be handled by the folks there, they should have a 'say'.
It's been spun.
If you think the influx of huge Saudi dollars to build (and man with their wahabi Imams as part of the deal)mosques and complex's is benign then you are foolish.
Kind of like Kruschev talking about us hanging ourselves with a rope we purchesed ourselves.
Roguish Lawyer
07-18-2011, 22:00
So you are prepared to start defending in a SHARIA LAW Society?!?!?!
I'd be willing to bet that you yourself would be drug into the court as an Infidel, before you could even begin to defend your Client!!!
Big difference between having a Sharia law society and allowing a community to discriminate against one religion. The First Amendment ain't Sharia. We're not talking about a law that limits where you can build a place of worship regardless of religion, but rather one that says you can't build a Muslim place of worship. That is downright unAmerican.
Roguish Lawyer
07-18-2011, 22:02
Just watched an informed talk about Mr.Cains comments, he was talking about Murfreesboro Tn specifically.
The issue here is there is huge outside money (Saudi) building a huge Muslim complex in a community that doesn't have a large Muslim community compared to complex size. The locals don't want to limit religious expression but are afraid of Sharia (Islam being much more than next worldly)and believe those directing this are building it as an attraction to 'come on down' and that this might change the balance of their community.
There are valid laws (zoning) that prohibit building that may impact the community negatively.
Cain basically said it should be handled by the folks there, they should have a 'say'.
It's been spun.
If you think the influx of huge Saudi dollars to build (and man with their wahabi Imams as part of the deal)mosques and complex's is benign then you are foolish.
Kind of like Kruschev talking about us hanging ourselves with a rope we purchesed ourselves.
If you want to enforce laws like that for this purpose, you ought to be smart enough not to say expressly what your unconstitutional motivation is. These people need to get themselves some lawyers! :)
Roguish Lawyer
07-18-2011, 22:05
Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.
Here's the problem -- this is just absolutely wrong. There is no such right, period. Very basic First Amendment stuff.
Roguish Lawyer
07-18-2011, 22:07
I'll add that it pisses me off that someone prominent would say such stupid things and give CAIR an opportunity to respond and appear legitimate to a lot of Americans. That organization was being totally discredited in the press, and they look good in this story because they're right.
Some days, I want to become a Muslim just to piss everybody else off and confront those who demonstrate such blissful ignorance. And then I'd also condemn those that pervert my faith, naturally, though the fact that I've killed enough of those guys (the extremists) should support my case.
In other news, Herman Cain announced that this weekend he will follow Rupert Murdoch's lead by taking out full page ads in prominent broadsheets. An unnamed source (Cain's hacked BlackBerry) confirms that the text of the ads will read: My name is Herman Cain. And I don't want to be the president of the United States.
Here's the problem -- this is just absolutely wrong. There is no such right, period. Very basic First Amendment stuff.
I agree that people do not have the right to ban a Mosque simply to ban a Mosque.
Do they have the right to have a say in the building of a huge religious complex funded by foreigners that espouse what many classify as western cultural hate speech? The Wahabi message is very radcal and this will be a wahabi instituted organization.
Do we, as Americans, have to allow any group to build any complex within our neighborhood because they can afford it?
What are the protections for a 'culture'? A neighborhood that embraces multi ethnic entities but fears a group that has knowingly supported terrorism abroad thru it's educational entities elsewhere.
Our own Federal Govt. has removed wahabi sponsored books from our prison system for the negative and violent message imparted to it's readers.
Roguish Lawyer
07-18-2011, 23:49
I agree that people do not have the right to ban a Mosque simply to ban a Mosque.
Do they have the right to have a say in the building of a huge religious complex funded by foreigners that espouse what many classify as western cultural hate speech? The Wahabi message is very radcal and this will be a wahabi instituted organization.
Do we, as Americans, have to allow any group to build any complex within our neighborhood because they can afford it?
What are the protections for a 'culture'? A neighborhood that embraces multi ethnic entities but fears a group that has knowingly supported terrorism abroad thru it's educational entities elsewhere.
Our own Federal Govt. has removed wahabi sponsored books from our prison system for the negative and violent message imparted to it's readers.
Lots of questions here and I don't have time right now to give you a comprehensive answer (which I can't do off the top of my head anyway), but here are some preliminary observations:
1. You certainly can prohibit criminal acts like setting off a bomb or shooting someone. It is harder to prohibit speech and religious practice that falls short of actual criminal conduct. Some "hate speech" can be prohibited and there is the old "can't shout fire in a crowded theater" line, but as a practical matter it is very difficult to regulate speech. The easier kind of restriction to have is a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction. By "content-neutral," I mean that you don't have a different rule for Christians than you have for Muslims (or for speech based on its content).
2. Foreign nationals have limited rights here and I suspect that it would be OK for the federal government to do something like prohibit foreign investment in religious centers here. It would be hard to do it just as to one religion, although I think you certainly could make a case for it as to Salafi jihadist institutions. Your ACLU-lover judges won't buy that argument but the Scalias of the world probably will.
3. Prisoners have extremely limited rights so what you can regulate in a prison is different from what you can do elsewhere. The military and schools are two other places where rights historically have been found to be subject to greater restrictions.
4. I don't think we have much constitutional protection for culture in this country. That is more of a French concept, IIRC.
My name is Herman Cain. And I don't want to be the president of the United States.
In a follow up piece the GOP concluded, " We are in dire need of a Cain Mutiny," also acknowledging such an act risks swinging the majority of the "Black KKK" vote to the Dims...
Old Dog New Trick
07-19-2011, 03:02
I have to agree with RL here. This is America and we stand for our constitution right or indifferent. While I may dislike the idea, it's what makes America a great place to live - freedom to be.
As a FLEO it's makes finding the BGs easier because they can now come to a central location and espouse their hatred for the things that allowed them to hate so much. Kind of a catch-22.
I'd really like to see a mosque built in Topeka (KS) next to the Westboro Church so they can all hug and kiss each other in the hatred of American values...
I'd still vote for Cain...I like him even though he said this. He's wrong and this is a political nail but, he's smarter than all the other choices so far.
RL, the point is not that Islam is a religion, the point is that Islam is a set of laws. If a street gang that wants the destruction of the US government says that they pray to dogs, and subsequently wrights a book saying that if you pray to dogs and want to kill all that don't, then I guess you could technically call it a religion, but it still would call for the DEATH of anyone who didn't pray to dogs. You need to really re-examine the basis of the word Islam, it's definition, the actions, and the beliefs attached to the word, and you will realize that they (the people who follow Islam) want to KILL ANYONE who do not do what they want.
Islam is NOT in anyway a religion. Period!
Roguish Lawyer
07-19-2011, 12:52
RL, the point is not that Islam is a religion, the point is that Islam is a set of laws. If a street gang that wants the destruction of the US government says that they pray to dogs, and subsequently wrights a book saying that if you pray to dogs and want to kill all that don't, then I guess you could technically call it a religion, but it still would call for the DEATH of anyone who didn't pray to dogs. You need to really re-examine the basis of the word Islam, it's definition, the actions, and the beliefs attached to the word, and you will realize that they (the people who follow Islam) want to KILL ANYONE who do not do what they want.
Islam is NOT in anyway a religion. Period!
I understand the point, but you could say this about other religions also. Judaism, for example, although only the Orthodox follow all the laws. Slippery slope in both directions.
I understand the point, but you could say this about other religions also. Judaism, for example, although only the Orthodox follow all the laws. Slippery slope in both directions.
(Disclaimer: I am an observant Jew, but no rabbi, though I have spent my fair share of time studying )
MOO:
To nitpick, some of those laws cannot be observed today, specifically, laws pertaining to the Temple and courts. That aside, Jewish law maintains that when outside the borders of Israel(and when Israel is not under rule by an ordained king - this is very lengthy and OT so I am not going to discuss it here), the law of the land is the law as long as it does not directly contradict Jewish law, and by extension, is enforceable as such; sadly many Jews seem to forget this...:mad:
In contrast, Jewish law(s) under current conditions apply to Jews and is generally not imposed(again, sadly, there are many that do/think they should) on others, as opposed to Islam, in which the basic, absolute translation of the Koranic text applies to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Ultimately, it is a very slippery slope, it is very difficult to separate a belief system from the body of law that governs it, the two are heavily intertwined and co-dependent on each other.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist"
The issue is, people think of Islam as a religion. It is, only if you accept ANYTHING is a religion. People who worship money as a religion, and belive that what ever they make belongs to them, and under no circumstances should be taken (taxes) are called "tax cheats". If they use the argument that money is there religion, they are still thrown in jail.
If some one / gorup plans to commint murder, trains themselves and others to commit murder, funds the purchasing of implaments to commit murder (you could also substitute the word "war" for "murder") and then that group actually does commit murder, why would anyone in their right mind not belive that group would continue.
There is no slippery slope, there is a problem with the deffinition of Islam. It is a political system of laws that demands the waging of "war" and conduct of "murder" on all those who do not follow what they say.
Therefore, the only solution is to call a spade a spade and treat it as you would treat anyone who conspires to, or commits murder, terroism, or acts of war.
The people of Murfeesburo, TN understand this and they don't want it to be in their comunity. I support them, and Mr. Cain for his understanding. Now, if we can just get the word out to the rest of Americans.
The only part of Mr. Cain's comments on the mosque which I agree with is that Murfreesboro is "hallowed ground." The site of a bloody Civil war battle where a great many American boys on both sides lost their lives the last time a significant portion of our country felt their national governent had lost both credibility and legitimacy in their eyes. The religious protections of the First Ammendment must not not be set aside for the personal prejudices of the moment. This is precisely a first step down the path of a government losing legitimacy in the eyes of her people. It is ironic Mr. Cain, who I believe to be a man of admirable candor, does not see this, the types of things he is espousing on this hallowed ground represent a greater threat to the republic he hopes to lead than a bunch of Wahabi asshats in a Mosque. This is yet another instance where Mr. Cain's lack of judgement and suitability for high elected office are on open display.
Until we change our laws, an option we have in a democracy, the rights of this mosque are protected. The good people of Tennessee have eyes and ears, instead of gifting CAIR a shred of legitimacy, let them build their Mosque and see what kind of neighbors they turn out to be. If they are asshats this will set back the cause of American Islam more so than illegally suppressing rights we believe are American.
There is no slippery slope, there is a problem with the deffinition of Islam. It is a political system of laws that demands the waging of "war" and conduct of "murder" on all those who do not follow what they say.
Therefore, the only solution is to call a spade a spade and treat it as you would treat anyone who conspires to, or commits murder, terroism, or acts of war.
The people of Murfeesburo, TN understand this and they don't want it to be in their comunity. I support them, and Mr. Cain for his understanding. Now, if we can just get the word out to the rest of Americans.
Agreed. Believe me, I have no misconceptions as to this "religion of peace" mandates for infidels. However, it is probably easier to interpret freedom of religion as freedom to practice religion, guaranteeing that you don't impinge on others rights(and any other rights) to do so as well, rather than to "un-" label what is considered a religion based on an argument that can have deep repercussions for other religions in the process.
My .02...
Food for thought: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 14:29
The religious protections of the First Ammendment must not not be set aside for the personal prejudices of the moment. This is precisely a first step down the path of a government losing legitimacy in the eyes of her people.
Herein lies the great debate - ISLAM is not a religion, it is a set of laws which govern the behavior of Muslims. Our "Gov't" has already lost legitimacy with much of the population. We have so "overlegitamized" Islam within our borders and the administration during this Presidency that it has almost become comical.
It is ironic Mr. Cain, who I believe to be a man of admirable candor, does not see this,
That he doesn't see what, your particular point of view? Instead he sees my point of view? The point of view of the citizens who have set up homes and established families? Would it make a difference if the KKK wanted to set up a "Church" in a quiet little community of mixed race neighbors? I believe he DOES see, and instead of pulling the same PC crap that many Americans are sick and tired of, he (as you so aptly stated) states his views with admirable candor.
the types of things he is espousing on this hallowed ground represent a greater threat to the republic he hopes to lead than a bunch of Wahabi asshats in a Mosque.
Those "Wahabi asshats" you are so easily dismissing are planning terrorist attacks within our borders. They are training others to carry them out. They are recruiting young men across the country. They are financing the effort here in Theater killing soldiers. They are utilizing our very own laws against us within the United States to practice and enforce Sharia Law.
This is yet another instance where Mr. Cain's lack of judgement and suitability for high elected office are on open display.
Few can effectively argue the "lack of judgement and suitability for high elected office" that has been demonstrated for the past 2+ years. That being said, Cain appears honest and sincere in his beliefs. I applaud him for speaking his mind, and not the medias - DESPITE their "spin".
Until we change our laws, an option we have in a democracy, the rights of this mosque are protected. The good people of Tennessee have eyes and ears, instead of gifting CAIR a shred of legitimacy, let them build their Mosque and see what kind of neighbors they turn out to be. If they are asshats this will set back the cause of American Islam more so than illegally suppressing rights we believe are American.
Honestly? The PROVEN links and ties between the homegrown terrorists and the Mosque and radical Imam in Annandale VA got one thing - police protection for the Mosque.
We, as a Country, have grown weak. Until we also grow weary - we will continue to be subjugated to the whims of our enemies who are protected by the bastardizations of interpretation within our legal system.
How many white elderly grandmothers have we found trying to blow up aircraft? Zero - yet we are prevented from pulling young Muslim appearing males for screening under the premise of discriminatory profiling. It is beyond ridiculous.
Entire post.The moment we accept as legitimate the notion that we can decide for others what is and is not a religion is the same moment that we legitimate the concept that others can decide for us which rights we should nor should not have.
The only part of Mr. Cain's comments on the mosque which I agree with is that Murfreesboro is "hallowed ground." The site of a bloody Civil war battle where a great many American boys on both sides lost their lives the last time a significant portion of our country felt their national government had lost both credibility and legitimacy in their eyes.I disagree with this interpretation of American history. Not the least because over the next century at least two groups of Americans would question .GOV's credibility and legitimacy. The key difference is that they selected different means to achieve their ends.
The moment we accept as legitimate the notion that we can decide for others what is and is not a religion is the same moment that we legitimate the concept that others can decide for us which rights we should nor should not have.
You would then agree that my religion prescribes that I drink and drive, or maybe it will say I can have sex with girls that are 12, or how about murder anyone who isn't named "Sam". I can call anything a religion by your logic and do what ever the hell I want!
The reality of the situation is, the Koran is a Law book that says KILL any non-Muslim. It also says it is OK fine to lie to anyone who is not a Muslim about this as a goal. It also says that, like any law book, the most recent passages are the ones to follow, and the abrigated ones don't apply.
I have read the Koran, and I have done it in Arabic. Guess what, if you don't speak Arabic, or read the Koran in Arabic, you are breaking the law as well!
ZonieDiver
07-19-2011, 14:46
Here's the problem -- this is just absolutely wrong. There is no such right, period. Very basic First Amendment stuff.
Well said, counselor. The 'Chargers' should be proud of you! :D
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 14:51
The moment we accept as legitimate the notion that we can decide for others what is and is not a religion is the same moment that we legitimate the concept that others can decide for us which rights we should nor should not have.
This is already happening. Our "rights" are being dictated to us in record numbers. Try smoking indoors many places. Some entire cities have now banned smoking. Try flying without getting groped. Be in the military with a sense of moral or religious values that contradicts the Gay and Lesbian Lifestyle.
Polygamists are a FINE example of a RELIGION or set of RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that directly contradict what is considered acceptable social behavior in the United States. Yet, they are prosecuted for practicing polygamy and in fact prevented from doing so.
I can bet you that if they weren't a bunch of white, corn fed, folk and were perhaps green, the it would be OK...because they aren't WHITE.
What it comes down to is a bunch of folks who seem disconnected or disenchanted with "us common folk" making decisions as to "whose rights are more right".
Is it a Muslim man's right to rape and beat a 16 year old girl? It is under Sharia law.
The problem is that in the United States, the standards of Sharia Law are not acceptable "common behavior". As Islam and Sharia are intertwined, where does the "Rights of Religion" end and the "Right of Law" begin.
The United States has lost it's identity as a Nation of being simply: AMERICAN.
In the 80's and 90's we went through the "Nationality American" stage. Mexican Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Chinese Americans, Muslim Americans, or any other "Insert Nation + American".
Look around now...
California / Arizona / Texas : We are MEXICAN, fly the MEXICAN flag, address major arena sporting events solely in Spanish
Florida: We are CUBAN or PUERTO RICAN, same issues with Language
Across the United States, Mosques are now being financed and built: We are MUSLIM, Sharia law is being debated in our court system.
Hawaii: We are ISLANDERS, HAOLIs not welcome here
I am sure there are other examples....but the idea remains the same.
We are now losing our "hypenated" identity - we have melted the melting pot. Races and Religions are now protected to the point where they need no longer be American, but are encouraged to claim their own piece of America in the name of their "identity" - whatever it may be. Hell, it's even OK to be an ILLEGAL alien. We'll just ignore the ILLEGAL part because you are a minority of some sort and identifying you and holding you accountable equates to persecution.
Troubled times for our children and grandchildren. Troubled times indeed. All in the name of "Political Correctness".
Shameful.
ZonieDiver
07-19-2011, 14:55
Since these Wasabi... oops, sorry - I was thinking of having sushi tonight... Wahabi 'asshats' are so bent on destroying us (and I agree they are), why does the good old US of A support their sponsors to the point we do? <rhetorical question>
As for me... park a nuke over that black rock and imitate the old Robert Conrad battery commercial: "Come on. I dare you!"
You would then agree that my religion prescribes that I drink and drive, or maybe it will say I can have sex with girls that are 12, or how about murder anyone who isn't named "Sam". I can call anything a religion by your logic and do what ever the hell I want!QP Bubba--
Please show me precisely where in my post I argue that the right to practice a religion gives its adherents immunity from the law. My argument simply is that the Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu from which we order dishes for other people.
The United States has lost it's identity as a Nation of being simply: AMERICAN.Did this identity ever exist?
In the 80's and 90's we went through the "Nationality American" stage. Mexican Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Chinese Americans, Muslim Americans, or any other "Insert Nation + American".
Look around now...
California / Arizona / Texas : We are MEXICAN, fly the MEXICAN flag, address major arena sporting events solely in Spanish
Florida: We are CUBAN or PUERTO RICAN, same issues with Language
Across the United States, Mosques are now being financed and built: We are MUSLIM, Sharia law is being debated in our court system.
Hawaii: We are ISLANDERS, HAOLIs not welcome here
I am sure there are other examples....but the idea remains the same.Why does the analysis of this fracturing only go back as far as our contemporaneous perception of other people doing it?
The reality of the situation is, the Koran is a Law book that says KILL any non-Muslim. It also says it is OK fine to lie to anyone who is not a Muslim about this as a goal. It also says that, like any law book, the most recent passages are the ones to follow, and the abrigated ones don't apply.
Quotes have been posted which verify these statements.
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 15:09
Why does the analysis of this fracturing only go back as far as our contemporaneous perception of other people doing it?
Joe smart like trak-tor
I have no idea what you re asking me.:munchin
Sig, your argument is that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they want. The laws of islam allow the rape and beating of girls who are 14. The laws of the muslim religion REQIRE all muslims to KILL non-believers. These are their laws, and are practiced throughout the muslim world. They mean what they say when they say they want to enforce sharia on the WORLD. Wake up, it is NOT a religion. If you look at what they are doing as a system of law, if you think of this argument from the point of view that these people believe that it is a set of laws, then and only then will you see what I am saying.
I understand your point of view. I do NOT give two hoots in hell if any religion sets up shop anywhere in the US. You can worship God, Jesus, the Earth God, or belive in the Devil himself. I do not care. You just can NOT, and will NOT violate the laws of this land, the Constitution which clearly states that it is supreme law of the land. And guess what else, there are quite a few people reading this that have sworn their lives and sacred honor to defend THAT doccument!
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 15:19
You just can NOT, and will NOT violate the laws of this land, the Constitution which clearly states that it is supreme law of the land. And guess what else, there are quite a few people reading this that have sworn their lives and sacred honor to defend THAT doccument!
Sweet...:cool:
Joe smart like trak-tor
I have no idea what you re asking me.:munchinRephrased, my question is this. Is it possible that the identity politics of today are but the latest episodes in a story line that goes back at least as far to the early days of the republic?
(MOO, those who see identity politics as an issue will be more effective at addressing it if they do so its historical contexts.)
Sig, your argument is that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they want. The laws of islam allow the rape and beating of girls who are 14. The laws of the muslim religion REQIRE all muslims to KILL non-believers. These are their laws, and are practiced throughout the muslim world. They mean what they say when they say they want to enforce sharia on the WORLD. Wake up, it is NOT a religion. If you look at what they are doing as a system of law, if you think of this argument from the point of view that these people believe that it is a set of laws, then and only then will you see what I am saying.
I understand your point of view. I do NOT give two hoots in hell if any religion sets up shop anywhere in the US. You can worship God, Jesus, the Earth God, or belive in the Devil himself. I do not care. You just can NOT, and will NOT violate the laws of this land, the Constitution which clearly states that it is supreme law of the land. And guess what else, there are quite a few people reading this that have sworn their lives and sacred honor to defend THAT doccument!QP Bubba--
With respect, my position is that GWOT is not just about who the enemy is but who we are. We can (and must) adhere to our core principles--including religious freedom--if we are going to win.
I am reluctant to adopt any line of thinking that could someday be used against me. Today, a community tells a religious group "no, you're not really practicing a religion--you may not worship here." What's next? Another community saying "no, reading those kinds of history books don't really constitute an exercise of free speech. Hand them over." From there, where would it end?
I understand and respect the viewpoint that you and many of your brethren have that we need to hold the line here in CONUS now or face dire consequences. My position is that the best way to hold this line is through vigorous debate in which we make arguments that are not just politically feasible, but also sustainable legally, ideologically, historigraphically, and strategically.
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 15:43
Rephrased, my question is this. Is it possible that the identity politics of today are but the latest episodes in a story line that goes back at least as far to the early days of the republic?
(MOO, those who see identity politics as an issue will be more effective at addressing it if do so its historical contexts.)
The identity politics of today are simply demonstrative of the fact that we have SO MANY protectionist ideologies, that there is no longer a common theme of what makes us up as a "People". As a collective group with a common theme or goal. A PEOPLE. Notice I did not say, "As a RACE."
The phrase, "We the People", no longer exists...it is now "My People, Your People, Their People, Including Them Thar Folks, and lastly That Group over there." Each with their own little slice of "How dare you violate my RIGHTs by grouping me in with THEM. My People are SPECIAL"
From what measly bit I have read, Once we were "establishing ourselves" as a Nation, immigrants rarely came to America in order to claim land in the name of Germany, Ireland, Dom Rep, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Britain, Mars or wherever else they came from. They came here to be Americans.
So, I guess it would depend on who you asked and how far back in time you went.
The premise of this discussion is not whether a Mosque should be built here or their. It is whether or not small town America should be FORCED to allow the integration of Sharia Law into their established community.
I tend to agree with Cain. If the Community can VOTE that it is an unwelcome entity. Then the Community has exercised THEIR rights.
The moment we accept as legitimate the notion that we can decide for others what is and is not a religion is the same moment that we legitimate the concept that others can decide for us which rights we should nor should not have.
For the record - the IRS does wade in on this issue - on occasion.
Eagle5US
07-19-2011, 15:56
With respect, my position is that GWOT is not just about who the enemy is but who we are.
We are a Armed Force at WAR while the Nation is at the Mall.
We can (and must) adhere to our core principles--including religious freedom--if we are going to win.
"winning" involves opening the eyes of people who believe that Islam is a Religion vs a set of Laws that Govern the actions and behaviors of Muslims.
I am reluctant to adopt any line of thinking that could someday be used against me. Today, a community tells a religious group "no, you're not really practicing a religion--you may not worship here."
I, again, offer up the Polygamists
What's next? Another community saying "no, reading those kinds of history books don't really constitute an exercise of free speech. Hand them over." From there, where would it end?
Have you read the latest versions of history in school texts today? Removal of references of violence. Accentuating the history of certain minority groups over other "former majority groups." The removal of contributions of whites as they are now viewed as inappropriate, though were acceptable actions for the period? The dumbing down of history and "leaving things out" that may now offend or cause embarrassment to one race or another. The accentuation of specific grievances in history in order to further promote political activism with regard to minority populations? This is already happening. I watched the transformation of history between my three children. Two of whom went to the SAME HIGH SCHOOL that I did, had some of the same teachers, yet were taught grossly dissimilar versions of the same periods of OUR history...
I understand and respect the viewpoint that you and many of your brethren have that we need to hold the line here in CONUS now or face dire consequences. My position is that the best way to hold this line is through vigorous debate in which we make arguments that are not just politically feasible, but also sustainable legally, ideologically, historigraphically, and strategically.
I am not sure that you understand it, but I do believe you to respect it. "Vigorous debate" is a nice way of saying "talk about it". While everyone "talks", because that is what we now do, THEY are ACTING. THEY do not give a DAMN about our "talking". Pakistan, OBL - 5+ YEARS, hello? They flat out LIED to us, and what are we doing about it...talking to them. BFD.
Our Nation will fall without those willing to do more than talk. And when it does, those "talkers" will run to the homes of the rest of us and say "We didn't think they would actually do anything - help us, protect us." By then, it will be too late.
Herein lies the great debate - ISLAM is not a religion, it is a set of laws which govern the behavior of Muslims. Our "Gov't" has already lost legitimacy with much of the population. We have so "overlegitamized" Islam within our borders and the administration during this Presidency that it has almost become comical.
Sir, Is this a fact or is this an opinion? In a democracy if enough people share your views the laws will change, until then Islam has the same protections as any other faith under our constitution.
That he doesn't see what, your particular point of view? Instead he sees my point of view? The point of view of the citizens who have set up homes and established families? Would it make a difference if the KKK wanted to set up a "Church" in a quiet little community of mixed race neighbors? I believe he DOES see, and instead of pulling the same PC crap that many Americans are sick and tired of, he (as you so aptly stated) states his views with admirable candor.
I'm all for going to a system based on Heinleins philiosopy regarding citizenship etc, but once again not enough folks in this democracy want this. You mention citizens, homes and established families, is this inclusive of the Muslim homes and families in the area, under our laws they have the same rights as anyone else, until like anyone else they break federal or state laws. Being American has nothing to do with being white, christian, or having been here for 100 years.
Those "Wahabi asshats" you are so easily dismissing are planning terrorist attacks within our borders. They are training others to carry them out. They are recruiting young men across the country. They are financing the effort here in Theater killing soldiers. They are utilizing our very own laws against us within the United States to practice and enforce Sharia Law.
No one is dismissing the Islamist threat. Under our laws people have rights until they break them, those that do go after these people. As far as being PC, let's nip it at the bud, if we know Saudi is the source of the problem let's go stomp them, no qualms here. What is the greater danger to the the country, this one Mosque, or 5 like it, or a situation where states want to secede because the constitution has lost any credibility? How are they going to get the US to practice and enforce Sharia Law, they don't have the numbers or the votes, and this isn't Afghanistan if they try to do it by force...well many a redneck in the south will
gladly proclaim " No Limit Muslim Season".
Few can effectively argue the "lack of judgement and suitability for high elected office" that has been demonstrated for the past 2+ years. That being said, Cain appears honest and sincere in his beliefs. I applaud him for speaking his mind, and not the medias - DESPITE their "spin".
We agree at least on this.
Honestly? The PROVEN links and ties between the homegrown terrorists and the Mosque and radical Imam in Annandale VA got one thing - police protection for the Mosque. We, as a Country, have grown weak. Until we also grow weary - we will continue to be subjugated to the whims of our enemies who are protected by the bastardizations of interpretation within our legal system. How many white elderly grandmothers have we found trying to blow up aircraft? Zero - yet we are prevented from pulling young Muslim appearing males for screening under the premise of discriminatory profiling. It is beyond ridiculous.
I am not familiar with the Annandale detail, if there is a proven nexus between some Imam, a Mosque and terror, bust everyone involved and seize everything under RICO, absolutely. Look this isn't about the Muslims so much as safeguarding the fabric of our democracy, and yes it is my opinion undermining this is the graver threat.
Sir, Is this a fact or is this an opinion? In a democracy if enough people share your views the laws will change, until then Islam has the same protections as any other faith under our constitution.
Facts.
First of all, we live in a republic. The laws of which say that the constitution is the supreme law.
Second, islam is a set of laws, this is according to their own book that says that the laws of the koran are supreme.
Facts.
First of all, we live in a republic. The laws of which say that the constitution is the supreme law.
Second, islam is a set of laws, this is according to their own book that says that the laws of the koran are supreme.
Sir, yes I do realize we live in a republic. Given your second fact, how do you account for 70 million Turks living in a secular democracy since 1921 with an Islamic majority?
I disagree with this interpretation of American history. Not the least because over the next century at least two groups of Americans would question .GOV's credibility and legitimacy. The key difference is that they selected different means to achieve their ends.
Reasonable points Brother, however the cynic in me wonders of their respective circumstances, the means at their disposal, and their percent of the population. When the South seceded it was those in power, with militias, industry, and agriculture under their control. I'm not sure exactly which two groups you are referring too, if they chose to work within the system to effect change more credit to them, or was this their only choice?
Roguish Lawyer
07-19-2011, 19:17
Bubba and Eagle:
I think you both know (at least Eagle hopefully does) that I agree with your sentiments about what is happening to our country. I also agree that we need to be much more aggressive and vigilant in combating the Salafi jihadists.
Where we seem to differ is on the suggestion that treating Islam as a religion for First Amendment purposes somehow allows Sharia law to be imported into the US and practiced fully and without any restrictions. If that is what you are saying, I think you are just wrong. As I indicated above, it is quite well-established that the First Amendment usually will not invalidate generally applicable laws simply because they may interfere with religious practice. This is unquestionably the case with things like murder and rape. Muslims can't murder people just because they are Muslim. Polygamy actually is a really bad example -- it proves that religious endorsement of a practice does not mean it will become legal for people of that faith.
As for your ultimate concerns and objectives, I share them. But your argument that Islam is not really a religion is not going to get you anywhere. I know quite a few Muslims in this country who are law-abiding, decent people. They ignore the parts of the Koran you are concerned about, just like most Jews ignore the parts of the Torah that require them to keep kosher or make women sit in the back of the synagogue.
There are other ways to deal with this problem domestically. I believe the most important battle is for control of the schools, universities and media. Those institutions were taken over by the Left starting in the 60s (the asshole students who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam are now teachers, professors, journalists and "civil rights" lawyers). That's why textbooks are getting screwed up and kids are being politically indoctrinated in school rather than learning proper grammar, math, science, etc.
I keep asking my wife if we can move to Texas or Kentucky, but she's not going for it. :)
Roguish Lawyer
07-19-2011, 19:20
I think American culture is accurately described in the first part of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-ru03J2OQ
RE: post #47 - yep.
RE: "That's why textbooks are getting screwed up and kids are being politically indoctrinated in school rather than learning proper grammar, math, science, etc."
That would make for an interesting debate over a good mesquite grilled ribeye and several nice bottles of Stags' Leap "Fay Ranch" Cabernet-Sauvignon. ;)
Richard :munchin
If I were going to invade a country there are several things I would do. The first would be to figure out what the weaknesses of that country were. Then, I would begin to infiltrate as many spies I could IOT develop information. Then, I would begin to recruit, assess, train, and employ a subversive force throughout until my ends were met.
If you look at the organization of a standard UW type organization like...... um..... I don't know....... USSF, and say......... the Whabi Sunni Islamic organizations, or maybe...... the Shite Clerical Madrassa organizations you will soon see......... it is exactly what is going on.
The ONLY difference is they are adding in a "God" to their doctrine. And, if you look at the first part of this post, they did so because Americans believe it is a religion. It is a fundamental paradigm that people need to re-evaluate. Islam is by my definition, and their own for that matter, is a set of laws that CAN NOT exist with the US Constitution.
Any "moderate muslim" that says otherwise is either ignorantly and incorrectly following their "religion", or they are a subversive. Period!
RE: post #47 - yep.
RE: "That's why textbooks are getting screwed up and kids are being politically indoctrinated in school rather than learning proper grammar, math, science, etc."
That would make for an interesting debate over a good mesquite grilled ribeye and several nice bottles of Stags' Leap "Fay Ranch" Cabernet-Sauvignon. ;)
Richard :munchin
"Fay Ranch" :confused:
Typo? :D
"Fay Ranch" :confused:
Typo? :D
Look it up - it's actually an old family relation on my Mom's side.
Here, I'll help you...
http://www.cask23.com/wines/release/157
Richard
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2011, 20:15
We are a Armed Force at WAR while the Nation is at the Mall.
<snip>
"winning" involves opening the eyes of people who believe that Islam is a Religion vs a set of Laws that Govern the actions and behaviors of Muslims.
<snip>
While everyone "talks", because that is what we now do, THEY are ACTING.
<snip>
Our Nation will fall without those willing to do more than talk. And when it does, those "talkers" will run to the homes of the rest of us and say "We didn't think they would actually do anything - help us, protect us." By then, it will be too late.
Steel on target.
War has long since been brought within our shores.
People have frozen because they are afraid of being called names.
It's nothing more than an appeasement strategy.
Herman Cain can be called many names (probably with good cause).
Coward isn't one of them.
All of the appeasing politicians can lay claim to that title.
People have frozen because they are afraid of being called names.
It's nothing more than an appeasement strategy.By this definition, Bush the Younger was an appeaser. <<LINK1 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/)>> <<LINK2 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/)>>
Roguish Lawyer
07-19-2011, 20:47
That would make for an interesting debate over a good mesquite grilled ribeye and several nice bottles of Stags' Leap "Fay Ranch" Cabernet-Sauvignon. ;)
When's dinner?
Roguish Lawyer
07-19-2011, 20:50
"Fay Ranch" :confused:
Typo? :D
It's just Fay, but you should not be rude to someone who is offering you good wine. :D
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2011, 20:55
By this definition, Bush the Younger was an appeaser. <<LINK1 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss.pdf)>> <<LINK2 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf)>>
(links not working)
Don't seem to recall Bush the Younger as having frozen in the face of adversity.
Seem to recall him invading a few countries.
That was a steel fist inside a velvet glove.
Seeing plenty of appeasers who like the velvet glove, but haven't demonstrated whether there's a steel fist inside.
If they're easily cowed by some nuts from the religion of perpetual outrage, they don't have what it takes to lead the free world.
(links not working)
Don't seem to recall Bush the Younger as having frozen in the face of adversity.
Seem to recall him invading a few countries.
That was a steel fist inside a velvet glove.
Seeing plenty of appeasers who like the velvet glove, but haven't demonstrated whether there's a steel fist inside.
If they're easily cowed by some nuts from the religion of perpetual outrage, they don't have what it takes to lead the free world.The links are fixed.
Bush the Younger also emphasized the importance of religious liberty at home and abroad.
IMO, throwing out a word like "appeasement" without regard to the ongoing discussions about Churchill's role in the historiography of the First World War and the Second World War is an increasingly perilous position to take.*
FWIW, I'm not certain that activating memories of both Bismarck and Theodore Roosevelt helps your argument. Your position agrees more with Woodrow Wilson's.
__________________________________________________ _____
* A recent entry into this discussion is William J. Philpott, Three Armies on the Somme: The First Battle of the Twentieth Century (New York: Knopf, 2010).
Once again this thread has devolved into the tit-for-tat back and forth.
The basic question is "What does Islam want?"
That question is answered in the Koran.
How is the Muslim integration going in Europe? All group hugs and follow the country's laws?
September is not that far off. Lets see how the Muslims in Egypt vote. What does the majority want?
Team Sergeant
07-20-2011, 07:09
We as a nation will wait and appease, just as we did for fascism until it's almost too late.
If I remember correctly Winston Churchill led the charge against fascism years before the world noticed or even cared.
islam is the new fascism cloaked as a religion.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
That statement doesn't hold water anymore as all that is necessary for evil to triumph is label the evil as peaceful and force good men to stand down.
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer:
Where we seem to differ is on the suggestion that treating Islam as a religion for First Amendment purposes somehow allows Sharia law to be imported into the US and practiced fully and without any restrictions. If that is what you are saying, I think you are just wrong. As I indicated above, it is quite well-established that the First Amendment usually will not invalidate generally applicable laws simply because they may interfere with religious practice. This is unquestionably the case with things like murder and rape. Muslims can't murder people just because they are Muslim. Polygamy actually is a really bad example -- it proves that religious endorsement of a practice does not mean it will become legal for people of that faith.
I and I think most others would agree with you on the point that you made. The U.S. Constitution and Sharia law are not mutually inclusive and will never be until maybe after we are all dead, buried and long forgotten. Even if Sharia law is abandoned by Muslims in the U.S. there are still many nasty bits and pieces in the Koran that cannot and should not be assimilated into the American way of life. This line of thinking would lead to the creation of an "Islam-light" religion which would probably be acceptable to most non-Muslims.
But the real question is will Islam or even just those Muslims living in the U.S. come to the same conclusion? Will they accept "Islam-light" as their new way of life? Will they accept the subjugation of their religion by the hand of "Infidels"? I have serious doubts that this will occur en masse. As "Pete" has pointed out Muslim integration in Europe is not going so well. Historically, I do not think that there are many examples of religions with the size and voracity of Islam that went "quietly into that good night" while outsiders dictated wholesale changes.
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer:
I know quite a few Muslims in this country who are law-abiding, decent people. They ignore the parts of the Koran you are concerned about, just like most Jews ignore the parts of the Torah that require them to keep kosher or make women sit in the back of the synagogue.
I too have Muslim friends that have seemingly assimilated themselves into the "American" way of life while abandoning the generally unacceptable parts of both the Koran and Sharia law. But, they have also told me that it has been a very difficult change. They are constantly pressured and harassed by family members (here and in the old country) and friends that consider them to be traitors to Islam.
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer:
There are other ways to deal with this problem domestically. I believe the most important battle is for control of the schools, universities and media. Those institutions were taken over by the Left starting in the 60s (the asshole students who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam are now teachers, professors, journalists and "civil rights" lawyers).
Sorry to burst your bubble but that battle has been going on for 50 years and, unfortunately, we seem to be losing it in dribs and drabs. It might be easier to change Islam into something acceptable to the rest of the world while Islam is trying to change the rest of the world into something that it deems acceptable.
Thomas
Bordercop
07-20-2011, 11:00
I'm no theologian but in a nutshell the difference in my religion, which happens to be christian, and the so-called "Religion of Peace" is that I'm called on by my Lord and Saviour to pray for my enemies and to tell non-believers the good news that Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins. I'm supposed to treat others as I'd like to be treated. I'm not to have other gods before the One True God and I have to believe and have faith that Christ was crucified and rose from the grave for me. If you don't believe that, fine.
I'm not going to cut your head off or blow myself up to convince you I'm right. Live and let live.
I haven't read every word in the Old and New Testaments, but from what I've read so far in over forty years of going to church and Sunday school, it doesn't give me permission to kill everybody who is a non-believer. I'm supposed to be an example. I'm supposed to try and love my fellow man and be a light.
The Koran ain't exactly the same. It encourages the murder and subjugation of ALL non-believers. That's not a religion folks. It's a perverted way of thinking that shouldn't even be thought of as a religion. It's like Jonestown times a million.
Go to this link and you'll get plenty of examples of what the "religion of peace" is about:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm
Of course, this being America, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Islam is not now, never was and never will be the "Religion of Peace".
I'm no theologian but in a nutshell the difference in my religion, which happens to be christian, and the so-called "Religion of Peace" is that I'm called on by my Lord and Saviour to pray for my enemies and to tell non-believers the good news that Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins. I'm supposed to treat others as I'd like to be treated. I'm not to have other gods before the One True God and I have to believe and have faith that Christ was crucified and rose from the grave for me. If you don't believe that, fine.
Historically speaking this seems an admirable and tolerant interpretation of the faith. The Catholic nuns at least in Missouri tended to rap you across the knuckles when you asked pesky questions about topics like the Inquisition, or the colonization of Asia, Africa, and South America, or even why do they call it the missionary position to name a few. There has been plenty enough faith induced bloodshed to go around, people who disagree perhaps don't like history or prefer glass houses.
Please do not personalize or interpret this as an indictment of Christianity, it is certainly not a monopoly, these dark moments in history are unfortunately in scope and breadth found across faiths, continents, and time. I believe the men who perpetrated the inquisition or colonization were motivated by simple greed and power, and would have done so regardless of faith. We are at war with men of similar ilk now calling themselves Islamists. These types understand one thing, brute force, give it to them.
Historically speaking this seems an admirable and tolerant interpretation of the faith. The Catholic nuns at least in Missouri tended to rap you across the knuckles when you asked pesky questions about topics like the Inquisition, or the colonization of Asia, Africa, and South America, or even why do they call it the missionary position to name a few.
Please, dude. :rolleyes:
Bordercop
07-20-2011, 12:50
These types understand one thing, brute force, give it to them.
I agree. As Toby Keith said "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way".
The "God" based religions (Jewish, Christian, and Islam) all pray to the same "God". The first 2, Jewish and Christian have books written by many authors over long periods of time. They are a collection of stories for the most part that tell people in general guidelines how to live a good life. How a particular group such as Popes or Kings have interpreted / perverted those stories to their own benefit is both tragic and of no consequence in this discussion. The reason they are in-material is simple. Islam was written by one guy over the period of one life. It is a no-shit law book that cannot be changed. To change it is, according to it's own passages is in itself against the law. Not now, nor ever will it go "hey, maybe we shouldn't kill non-believers". That is just not possible. Comparing Christianity to Islam is like comparing a car to a fish. Not even close. Yeah, they both move, but one is a living "breathing" animal and the other is a man-made vehicle that runs on natural resources. I suggest you read a little more about the "religion" of islam......
Roguish Lawyer
07-20-2011, 14:58
I suggest you read a little more about the "religion" of islam......
If that's directed to me, I've read a lot more than you might assume. As I tried to make clear above, we agree on objectives. Just because one of your tactics sucks doesn't mean you aren't going in the right direction. ;):D
Not directed at you RL, I know you know the deal. But, as a general statement, one can't possibly know all there is to know, and even I read as much as I can about people who are considered / might be considered my enemies.
We are losing this war from the inside. We only have to "put up" with Islam because there are still more of us than there are of them in the United States.
They are patient, they will use political correctness against us until there are more of them then us. When that happens.....there will be no more political correctness. There will be no tolerance for any religion other than Islam.
In twenty years, there will be (projected) enough of them to vote a president into office.
Their laws are so intertwined into their religion, they can't be separated. That is by design. At the end of the day, they can always say "Freedom of religion" and our dumb asses side with them. We'll say they are correct, they have rights. That is bullshit. The laws of any religion should never be in direct contradiction of the laws of any governing country.
If America keeps doing nothing, our America will look very different 40 years from now. How about leaving that to our children.
All argument above have valid points....rights, freedoms, blah blah blah. Wake up America.
Islam is BAD. Always has been, always will be. If you don't like my point of view, I don't give a fuck. Because I still have freedom of speech.
Put that in your Sharia pipe and smoke it.
sf
The "God" based religions (Jewish, Christian, and Islam) all pray to the same "God".
They do? :confused:
Well, using that logic and since Judaism - chronologically - came into being first amongst those specific monotheistic beliefs - why aren't we all practicing Judaism, and why do the others exist and are at conflict with each other? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Eagle5US
07-20-2011, 17:51
In twenty years, there will be (projected) enough of them to vote a president into office.
sf
Based on the actions and observances of a resident on Pennsylvania Ave, some would say that "they" already have.
GratefulCitizen
07-20-2011, 18:41
The links are fixed.
Bush the Younger also emphasized the importance of religious liberty at home and abroad.
IMO, throwing out a word like "appeasement" without regard to the ongoing discussions about Churchill's role in the historiography of the First World War and the Second World War is an increasingly perilous position to take.*
FWIW, I'm not certain that activating memories of both Bismarck and Theodore Roosevelt helps your argument. Your position agrees more with Woodrow Wilson's.
__________________________________________________ _____
* A recent entry into this discussion is William J. Philpott, Three Armies on the Somme: The First Battle of the Twentieth Century (New York: Knopf, 2010).
My statements are not meant to be quite so nuanced and full of meaning.
Thanks for the compliment, though. You give me far too much credit. :D
Simply put, it is my observation that too many politicians refuse to take positions on controversial issues (remember the president's "above my pay grade" answer...).
Cain may be politically tone-deaf, but at least people have an idea where he stands.
It's entirely possible that the hand-wringers genuinely have broad concerns.
I remain unconvinced.
I think they're just a bunch of wussies who can't stand the thought of risking their political careers over anything controversial.
Once elected, they show no qualms about putting others at risk in order to protect those political careers.
It's disgusting, and most of them are unfit to lead.
Like the men who wrote them, I'll take the Constitution and the tenets they felt needed to be addressed with the addition of the First Amendment any day over those 'good olde days.'
22 July 1208 - Pope Innocent lll had launched the Albigensian Crusade less than six months before, but already a sizeable army was marauding its way through southern France. Its aim was to extirpate the dangerous heresy known as Catharism, which not only denied the divinity of Jesus, but also, in its non-authoritarian asceticism, stood in marked contrast to the corruption, worldliness, and hypocrisy of the Church of Rome.
On this day the army reached the walls of Beziers in the very south of France, west of Marsielle. Leading this band of opportunists, criminals seeking absolution, adventurers, and religious fanatics were Simon de Montfort and his spiritual advisor, the papal legate Arnald-Amaury. At the city gates de Montfort handed the Bishop of Beziers a list of 222 Cathars to be handed over for execution. But the city leaders, not Cathars themselves, refused to provide the victims, saying, "We had rather be drowned in the salt sea than surrender our fellow citizens."
Now de Montfort ordered an assault, and the rampaging army began a brutal attack. There was to be no mercy for the heretics, but how, Arnald-Amaury was asked, can one tell a Cathar from the numerous devout Catholics in the population? "Kill them all," said the Pope's representative. "God will know his own."
Except for those few who managed to flee, the entire population of Beziers - 15,000 men, women, and children - were put to the sword; 7,000 alone in the vast Romanesque Church of Sainte-Madeline where they had saught sanctuary.
W.B. Marsh and Bruce Carrick, Great Stories From History For Every Day Of The Year, pp. 295-296
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
They do? :confused:
Well, using that logic and since Judaism - chronologically - came into being first amongst those specific monotheistic beliefs - why aren't we all practicing Judaism, and why do the others exist and are at conflict with each other? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Christians do practice Judaism. Two out of three's not bad.
Bordercop
07-22-2011, 10:58
[QUOTE=Richard;405112]Like the men who wrote them, I'll take the Constitution and the tenets they felt needed to be addressed with the addition of the First Amendment any day over those 'good olde days.'
No argument from me that crimes have been committed in the name of Christ...but people who live in glass houses....
The link: http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html
In 1000 AD Mahmud defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinars as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him.
In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud's secretary,
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."
In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war:
"The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honor on his own religion and degrades infidelity."
The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records:
"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."
Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 missals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground." The pillage of the city continued for 20 days. Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: "In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples... Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners."
The Brahmins of Munj, which was attacked next, fought to the last man after throwing their wives and children into fire. The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, ".... the Sultan ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured".
Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes:
"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty...The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery."
Mahmud's sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasizing is that the fragments of the famous Sivalinga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.
Mahmud's son Masud tried to follow in the footsteps of his father. In 1037 AD he succeeded in sacking the fort of Hansi which was defended very bravely by the Hindus. The Tarikh-us-Subuktigin records: "The Brahmins and other high ranking men were slain, and their women and children were carried away captive, and all the treasure which was found was distributed among the army."
Masud could not repeat the performance due to his preoccupations elsewhere.
The bottom line is anybody can commit all manner of atrocities in the name of thier particular "religion"...but the facts demonstrate that the Islamics have no respect for any religion but their own, and will not compromise with others on even the smallest point. It was the return of the Jews to pray at the Wailing Wall that initiated the first Palestinian pogroms. Until that time nobody cared if the Jews returned. Two years ago the Muslims in India rioted because some Buddhists gathered outside the mosque built on their holy place.
Perhaps the time has come to occupy Mecca, and turn the Kaaba into a shopping mall. That would be the modern equivalent of Muslim behaviour.
Of course YMMV...and so it goes...
The Western world was able to 'roll back' Communism in Europe and has continued to contain Communism elsewhere because the US and her allies did not confine the assessment of the threat to a close reading of Marxist-Leninist ideology alone. This forebearance allowed the West to make choices that went beyond the scope of Marxist historical theory, to capitalize on its many strengths (including the capacity to debate vigorously and to act decisively at the same time), to exploit internal divisions within the Communist world, and, most importantly, to preserve the paradigm of international relations that dates back to 1648.
MOO, any grand strategy for GWOT that is not informed by "lessons learned" of the ongoing Cold War will not only put the sustainability of the Four Freedoms (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16092) in jeopardy, it will also subject the Westphalian order to mortal peril.
MOO, any grand strategy for GWOT that is not informed by "lessons learned" of the ongoing Cold War will not only put the sustainability of the Four Freedoms (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16092) in jeopardy, it will also subject the Westphalian order to mortal peril.
Yeah, well in '12, the right of political self determination will mosdef be solidified in this Country, and with it our sovereignty. I'm personally not worried about equality or non-intervention with regard to other "states".
Have you read the latest versions of history in school texts today? Removal of references of violence. Accentuating the history of certain minority groups over other "former majority groups." The removal of contributions of whites as they are now viewed as inappropriate, though were acceptable actions for the period? The dumbing down of history and "leaving things out" that may now offend or cause embarrassment to one race or another. The accentuation of specific grievances in history in order to further promote political activism with regard to minority populations? This is already happening. I watched the transformation of history between my three children. Two of whom went to the SAME HIGH SCHOOL that I did, had some of the same teachers, yet were taught grossly dissimilar versions of the same periods of OUR history...QP Eagle5US--
IMO the attached essay by Charles Oman (1860-1946), written almost a century ago, eloquently addresses concerns similar to those you've raised. (It also spares me the risk of boring you with the long winded reply I've been drafting over the last couple of days.:D)
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/28/cain-meets-muslim-leaders-hopes-explaining-himself?test=latestnews
Roguish Lawyer
07-28-2011, 15:10
He's done. You can't make gaffes like this and survive in a crowded field, especially when you haven't raised enough money to make up for it with brute ad force. Frankly, while I like the guy, I would not want someone who can't choose his words carefully to be President.
He's done. You can't make gaffes like this and survive in a crowded field, especially when you haven't raised enough money to make up for it with brute ad force. Frankly, while I like the guy, I would not want someone who can't choose his words carefully to be President.
I hear he just won the Florida straw poll...
I hear he just won the Florida straw poll...
Herman Cain: 37.11%
Rick Perry: 15.43%
Mitt Romney: 14.00%
Rick Santorum: 10.88%
Ron Paul: 10.39%
Newt Gingrich: 8.43%
Jon Huntsman: 2.26%
Michele Bachmann: 1.51%
BTW...If I was Perry, I'd be seeking some guidance (on political savvy) from someone like...Newt.;)
Hell! I'd offer Newt a guaranteed cabinet postion for his support.
Stay safe.
It's Florida - just wait - won't be long before they'll start claiming they 'really' meant to vote for that 'other' guy. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
09-24-2011, 17:01
He initially showed us he had balls,then backed down.........:rolleyes: Sorry can't respect a man who doesn't stay true to what he says......:rolleyes: I don't think he's POTUS timber.......:(
Big Teddy :munchin