1. Freedom of speech is so important that we must allow burning of symbols, even symbols considered sacred to an entire country or culture…well, unless that symbol is the Koran.
2. One must speak out against all acts of hatred and violence towards homosexuals…well, unless such acts are committed by Muslims.
3. The more criticism of religion, the better…well, unless the religion you are criticizing is Islam.
4. Subjugation, abuse, and unequal treatment of women will not be tolerated…well, unless…well, you know.
5. War is never the answer…well, unless the question is, “How can we help Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood bring about a more Islamically correct government in Libya while telling the world our purpose is to prevent a tyrant from attacking his own people?”
6. The more traditions one can break with, the better…well, unless they are traditions the Islamic Hadith tells us must be practiced, in which case we must accommodate them at taxpayer expense. See also here.
7. Separation of Church and State is an essential principle of our nation’s founding…but a little bit of Sharia never hurt anyone.
8. Tolerance is an essential virtue, one that should be possessed by all in civilized society…well, unless…oh hell!
9. Pedophilia is abhorrent and those who commit acts of pedophilia should be shunned, prosecuted, disgraced or boycotted…well, unless they happen to be Mohammed…or Roman Polanski.
10. Slavery is terrible. So terrible in fact that we must frequently remind Americans that, hundreds of years ago, the founders of their nation held slaves…But if slavery is found to still exist somewhere today, condoned by Islamic law, it should be largely ignored. (But see here.)
*This post was inspired by Time’s Joe Klein, who recently said that the act of Koran burning by Terry Jones was as “murderous as any suicide bomber’s.”
[UPDATE: For an exception to the above generalizations, check out Bill Maher, in an excerpt from last week’s show.]
Don't Let It Go 
Lovely post Amy. Love it! Will repost on FB.
Thanks, Puneeta
Spot on.
Stunning to know that our so-called Intellectuals could consider these issues, and, say, a list like this, yet hold these intellectual contradictions without batting an eye (or firing a synapse).
Sure, for the Left, unlike the knuckle-draggin’, bible-thumpin’ neo-cons, the rational use of the intellect still matters … until they humbly, reverently consider the case of some knuckle-draggin’, koran-thumpin’ thug … in which case … well, you know …
Thanks, Robert. My favorite was finding such a recent example of the leftist media making sure to remind us that the Founding Fathers had slaves — March 15 in the NYT!
There is a major, mistaken, premise in this:
“Sure, for the Left, unlike the knuckle-draggin’, bible-thumpin’ neo-cons, the rational use of the intellect still matters …”
Marx was just a political extension of once religious Hegel. Both merely tossed out the fictional God, and replaced ‘Him’ with the collective. The collective is no less fictional. A group of people, whether consisting of 2 or 20 billion, is still only comprised of individuals. Each has his own unique physical and mental qualities and interests. Collectivists (that is what all Leftists, and not a few Rightists, are) toss out reason in every statement that presumes a collective good or goal. They also toss out an individual’s Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.
The Left has never had reason on their side, any more than have Bible thumpers.
Good point, but the fact that it’s a secular collective gives them at least the pretense of science and observation.
Those lefty-righty glasses are on so tight the Islamophobia is oozing out. Life would improve if you dropped both.
What are “lefty-righty glasses”? And why is it wrong to be fearful of Islam — or at least of those who take the religion literally and seriously?
Fearing those (and there are many) who would do evil in the name of Islam is entirely justified. You, however, painted with a broader brush and suggested that the religion itself and presumably all who adhere to it are to be condemned as well. Further, you lend credence to the nonsense about sharia becoming law in America. And then there’s this silly implication that “liberals” are somehow aiding all this, as if somehow in league with Muslim evildoers.
That first bit is justified. The rest is just weird.
Actually what I find just as frightening as Islamic extremists are those who tap dance to wildly to silence ANY honest discussion of Islam. Like with the Ground Zero Mosque. Sure it was disturbing that they wanted to build a mosque there but what was far more disturbing was the venom spewed at those who would take offense at such a mosque. How they were vilified for daring to find any fault with the “religion of peace” and anything that it wanted to do. Unfortunately this blind emotional garbage comes mostly from the left who are so easily influenced by groups like CAIR.
OK – now we know that almost all of you are far right-wing extremists. Would you be making all this uproar if it was a Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic or United Church of Christ? Hell no you wouldn’t be! It is because they are Muslim and all Republicans think that since they are Muslim they must equate to terrorists. You are a sad, sad bunch of lonely, closeted republicans and I pity all of you. I feel that they should build the largest gun emporium where the mosque is being built and call it, “Mohammed’s Guns and Potpourri.” Peace ya’ll…
The religion itself is evil.
It is also entirely correct to condemn Marxists for whitewashing this evil religion.
Well, Doug, you certainly are “in deep”. Merriam-Websters defines “Phobia” thusly: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”. As there is absolutely nothing inexplicable or illogical about the fear of Islamic Totalitarianism, the term “Islamophobia” is meaningless. The body count from that evil movement is rising daily at a rate only eclipsed by the national debt! It is an ideology, which holds as a core premise that it is every believers duty to actively work to destroy any and all infidels. It is an ideology which is fundamentally and irrevocably incompatible with individual rights, liberty, peace, and prosperity. It must be crushed for the same reasons that Naziism had to be crushed–If you leave it alone, or ignore it, attempt to hide from it, you are aiding it. It is cancer and must be removed.
Why is everything an ism or phobia with liberals ?? If it is’nt sexism,racism,nationalism,facism it’s zenophobia,homophobia,islamophobia when someone speaks out against a particular problem. To be opposed to or recognize there is a problem with something is not a mental disease. It’s not a mental disease to recognize that 10000 people were killed and wounded by Islamic terrorist on 9/11/01. It is not a mental disease to recognize that 12000000 plus illegal aliens are greatly burdening taxpayer resources. Your answer to everything is phobia this and phobia that which gets very tiresome. I suppose that means i have a “phobiaphobia” by your line of reasoning. To recognize that problems exist and need answers seems far more sane to me than just brushing them off as some kind of mental issue. The former attitude seeks solutions the latter attitude seeks a hole to hide ones head in…….
Great stuff
My thoughts on islamophoNia:
phobia- a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
It’s rational to fear an irrational, political religion like Islam.
“Islamophobia” is a myth like “Islam means peace”, created by Organized Islam in order to exploit the West’s illusions about Islam. The enemy must lie about Islam for the same reasons that we must tell the truth about it.
But the enemy’s propaganda jihad isn’t working as well as it used to, as more informed, honest individuals are willing to tell the truth about Islam despite fear of reprisal.
Bosch Fawstin wrote
“as more informed, honest individuals are willing to tell the truth about Islam despite fear of reprisal.”
This woman may be a believer in Christian gospel but in some ways she is thinking hard, and has a lot more spine than a Jimmy Carter or Dubya. Unfortunately the video is a bit long for those of us who already know the nature of the Qur’an. It is a good length for those who do not.
In another video Barnhardt attacks the Christian “niceness” imperative for the appeasing, evil enabling, nonsense that it is. If her exposure of the etymological roots of “nice” is valid, it reduces to Latin or Greek “no reason” -perhaps in the sense of a sycophant for any who come along.
Good post, Amy!
That woman is something else, and I love the fact that she Reads the passages, condemns them and then burns the pages.
Neoconservatives (“neocons”) are not Bible-thumpers or knuckle-draggers. To the contrary, at least in their leadership, they are philosophically and ideologically sophisticated enemies of Western Civilization.
For an antidote to neocon propaganda, see C. Bradley Thompson’s Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea. I reviewed it here: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-fall/neoconservatism-thompson-brook.asp
In the following post, I have tried to identify the key element of neocon mysticism: http://reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.com/2010/12/neoconservatives-two-forms-of-mysticism.html
“Doug Indeap” writes “Fearing those (and there are many) who would do evil in the name of Islam is entirely justified. You, however, painted with a broader brush and suggested that the religion itself and presumably all who adhere to it are to be condemned as well.”
I want to focus on his language “in the name of Islam.” Why does he phrase it that way, instead of “because Islam commands it”? There is an implication in what he writes that tries to push us in the direction of thinking that the homicide bombers made their decisions to act independently of their religious beliefs, but then used those beliefs as a post-facto justification. That is, they were sitting around one day, and one of them said, “Let’s hijack some airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center.” And another replied, “Why do that?” And the first answered, “I have no idea, but it would be a new experience.” And the second said, “Sure, why not? And if anyone asks, we can leave a note telling people that we act in the name of Allah.”
Please resist being seduced by this implication. Islam provides the inspiration, motivation, justification, and, therefore, explanation, for Muslim terrorism. People do not decide to become homicide bombers independently of their Islamic beliefs, and then later introduce them into the dialogue as an afterthought, to “prove” that they were justified.
Another way to put this is an observation I have made many times in the past. There are only two kinds of Muslim: Jihadis and the insufficiently observant.
Contrary to “Indeap,” Islam is to be condemned. It is a belief system for Stone Age savages. Those who practice it should be told that they are welcome to their beliefs, as long as they don’t attempt to inflict them on anyone else, but the moment they do, they will be crushed.
Excellent, Mark, excellent
Agreed, Mark.
Over the last couple of days I’ve been thinking of hosting a Koran reading group, basically to invite people to see for themselves that what you say is true. Stay tuned.
Amy,
The Koran reading would be revealing. Robert Spencer blogged the entire Koran a few years back and it was fascinating. There are several recurring themes in the Koran if you analyze it. One of the most prevalent themes is the evil and depravity of non-believers.
However, I have seen criticisms of this approach (of equating all of Islam with just its holy books) from Leftists and (believe it or not) secular Rightists (the SecualRight blog comes to mind – the Indian blogger “David Hume” always criticizes religious Conservatives for reducing Islam to the Koran). Their argument is that a religion is more than its holy books; that it is the practices of its people over a range of time. This leads them to say that Islam is not monolithic and it can not be reduced to just the Koran. Therefore, they say, you can’t say that Islam is evil or violent, etc. Islam to them does not have just one central essence. We just saw this from the Leftist commentator above.
Also, a comparison will be made with the Old Testament. There is a ton of violence in that book too. Yet the Jews have been pacified since the Jewish Wars with the Romans (1st and 2nd centuries A.C.E.). So the argument goes, Islam is no more inherently violent than Judaism.
I don’t agree with these arguments but they are very popular with Leftists (and as I noticed, even with some secular Conservatives). Perhaps you could deal with them in your Koran reading podcasts if you do them.
Some “stream of consciousness” thoughts occasioned by “M. Stern”s post:
1. Islam is certainly not “monolithic,” as its history is filled with violent intra-Muslim struggles for supremacy.
2. The Koran is definitely not the only source. Please read the 48-page monograph, “Sharia Law for Non-Muslims” (SLNM), published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam (http://www.politicalislam.com/). There are three “sacred” texts in Islam: the Koran, the Sira (biographical material concerning the Prophet Mohammed), and the Hadith (reports of specific words and deeds of Mohammed, with a focus on Islamic law).
Collectively, the Koran, Sira, and Hadith form the basis for Sharia Law. If you measure their sizes, you will find that the Koran accounts for 14% and the Sira and Hadith, together, 86% of the text. Hence the observation that Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. [SLNM]
Further, “The largest part of the Trilogy [Koran, Sira, Hadith] is not about how to be a good Muslim. Instead most of the text is devoted to the unbeliever. The Koran devotes 64% of its total words to the unbeliever, and the Trilogy, as a whole, devotes 60% of its text to the unbelievers.” [SLNM]
And further, “The political nature of Islam is what creates the major difference between Sharia and Jewish religious law, halakha. Jewish law has nothing to say about non-Jews and explicitly says that the law of the land trumps halakha.
Sharia has a lot to say about Kafirs [that would be us] and how they are to be treated, subjugated and ruled. Sharia claims political supremacy over the Constitution.” [SLNM]
3. Central [86% – SLNM] to Islam is the holding up of Mohammed as an ideal. Their “John Galt,” if you will (may Rand forgive me). This is the man who was, essentially, a warlord, misogynist, and child rapist. Can you see where regarding his life as the one to be imitated might cause problems?
4. Of course, with any belief system based on fairy tales and superstition, it cannot be determined logically what is a part of it and what is not. As Ayn Rand said, once you admit the irrational, you are “playing it deuces wild.”
So, apologists will always claim that misdeeds committed by Muslims were done in spite of Islamic law, whereas good deeds are due to their faith. It is, however, entirely plausible to maintain the exact opposite. Namely, misdeeds are due to the following of Sharia Law, and good deeds are done in spite of a professed commitment to Islam (or incidentally to it).
5. I do think that “M. Stern”s post has this valuable lesson for us. We should learn enough about Islam to avoid mistakes such as identifying it solely with a following of the Koran. Mistakes such as that give our enemies the ability to take cheap shots at our position, and dismiss it without ever having to confront the seriousness of our charges.
For me, the best place to attack politically is Sharia Law, because it is contemporary and based on all Islamic sources (Koran, Sira, Hadith). If your opponent invokes religious freedom and the desire to practice his faith in peace, you have only to ask him one question. “Do you desire to live under Sharia Law?” If he answers “Yes,” all that remains is to produce the details of exactly what that means (which you can do without him, if you take a little time to learn the fundamentals), and he will be exposed.
Thanks, Mark!
I’ll check out the monograph. I do want to start with the Koran, though. And, as I said on Facebook, I’d like to supplement the Koran readings with the blog posts by Robert Spencer. Then, if there’s interest after that, we can move on to other readings.
Question about the Old Testament: Everyone says there is violence in there as well. Who is supposedly responsible for it? Does the Old or New Testament call for violence against nonbelievers the way the Koran does? Perhaps we can start with the Koran, and then move on to those and compare.
For me, though, the most important thing is that a significant number of people today are using Islam as a justification for their acts of murder and destruction. And from what I’ve heard there is a basis for this in the Koran as well as in the life of Mohammed. Have you read the Koran?
By the way, I should mention that there is one obvious exception to the above generalizations about liberals: Bill Maher. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out this video excerpt from last Friday’s show, over on Real Clear Politics.
you cannot say all muslims are tetrrorists and blame islam for all the evil thats happening…… there are many very good muslim ppl who are kind and compassionate and are true good humans, and there are fanatics who are used by political parties
and there are christians catholics who are good and kind and there are catholic terrorists such as United church of canada for example……
ORGANIZED RELIGION IS A TERRORIST …
Where did I say that all Muslims are terrorists? No rational person believes such a thing.
And I agree that the doctrine of other religions, taken literally, could also encourage or be used to legitimize acts of violence or terrorism, and that they have done so in the past. I just don’t see a critical mass of adherents to any religion other than Islam posing such a danger today. Check out this site for the daily bodycount due to Islam’s adherents.
Again as was noted earlier – there may be “good” muslims in spite of their religious texts/doctrines
@BarbaraNelson
@Apeikoff
I just read the first two Surah (chapter) of the Quran. This ‘bible’ does not begin with something as comparatively honest as a faulty Origin of the World story.
The first Surah is only 7 sentences (Verses) long. It begins with praise for Allah and explicit hatred of Jews, including their stoning.
The second Surah, if one examines its overall message, expends dozens of sentences in establishing the Jews as despicable, death deserving, Hell deserving, monkeys. Their refusal to worship Allah is first described as placed in them by Allah and then described as the reason Allah and Islam should hate them and eliminate them.
The second Surah also places the woman as tilth . . . nothing more than fertile ground to be ‘ploughed’ by men.
No, it is plain, any and all Muslims who consider the Quran to be the least bit worthy of reverence, is a wicked enemy of Life. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, if his moderateness includes acceptance of those first two Surahs.
The same applies to Christians and Jews who somehow revere in Abraham’s willingness to slaughter his first child because (an insane and wicked) God demanded it.
There is no middle ground here!
There are 3 choices that we have and none are acceptable to a civilized people. 1. Go about our lives oblivious to the dangers that surround us from any flavor of extremist. 2. Lay down and die. 3. Kill anything that draws breath that is any different then us. Not until there is a global scale enlightenment will a fourth choice present itself. This thread proves that as a species we are mere adolescence, full of fear and hate that is keeping us from growing to a higher level of conciseness. Every thing that exists on this planet is made of the same elements. If and when we collectively as a species genuinely desire peace and happiness more than supremacy peace and happiness our evolution will continue. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Scientist, and many other groups that I cant think of now because I am high, would all like to see everyone believe as they do more than they would like to see us all peacefully coexist. I am not saying that all would be inclined to kill those who differ from them but we are mostly intolerant and that needs to change. Please don’t ask me how because if I knew I would have already shared it with as much of the world as I could reach. Try this, think of the person or people you hate the most and try to love them. There are people out there who are enlightened like I speak. I wish I was one of them, when completely honest with myself I understand that I am not, but I am working on it as soon as I am done with this doobie! The liberals 10 commandments were funny tho, what a bunch of freedom hating wackos… see I don’t like liberals, they scare me and I hate them, I need to grow up on the inside ;-p
James, I do think there is another way. Live and let live, until and unless others won’t let us live (i.e., they have already or imminently plan to initiate force against us). Then we have to do something about it.
I agree with you that a “global scale enlightenment” may be required before a majority embraces this “fourth” way. I also agree that little progress can be made towards this goal while one is smoking a “doobie” ;-P
Pedophilia is abhorrent and those who commit acts of pedophilia should be shunned, prosecuted, disgraced or boycotted…well, unless they happen to be The Catholic Church.
Pingback: Happy Blogversary to Me! | Don't Let It Go
I loved this. Really puts into perspective how much nonsense you have to force yourself to believe as a member of the “Islam is peaceful” team.
The definition of Liberalism: allowing all types of human behavior at the expense of Moral certitude……
Bill Maher is a genius! I love watching his show on HBO and wish it ran all year long. Very funny, yet serious issues as he enlightens viewers with a wry sense of humor. Keep up the great work Bill!
There must be an underlying premise that allows the Left to believe these blatant contradictions. My guess is that they view Christians (at least in prosperous Western countries) as the “haves” and Muslims (of any country) as the “have nots”. Muslims might be a majority world-wide, but they are poorer. Muslims in prosperous countries are wealthier, but they are a minority. Both cases qualify them as “the underdog” in Leftist minds, and the Left’s policy is to always fight for, and never criticize, “the underdog”.
When you speak those – it’s amazing. My dog starts humping my leg when I read it aloud…
I’m proud to be so far left of left I’m in a league of my own with over 96 weapons – conventional and unconventional.
I love my S&W Model 29 in mint NIB condition with presentation case, all manuals, box, everything. I only paid $300 brand new back in the day, It was one of my favorite concealed carry for the longest time. I have the six-inch blue and the four-inch stainless. Now my favorite is the S&W 5906 with 17 + 1, inside my belt and ready to defend.
Have a very Happy Thanksgiving & a Joyous Holiday Season – I say that because I do not believe in Christmas or all that other religious bunk.
Peace Always,
OD
Pingback: Another “Year of Action” in the failed “War on Poverty”? Discuss this and more with us today at 12 p.m. PT (3 p.m. ET) | Don't Let It Go
Pingback: “When Will Our Government Stop Playing Muslim Roulette?” Tonight at 8 p.m. PT (11 p.m. ET) | Don't Let It Go