This is an example of the islamic issues we face today? I'm responding exactly to your statement. For simple clerical reasons, a summer reading list from a few years ago at UNC is not really an issue we face today -- nor do I even consider an academic exercise in literary/historical analysis of the koran to even be an "islamic issue" faced by our society regardless of the temporal element. Certainly it didn't seem to be much of a first amendment issue (many public schools include courses on world religions, this is not exactly news to me nor is it any meaningful frontier in first amendment establishment clause jurisprudence despite the best wishes of legal minds of www.blessedcause.org Anyway, since my opinion of www.blessedcause.org doesn't matter, what is your opinion of it? It looks to me like a bunch of apocalyptic fundamnetalist christian hysteria and propaganda. Do you harbor a different opinion of that website?
How you pulled that opinion out of all this is a mystery to me. And more than a bit silly, with all due respect. Slow news day, Hayes?? Keep D&D Civil.
My statement was that the ACLU is hands off with Islam compared to other religions. I think this is a good illustration of that - if a public university suddenly decided that all in coming freshman had to study the bible and Christianity then I am pretty sure the ACLU would get involved. Their track record of intervention in this realm provides pretty sound reasoning to make such an assertion. I'm not sure what clerical reasoning has to do with anything. This is an example that illustrates the point I made earlier. If you think my assertion demands a more recent example then you'll have to explain why. A course on world religion is a survey making it wholly (holy?) unlike this example. Attacking the website does not affect the point, nor is the story I posted from the site factually suspect. It is poor argumentation, and a logical fallacy - as you know. You object when you see someone else doing it then turn around and do it yourself. That you object to the sites other content is fine, but not relevant to the point at hand. To answer your question - I didn't even look around the site, I suspect it is targeted to a particular audience but I'd hesitate to confirm your charges of fundamentalism, hysteria, or propaganda without further review.
I'm not sure what's confusing, Deckard. I said the ACLU is hands off Islam. Tiger said like where. I said like 'x.' That really isn't complicated.
No, no, no...my question was this: what agenda are Muslims pushing on America? You responded with an example of the UNC (not a Muslim organization/cabal) requiring its students to read a book and write an essay about it. You then suggest that Islam is 'exempt' from the ACLU 'to do' list, while concerning themselves with Christian 'issues'. I responded to you that Muslim groups and their lobbies are not trying to push an agenda on the Christian/Secular majority of America, while it was true that certain Christian groups and their lobbyists were doing just that, not to mention that Christianity is the dominant culture. Did you intend to use this example to illustrate that Muslims are pushing their agenda on America...this example fails to address that concern of yours. Moreover, if you want to establish a case for your thesis, you will have to establish a 'pattern' of the ACLU exempting Islam from being pushed on an unsuspecting public. First, of course, you would have to establish a case supporting the argument that 'Islam is being pushed on an unsuspecting public,' then proceed to establish a pattern of the ACLU exempting such infractions.
No, no, no...my statement was: "And it would be suprising to see the ACLU take on an Islamic issue as they frequently do Christian issues - which is the point IIRC." To which you responded asking for a case where Muslims were pushing their agenda on the public (which was not what I claimed) - to which I continued by providing an example in support of my statement. There is an established pattern of ACLU intervention in cases with Christianity and issues in public institutions. There is no such record of similar ACLU action with regard to Islam. The example I cited is a perfect case - if you substituted Christiantiy for Islam in this example I think there is little doubt the ACLU would have been all over it and their record of such interventions is the warrant for my claim.
What is their track record? Do you keep a scorecard of anti-christian and pro-islamic issues by the ACLU? Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if it did come out one way, given that one group wields enormous political power and has historically attempted to inject itself into public life by their own admission repeatedly, while the other group is barely a blip on the radar screen. And don't you think that a bunch of apocalyptic radical right wing christians who, if they had their way, would (and in fact in that instance tried to) ban[/] scholarly study of the Koran in schools, present an establishment clause problem in another sense? Essentially establishment by deliberate omission? I certainly do. I meant clerical as in clerk clerical - a "problem" several years ago is by definition not one that we face today I'm not talking about survey courses. At public universities you can study, in depth, and in specialized classes: the Koran, Buddhist texts, the bible, Hebrew, etc etc etc (see, eg, the Florida State University Religion department course catalog. There is no credibl school of thought that considers this an estabishment clause problem that I know of, which is also why the lawsuit in that instance was bounced out of court. Really? Generally url's that contain the phrase "antichrist" are a dead giveaway to me, as are the links to the "God Warns America Index" on the side, among other things.
I think that initiative by UNC was spawned, in part, by a UNC Muslim student's inspiration drawn from 9/11 to drive a car into a group of students hoping to kill an infidel. No kidding.
Ahh, so you're just talking -- or typing -- past me... Yes, that's true, know why? Because there are no powerful American Muslim groups trying to push ID as a scientific theory in public schools, have various tenets of Islam 'decorating' our state/federal courts, forcing anyone to swear on a Koran at a court proceeding, or insisting on the enforcement of 'traditional Islamic morality' through the government. What a silly argument, is that point really lost on you? LOL! Hardly, don't pat yourself too hard on the back there... Please provide me with a similar instant of the ACLU going after colleges/universities requiring their students to read Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Jewish texts. Otherwise, it's a mere hypothetical... Also, let me know if the ACLU has granted similar 'exemptions' to Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.
As I recall, the UNC initiative was a response to the automobile incident. I'll see if i can find a link. I'm only about 53 miles from Chapel Hill. It was all over the papers here... The trial was a couple of years ago.
Is this not the one you are talking about? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1685844&page=1 It happened earlier this year.
http://www.wral.com/news/7651436/detail.html My timeline is all wrong, but there was a motive of revenge against the US government.... so he takes on some college kids?
You're right, regardless of the timeline, I vaguely remembered the incident but not the details. I hope he's rotting in a jail somewhere, may be even Gitmo...what came about from the case anyways? What was the kid's punishment? Hopefully nothing less than life...
I can't find it yet, but I did find this link which reproduces a couple of letters he wrote from jail: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/576 P.S.-- I do seem to recall though that the initiative to read the Koran was a reaction to some event, perhaps even 9/11 itself. There was a fair amount of discussion of the appropriateness of that in the paper et al.
Not sure what the relevance of this is. We aren't talking about the offering of courses in the study of one, or many, religions. We're talking about the study of one particular religion being required by a state school. Any inuendo about how evil Christians are is pretty irrelevant to that discussion. Courses offered are not the same as required. I don't see the phrase 'antichrist' in the URL nor, again, do I see the point of your attack on the site. It doesn't change the argument or the facts.
I'm ignoring your strawman, yes. Nothing silly about it. This is the same argument Sam makes. I understand you two see Christianity as one monolithic attempt to control the country, but the idea behind the separation of church and state is not for the state to say 'oh this religion is a threat and this one isn't' (which is the assessment you make) it is to keep the state from out of the religion business. Requiring a course in ONE particular religion seems fairly problematic in that regard. "One year later (1963), the Supreme Court reached a decision on a related matter, the state sponsored Bible readings which occurred in many schools. The primary case was Abington School District v. Schempp, but consolidated along with it was another case, Murray v. Curlett. Once again, the Supreme Court did not then, nor has it since, ruled that students may not read Bibles in schools. Instead, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot have anything to do with Bible readings. The government cannot tell students when to read Bibles. The government cannot tell students what parts of the Bible to read. The government cannot tell students that they should read their Bibles. The government cannot tell students that reading their Bibles is better than not reading their Bibles." http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sch_godexpelled.htm Here's another interesting example: A.C.L.U. Sues a School District for Closing on the Jewish High Holy Days September 9, 1999, Thursday; By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (NYT); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 20, Column 1, 1413 words "American Civil Liberties Union sues Sycamore Community School District, Ohio, for favoring one religion over others by closing schools for Jewish High Holy Days, but not other minority religion holidays." You would think if the ACLU was concerned with 'favoring one religion over others' then they would be concerned with a requirement from a state school that all incoming freshman be required to read the Koran and study Islam. Uh, yeah. I thought it was explicit when I said 'if/then' that it was a hypothetical. Tell us your opinion of my hypothetical. If UNC required that all students study the bible over the summer, and then write reports about it - is it your contention that the ACLU would NOT be in court asap?
How about you actually debate my point for once? How does military strength and war equate to violence? When other nations engage in war or amass strong military complexes, it's acceptable, but for Arabs it's not? You're contradicting yourself. Now you're trying to say it's for a statement effect. That has been my stance all along, you're just proving my point. Those were strategic locations to create a statement. If they wanted to create sheer terror, they would unexpectedly attack obscure locations and create mass hysteria. Why don't you reply to one of my points for once? I'll ask again: why is this a recent phenomenon since U.S intervention in the Middle East has grown? I hate to use logic with you because it might go over your head, but work with me here. If there's no rationalization to terrorism, then that means it either exists in a vacuum or that the cause is inherent within Islam. Considering that it is a recent phenomenon historically, and Islam has a 1500 year history, then that is completely illogical. So tell me. Why is it that they're suddenly commiting terrorism? If it's not inherent within Islam, then is it just for kicks? If you look at the history of suicide terrorism, there was a study done on this called "Pape's Study of Suicide Terrorism", it has always been done with some political objective. Obviously, that doesn't make it right, but you can't just dumb it down in the manner you are attemping to do. Not really. Perhaps I guess if you're unable to comprehend anything other than black and white. I don't see how it's so hard to understand that terrorism is wrong, but there's reasons behind it. It's not that difficult a concept. Just because someone has reasons for doing something doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is wrong. I would be willing to bet a month's salary that without using wikipedia, you couldn't tell me a damn thing about Malcolm X and what he stood for, so don't go slandering him. He promoted independence and self-respect and taught the black man to love himself. People like you want the Arabs to humiliate themselves and accept an unfair deal in Palestine or remain under authoritarian regimes, and when they do make efforts for democracy, like in Lebanon, you still sh*t on them. You are the biggest of hypocrites. How about Lebanon? How about Iraq that had a 96% literacy rate, was secular and fairly progressive in terms of women's rights in comparison to other Arabs states. How about them? They're doing pretty well, aren't they SJC? You don't give a damn. So predictable that your laughable arguments would degenerate to your usual McCarthyite tactics. Now I hate the West? LOL! You're real fresh. Come up with some new material. This has been stated ad nauseum already. Lebanon had just taken steps towards democracy after a brutal civil war. They were too weak to root out Hezbollah and it is nonsensical to hold them accountable. The world's strongest military can't defeat an insurgency in Iraq and you expect the Lebanese to be able to defeat a militia entrenched within the population without any military of note? You're ridiculous. I never said they should, but what do you expect when you illegally occupy someone? If you build a tent in my backyard and I set it on fire, what type of reaction did you even expect? Not really. Around '91, attacks had ceased as most Palestinians were optimistic regarding the possibility of a fair deal. It then became increasingly obvious that Israel was interested in no such thing. Is this really all you have?
You don't have one, other than your hate for America and Israel. I have to retract my statement that you are intelligent. You just use a lot of words, but that's it. How dumb can a person be? You keep asking how war equates to violence? Turn on your brain and try to answer that question yourself. Blah blah blah. Sounds like you admire them for being so smart to attack "strategic locations to create a statement". They just wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible and thereby get as much media attention as possible. As if attacking a church in Iowa would create more mass hysteria than attacking the World Trade Center. You're clutching at straws. The U.S. trying to bring some order to the Middle East has been there forever. Your attempts to depict the evil terrorism of Muslim fascists as a mere reaction are very transparent. This is incorrect. You simplify too much, in order to try to make a point which you are unable to make. When excessive use of violence and intolerance reach a certain level, it does not matter what rationalization one tries to attempt - it simply cannot be cited as a mitigating factor anymore. Example: Let's say I were a Christian. Some Muslim guy takes my cookies, insults my mother and Jesus. I'd go and blow myself up in a bus full of Muslims. I'd like to see "thacabbage" then..."Yeah, but there is a "root cause"...he was just reacting...what would you do if someone took your cookies, insulted your mother, and insulted Jesus. We have to rationalize this." BLAH BLAH BLAH. Who cares about the root cause! My violence would not be justified, excused, and neither should one attempt to rationalize it! What you don't understand is that a certain level of violence does not allow for rationalization anymore. Yet, it is evident that you sympathize with those who commit the terror. Why don't you tell me? You are the one sympathizing with the terrorists, not me. Why do they do it? Is it inherent within Islam? Your attempts to make it seem like a mere reaction to the wrongdoings of the "evil West" are ridiculous. As much as you admire the terrorists - I don't give a damn what the political objective is - no matter what the political objective, blowing up innocent civilians on a plane, in a bus, or a restaurant makes it completely irrelevant whatever rationalization, justification, or excuse you try to find for it. I am not dumbing anything down. You are trying to shift responsibility to "the West" or to the "interventionist USA" when the only ones responsible for the terror are the Muslim fascists. One can discuss whether the approach by the Western world to the Arab and Muslim world needs rethinking - but one cannot discuss this based on a rationalization of terror. Because if you do this, you fall into the terrorists' trap - their terror would have an effect on the direction of politics, when it should not. We shall not give in to terror. What they are doing is so wrong that it becomes irrelevant what reasons they give. If someone insults me and I go and chop off the heads of everyone in their family - why will someone go and keep pointing out "yeah, what he did is not ok, but we have to look at the root causes...there's reasons for him for doing what he did". This is exactly how you keep behaving here. Again - first of all, it is disputable who "provoked" whom - and secondly, the excessive use of violence against innocent people is despicable, no matter what actual or pretended "root causes" might be cited. And anyone who keeps talking about "root causes" is very suspicious to me because one has to wonder about the motive for trying to distract from the actual crimes and for trying to shift blame. He was killed by Muslim fascists from the "Nation of Islam". Late in his life, he regretted making sweeping statements about all white people being racists, but before that, he promoted violence, as opposed to Martin Luther King. I don't sh*t on people in Lebanon. Just because I am opposed to people blowing themselves up in buses and launching rockets at neighboring countries does not mean that I want people in Lebanon to humiliate themselves. The blame for Lebanon's downfall lies squarely on the shoulders of the Hezbollah terrorists. It is unfortunate that people in Lebanon are not able to realize this at this point. So you are a Saddam fan now, or what? The goal of the war was to root out Hezbollah, not to hold civilians accountable. It appears that the Israeli military either did not do as good a job at that as it should have or that at least they lost the PR war. Nevertheless, it is not nonsensical to hold Hezbollah accountable. So you are saying they should just let the Hezbollah terrorists gain more and more power? I bet you'd like that...as much as you seem to admire these terrorists. That analogy is ridiculous, first of all. Secondly, even if one was to accept your analogy - me building a tent in your backyard does not justify or excuse you killing my whole family in it. And again, this is a typical example of your thinly-veiled support for suicide terrorists. "I never said they should, BUT what do you expect...". Just take off the mask: You are in favor of the suicide attacks. Other than that, your stubborn attempts to rationalize them cannot be explained. Interesting. Again, you are trying to make it seem as if the suicide attacks were a mere reaction to "oppression". "Hey, they didn't get a fair deal, so what do you expect? The poor guys had no other choice than to blow up people in restaurants and buses!" Yeah, just keep spouting your anti-semitic crap. As I said, you are an ideologue who would attempt to justify just about anything, because in the end, it is only a reaction to "the evil West and Zionists". Whatever.
