Fear of a Muslim America

In the fight against radical Islam, conservatives are trying to limit the property and speech rights of peaceful American Muslims.

In March, almost 10 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, America’s uneasy, contradictory relationship with Islam was on full display at two congressional hearings. The first, a House Committee on Homeland Security meeting chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), tackled “radicalization” among American Muslims. Three weeks later, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) presided over a Senate Judiciary Committee panel that heard testimony about anti-Muslim prejudice. Conservatives trumpet the Muslim peril, while liberals warn of Islamophobia.

Islamic extremism is indeed a serious global problem today, to a degree unmatched by the radical fringes of other major religions. While violent fundamentalism is far less of a problem in the United States than in many other parts of the world, radicalism within the American Muslim community is not entirely an invention of the Islamophobic right. The 2009 Fort Hood shooting by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan is an extreme but real example of what some Americans are willing to do. And a 2007 Pew poll found that 27 percent of American Muslim men under 30 believe suicide terrorism in defense of Islam is at least sometimes justified.

But bias against American Muslims isn’t a P.C. myth. Once confined mainly to a few right-wing blogs, anti-Islamic bigotry has become a visible presence in Republican politics and the respectable conservative media. All around the country, right-of-center activists and politicians are trying to use government force to limit the property rights of Muslims and repel the alleged menace of Shariah law. Islamophobia has crossed the line from fringe rhetorical hysteria to active discrimination against U.S. citizens of the Islamic faith.

Blocking Mosques

For several years after 9/11, anti-Muslim rhetoric remained fairly rare. This can be credited in no small part to then-President George W. Bush, who repeatedly stressed that we were not at war with Muslims, that Islam was a peaceful religion hijacked by violent extremists. The idea that Islam itself was evil and that virtually all Muslims were potential enemies flourished mostly on “anti-jihadist” blogs, and some conservative pundits such as Michelle Malkin occasionally peddled Muslims-under-the-bed paranoia. But these remained the exceptions.

When Barack Obama became president, that changed. Bush no longer held authority as a conservative leader, and the persistent rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim gave added traction to a more overt anti-Islamic hostility. The turning point came during the furor over the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

That controversy was slow to start. When plans for Park 51, an Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, were initially announced in December 2009, there was hardly any negative reaction from the right. “I like what you’re doing,” the conservative pundit Laura Ingraham told Park 51 project organizer Daisy Khan on Fox News.

But a few months later, the far-right blogger/activist Pamela Geller launched a “Stop the 911 Mosque” campaign that was soon introduced to larger audiences by the likes of Fox News host Sean Hannity and New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser. By the summer of 2010, opposition to the Islamic center project became the conservative party line, and majorities of both Americans and New Yorkers agreed that the center shouldn’t be built.

The symbolism of sites associated with tragic memories can be a highly sensitive issue. In the late 1980s, many Jewish groups objected when a group of Carmelite nuns set up a convent on the edge of the Auschwitz grounds to pray for the dead. Their critics viewed the convent as an affront to the memory of the Holocaust as a Jewish tragedy. It is not difficult to see why a large Islamic structure near a place where fanatics claiming to fight for Islam murdered nearly 3,000 people would stir emotions.

But there is also no question that the anti-mosque campaign was rife with vitriol toward all of Islam. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and other pundits equated the project with a Ku Klux Klan memorial at Gettysburg, a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum, each analogy equating mainstream Muslims with murderous aggressors. Rallies against Park 51 featured signs declaring that “Islam Kills” and “Islam Is Terrorism,” occasionally spelling Islam with a double s scripted like the Nazi SS logo.

Mohammed Al-Darsani, a second-generation immigrant, son of an imam, Florida International University law student, and U.S. Army veteran who considers himself a member of the political right, believes opposition to Park 51 became “an overt assault on Islam.” Al-Darsani admits this hostility is largely a response to the real threat posed by Islamist extremism. Still, he says, “what unnerves me most is that detractors of the center seem to assume that American Muslims are not as American as non-Muslims and have somehow been less affected by the terrorist attacks.”

During the mosque debate, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer asserted that “no one disputes the right to build” it, only “the decency of doing so” in that location. In fact, some of Park 51’s leading opponents, including Geller and Gingrich, explicitly advocated a government ban. Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor, wanted the government to stop the project; so did Rick Lazio, his chief rival for the GOP nomination. What’s more, around the same time, mosque blocking spread across the country, thousands of miles away from Ground Zero.

In Temecula, California, the mosque-fighting Baptist pastor Bill Rench bluntly stated that “we really don’t want to see their influence spread.” Tea Party activist Diana Serafin berated local authorities for worrying too much about religious freedom: “I know it’s there in the Constitution and everything, but everything I read says Islam is a political movement.” 

In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the backlash against a mosque-to-be included vandalism as well as legal efforts to stop the project. The opposition was backed by Republican politicians: Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, then a gubernatorial candidate, questioned “whether being a Muslim is actually a religion,” while congressional candidate Lou Ann Zelenik campaigned on a firm stance against the “Muslim extremists.” One Zelenik press release stated that “until the American Muslim community find it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts…we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” (Ramsey and Zelenik both lost in the Republican primaries in November 2010.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • J12P||

    Muslims are alright, I suppose, but even still I wouldn't want my sisters to marry one.

  • ||

    "The push for Shariah bans is puzzling" Not very curious are you? Visit London, Paris, etc... you won't be puzzled for long.

  • A Serious Man||

    You know there's a reason why Europe has more radicalized Muslims than the US? Those European socialists are racist as fuck and actively marginalize all immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia.

    You want to lessen the threat of Islamic terror? Be nice to your Muslim neighbors and treat them as human beings.

  • Pip||

    Or they could not move to Europe.

  • ||

    This. Note that European countries have far more pervasive regulation of Muslim religious activity (headscarves in France, speech restrictions in UK, minarets in Switz.) than the US does.

  • ||

    Sorry, Tulpa -- you have the timeline backwards.

    head scarves, restrictions on demands by islamics calling for beheadings, etc. are a reaction to years of car burnings by islamic youths, murders & rapes by islamics, demands for sharia law enclaves etc.

    The regulations are coming as a last gasp legal approach to reign in the islamic attacks.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Those incidents-car burning etc-have nothing to do with Jihad they're just delinquents produced by a shitty economy and a racist society.

  • mediageek||

    I'm unemployed in a shitty economy.

    Is it ok if I come over and set fire to the car in your driveway?

  • ||

    No, but if you did, I wouldn't punish your race or religious group for it.

  • Sku||

    Even if 99.9% of the people burning cars in your neighbourhood belonged only to my religious group?

  • ||

    Even if 99.9% of the people burning cars in your neighbourhood belonged only to my religious group?

    No. Is that supposed to be a hard question?

  • from france||

    Maybe its not the question that is supposed to be hard but your thinking about it.

    I live actually in one of the suburbs that burned in 2005. Most people are ok, but then, some are not. And those who are not are almost exclusively Muslim. Why ? Saying that's because the French are so racist is self deceit - and quite racist btw. I believe the left carries a lot of the responsibilty, with their ideological mythology of white guilt and poverty as a form of victimhood. Again deeply racist. I hope to have made the point of the person before you more clear.

  • JT||

    +100000

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Those incidents-car burning etc-have nothing to do with Jihad they're just delinquents produced by a shitty economy and a racist society.

    You think this is something unusual? When members of a foreign culture arrive to inhabit the lands of others, clashes ALWAYS happen.

    Europe's biggest mistake was allowing them to arrive in large numbers in the first place, assuming that the Muslims would be content to serve as a permanent underclass for the privilege of living in a society a little more stable than the worthless shitholes they migrated from.

    They seem to have forgotten that a huge empire in their own backyard tried the same thing and ended up falling apart at the end as a result.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's a bunch of crap. We have lots of immigration here in Canada and few problems. Singapore has more and no problems.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's a bunch of crap. We have lots of immigration here in Canada and few problems. Singapore has more and no problems.

    Singapore and Canada aren't Europe, or the United States, for that matter.

    Perhaps the issues behind these conflicts are much more complex than, "Massive immigration is always good, all the time!"

  • ||

    I guess a mere dozen honor killings counts as "few" problems. Sorry, ladies, you're just statistical noise!

  • ||

  • ||

    and someone editorialized that they sit in the back because they are the backbone on Muslim society...

  • ||

    Europe's biggest mistake was allowing them to arrive in large numbers in the first place, assuming that the Muslims would be content to serve as a permanent underclass for the privilege of living in a society a little more stable than the worthless shitholes they migrated from.

    I agree -- having a legal regime where immigrants are forced to be a permanent underclass was a bad idea.

  • Realist||

    The Christian religion is plenty stupid, but the Muslim religion is beyond the pale!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    It may help if smart people would stop helping people remain confused about the difference between ideology and race. It is absolutely true that your race does not determine your sense of right/wrong but your religion/ideology most definitely does. And it goes without saying that your sense of right/wrong will affect your actions.

  • Liberta||

    Second this 100%. Racism has come to mean "discrimination." Some discrimination is good and justified - singling out Muslims to be searched; other is unfair and unjust - Anti-white racism in the black ghettos.

  • ||

    That is not true. Socialists have enabled and courted Islam in Europe and Russia and have marginalised Christianity.

  • ||

    Her opinion is obviously not well researched. If she had researched sharia and its incursion into foreign lands maybe she'd have a less liberal attitude. I thought this was a libertarian website.. not LIBERAL???

  • ||

    Drink!

  • ||

    Young's mindset is intelligent and reasonable but completely ignorant about Islam.

    Much like those who, at one time, appeased or rationalised other forms of authoritaranism, such as communism and fascism.

  • Consumptive||

    "respectable conservative media" Like Rush, Michelle Malkin and Murdoch's squeeky clean media outlets?
    And would the NY Post want to be called respectable?

  • Rich||

    Excusing illegal acts because they are sanctioned by a defendant’s culture or religion is a very bad idea for many reasons. It subverts equal justice, hinders the integration of immigrants, and perpetuates oppressive customs that many hope to escape.

    Excusing *legal* acts because they are sanctioned by a defendant’s culture or religion also subverts justice and perpetuates oppressive customs that many hope to escape.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    "the Bible has more than a few alarmingly violent and intolerant passages"

    Tell me about general (non-specific) commands from God or his prophets to kill, enslave, or to convert people by force.

    Islam on the other hand, Holy Crap there are a lot. As a Christians becomes more devout, they become more peaceful. As Muslims become more devout, they become more violent.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace......olence.htm

  • Tim||

    There was that whole unfortunate thing where some madman crashed a hijacked griffon into the Tower of Babel... but those were radicals.

  • ||

    When I was growing up in the South, I remember havin' to explain to more than just a few racists, that just because they really, truly believed their bigotry was true? Didn't mean they weren't racists.

    Just because the extremists claim to be more fundamentalist and more devout--doesn't make it so. It's the same thing with Christianity...

    Just because the Westboro Baptist Church claims to be more devout than my peace loving, Bible memorizing grandmother--doesn't make it so. Just because the fundamentalist freaks who went around bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion providers--claim to be more devout than the peace-loving people who go to church every week?

    Doesn't make it so.

    Advocating or perpetrating violence doesn't make extremist Christians more devout than their peace-loving counterparts elsewhere in Christianity, and the same thing is true of Islam.

    Most Muslims believe that the end of the world happens with the second coming of Jesus. Muslims have way more in common than they have differences--and one of the things they have in common with Christians? Is that the extremists exaggerate what differences there are--to try to fool weak-minded people into thinking the extremists speak for the whole religion...

    Muslim extremists don't speak for all of Islam any more than the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all of Christianity.

    Don't be weak-minded.

  • ||

    Don't be naive. The passages in those links are mainstream Muslim beliefs from their “perfect” book of scriptures.

    Your wishful thinking is weak-minded.

  • ||

    "Your wishful thinking is weak-minded."

    There's nothing wishful about it.

    If you knew some Muslims or went to a mosque and asked some questions, you'd know that everyday Muslims are no more of a violent threat than everyday Christians.

    And the suggestion that people become more violent as they become more devout is demonstrably false in Islam or Christianity. The IRA was more violent than MLK--not more devout, just more violent.

    My grandmother was the most devout Christian I've ever known, and she wouldn't hurt a spider...I saw her return cruelty with kindness because that's what Christianity meant to her. The IRA was never so devout--not to Christianity.

    Likewise, some of the most peace loving people I've ever known, hung out with and worked with have been Muslims.

    You should know too that Naskh or "abrogation" has been a fundamental concept in Islam since the Qur'an and the Hadith came into being! It's very much like the way Christians deal with God in the Old Testament telling people to kill every man woman and child in whatever city in Canaan.

    There were things Mohammed told them to do when he and his army were under siege--that were not meant to be followed as general practices.

    And cherry picking quotes while completely ignoring the fact that abrogation has been a factor in Islam since the very beginning--doesn't mean you've uncovered something true and useful.

    It just means you know very little about Islam. And there's nothing wrong with that usually--there's a whole world of things I know very little about. It's just that when I know very little about something--I don't go around smearing a whole group of innocent Americans because of their religion.

    Muslims don't become more violent as they become more devout. They do become more violent as they devote themselves to violent tactics--just like Christians or anyone else does too.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    The IRA was more violent than MLK--not more devout, just more violent.


    The IRA is a nationalist movement that started fighting a guerrilla war against an invading army.

    There's no question that Muslims have a jsutifiable beef against Western countries that invaded their lands. I APPLAUD their efforts to repulse the invaders, no matter the nationality of these.

    But from there to simply become blind to a religion that pretty much keeps a great number of human beings living in a medieval mindset is stupid and irresponsible.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Uh, western countries LIBERATED them. Only an asshole would root for their insurgencies.

  • ||

    I don't applaud anybody using terrorist tactics--especially if the nationality of the targets were American.

    "But from there to simply become blind to a religion that pretty much keeps a great number of human beings living in a medieval mindset is stupid and irresponsible."

    Religion is a product of evolution. It's a cultural adaptation. When people are being oppressed, they reinterpret their culture within the context of being under oppression. That's a recipe for violence--no matter the culture or religion.

    But just because Islam has been reinterpreted by some extremely violent groups--especially since the '60s? That's no reason to smear all of Islam. If the U.S. were invaded and oppressed for decades, there would no doubt be a violent strain of Christianity that would emerge...

    Indeed, we've seen Christianity reinterpreted to promote slavery, war, Imperialism and all other manner of evil. This in a religion whose founder commanded his followers to love their neighbors as themselves and to do unto other as you would have them do unto you...

    If some violent strain of Christianity emerged under the conditions that many Muslims have suffered over recent decades, that would not mean that Christianity itself had changed. Devout Christians would still follow Jesus saying, "If you've done so unto the least of these, you've done so unto me".

    This is the way it is with Islam. The Sufi tradition didn't disappear just because popular culture in the United States suddenly found out about Wahhabi Islam in 2001.

    It's also important to remember that religion doesn't necessarily exist separate and apart from people who believe in it. I sat in a big mosque and listened to a renowned Imam say that it was okay for American Muslims to join the U.S. army and fight for the freedom of their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. ...and I saw hundreds of Muslims nod in agreement.

    I've heard Muslim after Muslim denounce violence in the name of Islam as an atrocity and a sin--comparable to fornicating in the name of Jesus. Why would I pretend that all those devout Muslims I knew who condemned violence never existed?

    The fact is that the Muslims in this country just want to live their lives in peace and raise their families in the cultural traditions of their ancestors--just like everybody else. And if you ever have the good fortune to work with or make friends among Muslims, you'll find them to be among the most trustworthy friends you've ever had--with a predilection for justice and compassion.

    The fact is that some of these candidates are treating everyday average Muslims like we treated Sacco and Vanzetti way back when--because they were Italian Anarchists. We did the same sorts of things to Irish Catholics.

    I don't see Muslims as being any more of a violent threat than being Catholic was. And the fact that we're being so easily manipulated with the Music Man routine--some ten years later?

    Is a disgrace.

    Oh we got trouble--right here in River City!

  • ||

    I was sitting in a mosque when I learned that it was Jews who had the planes fly into the World trade Center. I know many peaceful Muslims. I also recognize that a far higher number adhere to the radicalized version than Christians and Jews hold to violent traditions within their respective religions. I have discussed this with radical adherents and I can assure you of their sincerity and devotion to the spread of these radical beliefs.

  • ||

    I've heard conspiracy theories about 9/11 too. That shouldn't be a surprise--there are plenty of non-Muslim Americans who've bought into various conspiracy theories...

    Hell, the president himself sold a conspiracy theory about how Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11--and yellowcake in Niger! And how he had Al-Qaeda ties...and photos of mobile WMD labs--all of which turned out to be bogus.

    But 69% of the American people believed it--and still believed it as of September 6, 2003--months after we invaded Iraq...

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....iraq_x.htm

    So why should it be surprising that various Muslims buy into various conspiracy theories too? Why doesn't that also make them--just like everybody else?

    "I have discussed this with radical adherents and I can assure you of their sincerity and devotion to the spread of these radical beliefs."

    I have no doubt that there are radical Muslims who believe in radical beliefs who believe in spreading their radical beliefs...

    The question is how indicative they are of average Muslim-Americans who have been living peacefully among us for decades minding their own business.

    I don't know if you're talking about the time you've spent in the service in Afghanistan or something--but if you go to a mosque in Los Angeles and start sniffing around for Muslims with radical beliefs, the Muslims there are just as likely to call the FBI to have you investigated--Muslims are probably quicker to call the FBI on you than Christians would be under the same circumstances.

    I hope you appreciate that even if you are being sincere, there are an awful lot of people out there whose perceptions of Muslims are mostly limited to what they saw Jack Bauer do on 24--and it gets tiresome.

    There's a cognitive bias that all homo sapiens are subject to--we tend to focus on the extremes. Most Americans didn't know anything about Islam until 10 years ago--and 90% of everything we've heard about them since has all been bad.

    Talking to people whose perception of Muslims consists mostly of the image of Muslims in their heads--from all the television they've watched?

    It gets a little tiresome.

  • jacob||

    Hell, the president himself sold a conspiracy theory about how Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11

    Awesome!

  • Seguin||

    "Hell, the president himself sold a conspiracy theory about how Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11"

    No, he didn't. That was a later distortion of his statements that made the rounds in the anti-war movement.

  • ||

    Did you look at the link I gave?

    Did you see what 69% of the American people believed months after we'd invaded?

    How do you think they got that idea?

    Do you remember the Plame Affair?

    Is all this new to you?

    Just because people have selective memory about what they believed and when they believed it--doesn't change the facts.

    Those pictures of WMD labs were bogus. If it hadn't been for the anthrax attack, we probably wouldn't have ended up in Iraq at all.

    People thought the Iraq War was a war of self-defense when we fought it. There's nothing wrong with being fooled by the president and Secretary of State and the Defense Department.

    There is something wrong with pretending the war was about something else all along after the fact.

    Like most Americans, I wouldn't support fighting the Iraq War just to save the Iraqi people any more than I'd support invading Belarus just to save the Belorussians.

    Imposing freedom and democracy from above at the point of a gun is a futile exercise--no matter how well intended.

  • Justin Cases||

    How many Americans believe in Ghosts or UFO's? It ain't because of what George Bush tells them.

  • anonymous||

    Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa. Bush never claimed Saddam built his own stockpile in addition to the yellowcake that was already known to exist in Iraq, just that British intelligence reports surmised that he sought to acquire it. That is true, and that finding was not based on the Italian forgery as Wilson has claimed. Wilson, in fact, is untrustworthy, and should not be taken at his word.

    If you need a primer, as I suspect you might, see factcheck.org's entry on the 16 words. You might also look at the BBC's summary of the Butler report, or read the report yourself if you have the leisure. In a nutshell, the beeb says, "British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was 'credible.'"

  • from france||

    You keep saying that Islamic cultures have been oppressed. Where ???

  • ||

    "You keep saying that Islamic cultures have been oppressed. Where ???"

    Egypt, Tunisia...haven't you been paying attention to the news?

    Before that there was Algeria, Syria continues to suffer under a vicious dictatorship--and in case you haven't heard? Saudi Arabia is a vicious dictatorship.

    ...and has been for years.

    It shouldn't be hard to understand that vicious dictatorships breed violent ideologies among the oppressed--regardless of what culture and religion dominates...

    Even in the U.S., we were lucky to have a movement like MLK's and the freedom riders while it lasted--but why should anybody be surprised to see the Black Panthers pop up in the '60s?

  • ||

    Still didn't read the link?

    "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. "

    Not written about any particular situation, just a general command.

  • ||

    You're suggesting that something written in the Qur'an has no context?

    That's absurd.

    You want to see how Mohammed translated the Qur'an into action?

    Here's the rights of Non-Muslims according to The Constitution of Medina:

    *The security of God is equal for all groups,[22]

    *Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[23]

    *Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[24]

    *Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[25]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....on-Muslims

    If you think your interpretation of the Qur'an is somehow emblematic of what Muslims in East Africa, Malaysia and Detroit, Michigan think?

    Yer outta yer mind.

    Stop believing everything the terrorists tell you to believe. Despite what they say, they're not in charge of Islam. ...and never were.

  • ||

    The Constitution of Medina was written when Muhammad was a piss-ant tribal leader without enough force to impose his will. It has nothing to do with Islamic government or doctrine. The residents of Mecca didn’t get any of these breaks when they finally surrendered to Muhammad’s army.

  • ||

    The Constitution of Medina was written by Mohammed--and contains a proclamation that the Constitution is approved by Allah.

    It served as a model for most interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims for centuries afterwards.

    The main difference between Muslim and non-Muslim was that Muslims didn't have to pay taxes, so Muslim rulers reinterpreted it over and over again--especially as a larger and larger portion of their domains converted to Islam.

    For a while, in what's modern Iraq now, there was a proclamation prohibiting people from converting to Islam--because they needed the tax revenue from non-Muslims. Muslim legal scholars have been tolerating non-Muslims for centuries.

    If you want to compare how Islam has been interpreted in various parts of the world in its treatment of non-Muslims, look at how they were treated in Spain when Muslims ruled Cordoba. And compare that to how Christians treated non-believers during the Spanish Inquisition...

    The whole purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to enforce the conversion of Sephardi Jews, who had practiced Judaism freely for centuries until the Christians kicked the Muslims out of the Iberian peninsula. How does that compare to the tolerance of Muslim rulers?

    Want to look at the way Muslims have interpreted the Qur'an and the Hadith in terms of how non-Muslims should be treated, look at the way the rulers of the Mughal Empire treated Hindus under their rule--Hindus aren't even technically people of the book!

    You pulled a verse out of thin air--and interpreted for Muslims without regard to how various schools within Islam abrogate various texts. And, furthermore, you seem to be interpreting that text without any regard for history--and how the Qur'an has been traditionally interpreted throughout history in various parts of the Muslim world.

    People don't have to interpret their scripture one way--just because you insist that they should. And if they've historically interpreted it in some other way, then why would you want to argue with them? Why would you want to convince them otherwise?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    The whole purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to enforce the conversion of Sephardi Jews, who had practiced Judaism freely for centuries until the Christians kicked the Muslims out of the Iberian peninsula. How does that compare to the tolerance of Muslim rulers?


    Which ones, the Almoravids who were just tolerant of the dhimmis, or the Almohads who were even worse?

  • ||

    "Which ones, the Almoravids who were just tolerant of the dhimmis, or the Almohads who were even worse?"

    If you thought I was suggesting that the Muslim rulers of the Middle Ages were enlightened protectors of human rights, as we understand human rights in the 21st century? I wasn't.

    The fact is, however, that Muslims have been generally tolerant of non-Muslims, throughout the history of Islam, more or less within the guidelines we see in the Medina Constitution.

    That hasn't always been true in each and every case in each and every country at each and every time. I'm not saying there weren't any crusades or that religious wars between Christians and Muslims didn't take their toll, but tolerance for non-Muslims was the general rule.

    Wahhabi Islam was fairly localized before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--and the vicious brutality we saw in Egypt, Libya, Algeria and elsewhere over the past few decades.

    One interpretation of Islam, however, does not define Islam. The Islam of Indonesia or West Africa...blah, blah blah. I've already been through this.

  • ||

    Okay. Let's compare. How many did the Spanish Inqusition kill versus how many did the Muslims slaughter and enslave.

    How many Muslims did the Europeans buy at slave markets? How many Europeans did the Muslims buy from Vikings and pirates - right up until Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to put an end to it?

  • JT||

    Europeans bought quite a few Muslims on the slave market... You know, with the whole slavery in America. A lot of them were Muslim

  • ||

    Rubbish. North African Muslims were also buying African non-Muslim slaves.

  • ||

    I ask again, why didn't they get the same deal in Mecca?

    Because Muhammad didn't need to negotiate with them.

  • ||

    [If you think your interpretation of the Qur'an is somehow emblematic of what Muslims in East Africa, Malaysia and Detroit, Michigan think?

    Yer outta yer mind.]


    I live in Dearborn. Living that close to Detroit means I'm probably out of my mind as you say, but... what would you guess caused the street celebrations in DelRay and E. Dearborn the evening of 9/11??

  • ||

    Well, obviously if you claim that there were Muslims in the streets of Dearborn celebrating the death of thousands of innocent American citizens--then it must be true!

    ...even though I can't find any reference to it online.

    And if you say that means Muslims everywhere are lining up behind Al Qaeda? Then that obviously must be true too! Because everything Muslims do and say can only be properly interpreted by you through secret code or something?

    And the Muslims in Dearborn celebrating the death of bin Laden can only be interpreted--however it is you interpret it, I guess?

    Tell us what this means?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo_EYOG2Nlo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5vBqBnq0Eo

  • ||

    Can only tell you what it means to me, living in very close proximity to an Arab community. It means I observe, daily, an entire community tht seems to proclaim often and loudly that they stake no claim to the American culture, and have no intention of participating in any pot melting. Moreover, in the case of Arab locals who have entered the political arena, will engage in any activity, political or cultural, to hasten any change to the American culture that will adhere to their seemingly rabid embrace of the Muslim religion. It means that.

  • Liberta||

    Your passage is an attempt to redefine "devout" in a manner that is more pleasing to you. An quick appraisal of the world will show you that cultural relativism is hogwash.

  • Jay||

    Haven't read the Bible very carefully, have you?

  • ||

    Examples of open-ended commands for violence please. (Hint: There is one but it's out of date)

  • T||

    I seem to recall I shouldn't suffer a witch to live.

  • ||

    Not bad, but also a translation controversy from King James' fear of witches.

    http://www.hollowhill.com/fun/.....-bible.htm

  • T||

    Yeah, I'm aware. The KJV is the most familiar translation, but I'm convinced it's not anywhere close to the most accurate. Some of the more fundamentalist Christians are actually very well-educated on translation issues and can give you cogent reasons as to why they use the version of the Bible they use. Others, not so much.

  • ||

    The KJV is nice prose and poetry but a lousy translation.

  • tarran||

    Old Soldier,

    How many devout Moslems do you know?

    My guess is none. Thus, the only ones you hear about are the ones who get on the news.

    Peaceful people don't get on the news; violent people do.

    Thus, you are probably the victim of sampling bias.

    I spent a good part of my life in Turkey, and there in my limited experience devoutness did correlate towards peacefulness, since there are just as many people there that tend towards piety, charity and good will as here.

  • ||

    I know plenty of American Muslims. Some are good guys. They aren't devout or they hide it well.

    I've met plenty in the Middle East as well. Some okay. Some were the most evil men I've ever met (Special Republican Guard officers I had to guard before we turned them over Kuwaiti authorities for war crimes)

    Didn't read the link did you?

  • Mo||

    Some were the most evil men I've ever met (Special Republican Guard officers I had to guard before we turned them over Kuwaiti authorities for war crimes)

    I'm guessing the sorts of people that will commit heinous war crimes are evil, horrible people regardless of their religion. Most people don't make blanket judgments on Christians based on the messed up stuff Slobodan Milošević and his goons did.

  • ||

    Did I say that I formed my opinion based on those assholes? I could tell from the half dozen war criminals seperated out of the thousands of Iraqi prisoners we handled that they were not the norm.

  • Tim||

    "a 2007 Pew poll found that 27 percent of American Muslim men under 30 believe suicide terrorism in defense of Islam is at least sometimes justified."

    But 27% of New York doesn't want a fooking mosque to get a fooking zoning permit to build on a mass grave and they're outta line.

  • ||

    It wasn't going to be a Mosque - it was to be a Rabat.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....naA1Nqi9xM

  • Tim||

    With long ears and a fluffy tail?

  • helmut son of helmut||

    The main evidence this article presents is the assertion of the author that it is a rabat. That is not convincing.

  • ||

    I'd like you to meet my friend, Harvey.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    Um, you mean a spot where a piece of the WTC hit an old building, derelict building? How many people died in that building?

  • Max Stirner||

    Private property, how does it work?

    Seriously, who cares what the people think? We have rights, but obviously those are disposable when it comes to TEH MOOSLUMS.

  • Tim||

    The point of zoning law is to restrict your property rights, that's how that works.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    Libertarians advocate the supreme sanctity of property rights. Zoning law restricts property rights. Guess what the libertarian solution is?

  • Tim||

    Max was claiming this was lawless. It is not. New York is highly regulated and apparently New Yorkers like it that way, evidenced by whom they vote for.
    But I digress, my point is not love of zoning, or any of that. It's simply that you can think (think) that the project's a bad idea without being racist.
    Although apparently one can't think that without being called a racist.

  • ||

    What non-racist reasons, that you would apply equally in any other situations, do you have for thinking the project is a bad idea?

  • Tim||

    Bad PR, poor judgement. Of course so would putting a CHurch in Mecca.

  • Max Stirner||

    Didn't the republicans pass a law saying you couldn't use zoning to discriminate against religious groups? If was in a reason article I think.

  • ||

    Yes, they did. I bet they're kicking themselves for not specifying that only Christian groups were supposed to be protected, as was their intent.

  • ||

    The point of zoning law is to restrict your property rights, that's how that works.

    In practice that's how it's used...but only a statist would think it's simply a handy tool to keep people from exercising property rights.

    Zoning law is supposed to be used to prevent traffic jams and noise nuisances and the like. Not to prevent people from practicing a religion you don't like.

  • T||

    Zoning laws in practice are used to screw over the disfavored and benefit the connected. So I guess since Muslims are disfavored, they're gonna take it up the ass from zoning laws. What does Sharia say about non-consensual sodomy, anyway?

  • TMF||

    If its your wife its ok...

  • JD the Elder||

    It's not a mosque, it wasn't a permit issue, and it wasn't on a mass grave, but other than that, you're completely right.

  • Tim||

    AND good looking.

  • ||

    It's not paranoia if people really are out to get you.

    The normally sensible Cathy Young (I enjoyed her autobiography years ago) has fallen prey to a tendency shared by libertarians and liberals: because they believe in freedom of religion, they believe that all religions are essentially the same. Unfortunately, they aren't. There are good reasons (textual and historical) to believe that Islam is, in essence, essentially far less tolerant and mote totalitarian than any other major religion.

    Does that mean we toss out the First Amendment? No. However, the anti-jihadists have good points and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, Islam is very xenophobic and I certianly wouldn't want to live in a country like Turkey and Egypt where Christians and Jews are treated with contempt by the government. But in America we already do a good job keeping church and state seperate so what exactly are you worried about? We've already discarded so many of our freedoms to "protect" ourselves, do we really need more of it?

  • ||

    Within some of our lifetimes, several northern European countries will become Islamic Republics. Unless there is a nasty backlash from the natives the demographics are inevitable.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Old Soldier,

    Unless there is a nasty backlash from the natives the demographics are inevitable.


    Not from those guys, no. The Lutheran Scandinavians are doomed.

  • Tim||

    The real Singularity.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    Yeah, those 5% of Muslims in Sweden are going to turn Stockholm into the next Riyadh.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,

    Yeah, those 5% of Muslims in Sweden are going to turn Stockholm into the next Riyadh.


    In about 3 generations or so. I did not say they were doomed fast.

  • Bradley||

    In about 3 generations or so. I did not say they were doomed fast.


    You forgot to add “... if current trends continue”, which they won't.

  • ||

    In 1917, what percent of Russians were Bolsheviks?

  • Cytotoxic||

    That is a complete non sequitor.

  • ||

    Not really. The argument made by many is that radical Muslims are a minority within various Islamic communities, and thus nothing to worry about. History shows otherwise. True, Muslims won't be a majority in Western Europe for a while, but that's small comfort.

  • MWG||

    Yes, because muslims are a monolithic group who will band together to take over [insert random western country].

  • ||

    They don't have to be monolithic for the worst elements to take over: e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    The highest number of Muslims within a European country is France, at around 4-5 million, about 8%-10% of the population depending on which poll you look at. And judging by recent legislative actions both against immigrants and against wearing veils outside of the house, I doubt they're going to turn into an "Islamic Republic" anytime soon.

  • ||

    So they stop reproducing if they can see their chicks' faces?

  • helmut son of helmut||

    You said "Islamic Republic", meaning a government based on Islamic ideals/Sharia/etc... Not "a country with a large (majority) islamic population".

    Remember in the 1970s, when fertility rates in the West were still rather high, and everyone warned about a coming "population bomb"? Fertility rates fluctuate. And in the past decade, the "native" (or in your case, "white") population of France has been able to reverse their negative rate, and is now at replacement level (and continuing to slowly rise).

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,

    Remember in the 1970s, when fertility rates in the West were still rather high, and everyone warned about a coming "population bomb"?


    They were talking about a population bomb because of the birth rates of the brown races, not Western whites. Western Europe, especially France and Germany, has had a very low birth rate since the late 19th Century.

  • T||

    Yeah, wasn't Ehrlich concerned about Bangladesh specifically when he wrote that turd?

  • Joel||

    Hm. "We must have sex immediately, lest we be outbred by the Moslem hordes." Thanks! I'll try that next time I meet a lady in a bar.

  • Joel||

    Hm. "We must have sex immediately, lest we be outbred by the Moslem hordes." Thanks! I'll try that next time I meet a lady in a bar.

  • Joel||

    It was so witty I said it twice! Dunno how that happened.

  • Almanian||

    I don't think so

  • Almanian||

    ...although watching France be run by Islamists would be teh fun as hell

  • ||

    France has nukes, remember....

  • ||

    You must think Western democracy is a very weak system to think it will be overrun so easily.

    There's no one with less faith in America than a pseudo-patriotic bigot.

  • ||

    Hey douche-bag - did say America would be overrun? Fuck you people like to read shit that doesn't exist between the lines.

  • ||

    You come across as being very afraid of the musulmans in yer posts.

  • ||

    Fear has nothing to do with it. Call it wary. You should be too.

    I certainly entered this subject with an open mind. I read the Koran (in English) before being deployed in 1990. I met lots of Saudi’s, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis. I was a history major and studied the spread of Islam. I’ve worked with plenty of Muslims since, done more reading and research. The more you find out, the less there is to like about it.

  • Actually...||

    "Fear has nothing to do with it."

    ...I think it does.

  • ||

    So our laws; the court system; the Constitution; gun-owning citizens; etc. will be powerless to stop Sharia law from being implemented in the US?

    I, too, am wary and do NOT like Islam. When I think of all the people who fucked me over in life, it certainly wasn't Islamists.

  • ||

    Here's where you should be wary. In this country we've already outlawed Where we can get resources from. In California we now have to teach the great things that gays have done. We have laws about how you can talk to people at work. We have singled out other groups to get more benifits then others as in a minority gets preference about entering college or work. Schools have Winter holiday but not Christmas at the same time they have mother earth day, clearly a religion. Why wouldn't some idiot in Washington start to believe that requiring Sharia law over our Christian based laws be a good thing. What I'm getting at is it won't be the Muslims forcing these things on us it will be ourselves in an attempt to appease them or to just prove how PC we are.

  • ||

    The Justinian Code and armed Vandals didn't stop Muslims from overwhelming North Africa.

    Western Europeans are embarrassed to mention the campaigns and battles that did halt Muslim advances because they had to be so violent and decisive. Tours, Spain, Malta, Vienna, the reconquest of Hungary by the Holy League, etc…

  • ||

    Not that it matters, but Western Europe was already a half-starved political crazy quilt when the Moors crossed the Mediterranean. The Byzantine Empire had been severely weakened by centuries of war with the Persian Empire.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You must think Western democracy is a very weak system to think it will be overrun so easily.

    Sorry, but this is weak sauce. The strength of a system isn't the system itself, it's the people that live in the system. There's a reason that countries with highly diverse populations(whether ethnically, sociologically, ideologically, etc.) tend to break down into chaos and conflict eventually. Most Americans don't like to hear this, but the fact of the matter is that a society that is more homogenous in its makeup is going to be far more robust and far more willing to insure that the society remains stable according to the vision of those inhabitants.

    There's no one with less faith in America than a pseudo-patriotic bigot.

    America's a country, not a god or a religion. 10,000 years of human civilization should be lesson enough that no society lasts forever, no matter how much faith they have in their idea of their nation.

    The strongest civilizations in human history have traditionally been the most bigoted--because they had the will to power to impose their vision of themselves as The Chosen over those whom they conquered and controlled. "Manifest Destiny" in this country, for example, and the takeover of half the North American continent wouldn't have happened without it.

  • ||

    That rocked!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah look at how well bigotry has worked for the south. Nothing but strength.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yeah look at how well bigotry has worked for the south. Nothing but strength.

    Worked pretty well for the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Russians, etc, ad nauseum. The United States exists in its current form because its inhabitants believed they were better than the Indians that were already there.

    Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't make it true.

  • ||

    Pretty sure most of the conquered and controlled were/are just as bigoted as the conquerors. Pretty much every human society has been bigoted throughout history. Even chimps and other high apes show bigoted behavior. It's a useful attitude to make sure you help individuals with similar genes to yours rather than individuals with very different genes.

    Our DNA is always fucking with our minds. Don't let it fuck with yours.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Our DNA is always fucking with our minds. Don't let it fuck with yours.

    Fighting biology is about as pointless as telling the sun to not rise. If we're hard-wired to discriminate, it's going to happen no matter what, it's just a question of in what form it occurs.

    The real issue is whether a stable society based on mutual high-trust relationships can be maintained in the face of growth from those who may not necessarily share the same ideals of community and national identity. Sooner or later, given enough growth from those diverse populations, a reckoning inevitably occurs that determines the long-term character of that community.

  • ||

    Fighting biology is exactly what civilization is all about.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And yet it never succeeds in the end, regardless.

  • ||

    Does that mean we toss out the First Amendment? No. However, the anti-jihadists have good points and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

    A Cathy Young-ism if ever there was one.

    Seeing as how the "anti-jihadist" points involve coercively preventing mosques from being built, they advocate tossing the First Amendment. So unless you're willing to toss 1A you pretty much have to dismiss them out of hand.

  • cynical||

    Civil libertarians defend the rights of groups that are opposed to civil libertarianism -- they'll protect the rights of Nazis or the KKK to speak and assemble. Why should Islam be given any less consideration than skinheads?

    And why the fuck is it that there is no more middle ground -- the right demands we sacrifice first amendment freedoms by singling out a religion for persecution, and the left demands we sacrifice them by censoring ourselves when faced with violence. How about a sensible, moderate compromise: we say whatever we want, and when a Muslim goes on a killing spree because of it, we burn his mosque to the ground while services are underway?

  • Joel||

    You had me until the mosque thing.

  • cynical||

    It may have been a little tongue in cheek.

  • Max||

    Are we still pretending that there isn't a singular cause for all this? I mean, come on. It's distasteful to play on direct racial prejudices anymore. But the Muslims, well, they attacked us on 9/11.

    And his middle name is Hussein. Remember Saddam Hussein?

    And his last name is Obama. Remember Osama?

  • Old Mexican||

    And you're a pet yorkie. Remember the carpet?

  • Almanian||

    Hey Max! We found out your grandma was a Neanderthal.

    "Look at Grandma Max! Can't make fire! Can't make spear! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

    So we understand a little better why you are the way you are. You're still a moron, but now we know why. Cool.

  • ­­­||

    It's easy to pick on Max, but I've always said, a guy named Adolf Hirohito never could have beaten Roosevelt in '44.

  • Jennifer||

    Obama's election doubtless had something to do with the rise in anti-Muslim bigotry -- for all the reasons I regret having voted for the SOB, the fact that his middle name is HUSSEIN matters not at all -- yet I suspect the majority of this newfound hatred was spawned by the economy going sour, so people look to assuage their concerns by finding a scapegoat to kick.

    Related historical anecdote: in the American south in the period between the two world wars, there was a direct correlation between agricultural prices and lynch rates: the lower the price of cotton, the more "strange fruit" hanging from the trees. It's one of the nastier elements of human nature: when you're feeling powerless and worried, picking on scapegoats won't do jack to solve your problems, but taking your aggression out on others makes you feel better.

  • ||

    And the actual facts don't have anything to do with it?

  • Jennifer||

    I'm appalled by the Christians in Africa who, as I type this, are actively trying to make homosexuality a death penalty offense, and still murder innocent women on suspicion of witchcraft. However, I do not read about such sub-Saharan fundie assholes and extrapolate from them to the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics and Methodists I personally know. Nor do I look at Israeli misbehavior regarding Palestinians and start quoting from the protocols of the elders of Zion. That's because -- not bragging here, just stating a fact -- I'm not some bigoted dumbshit who takes pride in letting my reptile brain overcome a million or so years' worth of intellectual evolution.

  • ||

    So what is the threshold? What percentage of Muslims in a particular place need to believe in the Koran and Hadith when it comes to forcing non-believers into diminutive, and slavery? What percentage need to believe Islam should be spread by violence and terror (the way the Prophet spread it through the Middle East and North Africa) before you change your mind?

    Just curious how far your self-righteousness and political correctness goes.

  • ||

    Research Hammond's 'Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat' for analysis of five stages of islamic attack.

    If anything, he was an optimist.

    Based on current world affairs, his percentages are high (= events happen at lower % islamic population)

  • ||

    As long as it remains mere belief, I don't see any justification for punishing it in any way.

    Of course, if individual Muslims plot acts of violence, carry such acts out, or materially support such acts, then those individuals should be prosecuted. But belief? Meh, I'm pretty sure our system is strong enough to render it harmless and probably make it disappear within a generation.

  • ||

    Meh, I'm pretty sure our system is strong enough to render it harmless and probably make it disappear within a generation.

    The French system doesn't seem to be. The young jihadists there are usually children and grandchildren of immigrants who are more assimilated than their offspring. And with our official religion of multiculturalism, why expect us to be much better?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So? Our system still is. We rule the French suck.

  • Get a brain, morans||

    The young jihadists there are usually children and grandchildren of immigrants who are more assimilated than their offspring. And with our official religion of multiculturalism, why expect us to be much better?

    In the United States, social participation is not closely tied to a particular ethnic identity as it is in France, Sweden, Germany, etc. If anything this makes the USA more resilient when it comes to absorbing immigrants from different cultures.

    Oh, and ostracizing Muslims, getting the government to harass them, and all that other shit — you really think that's a recipe for social harmony? How likely are American Muslims to forgo violence when they feel unwelcome in mainstream society and the state is out to get them?

  • ||

    Hey, name-calling guy who can't spell "moron": who is advocating "ostracizing Muslims" and "getting the government to harass them"? Not me. But I'm also not blind to the fact that the religion is oppressive and backward as current major religions go, and that a large faction of its followers support violence to impose its rules. Also, that many libertarians and leftists are so idealistic that it distorts their view of reality: is it really supporting religious freedom to support a religion that rarely practices religious freedom, except when forced to by minority status?

    There are no doubt commenters here who think (e.g.) that red light cameras are a horrible danger to liberty, but a huge, expansionist religion that believes in a world-wide theocracy, with literally scores of millions of followers who support the creation of such a state by any force necessary, well, to be worried about that is just paranoid and "racist."

  • poetry||

    "Worried about." This is where you lose me. What specific actions are you advocating? What changes to the law?

    So long as your criticism is that we don't "worry" enough, we're not going to get anywhere.

    I suspect, though, that you don't have any concrete, quantitative answers.

    But I do! Here is my plan: punish people who commit crimes ("crimes" being defined as any action that harms or expropriates another's person or property). Sound good? Or, not? If not, why not? Please don't give me this "be concerned be worried be afraid" bullshit. Be specific in your policy recommendations. Otherwise, STFU.

  • Jennifer||

    So what is the threshold? What percentage of Muslims in a particular place need to believe in the Koran and Hadith when it comes to forcing non-believers into diminutive, and slavery? What percentage need to believe Islam should be spread by violence and terror (the way the Prophet spread it through the Middle East and North Africa) before you change your mind?

    What percent? One hundred. You are, in effect, asking what would make me willing to embrace the notion of collective guilt, the notion that innocent people can and should be punished for the actions of others. You may as well be a Stormfronter asking "What percentage of bankers have to be Jews before you'll change your mind about the world financial situation? What percentage of Jewish Hollywood executives do you need before you'll believe they control the media? Just curious how far your self-righteousness and political correctness goes."

  • ||

    What percentage of Germans were National Socialists? Surely we wouldn't go to war against the whole nation because of a few bad apples?

  • Jennifer||

    Declaring war on an actual nation-state can sometimes be acceptable, as when we declared war on imperial Japan. And yet, imprisoning innocent American citizens because they were of Japanese descent was a monstrous injustice.

    You want to declare war on a nation-state which happens to be Muslim, I could support that under the right conditions. You want to declare war on every single Muslim in America, fuck you for the murderous bigot you are.

  • ||

    Even if 100% of Muslims merely believe that violent jihad is a good thing, that's no justification for punishing them or restricting their peaceful activity in any way. We don't punish beliefs in America.

  • Jennifer||

    More importantly, we don't punish innocent people for the actions of another person who merely happens to have something in common with them.

  • ||

    More importantly, we don't punish innocent people for the actions of another person who merely happens to have something in common with them.

    Bullshit. That's exactly what affirmative action and minority set-asides and Title IX do in practice.

  • ||

    Bullshit. That's exactly what affirmative action and minority set-asides and Title IX do in practice.


    I'd be careful about holding this up as a paragon of American behavior. Just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's just.

  • ||

    Bullshit. That's exactly what affirmative action and minority set-asides and Title IX do in practice.

    If you're going to tu quoque, at least make it an on-target one. Reason is hardly a hotbed of affirmative action supporters.

  • ||

    1. I wasn't suggesting an American Gulag. I think our immigration policies ought to be adjusted, that's all.

    2. I didn't realize Libertarianism was a suicide pact. For people who don’t want a police-state, you sure seem comfortable inviting in a lot of people who need policing.

    3. Don’t you think the “radicals” have figured out the weakness of your position? Of course we would beat the shit out of Saudi Arabia, Syria, whoever if they attacked us. So they gladly dump millions of unwanted Muslims into Europe and the U.S. to spread. Meanwhile a few “individuals” commit acts of sabotage and terrorism.

    Your solutions? Be polite? Call the cops (who most on this blog despise)? Hope they moderate?

  • ||

    Old Soldier, to many libertarians it is a suicide pact, especially when it comes to immigration. To the doctrinaire, we should welcome it if hundreds of millions of Muslims or other immigrants suddenly arrived here and wanted to vote. The fact that they'd likely vote against libertarian principles seems to escape them.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No country has ever suffered from immigration aside from disease importation.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No country has ever suffered from immigration aside from disease importation.

    The Palestinians would beg to differ.

  • ||

    The Britons weren't too happy when the Saxons and Danes moved in. The Saxons weren't any happier when the Normans arrived. Everyone was just thrilled when the Huns and Vandals showed up. American Indians didn't care for the English immigrants.

    History is a series of bad immigration stories.

  • jacob||

    To the doctrinaire, we should welcome it if hundreds of millions of Muslims or other immigrants suddenly arrived here and wanted to vote. The fact that they'd likely vote against libertarian principles seems to escape them.

    1. Immigrants who aren't citizens can't vote. Read the Constitution you moron.

    2. Your solution is that we need to restrict the voting rights of citizens who don't hold libertarian principles dear? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

  • ||

    Of course I understand #1, you fool, but you haven't heard about the support for amnesty for illegals and open borders among libertarians? And #2 is a straw man. No, that's not what I am advocating. I am simply warning of the perils of mass immigration, as nice as the theory of that sounds to libertarians.

  • ||

    Of course I understand #1, you fool

    You can tell someone realizes they're wrong when they start hurling insults. Of course, your original comment makes no sense in view of #1, so it's hardly foolish to assume you don't know it.

  • ||

    Hey, guy, I was responding to someone who called me a moron, and weren't you calling people bigots upthread? Snark doesn't fit well with hypocrisy.

  • ||

    And of course, even amnesty supporters don't favor giving illegals instant citizenship, just green cards.

  • ||

    How soon they get to vote doesn't change my point. Do you really think all the pro-amnesty types just want to give everyone green cards and not citizenship, and sooner rather than later?

  • ||

    How soon they get to vote doesn't change my point. Do you really think all the pro-amnesty types just want to give everyone green cards and not citizenship, and sooner rather than later?

  • ||

    For people who don’t want a police-state, you sure seem comfortable inviting in a lot of people who need policing.

    At no point in its history has the US had a Muslim population greater than 1%... yet our society has needed fairly constant policing.

    Oh, and we've pretty much ripped the Constitution to shreds during that time too, again with no help from Muslims. So if you're looking for the destroyers of the Constitution you need to look for a white, Christian face.

  • ||

    Exactly and good point Old Soldier, I didn't realise that Libertarianism was a suicide pact either! Wow, how this movement has been corrupted... by Liberals!!!! Maybe they can't spell!

  • Trooper Jones||

    Less than one percent of the Muslims I have met have tried to blow me up or shoot me so let's say one percent is the threshold.

    So, when one percent of Muslims are in arms and actively trying to take over the United States, France, Sweden, etc. I'll start worrying. Until then I'll take my chances.

  • ||

    I guess you are a different kind of trooper. About 75% of the ones I met were trying to kill me (before they surrendered at least).

  • ||

    Ah, so a WW2 vet would be justified in thinking Germans needed inferior legal status because most of the ones he's met were trying to kill him.

  • ||

    Nope. Neither of our sample populations in the denominators is random.

  • Bradley||

    My government sent me to kill Muslims, and they shot back! What the hell is wrong with these animals?

  • Pervert||

    Maybe you should have picked a different profession, meat shield.

  • Trooper Jones||

    Let's see, one hundred thousand or so people living in Dora and maybe a few hundred insurgents.

    Yep. Less than one percent.

    In your bed-wetting 70 percent world, I guess there were over a million insurgents in Baghdad. If there had been, even the diplomats in the Green Zone and the REMFs at Victory Base (it's a funny name, I know) would have all been dead years ago.

  • ||

    Wrong war. I was busy protecting the lovely people of Saudi Arabia in 1990 and liberating the Kuwaitis in 1991. They cheered and waved when we drove through Kuwait City. Then we got the hell out of those oppressive shit-holes.

  • Trooper Jones||

    Oh, you mean the hard one where it was about zapping T-55s from your M-1 and bombing the crap out of Hiqhway 80?

    Did that one as a youngster. Strikes me now as the war that made us arrogant and stupid enough to decide to "finish the job".

    Stop pissing the bed over Muslims. They aren't taking anything over any time soon. Hell, they can barely overthrow their own governments.

  • The Gobbler||

    Jennifer, do you have a link supporting the ag price / lynching correlation?

    If so, thanks. If not, I'd equate the claim to the one where mean beat up their wives at a higher rate when their team looses on the Sunday gridiron.

  • Jennifer||

    The ag price/lunching correlation came from Howard Bloom's book The Lucifer Principle, which I have described to friends as "a look at the evolutionary origins of evil."

  • Jennifer||

    Lynching, not lunching. But I'm sure you knew that.

  • Sudden||

    Well, if cotton prices are depressed, its likely other agricultural commodities are as well. Hence, a potential increase in lunching due to affordability.

  • Jennifer||

    No, a DECREASE in lunching, because cash-strapped farmers can't afford food so they go to a lynch party to take the edge off.

  • Cowboy||

    There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lynch!

  • The Gobbler||

    "The ag price/lunching correlation came from Howard Bloom's book The Lucifer Principle"

    Thank you. I've read some of his work.

  • T||

    when you're feeling powerless and worried, picking on scapegoats won't do jack to solve your problems, but taking your aggression out on others makes you feel better.

    Doesn't this belong in the lemonade stand post in the discussion about cops?

  • Twine||

    I have no patience for grown adults who believe ancient fairy tales. The particular flavor of the mind poison is irrelevant.
    I know I'm supposed to be intellectually pure and support their right to whatever shit they pack into their skulls, but I just can't get up the gumption to do it anymore.
    I guess I'm a bad libertarian and I make the panda sad. Oh well. Sorry.

  • Slowburnaz||

    Amen!... err, agreed!

  • poetry||

    What are you advocating, Twine? That we round up people with "unacceptable" beliefs and gas them?

    I exaggerate for effect, of course. Seriously, though. What are you advocating?

    Meanwhile: criminals are criminals. Non-criminals are not criminals. It's that simple. If you commit a crime, you should be punished by the law. If you do not commit a crime, you should not be punished by the law. DERP.

  • Twine||

    Wasn't advocating anything. (puzzled stare)

  • ||

    If the US was crawling with moustachioed, brown soldiers, I'm sure there would be more than a few Christians strapping bombs to themselves to reverse the situation.

  • ||

    Damn right! I fucking hate moustaches.

  • Sudden||

    We call them hipsters. And if the good christian boys were to launch an all out offensive on them, I might temper my distaste for believers in the flying spaghetti monster.

  • Old Mexican||

    Islamic extremism is indeed a serious global problem today, to a degree unmatched by the radical fringes of other major religions.


    Just an FYI: The supposedly "radical" aspects of Islam (Sharia Law, dhimmitude, forced conversions, dressing women like penguins) are actually MAINSTREAM.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    Just like being a lazy Catholic welfare mooch/baby-crapper is mainstream for Mexicans, right? Fuck off.

  • Almanian||

    Helmut, does your butt hurt? Cause it seems like your butt hurts.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    It hurts when so called anarcho-libertarians throw out the constitution when it comes to camel jockeys.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,

    It hurts when so called anarcho-libertarians throw out the constitution when it comes to camel jockeys.


    Like whom, you idiot?

  • Sudden||

    Admittedly, I'm not all that concerned about Sharia law emerging in the U.S. But I'd say that a legislative ban on sharia law is hardly anti-thetical to the Constitution, and if anything, reinforces its central tenents.

    Moreover, I think a lot of libertarians sometimes confuse the idea of permitting people to hold any belief they wish with respecting or defending that belief. I think people should have the right not to serve any person they chose in their restuarant, but I'm not gonna eat at a restaurant that won't let my black/japanese/mexican friends eat there with me. Just because someone has a right to be a racist, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or condone it. Likewise, just like someone has the right to be a Christian/Muslim/Jew doesn't mean I have to embrace it is a part of the human tapestry. I'll call it what it is; mysticism and belief in farie tales unsupported by any critical thought. Its one thing to believe in a God, its another thing to believe in the divinity of Christ or that an angel appeared to some bedoin madman.

  • Bradley||

    A legislative ban on sharia law is hardly anti-thetical to the Constitution

    What does a ban on Sharia law even mean?

    Banning the establishment of an Islamic legal code is redundant, because the Constitution forbids that kind of scheme anyway.

    Banning voluntary arbitration done on religious grounds is unconstitutional. Even more obviously so if the ban targets Islam only but excepts Judaism, Christianity, etc.

    So: at best ineffective, at worst unconstitutional, in both cases a big fucking waste of time. This is Caylee's Law for Muslim-baiters.

  • TMF||

    how many laws are against the constitution?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,

    Just like being a lazy Catholic welfare mooch/baby-crapper is mainstream for Mexicans, right?


    Right what? Tell me which sacred text the Mexicans follow to the letter that would indicate they should accept Welfare from sleazy leftist gringos and breed like rabbits.

    Fuck YOU!

  • helmut son of helmut||

    Written scripture - especially that written many hundreds of years ago and subject to translation from old, convoluted dialects of a tricky language - is subject to a large array of vagaries, misinterpretations, and unintended consequences.

    However, far more absolute in the practice of guiding human behavior, is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. You don't need a holy script or priest/rabbi/imam/grand wizard pushing you because it's in your fucking genes, breeder.

  • ||

    What? The Koran was written in Arabic not some dead language.

  • Mo||

    1500 year old Arabic is not the same as modern Arabic*. Just like Old English is not the same as modern English. Languages evolve and the meanings of words change.

    * One is called classical Arabic and the stuff today are dialects off of Modern Standard Arabic

  • T||

    Did they go through a vowel shift or anything in Arabic like we did with English?

  • Mo||

    Nothing that major. However, there were significant changes in phonetics over the years. Many of the local dialects have major differences from MSA, let alone classical Arabic.

  • T||

    Liguistic drift is kind of neat, that's why I asked. Thanks.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,
    You avoided the question.

  • ||

    Helmut s.o.h., part of the problem is that Muslims don't interpret the Koran to the same degree Christians interpret the Bible. The Bible was written over hundreds of years, in different cultures, in different languages, by dozens of different people, all supposedly inspired by God. All but the most deluded must admit there's a lot of room for interpretation.

    The Koran is quite different. It's said to be a perfect copy of the one in Heaven (Allah speaks Arabic, you see), transcribed by the last prophet. Imagine if Jesus wrote the entire Bible in Shakespearean English and proclaimed it the direct and final word of God: today's fundamentalist Christians would look like Berkeley Unitarians in comparison.

  • Eric||

    This Gallup poll says that 1/3 of American's believe that the Bible is literally the word of God:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/276.....-true.aspx

  • ||

    That doesn't change my point.

  • Zeb||

    Mainstream where? There are muslim countries where none of the things you list are common.

  • Joel||

    If it's the law in Saudi Arabia, you could certainly claim it's mainstream. And at least two of those things are the law in Saudi. Nobody tried to forcibly convert me while I was there, but I wouldn't have been welcome as a citizen.

  • ||

    I suspect that in many cases the "Islamo-fascists" are the excuse, not the cause. Statists are not comfortable with freedom and are always on the lookout for a good boogeyman to convince folks that freedom is just a dangerous luxury.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Enjoy Every Sandwich,

    I suspect that in many cases the "Islamo-fascists" are the excuse, not the cause.


    No question, they are the perfect scapegoat, but not because for something they (Islamists) do not do.

  • poetry||

    I call collectivism on your bullshit. Some Islamists commit murder; some do not.

    Let's punish the ones who do, and let's not punish the ones who don't. Like any other ideology, see? Crimes merit punishment –- beliefs don't.

  • ||

    I love this issue because it really brings the statism out in both sides. Conservatives are calling for casting out the first amendment and yelling "The
    Constitution is not a Suicide Pact!!!" in the process.
    Progressives, having never really given a shit about a constitutional government anyways, will interpret 1A to mean you have the right to never be offended by religion and demand anything "deemed offensive" banned in public.

    And, now that a serious GOP nominee is making this a talking point, I'm guessing every other Republican mouthpiece will start doing the same.

    We are so fucked.

  • ||

    The state is a suicide pact for the individual.

  • jacob||

    You consider Cain a serious candidate?

  • ||

    He's seriously gunning for it, isn't he?

  • Trig||

    Eh I would think the open container law would be a good reason for a cabbie not to pick up someone with an alcoholic beverage; regardless of their religion.

  • ||

    Open containers were irrelevant to the dispute -- it was unopened bottled or canned alcohol, period.

  • Mo||

    Why does it matter? Freedom of association is also a First Amendment right.

  • ||

    I gots no problem with a cabbie refusing service to anybody in a libertarian sense.

    I thought a good compromise - now abandoned - that was proposed is having a light indicating the Muslim cabbies (I guess the majority of cabdrivers in the city are Muslim) but the cabbies objected to this because of losing customers.

    But, that's how it should play itself out.

  • Mo||

    Why should the cabbies be forced to wear a special light on their cars to denote their religion? Should they be forced to sew little green crescents on their clothes when they walk around too?

  • ||

    I guess I should clarify: the light was to indicate observant Muslims - those that refused to carry alcohol.

    It was to save on the hassle of passengers getting kicked-out if the driver spotted likker in a grocery bag.

    Like I said, it was abandoned after community Muslim leaders met with the cabbies and told them that they're interpretation of Islam isn't workable in a pluralistic society. Some of the clerics flat-out told the cabbies that they were incorrect in their beliefs, if my memory is correct.

    In any case, the issue was resolved.

  • ||

    Mo, are you OK with a cabbie refusing to carry a blind person because they have a guide dog?

  • ||

    That happened here at the same time as the alcohol controversy!

    Again, the local Muslim clerics had to step in and talk some sense into the cabdrivers.

  • Zeb||

    At least in some states, open container laws do not apply to passengers in cars for hire.

  • Old Mexican||

    The symbolism of sites associated with tragic memories can be a highly sensitive issue. In the late 1980s, many Jewish groups objected when a group of Carmelite nuns set up a convent on the edge of the Auschwitz grounds to pray for the dead. Their critics viewed the convent as an affront to the memory of the Holocaust as a Jewish tragedy.


    And especially considering the reputation of the Carmelites as a very rowdy and particularly bloodthirsty bunch, which makes the comaprison ever so apt...

    ... Or not.

  • helmut son of helmut||

    And is there any proof that Rouf is a jihadist/salafist? Why should the Carmelites be spared from the association with the less savory aspects of Christianity? They're a Catholic order, who were granted existence by a medieval pope.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: helmut son of helmut,

    Why should the Carmelites be spared from the association with the less savory aspects of Christianity?


    Like what?

  • Zeb||

    Really? You can't think of anything? Forced conversions, mass expulsions and ghettoization of Jews, executions of heretics, witch hunts, crusades. And have you ever read the Old Testament? I know the NT changes things, but if you are going to go around saying that the OT is the word of a good and loving God, there is something wrong with you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Zeb,

    Really? You can't think of anything?


    Please, Zeb, go and play at the sandbox and let the adults carry the conversation.

    The onus to provide examples is THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSERTION, not me. Go back to school, if you do not understand.

    Forced conversions, mass expulsions and ghettoization of Jews, executions of heretics, witch hunts, crusades.


    Dhimmitude; forced conversions; harrassment of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians; the Armenian and Greek massacres; Holy wars of conquest; slavery; the Barbary raids. We can go on and on, playing this game. Interestingly enough, Zeb, most of what I mentioned above is STILL GOING ON today: Dhimmitude, slavery, harrassment of Christians (Armenian, Coptic, Greek Orthodox,) Jews and Zoroastrians.

  • Old Mexican||

    "On the person", not "the person." Sorry.

  • Zeb||

    "The onus to provide examples is THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSERTION, not me. Go back to school, if you do not understand."

    Yes, if the statement is controversial or not common knowledge. Perhaps you need to brush up on a few points of debate yourself. Some knowledge must always be assumed, or every discussion will be bogged down in details and never get anywhere. This is an informal discussion and you know full well what was meant.

    Do you seriously think that anytime anyone mentions "the less savory aspects of Christianity" they must provide a list of examples with fully sourced citations? I think perhaps you need to get out of the sandbox and get your dick in the dirt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Zeb,

    Yes, if the statement is controversial or not common knowledge.


    It IS controversial, as HSOH is purporting to make a comparison between Christianity and Islam.

    Do you seriously think that anytime anyone mentions "the less savory aspects of Christianity" they must provide a list of examples with fully sourced citations?


    I seriously think that. Assuming it is common knowledge is a rethorical mistake and a trap I will not be lured into.

    Some knowledge must always be assumed


    Ok, I assume you're a bull's behind, colored red and white. Does that help the discussion?

    Please, don't try so hard to look smart, because you're making a fool of yourself.

  • Zeb||

    And why do you continue with the examples of bad things that Islam does. I don't disagree. This discussion has nothing to do with a comparison of Islam and Christianity. My only point was that you were being a pedantic asshole.

  • ||

    It's not pedantry to point out that the crimes of Christianity are largely in the past, with the worst examples in the distant past, while many of the crimes of Islam are recent or current.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Zeb,

    And why do you continue with the examples of bad things that Islam does. I don't disagree. This discussion has nothing to do with a comparison of Islam and Christianity. My only point was that you were being a pedantic asshole.


    Zeb, what *is* pendantic is purporting to compare Christianity and Islam based on their supposed crimes. All other things being equal: Same times, same era, the crimes perpetrated by Christians had NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE; none, zero, zilch, NADA.

    Instead, many of the crimes perpetrated by Muslims are totally justified AND encouraged by doctrine, which explains why they are still perpetrating them TODAY!!!

  • ||

    [Same times, same era, the crimes perpetrated by Christians had NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE; none, zero, zilch, NADA.]

    Truth be told, most of the "Christian" misbehavior is attributable to the Catholic church in Rome. The "entire Christian Church Eastern, Byzantine, Coptic) didn't participate. Keep in mind Catholicism is more cult than true Christian.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Moog,

    Truth be told, most of the "Christian" misbehavior is attributable to the Catholic church in Rome.


    No, it doesn't.

    Keep in mind Catholicism is more cult than true Christian.


    At least, that is what the cultish Baptists say...

    Yuk, yuk, yuk!

  • ||

    And the cultish Catholic? Fuck Scripture, tradition is at least as important. I mean, after all, we've ALWAYS believed in Mary's beatification, the concept of a papacy and those necessary indulgences.

  • ||

    Christianity began before a single word of the New Testament was even written, so to claim that Christianity has ever been based entirely on Scripture is ridiculous. Indeed it took a few centuries before they settled on which books were actually part of Scripture. (And Luther et al threw out a bunch of OT books that were problematic for his new doctrines, as well as shitting upon the Epistle of James for the same reason though he couldn't convince his allies to dump that from the canon too)

    Moog, do you believe in the Trinity? Where is that defined in Scripture?

  • ||

    What "evidence" of the Trinity do you require? That of Genesis or that of the Gospels?

  • Tman||

    I prefer British General Sir Charles Napier's reflection on multiculturalism.

    A story for which Napier was noted involved Hindu priests complaining about prohibition of Sati, often referred to at the time as suttee, by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As recounted in his brother William Francis Patrick Napier's book, History Of General Sir Charles Napier's Administration Of Scinde (1851), he replied:

    "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
  • ||

    The British empire (and probably this general) is responsible for far more death and destruction than Hindu funeral criminal acts. I so wish I can stuff this snotty Brit with a gun barrel.

  • Tman||

    The British empire (and probably this general) is responsible for far more death and destruction than Hindu funeral criminal acts.

    Probably true, but irrelevant to the point. Cultures that treat women as chattel are not ones that are able to easily coexist within modern western societies. If certain SMALL MINORITIES of Muslims insist on maintaining Shariah and other cultural customs within said modern societies they won't be allowed to remain exempt from our standards of justice.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The British empire was responsible for the spread of tenets of civilization like the English law system and capitalism. They did more for humanity than any other save perhaps America.

  • ||

    Note that nearly every former part of the British Empire that wasn't heavily settled by British people has abandoned those precepts. Singapore and Hong Kong are the exception; Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe are more the norm.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Most of the fault lies with the native culture. Not all of them went bad. Bostwana is really stable. Many of those African countries like Kenya are getting better because they are rediscovering British traditions such as rule of law...in a patchy way.

  • ||

    Did you even read Mr Napier's statement?

    He says that he will punish those who commit acts of violence in the name of their religion. Nowhere does he say he will prevent Hindus from practicing their religion in nonviolent ways because some of their traditions are violent.

  • Ken E.||

  • ||

    Smeared by intellectual zeros.

  • ||

    Whew -- that blog is truly teh stoopid.

  • Flava Cain||

    We don't need no stinking Constitution!

  • Barack Obama||

    Exactly, Flava.

  • mark||

    I've known several American Muslims. None of them were violent (unless violently provoked) and some of the nicest people I knew at the time. After 9/11, a guy in my science class named Ali was jumped in the bathroom by the local Nazi fucks. A couple of white kids walked in, saw what was happening, and beat the shit out of the nazis, and got Ali out of there.

    Yeah, there are some douchebags out there. Yes, some are more violent than others. This article acknowledged the douchebag section of Islam. The constitution isn't a "trap" that libertarians fall into.

    Personally, I think there needs to be a "fighting words" clause in the first amendment. Where if you want to protest at my dead gay Jewish soldier son's funeral, with your God Hates Fags bullshit, fine. But you can't sue when I kick your fuckin ass.

    Other than that, the whole "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" is pretty self explanatory. Yes, keep an eye on anyone advocating violence, I don't care what sect they are.

    Stop trying to Richard Stengel the constitution. It says things in clear English.

  • ||

    It says things in clear English?

    Funny, I don't see any authorization for the proposition that you get to steal my money in order to subsidize clowned costumed parasites to prohibit others from protesting your dead gay jewish soldier son's funeral - even if they are preaching "hate".

    In a free society, you do not ger to unleash violence against those who protest at military funerals. You get to have your ass thrown in the oven-even if you are jewish as there are no special rules for hebrews in a free society.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think he said that there should be any law against the douchebags protesting the funeral, just that he should be able to beat them up without getting sued. He also acknowledged that a change to the constitution would be required.

  • Meh||

    He lost Libertymike when he said he was jewish.

    Libertymike is reason's resident holocaust denier.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And slavery apologist.

  • muslim||

    Personally, I think there needs to be a "fighting words" clause in the first amendment. Where if you want to protest at my dead gay Jewish soldier son's funeral, with your God Hates Fags bullshit, fine. But you can't sue when I kick your fuckin ass.

    Yeah, or if you publish a picture of the Prophet (PBUH) you can't sue when I blow up your newspaper office. I'm glad someone gets it. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with causing offense unharmed.

  • ||

    And there we have it. In Islam, offensive cartoons depicting a caravan-robbing pedophile for what he is, are reason enough to blow up a building full of people, most of which had nothing to do with those cartoons.

  • ||

    Only the radicals, of which there are a lot more on the Left, feel this way. This is just sensational, agendized journalism.

  • ||

    You have not done a very good job of adducing specific, concrete and detailed examples of your asseveration, have you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Yet the Bible has more than a few alarmingly violent and intolerant passages and even the relatively pacific New Testament contains an exhortation from St. Paul to avoid friendships with non-Christians.


    Interesting to compare a compilation of many texts spanning several centuries (the Bible) with a book supposedly written by ONLY ONE MAN (the Koran). Besides, St. Paul never advocated forced conversions or becoming friends with Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians under false pretenses in order to screw them. Who is being more ethical?

  • Max||

    lol At defending the legitimacy of one holy book vs another.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    At defending the legitimacy of one holy book vs another.


    Shhht! Shut it, Max! Go play with your toy bone outside! Go, git!

    By the way, I am not discussing the legitimacy of one over the other, but I cannot expect pet yorkies to know how to read English.

  • ||

    The Torah was supposedly entirely written by Moses and most of the New Testament was written by Paul. And of course Christians believe the entire thing was patrolled by the Holy Spirit to prevent error.

  • ||

    The four gospels of the New Testament authors are named for the people who wrote them (Mark, Luke, etc...)

    Paul wrote a lot of the epistles (letters).

    The Five Books of the Torah is maybe half of the Old Testament.

  • Apostate Jew||

    Significantly less than half. But since you know little about your holy book why should you know much about mine?

  • ||

    I didn't know it was a math test. You talking with or without the Apocrypha? By number of books or pages?

  • ||

    The Torah has more than its fair share of the "problematic" parts of the Hebrew Scriptures.

  • Apostate Jew||

    The Tanakh consists of 24 books, so not so much as a math test as an indicator of your ... um ... lack of knowledge.

    Tulpa, I much prefer the angry, bloodthirsty, vengeful G-d to Jesus H. Nicey Compassiony Christ. They're both fake, but the angry one is more, well, human and thus more interesting.

  • Zeb||

    Why does this sort of discussion always devolve to a discussion of whether Christianity is better? So the fuck what? I agree that Christianity is a less violent and bloodthirsty religion than Islam. So what? They are still both a just bunch of made up stories that some people choose to believe to some extent. I don't care what crazy made-up shit anyone wants to believe. When their actions become criminal and harm other people, they should be stopped. Until then, they get to do whatever they want to whether they are Christian or Muslim or other.

  • Almanian||

    Why? Teams.

    Team Red, Team Blue. Team Pro Choice, Team Pro Life. Team Crescent, Team Cross.

    It's always about the TEAMSZZ, Zeb!

  • jasno||

    Ditto.

  • ||

    When Christianity was as old as Islam is now, it was burning heretics, locking people who charged interest in dungeons, subjecting women to prick tests of their interior genitalia in an attempt to find witches, and starting holy wars left and right over whether a piece of bread was Jesus.

  • ||

    The papacy was responsible for most of those things, not "Christianity".

  • ||

    Protestants did every one of those things too. Ever heard of the Salem witch trials?

  • Tim||

    To think that the Kochtopus is funding this pro muslim propaganda. Alert Daily Kos!

  • ||

    The Muslime population of the US is going to DOUBLE in the next 20 years!!! That's right, in 2030 they will make up a staggering 1.7% of the US POPULATION!!! Stop them before they take over!!!

  • jacob||

    LOL

  • GregorySmith3||

    So Muslim apologizers, what happens when Muslim women demand women-only hours at public swimming pools, do you give up and bring back segregation?

    What about pork in schools, eventually Muslims are going to demand pork-free lunches, do you accommodate that?

    What about driving licenses and the burka-wearing babes? Do we change the laws so our Muslim Klansmen can keep their hoods on?

    I am not afraid of moderate Muslims that ADAPT, I am afraid of the ones that demand everyone else adapt to their needs.

  • ||

    The government shouldn't be operating swimming pools or serving lunches at all anyway, so the private parties who do can make that decision. As far as the drivers licenses go everybody needs to have their face visible on the photo and you shouldn't be driving with a burqa anyway as it cuts down on peripheral vision.

  • GregorySmith3||

    I know that, Tulpa. But the reality is that the government does operate those things and you're gonna have people asking for special treatment.

    That's why I always say that multiculturalism is our enemy. If all cultures are equal than no culture is superior, thus any culture can demand accommodation by the larger culture.

    That's why while I can tolerate individual Muslims, I will fear radical Islam and I will speak against it and I will not let the Muslims take an inch because if they do, they'll take a mile.

    Visit one of the gay-free zones in Londonistan if you don't believe me.

  • Tony||

    Your defense of gay mobility is welcome and terribly sincere I'm sure.

    Just because your culture happens to be in the majority doesn't make it superior. Multiculturalism is a good way to teach young people not to hate people for skin-deep differences. A citizen is a citizen and they can do whatever the fuck they want within the law, just like you.

  • cynical||

    But an Islamic caliphate would not be multicultural, it would have a superior culture. Shouldn't you be pro-Shariah law?

  • Cytotoxic||

    We privatize all that shit. Very simple.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure what Muslim apologists you mean. I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. They can form their own private organizations and schools, just like the fundy Christians and Jews do.

  • Kolohe||

    What about pork in schools, eventually Muslims are going to demand pork-free lunches, do you accommodate that?

    I frankly worry about the Vegetarians before I worry about anyone else for that.

  • Kolohe||

    oh, and GREGGGGOOOOOOOOO!

  • Marco Otero||

    Oh how awesome! The main point of this article is that we need to be more "tolerant" of Islam at least until Islam manages to modernize and be a little less barbaric than it is now much like we secularized christianity and judaism lol

    I am not in favor of banning Islam, or preventing muslims from entering the country or anything crazy like that. But I am in favor of being as critical and outspoken as needed.

    Islam is a dangerous religion that has not been properly domesticated. Until that happens, I will not tolerate it because that would be irresponsible.

    If you love freedom, if you are not a misogynist and believe in women's rights and gay rights etc you MUST speak out against Islam.

  • cynical||

    There's a difference between denouncing and oppressing.

  • ||

    Is not allowing immigration oppression?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes.

  • ||

    No.

  • JCR||

    In and of itself, No. Only a citizen has a right to be here. Anybody else can be denied entry or expelled.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's oppression of those who would hire or otherwise associate with the would-be immigrants.

  • cynical||

    Unequal treatment under the law could be considered oppression, yes.

  • ||

    Is not allowing immigration oppression?

    If it's based on religious or racial grounds, yes.

  • MWG||

    "If it's based on religious or racial grounds, yes."

    I would expand this and say that if it's based on anything other than the potential immigrants threat to the rights of others (Has he committed serious crimes in his home country).*

    *and sure, we should prohibit those who carry communicable diseases as well. Why the hell not?

  • ||

    I would think that a consideration of how difficult it will be for them to find gainful employment in the US would be acceptable as well.

  • ||

    The Muslim religion is the most backward of the current world religions. History teaches us that there were crazier religions, but today, Muslims take the prize.

    Are there crazy christians in the US? Sure. But of course, they are not prevailing on most issues dear to them (abortion, same sex marriage, etc.). Our democratice system (such as it is) has been keeping them at bay fairly reasonably. The question is, are we prepared to treat Muslim entreaties to "respect' their religion in the same way we do the christers? I doubt it. The left in this country will prostrate themsleves before the Muslims in an effort to show how liberal and tolerant they are. They wouldn't do that for a second with the christers. Consistency is the key.

  • Jim||

    Whatever happened to that old saw, "individuals act"?

    I think we're kind of missing the point in talking about what Islam does or doesn't teach. It doesn't matter. What matters is what individuals do with their interpretations of those teachings.

    When a muslim commits an act of aggression against someone, he/she can and should be held completely responsible for that action, and suffer the appropriate penalty. But the religion behind his action should not enter into the equation.

    If Stormfront suddenly became the most popular website on the internet, and they wanted to set up shop in every city, that should be perfectly fine as long as each person who commits aggression towards another is punished according to the individual crime. That would not justify outlawing Stormfront, however.

  • cynical||

    At the same time, it might justify putting those who read it under closer scrutiny, if they're substantially more likely to commit crimes.

  • Zeb||

    And those people with Gadsden flag bumper stickers too. Better watch them.

  • cynical||

    Are they prone to commit crimes?

  • Not Sure...||

    But statistically black people are more prone to commit crimes, per capita, than whites. So do we put them under enhanced scrutiny?

  • Apostate Jew||

    De facto or de jure?

    Prosecutors aren't running up their score with suburban pot smokers and pill poppers.

  • cynical||

    Yup.

  • cynical||

    (that yup was directed at Apostate Jew)

  • Jim||

    Perhaps, but closer scrutiny =/= banning.

  • Zeb||

    Well stated, Jim. That is what I have been thinking reading the comments here. It doesn't matter (or shouldn't matter to the law) what kind of shit people believe. Until and unless they commit some act that harms someone else.

  • ||

    Beat me to it

  • MWG||

    Fucking individual rights, how do they work?

  • despindle||

    Herman Cain is the embodiment of anti-Muslim bigotry in the Republican presidential election. He said he would not appoint a Muslim in his cabinet because he would be afraid they might be a terrorist.

    Then yesterday on a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace he said Christians should be able to block the building of Mosques anywhere. Chris Wallace looked at him incredulously and was like "haven't you heard of the first amendment?" "would you like to restate that?" "As someone who grew up black in the 50s and 60s don't you see the parallels to what you are saying?" and Cain just kept digging deeper.

    The man is a complete bigot and needs to be off the debate stage as quickly as possible. Let him spew his hate elsewhere.

  • ||

    As much as we love outsiders in these contests, most of the outsiders you're going to get in a high-stakes elections are going to be political shock jocks like Herman Cain.

    I don't even know if there's a Godfather Pizza around me, but I'd be boycotting the flerk out of them if I did. That's something he needs to worry about too.

  • jacob||

    I'm with you 1000%, but I disagree that we need to get him "off the debate stage as quickly as possible."

    Bullshit like this makes Ron Paul look better and better to the general population.

  • ||

    A good chunk of the "general population" are nodding in agreement with Herman Cain's sentiments, also.
    Although, it does seem like Ron Paul is starting to get a little bit more mainstream consideration.

  • Moozlum||

    Derka derka!!!

    Muhammed jihad!!

  • ||

    """""But many self-styled anti-jihadists—Geller, her guru and comrade-in-arms Robert Spencer, Michelle Malkin, and quite a few others—go further, claiming that fanaticism, intolerance, and violence are at the core of Islam and that the religion is impervious to reform. Spencer, who blogs at JihadWatch.org, adamantly asserts that terrorism is the real face of Islam and that so-called moderate Muslims are either liars or dupes who don’t understand the true nature of their faith."""""

    Sure. I might agree with the characterization of Islam itself. What has that got to do with the fact that making distinctions of religion, or race, or gender, or any such property, in the application of justice is utterly unacceptable? What has that got to do with the fact that the governmental restriction or prohibition of ANYTHING, including religions, beyond the punishment of violations of life and liberty (regardless of cause) is absolutely and wholly without authority or justification? What has that got to do with the fact that government has no authority to determine what may or may not be built upon privately owned land?

    A Muslim plants explosives on a bus, yells "Allahu Akbar", runs, and the bus full of people explodes as he flees. He should be tried, convicted, and executed for his crimes, regardless of the motivation for the act. An animal rights activist intent on "sending a message" bombs a research laboratory, killing a lab full of scientists. He should be tried, convicted, and executed for his crimes. A guy living in a quiet suburban neighborhood, bored with his life, decides to start luring women to his house by arranging dates, rapes and murders them, and repeats the cycle several types. He should be tried, convicted, and executed for his crime.

    You see how that works? If you haven't already guessed, I don't believe in "hate crimes".

  • MWG||

    One of the many ironies of general conservative beliefs (and conversely the left for that matter).

    Most of them who fear 'teh mooslim hoards' and believe we should legislate accordingly also oppose 'hate crimes' legislation.

  • Zeb||

    So, when's the next Everyone Draw Mohamed Day?

  • John Rohan||

    This goes back to that old puzzle:

    Are you being tolerant if you tolerate intolerant people? Or does that make you intolerant instead?

  • poetry||

    Tolerate the bad beliefs, don't tolerate any crimes.

    It's that simple. Punish criminals, don't punish non-criminals. Is that really so difficult to understand?

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Ms. Young:

    How do you justify attacking only conservatives when liberals are so scared of Muslims, so Islamophobic, that they will prevent people from running cartoons of Mohammed in newpapers, or on TV?

    "Screw free speech for Americans! We don't want to anger the Muslims! We don't want to create recruitment tools, so all of you just sit down, shut up, and do what we say!!!"

    Both sides use these irrational cavemen as political clubs with which to bludgeon their opposition. Don't just go pointing one finger, lady.

  • ||

    The liberals aren't advocating the use of coercion to prevent the publishing of cartoons. Plenty of media outlets in the US published them with no reprisals.

    On this issue at least, conservatives are advocating coercion. Big difference.

  • ||

    i'd amend that to "most liberals". on democratic underground, there were some people claiming it was "hate speech" and that hate speech should be illegal, like it is in europe.

  • cynical||

    And others have suggested that those who run such cartoons are morally responsible for the actions of those that kill because of them, which (since we are talking about statists) is just laying the groundwork for legal action.

  • ||

    Don't forget the self-censorship. Even a university press book on the controversy didn't reproduce them!

  • ||

    Self-censorship is not coercion any more than suicide is.

  • ||

    Self-censorship due to fear of believable threats of violence is a form of coercion.

  • ||

    Making threats is a form of coercion, yes. But the people who self-censor are not the ones making the threats.

  • ||

    The liberals aren't advocating the use of coercion to prevent the publishing of cartoons.

    They aren't advocating it, but they are promoting it. By being "multicultural" and "sensitive" on the issue and refusing to reprint the cartoons in a scholarly book on the subject, preemptively giving in to the wishes of those who do or might threaten violence, they are promoting the use of coercion. By allowing themselves to be so easily coerced, they are showing that coercion works.

  • RyanXXX||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlJdsX181QU

    Joad Cressbeckler doesn't trust them Mohammedans, or them Spanish Coobans either

  • poetry||

    If they haven't committed a crime, they should be treated the same as you and me.

  • ||

    Huh? - that doesn't rhyme.

  • Underzog||

    Only now do I come across Ekaterina Jung's bullshit. Of course, it isn't bigotry when Muslims work to push the Jews of Israel into the sea or murder the apostate Rifqa Bary.

    Maybe this bith wants to have an excuse to wear the veil all the time to cover her face. Maybe she wants all other women to suffer with her.

    The Muslims are worse than the German Nazis. Even the Germans didn't jump up and down when Jews were killed. Hitler and his gang had to keep news of the extermination of the Jews pretty hidden or the Germans might feel sympathy for them. There is no such worry for the Muslims. They are so happy to kill Jews and Christians, except the problem for them is a pesky little Israel that they can't quite seem to beat. They may be more vicious than the germans, but they aren't the capable soldiers that the Germans were or we would all be dead.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • Kolohe||

    "The Muslims are worse than the German Nazis" At least they had an ethos!

  • ||

    So... why don't you go over to Lebanon and fight the good fight, then?

  • Mark||

    I disagree with both liberals who bury their heads in the sand and pretend that Islamism is not a threat and those conservatives who have advocated stepping on the 1st amendment rights of Muslims. Neither approach does freedom any favors.

  • ||

    Sadly, when cultures come into conflict with each other, freedom is the first to suffer.
    We will have to tread carefully if we are going to survive this conflict with our values and ideals intact.

  • Underzog||

  • Seguin||

    Herman Cain lost my vote. Either the whole Constitution applies, or none of it does. Either we all have liberty, or none of us do.

  • poetry||

    The constitution doesn't apply to people who scare me.

  • Underzog||

    "And thou shalt call him Ishmael and he will be a wildman. His hand against everyman and everyman's hand against him."

    Genesis 16:22


    "Rights are not involved in those primative societies.They make a deal with us. They want to bring us in to develop their oil and then they try to exploit and literally murder us by means of that oil. That is an unforgivable crime."

    Ayn Rand's final appearance on the Phil Donahue Show

    The Jewish Defense League Marching Song

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • ||

  • ||

    Great article.

    One line really disturbed me, though, for its obvious factual inaccuracy:

    "Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and other pundits equated the project with a Ku Klux Klan memorial at Gettysburg, a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum, each analogy equating mainstream Muslims with murderous aggressors."

    Ms. Young is badly misunderstanding the analogy here. Mainstream Muslims are being compared to Japanese civilians, some of the least violent people on the planet. The point is that a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, built by people who do not even remotely sympathize with Japanese WWII aggression, might offend people, and a Mosque built by people who do not condone the 9/11 bombings would likewise offend.

    I disagree with that argument. But the from Japanese to Muslims specifically notes that ordinary Muslims are not aggressors, and I'm surprised that Ms. Young has turned that upon its head.

  • ||

    Seeing as how Imperial Japan operated under the philosophy of a totalitarian variant of Shinto, the closest analogy would be a Shinto temple down the road from Pearl Harbor, which actually does exist.

  • ||

    And in the other two cases (KKK and Nazis) it's indisputable that the comparison is to murderous aggressors.

  • ||

    Undoubtedly. But Young accused "each analogy" of "equating mainstream Muslims with murderous aggressors." Taken in isolation the Japanese analogy clearly does not do so. And this, of course, was the point of most mainstream pundits, who sought to emphasize that ordinary Muslims are not terrorists but building a Mosque near ground zero would be offensive nonetheless.

  • longqi||

    And in the other two cases (KKK and Nazis) it's indisputable that the comparison is to murderous aggressors.

    http://intel-amd-via.com

  • ||

    You do not understand Islam, in my opinion.

    Even if we disregard the Koran and other Islamic literature, we have the example of the the revered prophet of Islam, Mohammad, who during his reign as the perfect example for the Islamic male, committed mass murder while raping and pillaging his way across the middle east.

    This is why Islam cannot be reformed, as the creator of Islam himself was a megalomaniacal maniac, unlike Christianity which benefits from the saving graces of a karaite Jewish man whose message was one of love and forgiveness.

    Islam is completely counter to libertarian values. When we look at the values of Islam they run completely counter to the values of libertarianism. Not only that, Islam like Nazism, is a very aggressive force ideologically as well as a physical threat. If we don't acknowledge these basic realities then the question is, is libertarianism about condoning destructiveness and violence in our very midst?

    There is no place for Islam in a functional free society. Both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have spoken about the barbarism of Islam and their active opinions of what should be done.

    We need to have a decisive unapologetic opinion as to what we need to do about Islam.

  • poetry||

    People are innocent until they commit a crime, derp.

  • Jerry||

    Islam is a corrupt and dangerous ideology. That it of course true of most other religions too, but modern day Christianity has been defused for the most part and Islam hasn't.

    I wonder if everyone would continue defending Islam if it didn't have the fancy label "religion" attached to it.

    It is not racist to condemn Islam just like it is not racist to condemn, say, Communism for the morally flawed ideologies that they are. Religion is a choice after all.

  • poetry||

    You can't put an ideology in jail. You can only put individuals in jail.

    We "liberal pussy raghead-lovers" are making the argument that we should only put criminals in jail. You know -- people who have actually committed a crime.

  • Mary||

    I didn't think that putting innocent people was being promoted.

    Discussions of zoning!=putting people in jail

    Limiting immigration!= putting people in jail.

  • ||

    I thought this was suppose to be a libertarian website? What's with all the liberal positions (prostration) on Islam?

  • poetry||

    Nobody is saying Islam is good. We're saying people are innocent until proven guilty, where guilty=having had committed a crime.

    We shouldn't put Marxists in jail just for being Marxists. Dangerous ideology, sure, whatever –- but you can't put the ideology in jail. You can only put individuals in jail, and libertarians tend to believe that people who haven't committed crimes shouldn't be in jail.

  • ||

    Oh is this Progressive Libertarianism?

  • poetry||

    Libertarians believe in due process, habeas corpus, and equality of individuals under the law.

    Believe in a dangerous ideology (Islam, Marxism, Statism of any kind) doesn't make you a criminal. Your actions make you a criminal.

  • ||

    Equality under a sharia? Wake up and smell the psychosis. Or go and do some research about women under sharia before you make some happy remarks about equality under the law.

  • ||

    It's uncanny how a lot of this anti-Muslim hysteria that has cropped up in conservative circles sounds almost word-for-word like the anti-Catholic hysteria that gripped America in the 1800s. Talk about a clear-cut case of history repeating itself. Maybe a few years from now we'll take repeating history even further by stuffing Muslim-Americans in boxcars and shipping them off to the showers.

  • ||

  • ||

    Apparently you have not read the history of Islamic expansion, i.e., expansion not by persuasion but by the sword. I see this agressive expansion as the makings for a future civil war in the U.S. 99 44/100 percent of anybodys expansionist program is done historically by persuasion. It is clearly apparent to me that you have not studied your history. My advise is to enroll in a history course that teaches the history of Islam.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    I think this country could learn a lesson from Israel on how religious minorities, Muslims especially are treated in that country. Israel has been under siege from unfriendly Muslim countries and terrorists since its founding in 1948. Yet, in spite of that, Israeli citizens of the Islamic faith enjoy the sames religious, political and civil rights as there fellow Jewish citizens. Israeli Muslims can build mosques without having to sue the local authorities. Israeli Muslims even serve in the nation's Parliament without controversy. As opposed to the United States where one Muslim gets elected to Congress and all the sudden it's some global Jihadist conspiracy. The Israeli Supreme Court consistently hands down rulings protecting the rights of Muslims and other religious minorities. Of course you'll never hear this in the mainstream media because Liberal pundits want to perpetuate the lie that Israel is an Apartied state and Conservative pundits want to perpetuate the lie that Islam is incopatible with democratic values.

  • ||

    Reminds me of an interview years ago with a Mossad spokesman commenting on airplane hijackings. Interviewer asks why E lAl doesn't have any planes jacked. Agent says they did have one, but they flew to Entebbe and got it back. Then he explains that El Al isn't a private air line. fFirst of all, they don't let Arabs on board. Then they interview the shit out of every passenger and off load anyone questionable. Then, if all else fails, the agent on board ventilates with an Uzi the first shit bird that screams Allah Akbar and then they pass the beverage cart.

  • Q||

    Public Enemy reference? Nah. That's too big a stretch.

  • ||

    This is MUST READ. Cathy Young is thorough and objective. The article is well researched and shows importance of tolerance in today's American society and elsewhere. It is also prescient because the publication appeared just when islamic terrorists started to get publicly accused for Oslo massacre.

  • hroark314||

    I think the differences between Islam and other mainstream religions are more profound than Ms. Young is willing to admit. To take the most obvious example, no other religion has pursued a sustained terrorist campaign against the country. To take another, more subtle example, the response of Muslims within this country to what they consider blasphemy has resulted in major politicians essentially repudiating the First Amendment and major corporations censoring themselves out of fears of violence. Add the political aspect of Islam, and its historic antipathy towards the West, and it become easy to see why people are uneasy with Islam.

  • ||

    There is no "alleged" menace of sharia. Have you studied the issue at all? The menace is very real.

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    is good

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement