See the latest squirrel. Jon Stewart reflects on the mosque near ground zero, Imam Rauf, and Preacher Jones.
Hear Imam Rauf’s words. Evaluate for yourself before the special ears of Fox News translate for you.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Islamophobiapalooza | ||||
|
||||
Is Imam Rauf being maligned by the conservative press? Was he threatening or was he interpretting what he thinks will happen?
Let’s put it this way…..If he was threatening….move the mosque. If he was warning about possible threats….move the mosque anyway. Never give into threats. Move the mosque BECAUSE of any threats. Moving the mosque would show the fanatics that we don’t care what they say. NOW, because of what he said, if the mosque stays, the fanatics will see weakness. In this war, perception of events can be very important. Since the “radicals” will hate us anyway, I don’t care if they think we are intolerant. Many of those radicals can’t believe otherwise, anyway, as their worldview cannot conceive true religious tolerance. But I do care if they think we are weak. One never wants to be seen as weak by a predator.
Stop the mosque. Move it.
What do we do about the Consitutional part of this?
And my only position is the people of New York should be the deciders and not all Muslims are bad people.
Other than that, I am merely a moderator.
He has a right to build a mosque. He even has a right to build it there if he has passed the zoning requirements. I would like to see the church that got destroyed rebuilt too.
But, this isn’t about NYC stopping him. This is about the people convincing him to move by using THEIR 1st Amendment rights.
Not all Muslims are bad people. I know many and have worked with many. But building the mosque there is just a bad idea at this time and Rauf has shady connections and a shady past. Just because Bush’s administration was stupid enough to hire him is not a valid point of support.
Dennis Miller said he used to be Islamoindifferent…I think that might be me. Or Islamoambivalent might be closer.
In 10 years, will anyone care?
Imam Rauf is “Islamofunny.” You should hear him compare Sharia Law to the American Declaration of Independence. You would think that they were babes out of the same womb.
In 10 years, yes. Because, unless we stop it, sharia WILL be part of public life.
Squirrel!
cargo, I don’t see us adopting sharia law any time soon or ever. What threats do you see out there that involve sharia law?
Now you have me thinking…why would any people wish that on themselves who weren’t holy people who want to keep control?
People don’t naturally seek out oppression. They seek to be free of it. Religion is used to control people as well as take care of that soul problem.
Imam Rauf claims that America is already “Sharia-compliant” in many ways. Wonder how right he may be. I recently came across a advertising flyer for Sharia-compliant mortgages to help Muslims avoid the Koranic admonition against usury. Interesting to find out just how deep this “Sharia-compliant” thing does go out of sight in this country and especially how many women may actually be caught up in a sub rosa parallel legal system without any publicity. As I recall, a few years ago in Canada there apparently was an experiment with Sharia law. A Muslim woman dissatisfied with the Sharia judgement on either divorce or inheritance (I forgot which) had the temerity to seek redress in the Canadian legal system. The judge involved reportedly had a real temper outburst, claiming that there was no way he was going to deny justice to a Canadian under the laws of Canada, Sharia or no Sharia. Great Britain does have a parallel legal system under Sharia, and I am not sure whether the High Court there knows exactly how to handle a situation in which part of the population maybe denied the most basic rights provided by their time-honored Common Law. It raises an interesting question. If the civil courts in a country can overturn the decisions of a Sharia tribunal, does that make that country “non-Sharia-compliant”?
But then, perhaps this is also what the imam had in mind. On 6 May 2010, Pam Belluck wrote in the New York Times that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was recommending that American physicians be allowed to perform a ceremonial or ritual pinprick or nick on the citorises of young girls of Islamic and/or African origins. This, according to the AAP, might prevent parents from taking those girls abroad for more radical surgery. The response from Rep. Joe Lowrey (D-NY) and others was, in essence, “No way!!!”
If ever adopted, one more tiny, tiny step toward “Sharia-compliant.” Of course, a clitorectomy in most parts of the world where such is inflicted for religious or cultural reasons on young girls is intended to have some rather serious consequences on the ability of the girl to…..well, I don’t need to explain in graphic detail. If this so-called ceremonial “pinprick” or “nick” did not accomplish that goal, then what is the point of it? Just the introduction of the first toe in the door, perhaps? Clitorectomies for anything but the most dire of medical necessities are forbidden by law in this country. But, if Sharia was ever allowed to operate as a parallel legal system,, who knows what might develop?