Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
If what I've heard about the religion is true - that there is no separation of church and state... That Sharia is the recognized authority.. then IMHO Marty is not far off the reservation.Or something..
While I won't trouble myself to read the New Republic, the vitriolic screed by the whoever that wrote that post doesn't persuade me to his side.
Since when is it a capital offence to dis a religion?I don't get this new-found love the left has with Muslims.
Peretz cuts loose and lets the racism fly. Like today:But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.Muslims are a race now. In other news, the WSJ has a snippet about an Iranian women sentenced to stoning could be executed after Ramadan.
Since when is it a capital offence to dis a religion?I don't get this new-found love the left has with Muslims.Does make you wonder, especially considering how 'respectful' the left is toward Christianity.
What if the founders of this country had been Muslims ?I say thnk God they weren't.
I don't get this new-found love the left has with Muslims.I think this can be summed up by the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I sense a "we need to be better than them to set an example" bought of paternalism coming on.
Why not discuss the idea rather than attacking the person making it?
Peretz is just echoing Jean-François Revel:"But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's right to oppose and criticize the system. Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. ...To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying it principles."
I a few geberations there won't be any Muslims: they will either have all committed suicide, or reduced themselves to insignifigance due to inbreeding.Caught this blog at PJM this morning:http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=disasterous+consequences+of+muslim+inbreeding&d=67518734270590&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=aeb9e93,3993768eNote: that's the cached address, as PJM seems to have taken theoriginal down.
Dumb. The first amendment is there to be abused. It is there for people you disagree with. If not for the first amendment, your speech could be tamped down as easily as your neighbors.
These are not PRIVILIIGES, they are RIGHTS....though I suppose the Left has a hard time wrapping their heads around that...
Dear Marty Peretz: Some questions: 1) Is it the "Bill of Rights" or the "Bill of Privileges?" 2) Who made you King so you could decide which ethnic or religious groups qualify for the rights guaranteed to all? For the answer, stand on your head and read this post, bitch.
I think Peretz was a big Obama supporter in 2008.
The first amendment is there to be abused. It is there for people you disagree with.I don't have a problem with them using it.. I just want more of us to use it (first amendment) to check their anti-democratic, anti-western, ant-women/gays, anti-American bs.We need to listen carefully to what they say and what they do.
"I don't get this new-found love the left has with Muslims."Dear Lem: Protecting the US Constitution and American freedoms for all does not mean anyone likes Muslims. It means we like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As opposed to most (but not all) conservatives and Republicans who want to repeal certain Amendments and take away the direct election of Senators, etc. It's their bridge to the 19th century. p.s. Waiting for Scott M to take you to task for accusing all left of something. Just not holding my breath.
Scott: "These are not PRIVILIIGES, they are RIGHTS....though I suppose the Left has a hard time wrapping their heads around that...""The Left" is punting Marty Peretz all over the place over this disgusting screed. But we routinely punt Marty because he's full of crap.
p.s. Waiting for Scott M to take you to task for accusing all left of something. Just not holding my breath.Lem, don't paint with such a broad brush. It's intellectually dishonest. That being said, I wonder too about the left's new-found love for Muslims.
"It means we like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights."You like the Constitution as paper by which to make socialist origami, "more honor'd in the breach than in the observance"
With the demise of the Soviet Union and the final repudiation of communism by any sensible and reasonable measure, it was incumbent upon the left to find another cause to champion that would stick a finger in the eye of normal patriotic Americans. You see it is not “cool’ or avant garde enough for these simpering hipsters to value the simple virtues of America and the things that made our country great. So they have adopted the care and cosseting of the Muslims as their cause. They will excuse any atrocity, minimize any outrage and turn a blind eye to the fact that the “religion of peace” is a death cult bent on the destruction of our civilization.The great irony is of course is that the mainstays of the left are the first people the Muslims will put up against the wall. Gays, Lesbians, Feminists, and intellectuals will be the first ones eliminated in an orgy of destruction not seen since the salad days of another liberal fave Pol Pot.So the liberals will hide behind the shield provided by everyday working class patriotic Americans in our Armed Forces, our police departments and our fire and rescue squads. They will laugh at their opinions and sensibilities and call them bigots and fools for saying that is not appropriate to build a mosque at ground zero where the actual debris fell from the attack by these murderous barbarians. They will tell them to shut up and not protest the actions of their overlords by forming a “Tea Party.” They will tell them that they do not know enough to express an opinion or influence a debate. Like Thomas Friedman they will long for the control of the totalitarian oppression of the Chinese Communists central committee. Listen to your betters. Just do the work and shut up so they can create “art” and “literature” and indoctrinate your children in academia while you pay the bill in blood and treasure while they while away the hours in hedonistic pursuits.They are quite simply fools. And they are on display in these threads each and every day.
"It means we like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights."You mean you don't complain about Constitution as being a document of negative rights? Are they going to revoke your card?
Peretz demotes First Amendment rights to mere "privileges", yet it's Muslims who are un-American?
What people need to understand is that we are at war. We need a program to evaluate all Muslims living in this country. We need to be agressive in deporting threatening Muslims. We may need to consider setting up facilities to house Muslims that need to be deported or further evaluated.
I don't have a problem with them using it.. I just want more of us to use it (first amendment) to check their anti-democratic, anti-western, ant-women/gays, anti-American bs.But if someone decided to check speech in any way, it would probably be the very kind of speech you want to hear. There is a reason free speech, freedom of assembly, etc are in the Bill of Rights.
To the extent Muslims are here, they are entitled to the protections of our Constitution.However, it is in our national interest to fashion our immigration laws such as not to let any more Muslims in.As a tiny minority, they represent no real threat to our way of life. The larger their numbers, the greater the threat, to wit: see certain European countries that are finding this out now.All cultures are not equal. Most of us do not wish to live per their "way of life."
Oh, and one other thing. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
The first amendment is not an absolute. You are not free to defame people. Likewise you are not free to practice your religion if it includes cannibalism or human sacrifice. If your religion involves melting skyscrapers and trying to destroy our government then we should have no qualms of limiting it either.
Scott MLemThere is no 'new found love' for Muslims. What there is, is an 'old true love' for the Constitution. You know, that document that Conservatives usually only refer to when they want to defend the things they think are important but which they ignore when others they oppose refer to it.I could personally not care less about the Muslim religion. But when someone starts saying one religious group does not deserve First Amendment rights that is a serious problem for everyone. I hope you can see that. I'm not sure why Conservatives are unable to see the difference between Muslims in the US and terrorists. Amazingly I can see the difference. I can also see the difference between abortion clinic bombers and Christians. Some Conservatives seem to be completely clueless as to why we said we went to war in the first place. Something about winning the hearts and minds of Muslims? Something about freeing Muslims from the Taliban and Saddam? Why would we free them if we don't think they deserve rights? Why not just kill them all? I'm sure many Conservatives would actually like that.Note this kind of bullship spouted by Marty Peretz will win no hearts or minds from the Muslims.
Matt,In my case, it was snark. With this issue, I don't really give a fig and, frankly agree with some of what you're saying. But, just as frankly, we in the US are afforded the luxury of thinking this way. If, adjusted for population differences, we were dealing with the same problems Europe currently is, you have to admit the discussion would be very different. Please bear that in mind.
"If your religion involves melting skyscrapers and trying to destroy our government then we should have no qualms of limiting it either."My goodness...it's a good thing there is no religion that holds such acts as part of its tenets.
I'm not sure why Conservatives are unable to see the difference between Muslims in the US and terrorists.A. This is not true of all conservatives so stop with that line.B. I disagree with the guy about the first amendment abuse issue (see above), howeverC. Some of "our" muslims are terrorists or have sympathies. Lots don't, sure, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to watch out for terrorism on our soil. Those guys who ran planes into the WTC, they were living here, for a while. It didn't make them not terrorists.
Scott MI fear that many are not joking though. I do understand the need to be aware of radical Muslims. Just like we have to be aware of criminals and radicals of all kinds.However, there comes a time where we have to really think about curbing our freedoms and those of fellow Americans in order to be safer. Because at the end of the day we actually won't be safer.After the Civil War a good number of whites were scared of the freed slaves. They thought they would revolt. It lead to some of the worse actions of Americas toward other Americans. While I don't expect hangings to begin again I cringe when I see non-Muslims wanting to marginalize Muslims or make them prove their loyalty all the time or force them to leave. That is patently unAmerican to me.
How is it that police can arrest people for terroristic threats for only speaking words such as "I will kill You"? The first amendment allows their speech but the courts also punish its use as a terror weapon. The muslims are doing just that by using spoken threats as weapons, and their mosques are where they meet to recruit soldiers of allah and plan attacks in the USA.
My goodness...it's a good thing there is no religion that holds such acts as part of its tenets. Most of what you write, Cookie, is hard to believe.This bit is a classic even for you.Do you actually exist? Are you a jihadist in disguise?
"That is patently unAmerican to me."Recently, two Somali women in town were arrested for raising money for a fake charity, as funds were being sent to train Islamic terrorists.That is patently unAmerican.I don't accept a loyalty oath. I want fewer admitted as citizens. And by fewer I mean none.
Cook wondered: My goodness...it's a good thing there is no religion that holds such acts as part of its tenets.Are you really that clueless that you weren't paying attention to the war being waged on us since 1979 and the attacks on Sept 11, 2001? Not all muslims are jihadists or support the jihad. But the ones building that mosque certainly are.
Just do the work and shut up so they can create “art” and “literature” and indoctrinate your children in academia while you pay the bill in blood and treasure while they while away the hours in hedonistic pursuits.That's pretty heavy stuff Troop. I mean I buy and everything, but surely such a system cannot last forever.
I don't care how long the MSM are gonna censor the 9/11 pictures from our TV screens. The pictures of those heinous Palestinian creatures wallawallawallaing their hideous triumph in the streets are indelibly printed on my brain.
It will not last forever. Something has to come along to change it. It remains to be seen what that will be.I am not sanguine in my belief about the outcome of this change.One way or the other it does not bode well for the regular normal American like you and me.
Islam is the "pet" religion of the left, Christianity is the same for the right. That's the way it works these days folks.The "just equal treatment under the Constitution" meme is unconvincing too - if it was the case the left would be condemning Muslims for sins it has no problem ragging on the Christian churches for e.g. sexism.
Trooper York what is this stuff you describe as the “simple virtues of America”? Do you mean the dissent from misplaced authority, the organization of labor, the toleration of different religious beliefs, the expression of the individual in the arts, the right to remain silent, the support of our constitution? if so please note that these are causes also shared by those on the “left”, and to claim that those who call for religious tolerance is sticking a finger in the eyes of “normal” Americans is absurd. I am sure that you are right and that some extremist who meet in mosques, just as we have found some extremist meet in Christian militia organizations. And when they threaten society through plans for actions, they should be treated as criminals. Still I do not advocate banning milita groups, any more than I would advocate banning mosques.
No one is calling for banning mosques. Just asking that they extend a modicum of the tolarance and understanding they demand for their outre practices of stoning women and ripping the clits out of little babies.They are free to preach to their misbeggoten adherents just like the Scientologists and the Hari Khrisna's and the Druids and the kids obessed with Twilight for all most of us care.But most normal regular Americans are tied of hearing that when you pile shit on the Virgin Mary it is art that the government should pay for but you have to understand why someone would be offended enough by a cartoon or a film that they can be murdered. It's a clutural difference you see. We have seen before our very eyes what this is about.September 11th is just a few days away.I haven't forget. Or forgiven.
"Still I do not advocate banning milita groups, any more than I would advocate banning mosques."You may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is a t war with you.The Christians? Not so much.
Aren't you glad you can get people like Peretz to say it for you?
Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn now and again.
Does make you wonder, especially considering how 'respectful' the left is toward Christianity.Good point, Hoosier. We shouldn't expect Christians to be any more civilized, non-violent and capable of tolerating criticism, offense and life in a free society than we might expect Muslims to be.
Trooper YorkI think you are just confused. You seem to see no difference between Muslims in America and some Muslims in other countries. If this is the case then I suppose you also cannnot tell the difference between Iranians or Saudis or Palestinians in America either. Get out more.
"Get out more."Mebbe they should stop bombing so much shit and killing people, at least for awhile.
...than we might expect Muslims to be."What a strange statement, whether serious or in jest.
Hey everybody, check out what Pogo said:I don't accept a loyalty oath. I want fewer admitted as citizens. And by fewer I mean none.Pogo, were you the guy applying the restriction quotas that the U.S. used to prevent "too many" Catholics or Southern and Eastern Europeans from being admitted in a former life?You never know. If it weren't for the Muslims, you might have to reinstate the prejudices that gave you something to stand for a few decades ago.
What a strange statement, whether serious or in jest.I find being cryptic is the way to engage a mind inured to unreason. Let's play a game, Pogo. What does the term "Western Civilization" mean to you?
You are witty guy Matt.A shepard knows the difference between every one of his sheep.To the rest of us not so much.Because they follow the path of radical Islam like so many sheep.You should get out more. You might pick up on how much they hate our society and want to go back to medieval times and the practices of their Sharia Law.
I find being cryptic is the way to engage a mind inured to unreason."That is, you can't write a sentence that actually means anything, just polysyllabic bullshit that you think contains some real pearls of wisdom.But Ritmo, they ain't pearls, jes' partially digested corn.
"What does the term "Western Civilization" mean to you?"Everything Ritmo is not and cannot be.
Hey Pogo:Fuck you too. Let me know how that whole war against 20% of the world ends up, ok?
The problem with Muslims is that, like the Catholics, they give subservient allegiance to a foreign entity. This is what makes them hate our freedoms and the traditions they are rooted in.Oh wait. That's not the case. It's just the same argument that would have been used by the crowd here years ago. Let's keep seeing people as inseparable from a religious tradition, guys. Let's keep fucking up our history. Let's keep not believing in the power of what tolerance and a life in America can accomplish.You guys are a bunch of damn sissies when it comes to the persuasive power of reason and the ability to treat everyone as an individual.But especially that shit-for-brains Pogo.
Yeah, I figured you just showed up to spew."Let me know how that whole war against 20% of the world ends up, ok?"Sure, but we got an edge. They are a death cult, and we want to help them in any way we can.
Everything Ritmo is not and cannot be.Sounds like Pogo's monosyllabic bullshit has even less meaning in it.But at least he kept the words short and simple. Just the way his thoughts are.
"...the persuasive power of reason and the ability to treat everyone as an individual."At the moment, I favor the the persuasive power of weapons, at least until they decide to stop blowing shit up everywhere they plant their flag.
They are a death cult, and we want to help them in any way we can.A "death cult" that still seems to be out-reproducing yours, dumbass.
"But at least he kept the words short and simple. Just the way his thoughts are."Agreed. I find it keeps me from thinking I'm smarter than the average joe, just because I can string together something only an intellectual would believe.Some really smart people can convince themselves of the dumbest shit. You, for example.
"A "death cult" that still seems to be out-reproducing yoursThe left is a death cult as well, with abortion, euthanasia, and green teaching that man is evil, like that Lee guy just shot at Discovery channel.That's why the left loves Islam.Birds of a feather.
Agreed. I find it keeps me from thinking I'm smarter than the average joe, just because I can string together something only an intellectual would believe.The more likely possibility is that you believe you flatter yourself by trying to identify with people who are proud of their ignorance.But hey. If that's all you've got to take pride in... Some really smart people can convince themselves of the dumbest shit. You, for example.Which must be why each of your encounters with me here end up with you proving yourself incapable of arguing your way out of a paper bag.
Hey everybody! Check out how Pogo ignores the idea that the label of "death cult" has nothing to do with who's not only living, but reproducing at a faster rate:"A "death cult" that still seems to be out-reproducing yoursThe left is a death cult as well, with abortion, euthanasia, and green teaching that man is evil, like that Lee guy just shot at Discovery channel.That's why the left loves Islam.Birds of a feather.Like I said. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag.
Pogo, Isn't your chapter of the John Birch society meeting tonight?Who will be the keynote speaker? I heard the topic is "The Muslim Threat to America. Worse than the Catholic Threat?"Run along, Pogo. Run along. There are Muslims to fight. Just don't let them distract you from the Catholics.
"people who are proud of their ignorance."Yeah, pretty much what I guessed you actually thought about average joes like my dad and grandpa. "end up with you proving yourself incapable of arguing your way out of a paper bag"Oh, yes, is excellent argumentation like where you write:"Hey Pogo:Fuck you too. "??I mean, that's some solid intellectual logic and reasoning there, Ritmo. Call me dazzled in my bitter defeat, gnashing my teeth at how effortlessly brilliant it makes you. Damn. Now I'm depressed.
From those rabid John Birchers at MSNBC and Newsweek:Exploring Islam's 'Death Cult'"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that “a death cult” …“has taken root” in Islam, “feeding off it like a cancerous tumor.”...In fact, there is an argument to be made that “death cult” Islam is a relatively modern illness. Its genesis goes back to the 19th century, but it really took off in the latter part of the 20th century with the Wahhabist-influenced jihad movement in Afghanistan, and the advent of the Saudi petrodollar, which helped spread this extreme puritanical version of Islam. Even suicide bombing, the Muslim diplomat points out, was taboo only a few decades ago: Khalid Islambouli, who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981, didn't dare kill himself because “it was a big sin in Islam.”Can't trust those goddamned righties, can you, Ritmo.
Is "Average Joe" your self-congratulatory description of "working class heroes"? Can Muslims claim membership in your "Average Joe" club? Can they be "Average Juwads"? Or is tolerance and respect of such people beneath you? I figure that, in your book, only the left would do such a thing. Average Joes are too good to think well of anybody but themselves, apparently.
I am sorry if I seem depressed but I always get that way this week of the year.I just think of the people who aren't here anymore because of the people that roesch-voltaire and matt loves so much that they can only make excuses and plea bargin for over and over again.It just gets me down.
Just tell me how Newsweek and MSNBC and Tom Friedman are Birchers again, Ritmo.I love that story.
Can't trust those goddamned righties, can you, Ritmo.No, I just can't trust idiots who can't read what Friedman actually wrote.Try again, Average Juniper. If you try hard enough, your reading comprehension might just break it through the "average" level.
Ritmo:"Or is tolerance and respect of such people beneath you?"and"people who are proud of their ignorance."Lefties are actually proud of their cognitive dissonance.
" idiots who can't read what Friedman actually wrote"Oh, please do share the lefty version.I'll bet it's chock full of corn, er, pearls.
Do they teach prepositions to "Average Joes", Pogo? Do "Average Joes" have a different understanding of the word "in" than Friedman or the anonymous author at MSNBC have?Is the car in your garage synonymous with the garage itself?Such challenging, unaverage questions for our Lake Wobegon resident, Pogo.
I knew this girl who opened a restaurant on Court St. It was a wonderful little place full of nice touches. But running a small business is a really tough job so she took a great job as a banquet manager at this big time restaruant. At the World Trade Center.
Well, at least Pogo's not above going to someone with as hyperbolic, with as little authority and who's been proven wrong as often as Tom Friedman has on Islam and world events. Tell me, Pogo. How many Friedman units are left before the apocalypse between the "Average Joes" and the "Average death cult aderents" - or as you call them, "Muslims"?
"have a different understanding of the word "in""Stupendous!Oh frabjous day!A Clintonian masterpiece, arguing about the meaning of "in".I can see you are a true Jedi Master of Kollege Kudzu, a labyrinthine level of BS that few have achieved.My hat is off to you, sir.
I am sorry if I seem depressed but I always get that way this week of the year.No apology neccessary. You give and dish so much fun and laughs throughout the year.
There were these two dudes who went to school with my friend Aaron who were bond traders and came with us to the Yankee game a few times when we had season tickets.They worked at Cantor-Fitzgerald.
The meaning of the word "in" is not much more difficult than the word "is". You just refuse to accept the definition.It's a pretty simple word, Pogo. Remember, you like short, sound-byte type words. Don't let the other average Joes down, now.
Tell me, Pogo. How many Friedman units are left before the apocalypse between the "Average Joes" and the "Average death cult aderents" - or as you call them, "Muslims"?Friedman Units--known amongst the serious by the abbreviation FU, or as the French would have it: UF
Don't get me confused, Chicklet. I'm trying to figure out our friend from Lake Wobegon's take on the word "in", now. You might start making me have flashbacks to that Weird Al film, "UHF" - ;-)
This time of year I always think of Jim Carroll the basketball junkie guy.
This time of year I always think of Jim Carroll the basketball junkie guy.Isn't there a street named after him near you?
Why Jim Carrol, TY? He died of a heart attack and not in the towers.
Teddy sniffing glue, he was 12 years oldFell from the roof on East Two-nineCathy was 11 when she pulled the plugOn 26 reds and a bottle of wineBobby got leukemia, 14 years oldHe looked like 65 when he diedHe was a friend of mineThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedG-berg and Georgie let their gimmicks go rottenSo they died of hepatitis in upper ManhattanSly in Vietnam took a bullet in the headBobby OD'd on Drano on the night that he was wedThey were two more friends of mineTwo more friends that diedThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedMary took a dry dive from a hotel roomBobby hung himself from a cell in the tombsJudy jumped in front of a subway trainEddie got slit in the jugular veinAnd Eddie, I miss you more than all the othersAnd I salute you brotherThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedHerbie pushed Tony from the Boys' Club roofTony thought that his rage was just some goofBut Herbie sure gave Tony some bitchen proof"Hey," Herbie said, "Tony, can you fly?"But Tony couldn't fly, Tony diedThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedBrian got busted on a narco rapHe beat the rap by rattin' on some bikersHe said, "Hey, I know it's dangerous, but it sure beats Riker's"But the next day he got offed by the very same bikersThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedTeddy sniffing glue, he was 12 years oldFell from the roof on East Two-nineCathy was 11 when she pulled the plugOn 26 reds and a bottle of wineBobby got leukemia, 14 years oldHe looked like 65 when he diedHe was a friend of mineThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedG-berg and Georgie let their gimmicks go rottenSo they died of hepatitis in upper ManhattanSly in Vietnam took a bullet in the headBobby OD'd on Drano on the night that he was wedThey were two more friends of mineTwo more friends that diedThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they diedMary took a dry dive from a hotel roomBobby hung himself from a cell in the tombsJudy jumped in front of a subway trainEddie got slit in the jugular veinAnd Eddie, I miss you more than all the othersAnd I salute you brotherThose are people who died, diedThey were all my friends, and they died(Jim Carroll, People that Died)
It's the waste in the song you know.All the reasons people die young.Who could comprehend that you could die just because you went to work that day.
The sense of loss is palpable to me this time of year.
Trooper, I'm not against keeping Park 51 away from the site, preventing it from being named "Cordoba" or otherwise discouraging a bunch of assholes from believing that the 1st amendment is a good reason to be an asshole and ruin the memory of good people. But that's not what prompted the discussion with Pogo, as you can see. Some people have taken it much, much further. I would have predicted that to be the case. People like Pogo and Hoosier are being used in no less insidious a way than they believe "the (generic, of course) left" are being used. That's what the pols want. You, obviously, have a much more sobering point to make. They, OTOH, don't. I wouldn't think bringing their generic rabble-rousing and inane worldviews to the level of what you wish to point out.
It is getting colder now in New York City at night even though it is in the seventies during the day.Every once and a while someone lights the first fire of the season in their fireplace.And you get that burning smell in the crisp fall air. It's musty and it smells bad because it is the first time through the chiminey.That smell brings back memories too.
Jim Carroll and I have a lot in common.We are both Irish and played a lot of basketball back in the day. Went to Catholic School with all that implies. We both loved poetry and punk music. There are a lot of differances too.I mean I never did drugs like he did because I am a drinking man. But I know where he is coming from.We both know about loss. It always seems to come up this time of year.
Ritmo, I appreciate what you say.I consider you and Pogo and Hoosier all friends of mine and I know we can get all caught up in the fun of arguing and making points for our side.I think we can all cut each other a break sometimes. Just sayn'
Jim Carroll made a great movie and I have no doubt of his talent or what he could convey and that anyone could (or perhaps should learn to) relate to. Anyways, my condolences for your many losses. I have no wish to see their memories insulted with such an ill-planned, ill-advised and intolerant gesture as the mosque and have no problem stating as much.You are a good man to not reduce this to a crude Christian-Muslim reductionism or a desire to fight something as abstract as an entire religion claimed by a billion people or to cheerlead on ridiculously, impossibly restrictive immigration practices.
Thanks but I am not a good man.I am far from the only person who has know losses from that day. It is just a bad time of year for all Americans who remember what went down.And how easy it would be for it to happen again.
The level of discusssion in this thread is truly dismal, mostly because of the inanity of Alpha, Ritmo, Robert Cook and a few others.Can we please raise the level of discussion and ignore the feeble-minded?Marty Peretz has raised an important issue. The distinguished, secular and liberal philosopher Richard Rorty argued that the pre-condition for membership in a pluralistic society is a willingness to recognize pluralism itself as a central value.I am opposed to granting equal standing in our society to any group that does not recognize the central value of pluralism--whether they are Sharia-focused Muslim theocrats or anti-abortion radical Christians or fundamentalist sects of Jews who want to live in segregated communities with religiously based laws enforced by political authority.
Ritmo, I don't know that anyone has advocated eliminating all islam. I don't know anyone who thinks this is a christian v. muslim issue. It's an American v. radical islam issue. Radical islam is at war with us. We didn't allow the Germans to build propaganda monuments during WWI or WWII. We didn't allow shrines to Hirohito to be built during WWII. We didn't allow North Vietnam to have public relations networks in Hollywood. Oh, wait. Skip that example.The point is that we are at war and this mosque is pure and simple just a propaganda attack on our country. We needn't allow it.
by using the term "these people" was the author refering to certain Christian sects? just curious as obviously they will abuse the 1st amendment.
I am opposed to granting equal standing in our society to any group that does not recognize the central value of pluralismDoesn't that eliminate you? After all isn't true pluralism accepting people who don't accept pluralism?
The court cases that defined the First Amendment tended to involve not-so-nice people. It's a right, not a privilege, to paraphrase the saying. If it wasn't a right it wouldn't mean anything.As for the rest of piece (not the snotty commentary on Salon) I have a hard time seeing what's so objectionable. It's an opinion piece. Why is having a negative opinion on a religion so bad? Is there really any one thing that he says that can be proven wrong? Not really. So the only thing quoted is the last paragraph.Well, I already said that "worthy" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Can the right to free speech be misused? Certainly it can. Speech can cause all kinds of damage.So what's objectionable? Muslims shouldn't have constitutional protection? I don't think that's the point. I think the point is exasperation that that protection will be given to people who don't deserve it. That's a constant in American history. Time and again people who do not have the best interests of America at heart use free speech to undermine the system that protects them.Ultimately, I don't think it matters. Muslims tend to alienate any society that they come into contact with. It's a self-correcting problem. Even within the Muslim world the current Jihadist paroxysm will exhaust itself when it kills enough Muslims to convince the rest that they are madmen. That happens every few decades.It's not worth sacrificing our hard earned freedoms to fight the bugbear of the moment.We can still do a lot to oppose people who are wrong, and who want to destroy the same freedoms we want to keep. It's just not worth it to lose more than we gain.The Peretz piece is simply speech. It's opposed to Islam. Well, OK, so is most of the world. He's in good company.
As an addendum, Communism was much more dangerous than Islam. It had far greater appeal worldwide, and was far more damaging within the West.And we still kept our First Amendment rights, even in the face of an enemy that could destroy us.Islam is nothing like that. It's been around far longer, and has done very little for a very long time.Iran is a very poor substitute for the USSR. Thank God.
Trooper York, The thoughts of millions of Americans are with you and other New Yorkers during this time of year. We have not forgotten.
"I don't get this new-found love the left has with Muslims."Barack Obama is a Muslim (a secret one, of course ... hush hush! Can't tell the hicks in the sticks or they won't vote for him, but all the insiders know the real story.)That's why the sudden newfound lefty love for Islam.
"We needn't allow it."They may build it (and for certain it is not for our government to prevent it since the Constitution guarantees that the government may not establish a religion).But we can prevent it. Us ... just regular people. We can interfere with its construction as an act of civil disobedience. In fact, we can tear the fucking thing down after they spend all that money building it.We can do that, as a community, as regular people, with no government involvement at all. And that would be strictly constitutional.You're Goddammned right we needn't allow it. And we - the People - won't.
" Muslims tend to alienate any society that they come into contact with. It's a self-correcting problem."Another person not paying attention. They cut off people's heads. There's no correcting that. Ham, I certainly sympathize with what you say, but this would create a propaganda coup for them. The way to have countered this was before they got a building permit.
"They may build it (and for certain it is not for our government to prevent it since the Constitution guarantees that the government may not establish a religion)."Ham, the government can most certainly not allow it and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being at war.
"The way to have countered this was before they got a building permit."Not possible when you have Mike Hussein Bloomberg for a mayor.Muslims should be ashamed of themselves for even considering building a mosque at Ground Zero. We can make them feel ashamed. Shame is a very powerful weapon that we don't need the government to wield.Good Muslims don't want this mosque built in this location. They need to speak up ... because the bad Muslims are ruining for the good Muslims.Bottom line ... it doesn't matter if they raise the money ... doesn't matter what Bloomberg says or does. This isn't going to happen and if it does happen, it's not going to stand.Period.Muslims need to get comfortable with that notion and move on.
"We can make them feel ashamed."I'm just simply dumbfounded at the lack of attention people have had. Maybe ADD is real after all.They cut off people's heads. They melt skyscrapers. Before flying jets into the ground in Pennsylvania and into a very large and important building in Virginia, they cut flight attendants' throats and left them gurgling in the aisles. These are not people who feel shame. I've been waiting for nine years for muslims to disassociate from the most radical among them. Haven't seen it yet. If a christian sect did something like this, I guarantee most other christian sects would loudly denounce them and even help to capture them. From so-called moderate muslims we get silence or cheering.There are good muslims, like the Azerbaijanis and the Turks and many others. These are not the ones building this mosque. Pay attention, people. Radical muslims want to kill us all if we don't convert, and maybe even if we do.
Skyler-I pay very great attention.What I mean is that in the VERY big picture they can't win. Even the medieval Spanish were able to push back. There's a limited geographic and cultural space that Islam can exist in. Political Islam has become simply a false prophet, claiming to be both anti-Western and modernizing (in the sense that they can pick the fruits without letting the tree of modernity grow). In that it's a lot like communism.Of course, we shouldn't just let things happen. It's not really a question of power but more of will. I think we'll be fine. I'm much more confident of that now than I was two years ago.And on the scale of other threats we've faced, it's nothing like the fascists or the communists. Given the choice of enemies between the Germans, Russians, or the Persians, I know which one I would pick.
@JoeTry not to be a juvenile idiot who makes silly arguments for the sake of a smirk. The affirmation of pluralism per se precludes a rejection of pluralism. This was Rorty's point, not a refutation of his argument. Or, try looking up the theory of logical types or look at Godel's theorem to get a clue.
Time and again people who do not have the best interests of America at heart use free speech to undermine the system that protects them.And yet, there it still is.
"Of course, we shouldn't just let things happen. It's not really a question of power but more of will."I don't dispute that. We should recall that our greatest weakness is our will or lack of thereof. The war involves bombs and bullets overseas but the critical part of the saris being fought at home for the will of our people. This is precisely why this propaganda stunt is so important. This is not a challenge to the first amendment. It is a challenge against our will to win this struggle.
iPhone changed "war is" to "saris" in my last post and I didn't catch it in time.
Musing more, I think that Islam grew so fast at the beginning because it filled the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire and of the Persian Empire. Islam initially expanded into areas that had opposed Christian orthodoxy and Roman rule in general, like Egypt and North Africa. Those areas are Muslim to this day.Oddly enough, Balkan Islam thrives in the same areas that harbored Christian heresies before the Ottomans came.So, in a sense, Islam is a reaction against Christianity and Western civilization.In India and SE Asia Islam took hold in former Hindu areas. Hinduism is a tough religion if you are at the bottom (I think that's where Buddhism came from), and I can see the appeal of Islam. At least you are more of an equal to other Muslims.This is pretty simplistic, but I heard it from one of my old Poli Sci profs and I think he was onto something. Strong, confident civilizations don't become Muslim. They can defeat military threats and don't produce many converts.Islam is bordered by Christians on two sides (Europe and Russia), China on another, and Africa to the south. Africans seem to prefer their own brand of evangelical Christianity, so that way is closed as well. The borders tend to be violent, but they aren't expanding much.
I think that is a very suspect theory, John. Christianity was quite strong in Byzantium and Egypt.
What the heck?"Palin is the most dangerous politician in America today. Her stated views are on the wildest fringe of conservative thinking. She opposes even the mildest forms of corporate regulation, thinks the New Deal made the Depression worse, believes the U.S. is and must remain a Christian nation, condemns the idea that “God should be separated from the state,” and, of course, wants to ban all abortions and make it illegal for gay people to marry. A large minority of voters are eating it up. According to recent polls, Palin’s approval rating is just under 40 percent, roughly ten points behind Obama’s. If he continues to sink, she may well keep rising.Worse, Palin conveys her positions with a menacing brilliance equaled by few populist figures from the past. Like Joe McCarthy,..."This is from Michael Kazin http://www.tnr.com/blogs/criticsLets start with the very first claim... she opposes even the *mildest* forms of corporate regulation... What planet does this fellow live on? Fantasy Island?Palin, as governor of Alaska, made it her business to let the oil companies there know who the boss was, to stop them from sitting on their contracts and when they said they'd sue she said they could try that and see how it worked out for them.The idea that Palin is *fringe* and opposes even *mild* corporate regulation is absurd.And then, of course, we could go to the last point I quoted which is comparing Palin to McCarthy.Lots of people thought the New Deal made the depression last longer... that's not really fringe. But did she even say that? Her "stated views" isn't that all abortions must be banned by the state, no matter she sees any abortion as a tragedy. She acted as governor to protect the benefits given to gay couples, something more substantial than the majority of Democrat posturing. (Obama's "stated position" is against gay marriage, do we have the memory of cabbages?)He got one thing right... her approval ratings aren't bad AT ALL and are likely to get better rather than worse.And you know why?People don't like liars. And way too many people are simply lying about Sarah Palin. Perhaps Mr. Kazin has an opinion about his boss's "stated views."Maybe?
On the other hand... he's entirely philosophically in sync with Marty Peretz, isn't he. It's all about dangerous ideas and people who are not worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment because what they wish to *say* is wrong. They abuse the privilege because their speech is *wrong*.If there is not some serious push back to that at the New Republic, the lack is far more disturbing than anything that crazy Islamist fanatics want to use their freedoms to say.Of all the wrong ideas out there, the only one that is truly and irredeemably dangerous, is the one that wants to deny that freedom of speech *itself* is the virtue that can not be lost.
Skyler-It was, but it wasn't orthodox (still isn't- Copts are still doing their own thing 2000 years later- what tough people. They're like the Jews of the Christian world). There were all kinds of heresies in the early church, and most came out of the eastern empire and north Africa. It's an interesting idea, anyway, and I haven't ever seen anyone really tackle it. Religions do better or worse depending on the culture they live in. (What's very interesting to me is how Christianity just exploded in Africa after decolonization. It's really amazing.)Personally, I don't mind if our culture is not very hospitable to Islam. Objectively, Muslim countries seem to do poorly in today's world. Subjectively, I'd rather live in a place where lots of religions compete for attention but have to leave me alone. I really, really loathe not being able to talk about certain subjects because they've been declared off limits.Simply allowing free inquiry and criticism will be enough to save us. If we stick to the basic liberal values of free speech and free exercise we will be fine. I'm not a fan of banning religions, but I'm even less of a fan of banning criticism. This is why rabid atheists like Christopher Hitchens don't worry me much, but PC ideas about "hate speech" do.Oh, and since when did a religion become a "race"? I guess it's easier to say "racist" than "islamophobe."
If we approve of you and you promise to behave yourself... then you can have free speech.What?
Free speech is a right. That means it can't be revoked. Even if we don't like it.That's the whole point of this civilization we have here- that we have rights.
Now... failure to honor... That's a sin in the lefty playbook. Tolerance and all means honoring, respecting, etc.For conservatives, it matters not at all what you *think* of the Religion of Peace, because what you think is irrelevant to what rights (not privileges) a person in this country is entitled to.More over... you've got a right to say what you think, even if you're thinking disrespectful thoughts.So... no requirement at all to honor or respect and no requirement not to say that Muhammad wears his diaper on his head. It's just rather rude to do, at which point everyone else can use their free speech and right to disrespect you to explain that you're a poopy head doo-doo brain limp dick.
Cute "blog" entry about TNR failing to report on or speak to the working class.Cute comments after it explaining how the working class is to stooopid to join unions and too stooopid not to be taken in by the evil GOP.It's way past my bedtime, but that was almost worth it.Gotta go to my minimum wage job tomorrow... get up at 5:30. I'm picking up a few words of Spanish. I know the word for "clothes" now.I've worked harder for less, but that's how it goes. The less you get paid the harder the work is... generally. Half the people I work with are looking into vocational courses, asking for extra hours. I don't think anyone really sees themselves as stuck where they are or planning to stay where they are.Which means this probably belongs in the economic mobility thread.Oh well.
John bluffed, Free speech is a right. That means it can't be revoked. Even if we don't like it.Says who? Since when? Free speech has always had limitations and will continue to be limited. There are no absolute rights anywhere. You do not have the right to foment treason while we are at war. You do not have a right to give aid and comfort to the enemy.You do not have an absolute right to practice your religion, either. You cannot do human sacrifice or cannibalism, both are fairly regular practices of many religions throughout history. You do not have a right to use religion as a justification for beheading or stoning people, no matter what private legal arbitration might be otherwise binding.I think you also have a flawed understanding of christian history.
On the other hand... he's entirely philosophically in sync with Marty Peretz, isn't he. It's all about dangerous ideas and people who are not worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment because what they wish to *say* is wrong. They abuse the privilege because their speech is *wrong*.Exactly. If there are some (not all, but too many) liberals who would prevent Sarah Palin's speech so fast it would make your head spin if they could.
New "Hussein" Ham said..."But we can prevent it. Us ... just regular people. We can interfere with its construction as an act of civil disobedience. In fact, we can tear the fucking thing down after they spend all that money building it.We can do that, as a community, as regular people, with no government involvement at all."You'll get government involvement and well you should. It will first appear as a cop with handcuffs leading your stupid ass away and then again in a courtroom with a government figure sitting across the aisle prosecuting you and either an elected judge or an appointed one running things. Then you will meet the government either in a federal prison setting or in some lovely state prison depending on who prosecutes you first.You have the freedom to say what you want. You just don't have the freedom to do what you say.
"You have the freedom to say what you want. You just don't have the freedom to do what you say."Really? How about the Quran burner inFlorida? Standing shoulder-to shoulder with him defending free speech? ...I'll bet
"You'll get government involvement and well you should. It will first appear as a cop with handcuffs leading your stupid ass away and then again in a courtroom..."Civil disobedience for me but not for thee.Funny to see the Democrats get all law-and-order again, just like when they went after the Civil Rights marchers in the 60s.
Good point, Hoosier. We shouldn't expect Christians to be any more civilized, non-violent and capable of tolerating criticism, offense and life in a free society than we might expect Muslims to be.Yes it's an excellent point and as usual it managed to go right over your pointy little head.
The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security 'reform,' against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman's entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito. -Martin Peretz, June 23, 2006Are you telling me that a liberal can have "racist" sentiments!?! Impossible.
Are you telling me that a liberal can have "racist" sentiments!?! Impossible.Can someone tell me how a religion has become a race?
Hoosier;Can someone tell me how a religion has become a race?You'll note I put the term in quotes because:1)its the generic slur for someone who thinks ill of some other "group"2) "religionist" just doesn't have the same impact
LarsPorsena said..."Really? How about the Quran burner in Florida? Standing shoulder-to shoulder with him defending free speech?"Nope. he has the right to do it. I don't like it and I think he is a moron but what I think and his rights as an american citizen..well his rights win out, like it or not.
@pogo at 8:29aI guess you can't read.What idiot boy was advocating was distruction of other person's property based on his ignorance and prejudice. It could easily be a federal crime and certainly a state violation(s).slight difference which understandably went zooming right over that empty head of yours.
Skyler said,Are you really that clueless that you weren't paying attention to...the attacks on Sept 11, 2001?" I was trying hard not to pay attention, but given as I was standing a few blocks away from the towers as they were destroyed, it was sort of hard not to notice.But what has this to do with Islam? Do you purport that Muslims hold as an article of faith that planes should be flown into buildings or that the American government should be destroyed? It is more arguable that Catholics favor pederasty, given the greater prevalence of it among their clergy than of terrorist acts against America by Muslims. (For the slower readers, I do not propose that Catholics favor pederasty. I point out the absurdity and bigotry of assuming extreme acts carried out by isolated members of a community--whether real or merely perceived--represent the ideals or beliefs of the whole, or even of a significant sub-population of it. And what makes you think Muslims in America or other parts of the world see themselves as members of a community that comprises the 9/11 killers or their cohorts?) "Not all muslims are jihadists or support the jihad."Aha! Skyler pretends to be "liberal" about muslims. And how generous you are: you allow that "not all" are jihadists. Just most of them, right? At least until they repudiate it to your satisfaction, yes?"But the ones building that mosque certainly are."And you know this...how?"I've been waiting for nine years for muslims to disassociate from the most radical among them. Haven't seen it yet."Perhaps it doesn't occur to them--or perhaps they disagree with the suggestion if it's been made to them--that anyone would assume "the most radical among them" are in any way representative of Muslims in general, or of them in particular, or that many people would make such assumptions, or that there would be any reason they should (or should have to) formally disassociate themselves from political extremists who happen to share their religion. I don't feel I must formally declare that I repudiate the acts of the KKK, or of the American Nazi Party, or of Timothy McVeigh, or of those who have committed lynchings in our history, or of the latter day Republican Party. I don't assume anyone would associate me with such vile actors to begin with, despite our shared race and nationality. That you assume Muslims have an obligation en masse to renounce Al Qaeda or other Muslim terrorists reveals your own bigotry, because you do see them as an undifferentiated mass of anti-Western, murderous (or murder supporting) fanatics.
There's an irksome redudancy in one of my sentences in the last post, but copying and pasting and editing it would involve too much re-application of html tags, so...it stands as is. Arrggh!
Post a Comment