Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

NORWAY: Muslims also face unfair assumptions

Letter by Alfred K. LaMotte, Steilacoom on July 25, 2011 at 1:44 pm with 76 Comments »
July 25, 2011 1:44 pm

Anders Breivik is a blond, Aryan, far-right, fundamentalist Christian, and one of history’s worst individual mass murderers.

“Why do they hate us so much?” “They hate our values and our freedom.” “He represents the real ideals of his religion, an ideology of hate.”

Will Christian fundamentalists who make such judgments about “Muslim terrorists” apply the same standards to their own? Or will they use a double standard and dismiss this act of “Christian terrorism” as an aberration committed by a lunatic?

The truth is, of course, that this man really is a lunatic. He no more represents the values of Christianity than al-Qaida represents the values of Islam.

Leave a comment Comments → 76
  1. itwasntmethistime says:

    Fred, for once I agree with you. I’m a Christian and I’m definitely not on this lunatic’s team.

  2. aislander says:

    Not-so-subtle difference, Flamo: ALL Christian organizations condemn this man’s monstrous acts, but NOT all Muslim ones condemn those of al qaeda.

  3. “ALL Christian organizations condemn this man’s monstrous acts”

    Oh…I’ll bet we haven’t heard from ALL Christian organizations….yet

  4. “He no more represents the values of Christianity than al-Qaida represents the values of Islam.”

    True that, I hope enough of us agree with that statement moving forward.

  5. Any so-called Christian organization that lends support to this man’s ideas or actions will be a perversion of real Christianity to be sure.

    I agree that this should give us all pause about leaping to conclusions about people, but aislander does make a reasonable point. I have seen no clips of Christians dancing in the streets to celebrate this massacre.

  6. From the Telegraph in the UK:

    “The blond-haired 32-year-old appears to have set up accounts on the social networking sites Facebook and Twitter just a few days ago.

    Although police have not officially named Breivik as the suspect, Norwegian media identified him as the gunman. Police say the suspect is talking to police and was keen to “explain himself”.

    Eyewitness reports from the island of Utoya, where the shootings took place, have also described a tall, blond haired, blue-eyed Norwegian man dressed as a police officer.

    On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down.

    Police chief Svinung Sponheim said that internet posting by Breivik suggested he has “some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views”.

  7. “sozo says:
    July 25, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    I have seen no clips of Christians dancing in the streets to celebrate this massacre.

    No, that took place when Bin Laden was killed.

  8. Murdoch’s Sun had a headline blaming Al Qaeda for the Norway terror attack……. Laura Ingraham announced that it must be a Muslim sympathizer… There are many others…..

    Funny how, when a Muslim does it, we know that it part of an orchestrated jihad but when a Christian, Jew or Hindu does it – it was the lone actions of a crazy person..

  9. sozo – read yahoo.com news about this – read the comments (that haven’t been censored yet) – there are, unfortunately, some sickos who take pleasure in this vile act.

  10. Perhaps the Norge police officer and/or the resident so-called “expert on religion via multi-screen wikipedia references” here, can tell us all from which “church” Anders was receiving his “christian fatwa”?

    Hitler…a christian? Did either wacko quote one scripture from the bible “justifying” his actions? NO. This was driven by social/political motivations regardless of the opportunists who wish to inordinately pin this act on Christianity.
    And before the multi-poster attempts to trot out his misguided views, comparing post Exodus laws pertaining exclusively to ancient Israel to post Crucifixion Christianity, I, like Aislander and Sozo would implore that person to actually:
    ( quoting beerboy here) Read For Comprehension and actually Learn To Discern…

  11. Amazingly, Christianity has never been responsible for any wrong doing in its history.

  12. “Funny how, when a Muslim does it, we know that it part of an orchestrated jihad but when a Christian, Jew or Hindu does it – it was the lone actions of a crazy person.. ”

    Now you’re sounding like Kardnos, bBoy. Your generalization here is uncalled for. When a Muslim extremist bomber/shooter has known ties to terrorist organizations, then yes, it will be duly noted. (And Kardnos, your most recent post demonstrates once more that you cannot think clearly about this. You just say stupid things, and then you wonder why people refuse to acknowledge you as an intelligent person!

    bBoy, please show me where there are known ties of Breivik to any formal terrorist organization anywhere, let a lone a recognized church. Were you to find a connection between Breivik and “the church” you may rest assured that I would expect whatever church organization he was linked to to come out strongly against his conduct, just as I expect Muslims to speak out loudly against terrorism perpetrated by those who claim it is in obedience to Allah.

    As for early presumptions that the Norway massacre might be tied to Islamic terrorists, there were legitimate reasons to think it could be, but I will agree that tv and radio personalities were too quick to jump.

  13. sozo – your response proves my point.

  14. I don’t think so, bBoy. Your inability to make distinctions in these cases is interesting, and telling.

  15. madmike272 says:

    For the first, and probably the last time, I actually agree with you.

  16. sozo – there are reports of two more cells……..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/25/anders-behring-breivik-terror-cells

    Yes, there are distinctions between those who are willing to kill multitudes. Some do it for a cause (country, religion, a social agenda). Some do it for the thrill.

    Breivik, like the OK City and Unabomber and the Islamists, killed for a cause. If the reports of other cells (and another gunman) turn out to be true then your distinction is based merely upon which Book he believes is correct.

  17. sozo says:
    July 25, 2011 at 7:03 pm
    And Kardnos, your most recent post demonstrates once more that you cannot think clearly about this. You just say stupid things, and then you wonder why people refuse to acknowledge you as an intelligent person!

    What is the sure sign you are under sozo’s skin? See above.

    The Christian apologist goes right for a character assassignation tactic.

  18. LarryFine says:

    “Funny how, when a Muslim does it, we know that it part of an orchestrated jihad but when a Christian, Jew or Hindu does it – it was the lone actions of a crazy person.”

    I wouldn’t frame it as “funny”… mostly true, yes, not funny.

  19. Are the Christian conservatives who support Herman Cain’s view that communities should be able to ban Muslim mosques in America because Muslims are trying to “infuse their morals” into the community really that much different in beliefs than this Norwegian killer?

    The killer, unfortunately, was crazed enough to act out on his beliefs, but isn’t the philosophy behind Herman Cain and his rising popularity disturbing?

    One doesn’t hear any disagreement from the far right, and Cain is getting more and more support. Is the next step up from banning mosques a round up of Muslims?

  20. geeterpontiac says:

    Good article by Christopher Hitchens from Slate.

    “It also culminates in the wretched spectacle of the jihadist websites in Oslo, which had been getting ready with their original posts of joy when they, too, thought that their own holy cause might be involved—and then ceasing and desisting when it became clear that the perpetrator was some loser who had quite different reasons for wanting to slaughter a crowd of young people that day.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2299959

    One of the primary reasons reporters initially thought it was an attack by Muslim extremists was because some Islamic groups were claiming another glorious blow for Islam until they discovered the truth.

    In view of who has been engaging in bombings, shootings, decapitations, etc over the last 10 –15 years, it was an incorrect assumption easy to reach. They even thought it was one of their own initially.

  21. LarryFine says:

    No kidding geeter. I noticed the same thing.

  22. As did most people, Larry, who were paying attention.

    tuddo, rest assured that if Cain does in fact, persist in wanting to stifle the freedom of Muslims in the U.S., the Christian conservatives I know will NOT support him.

  23. geeterpontiac says:

    Tuddo, it seems to me your attack on Cain attempts to make claims and draw conclusions there is little evidence to support.

    First, it was obvious that Cain was referring to one location of special significance to many Americans, i.e., the site of a terrorist attack that killed thousands of our countrymen.

    Whether you agree or disagree with Cain, there is no indication (as you try to imply) this represents a blanket approach to the building of mosques in America. Simply put, mosques, churches, synagogues, etc, will continue to be built in numerous locations across America and will be subject to the normal evaluation process all such institutions have to go through.

    Second, while some of Cain’s support is certainly a result of his position on the NYC mosque, there is simply more than that to the man. Again, whether you agree or disagree take a look at Kathleen Parker’s column in today’s TNT. Cain could bring some much needed qualities to the national fray and/or situation we find ourselves in.

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/26/1758808/despite-gaffe-herman-cain-deserves.html

    Third, inflammatory commentary raising the issue of banning mosques, rounding up Muslims is nothing more than nonsense and such fear mongering doesn’t merit serious concern. It isn’t going to happen.

  24. Roncella says:

    geeterpontiac, Thanks for explaining Herman Cain’s position on mosque’s and their locations.

    Tuddo has disparaged Cains statements and beliefs about Muslims, and Sharia Law which Millions of Muslims adhere to.

  25. Reports of other cells, last I heard, were not being taken seriously by Norwegian authorities. Has that changed?

  26. Tuddo’s over-extrapolates-
    “The killer, unfortunately, was crazed enough to act out on his beliefs, but isn’t the philosophy behind Herman Cain and his rising popularity disturbing?

    One doesn’t hear any disagreement from the far right, and Cain is getting more and more support. Is the next step up from banning mosques a round up of Muslims? ”

    WHOOOOOA there nellie….. That’s saying that :

    1) Cain is elected
    2) there are veto-proof super majorities in both houses (difficult to attain with overlapping election cycle frequencies)
    3) 5 SC justices pass away and are immediately replaced by 5 of your scarey ooooh, ooooh conservative justices
    Wow Tuddo, that’s alot to put on one plate there, fella. Where is this world of your located again?
    This is why your credibility is proportional to your statements..wink, wink…

  27. geeterpontiac and Roncella, please explain when Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the site Herman Cain was referring to when he made the statement that any community could ban mosques, became the site of a “terrorist attack that killed thousands of our countryment”

    He made clear in his remarks that he thought all mosques were training grounds for terrorists, and so they could be banned. He did say there were some “good Muslims” who did not try to build mosques, but worshipped privately.

    Your defense of his remarks show that you are trying to defend a defenseless position by putting words in his mouth that he never said.

    The issue in NYC in my mind is no different. The mosque being built there is not on the site of the Twin Towers, so even your qualifying remark, as anti-Constitional that it is, is erroneous.

    Communities have a right to zone areas for churches, but once that zoning is in effect, singling out which particular religion may locate there is just plain discrimination and anti-Constitutional.

    Christians have a right to follow the Bible and any law that they pick and choose from the Bible. Same with Jews and their laws. They can get circumsized on religious beliefs, not eat pork and not allow divorced women to remarry in their church, not eat shellfish, and so on.

    Muslims can follow Sharia law all the want to in their private laws, eat proper food, fast on religious holidays, wear veils, etc.

    Just as it is wrong to force Muslim Sharia law on people, so it is wrong to force Christian beliefs on people through laws based on the Bible, or some people’s particular interpretation of the Bible.

    Cain’s views are particularly dangerous and repugnant. Any defense of them is extreme to the point of horror.

  28. sozo, as you were saying about Christian conservatives not supporting Cain’s views? Son are the three examples above of people supporting his views, are they not Christian, or are they not conservative?

    Your reassurance is not very reassuring in light of all the support Cain’s remarks are actually receiving from people in America who call themselves conservative Christians, not just on this thread but on all of the right.

  29. LarryFine says:

    Tuddo, you must be a racist.

  30. Having just recently spoken with an individual who just returned from Germany after spending more than a year there, I wouldn’t be surprised if more of this type of thing happens again. There’s a lot of anger among many Europeans about what they see as the wholesale ruination of their country. Whole towns and villages have been taken over by Muslims. Centuries old churches are being turned into Mosques. There’s absolutely no attempt on behalf of the Muslims to integrate into the society. That does not in any way excuse the murders in Norway, but the shooter has been known to blame the Labour Party and the operators of that brain-washing operation at that camp for young lefties for what he and many others see as selling their country to the highest bidder. Stand-by for more.

  31. LaryFine, please enlighten me what you think my remarks upholding the Constitution had to do with racism?

  32. LarryFine says:

    You speak against Herman Cain (a black man) so by the leftist standard, you are a racist. I didn’t make the rules dear…

  33. Cannot speak for others tuddo, and should not. Neither should you.

  34. sozo, I don’t speak for others, just myself. What the people here say speaks volumes, however. LarryFine interjects race, not me. A person is known by their actions and words and Cain has shown he is ignorant of the Constitution and a danger to our way of life in America of guaranteeing freedom of religion.

    I’m still waiting to hear from LarryFine how Murfreesboro was attacked by terrorists and how thousands of lives were lost there.

  35. geeterpontiac says:

    Tuddo said,

    “Your defense of his remarks show that you are trying to defend a defenseless position by putting words in his mouth that he never said”

    And you are trying to imply and infer meanings to his words that are not in evidence.

    I am simply saying, you are reaching conclusions based upon what you think he meant, in part I am sure, in order to discredit the individual.

    Tuddo said,

    “He made clear in his remarks that he thought all mosques were training grounds for terrorists, and so they could be banned.”

    I have not heard anything of the sort. That is your interpretation of his words. What I have heard is SOME mosques are used as training grounds for terroists. This is a fact that has been confirmed by law enforcement agencies for years. If a mosque (or church, or synagogue, etc) is found to be doing such, it should be closed.

    There is a vast difference between the word “SOME” versus “ALL”.

    Now, if you can point me to some commentary by Cain where when examined in context he said “all mosques are training grounds for terrorists” I would be more than willing to take another look at the issue.

  36. From Fox News, the only source you would probably accept:

    “Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.

    “They have the right to do that. That’s not discriminating … against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building a mosque that doesn’t get talked about,” he said.

    From other sources, and other speeches, it is clear that Cain is talking about all mosques having an aspect of their buildings that provide training in how to instill Sharia Law and terrorism.

    If “any” community can ban a mosque, then all mosques could be banned, and Cain says he supports any community that wants to ban a mosque.

    I am still waiting for your explanation of your remarks that Murfreesboro was the site of a huge terrorist attack or how Cains remarks fit in with the Constitution (even the banning of one mosque would fly in the face of people’s rights to worship freely).

  37. LarryFine says:

    The church I attend was petitioned against… so what ? They almost were not allowed to build there.

    Again, I was applying the leftist standard for racism to you because you speak out against Herman Cain, who is black.

  38. LarryFine says:

    btw, based on your last post, do you feel public school students should be allowed their right to assemble on school property to pray ?

  39. Question from the peanut gallery:

    “…Murfreesboro was the site of a huge terrorist attack…’

    What terrorist attack? When?

  40. tuddo, I took Larry’s remark about racism as an illustration of how quick some are to presume racism when disagreeing with the president. I certainly have been insulted by that presumption since it has absolutely nothing to do with my assessment of him as a president.

  41. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, You are unable to understand the danger of letting Thousands and thousands of muslims building mosques everywhere and teaching and demanding that sharia law be honored and followed to the letter.

    With your great computer skills Tuddo, take a min. and read up on Sharia Law. You being a liberal won’t like much of what you read, I can assure of you of that.

    You really need to learn more about Sharia Law before defending the folks that want it instituted through- out the U.S. and the World.

    Tuddo, after investagating Sharia Law you might fine more to agree with Herman Cain then you ever thought you would.

  42. Roncella, please point me to a website that shows that American Muslims want to instill Sharia Law in place of the Constitution.

    It is your own baseless fear that is driving your comments on this, not reality. Baseless fear is the reason for a lot of discrimination, and it is a main reason we have protections in the Constitution.

    I heard the same things you are saying about Catholics all my life. My Grandfather was a member of the Knights of the White Magnolia, an anti-Catholic Klan, and had the same unfounded, paranoid fears of Catholics you have about Muslims. International Catholicism, led by the Pope, had as its sole purpose the instillation of Catholic dominion and church law in the USA, according to them.

    His Klan was engaged in burning churches, confiscating Catholic property and general harassment of Roman Catholics, all with a lot of government conspiracy in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in the South. The Know Nothing party in the mid-1800’s became very popular with their anti-Catholic stances, with riots, killings and burnings, and when it died out, the Klans took up its causes in the South.

    It has happened before, and it can happen again in America if we do not protect our Constitutional guarantees. I agree with William Kristol on this, “Republicans have turned the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party.”

  43. LarryFine, you asked if I thought school students have a right to assemble to pray. Absolutely, they all have that right now.

    School employees, however, paid with public funds and representing a public school have limitations. School employees may only participate in the school’s religious activities of religious clubs if they are attending as a private citizen outside of contract time, and do not hold themselves out as representing the school employer. They can supervise on their official time, but not participate in the religious activities.

    http://www.au.org/take-action/report-a-violation/faqs/can-students-in-public.html

    the site above is a good explanation of the current law and the court cases that allow public school students to form clubs, use school facilities, etc. if you are really interested in my view, with is consistent with this site.

  44. …please point me to a website that shows that American Muslims want to instill Sharia Law in place of the Constitution.

    Form the sidelines on this issue. You are correct, one cannot point you to a credible site that advocates for replacing the Constitution with Sharia Law.

    I ask that you look to Europe, specifically the UK on how they are handling the Sharia Law issue. From a news article (UK Times) solely for discussion and further research:

    ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
    The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
    Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
    Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

    This could be considered the “nose under the tent… foot in the door” The key issue here is official sanctioning by the courts of the UK.

    We are in the early stages… I don’t think you will see a full fledge overt effort to instill Sharia law within the judicial system of the US… but the effort is happening in communities in the US which serves to further isolate groups and forms barriers to assimilation to this great nation.

    Different issue but similar in effect, as a Certified Brown (Hispanic) member of the US, “my people” do themselves no good when they do not at least make an attempt to learn the common language of English. Though I appreciate the multipage, multilingual instructions for many things, it just serves to create yet another reason to isolate myself from you and the larger community.

  45. xx, we don’t have anything like the arbitration councils set up in Britain. They were set up to include the Church of England’s arbitration system as well as privately-run non religious councils, then included the Jewish religious law courts and the Muslim courts since they do not have separation of church and state in Britain. The closest we have are private contracts.

    Under the arbitration system in Britain, if all parties agree to binding arbitration on non-criminal matters, then they can choose who gets to arbitrate, also with everyone consenting. The results have to be approved by British courts under British law, so anything that would break British law would not be allowed to go into effect. So, British law prevails if the decision using Sharia law is in conflict.

    In the USA, if all parties agree to a contract, then the contract is binding on all parties, unless it goes against federal or state law. Same principle. In all situations, in the USA, the Constitution would prevail. In some states, a woman can give up all claims to property, income, etc., in a prenuptual, for example, and some religions, including some conservative Christian communites, require that because they believe the man is the head of the household and must control all money and property. In a contract, that is allowed, unless it goes against state law, and some states outlaw that practice.

    Your statement, (is it a quote?) that “Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain”, is an out and out fabrication or mischaracterization of what is actually happening. British law is still supreme and anything in conflict with it is not allowed.

    Much ado about nothing.

  46. True, we do not… at least not yet?

    As you describe in your second paragraph, not a problem…

    As you describe in your third paragraph, not a problem…

    There are factions who see the Constitution as a “living , breathing document” and are attempting to reinterpret it in a progressive manner. Couple that with a few that wish to instill Sharia law as part of our legal system. Though Europe has different legal system, it is close enough. Attempts have been made and are ongoing to subjugate US law below international law.

    Frankly, it is hard to make a case for a threat and in turn defend against something that is currently a nebulous vision and ultimate desire.

    “Much ado about nothing.” True, at least not yet?

    (PS – that was an excerpt from the UK Times. It was only for discussion. Fabrication… mischaracterization… I would direct your comments to them.)

    Thanks and take care…

  47. xx, this from the same article: “Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act”.

    Would you say then that Jewish religious law “has been officially adopted in Britain?” If you mean that it is official because a binding contract made under the religious laws can be enforced, then I guess that Jewish religious law, as well as Roman Catholic Religious Law and Presbyterian Council decisions, Methodist Courts, Amish Courts, when agreed to by all parties and put into a contract, are also the offical law of the USA. That’s not how I would word it, but then I’m pickier than most.

    Many people, including a lot of conservatives object to the US system of adversarial lawsuits to settle injury and other cases. The arbitration system is one of the systems that has been proposed to deal with the high costs of the courts in the legal system. If people want to use the “Man-in-the-moon law” to come to an agreement that all parties abide by through contract, I don’t care. It sounds like a good idea to me.

    I would not choose a Sharia or a Jewish or probably any religious arbitration system, but others might, and I see nothing wrong with it, especially if it saves my tax money and gets the parties to come to mutual agreement and does not counter any of our secular laws.

    If Jewish Law courts and Church of England courts have been used successfully to settle civil cases by arbitration for over 100 years, what is the issue with Sharia courts doing the same?

  48. geeterpontiac says:

    Tuddo, if you would be so kind, please provide the source of the quotes from Fox News,

    Since you used quotation marks, I would assume those comments are taken verbatim from somewhere. I would like to review those comments in full context. Why don’t you provide me a link to your source? I would enjoy checking it out.

    You also said,

    “He made clear in his remarks that he thought all mosques were training grounds for terrorists, and so they could be banned.”

    As I mentioned earlier, I find the “all” completely inclusive, therefore not very believable. I would like to really know if and where Cain said that simply because it sounds so unreasonable. Please help me out here.

    “Murfreesboro”?

    I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    Fox News? As I have truthfully stated many times on these forums, I don’t listen to it. My mom does get the WSJ (Fox owned) at her place and I do read that. But, I wouldn’t think that is the equivalent of Fox TV news. I spend a lot of time online reading conservative, liberal, and in between commentary on the Real Clear Politics site. I also enjoy the Hoover Institute, The American Interest, Stratford (George Friedman), and a few others.

    As you can probably tell, I really enjoy print media as opposed to telecommunications. I guess that makes me a dinosaur, but I find it much more rewarding an informative.

    Again, if you would, please provide a link to your sources for the Cain quotes it would be much appreciated.

  49. I agree with the premise of what you are stating. If you and I enter a legal civil contract and agree to be bound by the “Man on the TNT Blog Law” then yes, conceptually not a problem…

    Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

    Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

    These two quotes from the article is where it gets more than a little murky for me. “smaller”??? Needs to be define. Per Sharia Law? Per current statues? This is where the potential conflicts you spoke of might arise. Again where do we as a society draw the line. We could get speculative, one type of “smaller” criminal act vs another. ???

    “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

    This is how this sort of stuff starts… if it is good for one… then of course??? It has always and will become hard to draw a line…

  50. “…Murfreesboro was the site of a huge terrorist attack…’

    Signs on the building site were vandalized, with the first saying “not welcome” sprayed across it and the second being cut in two. Construction equipment was also torched by arsonists.

    HUGE!!! – as in 9/11 thousands died HUGE or…

    huge – as in we are pissed off you are here, “yankee” go home, NIMBY huge…?

  51. geeterpontiac says:

    Ah, ok, thanks xx.

    I will have to look it up and see what I can find. Guess I already should have I suppose.

    Thanks again

  52. geeterpontiac… I had to look it up to be sure myself since I assumed tuddo means Tennessee.

    To be honest I am not really sure I am correct as he used the word “HUGE”

    my comment is for Tuddo. You just reminded me about Murfreeboro.

    HUGE!?

  53. xx, if you were talking to me, it was geeterpontiac’s statement and subsequent support by others saying that Herman Cain had a right to say that a mosque could be banned because it was the site of a terrorist attack that killed thousands.

    Since the mosque Cain was talking about was in Murfreesboro, I asked him to explain what terrorist attack he was talking about there. He still never has.

  54. sorry guys, I had to read those posts way too hard to keep up and follow what was going on.

    going back to the peanut gallery…

  55. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, As you and I are about the same age, you must be able to realize that Muslims pouring into the U.S. in the past few years bring with them Sharia Law.

    This Sharia law in simplified comparison is the direct opposite of what our constitution stands for, for all Americans.

    Muslims moving to America to become Americans First, and believe in the Constitutions with all its declaratiions and rights are Welcome. Just as Mexicans moving to the U.S. to become American Citizens should learn to speak English as soon as possible.

    These are two groups of people who are not blending into American Society easily but are trying to re-make America into their home land with Sharia Law, and speaking spanish first.

    Tuddo you mentioned you lived in Texas, surely you can relate to the Mexicans not assimilating into American society quickly. Take a ride through east L.A. or neighborhoods in Chicago, New york, other large cities, where whole neighborhoods have been remade into little mexico’s.

  56. Roncella, I also lived in Pennsylvania where the “Dutch” (the Amish) live by their own laws and speak their own language. One of the great things about the USA is that toleration has prevailed because of the Constitution. When we get too far afield, we always have the Constitution to bring us back to a great way of dealing with issues.

    The Spanish were here long before the English. We have no national language. Our language of commerce by custom, but not law, is English.

    In Texas, many Anglos have assimilated and celebrate Hispanic culture, especially since they were there first, with chiles and chili and Mexican Food , music, and Spanish language and fiestas and so forth. I knew many Hispanic families, including one of my roommates in college, whose family lived in Texas and owned the same land since the late 1600’s. Their first language is Spanish, and their community’s first language is Spanish. I see nothing wrong with that.

    In the Eastern part, there are many Cajuns who celebrate everything French. French is even an officially state “recognized” language, along with English, in Louisiana. In the Texas Hill Country, there are many families who have German as their first language. All of this diversity adds to the greatness of our nation.

    Sharia Law has 99% of the same things that Christian Law and Jewish Law does. It is true that more extremists in the Muslim world want to enforce all of the laws in their holy books than Christians or Jews do, but I am surprised that Christian conservatives who often quote the Biblical injunctions and Biblical Laws against this and that as a reason for government to enact secular law have the audacity to whine about Shariah Law that says the same thing.

    I often comment against people trying to restrict the rights of others based on their belief system (usually right-wing evangelicals, and most lately, gay marriage). In the past it has been religious people restricting interracial marriage, or supporting slavery or being against abortion, or a number of other things based on their views on Biblical Law.

    If Muslims used their belief in Sharia Law to institute their beliefs, I would be just as active against them. I just wish Christian evangelicals could see the hypocrisy of their wanting to enforce the Bible’s Laws on people but railing against the same things in Sharia Law.

    ASnd,a s I said in another comment, I have no problem with two or more people willingly entering into a legal contract that reflects their belief system. If a person wants to write a will that gives less money to his female children than his male, as Sharia insists upon, then that’s his right. If a person wants to give a portion of their money to charity, as demanded by Sharia, that is their right.

    However, if men start denying women the vote, or equality, well,all I can say is that its a good thing those Christian right wingers did not prevail and we have women’s right to vote and the ERA in the Constitution against the Christian Law that they said we were violating by passing them.

    The only “assimilation” people need to do is to abide by and defend the Constitution, and that is all our country should ask a person to do.

  57. geeterpontiac says:

    Hi Tuddo,

    But, after doing so, I now see what our problem is.

    For some reason I thought Cain was talking about the NYC mosque that is the source of so much controversy. When I looked up Murfreesboro yesterday and went back to the Kathleen Parker column, I realized that was really what I should have been talking about from the beginning. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    I’ve got to go to work. But, I will get back to you later and try to answer your questions.

    But, like xx98411, I think this is growing lengthy and tiresome, especially when you say something that forces me to go back and reread the whole thread. :)

    Again, please let me know where Cain said all mosques are training grounds for terrorists. I would love to check it out.

    Catch you later

  58. geeterpontiac says:

    Sorry about the typo above in the first line, but, as I said, I see what the problem was now. Cya later.

  59. In my last post it reads as if the ERA passed, which I know it did not. I edited the sentence, and it came out wrong. It did not pass because right-wing Christian conservatives got the Republican party to lobby against it in the states, even theough the Republcian members of Congress passed it. Christian Law is again.

  60. geeterpontiac, I’ve given the quotes. He said “any” mosque can be banned. To me that is saying “all” mosques can be banned, and his reasoning is that all mosques provide training in Sharia Law. He said he had no problem with Muslims practicing their religion in private.

    If you think he did not mean “all” mosques should be banned, then ask him. Others have and he gives the same answer. “Any” mosque can be banned by any community and he would support that.

  61. It is just the nature of these blogs, multiple conversations and the occasional misread (me too).

    On the subject… I guess… maybe Cain found God, or is it Allah.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-apologizes-to-muslims-for-comments-that-may-have-betrayed-constitutional-commitment/

    Early report from a participant in the meeting. Obviously need to hear from Herman Cain.

  62. Roncella says:

    tuddo, The key word in our discussion is assimilation which really is the problem with both mexicans and muslims moving here by the thousands. Some legally some cross our borders illegally.

    Yes thank God our founding fathers were wise enough to write our Constitution with alot of forsight and intelligence. Its a document that makes a big difference in the United States and the rest of the Countries in the World.

  63. xx98411, thanks for sharing the link about his apology yesterday. Mainstream sites are picking up on it, now. too.

    I hope Cain is sincere in apologizing to Muslims and apologizing for miscontruing the Constitution. I haven’t seen the press release itself but mainstream sites are picking up on that, now, too, so it appears to be as reported by the participants in the meeting.

    It is disturbing that a presidential candidate had to have a group of Muslims explain the Constitution to him, especially since conservatives on all the sites I looked at are now castigating him for his change of heart about the issue.

    Since he has apologized, I will settle down, now. However, I would want a president who has a little better grounding in our freedoms than this man seems to have. I would hope the electorate would also care about freedom of religion, too, but that is perhaps too much to ask for.

  64. Roncella, if the Irish and Scots will stop playing those awful bagpipes, and Lutefisk is never served again anywhere I go, then I will call for Mexicans to stop their polka music and they all can then assimilate into the great American culture of Hip Hop and Rap. ;-)

    I can’t agree or disagree with your call for assimilation, since I think we have drastically different ideas of what that means. I also think we need a comprehensive immigration reform to stop illegal immigration, based on George Bush’s approach, the one conservatives love to hate.

  65. tuddo – you do have an interesting way of seeing things… “apologizing”… “…explain…” Nice… Ok, to each his own view.

    On a side note, the MSM is the last place I would look to for information on this specific issue. I would look to Herman Cain and the Muslim host organization for their press releases and commentary. Their exact words, not the medias interpretation of their words. Again, to each his own view.

    On another side, side note – I am not convince anymore that the post you and I see on any board is reflective of “public opinion” but is an attempt to alter public opinion. Just a working theory for now.

  66. tuddo – no one is asking anyone to stop being who they are (music, food, language, etc) but we have to have some common ground for all of us to live and work from.

    No one is asking to not have barrios, predominate sections of town, etc… and one can function very well in the language and culture of the barrio. But when you venture forth from the barrio, you have to be able to function and that usually means at least language.

    My issue is when talking to people they say “…in my country…” Silly me thinking they mean the good olde USA but they are talking about their “home” country… literally. And they supposedly are US Citizens too, go figure.

    You are correct, there is no official language per se. But I don’t have much sympathy for my brown brothers and sisters that complain about the lack of opportunity… complaining in Spanish by the way…

    I am moving to Puerto Rico, my Spanish is a little weak… you can be damn sure that I am working on it so that I can assimilate to the culture of the isla. My English is a skill set I can leverage but I need to be able to function in the common language of the “country” (I know it is a Commonwealth)

  67. I encourage anyone who has doubts that Hispanics (or others) are not making every effort to “assimilate” into the culture of their adopted land to volunteer at Centro Latino like I did for two years.

    I worked in citizenship as well as English as a second language groups. there were Koreans and other Asians, Russians and other nationalities represented, but it was mainly Hispanics from Mexico and Central America.

    The classes were bursting at the seams, and the people dedicated a lot of themselves to be there. Many had at least two jobs, but would be there every night of the week with their families looking on or participating, too.

    From that experience, I know there are a large number of immigrants, (I think the majority) including Hispanics, who want to participate in our democracy by learning English, becoming citizens and becoming involved in neighborhoods and all-American culture.

    After over 30 years in this country, a good friend of mine who grew up in New Zealand but is an American citizen now, still slips and says “in my country”, so don’t be too hard on people. I still slip and say, “in my state”, and I meant Texas, not Washington.

    btw, volunteering at Centro Latino is also a good way to brush up on your Spanish.

  68. tuddo – i don’t doubt your experiences.

    I have also seen many (and assisted) many who want to be part of the American dream. Helping them to assimilate while keeping the magic of who they are and the value they will bring to this great nation.

    El Centro Latino… my mother worked there for a while… it is a small world isn’t it.

  69. geeterpontiac says:

    Hi tuddo,

    It sounds like Cain has apologized and moved on. His comments were foolish and erroneous for sure. I suppose that is what happens when you aren’t a politician.

    But, as I asked earlier you still haven’t provided a solid quote to back up your comments earlier.

    Tuddo said,

    “He made clear in his remarks that he thought all mosques were training grounds for terrorists, “

    tuddo says:

    “geeterpontiac, I’ve given the quotes. He said “any” mosque can be banned”.

    “To me that is saying “all” mosques can be banned, and his reasoning is that all mosques provide training in Sharia Law”

    “He said he had no problem with Muslims practicing their religion in private”

    Sorry tuddo, none of this seems to support the idea that he thought ALL mosques were training grounds for terrorists. I see no mention of terrorism at all.

    Anyway, fun chatting with you. It was refreshing to be able to dialogue a bit and not be called names.

  70. I eagerly await the arrival of Muzzled, Juan Williams’ new book. I think it addresses, among other things, the difficulty in trying to have an intelligent discussion/debate these days because people are so thoroughly governed by their feelings and predetermined beliefs about EVERYTHING.

    The exchange here about Cain’s comment and about assimilation and multiculturalism was a refreshing change of pace.

    I am a strong supporter of true diversity, and I love all the various ethnic groups that celebrate their heritage. There is so much to learn from others! I also believe in “enforced” immigration laws that control the flow of immigrants into our country with reasonable demands made upon them regarding taxes, citizenship, etc.

    Tuddo makes some very valid comments here about groups of people who, by virtue of the Constitution, are protected and permitted to practice their way of life without interference from the government. Any objection I have to Sharia law stems from my understanding that Islam has a stated desire to convert all people to their religion and its practices. Is this not true?

  71. sozo, I hesitatingly bring up my youth in the Baptist Church as an example after your comment (smile), but a lot of Christian churches have a goal to convert the whole world to Christianity, too.

    Baptists have had the “Lottie Moon” offering since 1888, and pay for missionaries to “convert the heathen”. Until the late 19th century, there was a lot of coordination between conversion goals and colonialism between Christian nations in Europe and their state religions.

    The International Missions Board has the stated purpose “to bring all the peoples of the world to saving faith in Jesus Christ.”

    And, the Mormons and Catholics are very busy, too.

    There is a struggle for the hearts and minds of the people of the World. Muslims seem to be doing a better job at simplifying their message and bringing it to the poor and to people who feel they have been downtrodden and neglected. They also have the benefit of the rich oil nations as benefactors.

    I do not agree with the notion of a state Muslim or Christian requiring people to belong to the state religion on pain of death, but it certainly works in a lot of places, as it did in Europe until the Enlightenment. I think that is more objectionable than mission work by any religion.

    I think American Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace believe that in the same way American Christians believe their religion is a religion of peace. Unfortunately to each side the preponderance of the evidence shows that war is the norm by Christian as well as Muslim peoples, not peace.

  72. True, Christians believe that Christ mandated the sharing of the gospel, the “good news” with all people, but that’s not the same thing as inflicing legalism on all people. In fact, for those who truly understand the gospel, it’s quite the opposite. In my humble opinion what fundamental Islamic leaders want to do with regard to controlling people is anything but good news.

  73. so right wing Christians, including many of our own Congress members who belong to “The Family”, going to Uganda to encourage them to pass legislation, including death sentences for gays, is not the same?

    The Anglican Church in Uganda has unfortunately said that the death penalty is not needed, just life sentences.

  74. geeterpontiac says:

    tuddo said,

    “I think American Muslims who say their religion is a religion of peace believe that in the same way American Christians believe their religion is a religion of peace. Unfortunately to each side the preponderance of the evidence shows that war is the norm by Christian as well as Muslim peoples, not peace.”

    Not much different that most any other group of people I know, religious or not, including secularists.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0