Letters to the Editor
-
@shooter242
More specifically, a religion that is antithetical to western culture.
If you knew any history, you'd know there would be no western culture as we know it without the Islamic scientific community of the middle ages. Islam IS a western religion, at least as much as Judaism. It certainly has much more in common with western religions than Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, or Jain.
You may approve of a religion that has prominent sects which encourage murder, subjugation of women, and theocracy, but I don't.
Uh, wouldn't a sane person simply not approve of those crazy sects, instead of tarring a huge swath of the world's population with the fundie brush?
Certainly that's what we all do with Christianity, isn't it? (barring the evangelical atheists.)
-
@Golden Boy
Prunes, no one has taken me up on the offer to debate Ward Churchill's analysis of 9/11. There is a very uncomfortable contradiction lurking in there for anyone who wants to follow Churchill; if it comes up I'll point out what it is.
I think that's because no one but you cares what Ward Churchill thinks about anything. I don't know the guy from Adam.
You seem to think that he speaks for someone other than himself. Sort of like you seem to think that the worst fundie Muslims represent all Islam.
-
Now that we've registered our "disapproval"
What do we suggest as a course of action? As was mentioned upthread the object of our disapproval is a creed with 1,565,280,000 adherents. What are we suggesting we do with this annoying 24.79 percent of the worlds souls?
If its any consolation, they run up against similar difficulties as they comtemplate the problem of 1,927,953,000 professed Christians.
-
Michael al-Caruso
By Golden Boy's exquisite reasoning, Michael Caruso, Florida Bar No. 0051993, is a terrorist.
Why? Let me spell it out for you, using short sentences.
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists. Who defended him in Federal Court?
Exactly. Michael Caruso.
QED, bitches.
-
Lupercus
Did you really think I meant to say that Imam Shahin is a lawyer? Or is this just the best you can do?
I vote for the latter. Shahin is connected to 9/11 - deal with it.
-
"bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous." (Quran, 26:83)
Shahin is connected to 9/11 - deal with it.
That's a compelling argument, well reasoned. I fold.
Oh, and:
Shahin is also a lawyer... Shahin represented al-Qudhaieen and al-Shalawi when they filed racial profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Shahin
-
About religion
Personally, as an atheist, I don't approve of Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other religion-I wish they would just disappear, we will all be much better off. However, I dare those who consider themselves to be Christians to explain to the Muslim world why Christianity is a more benign religion than Islam, in view of a million dead, injured and displaced Iraqis, a direct result of the aggression of a Western, mostly Christian power against a non-Christian society.
-
Considering the source.
I vote for the latter. Shahin is connected to 9/11 - deal with it.
Be forwarned that this thread is officially going to hell. GB is tenaceous, persistent and dare I say it obsessive about his hatred for Muslims. If allowed, he will continue to be demonizing that quarter of the planet well into the night.
But I can rest assured that if he tells me Shahin is connected to 9/11, then I must bow to his inferior judgement.
-
Lupercus
Yes, Shahin does appear to be a lawyer, if you believe the Wikipedia article you linked to. My bad.
Of course, that very same article states that Shahin worked for KindHearts, accused by the US government as being associated with HAMAS. Ugh, I'm not surprised if you want to fold, Lupercus: the "flying imams" incident is not one that is kind to apologists for Islam.
Pantanal, go ahead and say what you really want to say - you agree with Ward Churchill. I dare you.
-
@Paul Dirks and Bryan Hayward
I’m afraid that I either didn’t illustrate my point clearly, or you’re reading a level of hostility into my comment that frankly isn’t at all evident.
Labeling Mr. Greenwald “liberal” or “civil libertarian” is far more a distinction without a difference than Mr. Greenwald labeling Mr. Kirchik “right-wing” as a euphemism for “conservative” when Mr. Kirchik isn't really anything of the sort. It is unclear to me how this is “ironic,” given that the vast majority of the time Mr. Greenwald exemplifies, in the best of senses, liberal traditions, whereas Mr. Kirchik is not, if one has bothered to read his work, so easily categorized. Conversely, both of you seem to feel that Mr. Kirchik’s hawkishness and unrepentant (and malodorous) bigotry consign him to “conservatism.” This is, as I pointed out, perfectly illustrative of the adherence to a strange sort of dogma that I criticized Mr. Greenwald for. That the right-wing lionizes people who agree with their position on the war is not strange. That we should allow this to set the tone of the debate and likewise charge “fellow travelers” like Mr. Kirchik as being full-blown neoconservatives or right-wingers is not just a logical fallacy, it speaks as a direct contradiction to the liberal tradition.
The point is not, Mr. Hayward, who “re-aligned” the political spectrum, but that liberals (or civil libertarians, if you must) need not – and indeed must not – buy into it. Using someone's foreign policy position on the Middle East as the bellweather on their political allegiances isn't merely specious, its caustic to reasoned debate.
-
Follow the Donohue
This guy says he's a "civil rights" leader, when he's really just an old windbag who was at the helm of the old-line "Legion of Decency" back in the days when it was disappearing. This is the same mob that lobbied for the Hayes Code in movies, and were able to ban movies and control the debate for many years. They lost credibility a long time ago. So Donohue goes to the Hudson Institute, and ta-da, the Catholic League is born! It's not a censorship organization, it has no connection with the old hierarchy (except it does), but it's a CIVIL RIGHTS organization. So what do they do? How is Griffin "defaming" Catholics? She's not. She's making a joke about everybody who accepts an award and says Jesus did it. Many of whom are fundie Protestants who used to really limit the civil rights of Catholics. It's not a serious diatribe, just a joke, people. You may not like this, but a lot of people find the ultra-religious funny. I know we should show more respect for your God-in-Chief, but really, we don't.
I'll believe Donohue as civil rights leader when priests stop talking smack about atheists, which is obviously not going to happen.