The USA Of Hate

[Madeline]

We are in a new phase of a very old war against religious dogma and radical Islam and the Obvious elephant in the room is that the majority of incitement to racial hatred and violence is coming from the Islamic world, yet it is those who are brave enough to point that fact out, to point out the fact that the West is engaged in a conflict with theocratic totalitarian and fascist ideologies and regimes, who are then targeted for ‘spreading hatred’ for those regimes and violent ideas.

John F Kennedy once said “we are not afraid to entrust the people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its own people.”

'Legal Jihad': How Islamist 'lawfare' is stifling Western free speech on Radical Islam - The Henry Jackson Society

The article talks about "lawfare" against people critical of "radical Islam, Islamic terrorism and its sources of financing". I have yet to hear of any such effort and I have certainly never spoken in favor of tolerating terrorism or permitting anyone in the US to finance it.

Islamist states, organizations and individuals with financial means have launched a "legal jihad," filing a series of malicious lawsuits, in North American and European courts, designed to punish and silence anyone who engages in discourse about Islam. The lawsuits are often predatory and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. Claims are based on charges ranging from defamation to “Islamophobia,” and have resulted in books being banned and pulped, in thousands of dollars worth of fines and in publishing houses and newspapers rejecting important works on counter-terrorism out of fear of being the next target.

News to me. But if a lawsuit is meritorious, the motives, emotions and religion of the plaintiff cannot make it otherwise, chanel.

One of the major proponents of Islamist lawfare in the US is the Washington-based Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror financing case and self-described representative of the American Muslim population.

Never heard of this group, and though I am not setting myself up as some arbitrar of what's known, I think after all the Islamophobia of the past few months, I would have. Three lawsuits that never survived the discovery stage are hardly evidence of any "lawfare".

Even though such lawsuits often fail in the US, the victims targeted still lose in time and money spent defending their rights and the cumulative effect of these suits, combined with the looming threat of future lawsuits, has created a detrimental chilling effect on the exercise of free speech within the US, and has raised the cost of public dialogue about the war on terrorism. Islamist lawfare has also sparked a wave of self-censorship, with publishing houses going as far as hiring security experts to assess the potential for violent reactions in the Muslim community to printed words.

If this board is any measure, there is no chill on free speech regarding Islam. Are you suggesting/advocating that no Muslim or Muslim group have the right to sue for defamation?

I'm sorry, chanel; I do not see the article as persuasive at all.

 

[Madeline]

Several states have proposed legislation preventing such an occurrence. That's not Islamophobia. Its preventative medicine.

What do such laws entail? May we have a link, so we can read them?

 

[Madeline]

In the 1970's or so, there was a high level of concern among the parents of adult children that they would join a cult, cut off all ties to their families and live in a manner contrary to the values they were raised with. Much debate was had over the legal definition of a "cult" and when (if ever) parents could have their adult children kidnapped and "de-programmed". That issue has never been satisfactorially resolved, but the public was able to grasp the analysis has to begin with the right of the adult child to worship and live as they choose.

I don't see this debate as much different. When American Muslims break the law by funding terrorist groups, they should be punished. When they break the law by abusing a woman or a child, they should be punished. But to fear people who have yet to show any inclination to do either and to try and pass "preventive legislation" against lawful acts that arouse our anxiety seems to me to be a return of the sort of bigotry and harrassment of a minority that the US has always (ultimately) rejected.

 

[syrenn]

If American Muslims believe women are inferior to men, believe in honor killings, believe in Jihad, believe in all of Sharia Law, that is their right. Up to a point. But Muslims cannot do what would be criminal or a violation of rights to people with impunity any more than Methodists or Orthodox Jews can. And they are outside of the law if they teach others to violate the law.

It is the right of Muslim funded schools to teach Muslim concepts just as any Roman Catholic or Presbyterian school would teach religious concepts. But if a Muslim school wishes to be accredited by the State, it will also have to teach government, Constitution, concepts of rights, and other sociopolitical curriculum just as all other schools are required to do.

Muslims deserve no special consideration or exemptions any more than any other group deserves special consideraton or exemptions. Live under American laws and culture or go somewhere else.

That about sums it up in a nut shell. Thank you foxfyre.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the 1970's or so, there was a high level of concern among the parents of adult children that they would join a cult, cut off all ties to their families and live in a manner contrary to the values they were raised with. Much debate was had over the legal definition of a "cult" and when (if ever) parents could have their adult children kidnapped and "de-programmed". That issue has never been satisfactorially resolved, but the public was able to grasp the analysis has to begin with the right of the adult child to worship and live as they choose.

I don't see this debate as much different. When American Muslims break the law by funding terrorist groups, they should be punished. When they break the law by abusing a woman or a child, they should be punished. But to fear people who have yet to show any inclination to do either and to try and pass "preventive legislation" against lawful acts that arouse our anxiety seems to me to be a return of the sort of bigotry and harrassment of a minority that the US has always (ultimately) rejected.

The Roman Catholics, the Muslims, the Druids, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Taoists, the Protestants, the Jews, and (pick your religious group of choice) have been co-existing in the USA and much of the world quite peacefully for some time now. But of all of them, it is the Muslims who demand or request special dispensation for their brand of 'law' whether or not it runs contrary to the law of the land.

There have been fanatics, wierdos, and crazies from all these groups, but Islam stands pretty alone in having a list like this to its credit:

LIST OF MAJOR ISLAMIC ATTACKS & PLOTS ON AMERICA…before 9/11
Some people ignore that Islamics have been attacking the United States long before September 11, 2001.
Here is just a sampling:

1979 Iran Hostage Crisis: seizure of US Tehran Embassy, Iran (Nov 4, 1979 for 444 days)
1983 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy, Lebanon (April 18, 1983)
1983 Bombing of US Marine barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (Oct 23, 1983)
1983 Bombing of US Kuwait Embassy (Dec 12, 1983)
1984 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy (again) (Sept 20, 1984)
1984 Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 hijacked to Tehran – American passengers murdered (Dec 3, 1984)
1985 Hijacking TWA Flight 847 hijacked to Beirut (June 14, 1985)
1985 Hijacking cruise ship Achille Lauro, wheelchair-bound American is thrown overboard & killed (Oct 7, 1985)
1986 Bombing Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen (April 5, 1986)
1988 Bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, 100′s murdered (Dec 21, 1988)
1993 First bombing World Trade Center, New York City, 7 Killed, 1,042 wounded (Feb 26, 1993)
1993 Foiled NY Landmarks plot by Omar Abdel Rahman to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels
and other New York City landmarks
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr. during visit to Kuwait (April 14, 1993)
1993 Black Hawk Down: shot down US helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia,
during Operation Restore Hope (Oct 3-4, 1993)
1994 Plot to assassinate President Clinton during visit to the Philippines
1995 Failed Project Bojinka by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen US airliners over the Pacific (end in Jan 1995)
1995 Bombing US military headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Nov 13, 1995)
1996 Bombing Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, housing U.S. foreign military personnel (Jun 25, 1996)
1998 Bombing U.S. Nairobi Embassy, Kenya, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
1998 Bombing U.S. Dar es Salaam Embassy, Tanzania, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
1999 Foiled LAX Millennium plot by Ahmed Ressam to bomb Los Angeles International Airport
(Ressam was arrested at US Canadian border)
2000 Failed USS The Sullivans bombing that was refueling in the port of Aden, Yemen. (Jan 3, 2000)
2000 Bombing USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered (Oct 12, 2000)
(The USS Cole was not engaged in any combat during this period)
2000 Bombing plaza across from US Manila Embassy (Dec 30, 2000)
2001 9/11 attacks: World Trade Center, Flight 93, Pentagon, 3000+ murdered (Sept 11, 2001)

Since 9/11, I believe some 16,000+ terrorist attacks in the name of various Islamic groups has been documented.

No other religion demands that the Earth be placed under command of their deity.
No other religion demands death to the infidels (non-believers) and promises a certain path to heaven for those who kill infidels.

This stuff isn't happening among large groups of little old ladies, Nuns, Buddhist monks, Indian Shamans, or Christian groups. Most religions operate on a principle of attraction, not force. Have they all always been that way? No. But they have all been mostly that way in the 20th Century and beyond.

Islam stands alone firmly stuck in the dark ages.

Having said that, I have no quarrel with Muslims and enjoy that I have Muslim neighbors and have had Muslim colleagues and coworkers and employees, one Muslim boss, and currently have observed excellent Muslim healthcare providers in action. You won't find any more fun loving or delightful people anywhere than Iranian people. Singly or in small groups, Muslims are just people trying to get along in the world as most people do.

But in larger numbers, Muslims feel empowered to request or push for concessions to their faith.

And in large majorities, Muslims deny any others opportunity to proselyte Muslims and many if not most personal freedoms or ability to openly express another religion are sharply curtailed. Women are subjugated to chattel status, and nobody is safe from the wrath of the Iman if he or she should sin.

This simply is not the case with any other religion these days, and this, and that long list of terrorist activity up there, is why Islam is not in strong favor with freedom loving people these days.

I am pretty sure that if they had it to do over again, neither France nor the U.K. nor several other nations would be so accommodating to the swelling populations of Muslims in their midst. It is not going well for them.

 

[ConHog]

If American Muslims believe women are inferior to men, believe in honor killings, believe in Jihad, believe in all of Sharia Law, that is their right. Up to a point. But Muslims cannot do what would be criminal or a violation of rights to people with impunity any more than Methodists or Orthodox Jews can. And they are outside of the law if they teach others to violate the law.

It is the right of Muslim funded schools to teach Muslim concepts just as any Roman Catholic or Presbyterian school would teach religious concepts. But if a Muslim school wishes to be accredited by the State, it will also have to teach government, Constitution, concepts of rights, and other sociopolitical curriculum just as all other schools are required to do.

Muslims deserve no special consideration or exemptions any more than any other group deserves special consideraton or exemptions. Live under American laws and culture or go somewhere else.

That about sums it up in a nut shell. Thank you foxfyre.

I wonder why Madeline thanked you since she believes they should be allowed to have Sharia law here? She is a lunatic.

 

[syrenn]

If American Muslims believe women are inferior to men, believe in honor killings, believe in Jihad, believe in all of Sharia Law, that is their right. Up to a point. But Muslims cannot do what would be criminal or a violation of rights to people with impunity any more than Methodists or Orthodox Jews can. And they are outside of the law if they teach others to violate the law.

It is the right of Muslim funded schools to teach Muslim concepts just as any Roman Catholic or Presbyterian school would teach religious concepts. But if a Muslim school wishes to be accredited by the State, it will also have to teach government, Constitution, concepts of rights, and other sociopolitical curriculum just as all other schools are required to do.

Muslims deserve no special consideration or exemptions any more than any other group deserves special consideraton or exemptions. Live under American laws and culture or go somewhere else.

That about sums it up in a nut shell. Thank you foxfyre.

I wonder why Madeline thanked you since she believes they should be allowed to have Sharia law here? She is a lunatic.

Most likely because i am participating in her thread. I am sure she would disagree with me as i am staunchly against ANY form of sharia law in the US. I dont think she is a lunatic she just has her opinions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed! Maddie has that most commendable quality of being able to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. Which is why she (and Syrenn) are some of my favorite USMB people.

 

[syrenn]

Indeed! Maddie has that most commendable quality of being able to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. Which is why she (and Syrenn) are some of my favorite USMB people.

Bad women...you made me blush! Im out of rep..so i owe you one.

 

[The Infidel]

Indeed! Maddie has that most commendable quality of being able to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. Which is why she (and Syrenn) are some of my favorite USMB people.

I like their "I dont give a crap what you think" attitude (but in a nice way)







I might be in hot water now.... so bye!

 

[Madeline]

Indeed! Maddie has that most commendable quality of being able to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. Which is why she (and Syrenn) are some of my favorite USMB people.

I like their "I dont give a crap what you think" attitude (but in a nice way)







I might be in hot water now.... so bye!

Not now, not ever, The Infidel. What's the point of debate if you only welcome those who agree with you?

 

[Madeline]

Indeed! Maddie has that most commendable quality of being able to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. Which is why she (and Syrenn) are some of my favorite USMB people.

Bad women...you made me blush! Im out of rep..so i owe you one.

I consider this very high praise, foxfyre (and less than fully deserved on my part). I am most appreciative.

 

[Madeline]

That about sums it up in a nut shell. Thank you foxfyre.

I wonder why Madeline thanked you since she believes they should be allowed to have Sharia law here? She is a lunatic.

Most likely because i am participating in her thread. I am sure she would disagree with me as i am staunchly against ANY form of sharia law in the US. I dont think she is a lunatic she just has her opinions.

I do not favor Sharia Law....what nonsense is this? I'd certainly countenance any purely religious matter being relegated to a religious court, and I'd be willing to permit any two adults who freely chose to use a Sharia Court as an alternative dispute resolution but...and this is a ginormous but....US courts cannot be deprived of jurisdiction over certain matters by any religious court, including (but not limited to) family law, inheritance and criminal law.

 

[chanel]

It's already happened Madeline. And this is not a religious court.

* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in "substantial conformity with Maryland law" by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was "not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial"; the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores";"a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of ... Pakistan"; "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child's proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings"; the Pakistani order was not the result of "a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft"; the "longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world's oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy"; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," such punishments were "extremely unlikely."

Gary's Reflections: A Discussion About Sharia Law

And we've already discussed the NJ marital rape case which fortunately was overturned.

 

[chanel]

Several states have proposed legislation preventing such an occurrence. That's not Islamophobia. Its preventative medicine.

What do such laws entail? May we have a link, so we can read them?

Most people do not realize, however, that, along with Tennessee, Louisiana already took the lead in preventing Shariah from creeping into our legal system with a new law which has been nicknamed “American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts.”

This law, Act 714 of the regular Louisiana 2010 legislative session, was a collaborative effort by Rep. Ernest Wooton and Senator Danny Martiny. Governor Bobby Jindal’s office was aware of this bill and its intent from the earliest stages and the governor dispatched staff to appear in support of the bill in committee:

The key passage in this important piece of legislation explains its intent and effect:

“The legislature finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Because Shariah is inherently violative of the basic constitutional liberties which Americans hold dear, this law arms judges and attorneys with the tool they need to prevent anything such as happened in Maryland and New Jersey from happening in Louisiana.

Act 714 is now model legislation for the rest of the country and has already been used by legislators in states from coast to coast to prepare legislation in the 2011 legislative session.

The Hayride Louisiana At Leading Edge In Fight Against Shariah

Madeline - why did you title this thread "The US of Hate"?

 

[Si modo]

Okay, all you Islamophobes, let's alter the US constitution and its laws so that you can tell us exactly what kind of country we'll all be living in if you get your way.

What alteration do we make to the First Amendment? Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, presumably y'all want to "define religion" so that Islam does not qualify? How so? What rights would American Muslims lose that they could not assert as free speech and freedom of assembly? I guess we need to curtail those as well?

My research did not turn up any SCOTUS decision directly on-point; "religion" is apparently rather undefined in US law at this time.

I assume we need to change our immigration laws, so that no (?) Middles Eastern person, resident of any Arab state or adherent of Islam can emigrate here? How so?

Do we eject non-citizen Muslims here on otherwise valid visas?

Do we force citizen Muslims into internment camps?

Do we pass new RICO laws, so suing Muslims is easier? How do we exempt the RCC from such laws -- or do we? You may want to look over the following lawsuit...a "christian" group in Tennessee is attempting to prevent the building of a mosque on the grounds that "Islam is not a religion".

Legitimacy of Islam at heart of Murfreesboro mosque suit | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Let's have the conversation because I, for one, want to see exactly what y'all have planned for the land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave. I suspect I won't recognize my country when y'all get done making these changes.

I'm sorry. Was this thread about you ASKING us what we think, or TELLING us what we think?

Don't be sorry at all. Madeline is a master of the strawman argument. She is a strawman warrior and a hysterical lunatic.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sharia courts would "respect the establisment of religion."

Not unless they only dealt with religious issues, Revere. E.g., excommunication, reconciliation, etc. If they attempted to cope with domestic violence, other criminal acts and family law, they'd usurp the jurisdiction of the US courts. I don't see that ever passing constititutional muster here.

Religious issues are legal issues in Islam.

And by your measure, interfering with the application of sharia law would be interfering with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

 

[ConHog]

Sharia courts would "respect the establisment of religion."

Not unless they only dealt with religious issues, Revere. E.g., excommunication, reconciliation, etc. If they attempted to cope with domestic violence, other criminal acts and family law, they'd usurp the jurisdiction of the US courts. I don't see that ever passing constititutional muster here.

Religious issues are legal issues in Islam.

And by your measure, interfering with the application of sharia law would be interfering with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

The idiot doesn't realize, or at least doesn't want to recognize that to Muslims religion and politics are the same things.

 

[Si modo]

Not unless they only dealt with religious issues, Revere. E.g., excommunication, reconciliation, etc. If they attempted to cope with domestic violence, other criminal acts and family law, they'd usurp the jurisdiction of the US courts. I don't see that ever passing constititutional muster here.

Religious issues are legal issues in Islam.

And by your measure, interfering with the application of sharia law would be interfering with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

The idiot doesn't realize, or at least doesn't want to recognize that to Muslims religion and politics are the same things.

Theocracies.

 

[Madeline]

It's already happened Madeline. And this is not a religious court.

* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in "substantial conformity with Maryland law" by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was "not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial"; the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores";"a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of ... Pakistan"; "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child's proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings"; the Pakistani order was not the result of "a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft"; the "longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world's oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy"; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," such punishments were "extremely unlikely."

Gary's Reflections: A Discussion About Sharia Law

And we've already discussed the NJ marital rape case which fortunately was overturned.

This sounds like a bad decision, chanel. In general, US courts do not disturb the custody decisions of courts of other nations but the fact that the mother did not participate should have served as grounds for a new hearing, IMO.