Is this what is meant by "being in Dutch"

Anti women mosque being closed down? Does this mean that all the country's mosque will be close down.

RTL Television reported on Thursday a cameraman was assaulted when a news team attempted to buy “The Way of the Muslim” at the mosque.

So when did Sean Penn convert to Islam and move to Holland?

“This mosque has been warned repeatedly by the authorities that intolerance against non-Muslims and undermining the law is unacceptable in the Netherlands,” Hirsi Ali said.

Close them, arrest them, deport them. Much more effective than non-effective headscarf bans. Bully for the Dutch.

Yet the Dutch seem to be increasingly anti Israel. Go figure.

I DO believe in free speech. I'm an admirer of Thomas Jefferson and John Madison. They put and would tolerate, no limits on Freedom of Speech.
They could not conceive the kinds of absolute HATE speech as exemplified by that mosque.
They believed that the OVERWHELMING majority of folks would condemn it so quickly that we wouldn't be reading/communicating about it for very long.

We should come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks - and "take notes, names and numbers" of those who "defend" them.

This is NOT something which can be defended.

It seems the Dutch better get street cleaners out , there's bound to be some "falling objects " hitting the pavements .

Wonder what they're going to do about the druggies ?

Bet there'll be a run on rocks.

Gretta Duisenberg can't be too happy about this. She never met a terrorist she didn't like.

This Dutch MP had better watch his step. He could end up like Pim Fortuyn.

#7 Excaliber - what do drugs, druggies have to do with this ?
I'll bet there won't be a run on rocks. Druggies may be killing themselves, but they are not an organized force for the murder of other people.

Talk about losing sight of the primary target.

#9 scaramouche (you are not the boat!) - jeez; what a thought.
Maybe we should send the equivalent of a platoon of Special Forces "types" to cover his ass.

Gay people should be thrown head first off high buildings

Kind of ironic that if it were not for Western Civilization, there would be no high buildings from which this could be done.

scaramouche

She's a she and an ex-muslim.

This is really good news - the reformation has to start with brave women.

Other positive news - women playing football in Afghanistan, albeit fully clothed and behind a wall...

[Link: www.iwpr.net...]

OT, but I had a very silly image of the confergence of LLL stupidity and Islamofascist stupidity -

Nude Splodeydope.

The way the Dutch are these days, I see a deportation coming.

Here are suitable Dutch wives for the Islamic Nazies.

Apropos of this topic, a political party with 18 parliament seats in the Netherlands has been banned by the leftist court , because it opposes unchecked immigration.

[Link: www.stephenpollard.net...]

#3 SoCalJustice,

Probably after he knew he'd have no recurring role in playing useful idiot for Saddam. Anyhow, I voted for Holland - first for sharia!

Oops, that was Belgium not the Netherlands.

Still, its interesting...

#16,

Hello, Dolly!

I just feel like reiterating what we already know, that Europe is in deep, deep shit.

#19 Globular,

Isn't Belgium the place where recently storm troopers performe B&E into the office of a journalist investigating corruption in the EC, forcibly taking him with them in the process? (I don't use the word "arrest" because no wrongdoing on his behalf has been established. Rather, that state was the felon in this case.)

Interesting indeed.

She does need to be guarded against a Pim Fortuyn-style assault. Pim was a true anamoly on the European political scene - and would have been in any Anglo-sphere country. However, he represented a voice that should be heard - and that is sorely needed, to keep balance to the current debate. Not all people of any one race, religion, etc. feel any one way -- and I hope that, should a successor to Pym Fortuyn emerge in the next few years, he/she would be guarded with great care, for societies such as the Benelux have become do not allow people of his caliber to come this way often.

I love these kinds of stories because they reveal the true hypocrisy of the LLL. They all advocate rights for Homo's, women, etc. Now when confronted with the true meaning of Islam, they all cut and run.

Why do the lefties support the very people who want them dead? You would think that gay people would be more afraid of Muslims than they are of Christians.

Where is the friggin' 'gay militia' on this? Are they too afraid to go to the mosques who threaten to throw them off high buildings and stone them to death? Oh, no, much easier to go scream 'right wing bigot' at peace loving Christians who want to pray to their God and raise their kids to be straight.

#6: That is why the founders often stated the Constitution required a religious people. Democracy and capitalism need a moral component to balance their practices. The removal of Judeo/Christian morality from our society will cause the end of our Republic. You will notice that democracy doesn't spring from Moslem nations.

#23 E.S., if you're looking for a successor to Pim Fortuyn look no further that Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She arrived in the Netherlands as a refugee and worked her way up in society entirely on her own strength. She's greater than Fortuyn in my opinion. Fortuyn was a drama queen at times. Hirsi Ali is a super intelligent, sharp debater who never looses her cool. She's has a serene presence - not sure if that makes sense, but I see no other way to describe it. And yes, she does put her life on the line. She receives constant death threats and only travels with bodyguards. She should be guarded with great care and we should support her.

I think some posters are confused about where Hirsi Ali stands. The 'Liberal VVD party' is considered a 'right wing' or 'conservative' party in the Netherlands; not liberal as in LLL, but classic liberalism, i.e. pro-capitalist, democratic, in favor of rule of law.

#25 RepJ, Pim Fortuyn was flamboyantly gay. That's why he denounced islam early on, which got him killed by an animal rights activist.

Gay people should be thrown head first off high buildings. If not killed on hitting the ground, they should then be stoned to death, the book allegedly suggests.

So does that mean he opposes gay marriage?

#12 - nice

A forum I go to has a gay candadian guy who is totally pro-terrorist/palestine/etc. You can't tell him that islam is anti-gay or whatever. He won't hear of it.

Here's one of his stupid posts [Link: www.viceland.com...]

He believes EVERY conspiracy theory.

#22 Israel's Amos

Isn't Belgium the place where recently storm troopers performe B&E into the office of a journalist investigating corruption in the EC, forcibly taking him with them in the process?

Yes, and it's also the country that just outlawed (yes, outlawed) a Flemish right-wing party.

The publication — translated as The Way of the Muslim in English — is said to advocate violence against women and killing gay people.

"Said to?" They couldn't just read the damn thing and report on it definitively? Besides, killing gays and beating women are part of Islamic scripture, so it isn't as if this particular mosque is the exception.

#10 realwest: Perhaps he meant that drug users would also be targets for Islamic violence.

#25 RepJ:

Why do the lefties support the very people who want them dead?

Because they hate their own countrymen more than they love themselves.

#25 bikerdude.. They are here in San Francisco--- Gays for Palistine.. I s*** you not, they are a real group.. can you spell suicidal?

Thanks for the hat-tip, Charles.

It's strange to witness that the few people standing up and fighting for Western culture these days are actually immigrants, ex-muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and others. If we win this, we will do so thanks to the fact that not all of our immigrants, even from muslim countries, want to destroy us.

Sweet Jebus. Fundamentalist Christians realize they share the obsessive loathing of homosexuals with fundamentalist Muslims and...

They mock liberals.

There's plenty to mock liberals for, but espousing common decency, equal rights and freedom for all law-abiding, taxpaying, loyal citizens — regardless of what they do behind bedroom doors — isn't one of them.

And yes, I'm fully aware that the majority of Christians don't advocate summary execution for homosexuals.

But many do advocate a certain type of...shall we say, dhimmitude?

Typical RoP bombastic crap - "Gay people should be thrown head first off high buildings. If not killed on hitting the ground, they should then be stoned to death..."

What will simply closing the mosque do - drive them underground? Better to round the perps up and ship 'em home.

Oh, and AndreaSF — "Gays for Palestine" simply demonstrates that stupidity has no sexual preference.

#35 tekmo

And the point of all that was ... ?

Techmo, even fundies (and don't throw Phelps into this--that freak was a cult leader masquerading as a Christian; no legitimate Christian sect approved of him) say, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner."

I don't personally believe homosexuality is a sin, but if I go to church and say that--guess what? Nobody stones me or denounces me for apostasy and kicks me out the church doors!

If you're talking about gay marriage, I'd suggest you do research into the strictures Christianity of all types has put on "straight" marriages, and how these traditions have evolved. Used to be divorced people could be cast out. Now they're not. Even in Catholic sects.

If I were gay, I could be out and not be tossed off a building in America.

(Ooops, now we'll get onto gay-bashing--which, by the way, is illegal, and the Feds made it into a hate crime, right?)

I'd rather fandango about with changing marriage laws than be stoned to death.

How about you?

This was all inevitable once Mr. Fortuyn was murdered. Here was a former Marxist turned Libertarian, who took on the Muslims not because he was advancing racism, but fighting it. He knew what was in store for gays (and Jews) once the Muslims smashed Holland's famous libertarian tolerance.

His thanks was five bullets from a crazed Jihad-lloving radical leftist, who only got 10 years in prison, from a now corrupt Dutch system that never forgave Fortuyn for exposing the folly of leftist multi-culti thought.

Holland also went in 30 years from being stronly pro-Israel to being as much a bunch of fanatic anti-Semites as the rest of the continent.

Well, Holland, this is your reward for cultural relativism, muliticulturalism and anti-semitism.

You will lose everything, except maybe your race with France to see who adopts sharia law first.

Warning: Graphic.

The female "circumcision" thing is a bit different from male circumcision...

"Pharonic circumcision," common in Sudan and parts of Egypt, involves taking a little girl (usually before age 7) and holding her down with her legs apart, cutting out her clitoris, then cutting off her inner and outer labia. They then take thread or string and stitch the labia wounds together while the child screams in pain. Leaving only a small opening toward the anus for both urine and (later) menstrual flow. Needless to say, terrible infections are common.

These girls are commonly sold to much older men in arranged marriages, when they are just 12 or 13 years old. On the wedding night, the man "goes into them with a knife."

Hey, nothing like knowing your child bride is really a virgin.

This is why women's rights groups call it "female genital mutilation," and I think most folks would agree that FGM is a more accurate term. But hey, it's their CULTURE.

Anyone interested in more information about this, the World Health Organization has stats.

#35 tekmo:

Fundamentalist Christians realize they share the obsessive loathing of homosexuals with fundamentalist Muslims

Oh, no: the dreaded "Fundamentalist Christians"! Yup, not wanting the Supreme Court to change the definition of marriage is exactly the same as wanting to kill homosexuals!

Your moral relativism is in overdrive.

There is also another article on that site specific to Female Genital Mutilation:

Mosque: girls must be circumcised
[Link: www.expatica.com...]
 

I'm dutch and I welcome the news has spreading all around the world that our people are more and more fighting the idea, that we should be tolerant at all cost.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is still fighting a batlle against islamo-fascism here in Holland; it is her personal crusade. She has bodyguards all the time around her. She has been blackmailed and threatened.

However; the family-planning of many muslims here is still going on and ours will dissapear. A wonder must happen to turn the fate, that is heading for us.

realwest writes "I'm an admirer of Thomas Jefferson and John Madison. They put and would tolerate, no limits on Freedom of Speech. They could not conceive the kinds of absolute HATE speech as exemplified by that mosque."

Really?

Despite the challenge that Abigail Adams presented to his prejudices, Jefferson's view on women was that they should confine themselves to being domestic angels (see [Link: earlyamerica.com...] ). In English Common Law, the tide turned against wife beating in the seventeenth century, although prosecution of wife beaters and the protection of their wives remained difficult (as it does today). At the same time, however, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Sir Matthew Hale, clarified that a man could not rape his wife: "the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract." (Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, quoted by Jaye Sitton, "Old Wine in New Bottles: The 'Marital' Rape Allowance", North Carolina Law Review, 72 (Nov. 1993), 261-89 at 264). This provision, in which intercourse was seen as a husband's right and rape was impossible, remained largely unchallenged until the 1970s (Sitton, 277). Even now the law in many American states continues to distinguish between marital forced intercourse from non-marital rape. In current Virginian law, for instance, (unless it's changed since 7 March 2002) a woman 'cannot file a rape charge against her husband if she is currently living with him and did not sustain a serious bodily injury' ([Link: www.equityfeminism.com...] ). Is this not in a similar league to 'a husband’s duty of care for his wife is negated if she refuses him sex'?

Sorry to undermine your romanticization of Jefferson innocence concerning hate speech against 'gays', but until 1786 all former English colonies in America punished sodomy with death by statute. In 1786 Pennsylvania began the reform of sodomy legislation in the United States by commuting the death penalty to forfeiture of all property and a period of servitude not to exceed 10 years. New Jersey and New York State repealed the death penalty in 1796. The last of the original states to abandon capital punishment for sodomy was South Carolina, in 1873. (Admittedly, it is likely that the actual punishments handed were often less than than capital, just as the actual punishments for chastisement of wives and servants were often less punitive than the statues decreed.) What did Thomas Jefferson think about sodomy laws? When the repeal of the death penalty was on the cards in Virginia around 1800, Thomas Jefferson proposed that "the penalty for sodomy among men should be castration, and for women, a hole should be cut in the nasal cartilage of at least one half inch in diameter apparently in the belief that torture was preferable to the death penalty. Jefferson's proposal was unique not only because it specified mutilation as a punishment, but because he broke with the English tradition and included women in his definition of sodomy. Fortunately, Jefferson's 'liberal' approach was never made law." (See [Link: www.gayhistory.com...] .)

Anybody, not just Muslim fanatics, who actually stones gays or beats women should be prosecuted. In general, I'd prefer to maintain free speech as far as possible, and fight 'unenlightened' views with education and argument. However, if we are going to have laws against inciting violence against innocents (and there is a case for that), they should be applied to everyone equally, not just Muslim fanatics (e.g. neo-Nazis and even certain 'right-wing Christian bigots').

bikerdude writes 'Democracy and capitalism need a moral component to balance their practices. The removal of Judeo/Christian morality from our society will cause the end of our Republic. You will notice that democracy doesn't spring from Moslem nations.'

You verge on contradicting yourself. Does Judaeo-Christianity restrain democracy, or produce it? If you think the later, how do you explain centuries of reinforcement of hierarchical, even monarchic, societies by Judaeo-Christian priests and theologians?

Gays are blind if they don't think muslims have a problem with homosexuality. I forget who pointed it out, but you can guage the tolerance of homosexuality in the muslim countries by counting the number of Gay Pride Parades there.

Apologies, here are important corrections to my previous post concerning US sodomy legislation. The history provided by [Link: www.gayhistory.com...] is over-simplified. A more exhaustive guide is [Link: www.sodomylaws.org...] In most of the English American colonies, sodomy had a maximum capital punishment either by statute or by English common law. The only non-capital sodomy law introduced in the colonial era was in the Quaker state of Pennsylvania, which in 1682 decreed "that if any person shall be Legally Convicted of the unnatural sin of Sodomy or joining with beasts, Such persons shall be whipt, and forfeit one third of his or her estate, and work six months in the house of Correction, at hard labour, and for the Second offense, imprisonment, as aforesaid, during life." Pennsylvania's sodomy laws went under a variety of changes, but basicly it was a capital offence in 1693-4 (when the state was briefly resubjected to English common law), and after 1700 for blacks, and after 1718 for whites. The only known execution for sodomy in Pennsylvania is that of Joseph Ross of Westmoreland County in December 1785. Perhaps in reaction, in 1786 the maximum penalty was lowered to forfeiture of estate and up to 10 years in prison. See [Link: www.sodomylaws.org...]

I've seen various dates for the last execution for sodomy in Britain, including 1840. In 1861 the maximum penalty was reduced from hanging to life imprisonment. See [Link: www.aaronsgayinfo.com...]

Jefferson's horrific proposed sodomy law for Virginia was part of a collaborative package of laws put forward in 1777 (not c. 1800 as previously stated). See [Link: www.sodomylaws.org...]

In partial defence/explanation of the harshness of these sodomy laws, "sodomy" and "buggery" were vague terms that did not distinguish consensual same-sex intercourse from same-sex rape and paedophilia, or indeed from anal and oral sex between members of different sexes! I would hope that the heaviest sentence of the law was only handed out to rapists and paedophiles, but I've seen no evidence either way. OTOH the very fact that consensual same-sex intercourse was tarred with the same brush as the rape of boys and discouraged by the threat of capital punishment shows that Jefferson could not have been innocently unaware of homophobic "hate speech", as recognised by modern liberal thought.

Jefferson could not have been innocently unaware of homophobic "hate speech", as recognised by modern liberal thought.

LMAO. I guess I've seen just about everything now ...

While it is true that the West was once as homophobic and anti-women as the Islamic world, the BIG difference is that now it isn't. The Islamic world is still at it.

Also when the West held unenlightened views on slavery, women's rights etc, so did the rest of the world. So there was nobody to learn from. These days Islamic countries can look to the West, see how well it is doing (evidenced by the fact that everyone wants to live there) and put their own house in order. But they choose not to.

Are they stupid or what?!

Norwegian kaffir:

"It's strange to witness that the few people standing up and fighting for Western culture these days are actually immigrants, ex-muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and others. If we win this, we will do so thanks to the fact that not all of our immigrants, even from muslim countries, want to destroy us. "

It's not all that strange to Americans. The strongly pro-American first-generation immigrant is so common in the US it is almost a folkloric stereotype.

A Philippino immigrant friend once explained to me why he hated the Western LLL: "We suffered in the Third World and now that WE are coming to the West to get our share of the pie, the Leftists want to ruin it all for us."

Ben, I am shaking my head at your laughability.

You quote laws that were set aside CENTURIES ago, in your effort to put the PRESENT-DAY stoning of gays and beating of women in Islamic countries as completely parallel and therefore just as morally equal to the PRESENT-DAY Western Judeo-Christian countries.

I mean, really.

And to suggest that Jefferson had to be aware, what, two centuries ago, of 21st-century homophobic hate speech?

Yes, go get Sherman, jump in the time machine, and inform the long-dead Jefferson of his faulty "hate speech."

Jesus, what a suckweasel you are.

I think the Professor linked a TCS column--a speech by Dr. Keke (sp--I'm remarkably lazy) suggesting, among other things, that moral relativity--such as yours--is only as true, according to its very nature, as any other value set. In other words, your moral relativism is only as true as, say, my moral absolutism. Think about it, if grad school hasn't robbed you entirely of the capacity to think independently: relativism, as relativism, in its form as relativism, means that its worth is only relative.

Then take the blinders off your mind and visit the harsh world of reality.

I believe societies can be judged by their treatment of the vulnerable in general---ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, women, children, animals. Muslim Arab societies don't rate very highly in any of these respects, do they?

#45 Ben - that I "verge on contradicting" myself is nothing new to me.
That you've VERY selectively assaulted TJ and JM is fairly apparent, to anyone who is even VAUGLEY associated with history. Please note that, among other things, your cites to everything in 1796 were based upon extremely aggressive attacks on our constitution and of course the first ten amendments thereto, which were adopted in l 1789.

Did people, THREE HUNDRED YEARS AGO have different personal beliefs than we (or at least some of us) do now?
Yup.

Um, you might want to check out Sitton on a site other than one devoted to propogandizing such as the "gay" sites you cite

As I said to a history professor (who happens to be an african american) in a live debate: "Sir, if it wasn't for Thomas Jefferson, you would not have the right, the ability nor, perhaps, the desire to speak as you do now."

So, ya know, go ahead and "defame" Jefferson and Madison. They have been recognized, virtually universally, as great men. What've you done, lately?

Oh and, BTW Abaigail Adams, NEVER presented her views to Jefferson. Nope. TJ and JA disliked each other enomously while they were both still "active " in politics.
Afterwards they engaged in a letter writing "conversation" (for every single day of their lives)
until they both died, on the same day and the same date:

July 4, 1826

Ben

Thanks for a very informative post.

Islam needs to modernize. That is a radical enough position to take in today's post-modernist, post-colonial intellectual climate. It is not necessary to demonize it as more intrinsically oppressive than Judaism or Christianity---one is taking a provocative stand just by saying they need their own Renaissance/Reformation.

#47 Ben " put forward in 1777 " um, ya know guy you need better "mentors". Really.
In 1777 we were fighting to OBTAIN our freedom from Great Britain. Seriously. We didn't become the USA unitl 1789.
Well, ok, we were the confederation of american "states" just prior to that; GB didn't "submit" or give in until 1781.
What pisses me off (other than you're desire to defame two of the truly unique and greatest men in history) is that you're trying to make a point about gay rights.
And I've supported gay rights and civil union - marriage is a uniquely RELIGOUS concept - for my entire life. And dipshits like you undermine my (our) efforts with your uniformed, but LOUD yammering.
Go Away.
Read a couple of books; don't rely on internet sites where anyone can print anything without fearing the legal - much less moral - consequences thereof.
And take DP 111 with you.

#48 Thom™ - I'd a laughed too, except that to achieve his goal (which, apparently is "gay rights") he willfully, or - more likely - ignorantly - got after two of the many Americans who made it possible for him to say what he did.
TJ was right - let everyone speak and let the marketplace of ideas spurn the uniformed.

Oh come on, I think we have misunderstood these guys all along. Just listen to them:

one of the imams referred to non-Muslims as “firewood for hell”.

That's pretty damn funny. See, they are just misunderstood comedians.

#58

Lots of Christians in the Bible belt saying the same thing about Muslims and in some cases Jews ...

#57 realwest

That's one of the favorite pastimes of the left, isn't it? "Deconstructing" (disparaging and delegitimizing) the Founding Fathers to further some "progressive" agenda. In this case the agenda seems to be to equate Thomas Jefferson with the freaks at the El Tawheed mosque.

I'm as disgusted by it as you are.

#58 rebmiami - No, I'M a misunderstood comedian.
(and I'm talking to my "crack" team of joke writers about that now - you know, you pay people money to come up with funny thoughts, ideas, expressions; they cash their checks and I'm still waiting for the results. Sigh.)
It just truly offends me when someone takes off on two truly great, GREAT Americans based on (?) absolute nonesense and gibberish.
While undermining their "cause" along the way.

#57 realwest

LOL. And right on cue, #59 shows up with a stunning display of another of the left's favorite pastimes...

I just don't get these people. Is their ultimate agenda really to stifle any criticism of mohammedanism? To induce moral paralysis?

{sigh}

#60 Thom™ sorry it took a while to get back to you, but between my talking to my crack team of joke writers and trying to figure out some way to reach through my monitor (alas, if there is a way neither me nor my "crack" team could figure it out!) time sort of slipped away.
I also spent a little time in Charles'' archives searching out Ben; nothing of value to be seen there.
He is a persistant sob, I'll give him that (which is, of course, nothing like what me and my bud "Louisvelle
Slugger" would like to give him!!!).

#55 moe katz-an uninformed landesman?--boychick-islam already had a reformation--its wahabbism--puritanical camelshit--its renaissance was sayid qubt and his muslim brotherhood salafi pigshit--islam needs an ENLIGHTENMENT to apply reason to its basic religio-facistic supremeist tenents--if you don't think its more intrinsically oppressive than judaism or christianity than i want to sell you my used underwear as a rolex--take your pomo homo post colonial post structuralist moral equivelancy mishagas and be gone--or at least read the kkkoran and the hadiths--if you can't read see the movie "osama"--sheesh

#62 Thom™ LOL!!!

I need to stop posting for a while; my Hustler Magazine induced carparl tunnel is acting up on me.
But I honestly don't get the whole "troll syndrome". I suppose it garners them "attention" but jeez, I like attention too, but ONLY if it's positive attention, or feedback or whatever.
Oh well...at least they give me a way to peacefully express my anger (but boy, if I COULD reach through the monitor!!!).
Gonna either lurk, nap, or drink for a while.
See you around campus!!!

#55

Valid faiths send missionaries.

Islam sends murderers.

#64

LOL! I guess you just conveniently ignore the nasty stuff in the Tanach, huh?

#65 realwest

Re the carpal thing - does the acronym "TMI" ring any bells? LOL. ;)

Ann, Hulugulu:

There's plenty of horrible stuff in Judaism too, that can be oppressive in the wrong hands. Imagine if the Kahanists became the mainstream of Judaism, them and the Chabad.

#64 HULUGU " take your pomo homo post colonial post structuralist moral equivelancy mishagas and be gone--or at least read the kkkoran and the hadiths--if you can't read see the movie "osama"--sheesh "

ROFLMAO!!!

Um Thom (t freaking m) I decided on one of my three options that I mentioned in #65; can you guess which one?!!

#66 Ann- wow. There's a short (something new to moi) but effective post
Sobering, too.
Damn it!

Moe Katz (#69)

Imagine if the Kahanists became the mainstream of Judaism, them and the Chabad.

The Kahanists are not comparable to militant Islam and they aren't mainstream, so what is your point? Judaism does not advocate violence the way Islam does.

#67puhleeze moishe--i don't want to derail this thread with a ratioal reinterpretation of the hebrew biblical writings which if you've noticed smegmahead are not presently inciting people to kill you in their name--suffice it to say that the gates of ijtihad [individual reasoning] have been closed in islam since the 9th century and the abbasid caliphate--btw hirsi ali was herself the victim of genital mutalation in somalia--this is a VERY brave woman--unlike you mo who is a very silly man

zb--let's you and i double team this creepnik ;-]

#69:

Horrible? All Judeo-Christian cultures have evolved. There is a value now placed on tolerance, the ethics that law imposes, and efforts to improve the human condition.

Islam?

#75 Ann

That's exactly my point. Islam actually de-modernized at one point---Wahabbism was denounced centuries ago as reactionary, when it first appeared. Modern Islam is not all Salaffis.

#70 realwest

Hang on a sec, and I'll join you ...

HULUGU, how can I refuse an invitation like that? ;-)

"how can you feel attracted to a mutilated woman?"

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is from Somalia. Grew up in Saoudi Arabia and maneged to escape her arranged wedding with a cousin in Kenya. She called Mohammed 'May His Mercy and salvation be upon him" a pevert who was marrying the nine year old Aychia.
Her remarks caused fierce reactions and the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) requested from minister of finance Zalm (running candidate of her party) to silence her.
Morocan opponents who are by custom not into female circumcission calling her "a stupid bitch who is troubled by her circumcission trauma".

Lately I witnessed a funny conversation in a train between a long blond Dutch boy active in some christian organisation and a Morocan girl with headscarf. They where organising a multiculti debate and one of the guests they wanted to invite was Herman Phillipse who is one of this typical Dutch advocates of secularism.
The girl couldn't get over the fact that Phillipse has a relation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She asked if it was really true. How could he be with such an ugly and repulsive woman. The guy was slightly suprised because Hirsi Ali can be very impressive as a woman. "But she is mutilated! How can you feel attracted to a mutilated woman?".
So far goes her solidarity with her Somalian sisters
Then she went on that she couldn't understand that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had a universitydegree, because she never ever heard her saying ONE GOOD SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT AGAINST ISLAM. It was on the tip of my tongue to ask her if she ever heared one good scientific argument against islam in her entire live, but it was more enjoyable for me to let them go on. She started over the benefits of the headscarf. It enabled Iranian girls to go to university without being suspected for immodest behaviour. "You mean they are not regarded as prostitutes" But this word she couldn't get out of her mouth. She turned red and insisted in calling it immodisty. She herself confessed she weared two years ago a Niqaab but it was too unpractical to function in Dutch society.
The guy said he saw her once in a Niqaab and it was for him the limit. "Here stops the communication"
Besides difference of opinions he always respected her for her openmindednes and her assertivenes.
"You mean you saw me in Niqaab? No that can't be. It was someone else. "No it was you I am sure".
And she made a whole project of denying it.
Indeed it's a pretty unconvenient thought you are even in a niqaab not save for a man's eye.

#76 moe the duh--do you seriously think islam was "modern" before the wahabbi reactionaries--like the turkish ottoman caliphate didn't ban the printing press and had to import its arms and military strategists from the west--your a walking talking santayana aphorism!!

Zulubaby---

I agree the Kahanists are not the mainstream. My point is just that any system of scriptures can be used for good or for evil, and it's pointless to use Islamic texts many centuries old to advance an argument that Islam is less intrinsically capable of being a modern, civilised religion than is Judaism. Aggressive fundamentalism rooted in either tradition is poisonous; conversely, rational and pluralistic values can be based on a modern approach to either religion. Judaism too needs to be reinterpreted creatively to be morally worth saving.

#73 HULUGU You said " derail this thread with a ratioal ".
hehehehe.
As one who has just installed "spell chek" - but needs to remember to "activate it" - your bad!!
Nothing like a "reformed sinner" to stir the pot!!!

Hulugulu

Read some Stillman and Lewis and stop demonizing all of Islam.

zb--you had good weather today--i saw it on cspan ll which did a thing on the la times [spit spit] bookfair--which had a great debate on iraq with chris hitchens and robert sheer [spit spit]--now you can see how productive my day's been--its 40 here--some spring--after we dispense with moe joe wanna get a drink?

Zulubaby, you wrote that Judaism does not advocate violence. This is nonsense. The Tanach is full of the most stomach-turning ethnic cleansing and genocide. If you take that stuff literally and try to apply it to the modern world you get the extreme settlers...

#77 Thom -Wow - this thread's kind a moving along, isn't it?
Hey how long's it gonna take ya, guy?

76:

One sees newsreels of Arabia in the '60's. Everyone is in western clothes. So muslims saw this trend as caving in to the evil west, and want the caliphate back?

There is a rejection by muslims of all things that make a life good: Choice, unrestricted education, the arts, technology, protection of society's weakest, and respect for life.

Is it that their form of Taliban-Afganistan society is not possible with choice and information?

Facism in it's truest form.

realwest:

Glad to see that you carpal tunnel is getting better...

#86 realwest

I'm back. Made a nice, tall, cold beverage of vodka and some sort of powdered fruit juice ... I have a feeling I'm gonna need it if Moe keeps up with the

My point is just that any system of scriptures can be used for good or for evil

while totally ignoring the fact that amongst the two monotheistic religions and the one death cult, it is only the death cult that is using its scriptures to justify evil ...

#83 moe--read the kkoran and the hadiths--read lewis closer--read serge trivkovic--read paul berman--read robert spencer--read yourself the riot act--islam is a religio-facist deathcult founded by a peophile mass murdering bandit thug so he could get power and get laid which when projected on the thuggish tribal culture of the arabs was the impetus for the greatest oppressive totalitarian imperialism the world has ever known from the mediterranean to the indus--allahu nakba ignorant dhimmi

#79 Old West -

A long blond Dutch boy

Hmmm...

Moe Katz...

and the Equivalency Brigade keeps trotting on in.

Yeah, yeah, the Inquisition, yeah, yeah, the Puritans, yeah, yeah, the Kabbalists, yeah, yeah, the fucking Amish for all that.

Why, yes! The Reverend Phelps was remarkably intolerant and his dippy followers, all 20 of them, picket the graves of dead gay men! Why, what a blanket indictment of Christianity! Look, Phelps' followers are in the news! They must be representative of all Christians!

(Now Moe is grinning. He thinks I've show the chink in the armor.)

Moe, MAINSTREAM Christians could not possibly give the ass of the smallest rat ever born about what Phelps' demented followers do, except when they sigh and say, "Oh, God, give us patience not to lay the smackdown on these people," or "No, Moe, we don't agree with that. The Bible says...(here insert all those Biblical verses about not judging and stuff you don't really think Christians believe)."

I will bet you a gazillion dollars, or even twenty, that the Pope has never even heard of the late Reverend Phelps or his deluded mission.

The thing is, it is so goddam rare to hear ANY Islamic religious leader make even the tiniest criticism of say, wife-beating, or the execution of gay people, that dismays non-relativists.

Mainstream Christianity, yes, even that followed by President Bush, does not advocate burning witches at the stake, killing gay people, or beating the crap out of the wife. You may ever so much wish that it did, just so you could have your equivalency supported, but it doesn't.

As far as Evil Judaism goes, I've known Orthodox, Reformed, and nah I want that BLT Jewish people. Haven't noticed any of them stoning gay people to death. Ever. Maybe I'm just not attuned to the stoning vibe.

In fact, you could, Moe, walk into any interfaith Christian meeting, or a meeting of various walks of Judaism, and yell out how evil and wicked and wrong they are, and you'd be met with nodding, pity, and perhaps a glare or two because you're so dang rude.

Go ahead: I dare you to try that at your local Mosque.

Moe Katz, if you want to make it about interpretation then Islam needs to reinterpret itself.

If you take that stuff literally and try to apply it to the modern world you get the extreme settlers...

If being the operative word.

Hulugu,

Go get that drink you mentioned.

Zulubaby, #93

I think we agree on the need for Islam to reinterpret itself. Maybe I'm more optimistic that there are Muslims doing that or trying to do that.

HULUGU, the weather is absolutely gorgeous. You're in New York?

after we dispense with moe joe wanna get a drink?

Yeah, you can come get me in an hour :-)

Moe Katz (#95)

Maybe I'm more optimistic that there are Muslims doing that or trying to do that.

I would like to be optimistic too but I don't see reason to be. What do you base this on?

#89 Thom™ Don't let the "moe"s get to ya guy. If nothing else, they give us "a reason" to

DRINK!!

Yeah, yeah I know. It's kinda early, right coast time, to be doing that, but crap ... between the Ben's, Moe's and my NY Giant's draft "workings" it really isn't early, at all!!

Not to mention the Yankees.

#98 realwest

Yes, but you see ... Moe is optimistic and so to berate those who are not as optimistic as he, it is necessary for him to equate Judaism and Christianity with a pagan, rock-worshipping cult the great majority of whose adherents would gladly kill him if they could get away with it.

{I know. It doesn't make sense to me, either.}

Drinkies!

#99 realwest

My beloved O's were trounced by Toronto 15-3 today.

O, the humiliaaayshun of it all...

98:

5:00 o'clock somewhere...

Zulubaby

Among other places, a lot of liberal Muslim opinion can be seen on [Link: www.altmuslim.com...]

It needs some scholastic gymnastics to reinterpret the Eternal word of Allah Subhanahu

uhuh

#96zulubambina--oui je suis in the apple--the COLD apple--but i'll rev up the gulfstream v and meet you at the polio lounge in the bh hotel at midnight--i'll be the good lookin' guy in the booth on the left as you walk in---afterwards--who knows peut etre a bungalow ;-]--mo--you stay away and keep studying the evil kabbala which has secret instructions for the settlers in yesha to kill all people named bill

Hmm... misunderstandings first:

(1) Ushie writes of "your effort to put the PRESENT-DAY stoning of gays and beating of women in Islamic countries as completely parallel and therefore just as morally equal to the PRESENT-DAY Western Judeo-Christian countries" and "to suggest that Jefferson had to be aware, what, two centuries ago, of 21st-century homophobic hate speech?" Ushie, maybe I was terribly unclear but I really wasn't trying to do either of these things. (Though "domestic violence" rates in the West are nothing to brag about, and it seems to me we're very complacent about them.) I interpreted Realwest's post (perhaps wrongly?) as claiming that such atrocious "hate speech" wasn't around in Jefferson's day; I beg to differ. I would also find it difficult to believe that Jefferson had never heard of views that would shock him just as much as these particular Muslim fanatic ideas shock Realwest.

(2) Realwest: I didn't say you verged on contradicting yourself, I said Bikerdude did. And I didn't "check out Sitton on a site ... devoted to propogandazing": I used her original article in the North Carolina Law Review. Amazingly enough, I do read books, though I find your faith in them slightly naive. And I'm entirely aware of the little thing called the War of Independence, though I'm not sure why you think that's so crucial in this case.

OK. Now for a qualification:

Curious writes "While it is true that the West was once as homophobic and anti-women as the Islamic world, the BIG difference is that now it isn't." That's basicly true. But let's not be complacent, the West may be better than the Islamic World, and may be progressing, but it remains homophobic and anti-women, and certain non-Muslim factions are extremely so. There may even be particular aspects in which we can learn from the Islamic world. For example, in Turkey, there is a fad for wearing the hijab, which (as far as I understand) has been explained in terms of the wearer's desire to avoid sexualization by men and be treated as a human being rather than an object. I'm not suggesting that Western women should start wearing hijabs, but perhaps there is a lesson for Western men about the effects of their sexual objection of women and/or their mixed messages about female sexuality. While I am all for criticism of the Islamic world's poor human rights record, I think such criticism should be applied across the board. We must not use Orientalism to obfuscate the problems in our own culture. And if Western countries are going to exempt themselves from certain generally agreed human rights (e.g. for the USA, the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, marital-rape exemptions, etc.), they should come up with a darn good justification pronto, not least because the West would then present a more united front.

And now for disagreements:

Ushie: I'm not sure I'm a moral relativist, and I certainly wasn't making a moral relativist point. But if moral relativism is self-defeating (nothing is immoral, so a moral absolute system is moral), then moral absolutism is circular (a moral absolute system is right because it's right). (I'm sure that criticism is as "lazy" as your criticism.)

Realwest:

I found your later posts, unlike your first, very confusing, especially in your repeated implication that my posts somehow hinder the cause of 'gay rights'. But I'll try to answer the points I think I understand.

(1) About Jefferson and Abigail Adams, you may be right. I'll just quote what I based my statement on: "The one woman who Jefferson perhaps saw as an equal and put a dent in his beliefs was Abigail Adams. She provided him with an example of a wife who was a full partner with her husband. 'A woman capable of conversation that moved naturally from questions of parental responsibility to matters of European statecraft.' (Ellis,[American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson], 1997, p. 91). Their correspondence was that of peers. He asked her advise on a number of issues ranging from child rearing to politics." That's from [Link: earlyamerica.com...] and it's by someone called Thomas O. Jewett. Perhaps he's in error?

(2) You write: "I've supported gay rights
" (good for you) but "marriage is a uniquely RELIGOUS concept". I have no idea how this is relevant to the discussion but I don't see anything oxymoronic about a purely secular form of marriage, sorry. One might argue that the state was once a religious concept. But if you're willing to make religious unions irrelevant in the face of the law, that's not a problem as far as I'm concerned (though, obviously, others may differ).

(3) I don't think I've defamed Jefferson or Madison. I'm sure they had their good points.

When taken by a judgemental mood, I prefer to judge views, intentions, or actions rather than people. I think it's suspicious to "excuse" views/intentions/actions because they come from a different time, but not because they come from a different culture. Both excuses can in any case be deceptive, as eras and cultures are less monolithic then it sometimes suits us to think.

For instance, both Montesquieu and Bentham argued for a relaxation of sodomy laws, while the Pennsylvania colony had arguably a less harsh law in 1682 than Jefferson was supporting in 1777.

For instance, Kant typified eighteenth-century elite misogyny with his assumption that women philosophers might as well have beards. But his friend Hippel wrote a proto-feminist treatise in 1792 (see Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel, On Improving the Status of Women, abr. and trans. Timothy R. Sellner (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979)), in the same year as Wollstonecraft wrote her Vindication. Both were reacting to the French Revolution's failure to recognize women's rights, despite the activism of French proto-feminists like Olympe de Gouges. None of them were as radical as the late seventeenth-century Cartesian treatises by Poullain de la Barre, however.

HULUGU, LOL! I'm not in the habit of meeting men for drinks at midnight but for you I'll make an exception :-)

I love New York and loved living there but I don't miss the winters at all.

Moe Katz, that's all well and good. I think what I find offensive is when people start comparing Judaism and Christianity to Islam. I'm sorry but I don't know of any Jews or Christians who scream for the blood of other groups of people, who hold rallies and burn flags and carry on the way Muslims do. I don't care about anyone's religion or how they choose to live their lives so long as it doesn't affect mine. The problem with Islam is that they want us all to convert or die. That just doesn't suit me.

Hulugu,

You're actually funny, in spite of the stupidity of your ideas.

103:

Oh, the comment on this article sounds real moderate:

Kill Americans - hasib promises SOON!

This is also from Alt.Muslim:

Sometimes, The Sword Is Mightier Than The Pen


Ever since the infamous Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the prospect of inviting harm upon yourself by expressing controversial opinions - or even otherwise uncontroversial ones - has become a growing problem among Muslims worldwide. Recent examples include attacks on religious minorities in Pakistan, the stabbing of Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz in Cairo, and acid attacks against uncovered women in Kashmir. Sadly, while there have always been Muslims with alternative views, artistic expressions, or in the political opposition, a combination of extremist religious fervor and an inability to confront differing opinions through peaceful discourse has led to a settling of ideological disputes through violence. "What was once an occasional event - silencing scholars - increasingly has become a way of life in most Muslim countries," writes American University professor Akbar Ahmed. "An entire generation of Muslim intellectuals is at this moment under threat." The latest such incident involves prominent Bangladeshi author Humayun Azad, who lies in a coma in Dhaka, Bangladesh after being attacked on Friday by assailants carrying knives and machetes. The author of 70 books, Azad was a strong critic of Islamic extremists as well as recent attempts to introduce a Blasphemy Law in Bangladesh. "It has been an attack on not only an individual," commented an editorial in Dhaka's Daily Star, "but also the whole enterprise of intellectual freedom." The problem is exacerbated, according to Akbar, by Muslim governments unwilling to uphold human rights and the rule of law, contributing to a "more intense denial of intellectual freedom than at any time in recent history."

Anyway I am pretty impressed how far you all moved on from Ayaan and the Tawheed mosque situated in the pitoresque Bellamystreet in Old West. To give you somemore coleur dhimmilocale, at-Tawheed is connected with the as-SaddiqSchool who receives govermentsubsidies because according to the dutch system it is special education. And indeed it is special. Now one of the members of the board of this school is being alleged of misusing this funds for "organisations abroad" hmmm

#91   Frank IBC  4/25/2004 03:24PM PST

#79 Old West -

A long blond Dutch boy

I couldn't make him shorter or darker

The fact is, killing Gays in the US is a hate crime. There certainly is some homophobia in the US. But only one in 1000000 homophobics believes it is ok to murder gay person.

"Orientalism". Now who coined that word, I wonder ...? And what could possibly be the agenda of the one using it on this thread?

And of course, what anti-American, anti-Western screed would be complete without a shot at the non-existent violations of human rights in Guantanamo?

And if Western countries are America is going to exempt themselves herself from certain generally agreed human rights ...

Certain supreme court "justices" agree with you that America should look overseas for guidance on legal issues.

I say - to hell with that.

But, who knows? Maybe Zimbabwe really can teach us something about property law ...

Actually there was this weekend a demonstration at the homomonument in Amsterdam against this book "way of the moslims" . One of the speakers said "moslims and gays actually needed each other to struggle together against racism"
COC Dutch gayorganisation invited at-Tawheed mosque and the Mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen for a conversation, but didn't got a reaction

110:

So Mo, why don't "moderate" muslims control the "small minority"? It seems easy to me.

Civilized countries do a great job. Are you moderates intimidated?

I think so. The best example of the purpose of terrorism.

#106 Ben " (3) I don't think I've defamed Jefferson or Madison. I'm sure they had their good points."

and "I'm entirely aware of the little thing called the War of Independence, though I'm not sure why you think that's so crucial in this case."

I'm sure you don't. You ATTACK Jefferson (and let's not bullshit around here, you did) and you don't see the relevence? Without the "War of Independence" or as most of us old timer's call it, the Revolution, without Thomas Jefferson and James Madison you would, in all probability, be effectively stifled. For Life.

Ah well, hell. They were just men; they couldn't get it all right.

The only thing I dislike other than an uniformed troll, is a long winded uniformed troll.

#108--oh moe you called me stuuupid--i'm sooo hurt--oh to be smart like you and think islam is a variant of a religion instead of a totalitarian robber death cult which is basically a political-social all encompassing philosophy which even goes so far as to tell you the correct way to wash your balls--which,in your case, seems to be unnecessary as you appear to lack thm

#107--zeebralady--sorry 60 minutos came on and i watched this piece about a former black communist who is now one of the richest guys in south africa--tokio something--used to want be fidel--than nelson mandella--now nelson rockefeller--typical--well the weather will be getting better in ny--but la summers--83 every day--what's not to like--eventually inshallah we'll hookup--figuratively or virtually--gotta book now--see ya ;-]

#42  
thinkingmom  4/25/2004 11:18AM PST
Oh, no: the dreaded "Fundamentalist Christians"! Yup, not wanting the Supreme Court to change the definition of marriage is exactly the same as wanting to kill homosexuals! Your moral relativism is in overdrive.

Hogwash. I didn't say any such thing.

The Supreme Court doesn't "change the definition" of anything. They're entrusted with interpreting laws and determining their constitutionality. Our independent judiciary should not be an enforcement unit of any religion. When it's acted as such, it's issued some extremely disasterous rulings (for example, "miscegenation laws.")

Religious people may disapprove of all kinds of things. I don't have a problem with that, until it intrudes on the rights and liberties of others. A given religion may prohibit its adherents from drinking alcohol, but they shouldn't be allowed to legally prohibit me from having a beer.

It's not morally relative. It's intellectually consistent.

Thom: 'Orientalism'. You're referring to Edward Said, I suspect, although the word itself is at least as old as 1769 (whence first citation in the OED).

'anti-American, anti-Western screed' I'm no more critical of America and the West than the Islamic world. Let's critique it all.

'non-existent violations of human rights in Guantanamo'. Why do you think that? I've been to talks by human rights lawyers and by two military lawyers who actually have to defend Guantanamo suspects who don't agree. Amnesty ([Link: web.amnesty.org...] and Human Rights Watch ([Link: www.hrw.org...] who criticize every country on the globe for human rights abuses, wouldn't agree with you. Nor does a vast swathe of Western opinion. And you yourself admit that 'Certain supreme court "justices" agree ... that America should look overseas for guidance on legal issues.'

Now, Realwest,

'You ATTACK Jefferson'. I attacked a specific proposal of his as 'horrific'; are you defending it? Or do you dispute my assertion, based on Jowett, that 'Jefferson's view on women was that they should confine themselves to being domestic angels'? Or are you standing by your wierd idea ('your romanticization') that there was no murderous homophobia or virulent misogyny in his day?

'you would, in all probability, be effectively stifled'. That's speculation, and in practice a high level of free speech already existed in Britain, for example, at the time of the American Revolution (see e.g. [Link: www.ifla.org...] The French government was trying to keep censorship going, but it was no longer working very well (see e.g. Colin Jones, The Great Nation (2002) or anything by Robert Darnton). As for free speech theory, well that was a gradual evolution not a sudden invention of Jefferson and Madison.

'They were just men; they couldn't get it all right.' Indeed, so let's not pretend they did. I'm uninclined to hero-worship anyone, Jefferson included.

PS You're welcome to hold long windedness against me if you want, but I can't say as I'm won over by the insults ('What've you done, lately?'; 'dipshits like you'; 'your uniformed, but LOUD yammering'; 'uniformed troll') and desire for violence ('nothing like what me and my bud "Louisvelle Slugger" would like to give him!!!'; 'but boy, if I COULD reach through the monitor!!!') that accompany your assertions, even if you do have me confused with somebody else ('I also spent a little time in Charles'' archives searching out Ben; nothing of value to be seen there.'). I'm afraid there are many Bens in this world, and I've never posted to this blog other than on this thread.

PPS Just for reference, I assume you mean 'uninformed', but you keep on writing 'uniformed'.

Hulugu,

I have no problem estimating your intellectual age but I'm curious how old you are chronologically.

Ann,

There are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Yes, I'm a 'chicken' moderate that doesn't think it's a good idea to make Jihad against them. Five million Jews in Israel, 300 million arabs in the region. Do you like those odds?

For Moe: One issue at a time:

Issue ONE..

Reinventing, modernizing, or self criticism of a Religion. Take Judiasm for example.

(Joosss..if I leave something out..add it on here)
Add the word Judiasm to each

You got your..Orthadox..plain ole

You got your Modern Orthadox

You got your Ultra Orthadox

You got your Conservative..Conservative

You got your Conservative leaning Orthadox

You got your Conservative leaning..Reform

You got your Reform leaning somewhat Conservative

You got your Reform ...plain ole Medium Reform

you got your Reform...this isnt even in the Jewish ballpark by this time

You got your RECONSTRUCTION...someone define this..cause I cant.

Whatever the variations of the Separds are...must be many..I know Jews.

These are SOME of the variations of Judiasm. Trying to fit an old culture into Modern Life. Making as many judgements in line with our Theology as each thinks is RIGHT..DECENT...etc. Always examining our behavior and values.. ALWAYS Examining..

And ISLAM? is doing what?

Mo: He goes Christianity and SOME of its variations as a group of people examined their values and beliefs..

Here we go.

Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthadox
Episcopal
Presbeterian..cuse the spelling
Lutheren
Baptist
Assemblies of G-d
AME Churches..some of these are under Baptist
Mormons..THEY say they are Christian
Coptic Christians
Armenian Catholics..little teensy difference..not much but

And on and on and on..as these people examined their established Religion and updated as THEY thought was right. And ISlam? And Islam??? BUBKAS

Moe: ISSUE TWO: VIOLENCE and Jews..as the usual?..Give me a break! Like this is an everyday happening on the "Jewish Street". Yep it happens when your SUVIVAL is at risk as well it SHOULD.

HULUGU (#118)

I'm assuming you mean Tokyo Sexwale and thanks for the heads-up, 60 Minutes is on here now.

119 tekmo

The Supreme Court doesn't "change the definition" of anything. They're entrusted with interpreting laws and determining their constitutionality. Our independent judiciary should not be an enforcement unit of any religion.When it's acted as such, it's issued some extremely disasterous rulings (for example, "miscegenation laws.")

The Supreme Ct struck down laws against miscenegation in a case called "Loving v. Virginia," IIRC. It held that states may not prohibit a man and woman of different races from marrying, citing the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Surely you're not calling that a disaster? When they make the leap to finding a constitutional right for Rosie O'Donnell to marry her girlfriend, however, they will be changing the definition of marriage. I don't believe the judiciary should have that power. When they impose something like this, or declare that "Under God" is suddenly constitutionally objectionable they are imposing their own religion: radical secularism.

Leah:

Issue 1: Jewish denominationalism as we know it is a modern development that mirrors the Christian world. As I said, Islam is less modernized. But there is a spectrum of opinion there, though I think it is premature to say if it will express itself as frank denominationalism. The range of views among Muslims is evident in any opinion polls you care to look at. Yes, there is a problem with Islam which in its fundamentalist form allows no separation of mosque and state. But there certainly are Muslims that don't subscribe to that idea, I have known many such people personally, and those are the people who you have to work with---because there's 1.7 billion of 'em, they have a high birthrate, and they ain't gonna go away.

Issue 2: I'm not sure what you're addressing here. I didn't intentionally draw an equivalence between Jewish violence and Arab violence that I was aware of. Our hands haven't been perfectly clean, but I don't think it's fair to expect sainthood either, considering the constant existential threat that Jews have faced in the region, and that you've rightly alluded to in your remarks above. But there are Jews on the religious right that I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley, especially if I were an Arab.

Moe: Jews have been examining their idea for EONS. And you know it. Self examination and self criticism has been going on up the ying yang. NEVER ENDING self examination. Even tho there werent names for ALL of the different "movements" in Judisam until recently..when wasnt there a time Jews didnt examine and over examine themselves and hold opinions on everything INCLUDING Religion. Goodness..nothing BUT discussion and examination.

1.7BILLION People of Islam. And not near any kind of critical mass of this group to even BEGIN the least little examination of their ANCIENT and waaay out of date Religion. If WE can hang onto the best of the values..and still be Jewish.. (we are almost 3 Thousand years OLDER)THEY can drop the old crap...and hang on to THEIR main values..hopefully good and modern fitting values..Christianity has in many many many cases UPDATED as well. They have done what WE have done. ONLY Islam doesnt seem to want to.

As to violence. Had we been a MORE violent people...maybe it wouldnt have been so easy for them to load us onto the trains and into the Ovens.

Sorry but..when SURVIVAL is at risk..I advocate VIOLENCE...just like EVERYONE ELSE. Id not have used rubber bullets all this time. What the hell was THAT? Looked like we didnt mean business..that IS the message that was sent. Thats the message that they receivedie...Israel didnt mean business. A MISTAKE.

#64 HULUGU . . .

Another priceless poetic gem. I hope you are saving your posts. They could be collected in a little book called "The Wisdom of Hulugu."

Moe Katz (#128)

But there are Jews on the religious right that I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley, especially if I were an Arab.

There are a lot of people I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley, that statement is silly. There are thugs in every society, some of them even, I'm sure, atheists. The point is that Judaism is not a violent cult, Jews are not violent because their religion dictates that they be violent.

Obviously the Muslims are not going away but it is up to them to reform their religion.

#67 Moe Katz . . .

You're an idiot. Do you use your brain, ever, or do you just think up commonplace comebacks to win all arguments?

Do you honestly think that the Islam that is being discussed here is equivalent to Christianity and Judaism?

I guess I'm not in the mood for fools today. Just want to hear from clever and insightful people like HULUGU.

Yeaaah...Zulu...Thanks..said it better than I did. I always take too long..lololol

#69 Moe Katz . . .

Imagine if the Kahanists became the mainstream of Judaism, them and the Chabad.

Sigh. Yeah, like that's really going to happen. I'm so scared, the Kahanists and the Chabadists are taking over entire countries. They're gonna make me light the candles. Oooo. Look under the bed. They might be hiding there.

Leah,

My impression of Muslim history is that it used to be more the way you describe Judaism, and has fallen back and become ossified in the past few centuries. I don't see why it couldn't regain its vigor and creativity and be reinvented again by the Muslims of this generation and generations to come.

As for Jews fighting back, I'm all for that, but there's a time and a place for it, and when there's only 13 million of you in the world against 1.7 billion Muslims I think you want to pick your battles carefully.

By the way, it has been a pleasure having a cordial discussion with you, expressing a view here that is only center-center or center-right generally earns you troll treatment around here.

MK

Leah, you have more patience than I do ;-)

I love it..We have to be careful of the Chabadnicks...OH..the danger of those people..A danger to the SAFETY of the WORLD.

Yeah and compared to the rest of us..so many many many of us are active Kahanists..And while we are at it..We might want to REVIEW what Kahana was all about really. How did he start, what was it about..and how and why what happened..happened.

Promethea (#134)

I'm so scared, the Kahanists and the Chabadists are taking over entire countries. They're gonna make me light the candles.

LOL!!

Leah:

Kahana was a Jewish fascist who gave the antisemites a big wonderful stick to beat us with and made it possible to draw facile and meritricious analogies between Zionism and Nazism.

#81 Moe Katz . . .

Why, exactly, are you bashing Jews? You are getting on my nerves. Are you full of self-hatred? What's your problem? Do you think you are the first person to discover violence in the Torah? You sound like the classic sophomore. Are you a half-educated college student?

Make that meretricious

Moe: Im not a student of the variations of Islam. Im sure as history evolved there MUST have been times for reflection and attempted moderazation. People are PEOPLE..and so what naturally goes on in one society sooner or later comes to other societies..BUT...whatever happened and how much happened before...STOPPED COLD...long time ago and we are dealing with the consquences. Thats just the REALITY of the situation.

Remember now..WE Jews are almost 3 THOUSAND years ***older than Islam and we have found ways to look at our selves and our values.. and change...They havent for??? G-d knows how long. In fact they are heading BACKWARDS..And back there. with backwards values and ...WITH NUKES isnt a good thing..Again I say ISNT..A..GOOD...THING!!!

Zulu..right now Im not hizzy fitting..but you know I CAN..and probably will in which case I...also have no patience...LOLOLOLOL

Moe Katz (#135)

I don't see why it couldn't regain its vigor and creativity and be reinvented again by the Muslims of this generation and generations to come.

You're right, there's nothing stopping Islam from reforming and joining civilization but indulging in wishful thinking on the behalf of Muslims is not going to make it so.

As for Jews fighting back, I'm all for that, but there's a time and a place for it, and when there's only 13 million of you in the world against 1.7 billion Muslims I think you want to pick your battles carefully.

What specifically are you referring to, what battles? And you're very mistaken if you think this is a Muslim/Jewish battle. It isn't, it's a fight for civilization.

#92 Ushie . . .

Yeah, yeah, the Inquisition, yeah, yeah, the Puritans, yeah, yeah, the Kabbalists, yeah, yeah, the fucking Amish for all that.

Great reply to Moe Katz. I should stop posting late on a thread. Obviously, you have dealt with this idiot from all angles already, long before I got here.

Kind of ironic that if it were not for Western Civilization, there would be no high buildings from which this could be done.

*Sigh*

Its statements like this that make you wonder whether everyone that visits this site actually has a well informed opinion, or is just attempting to salve feelings of inadequacy by perpetuating the ignorance that leads to sad state of affairs we're in today.

Find yourself an encyclopedia and look up:
Bable, Tower of
Pyramids
Temples, Aztec
Sigiriya
Minar(s)
Lighthouse, Alexandria

#100 Thom . . .

Yes, but you see ... Moe is optimistic and so to berate those who are not as optimistic as he, it is necessary for him to equate Judaism and Christianity with a pagan, rock-worshipping cult the great majority of whose adherents would gladly kill him if they could get away with it.

This is the mystery. Why is this form of stupidity SO widespread? In the face of so much evidence, a large number of people, like Moe, are incredibly blind and dumb. Why? Is it something in the water?

And the funny part is how they lecture us with their holier than thou attitudes.

Moe: Case you havent gotton the HINT..from 9/11 and oh...the Jewish Community Center in Calif..couple of years ago...or maybe Leon Klinghoeffer...or maybe this Football player that was killed a few days ago in Iraq...or Churches being burned all over the place by Islamists..or Islamists blowing up 1000 year old Buddist Religious Statues .or...oh well..thats enough. Bad enough for you??? It is for me.

The RUBBER has hit the ROAD here Moe. It is time for looking around and seeing we (the West..Democracies) are INDEED in a War. (or havent you listened to what ISLAM has said..over and over again).

Islamists are 1.7 BILLION People with at least 23 countries of their very own ...They ARENT Blacks in the US ie a little MINORITY. NO this isnt a teeny minority of people in jepardy. This is in fact an Alpha Society (Islam) that wants to engage another Alpha Society (Christianity/Judiasm-thrown in here..the West) for supremecy of the World. And thats whats going on. Lets put a stop to this nonsense of including Islam (all Billion of em) in the American Civil Rights Struggle...type thing. It ISNT.

Moe Katz (#139)

Kahana was a Jewish fascist who gave the antisemites a big wonderful stick to beat us with and made it possible to draw facile and meritricious analogies between Zionism and Nazism.

A fascist, eh? Who knew?

Last week I was freaking out about the anti-Semitism. My mama very calmly explained to me that there has always been anti-Semitism and there always will be anti-Semitism so I may as well get on with my life and be a good person and a good Jew and that's that. There will always be people who hate us, there will never be a shortage of Jew-haters who insist that they're not anti-Semitic, they're anti-Zionism, and yes, there are those who will try to convince you that Zionism = Nazism, even if they have to make things up. Those people have an agenda, do you understand that? The unfortunate part is that they seem to have gotten to you.

Zulubaby,

There is a war right now against jihadi Islam. If it is not conducted intelligently and with cultural sensitivity there will be a war against all of Islam, and you wouldn't want to even think about the consequences of that.

#137 Leah,

I love it..We have to be careful of the Chabadnicks...OH..the danger of those people..A danger to the SAFETY of the WORLD.

:) Chabadnick patrol is a tough business:

"Excuse me. Did you wrap tefillin today... or are you some kind of infidel"?
(ties him up with the black straps and calls for the religious police)

Leah, so what do you want to do, nuke half the human race pre-emptively?

#139 Moe Katz . . .

Kahana was a Jewish fascist who gave the antisemites a big wonderful stick to beat us with and made it possible to draw facile and meritricious analogies between Zionism and Nazism.

Here's what you're saying: (1) All us Jews have to be perfect or they'll say bad things about us. (2) I don't want people to dislike me, so I'm going to prove that I'm an OK Jew by bashing other Jews.

You idiot. The point here is that Islamic imans are preaching serious violence in their mosques. You deny that and find ten or twenty reasons why other people, Jews in particular, are also bad. Therefore, according to you, the Islamic violence is just the work of our imaginations.

Good grief. Think, man. Read. One of your posts even gave tons of evidence that Islam is violent.

#151 Moe Katz . . .

Leah, so what do you want to do, nuke half the human race pre-emptively?

I don't see where she said anything like that. She's trying to get you to see that there is a problem.

Recognizing a problem is a first step toward finding a solution. Maybe the solution is to outlaw violent jihadist preaching in mosques. That's something to think about and discuss.

Saying that there is no problem and that everyone else, especially Jews, are evil is hardly going to accomplish anything.

Use your brain.

PDM...Cant stand it..so funny. Chabnick Patrol...LOLOL...So hysterical.

You all know that woman from Hinini? She might be a THREAT tooo. Dangerous as heck. Better get ready for that woman and her movement. G-d knows what SHEESSS gonna do.

Pro: Couldnt have written any better. Perfect..Thanks..

Promethea,

Are you capable of reasoned, adult discussion or just personal vituperation and straw-man arguments? This is what is so sad about LGF---great articles and links, jejune tub-thumping in place of analysis...

Moe Katz (#149)

There is a war right now against jihadi Islam. If it is not conducted intelligently and with cultural sensitivity there will be a war against all of Islam

I'm afraid to say that "cultural sensitivity" is just going to have to wait. We are fighting for civilization, Moe. You don't seem to understand that. They declared war on us long ago, before we even realized it. It is up to the moderates to make themselves heard.

Please give examples of what you think is the right way to fight this war against militant Islam.

and you wouldn't want to even think about the consequences of that.

I'm not as afraid of them as you are. There will be consequences alright -- for them.

Moe Katz (#157)

This is what is so sad about LGF---great articles and links, jejune tub-thumping in place of analysis...

And there is nothing that irritates me more than those who give their critique of LGF instead of answering questions and keeping up with the debate. Get off your high-horse, okay? And bear in mind that your "analysis" may be flawed.

MOE..you should be criticizing others. Seems not to matter to you what people show you the reality of the situation IS. Youve got your very IDENTITY tied up in your view of what you think the world SHOULD be. Politics not examined periodically IS not valid politics to hold.

You need to STEP back..and use your brain and RE-EVALUATE whats going on not what you THINK is going on or should be going on ...

Nice people CAN adjust politics a little less to the LEFT..Step one step sideways. to at least the middle...Not even all the way to the middle. Just dont support Stone Cold KILLERS..of OTHERS...who have killed a bunch of others..All the people have to be is NOT ...Islam. Thats whats happening in reality. Did you miss it or something?

Who is running around the world killing others..??? Huh? But JEWS have to reexamine? I dont think so..this time.

Leah, who told you I was on the Left? I've been kicked out of every Jewish-Arab dialog and peace forum for giving my analysis of what's wrong with contemporary Islam. That's how I found my way to LGF, though the level of discussion here is poor, and what goes down is mainly a monotonous clamor of mindless bellicosity ... You guys are off the right edge...

#155 Leah,

You all know that woman from Hinini? She might be a THREAT tooo. Dangerous as heck.

Do you mean Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis?

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis brings judaism to the spiritually hungry.

Yep...you better watch out for that one! (Honestly, a beautiful soul if ever there was one.)

Now, you'll excuse me. I have to get back to the dungeon below 770.

Zulubaby---

You see cultural sensitivity being put into action in the latest tactical shifts by the US in Iraq. We'll see how it works out, won't we?

Zulubaby, the American public may eventually tire of perpetual war against the Muslims, and they may swing to isolationism, blame the Jews and turn their backs on Israel. A widened conflagration is not something to wish for.

Moe Katz, you keep pretending that cultural sensitivity is the right way to fight a war and don't let anything disturb your happy place.

That's how I found my way to LGF, though the level of discussion here is poor, and what goes down is mainly a monotonous clamor of mindless bellicosity ... You guys are off the right edge...

If this isn't good enough for you ... buh bye. If you can't debate in good faith without periodically inserting your little blanket critiques then I won't bother with you either. Chutzpah.

Moe Katz, do you not read the news, do you not see what's happening? The Jews are already being blamed.

#92 Ushie

OT---though not too much; I said it once before, on another thread, and I'm going to say it again, because I think it might be helpful:

There ought to be a statute of Limitations of some sort on how far back in history we are have to go, before we can stop wallowing in guilt, or being called upon to defend the Founding Fathers for not being politically correct (guess what? They weren't!), or having to explain, for the humpteenth time, that no, no, no, NO, Jews and Christians don't stone people to death or execute adulterers anymore, I don't care what it says in Leviticus!

My recommendation for the cut-off point would be World War I (which, I believe, is when a lot of the modern world's problems actually began.) One can only apologize for The Crusades or for the fact that Americans once owned slaves, so many times.

It's just a suggestion, and many LGFer's can disagree, or they may suggest something better. Keeping the cut-off point relatively recent has the benefit of keeping us focused on current events, and what can or should be done about them. Let's face it---even if we indicted Richard the Lionheart for war crimes during The Crusades, how would actually get him to appear before a judge?

This is just a suggestion.

Zulubaby, you accuse me of having chutzpah for making my little "blanket critiques" after the quantity of insults I've absorbed here today? Someone here does have chutzpah alright...

Moe, yes, because I haven't insulted you and I don't like your blanket accusation.

#167 TalkinKamel . . .

My recommendation for the cut-off point would be World War I (which, I believe, is when a lot of the modern world's problems actually began.) One can only apologize for The Crusades or for the fact that Americans once owned slaves, so many times.

Excellent idea and excellent choice of date for Statute of Limitations for Guilt cutoff.

FYI, I had always thought that to celebrate the Year 2000, it would have been a good idea to have a giant hugfest among all the peoples of the world. Everyone would forgive everyone else for all their historic trespasses, and now we would all get along and face the future in a giant friendly planetary way.

But, of course, that was never to be.

Maybe your idea will get some play. Let's promote it.

Zulubaby,

You haven't insulted me but you've applauded those who did.

You haven't insulted me but you've applauded those who did.

Bullshit Moe, don't make things up.

Whatever, ZB. Goodnight, and no hard feelings, I hope.

And remember, even Moshe Dayan always stressed the importance of working with, and not against, the Arab mind, as he called it.

Moe,

I often debate Muslims, patiently and politely. Usually I get nowhere and suffer the same experience as you. Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere, some jihadi pops out of the woodwork, and before you can say Assalamu Alaikum everyone's nodding under the cosh. It's true, not all Muslims want a righteous Salafi ending, and it's cute how they have these banal discussions about Sufism like it's new age mumbo jumbo or let down by it's drinkers or an ivory tower. Most Muslims want an easy life same as everyone, but they have an uphill battle persuading anyone it's allowed. So, fine, let's not slander Muslims, there are growing reformist elements in the West that might just shut up the muja heads.

How this translates into a strategy for dealing with people who want to use the big bomb so bad they preach get ready to die, I don't know, but let's take it as your point that the US is culturally insensitive. What do you propose doing? You're of the chicken variety, I know. Shall we take the view that the bible is as incendiary? I don't really know why you ignore what modern Jewish and Christian teachings have made of the bible, and ignore what depths of talmudic interpretations there are in Judaism. Certainly we are not instructed to fight non-believers. At any rate this offer of moral parity doesn't help at all.

I ask you if you believe 9/11 was a one off, and if you believe numerous attacks prevented since were western fabrications. If you do not, I point out that, as you have said, free nations are where it's at. What cultural sensitivity are you looking for?

I believe shura councils should not play a role in government, and should be forced to accept domestic (ie homeland) nonviolence or face state (non corporal) punishments themselves, or be subject to military operations. Now, there we have a problem already.

But you are more interested in how outnumbered the Jews are. Let me tell you, I thank God for the 'culturally insensitive' Americans almost every day. Promote fair trade, I think that's noble and vital. Encourage peaceful worship, it's the mark or a civilised mind. But to suggest ignoring very real strategies against us kafirs, against the West and against Israel, from uprising, war and terrorism to dawwah and taqqiyeh, is naive. Your apparently good heart is getting the better of you. Anti-Jihadi Muslims are not going to face off the jihadis, by their nature. And yet, they often prefer not to cooperate with the authorities. I suppose I am only saying, make a constructive point.

The US and her allies do an excellent job of fighting for reform without creating undue fear among Muslims. The Arab world left in peace, is an oppressive place. And it is not as if Muslims do not know what is really going on, and take a side. Do you?

Dom,

I'm far from being a pacifist and I supported the invasion of Iraq and still do. But, as an aside, did you know proportionately more Israelis were against it than Americans?

With respect to the Arab mind, cultural sensitization has a role to play. Bernard Lewis has talked about how Israeli soldiers rub the Arabs the wrong way when having contact with them. You just don't go about like a bull in a china shop or try exacerbate the conflict unless your're a damn fool---I know plenty of liberal, westernized Arabs, and even they have their pride and their sensitive points.

My philosophy, gleaned from Dayan, Lewis, and others, boils down to the importance of kicking butt while at the same time enabling them to save face.

Moe,

Fine, that's you and I both. And this weblog is kicking butt.

It's also exposing truths and providing a valuable resource. A whole lot of people don't understand what goes on. Apart from Muslim messageboards and this, how do you go down at Indymedia? Or the more 'centrist' messageboards? This isn't an interfaith discussion here, it's largely topical and political. If you've gleaned some tips you're very welcome to share them. Just please don't go about forever making the same disingenuous points we face everywhere else. It gets tiresome enough.

The BBC has a brief bio of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on their website: Moving stories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Dom:

There are times here when I see war hysteria and I don't like it. There is incredible peer pressure, the slightest deviation from the party line is jumped on as trolling, and what gets said about Arabs and Islam goes over the top a good deal of the time. What goes down here is way beyond what responsible people like Daniel Pipes would ever say. This blog deserves some of the criticism it gets, there is too much one-dimensional beating of war drums for my taste, and yes, some if it is just plain hate.

#179 Moe Katz

I see validity in your criticisms, but I'd like to jump in and defend hate.

I fcuking hate Fundamentalist Islam and all it stands for. I hate all its adherents, and want them dead as soon as possible. All its apologists, I want to slap with a big, smelly fish.

Oh yeah, back to hatred...

I see oppression of women, religious intolerance, and homocidal xenophobia, and I hate the living shiat out of it.

Try to tell me I shouldn't hate that? Tell me, what should I be saving my hate for?

Tell me that humans shouldn't hate at all? Might as well tell ice to stop being cold.

Moe,

I think once you've established your line and any credentials you write what you want, more or less. Like 'Well, I really want Coffman to make congress, and please let's not carried away bashing Muslims on this thread' or 'I love John Kerry, personally. I can't wait to see what we do about Fallujah though. Gonna kick some ass' sort of. I'm a Brit so a lot of the US politics is incidental, but I think Bush does a tremendous job and his opponents are as obscene as the worst I've seen here and then some. Anyway, something like that. C'est la vie. There's nothing wrong with expressing a point diplomatically and patiently, God knows if you can do it there you can do it here.

Lewis in Fort Banana:

I hate the same things you hate. But I also hate simplistic and bellicose approaches to complex social-historical problems. Spreading democracy to the Arab world is a great idea but you don't just run over them with tanks and expect democracy to spring up spontaneously like flowers in your tread marks.

Dom, it's all relative. On a lot of forums I'm considered the most right-wing beastie that could possibly exist on earth. Here the dialectic seems to draw me into playing the left-wing role although I'm clearly right of center in absolute terms ...

Fort Banana?

Fort Orange

Lewis:

That's interesting. Quebec City, where I am, also developed during the same period, and also with an emphasis on fur trading.

:)

I promise you aren't the only one. And then every now and again it's good to run through the formulae. 'Anyone read the latest news?', 'Hey, bin Laden's seen the light! He loves us!' or 'Thormann for president!' or whatever. I think most people here have their heads screwed on and don't spend their time polishing machetes. It's nice to shock and then provide your own particular slant or whatever. I know, you don't need patronising. Some people probably scroll by me, I often scroll by some people. The internet's a funny place, all this info and nothing actually happening. I think when you're having a discussion like this best remember to laugh a bit and say whatever you feel is absolutely necessary. Some fat spotty kid says 'nuke Mecca', Mecca doesn't get nuked. Some jihadi on a donkey says 'blow up the oil rigs', suddenly...

Moe - I think you make some constructive comments. Islam does, however, need an enlightenment rather than a reformation.

Muslims, even those living in the west, all come from pre-enlightenment cultures. Jews and Christians, no matter how devout, essentially come from post-enlightenment cultures, where religion does not inform their every action. Before the enlightenment we had witch-burning, the Spanish inquisition and all sorts of things that just wouldn't happen under modern day Christianity.

Everybody picks and chooses bits of their holy book. How many Jews today would advocate stoning or expelling lepers? (Are there any lepers these days? Perhaps they've all been expelled.)

This is partly because the religion has reformed, but also because we in the west live in an essentially secular society, where human rights trump religion. The Muslim mindset simply hasn't made this journey, which is not to say that it can't. Insofar as it hasn't, Islam could be said to be incompatible with modernity.

{sorry for the long post}

#146 Promethea

Yeah. And it's the argumentum ad buzzword that grates on me.

Moe talks about "Cultural Sensitivity"? Gimme a break. If we get any more culturally sensitive with these people we will definitively lose this war ... And what about their "cultural sensitivity" to us? Hmmm?

---

Re: Rabbi Kahane. I've read everything the man said that I could find on the web. To call him a "fascist" is obscene. My own opinion, as an outsider looking in, is that what really outrages those who would call him a fascist is that he was so strong and unyielding in his defense of Jews and Judaism - not to mention his carefully constructed arguments. People hate being bludgeoned with logic. Besides that, the man was clearly way ahead of his time, and because of that what he said seemed so outrageous. E.g., this from 1987:

- USA Must Have Guts to Terrorize Terrorists -

The following essay by Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory, appeared in USA Today on February 12, 1987.

If we ever hope to rid the world of the political AIDS of our time, terrorism, the rule must be clear: One does not deal with terrorists; one does not bargain with terrorists; one kills terrorists.

And if that rules is too much for the United States to stomach, let it resign itself not only to the constant threat of kidnapping of Americans in the Third World, but worse, bombs in U.S. department stores, and other public places.

One of the great problems with Americans is that - being a decent people - they assume that everyone else is equally decent. They assume that everyone else is equally decent.

They assume that, all humans being equal, all cultures are therefore similar in concepts and values. But that is simply not so. And the Middle East is just not the Middle West.

The Middle East and the Moslem-Arab world possess their own unique cultures and values that in so many cases are at variance with those of the West. Human rights - especially those of non-Moslems or non-Arabs - simply do not have the same absolute value that they do in the West.

Above all, it is not decency or goodness or gentleness that impresses the Middle East, but strength. Because of this, the U.S. is looked on as a paper tiger - with all the accompanying contempt. President Reagan's constant flexing of muscle, with absolutely no reaction to the murder of U.S. Marines and the kidnapping of U.S. citizens, has created for him an image of one who speaks loudly and carries a small twig.

That is the heart of the problem. The answer? Never, ever deal with terrorists. Hunt them down and, more important, mercilessly punish those states and groups that fund, arm, support, or simply allow their territories to be used by the terrorists with impunity.

It is abundantly clear that [if] Syria wished to, terrorists would be deprived of huge areas of haven in Lebanon. But why should Syria want to? Or Iran? They're happily enjoying Western agony without suffering one bit. And that is the key: Make them suffer.

Terror in Syrian and Iranian cities will soon enough convince those two unworthy states that it is unhealthy to support terrorism. And if towns and villages that support terrorists in Lebanon are mercilessly dealt with, they, too, will soon enough turn on them.

The question is whether the United States has the stomach to defeat terror or whether Americans will sink into what the Rabbis of the Talmud call "the mercy of fools." When one refrains from terror against terrorists, he is not better than they. He will be deader, and there is nothing moral or ethical about that.

The choice is clear and once again, the Rabbis put it well: "If one comes to slay you, slay him first." (Brachot, 58 )

It took 14.5 years and 3000 American dead on one terrible day for Americans to learn what the Rabbi already knew. Astonishingly enough, it took less than 3 years for a sizable fraction of Americans to forget it.

Dom and Thom . . .

Good morning! Great posts.

#170 Promethea

You know, it's funny, but around 2000, I was thinking the same thing! Yes, some sort of giant "Hugfest", or a world-wide "Guilt Day", wherein we all march around. like the monks in Monty Python's Holy Grail, chanting "Deus Irae Domine!" whilst simultaneously whacking ourselves in the head---or performing any other ceremony: Judeo/Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, non-denominational, which frees one from guilt!

And once official Guilt Day, or Guilt Week or the International Hugfest Festival was over and done with, it would thereafter be forbidden to dredge things up from the long-dead past, in order to push guilt on the present! If someone started in on The Crusades, British Imperialism, The Inquisition, wars that began and ended hundreds of years ago, the oppression of women in Victorian society, whatever, you could whip out the ol' whacker and smack them upside the head, chanting "Deus Irae Domine!", or, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" or even just, "AW SHADDAP!"

The beauty of this system is that it spares everybody pointless discussions along the lines of, "Well, the ancient Hebrews killed the Canaanites back in the Bronze Age, so doesn't that mean that the Jews are just as warlike as the present-day Imam Ubu, and his merry band of assassin-wankers? Well, doesn't it, huh, huh, huh!" We could then say, "Guilt Day took care of that, Pal!" or, "The Statute of Limitations ran out long ago on the Ancient Isralites! Now, about Imam Ubu. . . "

/And, of course, nothing can be done for the Canaanites, at this point, whereas something can be done about my hypothetical Imam, who'se alive and kicking---and killing people---in the present!

/---And have you ever noticed how the Left seems to see history as something almost infinitely malleable, that can almost be changed retroactively if we just pass enough laws, apologize enough and become more "culturally sensitive?" Pray that nobody ever invents time travel! The left would go crazy with it!

Thom: I myself, havent read everything there is on Kahane..but I do know a few things. He was a man that saw Yishiva Boys who knew nothing about violence being attacked. He decided that considering our history..that it wasnt going to go unanswered in America and he went on from there. And damn good for Kahana.

Jews are taught NO...to violence. Which is OK when there is no danger..BUT when your very survival is at risk its time to throw away that ineffective and foolish advice and call a spade a spade and ACT in a way to show YOU INTEND TO REMAIN ON THIS EARTH just like every other group. Do we want to survive or NOT? We havent got a BILLION people to play with...We cant LOSE too many more people or we will become extinct.

Many Jews were TOLD stuff about Kahana that wasnt true. But just a whif of any kind of violence..WORD..OR DEED turned many Jews off him. Also many Jews feel OBLIGATED to denounce Kahana cause America tapped Kahana as the "bad Jew". I REJECT that designation of Kahana. Compared to Islamic Clerics? NO CONTEST..THEY are waaay worse. And so many of them too.

Id like to say..that what I heard him say a couple of times turned out to be TOTALLY TRUE..ie the Arabs dont want any kind of real peace..They want to destroy Israel. And we are seeing Arafat do WHAT? when he was offered practically everything? Kahana was right seems to me... They hate us ..dont want peace...want to destroy us..(even to killing their own little children) and want Israel totally GONE. Kahanas solution? SEPARATE...and thats just what we are trying to do.

Sooo??? vats the prob? with what Kahana said?

Did Kahana finally get so mad...did he finally see enough...that he lost it..and SAID a few things? Yep..but again COMPARED? to Islamic Clerics...???

The Supreme Ct struck down laws against miscenegation in a case called "Loving v. Virginia," IIRC. It held that states may not prohibit a man and woman of different races from marrying, citing the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Surely you're not calling that a disaster?

Of course not! Loving overturned a Virginia Supreme Court decision that rationalized banning interracial marriages based on this logic:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

THAT was the disasterous ruling, not the USSC remedy, which stated that marriage was a Civil Right. You are correct that the Court based their opinion on the Constitution — not speculation about "God's intentions."

When they make the leap to finding a constitutional right for Rosie O'Donnell to marry her girlfriend, however, they will be changing the definition of marriage.

Hm. In Reynolds v US, the USSC banned polygamy. That probably "changed the definition of marriage" for a lot of folks. Some people's definitions of marriage probably changed when it became a crime to rape one's wife. Ditto banning child marriage. The examples are many.

Like every other social institution, marriage evolves. And that's a good thing. Does anybody still contend that adultery should be a capitol offense? Criminy, it's bad, yes. But is it we-should-crush-your-skull-with-rocks bad? No.

And even if some gays got married, so what? Does it somehow render anybody unmarried?

Aren't the likes of Richard Ramirez and Liz Taylor's actual marriages quite a bit more disturbing than Rosi's theoretical one?

I don't believe the judiciary should have that power. When they impose something like this, or declare that "Under God" is suddenly constitutionally objectionable they are imposing their own religion: radical secularism.

Whatever "radical secularism" is, it isn't a religion. And the overwhelming majority of the judiciary could hardly be described as "radical."

But hey, if you want to believe that the independent judiciary shouldn't be allowed to override your ability to impose your religious beliefs on others, that's fine. I think it's kinda weird, and it's not the way things work, but it's pointless to argue the fact further.

The point I was trying to make before we got sidetracked into a marriage debate was this:

Allowing religions (that you favor) to inform laws (that you favor) establishes a precedent allowing religions (that you loathe) to inform laws (that you despise.)

#107 Curious

Good point. One tends to confound these different phases of modernization together---Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment---and it is the Enlightenment that is the most germane here in terms of the secularization of consciousness.

Thanks---

MK

Leah,

Do you think, like Kach, that Baruch Goldstein performed a mitzvah?

Do you think, like Kach, that Baruch Goldstein performed a mitzvah?

Very Gordon-esque. I just got the creeps.

#194 Moe Katz

You are a hypocrite, and a scumbag.

If you would like to discuss Rabbi Kahane, please do so intelligently.

"Scumbag," eh? I am dazzled by the brilliance of the repartee ...

#197 Moe Katz

Yeah. I'm dazzled too.

But you know what they say ... Garbage in, garbage out. Toss a turd, and guess what get tosses back to you?

Now, what specifically did you want to discuss about Kahane?

{Disclaimer: I'm going to bed soon, so we may have to continue tomorrow.}

Thom, go to bed, spill your genome there, and spare me the spectacle of you doing it publicly on this board.

An interesting piece from Daniel Pipes that doesn't shrink from the daunting complexity of the problem posed by waging the Kulturkampf against Jihadism ...

A quote from the Pipes piece linked above:

"The immediate war goal must be to destroy militant Islam and the ultimate war goal the modernization of Islam."

#199 Moe Katz

Uh huh. So you have nothing to say.

Surprise.

Thom,

I'm not wasting my time exchanging sophomoric overgeneralizations and schoolyard taunts with adolescents.

#203 Moe Katz

No skin off my nose. But you called Kahane a fascist and I thought you might like to explore that a bit. Apparently not. You are safe in your comfortable caricatures.

But I am glad to learn that enjoining me to go spill my genome is not a childish taunt, and that you are not a hypocrite. I'm also glad to learn that dredging up Baruch Goldstein wasn't preparatory to a sophomoric overgeneralization.

Kahane advocated the expulsion of all Arabs from both sides of the Green Line and the replacement of Israel's democracy with a theocracy. His followers have engaged in terrorism and are labeled as terrorist by the US State Department and by Israel. They continue to venerate the memory of Baruch Goldstein. You're right, he was a great humanitarian. What terrible blindness afflicted me that I could have called him a fascist?

Some of their doings are documented on the ADL Web site, which also provides other links.

Thom,

Is there any part of the pro-Israel opinion spectrum that goes too far for you, that is too far to the right? I'm just curious. Does anyone stand to your right?

Zulubaby,

I do react the same way you do when the case of Goldstein is raised maliciously by people that hate Israel and want a stick to beat the Jews with. At the same time, I think we have to draw the line at endorsing what he did. My point in raising Goldstein was that the Kahanists defend him, erect shrines to him, and so on, which to my way of thinking has to put the latter beyond the pale of reasonable Jewish opinion.

#206 Moe Katz

LOL. Ummm ... I don't think so, now that you mention it. Just to be sure, did you have any specific parts of the spectrum in mind? That's kind of a big topic you know ...

Okay, Thom, would you like to put the Arabs in cattle cars and ship them to Poland? Give reasons for your answer, and use both sides of the page.

#209 Moe Katz

Damn. I thought you were going to be serious about this ...

Oh well.

Thom,

What am I supposed to say? Are you comfortable with Kahane's agenda of ethnic cleansing and Jewish mullahcracy? What's so hard about that?

Thom, I asked you a serious question. Where do you draw the line to your right? We know you draw a boundary on your left. Is there a right boundary to your views?