CAIR please move to TUNISIA!

Effing Assholes

I thought they were looking out for "American - Islamic Relations"

We also call on the U.S. Department of State to use whatever influence it has to convince Tunisian authorities to abide by international norms of religious freedom.

That's rich.

I would hope that the US State Department would use their influence to keep their big mouths shut to Tunisia.

But then I am pretty appalled at the recent news out of the State Department. Condi should be impeached.

Those darned Americans, telling others how they should live. Then again, it IS a fundamental UN right to subjugate women.
/need a new word for funny + depressing

Does religious freedom = Christian freedom CAIR?

Does it equal Jewish freedom CAIR?

Or is this 'freedom' another one-way, dead-end street like always for you people?

#5 canadanastani

depunny?

4 galloping
Do you care to expand on that? It is not Rice pledging to defend Japan that set you off is it? Is it being a little too even-handed between good and evil (as I see it) in Israel?

“Tunisia cannot claim to be a free and open society while carrying out such repressive and authoritarian actions.”

Tunisia attempts to convert it's society to 21st century standards, and the freaks at CAIR tries to pull them backward.

/scums of the earth

7 soccerdad

depunny?

I like it. I am partial towards "deprelarious".

*snort*

You mean all those international human rights declarations which were first heavily qualified and caveated (i.e. gutted) before they were ratified Islamic states?

Oh yeah, those.

CAIR... *spit*

Three cheers for Tunisia!

Does CAIR ever issue a statement when young girls are hung in the streets of Iran? Or over honor killings?...

Mamma

I'm glad you liked the column.

Otherwise:

Just got home from work and put on my home computer.

The new Norton Security thing I installed last night is informing me that there is "No fraud detected" on this site.

Apparently, Norton hasn't heard of CAIR, yet.

Yet.

#8 Canadastani

4 galloping
Do you care to expand on that? It is not Rice pledging to defend Japan that set you off is it? Is it being a little too even-handed between good and evil (as I see it) in Israel?

In Condi's hands pledges to defend anyone mean little or nothing, quite obviously. I do not approve of the way that she has handled the middle east start to finish since day 1 that she took office.

I don't think she is being "even-handed" in the least.

Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.

By the same token, banning allowing people to, for example, show up at work in their jammies, violates freedoms. Right?

/sarc

Mind your own bloody business, CAIR.

BTW, you suck, CAIR?

VEIL DEBATE: PREJUDICE NOT CLOTHING HAMPERS MUSLIM INTEGRATION IN EUROPE

"First and foremost, Europeans should get rid of their prejudices against Muslims. The real obstacle to integration are those prejudices," he added. "There was no such problem in Europe till the attacks of September 11 [2001]. But now all Muslims are easily labelled as ‘suspects’. think Islamophobia lies beneath this," he told AKI.

"If you say the veil is an obstacle to integration, in the end what you are actually saying is that Islam is an obstacle to integration."

Tunisia should tell CAIR to STFU as they could give a flying frick what some stupid muslim terrorist front based in America thinks let alone can comment on how their country is run.

TUNISIA DOES NOT CAIR!

What a bunch of arrogant assholes (that's doogie, you too).

What the hell does CAIR know about a "free and open society"?

Good grief.

#5 Canadastani

Howabout' "Saddam"?

# 18 Fjordman

in the end what you are actually saying is that Islam is an obstacle to integration

That pretty much sums it up in my book. Islam is pretty much incompatible with Western Culture, so they should stay in their own fricking sandbox and out of ours.

If we attacked Iran CAIR would have much less $$$ for whining and seething.

Does anyone know--does the US have much 'pull' in Tunisia?

/FT

I thought it was called Council of American Islamic Rights. What do they have to do with Tunisia?

"American"
"Tunisian"

Yeah, they sound very similar. I can see why they got confused...

I'm inclined to ignore TooneEaasyia

NO BLOOD FOR HIJABS!

What do they export from Tunisia? Oranges? Dates? Water pipes? Whatever it is, I'm buying it.

#17 MandyManners

Mind your own bloody business, CAIR.

BTW, you suck, CAIR?

That was NOT a question! It's a fact.

buzzsawmonkey

Glad you liked the column from my post on that earlier thread.

#18 Fjordman 1

VEIL DEBATE: PREJUDICE NOT CLOTHING HAMPERS MUSLIM INTEGRATION IN EUROPE

"First and foremost, Europeans should get rid of their prejudices against Muslims. The real obstacle to integration are those prejudices,"

If the muslims in Europe would truly like to integrate into European society, then they should bear in mind "When in Rome, do as the Romans."

I know they are well aware of this standard of civilized behaviour - they insure that any woman foolish enough to visit their countries does her sightseeing fully enclosed in the requisite black bag.

#30 savage_nation

They know it is a target, one to be subjugated to the will of Allan!

You got that right.

But they got it wrong! F*ck allan!

Hey [[[Savage]]]!

In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“Freedom of religion should be a valued aspect of any society. People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation.

I look forward to reading the next CAIR press release using the same language taking Saudi Arabia to task for not allowing Christians to practice their faith.

Or maybe they have already issued this press release, and I, as a neo-con nut-job, have just missed it?

Hold on here. This is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, not CTIR. Right?

Why do they have an opinion on Tunisia?

If they are worried about women's rights in foreign countries, how do they feel about stoning women for adultery? I did a search and found a news release from Christian Solidarity International deploring stoning; I found the same thing from Amnesty International. Same think from fricking RAI (Italian state radio).

Nothing from CAIR.

CAIR only cares about special rights for mohammedans. CAIR has never said a damn thing about islamic countries forbidding the worship or practice of any other religions. CAIR is nothing but a shill for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It should be banned as a terrorist organization and its leaders arrested and imprisoned. The interesting thing is, that's likely to happen in the near future. CAIR and its leadership are headed for a big smackdown. A very big smackdown. And Lynn Stewart will not be able to help them.

The folks at CAIR are masters of double speak. Lucky for us LGF readers, we have the most up-to-date BS detectors.

Ironic choice of photo and caption.

Did I miss the CAIR press release on the wearing of a cross in Saudi Arabia or on the rights of the Italian apostate?

Sounds like even some Islamic societies recognize the veil as a security risk.

In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“Freedom of religion should be a valued aspect of any society. People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation.

That stands on its own as the most twistedly ironic thing I've read in 2006, maybe ever

#18 Fjordman

islam IS an obstacle to integration. islam is incompatible with every other ideology and belief.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ — A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Tunisia to respect the religious rights of women in that nation who choose to wear an Islamic headscarf, or “hijab.”

... lest the husbands, of which they are 1/4 spouse to, beat them or kill them.

There, fixed that missing part.

There was virtually no hijab's in America before CAIR started pushing it on women after Sept. 11, 2001.

And they did it through the men...

People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation.

Except in Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Kashmir, The Sudan, heck, anywhere in the Ummah.

This stinks to high heavan of taqqiyah.

#38 savage_nation

Grrr! Eeeeslam gets away with religious persecution every friggin day in countries where islam is dominant, and then they want to play the religious freedom card.

It would be laughable if it wasn't.

/you know what i mean~

OT but maybe not. Don't expect CAIR to write James Webb anytime soon.

Macaca-Mad Media Ignore Webb's "'Insert word that LGF doesn't allow to be posted'" Remark

Interesting. LGF blocks any attempt to use the word that Webb used and still it will be ignored.

You also have to look at the wider picture. Israel's relations with the peripheral (spelling?) muslim states have always been better than the boardering states.

CAIR is a front group for hamas and those states that support it.

It could be an internal arab conflict. "A shot across the bow," if you will.

check out Yoni and the republican

www.yonitheblogger.com

CAIR’s statement noted that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a transnational treaty having the weight of international law states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ... (and) to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

This has got to be some kind of joke, right?

Hasn't CAIR ever heard of Saudia Arabia?

?

~Norsk Troll

didn't Condi say she would protect Israel too?

poor Japan!

#40 hyphen

The folks at CAIR are masters of double speak. Lucky for us LGF readers, we have the most up-to-date BS detectors.

Mine just exploded, hyphen..

:(

Where do we get them serviced? I threw away the box for mine already...

~Norsk Troll

'In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“Freedom of religion should be a valued aspect of any society. People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation.'

Obviously I missed CAIR's letter to Saudi Arabia demanding freedom for Christians to practice there. Could someone post it for me. I can't wait to read it!

“Freedom of religion should be a valued aspect of any society. People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation."

CAIR: Abdul Rahman... ring a bell?

Tunisia banning the hijab? Why haven't we done that ?
Oh yeah, 'cause Saudis own every one of our "leaders"

just saying..

I wonder how CAIR feels about the rights of Muslim women to not wear the hijab if they so desire? Oh yeah, I forgot, CAIR will actually photoshop hijabs onto Muslim women who pull that crap!

It seems to me that CAIR's main objective is not to protect Muslims, but preserve and impose their strict interpretation of Islam.

"We Condmn Tunisia Ban of Hijab"

("Condmn", sic - a while back ago on a Paki protest sign against the pope.)

#61 savage_nation~ uh huh.

Dougie -Bring it.

#63 Lizard by the Bay

I wonder how CAIR feels about the rights of Muslim women to not wear the hijab if they so desire? Oh yeah, I forgot, CAIR will actually photoshop hijabs onto Muslim women who pull that crap!

Rights of muslim women to not wear a hijab - hell. The woman they photoshopped the hijab onto is not even muslim. She is Hindu.

If cair had their way we would all be stuffed into black bags - real or plastic.

The US can't ban the hijab or anything else islamic *spit* , because our government - both dems and repubs - still call it a religion of peace.

Give us a president who will call islam THE DEATH CULT PEICE OF CRAP THAT IT IS.

WTF? banning the hijab is wrong. If someone wants to wear whatever they feel like, they should have the right to do so. Sure, CAIR overlooks every case of a woman being forced to wear a hijab, but that doesn't make it right to force women not to wear hijabs either.

#67 missouri boy

The US can't ban the hijab or anything else islamic *spit* , because our government - both dems and repubs - still call it a religion of peace.

Florida won their case a few years back though when they refused to give a driver's license to a woman who refused to remove her hijab for the picture.

I was going to say it, but dmjboose said it first. Tunisia isn't doing anyone any favors by banning a scarf. CAIR only opposes it because they want sharia, not rights.

#66 galloping granny

The woman they photoshopped the hijab onto is not even muslim. She is Hindu.

Well, she's clearly Indian, but India is a country of many faiths, including Islam. Also, I think that Hindu is a noun where Hindi is the adjective. So it would be, "She is Hindi," or "She is a Hindu."

If we ban the veil, will the more radical moslems move somewhere else?

#70 Savage_nation

I'm not sure even that will do it. Our government will be telling us not to over react and not to take the matter into our own hands. After all , we can't blame those nuked cities on islam!
*spit*

62
the ACTUAL reason why we haven't banned the hijab in the US is because it would be unconstitutional (that whole freedom of expression thing). It's essentially the same as forcing all the women to wear one (at least legally and morally speaking).

#74 missouri boy

I have to agree. In a country whose very foundation is freedom of religion, I doubt you will be able to find one politician willing to go to war against the second-largest faith on the planet, no matter what they do to us.

Personally, I just don't think the framers of the Constitution had Islam in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Or if they did, then they clearly didn't know how virulent a "faith" it truly is.

#75 savage_nation

Dude, c'mon, who cares if someone wears a stupid scarf that they identify with Islamic subjugation? The real rot isn't in religious symbols, but in totalitarian regimes that use terrorists as proxy armies, in Muslim advocacy groups that pressure the West into adopting sharia, and in mosques used as nexuses for jihadist propaganda. It's a scarf. It's disgusting, but it's not a threat to anyone.

#76 dmjboose 10/18/2006 04:40PM PDT

62
the ACTUAL reason why we haven't banned the hijab in the US is because it would be unconstitutional (that whole freedom of expression thing). It's essentially the same as forcing all the women to wear one (at least legally and morally speaking).

Try wearing a face covering ski mask into your local shopping mall. Wait, until a hijab walks in and then follow. See if you are allowed to "that whole freedom of expression thing"
just saying... ( I tried it)

#68 dmjboose
#71 Lazarus
#75 savage_nation

I figure they could have picked their battles more strategically. I couldn't care less if some of them want to wear a bag. But when they do, they should know that they are giving up other things besides fresh air.

-No driving.
-No ID cards, passports or anything else that is used to *gasp* identify this person should be allowed to be taken in said bag.
-No trust when I can't look you in the eyes.

In a free society, if a person chooses to remain within islam, then they have chosen to be an enemy of the west.
posted by Partisan 1-28-05 lgf

#82 savage_nation

I hear you, dude. I've even yelled at these freaks on the street to "lose the bodybag!" But the reason you feel threatened is because of the jihad that's associated with the hijab, and because our fucking losers in power won't protect us from it. American women have worn hijabs for a long time, and there was a time when we didn't need to fear them, just pity them.

#68 dmjboose

WTF? banning the hijab is wrong. If someone wants to wear whatever they feel like, they should have the right to do so.

While I'd like to completely agree with that sentiment, it ignores the nature of Islam. Let me give you an example. First, let'ssay there's a neighboorhood with many Muslims that's been around awhile. Most of the women there don't wear the hijab, because their families came here in the 70's, fleeing totalitarian regimes, and they don't wear it because they want to blend in and feel American.

Then more recent immigrants come, and a few women around will wear the hijab. Now the Muslim men who have lived there for some time see this and want their wives and daughters to start wearing the hijab, too. These men can't help themselves; they have been trained since birth to subjugate women, and being American hasn't really helped.

Then what's the next step? Pretty soon any woman in the neighboorhood, Muslim or not, risks gang-beatings with bats and bottles for not wearing the hijab. And of course, there will be no witnesses and the police will want to do nothing.

Don't think it can happen here? Why not? It's exactly what has happened in every other Western nation where Islamic enclaves have taken root. When I went to highschool, there were about three-dozen Muslim girls in my class. Only two wore headscarves (and they were sisters). Now, those numbers would be reversed.

It is a threat long term. It sounds silly to call a head-covering a threat, but there it is anyway.

Where was CAIR when Saudi Arabia was banning all religions besides Islam?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement to come out of a "rights" group in the past...week. Hard to beat other "NGOs" like Amnesty and HRW.

80
I agree that a hijab could be used to conceal your identity in public in the same way that common thieves use ski masks. I agree that, if hijab-wearing criminals actually started robbing stores (i'm not sure they do), then it would make sense to ban them in public places. But that doesn't mean you should ban hijabs just like it doesn't make sense to ban ski masks outright.

81
I completely agree with you. I'm responding to those who want to ban hijabs no questions asked.

#86 Lizard by the Bay

But you've identified the actual threat right there: the subjugation (force!) of women. It's not the scarf, but the force imposed for not wearing the scarf that's the problem. Men and women need to have the right to wear religious garb upheld. The government needs to step on anyone who tries to force others to wear primitive symbols, but if you choose to wear it, that is your problem and no one else's.

You know, scarves are legal in America. What happens if a Muslim-looking woman wears a scarf, gets stopped, is questioned, and says, "oh, well, it just looks like a hijab, but I just wear it for fashion -- I actually hate Islam" -- what are we going to do, arrest her?

#89 Lazarus

I agree that we can't ban the hijab on public streets or in homes. But we can ban it in public schools (if they can impose dress codes legally, they can do this), we can ban it in government buldings and in the courts (the same way a man is requires to remove his hat), we can ban it in enough places so that some modicum of assimilation is forced through, to prevent exactly what I've laid out as the end result of doing nothing.

Muslims need to learn that being American is more than a piece of paper. We have a common culture. We have a common language. If they want to participate in our society, they had damn well better be willing to adapt.

86

Pretty soon any woman in the neighboorhood, Muslim or not, risks gang-beatings with bats and bottles for not wearing the hijab. And of course, there will be no witnesses and the police will want to do nothing.

that's the part that's the actual problem. The solution is to keep a close eye on mosques, or people preaching violence, or police who will ignore the problem. I'd even support closing down mosques that preach violence (possibly hatred) against non-muslims. Besides, I'd rather have a mechanism to tell the insane ones from the sane ones. That way, it lets the unsuspecting woman walking down the street that her neighborhood is filled with radicals instead of peaceful muslims.

92
are you effing serious? you want to deport someone only on the evidence that she was wearing a scarf that looks like a hijab?

#90 Lizard by the Bay

I agree that we can't ban the hijab on public streets or in homes. But we can ban it in public schools (if they can impose dress codes legally, they can do this), we can ban it in government buldings and in the courts (the same way a man is requires to remove his hat), we can ban it in enough places so that some modicum of assimilation is forced through, to prevent exactly what I've laid out as the end result of doing nothing.

Muslims need to learn that being American is more than a piece of paper. We have a common culture. We have a common language. If they want to participate in our society, they had damn well better be willing to adapt.

This illustrates just one of the endless problems with public schools. You are forced to pay for something in which the government has the power to violate your rights. A public school isn't a magical zone in which rights don't apply just because the government runs it. If a private school wants to ban the hijab, that is its prerogative, but not a public school. You're forcing someone to pay for the service, but then denying them the exercise of their rights when using that service. That is total crap, and there's another word for it: enslavement.

As for assimilation, Muslim Americans don't owe other Americans anything more than we all owe each other: respect for rights.

CAIR’s statement noted that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a transnational treaty having the weight of international law states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ... (and) to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Sounds like a convenient document (UDHR). Wonder why CAIR doesn't follow it. Wonder why CAIR doesn't support the rest of the Islamics heeding this document.

Although I will admit the phrase; "...transnational treaty having the weight of international law..." bothers me. Does this mean my cousin can't handle venomous snakes in public? Can someone be prohibited from worshipping Baal with sacrifices? (I know-extreme example-lol) Why can't the Mormons have multiple wives then? Apparently international law says they can. Curiosity question though. Who enforces these "laws"? And why does a foreign body, U.N. or otherwise have any say in how ANY country runs its day to day affairs.

Although, it doesn't apply in mideastern countries, I have seen working women wearing the hijab. Wouldn't this constitute a safety hazard on assembly lines or anywhere there is moving parts? So, who is the authority? OSHA or this other body?

I don't ever remember seeing women in scarves let alone burkas until a few years ago (after 9/ll). Now I see them EVERYWHERE, as well as the men wearing the little hat and the long beards. On the Kennedy expressway the other day there was a woman wearin' the burka with RHINESTONES on the foreheard part. VERRRY fashionable. (My husband "scratched" with his middle finger when we drove by)...Ha ha! Stupid muslim women.

#94 savage_nation

NO Muslim influences in my country. And if you want to hide behind the Constitution and all this crap about personal freedom, go for it.

It's precisely the defense of personal freedom that allows us to tell [bigoted word]s to drop dead. Without it, we're slaves of the government, and eventually, the government will force us to assimilate.

As an anecdotal aside, I had dinner with a buddy in a Middle-Eastern restaurant on Saturday. Unexpectedly, at 6:00 sharp, the adhan came whining over a loudspeaker set in a nearby soffit. I was disgusted, and we started making fun of such a ridiculous practice. I vowed never to eat there again. I want the freedom to reject that garbage on my own. I don't need the government banning it for me, telling me what to think and not to think.

#95 Lazarous

As for assimilation, Muslim Americans don't owe other Americans anything more than we all owe each other: respect for rights.

True, to an extent. You or I can not, for example, wear a mask or anything covering our face, in public most times. Try going into a bank dressed that way. So, are we to make exceptions for this group? We all sacrifice some things in order to live as a society. Your rights can not infringe on the rights and safety of the majority.

As an example, it is absurd to have a photo ID taken wearing a hajib. What's the point?

I don't agree that your definition qualifies as enslavement.

You're forcing someone to pay for the service, but then denying them the exercise of their rights when using that service. That is total crap, and there's another word for it: enslavement.

This minimalizes the definition of the word enslavement. Merely denying someone the right to wear a particular piece of clothing in the name of safety or assimilation doesn't quite fit the bill. Although requiring the student to remove the hajib during school hours merely for the purposes of "assimilation" is not right.

CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, and as such it shares the basic goals of the Brotherhood:
(1) Establishing Islamist states wherever possible.
(2) Establishing the Caliphate -- Islamist states merged into an empire called to jihad by the Commander of the Faithful.
(3) "Mastering the world with Islam" -- conquest of the world by the Caliphate.

The reason CAIR opposes Tunisia's banning of the hijab is that it is a step away from instituting an Islamist state in Tunisia. And the Brotherhood, including CAIR, seeks Islamist states everywhere possible.

CAIR is funded by the Saudi-Wahhabis, so they do not criticise the Saudi-Wahhabis. But if they were really interested in freedom of religion, they would condemn the practices of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which it is a capital offense -- i.e, punishable by death -- to publicly pray in the manner of a religion other than Islam. If they were really interested in freedom of religion they would condemn the notion that apostates from Islam are to be murdered or judicially killed. There is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. So if CAIR were really interested in freedom of religion, they would not attack Tunisia, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Of course CAIR won't do this, because CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, and it gets funding from Saudi Arabia.

No, the taqiya that CAIR spouts is for Western consumption.

The reason that CAIR condemns Tunisia for banning the hijab has to do with opposing any step away from instituting an Islamist state.

"Huzzah" for those Tunisians having a clue.

May they live long and enjoy the heck out of the Mediterranean for eons to come.

Would it be OK for Israel to ban women from wearing a snood

#100 Outrider

You or I can not, for example, wear a mask or anything covering our face, in public most times. Try going into a bank dressed that way. So, are we to make exceptions for this group? We all sacrifice some things in order to live as a society. Your rights can not infringe on the rights and safety of the majority.

As an example, it is absurd to have a photo ID taken wearing a hajib. What's the point?

The context in which I'm arguing for protection to wear the hijab is out on a public street, because that's what Tunisia has unjustly banned. I don't know how wearing a mask is a threat to anyone. If you do something suspicious, then you should be stopped, but not solely for wearing a mask. Proper rights don't infringe on anyone's rights, majority or otherwise. You're right, the hijab shouldn't be worn for a photo ID. Why? Because your physical appearance is an objective basis for identification in law enforcement. You don't have the right to hide your face from the police when you are under investigation. But just walking down a street isn't such a case. If you refuse to drop the veil when a cop questions you, then you should be compelled to do so, but not until, and not without just cause.

This minimalizes the definition of the word enslavement. Merely denying someone the right to wear a particular piece of clothing in the name of safety or assimilation doesn't quite fit the bill. Although requiring the student to remove the hajib during school hours merely for the purposes of "assimilation" is not right.

Part of our annual income is taken from us by force to pay for a service, public schools, over which the government, not us, has the only say. We are working to create the means by which the legal agent of force (the government) creates services, and in which we are denied our rights in using. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. All that's missing is whips and shackles. True, we're not forced to do the work. That's the only disimilarity with traditional slavery, but our rights are denied by the entity we fund all the same.

Can't wait for CAIR to start taking on the Saudis in the name of religious freedom. I'm sure that will happen any day now...

violates international human rights standards set forth by the United Nations and ratified by virtually every nation on earth.

Wow. But Islamic terroism dosen't?

Islam tried (through the offices of the Ottoman Empire) to reform in the 1800's, a la the civilised world, but they ran into a problem, according to the author of Osman's Dream: Islam enshrines 3 major inequalites...

1) Between owner and slave
2) Between believer and non-believer
3) Between man and woman

As for assimilation, Muslim Americans don't owe other Americans anything more than we all owe each other: respect for rights.

Without some forced assimilation, Muslims simply do not learn any tolerance for others. Tolerance for anything outside of what Islam prescribes is utterly foreign to the Muslim mind. That is my point. It's not a nice thing to think about but it's an inescapable truth about the enemy we face. "Live and let live" is not in their vocabulary. If it were, no one would give a damn about who is or isn't wearing a hijab.

#110 Lizard by the Bay

Without some forced assimilation, Muslims simply do not learn any tolerance for others. Tolerance for anything outside of what Islam prescribes is utterly foreign to the Muslim mind. That is my point. It's not a nice thing to think about but it's an inescapable truth about the enemy we face. "Live and let live" is not in their vocabulary. If it were, no one would give a damn about who is or isn't wearing a hijab.

Well, that's what I'm saying when I say they have to respect everyone's rights. The courts and police force you and me and every other American to respect each other's rights. There must be no exceptions for Muslims and no extra burdens upon them. If 'live and let live" isn't in their vocabulary, and they act on that, then they can rot in jail or just be executed. America's laws rule, not sharia.

“Freedom of religion should be a valued aspect of any society. People of all faiths must be granted the right to freely practice their religion without government interference or intimidation."

I wonder if CAIR has ever discussed their beliefs with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

Since when does clothing have anything to do with the freedom to practice the religion you believe in?

I mean, religion is about mental discipline (faith, purity of thought etc.) and actions (abide by the 10 commandments, pray, go on a pilgrimage etc.), not about how you look. That someone in the long dark past of Islam decided that some very vague references in the Quran to women 'covering their beauty' meant headscarves and covering hair is competely irrelevant. It's CULTURE, not RELIGION.

If you equal culture and religion, then gang colors, obscene text t-shirts, caps and so on are also 'protected religious expressions' that cannot be banned in classrooms and elsewhere. But then, perhaps a culture has to be either old or supported by many people to be a religious expression?

No, keep them seperate because that's what they are - two completely different things.