Skip to comments.A liberal supports theocracy
Posted on 05/29/2005 3:15:58 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Democrats generally claim to be fervent adherents to the doctrine of church-state separation. And they usually are; unless, that is, they can find a religion detrimental to the interests of America.
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) recently introduced H. Res. 288. The resolution condemns "bigotry and religious intolerance, and [recognizes] that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect." That sounds innocent enough, but it doesn't take the resolution long to turn in to a sycophantic flattering of one particular religion.
The resolution begins expounding upon the virtue of a certain book, stating that "the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality." It proceeds to assert that "mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity."
Apparently, prisoner abuse is now the moral equivalent of disrespecting books. That absurdity aside, what is the precise purpose of this resolution? The section declaring "that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected," for example, isn't a controversial opinion. As a resolution, it doesn't hold the weight of law. As such, it would have no effect on our society. So why, exactly, should we pay our representatives to waste their time voting on it?
It was inspired, said Rep. Conyers, by recent incidents of Quran defacement. Most people are aware of recent allegations concerning incidents of "disrespect" for the Quran at Guantanamo Bay. But another case, more relevant in its implications for Americans, included a Muslim woman who received a Quran through Amazon.com. She claimed that she found the phrase "Death to all Muslims" written in the book when she opened it.
Now Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, says his organization wants an investigation and a public apology from Amazon.com. He also wants Amazon.com to fund educational programs that foster religious tolerance.
However, the Quran wasn't sold directly by the Amazon Website. It was sold as a used book from another user. Amazon simply facilitated the transaction. Still, Amazon paid the woman for the cost of the book, apologized, and gave her a gift certificate. She's demanding more, however, with the explanation, "I couldn't even go near this book for a couple of days."
Her emotional instability is unfortunate. However, it isn't Amazon's fault. American Muslims may be "peaceful," but only relative to the Muslims of the Middle East. In terms of their fellow Americans, they still seem to be militant and hard-pressed to coexist with the rest of society. They'll find reasons to be offended and explain that their religion augments the effect of insult on their being. They'll also claim that, so long as fellow adherents of their religion continue to commit acts of terrorism, the rest of us have a special responsibility to demonstrate our lack of prejudice. This means they have an extra, extra special right not to be offended, and they will legally annihilate anyone who disagrees.
There are certainly some nice, truly "peaceful" Muslims living within America. But this woman, along with members of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the people that Rep. Conyers seeks to appease with his resolution, are not it.
Leftists may not want a theocracy led by Christians, but they wouldn't mind some type of theocracy so long as it was led by anti-Americans. For the right to establish a theocratic way of governance, in the eyes of progressive intellectuals, a religion must first prove its worth by slaughtering Americans.
It would be wrong to murder American Muslims, if murder is all Rep. Conyers claims his resolution is supposed to be against. Of course, he could also propose a resolution in honor of the Ten Commandments to achieve his purpose of opposing murder. But his intent isn't to oppose the violation of rights; it's simply to pay tribute to his special friends.
Arbitrarily abusing prisoners is wrong. However, it is also wrong to pay homage to a specific group just because a segment of its followers were courageous enough to declare war on America. The proposal to honor a group simply on account of its frequent decisions to riot and kill people is utterly bizarre. While he's at it, Rep. Conyers should propose a resolution recognizing the humanity of Neo-Nazis; after all, not all National Socialists are necessarily violent.
Regardless, we have the right to do whatever we please under the Constitution so long as we aren't violating anyone else's rights. That includes the defacement of books. Unless its purpose is to work toward the systematic destruction of our Constitutional rights, a resolution declaring the mistreatment of books to be "against civilized humanity" is worthless. After Islam has managed to purge itself of its most disreputable components and to become a respectable religion, perhaps we can honor it with a Congressional resolution. But until that happens, the proposition of doing any such thing is absurd.
Preverted selfish people NEVER want what is ultimately good. They get tricked into believing half truths.
Those who would not want Jesus as Lord of their lives or aleast follow his precepts are incapable of knowing the Truth.
There are also Catholics that do not adhere to the tenents of Catholicism.
Any Muslim that entertains thoughts of living peacefully with "infidels" is not following the Quran and Moe Hammed's teachings, and therefore is not a practicing Muslim. They too should guard their heads jelously, as they are slated for separation of head and body by the true believers.
As far as Conyers goes, he is but another Democrat enemy of America, masquerading as a human being and elected by people unworthy to vote.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Piss Christ is art, but flushing the Koran is a hate crime.
islam is oppression, slavery and death.
Conyers is just playing to his Muslim constituency in Detroit and Dearborn. I'm surprised he hasn't converted yet.
"the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality.",and the requirements of murder, and cutting off non-muzlim heads, feet and fingers...As well as rape, stealing, deceit, lying and cheating...
Now there's my kind of religion, NOT...However, it must appeal to Conyers and the rest of the American muzlims...
well goodie for him....
I don't support a theocracy in any form....
There, that is more like it. Christians are the ones who need protection from the likes of Conyers these days it seems to me.
Under Roe, science be damned and liberals adhere to what I call the Poof Theory as to the beginning of human life. Instead of accepting the science that a unique human individual is formed at fertilization, liberals adhere to the notion that human life begins, POOF!!, when, well, when its mother says it begins and not before.
Under this theory, even if a mother has already declared POOF, she can still declare UNPOOF at any time. This could be five days after fertilization or five minutes before birth. Hell, she can even UNPOOF halfway through birth if she wants to.
Yes, liberals have religion.
*****So why, exactly, should we pay our representatives to waste their time voting on it? *****
Why are we paying Conyers anyway, He is about as useless as Teats on a Boar Hog.
I wonder if she can go near ground-zero.
Hyperventilate over a bound collection of printed pages. Something is twisted here.
You forgot to include all the anti-America socialists in the area, too!
>>>Conyers is just playing to his Muslim constituency in Detroit and Dearborn
DING DING DING
You win !!!
-"the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality."-
I'd say the prisoners in Guantanamo haven't been learnin' much, except how to take advantage of yellow-bellied politicians.
Based on their own actions, and particularly on the unwillingness of those who practice Islam in the US and Europe to mount any meaningful protest of the violent practices of some of their co-religionists, I must conclude there is something distinctly not peaceful about Islam.
This issue would be easy enough to for them to solve- where are the million-member peace marches? Where are the hunger strikes and "teach-ins", where are the collection of shoes to remind us of each victim, or people who insist on readnig the name of each vicitm?
Our media has been full of images of the various ways people in the west have protested violence. There is a distinct lack images of those who insist Islam is a "religion of peace" is indeed peacefully oriented in any protests.
Instead of peace, we have followers of the "religion of peace" who get killed during protests over the handling of their "holy book", and yet not a word of protest is reported anywhere over the deaths suffered in the bombing of a mosque. It appears it is just fine for members of this peaceful religion to kill each other but no non-believer had better disrespect their book, or look out!
Islamists in this country and in the rest of the West give the impression they are like the Methodist or Episcopalian who cannot quite bring themselves to fully practice what their religion really teaches.
What does it mean for the West if Sayyid Qutb is right about Islam, that what we now call "radical" is the ideal? That jihad is not a metaphor for the battles of life, but for the real war against unbelievers that every believer must wage, or risk not being able to enjoy life in Paradise. That their god is sovereign and it is their duty to force everyone else to worship him (or it) only in the exact manner they say is correct.
There is something really wrong here. The way things are going, we are headed for a gigantic clash of cultures at some point in the future. And it is clear it won't be peaceful when it happens.
You mislead yourself. I don't know whether you do it intentionally to satisfy some dogma or if you do it to mislead others.
Here is what you are not considering. An infidel is a unbeliever. Jews and Christians worship the exact same God as the Muslims, the God of Abraham. Therefore, Jews and Christians are not infidels. Most Muslims consider Jews and Christians as a bit misguided perhaps, but not in need of conversion.
"[yes the Jews and Muslims are both descendents of Abraham, but here is the attitude towards descendants of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews]: "If they find you, they will be your enemies, and will stretch forth towards you their hands and their tongues with evil, and they ardently desire that you may disbelieve. Your relationship would not profit you, nor your children, on the day of resurrection; He will decide between you; and Allah sees what you do. Indeed, there is for you a good example in Abraham and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you serve besides Allah; WE DECLARE OURSELVES TO BE CLEAR OF YOU, AND ENMITY AND HATRED HAVE APPEARED BETWEEN US AND YOU FOREVER UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IN ALLAH ALONE (60:2-4)"