Herman Cain: Americans Communities Should Have The Right To Ban Mosques
Herman Cain was on Fox News Sunday this morning and gave perhaps the most disjointed response yet on his position on what rights Muslims should have yet:
Herman Cain says voters across the country should have the right to prevent Muslims from building mosques in their communities.
In an exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” he said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”
Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: “They have a right to do that.”
Cain, an African-American who grew up during the civil rights era, claimed he was not discriminating against Muslims. He said it was “totally different” than the fight for racial equality because there were laws prohibiting blacks from advancing.
We have freedom of religion, Cain is saying, but people should have the right to ban your religious practices if they don’t like you. The Herman Cain boomlet is dying, because its becoming clear that everything that comes out of his mouth is utter nonsense.
Update: Here’s the video:
If his position is as stated, I find Mr. Cain’s view repellent. A more serious question: do communities have the right to ban the adhān, the call to prayer, played over a loudspeaker?
Not to mention that, by his own “logic” Christians (or any other person of faith) should not be allowed to ” infuse their morals in” a community.
I suspect he doesn’t realize it, but he is arguing for a radical secular state where religion is allowed no part in politics whatsoever with his interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
I guess, too, that a given community could vote to block a church or synagogue as well under this line of thought.
(Or, maybe he is just bigoted against Muslims and hasn’t given any of this any thought whatsoever).
Cain is a radio talk show host, a child of that rage-fueled milieu. He’s just giving Republican primary voters what a substantial portion of them evidently crave: hate. It’s doomed to fail since the bulk of the haters in the GOP also hate blacks, making Cain a less-than-ideal messenger.
I can´t wait to see Cain on the Colbert Report at the end of july, political comedy gold.
I’d like to believe that but have you seen Bachmann’s numbers? There’s no shortage of appetite for crazy this year.
@michael reynolds: Michael, I disagree with Cain’s position here, but to somehow turn his statement into some rant against all Republicans seems odd to me. After all, we were told time and again that we were not supposed to judge Barack Obama or his party just because he spent decades listening to that hate monger Reverent Wright preach hate from the pulpit.
Yes, just what this thread needed, nonsense about Reverend Wright.
Why is it that the more paranoid majority always fears being dominated by a less powerful minority?
Today’s Republicans are good at changing the subject. They pretty much have to be, it’s never pretty when you take a close look.
You realize that makes no sense, right?
The GOP and it’s media allies have been race-baiting since Nixon, and very profitably, too. They also attack gays, immigrants and Muslims. It used to be that the GOP had three wings: Money, Bombs and Jesus. Now it’s just two: the greed wing and the hate-based community.
I’m not judging the GOP by Cain, I’m judging the GOP by Republican Senators and Congressmen, by polls, by Fox, by Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck, by most of their declared presidential candidates and by their history since the start of the Souther Strategy.
He’s correct, if slightly mis-spoken… Infusing their morals? Not quit.. Infusing their morals by means of LAW, is more correct. Funny how those all worried about Christians doing so, seemingly are willing to defend Muslims. THe difference being that you seldom see Christian churches stoning women anymore.
Odd? Ummmm no… More like par for the course.
Oh really? How, exactly, are they doing that here?
@michael reynolds: Really? The polls say that the GOP are racists and haters? I missed that. I am not the one who is not making sense here. You are just using the usual double standard.
The polls say that racists have found a home in the GOP. They were offered a home, they found it, and the GOP has profited from that since the days of the Civil Rights movement. The Southern Strategy isn’t some debatable notion, it’s simple history. The GOP made a choice — they could join with the emerging Democratic support of Civil Rights, or they could exploit southern white panic for electoral gold. They chose ‘B.”
Today’s GOP still harbors those people, and still panders to them. This, too, is hardly controversial. Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman admitted it in 2005: “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization… I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” That’s from a very hardcore Republican.
Why do you suppose Republicans get no black votes? Why do you think Republicans can’t capitalize on the social conservatism of Hispanics? Why do you think Jews still reject the GOP? Everyone who has ever been on the sh-t end of bigotry knows what the GOP is about.
(By the way, now’s the part where you start talking about “the race card.”)
@michael reynolds: What a hypocrite you are Michael and what a sheltered life you must lead. I would think that Jeremiah Wright was a racist. But since he is not a white Republican, I guess he is immune.
Why do I think that more hispanics and blacks are not in the GOP? I would say it is because a lot of those people have been told time and again by people like you that the GOP hates them. For instance, the people most opposed to the Civil Rights Act were the Democrats, and it was Republicans who pushed it through Congress. However, Barry Goldwater was enough of a libertarian that he refused to support it while LBJ signed it. So the Democrats got some credit for that in spite of themselves. But those Dixiecrats were not Republicans..and since the Democrats have done a good job of equating illegal immigration with race they have been able to exploit the problems of illegal immigration for their own benefit.
In fact, when it comes to hate, the Reopublicans are amateurs compared the race hustlers of the Democratic party who have for years exploited race and poverty for political gain. And look where it got us.
@reid: Why is it nonsense to bring up Wright when people have used this thread to call Republicans racists?
@Terrye: And of course Hispanics and blacks are just blind sheep, too stupid to come to their own conclusions, and thus follow along blindly when liberals tell them to vote for Democrats.
Next time you wonder why minorities avoid your party like the plague, you might want to reread your message and examine your own assumptions. They’re a pretty good clue…
For the sake of argument let’s take it as a given that Wright is a racist. Now how does that in any way challenge the proposition that the right has actively courted racists for decades?
It doesn’t. And that’s exactly why it’s a non-sequitur: it does nothing to argue wither for or against the issue at hand.
@Tlaloc: And I don’t remember ever hearing much evidence that Wright is a racist. A little nutty, maybe, given how things turned out with him in 2008. He was just another right-wing smear target. Great to have him resurrected three years later!
@Steven L. Taylor: I think your parenthetical comment at the end probably is on point–he’s simply opposed to Islam and doesn’t give any thought to what his statements actually mean or what effects acting on them would have.
Sadly, this phenomenon is common now on both the left and the right.
@michael reynolds: Wow! It’s just amazing! You said “race card” and Terrye shifted to the “why don’t we call Jeremiah Wright a racist, too” meme. Positively Pavlovian! Good job!
@Dave Schuler: That would be covered by whatever sound ordinances the town or city has.
This always cracks me up. “decades of hate mongering” but all they can come up with is only a few short clips of this “hate”. Quite frankly he was right it 9/11 was the chickens coming home to roost. Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston and crew were a little off when they blamed lesbians gays and god’s wrath for 9/11…
Does Terrye even know what a dixiecrat is and what was occurring at the time?
Like leftists, neocons like Cain believe rights only apply to certain animals. Ah the joys of listening to ghetto trash black conservatism, nice change of pace from the standard ghetto trash black liberalism that comes out of Sharpton and his bunch.
Additionally, Lee Atwater and Michael Steele, two more GOP Chairmen, admitted to the use of the racist Southern Strategy. It’s despicable.
So Herman Cain is pandering to the lizard brains by stoking fears of Islam. What a surprise. Not.
The Republican Party has capitalized on white racial fears for electoral gain, at the expense of blacks, an historically oppressed minority. That’s an established fact, admitted by at least three GOP Chairmen.
If you support the Republican Party, then you’re acquiescing in their use of that racially divisive electoral strategy.
African Americans still suffer the effects of racism in this country: Their infant mortality rate approximates that of third world countries; they earn about 75 cents on the dollar to whites, live about 8 years less, in part as a result of inadequate access to health care. Their rates of poverty continue to exceed that of whites greatly. That’s not an accident.
It’s so funny to hear wingers complain about Reverend Wright. White people aren’t suffering from black racism in this country. We still have all the money, all the power, and practically no effects of racism.
So go have yourself an affirmative action bake sale and stroke yourself on how clever you are to point out the effects of discrimination. F****** clueless.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. There’s potentially an issue of disparate impact and that the ordinances would not survive the strict scrutiny required.
You will notice that more Democrats than Republicans (of course, there were more Democrats in the Congress than Republicans) voted for both versions of the bill and that almost all of the Dem “no” votes came from the South, a region that now forms the Republican base…
Unfortunately for arguments like the one Terrye is pushing, the overwhelming majority of minorities who vote for Democrats have to be painted as hoodwinked sheeple…I mean, why else would they vote for Democrats in such large numbers, right? Not a real appealing argument to be making to these people, eh?
@Dave Schuler: I don’t see the problem. My home town had such ordinances and even the state of Illinois has laws in relation to the operation of sound amplification systems..
Passing laws is one thing. Having them sustained under legal challenge is another.
@Dave Schuler: At least in my area of New York, those ordinances have been challenged and held up. I don’t think there’s much of an argument about religious infringment.
Plus, I’m pretty sure that these have been used to shut down street preacher’s with megaphones in the past (see NYC for an example). Now unamplified calls to prayer are most likely harder to regulate.
It’s just a disconnect. Look, you say Obama was preached to by a racist, I say the GOP embraced racists in the 60’s and continues to. If I’d said George W. Bush was preached to by a racist, that would be an apt counterpoint. It’s apples and oranges.
As for the Reverend Wright, I think he’s an extremist. In fact, I think he’s a little nuts, and I wish Obama had stayed away. I understand why he didn’t — Chicago votes — but that doesn’t make it admirable. It bothered me when it first came out, and it still does. If it had proved to be a pattern with Obama it would bother me much more.
But it hasn’t been a pattern. Obama categorically rejected Wright’s statements.
If the GOP had stopped at some point — just said, as Mehlman and others in the GOP tried to do — look, we did something wrong here. I’d congratulate them and move on. I am big on forgiveness and redemption. But they haven’t. And you can’t be forgiven for what you keep on doing.
@Steven L. Taylor: @Steven L. Taylor: This is exactly the same questions that came to my mind this morning when I watch this boob give his answers on Fox News. I was a little suprised that Wallace did not follow up with the obvious question about what his sentiment would be to a community disapproval of the building of a church or synagogue. It’s too bad the question was never asked, because I think his head would have exploded just trying to reason his way through the obviously contradictory logic that would have ensue. This man really is a complete ignoramus.
You’re missing a lot. As others have explained, the GOP has a long history of pandering to racists. From 2006:
And this is why the 2008 GOP convention was only 1.5% black.
I think a lot of what going on in US politics is properly viewed as the latest stage of the Civil War, which isn’t really over. For a vivid display of this, see here (click on “Voting shifts”). You can see the exceptional areas where McCain/Palin did better than GWB. These are the places where Rs disliked Obama more than they disliked Kerry (because I think it’s hard to imagine that there were many Rs anywhere who liked McCain in 2008 more than they liked Bush in 2004).
Of course Rs will dislike both Obama and Kerry, but what kind of R especially dislikes the former? What would be the logic in that? This map lets you see where those people live: mostly rural areas in the South. The area highlighted on this map is the heart of the GOP. I think GOP behavior is much easier to understand when these geographic and demographic patterns are taken into account.
@An Interested Party:
I suppose the fairest way to ask and answer that point is to look at what they’ve been doing elsewhere. Say, the UK as an example. France, as another.
After he’d sat in the pews for how many years, again? Credibility meter: [ 50 100]
Jeremiah Wright merely said idiomatically what Chamer’s Johnson said in “Blowback”, regarding 9/11. As for damning America, let’s consider whether that is justified in light of our historical treatment of African Americans, from slavery to Jim Crow to the present status of institutional racism. Hell, one of the two major political parties remains invested in the notion that racism is no longer a problem in this country.
Conservatives who can’t stop beating a drum about Wright (and Ayers, for that matter) would have marginally more credibility if we had ever heard a peep out of them about McCain’s friendship with Gordon “go for a head shot” Liddy.
@jukeboxgrad: But Liddy is a great American, who patriotically volunteered to commit murder if his president wanted him to. How could you criticize him? Next you’ll be condemning Oliver North, just because he committed treason.
I’m not sure what Cain is getting at, but there is an argument to be made that islam is not really a religion in the sense we normally understand it. After all, it’s currently the governing system of several extant theocracies and there are a number of active insurgencies (Pakistani Taliban, Al Shabaab, Abu Sayef, Boko Haram, Chechen islamists) – and recently successful insurgencies (Khomeinism, Afghan Taliban, Hamas) – whose sole objective has been the imposition of islam as a form of government and a set of laws. A lot of observant muslims might even say that islam cannot be practiced fully outside of a “complete” islamic system and that it is incumbent upon muslims everywhere to bring about such a system, first peacefully, then using more, shall we say, “direct” methods. . . . First and foremost, it’s important to understand what something REALLY IS as opposed to what it SAYS it is. I don’t think the founders necessarily intended the free exercise clause to embrace a separate and often hostile political ideology just because it calls itself a “Religion.”
Here’s case in point:
@Lin: All your points could easily be made against Christians here in the USA and their desire to make this a “Christian nation”…
No, they really can’t.
There is nothing comparable in any other religion to islam’s theo-political fusion, complete with extant, comprehensive legal code, multiple (and vast) theocratic fascist states and multiple theo-political insurgencies. There just isn’t.
Honestly, Matt, do you REALLY believe that opposing gay marriage and abortion is in any way comparable to what I’m talking about?
Here’s some Christian terrorist organizations for you to start your primer on then.
Ulster Volunteer force
Loyalist Volunteer force
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Manmasi National Christian Army
Lord’s Resistance Army
The Knights Party
The Army of God
The Covenant, the sword,, and the army of the lord
Various Christian militia movements such as the Hutaree, Lambs of Christ, the Concerned Christians etc.
See also the various violent acts committed by Christians in response to the last temptation of Christ or the piss Christ etc..
You can even find Buddhist terrorist if you do some searching.
You’re being exceedingly disingenuous with that statement. You know damned well that there are armed and not so armed groups who are more then interested in enacting their version of a Christian theocracy in this country and others (several are still fighting to make that happen). Meanwhile Uganda with the blessing of some big named Christian Americans is still talking about making it against the law to be gay with the penalty of DEATH. So yeah keep trying to pretend it’s only about gay marriage and abortion….
Here’s some viewing material for you, Matt:
And while you’re doing that,
The Christian population of Northern Nigeria, particularly in the town of Maiduguri is fleeing islamic militants intent on imposing islamic law;
10,000 non-muslim/christian residents of Western and Southern Ethiopia are looking for a place to live after islamic militants attacked them this Spring;
The last few hindus in Pakistan are moving en masse to India due to unrelenting attacks, abductions, and abuses by muslims intent on imposing islamic blasphemy and other laws against them;
The region of Abyei in Sudan is being cleansed of non-muslims by islamic militants intent on imposing islamic law following the election in S. Sudan (necessary because the Southern Sudanese don’t want to live under shariah law (or be halal sex slaves, for that matter);
The last Christians in Somalia are being hunted down and assassinated and their underground churches burned; and
Unveilied women in Grozny Chechnya are being shot in the face with paint balls by government approved morality police intent on imposing islamic law (in exchange for relative peace, the Russians have pledged not to interfere with the islamisation of chechnya by islamic militants).
And that’s in addition to the last 200 or so Yemeni Jews who fled Yemen a couple of years ago (now it’s judenrein, like most of the rest of the middle east); the ongoing harassment and attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and Iraq, the systematic cleansing of the Buddhist population from S. Thailand by islamic militants, the flight of Bangladeshi hindus due to dispossessions and harassment; the full on displacement of 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley at the call of mosque loudspeakers – and that doesn’t even include last century’s genocides in Turkey, Sudan and Bangladesh.
Now, read the article I linked to in my first comment, Matt, and tell me what’s going on there.
Look dude I’m not the one pretending that only Christians have crazies. Every religion has crazies and they are doing their crazy thing everywhere. The fact is generally the crazy is rooted in cultural beliefs which are then vindicated via their religion through selective interpretation of religious texts etc.
If you want to be delusional and believe that only Muslims have crazies then I guess that’s your stupidity…
I’m not saying “they don’t have crazies.” I’m saying they have a comprehensive legal code that’s fairly uniform and accepted as authoritative across all schools of islamic thought, and that code requires them to wage physical warfare against non-muslim peoples and governments until everyone everywhere is living in a state of submission to islamic law. That’s what they’ve done. That’s what they’re doing. And that’s what they will do in the future.
@Lin: While ignoring that the jews and Christians have the exact same thing… Great..
Have you even read the bible? The old testament? The Torah?
Heard of Halakha? Halocho? Halacha? Book of Order? etc etc
There are about 1.57 BILLION Muslims in the world and if what you’re trying to assert as fact was even remotely true we would of been totally screwed decades ago. The reality is you’re completely full of shit and conflating the acts of the few as representing all..
I have Muslim friends and they like a vast majority of Muslims here believe that terrorism is NEVER acceptable and that they love this country. There are plenty of polls out there re-enforcing this fact. Do try to do a little research outside of the extremist right wing hate chamber sometime..
A poll that simply asked whether a given muslim supported “terrorism” wouldn’t be much of a poll question. Wouldn’t it be make more sense to gather data about support for groups that have or are currently waging war to impose islamic law, like Al Shabaab or the Pakistani Taliban? A muslim who supports the work of these groups wouldn’t describe their work as “terrorism” at all, even though these groups have known connections and support from Salafi extremists. . . . A decent poll would also look for support for specific provisions of shariah law, like death for apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals and adulterers, like those below from the UK. (A truly accurate poll would also ask whether the specific provision should be applied in “an islamic state” – suggesting the provision is viewed positively and considered theologically sound, though not yet feasible):
As for US muslims, If you find the “mapping Shariah” project or DOD’s “To Our Great Detriment” report too tainted by “right wing extremists,” maybe you would be interested in the Freedom House Report?:
“Saudi Hate Literature Invades American Mosques”
A blog comment that makes unwarranted assumptions about a poll question isn’t much of a blog comment. The poll I cited didn’t simply ask whether a given Muslim supported “terrorism.” You can find out how the question was framed by looking here:
From Gallup’s book on this subject: “Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.” P. 95. Searchable at amazon:
Which brings us back to this:
Let us know when you’re in a position to dispute this, or in a position to show that the other issues you’re raising are more relevant.
The people recorded in the dispatches Undercover Mosque documentary I linked to in my earlier comment would have probably answered “no” or “almost never” to those questions (or answered deceptively) – and yet they are no more than a stones through away from full on AQ militants. The UK is starting to officially recognise this, btw:
(don’t let the link fool you – it’s a Guardian article)
I bet this guy would answer “no” as well:
“Our Followers Must Live in Peace Until Strong Enough to Wage Jihad”
(NB: the Deobandi’s control something like 40 to 50% of UK mosques)
Liberals need to recognise that “terrorism” is only the sharp, violent tip of a very long spear. It’s the ideology itself that’s deadly.
It’s always possible to dismiss a poll you don’t like by claiming, based on no evidence at all, that the respondents lied. More broadly, it’s always possible to find a lame excuse to ignore facts you don’t like. Thanks for giving us a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon.
Just to amplify my earlier comments, Jukebox, a muslim fighting to establish an islamic state for AQ ally Al Shabaab would not describe those who oppose or impede the advance of islam as “innocent civilians.” After a proper islamic “warning,” an uncovered woman is an impediment to the supremacy of islamic law; bars and discos impede the supremacy of islamic law; those who participate in non-islamic (i.e. democratic governance) might impede the supremacy of islamic law; open homosexuals impede islamic law. . . . In the context in which it would count most, the question has very little meaning (then again, given the author and his benefactors, that may have been the point):
. . . And here’s an unusually honest example of the definitional disconnect I mentioned above:
Quote marks are normally used to identify words that someone actually said. You are implying that the poll I cited used those words. Trouble is, it didn’t. It didn’t ask a question about “innocent civilians.” It asked a question about “civilians.”
Do you just have exceptionally poor reading comprehension, or are you deliberately going out of your way to distort reality? Probably both.
Oh good lord, Jukebox, the comment applies either way. A civilian is normally considered a civilian BECAUSE he is “innocent.” It’s a redundancy.
No, it’s not a redundancy. If it was a redundancy, then you would not have added the word. If it was a redundancy, then there would have been no need to add the word, and you would have accomplished nothing by adding the word. You added the word in order to make a false claim about the poll.
Being “innocent” is not what makes a person a civilian. ‘Civilian’ means ‘a person not in the armed force or the police.’ ‘Innocent’ (in this context) means ‘free from moral wrong.’ Therefore “civilian” and “innocent civilian” don’t mean the same thing. For example, it’s quite plausible to imagine a civilian who actively supports a criminal, barbaric government. That civilian is not innocent, even though they are a civilian.
You’re a hack. Here’s a key indicator: you don’t care about what words actually mean. You just pretend they mean whatever you need them to mean, based on your rhetorical needs in the moment.
‘Civilian’ means ‘a person not in the armed force or the police.’
This is what in means under YOUR definition. To the folks I’m talking about, it means someone who does not impede the supremacy of islamic law – and there is NO distinction between the moral and the civil wrong. These are western concepts and western words that have little or no meaning in the context in which the poll is attempting to use them. That’s my whole point.
Let’s put it this way. There are great many people who would fit under your definition of “civilian” that a person like Choudary would consider legitimate islamic targets. In fact, his group of legitimate “civilian” targets (using your definition) would include EVERY NON-MUSLIM ON THE PLANET irrespective of whether they were in the “military”. It’s a meaningless limitation. Admittedly, that’s an unusually large subset. A more reasonable and common subset might be “those who impede the the final victory of islam and islamic law,” like the uncovered women, homosexuals, blasphemers and apostates I may have mentioned earlier. Does that help?
I’ll be waiting patiently while you show evidence of who exactly defines “civilian” as “someone who does not impede the supremacy of islamic law,” rather than ‘a person not in the armed force or the police.’
Surely you must have numerous of examples of the word being used according to the meaning you claim. That is, unless the claim came directly from your imagination.
And Gallup showed that about a third of Americans believe that intentional attacks on civilians are justified, either completely, often or sometimes. Which means that about a third of Americans are “like Choudary.”
If you’re trying to dig a bigger hole for your argument, yes, it helps.
You may have heard about the recent assassination of a couple of politicians in Pakistan. One was Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, who was assassinated by his body guard for opposing Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Instead of condemning the act, some liberals were surprised to see many prominent muslims actually demonstrating on behalf of the assassin. That’s because by HUGE margins, Pakistanis (and Egyptians and Iraqis and the populations of most other islamic areas) believe first and foremost in shariah law, which make things like blasphemy and apostasy and a great many other “unislamic” acts capitol offenses. Although many might consider poor Taseer a “civilian” and the assassination an act of terrorism, those folks considered him a legitimate islamic target under shariah, and for them, shariah law is the only law that matters. That’s why polling questions about “civilians” are not very helpful, but polling questions about support for shariah are.
Which means that “those folks” would say that intentional attacks on civilians can be justified. Which is what about a third of Americans say. Did you have a point? I guess not.
And speaking of Americans who condone terrorism, maybe you’ve forgotten about the people of Murphy NC, who hid Eric Rudolph from the FBI and treated him as a Christian hero. And then Palin refused to say that he is a terrorist. So I guess Christians don’t support terrorism, except for when they do.
Also waiting for you to show evidence for this claim you made:
That’s a specific factual claim. Unfortunately, you pulled it out of your butt.
I just gave you an extremely high profile example of an individual who became a legitimate islamic target (i.e. ceased to be a “civilian” in the islamic sense) PRECISELY because he impeded the imposition of islamic law. Whatever, Jukebox.
There you go again, pretending that words mean whatever you want them to mean, and pretending that people have said things they haven’t said.
His enemies didn’t say he “ceased to be a ‘civilian.’ ” They took the position that it was OK to use violence against him even though he was a civilian. Not the same thing.
And in a broad moral sense, the philosophy they expressed is supported by the third of Americans who think intentional violence against civilians can be justified. I realize you’d rather not deal with this inconvenient fact.
You crack me up. Listen my fiancee is half Iranian and she still has family in Iran. They are very very western and the residents of big cities themselves are very western in their culture. Sure they have their version of hillbillies and backwards rednecks and just like here those people are mostly in the rural areas. Few years ago there was an episode of top gear where the guys were driving through the backwoods of Louisiana and Alabama and at one point the challenge had them writing stuff on each others car that would inflame people. Well naturally they wrote stuff like “Hillary for president” and a few comments about being gay etc. Things were going fairly well till they had to stop for gas and were assaulted by the locals. The crew ended up fleeing from a crowd of rednecks who ended up throwing rocks and chasing them on the interstate. Once the crew had lost the rednecks they immediately pulled over and removed the writing from their vehicles. So yeah even in your beloved United states which has no intolerance and is perfect according to you there are people more then willing to commit violent acts against those they don’t agree with.
Just a FYI my fiancees family in Iran? Not all of them are Muslims as about half of them are practicing Christians. It’s not as uncommon as you think for Christians to be present in these countries that you listed as being all Muslim. Hell the Iranian version of the house has seats which are only held by members of the minority religions such as Jews Christians and such. The whole green revolution was about having a true democracy free of enforced shariah law. Iraq used to have a Christian population that flourished under Saddam till we went in there blew up everything and allowed a civil war to begin.
To add to what Matt said: Lin’s vision of Islam does not explain a country like Turkey (or, for that matter, Indonesia).
He might like to explain, for example, why the most pro-business and pro-EU party in Turkey is the AKP, which is a consciously Islamic party.
@Steven L. Taylor: I found the situation in Turkey to be so blindingly obvious that it never occurred to me to bring it up.
Turkey? The country that virtually exterminated its Christian population over the course of three pograms and has confiscated virtually ALL the property of the Patriarchate, including the ONLY orthodox school for priests on its territory, in a bid to completely suppress the religion? The same AKP that has arrested a HUGE contingent of the secular military’s leadership – the entity constitutionally charged with ensuring the “secular nature of the state” – and has begun filling all relevant policy and court positions with Brotherhood sympathisers? Yeah, Turkey is GREAT.
As for Iran, yeah, you can be a Christian, so long as you don’t tell anyone. They sentenced an open apostate pastor to death last month. Here’s their record on the Bahai – all in accordance with islamic law, which only permits “people of the book” (jews, christians and in Iran’s case Zoroastrians) to become official subjugated dhimmis under islamic law (the rest do not qualify for the covenant of dhimmitude and are, therefore, not entitled to any legal protection or standing under islamic law and may be “murdered with impunity” as the article explains):
haha weeklystandard haha…Muslim brotherhood lol… Great you hit the SCARRY talking points.. Good for you.
It’s more like being gay in America. Sure you can be gay in America but if you’re gay in the wrong place you WILL be killed or beat to the verge of death. Like I said before there are seats on their version of Parliament dedicated to some of the minority religions such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Do keep in mind we’re talking about a region where 98% of people are practicing Muslims. Have you ever tried to pretend to be an atheist for a day here in the glorious USA (better yet put an atheist sticker on your car)? If you’re lucky you’ll only have to worry about the sticker being ripped off your car but more likely you’ll have your car vandalized nightly in some manner (know this from personal experience). It’s a rough to live as an atheist with all the hate mongering on the radio/tv and in the churchs. The thing is there are even more athiests here in % then there are of all minority religions in Iran. People are people rather they speak farsi english or whatever. People fear the unknown or the little known especially when their local pastor/imam is telling them to be fearful/hateful of that unknown…
Wow. I never knew atheists were so persecuted.
I weep for you.
See also Oslo now.. I haven’t been able to confirm if the knights Templar exists or is just a small group of douchebags who thing big of themselves..