There’s No Place In Politics For Herman Cain’s Anti-Muslim Bigotry

Why isn't the GOP calling out religious bigotry from one of its candidates?

Conor Friedersdorf says what I’m betting none of Herman Cain’s opponents will during tonight’s debate:

Presidential candidate Herman Cain has reiterated his position that any Muslim serving in his administration would be forced to take a loyalty test with this statement: “That’s not discrimination. It’s called trying to protect the American people. This nation is under attack constantly by people who want to kill all of us, so I’m going to take extra precaution.”

That’s chilling logic. The last time the United States government decided that an “extra precaution” made it OK to presume the disloyalty of citizens, we imprisoned more than 100,000 completely innocent Japanese Americans.

Even if it weren’t bigoted and imprudent, however, Cain’s logic should be disqualifying for its sheer idiocy. Think about it. His plan for deciding whether someone is a sleeper jihadist or worthy of being trusted in the White House is essentially to ask them, “Do you swear you’re loyal to the United States?” This would happen in a “one-on-one conversation,” where the former CEO would do what, exactly? Apparently being in a room alone with a man is enough for Cain to tell his intentions, because no one has ever lied in the history of mankind, or been misjudged when telling the truth.

(…)

Perhaps Cain grasps the glaring flaws in his plan, and is merely pretending loyalty tests are something he’d implement. In that case, he’s shown himself willing to exploit anxiety about an ethnic minority for the sake of populist appeal. The next president may well preside over a terrorist attack by Islamist extremists, so the last thing we need is an Oval Office occupant prepared to target innocent Muslims with discriminatory policies should doing so happen to poll well.

Quite honestly, there isn’t much difference between Cain’s apparent presumption that Muslim-Americans must prove their loyalty or otherwise be presumed disloyal and the views of people like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who have made themselves known as leaders of the “anti-Islamization” movement, and who have allied themselves with far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who’s been known to say things like this:

Wilders is best known for his criticism of Islam, summing up his views by saying, “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam”.[61] Although identifying Islamic extremists as a small 5-15% minority of Muslims,[77] he argues that “there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam'” and that the “Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates“.[58] He suggests that Muslims should “tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands” because it contains ‘terrible things’ and that Muhammad would “… in these days be hunted down as a terrorist“.[81]

On 8 August 2007, Wilders opined in an open letter[82] to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant that the Koran, which he called a “fascist book”, should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler‘s Mein Kampf.[83] He has stated that “The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order”.[84] He has also referred to Mohammed as “the devil“.[23] In September 2009, he made a public speech advocating a €1000 a year ($1500) excise tax on wearing headscarves.[85]

He believes that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted and all settled immigrants should be paid to leave.[61] Referring to the increased population of Muslims in the Netherlands, he has said:

Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches![86]

To be honest, there are many on the right here in the United States who feel the same way, and Cain is reflecting their prejudice with his implicit assertion that an American citizen who happens to be Muslim must be assumed to be disloyal.  If a candidate for President were to say that he believed that American Catholics should be required to prove that their loyalty is to the Constitution rather than Benedict XVI, or that American Jews should be required to prove that they are loyal to America rather than Israel, they would be dismissed out of hand and placed in the same category as David Duke. Because Cain is talking about Muslims, though, he gets a free pass on the right to espouse an idea that it is both bigoted and plainly unconstitutional. Why supposedly serious people are taking him seriously rather than demanding that he retract his previous position on this issue is beyond me, but it isn’t surprising.

 

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Islam, Religion, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. To be honest, there are many on the right here in the United States who feel the same way, and Cain is reflecting their prejudice with his implicit assertion that an American citizen who happens to be Muslim must be assumed to be disloyal.

    Sadly, I fear you are quite correct.

    Indeed, for some I expect that Cain’s utterance on this topic have been feature, not bug.

  2. And, to continue, given that fact, I fear that the title of your post is incorrect.

    Although to be clear: I concur with the sentiment that there ought not be any place in American politics for such bigotry.

  3. Wiley Stoner says:

    Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

    WILEY: THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING.

  4. Ken says:

    Yep. He’s doing it because he can — because, in the context of this primary, it helps him. If he loses — as he almost certainly will — it won’t because he’s bigoted against Muslims.

    He’s probably just all butthurt that they don’t eat pepperoni.

  5. legion says:

    Perhaps Cain grasps the glaring flaws in his plan, and is merely pretending loyalty tests are something he’d implement.

    I haven’t read much Friesdorf – is he really this naive? Cain doesn’t give a damn about the flaws in his plan, precisely because Republican voters don’t give a damn if their candidate is a bigot. In fact, for a disturbing percentage, it’s a plus.

  6. legion says:

    Wiley,
    Thanks for supporting my argument.

  7. Steven,

    Perhaps I ought have put the word “should” in the title because I fear you are correct

  8. I see James or Doug beat me to giving Wiley a warning…

  9. Looks like James got to it before I could.

  10. mattt says:

    Why don’t GOPers call Cain out? I assume this question is rhetorical. You can’t write on politics regularly and not see a big chunk of the GOP base for what it is.

  11. An Interested Party says:

    Sadly, we’ve been down this road before…whenever we, as a country, have a conflict with other countries or ideologies, there seems to be a strain among certain Americans to want to extend that conflict to whole groups that are innocent…fear is such a powerful motivator…

  12. PD Shaw says:

    Don’t all cabinet members have to swear an oath?

    “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    (5 USC 3331)

  13. PD Shaw says:

    Since he is taking an “extra precaution,” I assume this oath is not what he meant, but does he know about it?

  14. @matt:

    Indeed, as we saw (and discussed at length) during the whole Burlington Coat Factory Mosque nonsense.

    @PD: One would think that that would be sufficient.

  15. Tlaloc says:

    The GOP base has gone to a very disturbing place and i think it can really be traced back to a rejection of consensual reality. Science is seen as a money making scam. Separate encyclopedias are to be maintained for righty views. Separate tv shows are need to echo righty ideas. Alternate histories are concocted and insisted upon. It’s really mystifying and rather frightening the degree to which the self deception is ingrained and accepted, even demanded.

  16. Southern Hoosier says:

    I do have a bit of a problem with a belief system that says I should either be killed, converted or enslaved, because I am not a member of that belief system. I would also point out that the same belief system sees nothing wrong with lying to nonbelievers in order to advance their cause.

  17. PD Shaw says:

    My answer to Doug’s question is Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. But since we are at least in Reagan 3.0, the important Gingrich codicil supercedes the Eleventh Commandment where personal advantage can be obtained.

    Nobody will mention Cain tonight except Cain. Romney OTOH . . .

  18. sam says:

    There’s No Place In Politics For Herman Cain’s Anti-Muslim Bigotry

    Ah well, to paraphrase, nobody ever lost a Republican primary by underestimating the intelligence of the base….

  19. Jay Tea says:

    A talk show host up here in New England got in trouble for saying that “while not all Muslims are terrorists, so far all the terrorists have been Muslims.”

    Technically, not accurate. But a lot closer to truth than being a complete fabrication.

    Cain’s statements could be used to open a dialogue on just why a hugely disproportionate percentage of terrorist acts are committed in the name of Islam. And, for that matter, by Muslims against mostly other Muslims.

    Or we could be “cowards,” as Eric Holder put it, and not discuss it at all, and villify those who even dare broach the topic.

    J.

  20. sam says:

    @SH

    ” I would also point out that the same belief system sees nothing wrong with lying to nonbelievers in order to advance their cause.”

    That pretty much takes care of the loyalty oath in your view, right?

  21. sam says:

    Yeah, Jay, Herman comes across as a real dialoguey kinda guy.

  22. Southern Hoosier says:

    sam says: Monday, June 13, 2011 at 16:19

    @SH

    ” I would also point out that the same belief system sees nothing wrong with lying to nonbelievers in order to advance their cause.”

    That pretty much takes care of the loyalty oath in your view, right?

    Sure does, as well as the Gallop poll.

    Want me to back up what I’m saying?

  23. jwest says:

    So what did Wiley say that brought the entirety of the OTB hierarchy down on his head? It would be instructive to know what boundary he crossed.

    God, I hate being late.

  24. @Jay Tea:

    A talk show host up here in New England got in trouble for saying that “while not all Muslims are terrorists, so far all the terrorists have been Muslims.”

    Technically, not accurate. But a lot closer to truth than being a complete fabrication

    I dunno, I am pretty fan of “technically accurate” when discussing the world around us.

    And, certainly, it depends on which universe of “terrorists” one is discussing. If we use folks on the US’ official list, we find groups like the Real IRA, the FARC, the ELN, the AUC and ETA (to name several off the top of my head). None of those folks are Muslim.

    If the point is that an Islamic extremist group is made up of people adhering to a version of Islam, well no kidding.

    And, further, such statements are clearly intended to tar Muslims with a rather broader brush. It obfuscates, indeed utterly ignores, the billions of Muslims who are not terrorists. It is intellectually dishonest and purposefully inflammatory statement.

  25. Alex says:

    It’s too bad that the people who criticize Islam (other than Chris Hitchens) also seem to be bigots, like that Geert guy. The Koran and Bible are filled with some horrible, horrible stuff. We should be able to recognize that, or at least discuss it, without also discriminating against Christians or Muslims.

  26. @jwest

    James Joyner discussed some changes to the Comment Policies in a post this morning

  27. CB says:

    i would say that dr taylor has it about right, and reiterate that religion is often only tagentially related to terorism itself, acting as a pretext for expressing political grievances.

  28. jwest says:

    Doug,

    Wiley was posting the personal phone numbers of Muslims?

  29. legion says:

    You know, it’s one thing to be bigoted enough to bar Muslims from holding gov’t office, but it’s a hole new level of stupidity to want to force Muslims to take a “Super-Special” oath, above and beyond the oath _every_ gov’t appointee takes, because _that_ will weed out the terrorists. Anybody who considers Cain to be a viable office-holder (as opposed to a viable GOP candidate, which he unfortunately is) is just as big a dumbass as Cain himself.

  30. Southern Hoosier says:

    CB says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 16:47

    i would say that dr taylor has it about right, and reiterate that religion is often only tagentially related to terorism itself, acting as a pretext for expressing political grievances.

    Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?

  31. mattb says:

    @Jay_Tea
    Cain’s statements could be used to open a dialogue on just why a hugely disproportionate percentage of terrorist acts are committed in the name of Islam.

    Where do you mean by “Hugely Disproportionate” percentage? As Steven already pointed out, if we look to Europe we can find lots of terrorist acts committed by organizations of different creeds. If we extend to India, Sri Lanka and China, we must also start to consider Hindus (note, modern suicide bombing and female based attacked were actually first used by the Tamils) and Buddhists.

    Also, we should be careful to note the “politics” of the term terrorist attack — what gets designated an act of terrorism versus generic violence changes from country to country (note that the Hindu ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Guhajat in 2002 wasn’t an act of terrorism by most people). We’ll also avoid the issue of state-sponsored essentially terrorist attacks.

    At best we can say that the vast majority of reports on terrorism in US News Media are involve Muslims.

  32. mattb says:

    Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?

    Source please…

    Again, see my previous post.

  33. Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?

    That is a dubious proposition.

    Regardless, a more operative question is why so many of your comments are based in your abiding dislike of Muslims? (Take any of the recent threats on Syria or Turkey, but plenty of other examples abide).

  34. mattb says:

    Here’s a different question for those of you supporting Cain.

    Was the strategy with the imprisoning the Japanese during WW2 correct? And if it was, why didn’t we do the same thing with Germans and Italians on the East Coast?

    If not, what makes Muslim’s different? And try to answer without going to religion… Either that, or then please address the issues with Catholics up-to and/or past Kennedy. Or why we should trust Romney. Why do those religions now get a pass?

    BTW, the next time that Israel gets caught spying on the US, what should we do with Jews?

  35. Southern Hoosier says:

    Steven L. Taylor says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 17:01

    Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?

    That is a dubious proposition.

    Regardless, a more operative question is why so many of your comments are based in your abiding dislike of Muslims? (Take any of the recent threats on Syria or Turkey, but plenty of other examples abide).

    threats ? Who did I threaten?

  36. jwest says:

    I’m not a Cain supporter, but could it be that he is inartfully expressing a position designed to show that he recognizes the threats faced by the U.S. in today’s reality? Is he simply on the extreme end of the spectrum one way as Janet Napolitano is in denying the threat on the other extreme?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/09/napolitano_no_logic_in_profiling_muslim_men_under_the_age_of_35.html

  37. @SH:

    threats ? Who did I threaten?

    The words should have been “threads”.

    The point remains: the more operative question is why so many of your comments are based in your abiding dislike of Muslims?

  38. CB says:

    i was going to write something up, but mattb has expertly beaten me to it. i would only say that on a personal level, of course religion can be tied to extremism. but from a strategic viewpoint, it is those religiously convicted individuals who are most often manipulated to achieve political ends. which leads me to posit that religion is not normally the motivating factor in extremism.

  39. Southern Hoosier says:

    Regardless, a more operative question is why so many of your comments are based in your abiding dislike of Muslims?

    My dislike of Islam is based on the truth. I can back up everything I have ever said about Islam. And if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

    Do you really think Turkey can be a true democracy without a free press?

  40. CB says:

    there is a pretty clear difference between denying a threat exists and pointing out that an obviously flawed method of stopping said threat has no chance of being effective, short of rounding them all up into camps.

  41. sam says:

    @jwest

    “I’m not a Cain supporter, but could it be that he is inartfully expressing a position designed to show that he recognizes the threats faced by the U.S. in today’s reality? ”

    More likely, inartfullly expressed yahooism that shows he’s hip to primary electoral reality in the GOP.

    “Is he simply on the extreme end of the spectrum one way as Janet Napolitano is in denying the threat on the other extreme?”

    I read the cite, and you’ll have to explain the threat denial. Unless, of course, you want to say that somebody who’s not keen on singling out for inspection every “35-year- old male who appears to be Muslim” is in denial about the threat.

  42. mattb says:

    My dislike of Islam is based on the truth. I can back up everything I have ever said about Islam. And if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

    Cool… So, um, how about:

    Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?

  43. mattt says:

    A talk show host up here in New England got in trouble for saying that “while not all Muslims are terrorists, so far all the terrorists have been Muslims.”

    Technically, not accurate. But a lot closer to truth than being a complete fabrication.

    A commenter at OTB believes that while not all Tea Partiers are racist cowards eager to trade their heritage of liberty for a hollow promise of security, so far most such people with which he’s discussed politics at least sympathize with the Tea Party. Technically not a representative sample, but perhaps closer to the truth than to a fabrication?

  44. Southern Hoosier says:

    @ mattb

    Show me a similar list of terrorist attacks done in the name of a religion by other religions groups this week. You want more news stories about Islamic attacks, I can find them.

    2011.06.11 (Al-Dour, Iraq) – A teacher’s family of five, including three children, are brutally slain in an overnight sectarian home invasion.

    2011.06.11 (Khyber, Pakistan) – Nearly forty shoppers and vendors are obliterated by two terror blasts at a market.

    2011.06.11 (Mosul, Iraq) – Eighteen innocents lose their lives to two Mujahdi car bombers.

    2011.06.11 (Samarra, Iraq) – Four brothers are executed in cold blood by al-Qaeda.

    2011.06.11 (Abu Ghraib, Iraq) – Sunni militants shoot one civilian to death and behead another
    .
    2011.06.11 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) – Eight children and four women are among those ripped apart by a Taliban bombing of their minivan

    http://goo.gl/XwWzi

  45. steve says:

    “Why is it that Muslims use religion as a “pretext for expressing political grievances” as terrorist acts more than all other religions combined?”

    Most terrorist attacks are politically motivated, not religiously motivated. When people have studied Muslim suicide bombers, many of them were MINOs, not well versed in their faith. Many of the attacks in Iraq were motivated by revenge.

    Steve

  46. Southern Hoosier says:

    @ mattb

    Tell me how many Christians suicide bombers have there been this week?

  47. Southern Hoosier says:

    steve says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 17:36

    Most terrorist attacks are politically motivated, not religiously motivated.

    Then why aren’t other religions carrying out terrorist attacks for political reason? Why is it only Muslims that are blowing up people?

  48. Southern Hoosier says:

    @ mattb
    Tell me where are the Buddhist terrorists attacks.

  49. michael reynolds says:

    Southern:

    I can tell you where the Christian terrorists are: Northern Ireland. There’s quite a history there of Christian terror.

  50. Southern Hoosier says:

    @ mattb

    If there is no difference between Muslims and Christians, why do people always seem to be attacking one and defending the other?

  51. @SH:

    The problem with your logic is that you assume that all of these action are mono-causal, i.e., anything a person in a Muslim country does is because they are Muslim.

    By that logic, everything an American soldiers do is attributable to Christianity, since that is the predominant religion of the US and of members of the US military.

    The problem with your “thinking” is that it is overly simplistic and based, primary, on cherry-picked examples rather than being the results of systematic study.

    Also, by your logic, is Christianity to blame for the self-professed Christians who have bombed abortion clinics? Are all Catholics guilty of child molestation because of the actions of some priests?

    Further, you consistently ignore the millions upon millions of Muslims not engaged in violence. This ought to count for something if you were willing to be honest.

    And really, the bigotry is getting tiresome.

  52. michael reynolds says:

    Southern:

    Oh, and there’s Christian terror in this obscure country called the United States. Bombings at abortion clinics, assassinations, armed compounds. . .

  53. David M says:

    SH: you had a list of incidents that occurred in the middle east, but I’m not sure it shows much other than that there are likely Muslims in the middle east. Given the unintentional Onion-level parody of your linked site and without links to actual news reports, there’s really no way to accurately know what they were.

  54. Southern Hoosier says:

    michael reynolds says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 17:45

    Southern:

    I can tell you where the Christian terrorists are: Northern Ireland. There’s quite a history there of Christian terror.

    In May there were 165 Islamic terrorist attacks. How many Christian terrorist attacks in N. Ireland? And are the Irish firing rockets and mortars into England? Do the Irish yell “Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with you” before they blow themselves up?

  55. mattt says:

    Re: Southern Hoosier, a few thoughts:

    1) News reports overemphasize Islamic connections to terrorism. The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building, people who shoot up schools, sovereign citizens who ambush state troopers, Central American drug mercenaries who kill civilians….these people don’t get identified as terrorists. “Muslim” seems to be a prerequisite for identification as “terrorist” in contemporary media. I’d bet that almost any story you read (or can dig up) about bombings or multiple killings, if the same story with the same motivations occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, or with any identifiable linkage between the perpetrator and islam, it’d be played as at least potential terrorism in the media.

    2) There is a lot of genuine terrorism in the name of Islam these days. No doubt about it. But what good does it do the US, grand-strategically, to emphasize that fact and equate Islam with violence, thereby alienating moderate muslims with whom we’d like to work to contain and eliminate threats? I’d argue that the great majority of muslims worldwide are moderate and at least potentially sympathetic to our position, but you must admit there are at least a few. Why is it so important to indulge your rage against Islam by claiming terrorism comes from Allah, when a few muslim allies are worth 100s of smart bombs in terms of marginalizing and rooting out the most dangerous terror networks?

  56. Southern Hoosier says:

    michael reynolds says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 17:48

    Southern:

    Oh, and there’s Christian terror in this obscure country called the United States. Bombings at abortion clinics, assassinations, armed compounds. . .

    And do we make these terrorist martyrs and heroes or do we hunt them down like mad dogs and bring them to justice?

  57. michael reynolds says:

    Southern:

    That’s just desperate. Do you really want a per-capita comparison of the terrorist actions of more than a billion Muslims vs. 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland?

  58. michael reynolds says:

    Hoosier:

    Or do you perhaps want a faith-to-faith comparison? Because then I suspect the Buddhists would outperform the Christians.

  59. Southern Hoosier says:

    these people don’t get identified as terrorists

    because they aren’t terrorist. Most of what you mentioned are criminals. There is good money to be made in the drug trade, but how do you make money out of blowing up school girls that just want an education?

    moderate muslims

    and what is a moderate Muslim, one that has never committed an act of terror? and what is moderate Klansman, one that has never lynched a Black person?

    The biggest threat to all civilizations is Islamic liberalism because Islamic liberals fully understand Islamic history but like the deceivers they are; they still desire to Islamize but by Islamic dawah, stealth jihad, and Islamic kitman.

    http://goo.gl/Fa8pz

  60. Southern Hoosier says:

    michael reynolds says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 18:01

    Southern:

    That’s just desperate. Do you really want a per-capita comparison of the terrorist actions of more than a billion Muslims vs. 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland?

    How about a comparison of a billion and a half Muslims to a billion and a half Christians?

  61. Southern Hoosier says:

    Steven L. Taylor says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 17:01

    Regardless, a more operative question is why so many of your comments are based in your abiding dislike of Muslims? (Take any of the recent threats threads on Syria or Turkey, but plenty of other examples abide).

    What did I say wrong about Syria or Turkey? Can Turkey be a true democracy without a free press?

  62. and what is a moderate Muslim, one that has never committed an act of terror? and what is moderate Klansman, one that has never lynched a Black person?

    Enough, already. No more. Your views are known and while trying to discuss them may be instructive to others I fear that the net result is to have yet another hijacked thread.

  63. anjin-san says:

    Sh has no interest in reason or logic. He hates Muslims, and he wants the world to know it. I suggest a mercy flush.

  64. Ben Wolf says:

    Can Turkey be a true democracy without a free press?

    Yes. Anything else?

  65. Kylopod says:

    @PD Shaw

    I think Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment has morphed today into “Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican for being too right wing.”

    Criticizing Republicans for not being right-wing enough happens all the time.

  66. mattb says:

    Tell me where are the Buddhist terrorists attacks.

    The answer is Sri Lanka as the main site on both a local and government level (that particular government has in the past all but forced conversions to Buddism). — http://www.google.com/search?q=sri+lanka+buddhist+violence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0Bw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=sri+lanka+buddhist+terrorism&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=c56b9f60a1cfa8a7&biw=1076&bih=677

    Similar things are also going on in Thailand — though to a lesser degree. In some cases they are even happening against Muslims.

    In terms of your accusation that I said christian = islam, well that speaks volumes as to your inability to read objectively.

    As far as your “proof” that more terrorism is committed by Muslims than all other religions combined, your “proof” was a google pull for a week. Let me give you a hint, that’s what we call anecdotal data in the business. Hard data — claims of fact — need to be checked and double checked by reputable sources (i.e. meta analysis) and typically are collected over years in order to actually stabilize claims.

    I seem to remember you saying you’d admit to when you were wrong. Your demonstration of “statistics” and your knowledge of the global history of terrorists and inter-ethnic violence are both poor. Of course this will not be enough for you to admit that you were wrong (though you might admit to not knowing about Buddist violence because it in no way — you will say — proves you’re wrong about Muslims).

    Basically, you will never admit that you are wrong on this subject because you believe based on faith that you are right.

    So what does this tell us about your posts?

    As others have pointed out, you manage to eliminate all other causes and vectors of analysis, that you refuse to read objectively, that you put words into others mouths, that you claim that you’ll admit to being wrong but never do, that this history has gone on over a series of posts (and across a number of nom de plume — your rhetorical style is painfully obvious), that you can’t seem to admit that Muslims have ever had genocidal acts committed against them… granted this isn’t a complete meta analysis… but it’s pretty hard to prove that you’re are not taking an ignorant and bigoted position (at least using the same sort of evidence that you chose to muster) and then doing everything you can to justify that position while ignoring all others.

    BWT, what I have attempted to do is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem. Not only have based it on your long and odious posting record, but it is a statement about the content of your posts. I leave it to other readers to consider how that might or might not reflect on the contents of your soul.

    The question ultimately becomes: why should anyone take anything you say about Islam and Muslims seriously when you have demonstrated over and over again that you cannot form an adult (i.e. not based in emotion or fear or hate) estimation of them?

  67. OzarkHillbilly (used to be tom p) says:

    And really, the bigotry is getting tiresome.

    Really guys, if you did not engage SH in conversation, he might not go away, but people would stop listening to him…. just because nobody else was.

    I came to the conclusion a week and a half ago (2 weeks? 3?) that the only reason to respond to him was when he attacked me. And I had a one size fit all answer. I would link it, but I promised to be good.

  68. Wiley Stoner says:

    I don’t visit the Daily Kos and I think I will remove OTB from my browser. I only visit to read the lies and BS from the blogger and those on their side who comment here. I wrote nothing that others here have not done. Doug is exactly what I stated. The people who run this blog are kind of like those who now control the executive branch. They only want their message to go out. For people who claim they have little or no knowledge of Saul Alinsky, you sure practice his principles well. FOAD. See ya at the next blogger convention.

  69. OzarkHillbilly (used to be tom p) says:

    And I feel the need to note that there is no reason to engage a blatant racist in conversation, simply because there is no reason in racism.

    Engaging a racist in conversation is to leave all reason behind.

  70. mattb says:

    Really guys, if you did not engage SH in conversation, he might not go away, but people would stop listening to him…. just because nobody else was.

    I dunno OzH… That was my SOP for most of my life in dealing with bigoted and hateful speech. The problem of course is that SH is that type who, if you don’t read things closely or think about the broader context, then his writings start to make sense.

    So I’m through letting ignorance pass for fact, and blind-faith hatred and bigotry be accepted without challenging it because “no one would actually take him seriously.”

    The point in responding to that sort of speech isn’t so much to change the poster’s viewpoint — if this is what SH believes, then he’s already proven a while ago that there is no changing of his viewpoint. He’s right, and the rest of us are going to be killed in the coming intifada. Sorta like Glenn Beck, he’s always right — though strangely the end of days never seems to come (but that’s ok because it’s always coming — make sure you buy seeds and food insurance, which are the only things that will keep us from turning on each other when the system crashes).

    The real goal in responding to SH or some of the other trolls here is the hope of actually showing the flaw in their logic to the countless people who are reading OTB and never commenting.

  71. @Ozark:

    You are correct, trying to engage SH is pointless.

  72. Ben Wolf says:

    A hundred bucks says Wile E. posts at OTB again within the next week. Who else would pay him any attention?

  73. Southern Hoosier says:

    OzarkHillbilly (used to be tom p) says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 19:04

    And I feel the need to note that there is no reason to engage a blatant racist in conversation, simply because there is no reason in racism.

    Engaging a racist in conversation is to leave all reason behind.

    Why don’t you take your own advice?

  74. michael reynolds says:

    I was going to respond further to Hoosier, but I believe mattb just delivered chapter and verse.

  75. Southern Hoosier says:

    Steven L. Taylor says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 18:23

    and what is a moderate Muslim, one that has never committed an act of terror? and what is moderate Klansman, one that has never lynched a Black person?

    Enough, already. No more. Your views are known and while trying to discuss them may be instructive to others I fear that the net result is to have yet another hijacked thread.

    I took that to mean that we should all drop the subject and get back on topic.

  76. Kylopod says:

    And I feel the need to note that there is no reason to engage a blatant racist in conversation, simply because there is no reason in racism.

    Engaging a racist in conversation is to leave all reason behind.

    If you’re talking about Internet forums, I agree with you. With some exceptions, people do not post on the Internet to engage in dialogue, and racists on the ‘net almost never are interested in dialogue.

    But in my offline life, I find that talking to racists can be quite fruitful. I don’t enjoy it–it makes me feel unclean. But I have made headway before with some of them.

  77. mattb says:

    @Kylopod :

    But in my offline life, I find that talking to racists can be quite fruitful. I don’t enjoy it–it makes me feel unclean. But I have made headway before with some of them.

    If you have any pointers, please feel free to share. I’m still working on the making headway things.

    @MR – I appreciate the compliment. One day I’ll get the writing thing down — really looking forward to when that “edit” button comes along.

  78. Southern Hoosier says:

    I can understand why Herman Cain is suspicious of the loyalty of Muslims.

    I wrote nearly a year ago about FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, documenting how he “could have a key role helping America’s premier anti-terrorist force protect the United States from harm. But evidence from high-profile terrorism cases suggests that Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant Muslim, twice refused on principle to tape-record his coreligionists, harming the investigations.” The most notable piece of evidence was his statement, “A Muslim does not record another Muslim.”

    http://goo.gl/vXviQ

  79. Southern Hoosier says:

    And what about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft Hood Shooter? Didn’t he take an oath as a army officer and the Hippocratic Oath as a doctor?

    And then there Hasan Karim Akbar (born Mark Fidel Kools on April 21, 1971). Akbar was charged in a hand grenade and shooting attack that killed two, while wounding fourteen other soldiers on 23 March 2003. He also to the army oath.

  80. Southern Hoosier says:

    In this article we are going to examine the teachings of Islam to see whether the actions of Major Hasan were in direct violation of what the Quran and Muhammad taught, or do the so-called authentic Islamic sources condone such murderous and treacherous acts.

    http://goo.gl/yBSfS

  81. G.A.Phillips says:

    I was going to respond further to Hoosier, but I believe matt just delivered chapter and verse.

    Blagh…

    You are correct, trying to engage SH is pointless.

    lol, all are, who hold the correct worldview.

    And the above post is not but a biased secular thought judgement constructed of indoctrination.

  82. Southern Hoosier says:

    The topic is Herman Cain’s mistrust of Muslims and I am sticking to the topic.

  83. anjin-san says:

    As many have already pointed out, the title of the post is flawed because there is indeed a place in politics for this sort of bigotry. It’s called the Republican party.

    The two Muslims I know best are both guys who’s families fled Afghanistan. One is an engineer, the other in sales. They are both industrious, thoughtful & pretty easy to like. It saddens me that they have to deal with this kind of shit.

  84. G.A.Phillips says:

    The topic is Herman Cain’s mistrust of Muslims and I am sticking to the topic

    Southern, they don’t care cause it don’t fit their indoctrinated judgements.

  85. Southern Hoosier says:

    G.A.Phillips says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 21:10

    Southern, they don’t care cause it don’t fit their indoctrinated judgements.

    Yes it does fit.

    As many have already pointed out, the title of the post is flawed because there is indeed a place in politics for this sort of bigotry. It’s called the Republican party.

    Southerns have a thing for lost causes. Educating liberals is a lost cause. But I digress from the topic again.

  86. Scott O. says:

    Say what you will about Southern Hoosier but at least he has a solution to the terrorism problem. Simply kill all the Muslims.

  87. Kylopod says:

    >If you have any pointers, please feel free to share. I’m still working on the making headway things.

    I’m not sure I have pointers, and I don’t claim that my behavior in this regard has always been ideal. Being a shy person, my habit when hearing someone say something offensive is to clam up, giving them a cold silence and hoping I get out of there as quickly as I can. Sometimes I feel I can’t be silent about it, but usually when I get into an argument with a racist, it’s only because I’ve been dragged into the conversation. I try not to react emotionally. I try to be armed with a set of fact-based arguments designed to throw the person off balance, challenging the way they look at the world.

    One thing to keep in mind is that most of the racists I’ve spoken with are Jewish, like me, and therefore they have some awareness about prejudice that the average WASP racist does not. (Non-Jewish racists will usually not reveal their racism in front of me.) When I probe Jewish racists, I usually find strong elements of cognitive dissonance. I’ve discovered that pointing out to them the similarities between what they’re saying and traditional anti-Semitism can be very effective. They’re quick to rationalize such arguments, but it usually at least makes them squirm.

    It’s hard to compare my experiences with the kind of conversations we have here online. It’s not like the trollish racists you encounter on these blogs, or the blowhard racists who get all the media attention. It isn’t even like those uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinners with Grandpa, which is what most white people think of when talking about encountering racists in their daily life. The racists I’ve met generally seem to view their racist remarks as being sort of like locker-room talk, which they fall back on if they assume they’re in the right company but which they can get quite bashful about if challenged.

  88. MattB says:

    The ultimate point is if you are going to base a complete strategy of discrimination on a handful of actual cases of low level treason (sadly in which people did die, but ultimately don’t represent even 1% or 1% ot 1% of the entire population of US Muslims — let alone global) is a fundamentally unjustifiable position on any other grounds than bigotry.

    Either that or we should be entirely consistent and damn everyone.

    So – as a case and point — on a recent report bya retired CIA analyst in the American Conservative magazine, documented a number of ongoing investigations into Isreali spying in the US government. Historically at least 4 people have been convicted of spying for Israel. A number have been persecuted in the past. Clearly all Jews should be made to take a similar vow of loyalty — especially since, according to conservative commentators they are all supposed to care so much about Israel that the should turn against Obama and stand with other Jews.

    Likewise we can do the same thing for race. Given the ever present threat from the influx of illegal Latino/Chicano immigrants something that many suggest is a far greater threat than Islamist to the future of this country… should every Latino swear that neither they not anyone in their families has ever be in this country illegally?

    Anyone have other suggestions for loyalty pledges?
    .

  89. MattB says:

    ook… link to that Am Con article here: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/mossad-in-america/

  90. ponce says:

    I can understand why Herman Cain is suspicious of the loyalty of Muslims.

    Says the cracker proudly hailing from the treasonous rump of America.

  91. Southern Hoosier says:

    MattB says:
    Monday, June 13, 2011 at 22:21

    The ultimate point is if you are going to base a complete strategy of discrimination on a handful of actual cases of low level treason

    And Koranic verses.

  92. Southern Hoosier says:

    @MattB

    In another bizarre case, U.S.S. Liberty survivor Phil Tourney was recently accosted in Southern California by a foreigner who eventually identified himself as an Israeli government representative.

    A very interesting story. I never knew Mossad agents would openly attack someone, then identify themselves as such.

  93. matt says:

    The two Muslims I know best are both guys who’s families fled Afghanistan. One is an engineer, the other in sales. They are both industrious, thoughtful & pretty easy to like. It saddens me that they have to deal with this kind of shit

    My fiancee is half Iranian and even though her dad is Christian he still gets a lot of hate through his normal day. He is currently an engineer at NASA. It’s still shocking to me to see how wildly people change in their behavior once they see my fiancees last name…

  94. anjin-san says:

    I’m sorry to hear that Matt. My wife is half Asian. Now days, nobody thinks a thing of it (at least where I live). Not all that long ago, people would have been telling me I was a traitor to my race and would burn in hell. Perhaps someday this sort of ignorance will no longer touch your family.

  95. jukeboxgrad says:

    SH:

    You want more news stories about Islamic attacks, I can find them.

    The items you have cited from religionofpeace.com are not “news stories.” They present no source for those items, and there is no reason to treat that as something other than fictional. Let us know when you’re in a position to demonstrate that the “news stories” listed on that site are authentic and can be corroborated by some other source.

  96. Koozebane says:

    After reading the article, I don’t think oaths will solve anything.

    After reviewing the comments, I find it incredibly amusing that one side will agree that Muslims will lie when faced with an oath…..only to turn around and decry any distrust for them.

    Another point made in this thread is that Muslims kill for political purposes. This sounds very close to an admission that Islam is, indeed, a political system encased in a protective candy coating of religion.

    Face it, geniuses….Islam has an image problem. And the death toll…which no one managed to challenge with any actual facts…..is climbing at an alarming rate.

    Sharia or the Bill of Rights? Both cannot coexist together.

    Pick one.

  97. matt says:

    KOSHER OR BILL OF RIGHTS PICK ONE!!!!1

    I’m sorry to hear that Matt. My wife is half Asian. Now days, nobody thinks a thing of it (at least where I live). Not all that long ago, people would have been telling me I was a traitor to my race and would burn in hell. Perhaps someday this sort of ignorance will no longer touch your family.

    You can trace most of the change in behavior and rhetoric back to 9/11. It just seems that there’s a segment of society that always has to have an external enemy to hate or fear. The target of their hatred changes but the fear and hate stays the same.

    Asians can be pretty darned hot too 😛

  98. Koozebane says:

    “It just seems that there’s a segment of society that always has to have an external enemy to hate or fear.”

    I’m not actually interested in what things ‘seem like to you.’

    Facts come in handy in a debate.

    If you’d like to show how two undeniably opposing philosophies on human rights can coexist side by side, I might keep reading your posts.

  99. matt says:

    Koozebane : Well I already told you that my fiancee’s Iranian family is a mixture of Christian and Muslim but you were too busy spewing your hate mongering to notice 😛

  100. Southern Hoosier says:

    THIS COMMENTER HAS BEEN BANNED.

  101. Jay Tea says:

    Whoa… looks like it was a good thing I was busy offline last night. But I think I might use this thread for a full article at Wizbang… where I, as an author and not a commenter, I have a wee bit more discretion to be less discrete.

    J.

  102. Ben Wolf says:

    If you’d like to show how two undeniably opposing philosophies on human rights can coexist side by side, I might keep reading your posts.

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

    But of these things be not ashamed, lest you sin through human respect;…Of constant training of children, or of beating the sides of a disloyal servant; or of a seal to keep an erring wife at home.

    Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.

    The LORD is slow to anger and rich in unfailing love, forgiving every kind of sin and rebellion. Even so he does not leave sin unpunished, but he punishes the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations.

    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

    No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Better not have an accident with a hay baler, or Jesus will throw you out.

    Looks like the bill of rights has managed to coexist with a philosophy utterly opposed to it quite well already.

  103. Rob in CT says:

    The basic answer is that people (thankfully) have an amazing ability to “interpret” their holy books (or flat-out ignore them). There is a whole bunch of awful stuff in the Bible, the Torah (though I’m ignorant of the Talmud) and the Koran. Mostly mysognistic crap, but not only that.

    I’m no friend of any religion. They’re not exactly the same and, if forced to pick between them, I wouldn’t pick Islam. But by far and away my favored choice is none of the above. And, fortunately for me, I live in the United States of America in the 21st century, so that option is available to me.

    Anybody cowering in their bed (or ranting in the street) about Sharia Law in America is a fool. Even assuming American Muslims want sharia (a big assumption that I doubt is backed up by poll data), they’ve nowhere near the power necessary to impose it. The followers of the other religions, plus the atheists and agnostics, would oppose it. At most, you might see something akin to what the (orthodox?) Jews have set up in New York – arbitration proceedings for divorces (if I’m recalling correctly). I actually don’t like the idea much, but it’s a far cry from imposing religious law on the country.

    The funny part about all of this is that the loudest screeches of “sharia law!” are coming from the same people who would be happy to live in a Christianist USA. Credibility: zero.

  104. Rob in CT says:

    One more thing: the casual conflation of all Muslims (or all American Muslims) with extremists is sickening.

    Not only is it morally wrong, but it’s incredibly stupid. The reasons for which ought to be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of History. Things like the 30-years war in Europe, for instance. Jihad, Crusades and pogroms.

    We can peacefully coexist with the vast majority of Muslims on this planet. We cannot peacefully coexist with something like one tenth of one percent of them.

    And I assure you that demonizing all of them will *not* help us fight the .1% we need to fight.

  105. jukeboxgrad says:

    And I assure you that demonizing all of them will *not* help us fight the .1% we need to fight.

    However, “demonizing all of them” will help the GOP to continue to shrink.

    Minority groups tend to understand that when one minority group is turned into a scapegoat, some other minority group might make the next convenient target. It’s not an accident that Jews, blacks and Hispanics all vote D (and occasional exceptions like Cain don’t alter this fundamental reality). Lots of people in the GOP are making an inadverent effort to keep things that way. This is the silver lining in their bigotry.

  106. jukeboxgrad says:

    The funny part about all of this is that the loudest screeches of “sharia law!” are coming from the same people who would be happy to live in a Christianist USA.

    Yup. That’s why we see statements like this:

    There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world

    Pat Robertson said that. And then there’s this:

    Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

    The American Taliban is a much bigger threat to our freedom than that other one. Here’s one obvious reason: the former votes, and is a major influence on the GOP.

  107. anjin-san says:

    there’s a segment of society that always has to have an external enemy to hate or fea

    Frightened, angry people are easily manipulated. There will always be those eager to fan the flames for their own purposes.

  108. Jay Tea says:

    Apparently it’s escaped juke’s notice that Robertson has been saying crap like that for over 20 years (I remember his 1988 presidential campaign, where he vowed to only appoint good Christians to government posts) and there has been nary a car bomb, suicide bomb, beheading, or massacre inspired by it. Why, it’s almost like Christian Americans are somehow different than many Muslims in other lands, or even some Muslims in the United States…

    Nah. Just gotta be a coincidence. I mean, it’s not like Robertson has a hunk of his own TV network and daily show, and scads of followers… no, wait, he does. My bad.

    “American Taliban.” Every time I read that, I get a little bit angry and even more astonished at the sheer, deliberate stupidity it evinces. The real Taliban persecuted (as in, “imprisoned, tortured, and killed”) all non-Muslims (Christians, Buddhists, etc.) and Muslims who weren’t “good enough” Muslims. They publicly executed gays. They treated women like property — and not even that valuable a form of property. To call any Christian Americans “Taliban” would be like calling Bill Clinton a Communist — yeah, he’s more liberal than a lot, and closer to Communism than many of us, but he’s a happy, proud capitalist who’s made a hell of a fortune.

    It’s just that stupid.

    But it does serve a useful purpose — it helps identify frothing idiots who get off on their own inflammatory rhetoric and bombast, and have no regard for the truth when it won’t serve them.

    Naturally, I have in mind Kos, who wrote a laughably stupid book called “American Taliban,” as I recall.

    For the record, I’ve probably despised Pat Robertson far longer than juke, and I’ll even wager for even more personal reasons. But I, like most Americans, don’t take him seriously, and don’t see any reason to do so. But then there are folks like juke, who need their boogeyman so they can play their moral equivalence game. Because it’s so much easier to find a way to hate and blame their fellow Americans than to admit that there are even worse people out there…

    J.

  109. An Interested Party says:

    Facts come in handy in a debate.

    Indeed, it would be helpful if you could provide some…

  110. An Interested Party says:

    It’s just that stupid.

    About as stupid as equating the acts of a relatively small number of terrorists to an entire religion and over a billion people…oh wait, maybe that was the point…

  111. anjin-san says:

    Frightened, angry people are easily manipulated

    Thoughtful of Jay to provide proof of concept so quickly.

  112. Jay Tea says:

    a relatively small number of terrorists…

    What a useful word there, “relatively.” It obscures the actual number and the harm they do, and serves as a wink and a not to the “relativism” philosoply. Well done!

    And I dunno what happened to my other comment, to anjin, but it was along the lines of:

    Frightened, angry people are easily manipulated. There will always be those eager to fan the flames for their own purposes.

    Superb summation of one of the main factors behind the danger of radical Islam! Well summed up, Anjin!

    J.

  113. mantis says:

    Technically, not accurate. But a lot closer to truth than being a complete fabrication.

    Jay Tea in a nutshell.

  114. Rob in CT says:

    Terrorism is a tactic. As far as I can see, it’s used by people who think they have no other options.

    Christianists in the USA know they have other options. You know, like voting, lobbying, donating to political campaigns and funding advertisements and other activism. I have no idea whether or not those same people would turn to terrorism if they lived in, say, Syria. I’d guess some would. Their basic core beliefs don’t seem much different to me than religious extremists from other cultures. Hatred of gays, domination of women and leadership by the (self-proclaimed) pure.

    “American Taliban” is indeed inflammatory rhetoric, sure, given how loathesome the Taliban was and is. So much of our political rhetoric is that way.

  115. Jay Tea says:

    mantis, I can not only live with that, but I’ll take it as a compliment. I know I’m not 100% accurate all the time, but being a lot closer to the 100% truth than completely making stuff up is, in my book, pretty danged good.

    J.

  116. Mercer says:

    On page 258 of Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington wrote:

    “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.”

    Is Huntington racist for writing the above statement? Is his statement the kind that should be banned?

    I think Huntington’s book from 1996 has proved to be an accurate guide to the events of the last decade. I recommend it to people who are open to the possibility that Islam is not a religion of peace and that Muslims do not act like Quakers.

  117. Kylopod says:

    >I recommend it to people who are open to the possibility that Islam is not a religion of peace and that Muslims do not act like Quakers.

    Nobody here or anywhere else has ever suggested that “Muslims act like Quakers.” What sets Quakers apart from most religious groups is not that they profess peace (something nearly all mainstream religions profess), but that they profess pacifism.

    Islam is not pacifist, and nobody said it was. If your aim is to open people’s minds, it would help if you showed some capacity to describe opposing views in a non-caricatured fashion.

  118. An Interested Party says:

    What a useful word there, “relatively.” It obscures the actual number and the harm they do, and serves as a wink and a not to the “relativism” philosoply. Well done!

    Why don’t you just invent a whole dialogue with yourself, then you can pat yourself on the back even harder…no one is trying to obscure or excuse the harm that terrorists do…

  119. mantis says:

    mantis, I can not only live with that, but I’ll take it as a compliment.

    Yeah, you would. You know Colbert coined a word for what you do? It’s truthiness. It’s where you feel something to be true, even though it isn’t, as you put it, “technically accurate.”

    Basically, it’s a way to feel good about being full of shit.

  120. jukeboxgrad says:

    jay tea:

    Robertson has been saying crap like that for over 20 years … there has been nary a car bomb, suicide bomb, beheading, or massacre inspired by it.

    There have been hundreds of incidents of anti-abortion violence in the US. So I guess “crap like that” from Robertson et al doesn’t inspire violence, except for when it does.

    Palin refused to say that Eric Rudolph is a terrorist. The people of Murphy NC hid him from the FBI and treated him as a Christian hero. So I guess Christians don’t support terrorism, except for when they do.

  121. jukeboxgrad says:

    I, like most Americans, don’t take him [Robertson] seriously

    The GOP takes him seriously, because he has a large following. The GOP has a distinct track record of pandering to him and his ilk.

    Why, it’s almost like Christian Americans are somehow different than many Muslims in other lands, or even some Muslims in the United States…

    Why, it’s almost like you’re ignoring the evidence contrary to that bigoted claim. Tell us how you know this is wrong:

    Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustifiable.

  122. jukeboxgrad says:

    Your smug moral superiority is unfounded. And when I mentioned these facts to you in a recent thread, you promptly disappeared. The same way you disappeared when I caught you regurgitating Palin’s falsehoods about Troopergate.

  123. jukeboxgrad says:

    Rob:

    Christianists in the USA know they have other options. You know, like voting, lobbying, donating to political campaigns and funding advertisements and other activism. I have no idea whether or not those same people would turn to terrorism if they lived in, say, Syria.

    They generally refrain from terrorism here because they know they can’t get away with it. This was nicely explained by someone elsewhere:

    … you believe American fundamentalist Christians are tempered by the innate superiority and goodness of their religion. That’s not true. They are tempered by those of us who believe in secular law and government — the majority of America. We keep Christian fundamentalists like you under control. We will also keep Muslim fundamentalists under control if they adopt the Christians’ goal of codifying their religious dogma into state, federal, or local law. The answer to fundamentalism is not more fundamentalism. The answer is secularism.

    A related idea was expressed here:

    The Enlightenment and subsequent Founding were a conscious but covert effort by philosophers to domesticate religion. The philosopher’s offered religion rights, ie “freedom of religion”. … By accepting freedom of religion, religion ended up demoting itself. While the liberal regime kept its hands of religion, religion had to keep its hands off the regime. … Religion was now defanged and moved further and further away from the center of power.… Radical Islam is trying to trick us into suppressing regular Islam, knowing that once we do regular Muslims won’t sign the social contract.

  124. Frank95054 says:

    I challenge the people who commented here to read the Qur’an. It is obvious to me that most of these commentators are ignorant of Islam. So, before you call someone a bigot, or a racist, research the topic so you have a clear understanding of the issues. The issue is simple. Islam’s teachings are not compatible with the West. Recent disclosures demonstrate that 90 percent of the American Mosques are teaching, no encouraging, sedition and war actions against non-bleievers like the commentators herein. Jihadist training camps are everywhere in America. The Mosques are the forts for the insurrections soldiers.

    So, take my challenge. Read the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and Suras. Then, return here to comment.

  125. jukeboxgrad says:

    90 percent of the American Mosques are teaching, no encouraging, sedition and war actions

    How did you figure out that it was just 90%, and not, say, 95%, 99%, or 100%? Just curious about your methodology.

  126. mantis says:

    I think it’s 1000%!

  127. jukeboxgrad says:

    How could I leave that out? I guess my math is kind of weak.

    Yes, at least. Maybe more.

  128. matt says:

    Oddly enough I’ve read quite a bit of a lot of religious texts including even the satanic bible lol…