Regular readers know I am from NYC and I encounter wonderful immigrants from all over the world who love this country. They have enriched my life and made this Country a better place.
I would like to thank the Phillipinos, Guyanese, Dominicans, Equadorans , Poles, Cubans , Russians , Indians etc for reminding me of how lucky we are to be here. I will never forget my joy when a Russian emigre nearly cleaned Union Square of Communists. You stupid moron go to Cuba . The idiots in Union Square were soft pedling the crimes of the Commies.
The immigrants do not sit around and blame America first. They leave that for the mindless leftist Utopians. They and I are perplexed by the daily idiotic rants from the far left.
To Rob I would like you to explain your Falwell fixation. Falwell has not betrayed his country . Who cares what he says ? We are in a war against nihlistic enemies and given the choice of Falwell, Michael Moore or Chomsky I will choose Falwell.
I have been fairly open about my support for Gay rights and civil unions. I do not casualy give license to anti gay hysteria. Your rights like mine are civil law based. I would readily condemn any idiocy about a velvet mafia conspiracy. The talk of Israel and a Jewish cabal starting the Iraq war is pure anti semitism.
Yet in your own way you embody the American spirit with your courage. This blog is not the easiest place to dissent . I may not agree with you but I will always respect your courage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Beak I do not speak for Rob but as his friend I must stand with him. I have known Rob personaly for sometime now. We talk on the phone and discuss things at great length. So I think I can say why I think he has as you say a fixation about Falwell. Personaly I do not find it anymore different that what would be a percieved fixation by you about 167, Recidivist,or Chemist.
You asked Rob why worry about what he says he has not betrayed his country. In what manner do you mean betrayed?
Jerry Falwell could be percieved as nihlistic to certain groups of people just as you say Michael Moore and Chomsky are.
I think always on watch summed it up best when she said:
always on watch said
"The actions of leader of a religion, particularly those actions which embody the connotations of the faith, speak volumes."
I will give you some of the quotes from this religious leader who has thousands of followers and if laws were not inplace to stop them would be unleashed on innocent people.
If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the
terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment
left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a
nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result
is not good.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
These last two quotes should be of utmost importance to you in exposing just how seditious people like Jerry Falwell can be. I will place two other quotes by a world leader with them so you can compare for yourself.
The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are
spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.
-- Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our
country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will
have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.
What a happy day that will be!
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell,
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school
has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction
without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all
character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We
need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933,
I would rather say Falwell shows his hiddent anti-semitism in these quotes and many more that could be garnered from his sermons.
I can see Robs worries as to how this man is perceived because as we all know words have power and consequences for good or ill.
Rob would never stand for the destruction of this country but just as we all see different people as a primary threat I would suggest that just because Rob does not speak out on Michael Moore, Chomsky, 167 or any other does not mean he does not care. I myself do not speak out against these people until they speak to me personaly. As the questions asked "Who cares what he says?"
A few disconnected thoughts here before I hop into the convertible (Sorry to rub that in--couldn't help myself).
Just to clarify...Jerry Falwell is not the leader of a religion. Falwell is a Baptist, which whom many Baptists would not agree on all points.
As to the public-education issue, Falwell is an advocate of homeschooling and of Baptist Christian schools. Not all homeschoolers or Baptist Christian schools subscribe to "Falwellism."
He may well be anti-Semitic because he believes that rejection of Jesus condemned the Jews.
BTW, I am not a Falwell fan. I have heard, however, that Liberty University offers an excellent school of nursing.
Separation of church and state is a good thing.
Love you man...............you're the best
the New York Sun has a great website but I will cover your back
Stay cool
Atlas
Justin
None of Falwell's statements fall remotely into sedition in any definition. They are basic views of religiously based intolerance. My point from the beging was religion is just not and never will be PC.
My " obsession " with 167 is quite interesting. I have yet to hear either of you voice any complaints in the other direction. 167 is illustritive of anti - semitism and Communism masquerading as mainstream liberalism. To Rob's credit he did admit that his latest idiocy about dismantling Israel to save the Jooooos was stupid. This is typical of a communist fixation on Israel and the USA. If you look through my archives you will find more lampooning of the Sam's Club of bigotry.
I find it odd that you add the Chemist who is an intellectual feather weight. His whole blog is Bush lied troops died and Falwell and the Pope are evil. He seldom writes original material . His blog consists of a Communists, a bunch of bobble head dolls a real conservative (Amicus Curae) and myself an anti Communist moderate.
Rob has to decide if hewants real change or to be a bomb thrower. Falwell and Robertson are responsible for zero deaths and have never betrayed the country. The over the top mania about patriotic people I most often disagree with pushes people away.
The basic question is do you want to move the cause ahead. How and what do you say to the Beakerkins, Warrens, Esthers , Jasons and even Mr Beamish.
Attacking Patriotic Christians who I disagree with does not help. Other then Mr Beamish there is far more support for Gay rights then he generally assumes. The key is civil law. Lets keep government out
of religion and advance on a secular basis.
FYI I seldom bash Mooore as he is a feather weight. Chomsky is a symptom of an accademic system that is in need of serious reform.
Pam
I miss NYC but Vermonters in St Albans treat me well . I miss the intellectual challenge . You are converting my nephew and I push him to read your blog regularly along with Jasons . He is a regular reader of Long Range.
Beak,
You are exactly correct: religion will never be pc. Furthermore, much of religion is emotionally based, and civil law should never be.
Ummmm Beak you are wrong I have taken 167 on personaly. I have taken Recid on personaly. You yourself have seen some of the posts. I mentioned only names that you have brought up before.
I was simply explaining to you that maybe the reason Rob felt the way he does was because of what these people were saying.
As for Falwells comments on public schools he said what he meant and meant what he said he did not just limit it to Baptist schools. There are many different religions now pushing for more church controled schools.
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our
country, we won't have any public schools. The CHURCHES will
have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.
What a happy day that will be!
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell,
The attitude that Falwell is one man and no one will really take him seriously is seriously flawed.
In the 30's people said Hitler is just one man he and his sect will never ammount to anything.
People felt the same way about Lenin and his communist's.
Rob is no bomb thrower maybe he does not articulate his message as well as he could but he is passionate in his beliefs.
I think I see how this all plays out.
The basic question is do you want to move the cause ahead. How and what do you say to the Beakerkins, Warrens, Esthers , Jasons and even Mr Beamish.
A very good question Beak. Warren is pretty open to most things it would seem as well as Esther and even Mr Beamish makes excellent posts. Now as far as Jason I submitt the following Im not sure you could say anything even remotely expecting any other answer than you are intellectually challenged because you do not agree with his perception of things.
Jason_Pappas said...
The problem, Justin, is that there are not really different sects in Islam like there are in Christianity. I once had a conversation with a Muslim from Jakarta and asked him the following question: Why should I assume that the different Islamic groups are as different as Catholics and Baptists? Why isn’t the appropriate analogy Dominicans and Franciscans? Are the Muslim groups as different as Christian sects or Christian orders? He was very honest and said there is very little difference in the beliefs of the various Islamic groups.
justin said...
Ummmmm Jason being a former Priest I have studied most religions out there.
Jason_Pappas said...
You haven't answered my question, what have you read? On what grounds do you believe the moderates are correct about Islam? I'm not religious but I never start with the assumption that all religions are the same anymore than all philosophies are the same. What's you basis for your belief? If you meet someone who says they are a Muslim, how do you know if they correctly understand Islam? On what basis?
justin said
Jason being a former Priest I have studied most religions out there.
if you had read my post you would have seen i have traveled the middle east ie: Jordan,Iraq,Saudia Arabia, UAE and Egypt so I would very strongly suspect those people are muslim and therefore would know what islam is and what it is not.
Jason_Pappas said...
Basically, Justin, it sounds like you’ve not very informed about Islam. Talking to Muslims about Islam is like talking to Communists about communism – of course, they make it sound wonderful. There’s not much critical thinking involved here.
justin said..
You learn a great deal more about people by talking to them. Did I ever say Islam was wonderful? No, I dont think so, I think I said not all Islamic belief is the same.
Perhaps had you ever traveled to the USSR, I dont know if you are old enough to have traveled to Nazi Germany you would have found out that not all the people subscribed to the teachings of either of those. It doesnt make the belief system correct it gives you the understanding of the people. I have read Mohammds teachings jason and my travels in the middle east showed me that a great many muslims find the harsher teachings of Mohammad rupugnant.
You admit freely you never have been in the middle east so all you know is what you have read or seen on television. How do you then discerne what is truth and what is not.
If I were to judge a entire race of people based soley on what I have read or seen that would I am sorry to say make me a racisit.
Jason_Pappas said...
You’re pulling the old bait-and-switch, Justin. I’ve talked about this before. I make a distinction between, on the one hand, the demographic group called Muslims (and I agree with you about the vast differences), and, on the other hand the religious philosophy of Islam.
You seem to have this anti-intellectual bias against books.
Justin
I have seen you take on 167 many times. It would be nice if Rob would be as critical of the comments made by 167 aimed here as visa versa, he is no innocent party. Rob is a good person who I like . Sometimes he gets carried away with the Falwell bashing. I do not agree with Falwell but lets face it complaining about him in an over the top manner serves no purpose. Religion just isn't PC. Lets discuss Gay rights as human rights based in Civil Law.
Jason is way more liberal then you assume . He supports Gay rights in principal and lives in the same area I did. I lived not far from NYU and it is a heavily Gay area.
Jasons point was misunderstood by you and I concur in principal. There are wide chasms in Christianity between Mormon , Eastern Othodox and various Protestant Sects. The variation in Islam is not as far as Christianity. The difference is that there is little hesitation to resort to settle disputes violently. Christianity has largely moved past that.
Remember Islam is about submission and there are more moderate versions but Jihad and intololerance runs fairly rampant in practice. The fate of Christians in Muslim countries is fairly evident. I can also add Jews , Zoroastrians, Hindus etc.
The question is where do we go from here. My response is threefold
1 No excuses for terrorism and strict swift reprisal.
2 The Islamic countries must accept civil law. Civil law is the key to human rights in the entire world including the USA.
3 Leftists Utopian seditious types should be shunned and in some cases
prosecuted. There was a case of people sending money and supplies to our opponents in Falujah. The people who did that should be sent to Gitmo.
No Beak Jasons point was not misunderstood by me. When you tell someone they are not very informed because they have been with the people and seen their faith in action adverse to reading scholars about it. I would have to ask what scholars.
You might be suprised at the variations in the religion of Islam but enough of that Jason thinks as he will and is not open to change of thought.
Jihad does not run rampant as you say. You might even be suprised to know that the majority of immams rejected Osama and his followers. They plainly stated what they did was against Islam.
Now to your points.
1. No excuse for terrorism is correct. Swift reprisal is agreed even if it is home grown terrorism.
In most cases this has been done.
2. Most Muslim countries are moving toward democratic laws.
You have Islamic soldiers fighting side by side and by themselves to obtain and keep the democracy they are now experiencing. You have people on the ground begining to work with the government in finding and routing out the terrorist at a great cost to themselves and their families. When you say Islam you are talking about a religion. Are you willing to impose the same thing on North Korea, China, Ethiopia, or on any government that opresses people under its rule. The governments must change but can we or do we have the right to change their religious beliefs. Civil Law should be applied in this country as well for all its people not just some of its people.
3. Not sure just who you are labeling Leftist Utopian seditious types. But by and far most Americans would and do shun these type people. Do we limit the freedom of speech in this country no matter how repugnant we find it or do we uphold the constitutional rights of citizens. As to cases of people sending money to terrorist we had a few cases like that here and they were prosecuted and sent to prison.
We may not like what people say and in our eyes it may seem seditious. But are we ready to limit speech. Once that boundry has been crossed then it is not to hard for some one to come along and limit our speech. This is already being proposed for internet blogs to limit their impact on politics.
When someone says something I disagree with I usually take their statement point by point and take it apart. Other times I simply ignore them however, I will always keep a wary eye on them.
The Imans Of Iran are Shia and thoroughly as ruthless as any Wahabist. They co-operate with Muslims of any stripe against the "Great Satan" and the "Lesser Satan".
An Islamic world is their goal and terrorism is doctrinally accepted as legitimate. America is seen as the "Great Satan", because the Imans realize that we are the ideological, physical and economic barrier to the expansion of fundamentalist Islam.
As individuals, Muslims may be virtious, but Islam insists God has no children, only slaves. As Beak says, Islam is submission.
Individual freedom and Islam are incompatible and especially aggrievous in the area of women's rights.
All religions are not morally equal. If they were we would have to give moral equivalence to the human sacrifices of the Aztec and strangulations committed by the Hindi Thuggees (thugs) vrs. the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Passover Lamb.
Islam by its very nature, and almost from its inception, seems to encourage terrorism and assassination.
Assassin, (as Jason pointed out), comes from a group founded by Hasan Ibn al-Sabbah. His devotees, in the eleventh century, spread terror throughout the Muslim world until they were virtually exterminated two centuries later. They killed rival Sunni Muslims, probably in large numbers. Perhaps one-third of all Muslim caliphs have been killed."
In the modern world Muslim radicals have assassinated, the presidents of Syria and of Sri Lanka; two prime ministers each of Iran and India; the presidents of Aden, Afghanistan, and South Yemen; the president-elect of Lebanon and the president of Egypt; and countless judges and political leaders. And we haven't even broached the present assassinations/terrorist attacks in Iraq.
These cannot all be attributed to Wahabist influences.
IMO, there is something rotten at the heart of Islam!
In the modern world Muslim radicals have assassinated
There is your key words all of you. Muslim Radicals.
And we haven't even broached the present assassinations/terrorist attacks in Iraq.
And just who do you think is fighting against these radicals. Muslims are rising up to fight them it is not just the coalition going it alone.
To everyone I want to clear up some serious charges made by a person who should now better.
1No poster ever called for genocide against Muslims. This is beyond mythology.
2 I do not call anyone other then 167 and 147 Anti Semitic Communists and 147 puts it in his description. Jason can verify 167 was mittigating Communism on the Chemist.
3 167 send plenty of shots in this direction< The poster has critisized your trully but said zero about 167, In fact I make plenty of appearences on the blog in question as a subject but am not upset at all.
Jason Papas , Warren , Beamish , Mustang and Always on the Watch argue for a realistic look at Islamic history and treatment of minorities. Islam has commited crimes far more severe then those of Western Civ. Any evil decried by the west has a direct corrolary in Islamic civ.
We need to adress the history and nature of Islam.It has seldom been peaceful and hyperventilating over Bush and Falwell is insane.
We can disagree with policy but any description of Bush or Falwell as terrorists is not reality based.
Justin,
Leave those assassinations within the context of my post. Those assassinations are the result of religious fervor. Islam spans the religious and political spheres. According to the Imans, there can be no separation.
Yes, Iraqi Muslims are fighting other Muslins but through the history of Islam, this has been the case, back to its beginnings. I hope for the best in Iraq and see it as a last, best hope for the moderation of Islam.
The closest thing we have to an Islamic terrorist is, Eric Rudolph. We didn't tolerate him and although we can see the signs of Christian fanaticism in him, there is more than a hint of the pathological. As near as I can tell, he didn't belong to any organized sect but moved about freely among the Aryan Nation types.
I am a warrior, Justin, its the way I look at the world. There is a reason that Islam breeds so-many fanatics and the reason is found within.
A certain interpretation(s) of the Muslim religion, has come to dominate the motives of suicide terrorists, even when religious aspirations do not govern the organizations that recruit them. That interpretation is not new.
What's driving me crazy is the unrealistic, rose-colored-glasses view of Islam. When one looks objectively at what's been done in the name of Allah, one has to cringe. Yes, there are peaceful verses in the Koran, but MTP later repudiated those verses, and militant Islam dominated. The moderates, if not the minority, have not held the power.
Jihad is not new--not by a long shot. But now the jihadists have, or soon will have, access to modern weaponry, weaponry which can span the globe.
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a culmination.
And no matter how one feels about Falwell, Robertson, et al, I don't believe any of them would fly planes into buildings, blow up buses on city streets, or behead victims on videotape.
Timothy McVeigh was an aberration and got what he deserved. Eric Rudolph should as well. "Homegrown terrorism," as terrorism of any sort, is unacceptable in a civilized society.
T'storm overhead--shutting down now.
Everyone knows where I stand on homosexuality. You're either born gay (a birth defect) or you choose to behave that way (a mental disorder).
Until a literal coup by homosexuals at the American Psychiatry Association PC'ed their journals in the early 1970s, homosexuality was not only on their list of sexually deviant behaviors, it TOPPED their list.
What changed this? Science? No. Research? No. Experimentation? No.
Feces-licking drama queens in a tizzy? Yes.
Post a Comment