Most of you out there are Christians of various types. All of you have different positions on different items. However, none of the Christians I know would edorse violence agaist non-believers or Gays. Many on the far left like to equate stupid statements by Falwell or Robertson with the rhetoric of the Islamic radicals, but it is rather stupid. In fact most of the comments the media highlights are just stupid rather than dangerous.
If Islam is going to stay in the West it must adapt to our traditions and not the other way around. It is perfectly fine for an Imam to preach about infidels going to hell. It is not okay to advocate violence or criminal acts. Free speech has never included incitement to riot. Moreover, holding Falwell's statements under a microscope and not placing Imamic clerics and spokesmen under similar scrutiny is hypocritical.
There are some on the left who try to equate Kahanist with the idiocy comming from Mosques. Kahanists do not have anywhere near the continual track record of violence
of the Muslim terror groups. Leftists will rail about Baruch Goldstein but that was how long ago. I find it remarkable that there are not dozens of Baruch Goldstein's given what Israel puts up with. Kahanist have a vision that is more goofy than dangerous. The left will rail about deportations, but perpetual war is also just as insane.
The far left does not like when its own temples are held under scrutiny. I am sure the Duck can explain why melanin theory is taught in American Colleges. All of us would be against a white professor using the classroom to claim Blacks are inferior.
Yet one can go to an American University and pay to hear the rantings of a tenured professor rail about Ice and Sun people.
Islam is as Islam does and Disneyfing its history and current events is counter productive. D'Souza is a respected author who got this one wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I don't read D'Souza. Clue me in more? Pardon my ignorance.
If Islam is going to stay in the West it must adapt to our traditions and not the other way around. It is perfectly fine for an Imam to preach about infidels going to hell. It is not okay to advocate violence or criminal acts.
I'd like to see more signs of such an adaptation. But with the Saudi dollars pouring in to fund mosques all over the West, I'm not terribly hopeful. That funding has been going on since at least the early 1990s.
From what I can tell from reviews and interviews with D'Souza about his new book, DD doesn't get it.
Seeing the top of Britney Spears' ass crack is no good reason to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Nor is it a "common cause" to rally prudish conservative Americans and Muslim radicals together around.
I don't agree that such a dialogue will be productive or meritous. Conservatives can "clean up" America without the help of violence or the threat of violence - by D'Souza's argument Muslim radicals need to see that America is not what they see in movies and TV.
But, I come back to Britney Spears' ass crack and the 9/11 attacks. If you see a disconnect between the two - you're healthy. You have not one insane thought process in your head.
I believe that D'Souza's premise is wrong. American pop culture is not casus belli for jihad, or even considering jihad.
What we need to do is show the Muslims episodes of M.A.S.H.
You see that Arab wearing a dress to try to get out of his assigned military duties?
That's you, Abdul.
Beamish,
While not seeing the top of Britneys crack is good enough to fly into a tower, having seen Dennis Franz crack is enough to make me want to commit suicide!
Robert,
I have to break company with "conservatives" who believe Britney's ass crack (or Dennis Franz's) is a front in some sort of "culture war," as if covering up her or his butt is going to make America a better place, as if the only thing wrong with America is impulsive automatons who wouldn't shoot up their high schools with firearms if only there were no video games.
Conservatism is about personal responsibility.
Which begs the question: who's responsible for calling Dinesh D'Souza a conservative?
Not me.
FJ,
Charles Taylor the Converse shoe all-star, or Charles Taylor the Boston gas station attendant turned Liberian dictator?
britney's crack...well...a small plane maybe..
AOW
There is an article in todays FPM on the situation.
Lets see Duck Jefferies is still teaching nor is he the only Professor that teaches this idiocy.
Ducky,
Are you serious?
Here is a short list, off the top of my head, of Americans that are obsessed with challenging President Bush :
Michael Moore
Cindy Sheehan
Medea Benjamin
Alec Baldwin
Harry Belafonte
Howard Dean
John Murtha
Amy Goodman
Al Franken
Arianna Huffington
Maureen Dowd
Paul Krugman
Tom Friedman
Jerry Springer
Noam Chomsky
Ramsey Clark
Ralph Nader
etc...
Many of these people make mega bucks from their activism against Bush.
You are a liar...
(beak I'm not sure if this comment went through the first time. If it did could you delete this one? If it didnt could you delete this paragraph? ...I am giving you the option to censor my comments, I dont just give that to anyone, cheers)
I see Ducky has flown south of the deep end again.
duhkkky I thought you were our token closet queen
FJ
You scared the wits out of me I thought you meant the Libera Charles Taylor.
The article by Serge Trifkovik has the story.
Ducky,
D'Souza seems to be under the impression that Islamic terrorism didn't exist before 25 years ago, thus efficiently annhiliating any hope that you might find some evidence that he's versed in his subject matter.
Of course, maybe D'Souza is right and we should blame leftists like Ducky for 9/11 instead of Islamic terrorism.
Then again, maybe we should wait for Ducky to rise in D'Souza's defense, so we can point that out.
I see two mistakes in the previous comments but they were just mistakes of omission.
1. Cuz, didn't point out the third buttcrack; Ducky.
2. Although FN pointed out that Ducky is a liar, he didn't point out that Ducky is a buttcrack.
Post a Comment