Patterico's Pontifications

8/9/2010

When Provocation Suddenly Isn’t OK: Greg Gutfeld Announces Plan for Muslim Gay Bar Next to Ground Zero Mosque

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:00 pm



It’s OK for us to build something provocative, but it’s not OK for you to do it.

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

I love it. If I can figure out where to send money, I will send $50 tonight.

206 Responses to “When Provocation Suddenly Isn’t OK: Greg Gutfeld Announces Plan for Muslim Gay Bar Next to Ground Zero Mosque”

  1. I logged in to pledge $10,000 to $100,000.

    Let’s do it!

    USCitizen (48ac47)

  2. I, for one, am grateful for one of the funniest nights on Twitter……..ever.

    sybilll (9b52d0)

  3. It’s all about tolerance. Has someone asked Barney Frank about this yet?

    Eric Blair (d70178)

  4. But don’t worry. We’ll get told it’s different and all.

    Eric Blair (d70178)

  5. USCitizen, did I see your facebook page already?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. I’m still waiting for the “All Bacon, All the Time” deli across the street. Also the battered women’s shelter.

    And the cathedral in Mecca.

    Because Islam is aaaaaalllll about tolerance.

    Eric Blair (d70178)

  7. they’ll never get the licenses and permits they need cause Mayor Bloomberg is a cowardly appeasing poofter

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  8. Pam Gellar has that campaign for leaving abusive ‘honor’ family situations. Because I’m a humorless scold, I thought that would be a nice welcome to the neighborhood.

    But Greg’s smarter than me, clearly. I look forward to this happening.

    The fact is, the people behind this mosque are shady as all hell, and they are rubbing in our faces that we live to a different standard than they do. Very Alinksy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. FAbulous!

    Patricia (358f54)

  10. I hope he pulls it off: this is what pluralism is all about. 🙂

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  11. This is needlessly provocative, is insulting to the Islamic faith, and is typical of the pillow-biting bed-wetting conservatives who live in fear of the terrorisms.

    JD (d55760)

  12. JD, don’t say “pillow-biting” in a thread about a gay bar…

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. What JD said. But I mean it. With the addendum that Greg Guttfeld is an internet loudmouth who could not build a Lego set meant for a five-year old.

    nk (db4a41)

  14. nk, if you want to adopt that position then you will need to explain why it is provocation in one case and not the other.

    Until then, you’ve not established who the loudmouth is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. Are we at war with all Islam? Then why do we have troops in Saudi Arabia protecting the regime? Why do we send money to Pakistan? Bosnia? Kosovo? Turkey is a NATO ally.

    In any case, when Gutfeld lays the foundation for his strip club, I’ll apologize. But it will never happen. It’s empty bluster.

    nk (db4a41)

  16. nk, do you not realize just how serious the problem of gays in Islam is?

    This is an issue with a punchline, of course, in that this mosque is demanding a lot more tolerance than being demanded of it, but the issue itself is real. A shelter for women seeking to escape violent Islamic abuse, a place for gay men to come out if they are oppressed by Islam… those are REAL people who need some kind of prominence.

    It’s kinda up in the air who is really funding this Mosque. Some of the folks alleged to be doing so are exactly the sort of people who need this issue brought up in their proximity. And if this truly is a house of tolerance and bridging communities, then there is no ‘needless provocation’, as no one will be provoked.

    They come to the NYC community saying they want to build a bridge. This is exactly what they claim they want to build a bridge to. Apostate Muslims, lenders, gays, feminists… I encourage all Muslims to show love for these people.

    Greg may be doing this expecting a negative reaction, but either way, this is making the very best of this situation.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. He didn’t say strip club, nk.

    And I was pre-emptively mocking that position, not taking it.

    JD (d55760)

  18. We might not be at war “with all of Islam”. But, until they make some very definitive doctrinal changes, we should consider ourselves to be.
    They might want to sugar-coat it, but it is still the mission of all Muslims to subjugate the unbelievers to the Will of Allah –
    How else can you interpret a belief system which has one branch that wants to kill all infidels, and has another branch that just wants to make slaves of them?

    AD - RtR/OS! (780d5b)

  19. nk is full of fail the vast majority of the time, much moreso over the past 8 months or so. If you ignore him, maybe he’ll go away.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  20. nk, opening a gay bar is war? That’s not very tolerant of you, nk.

    Again, explain why one thing is not a provocation but the other is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. And I was pre-emptively mocking that position, not taking it.

    Comment by JD — 8/9/2010 @ 8:14 pm

    I knew that, JD. That’s why I wrote “But I mean it”.

    nk (db4a41)

  22. While it would prove an interesting experiment in practical logic, and has an air of poetic justice about it, hopefully other alternatives to resolve the situation will prevail.

    Here is one bright spot, some Muslims who “get it”:
    Ground Zero mosque bad idea: Canadian Muslims
    By SHARON LEM, Toronto Sun
    http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/09/14971361.html

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  23. Why is one needlessly provocative, but not the other, nk?

    JD (d55760)

  24. Greg should offer a draw Mohammed, get a free drink or 50% off type special. He could show inclusivity by having a lesbian night, the club isn’t just for guys is it, and having a wet burkha contest.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  25. Hilarious naming contests at SondraK’s and Hot Air.

    CraigC (4d0b7b)

  26. I dunno… is the host going to donate $50 cash outright, is he he going to go to the bar, spend $50 and dance the night away?

    SteveG (f6fb69)

  27. if you want to adopt that position then you will need to explain why it is provocation in one case and not the other.

    Because the Islamic community center is not a provocation. It’s really that simple.
    Think of it this way–if it is so provocative, then it’s also provocative for a Muslim to so much as step foot on Manhattan. No, not just Manhattan, but anywhere in New York City, or even the entire US. You never know when or where some survivor will be so traumatized by the mere sight of a Moslem that he or she will run off and commit suicide.

    It would also be provocative for a German cultural club to be built a couple of blocks away from a modern synagogue–the Holocaust, you know…

    What I don’t understand is why, when presented with a group of Moslems whose public stance is that violence is not good and 9/11 was an evil act, you folks still go into hysterics.

    It’s especially unbecoming in adherents of a religion which over sixteen out of the last twenty centuries imposed itself by violence, and killed or enslaved more people in the name of converting or conquering them, than Islam ever has, and over a far greater geographical area, as well.

    And it gives great propaganda fodder to the jihadis. “See, those devil Americans! They truly want to destroy Islam! And they don’t really believe in their vaunted rule of law and civil rights! No free speech or freedom of religion for Muslims! You can see it right here!”

    So what if Saudi Arabians don’t allow churches? The idea is to show the Saudis by example that tolerance is a good thing. The Saudis behead adulteresses. Would that justify us also beheading adulteresses?

    kishnevi (4fe288)

  28. It’s kinda up in the air who is really funding this Mosque.

    That this is still an unknown is an enormous problem and I don’t know why it’s not garnering more red flags. In the haste of this decision to permit the mosque, basic common sense and I would say, self-defense has been foolishly set aside.

    I fear this will end badly with the discovery of the true funding being too little, too late.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  29. kishnevi – Why do you hate strawpeople?

    Didn’t one of the mosque proponents actually admit that the location was chosen to be intentionally provocative?

    JD (d55760)

  30. What I don’t understand is why, when presented with a group of Moslems whose public stance is that violence is not good and 9/11 was an evil act, you folks still go into hysterics

    Because we don’t trust them. We don’t trust them because they are deaf to the concerns of non-Muslims. See the link at 22, some Muslims understand this and oppose the mosque too.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  31. I gotta wonder what’s behind Kishinev’s (proper spelling) position on the Mohammedan mosque.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  32. Can we name the bar “Muhammed blows”?

    SteveG (f6fb69)

  33. Or Mohammed’s 72 Raisins.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  34. Sigh. Cue up kishnevi’s anti-Christian bigotry again.

    “It’s especially unbecoming in adherents of a religion which over sixteen out of the last twenty centuries imposed itself by violence, and killed or enslaved more people in the name of converting or conquering them, than Islam ever has, and over a far greater geographical area, as well.”

    kishnevi – Can you elaborate on these Christian conquests and killings please?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  35. kishnevi has some strange views on Christianity.

    Oh well.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  36. Sign me up … for the donation of money that is!

    If we could also fund giving away E the place will be over run with Gays.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  37. “elaborate on Christian conquests?” Have you read ANY history books? Even the most under educated Christian should know of their faiths history… So bloody and filled with hate is the history of Christianity… There are more examples then space allows. Again I will simply refer to ANY history book covering ANY invasion of land?

    Pamela Guthmiller (9a69c5)

  38. Can you elaborate on these Christian conquests and killings please?

    Two random examples:
    Charlemagne’s wars against the then pagan Saxons (meaning the ones that stayed in what is now Poland and eastern Germany, as opposed to the ones who migrated to England)
    The Spanish conquest of Central and South America.

    kishnevi has some strange views on Christianity

    Just pointing out that Christianity has a pretty bloody history itself. Sorry if your own religion’s history offends you, but it’s real history, and you’ll have to live with it.

    We don’t trust them because they are deaf to the concerns of non-Muslims.

    Which concerns, in as much as they are real, can be justified only by bigotry and xenophobia.

    I gotta wonder what’s behind Kishinev’s (proper spelling) position on the Mohammedan mosque

    First, the obvious fact that your intolerance is strengthening the position of those Muslems who really do want to conquer us, and impose shariah on those of us whom they don’t end up killing.

    Second, the obvious fact that freedom of religion means exactly that, and your position is simply “freedom of religion shouldn’t apply to Muslims because they are Muslims.” in other words, simple bigotry.

    Third, I plain don’t like bigotry, no matter who is the target or who is doing the targeting.

    BTW, Kishnevi is a Hebrew form that means “of Kishinev” or “from Kishinev”, and it’s part of my Hebrew name (Yaakov ben Benyamin haKishnevi) because that’s where my father’s family was from–some of them being survivors of the famous pogrom which occurred a little over a century ago. Of those family members who did not emigrate to America, only one group survived World War II, in part by hiding in the oven of a Gentile neighbor (it was a large bakery style oven).
    FYI, the proper spelling nowadays is Chisanau, reflecting that it’s now the capital of independent Moldava, and not the Soviet republic of Bessarabia/Moldavia.

    kishnevi (3721d8)

  39. So, Pamela, it shouldn’t be any trial for you to tote up the numbers on killing and enslavement between Christians and Muslims, right?

    Oh, that’s right. Some Muslim countries still have slavery. I’m sure you knew that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world_2

    Eric Blair (d70178)

  40. >> the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men.

    Obama loves it.

    Vermont Neighbor (6720a6)

  41. I love when folks bring up, literally, ancient history to talk about how “violent” Christianity is while all the while ignoring the most recent bloody religous/clan fueled conflicts like ….

    Paki vs India
    Bangy vs Paki
    Hutu vs Tutsi
    Muslim Minority Populatuon Anywhere v Host Country.

    But they go dig up Charlemagne while ignoring 800 years of European invasions by Muslims.

    Only halted by Spain beating them back and the Hapsburg holding their own in the Balkans after the CHRISTIAN TURKEY.

    Today, their is no moral equivalency between Muslims and Christians. Muslims are basically savages entering the 18th Century culturally and philosophically and Christians are not.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  42. “Have you read ANY history books?”

    Pamela – Thank you for your input. In older centuries when the state was more closely aligned with the state, kishnevi’s statement about a religion which “imposed itself by violence, and killed or enslaved more people in the name of converting or conquering them” may arguably be true. Were British colonies, the colonization of Africa, sought in the name of God or the rulers of their countries?

    Do you have any headcounts for Muslim conquests?

    Are you by any chance not a Christian?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  43. … after Christian Turkey was invaded by Muslim Arabs and forced conversions from Christianity were performed by peace loving Muslims.

    Anyone ever ask who Vlad the Impaler was impaling?????

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  44. “Which concerns, in as much as they are real, can be justified only by bigotry and xenophobia.”

    kishnevi – Not at all. The lack of trust is based on the authoritative literature of Islam itself, the actions of organizations such as CAIR, ISNA and others in this country. There is ample justification if you are willing to open your eyes.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  45. It’s especially unbecoming in adherents of a religion which over sixteen out of the last twenty centuries imposed itself by violence, and killed or enslaved more people in the name of converting or conquering them, than Islam ever has, and over a far greater geographical area, as well.

    If we applied the logic “progressives” apply to this debate, we could immediately disqualify the writer as an anti-Christian bigot. But let’s address the merits.

    The imam in this case said in Sept. 2001 that the US was an accessory to 9/11, and is predominantly to blame for terror attacks. His long track record of statements (esp. to foreign audiences) and associations explains why moderate Muslims, including those linked above @22, understand that it is a provocation. Supporters of the mosque refuse to address the imam’s track record point-by-point, because it would make them look ridiculous.

    Karl (12dcea)

  46. Ask a Central European about Muslim peace lovers …. or a Russian.

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!

    Reminds me of a Croatian joke …chief export of Albania? Trouble.

    Muslim, of course.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  47. We need to be sensitive and understand Muslims in spite of their RECENT history but …. condemning Christians for actions over 500 years ago …. that is OK.

    This passes for thinking?

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  48. HeavenSent – When was the last Christian conquest to punish the heathens or nonbelievers?

    Compare that to the ongoing jihad to wipe out Israel and establish a world-wide caliphate.

    I’m not feeling kishnevi’s point either.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  49. Other special nights Greg could have at the bar is the always popular “Guess what’s under the burqa?” night.

    largebill (1d1579)

  50. This is such an investment opportunity!!

    Sell shares for a combination strip bar and pork BBQ!!!

    The business would survive for years without selling a single Beer/soda/sandwich/lap-dance just on the trading value of the stock certificates.

    Even if they were fake/”promotional”.

    The “Cordoba” mosque is a finger in the eye of all westerners let alone Americans. We can return the favor just as easily if not more so.

    That’s assuming that the union labor in NYC agree to build the damn thing…. still in question.

    MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0)

  51. Anyway, it has been my position that the Muslim faith is still an immature religion much like Christianity was before the Enlightenment and rise of the Nation State in Europe.

    And like the enlightment and age of reason in Europe, Muslims enlightenment will be spawned by brother fighting brother and families being torn apart by needless violence over religion.

    After a few generations killing each other off, Muslims, like Christians, will realise religion is important but not worth the violence.

    But so long as Muslims export violence with impunity and Muslim “lands” remain relatively unscared and mental models unchallenged by the brutality which they create — they will continue to blame the outsiders, suffer small time societal casualties, and put bombs in our train stations.

    So, lots of Civil Wars is what we need, not our troops in foreign lands. But whatever….

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  52. I’ve posted this elsewhere, but for a name: “Allah You Can Eat” would rock. Or Maxi-ret.

    ms. docweasel (e9a89d)

  53. #48, There are no examples.

    Like South Americans who shows up in Spain to suck on the social tit justifying it by bringing up Columbus.

    If the best you can do to justify your current behavior is to bring up crimes from 500 years ago … you are an idiot.

    Step up African Americans and the slavery crutch!

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  54. Cordoba Mosque …… Muslims are still pining over the fact it was converted to a Cathedral over 500 years ago.

    Mind I add you, they never mentioned they invaded Christian Spain and imposed Islam. Or they invaded and destroyed the Byzantine Empire and imposed Islam via the sword.

    But wait, that does not matter. The Crusades are bad!!!!!

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  55. As a person of Spanish descent, I am still quite despondent over the bad weather which destroyed the Spanish Armada in the Channel but quite proud we booted out the invaders from the Iberian Peninsula.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  56. “Second, the obvious fact that freedom of religion means exactly that, and your position is simply “freedom of religion shouldn’t apply to Muslims because they are Muslims.” in other words, simple bigotry.”

    kishnevi – This is another of your BS strawman points. I don’t believe many people are saying that if the people who own the air rights to the land where they want to build the mosque gey yhe permits, they should legally be allowed to build it and that the city has no legal reason to stop the permitting just because it is a mosque.

    The argument instead is morally it is wrong and the people behind the project should be sensitive to the wishes of the people they claim to be helping with this project and build elsewhere. It’s moral suasion, not government compulsion. There are, however, a number of questions people are asking to be answered which seem legitimate.

    Familiarize yourself with the debate before going on a bigotry rant.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  57. #56, and the fact the City of NY imposes its standards wantonly when it comes to building and development in Manhattan.

    Almost all the building in that area are protected from redevelopment and its OWNERS are having their economic liberties infringed. But a Muslim Cleric with “unknown funding” gets a permit to as he wishes.

    Sounds fair and just to me.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  58. Hey, were can I get a permit funded by the KKK to build a Basilica called “St Sophia” in Mecca?

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  59. HeavenSent – You are obviously a bigot and xenophobe, possibly a racist too. I condemn you!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  60. “Third, I plain don’t like bigotry, no matter who is the target or who is doing the targeting.”

    kishnevi – I plain don’t like intellectual dishonesty, no matter who is being dishonest.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  61. While our scholars are looking at Christian violence hundreds of years ago I wonder if they can help me find any examples of non-Christian countries or societies that advanced the idea of individual freedom and dignity of the individual over the State? Any non-Christian country that has given women equal status with men, instead of considering them glorified livestock? Who have, in their arrogance, gone out into the world to end the slave trade, or trafficking in women and children outside their own borders or sphere of responsibility?

    I don’t say there are none but I am having trouble coming up with ant significant examples, though there are many within the Christian world. I am not Christian so I have no dog in this hunt but I do want a world dedicated to the principles our Republic was founded on and that seems to require Christian influence and values.

    Machinist (497786)

  62. Please understand that I have been offended in the past when enthusiastic young Christians have asked me why I don’t steal if I am not a Christian, as if they invented the concepts of honesty, honor, and virtue, but while I often see this condemnation of Christian violence batted around, I don’t tend to see this aspect addressed. I await with interest, to be educated by those who have read books.

    Machinist (497786)

  63. This is needlessly provocative, is insulting to the Islamic faith…

    Irony much?

    Gregory of Yardale (07425b)

  64. Machinist,

    Offended lately? Get over it. We all are.

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  65. …. is insulting to the Islamic faith…

    No I think stoning and shooting women for infidelity, burqa’s to control male urges, clitorectomies, suicide bombings, pinning over the re-conquest of the Iberian Penninsula, and Habibi dancing on 9/11/2001 pretty much do the job without us westerners opening our mouths

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  66. So what if Saudi Arabians don’t allow churches? The idea is to show the Saudis by example that tolerance is a good thing. The Saudis behead adulteresses. Would that justify us also beheading adulteresses?

    No, just beheading the Saudis who advocate beheading adulteresses, carry out beheadings, and fund environments that teach that beheading adulteresses is a good thing to do in the name of Allah.

    Horatiol (55069c)

  67. i have to say, every time bloomberg’s name pops up, the man is acting like a twit. he is either telling us what to eat, or engaged in crap this stupid.

    i am convinced that the intent of this project is to create a victory mosque. even if it wasn’t, i think we have a compelling interest in blocking it to avoid even unintentionally sending that message. You do not have a free speech right to enter a battlefield and wave a white flag of surrender. there are something like 30 mosques in manhattan alone, so bluntly they can build it somewhere else.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  68. What makes a bar “gay”, anyway? Chardonay and brie instead of beer and peanuts? 😉

    nk (db4a41)

  69. What makes a bar “gay”, anyway? Chardonay and brie instead of beer and peanuts?

    colonel think it might
    be empty jars of the Boy
    Butter®, dancing bears

    ColonelHaiku (2d4d13)

  70. Comment by HeavenSent — 8/10/2010 @ 4:59 am

    I am not sure you got my point. I am offended by Christian bashing that fails to note that most of the values and concepts the bashers consider enlightened or civilized in fact grew out of Christian cultures.

    Machinist (497786)

  71. Machinist–my first answer to your comment seems to have gotten lost in the cybervoid.
    Briefly–those enlightened values were not due to Christianity. They were due to the Enlightenment–in effect, to the rejection of Christianity as the source of values and its replacement by human reason in that role.

    kishnevi (6189c2)

  72. Aaron @68–
    his point was the the US (and the West in general) does things which get others angry. The anger may be irrational, but to expect others not to get angry, and then act on the basis of that anger, is even more irrational.

    kishnevi (6189c2)

  73. kish

    > They were due to the Enlightenment–in effect, to the rejection of Christianity as the source of values and its replacement by human reason in that role.

    What a load of complete crap. the enlightenment didn’t reject christianity.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  74. Well turning airliners into flying bombs, has a way of making people angry, ‘furious even’

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  75. kish

    what are you talking about? he was clearly condemning us for what we had done. he was clearly blaming us for what had happened to us.

    And he has done it before.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  76. ian

    i always love the “injustice” theory of terrorism. if injustice breeds the terrorism, how come they weren’t suicide bombing saddam hussien? or the president of iran. his troops killed that woman neda for nothing more than speaking her mind but oddly no one has suicide bombed him to death yet.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  77. “They were due to the Enlightenment–in effect, to the rejection of Christianity as the source of values and its replacement by human reason in that role.”

    We’ve seen this argument before. It reflects a misunderstanding of both the enlightenment and Christianity.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  78. When was the last Christian conquest to punish the heathens or nonbelievers?

    The Bosnians being attacked by the Serbs would come to mind.

    And the Rwandan genocide was in part encouraged by Christian clergy.

    And while the Nazis organized it, the killings of the Holocaust were done in large part by German Christians and (in the Slavic countries, especially) by local Christians, many of whom obstensively combined Christianity with their politics. Jews were of course saved from the Nazis and their allied by Christians, but the number of so-called Christians who joined in the killings far outweighed the number of Christians who worked to save lives.

    The point being that Christianity has enough dead bodies (and slaves–what do you think was used to justify the African slave trade?)on its hands that any Christian should not hurry up to condemn other religions on those grounds.

    kishnevi (6189c2)

  79. His long track record of statements (esp. to foreign audiences) and associations explains why moderate Muslims, including those linked above @22, understand that it is a provocation.

    Even if you are correct–then the proper response is not to be provoked. Instead, you folks insist on being provoked.

    Playing right into the jihadis hands.

    And I still maintain the so-called concerns are bogus. At best, they are playing the “I’m a victim” card you rightfully scorn when the Left attempts to play it. If real, then they apply to every Muslim communal center and mosque in this country, not just to one being proposed in lower Manhattan.

    kishnevi (6189c2)

  80. This is not the first time he does this, he published an Op Ed after a series of christian churches were burned in Malaya, saying use a different world, but Malaya happens to be where
    at least two of the hijackers, departed from on the way to the states.

    The Ustachi and the OUN were more motivated by suppressed nationalism, after the death of Radic
    in the first case, then Christianity, the african slave trade, was not uniquely Christian in character it goes on today, in mostly Muslim countries as I understand it. More importantly has there been a Moslem abolitionist movement
    against the practice, talk about missing the point

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  81. Aaron–the Enlightenment was based on replacing divine revelation and authority (the Bible and the Church) with human reason as the final arbiter of value. Christian values did not free the slaves, make women equal, etc. Medieval Europe was full of slaves and even more full of women who were not equal to men. If Christianity was the source of freeing slaves and making women equal, then why did it not happen well before the Englightenment? Enlightenment values–human rational values–did that.

    he was clearly condemning us for what we had done. he was clearly blaming us for what had happened to us.

    No. Of course, I reached by conclusion by actually reading what he said, and paying attention to the plain meaning of his words.

    kishnevi (6189c2)

  82. I’m sure when Ignatiev and Trepov not to mention Pobestdenev mad their pronouncements back in the 1880s, some voices said the same thing.

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  83. Kishy

    > The Bosnians being attacked by the Serbs would come to mind.

    That was ethnic, not religious. That is why they set up the rape camps, to breed out their “Bosnianness.” You can’t breed out a religion, duh.

    > And the Rwandan genocide was in part encouraged by Christian clergy.

    Which was tribal not religion.

    > And while the Nazis organized it

    Hitler held that jews are not a religion but a race. As such the proper assertion is that the holocaust was ethnic/racial.

    > and slaves–what do you think was used to justify the African slave trade?)

    Up until the 18th century slavery had always existed and had been justified by every religion that sat beside it. what was unique is that in the Christian culture, for the first time in human history, the class that was not enslaved decided that slavery was wrong and evil and put a stop to it.

    You live in tolerance created largely by Christians and then you complain that Christians are intolerant. Go live in Saudi Arabia for a while and then see if you still have that opinion.

    > The point being that Christianity has enough dead bodies … on its hands that any Christian should not hurry up to condemn other religions on those grounds.

    Which strikes me as a straw man in the first place.

    > If real, then they apply to every Muslim communal center and mosque in this country, not just to one being proposed in lower Manhattan.

    You know, I was waiting for you or someone else to pretend this was bigoted toward Muslims, before unloading this:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/canadian-muslim-on-the-ground-zero-mosque-why-would-you-do-such-a-thing/

    Her and many other Muslims have expressed precisely the same concerns, indeed even said it might be wrongly read as a victory mosque. So I guess they just hate all Muslims, too, eh?

    Mind you I am not automatically right because a quantum of Muslims agree with me. But it does rebut your bigotry-baiting.

    No, contrary to what you are saying, what I have argued is actually very specific to the ground zero area.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  84. Kish,

    So the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christianity?

    Um, buffoon, all the Enlightenment Philosophers were deeply religious and Christian men who sought the rejection of barbarism regardless of religion.

    No idiot, as said, it was the barbarism amongst Christian over silliness that planted the seeds for men to question faith deeply and reinterpret it by rejecting those false ideologies perpetuated in the middle ages.

    Islam with it animalistic streaks still has yet to pass thru the fire of purification. A better Islam would not mean its rejection of religion — just a rejection of those who use Islam as a political tool. Political Islam as it is called.

    If anything, it is the arrival of communism and socialism which has led to a rejection of religion …. but anyway

    HeavenSent (ff0596)

  85. Kish

    > Christian values did not free the slaves, make women equal, etc.

    Right, which is why the people who freed the slaves, etc. were evangelical Christians who sang “Glory, glory hallelujah, His truth is marching on” as they freed said slaves.

    Look I get it. you hate Christianity. But that doesn’t give you the right to lie about it.

    > If Christianity was the source of freeing slaves and making women equal, then why did it not happen well before the Englightenment?

    You assume there is something unchristian about the enlightenment. As for why it took so long, I point out that under every other faith it didn’t happen at all. The pagans of rome didn’t do it. the Muslims didn’t do it. can you name one other religion that has inspired people who were not themselves enslaved to shed blood to free slaves?

    To pretend that the anti-slavery movement was faithless, or at least not Christian, is to deny reality.

    > No.

    Yes. And if you actually read his words and still say that either 1) you are a liar, or 2) you are deluded.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  86. Malathir Mohammed, part of one of the organizations
    that support the mosque, is an inveterate anti Semite and borderline 9/11 denialist

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  87. And while the Nazis organized it, the killings of the Holocaust were done in large part by German Christians and (in the Slavic countries, especially) by local Christians, many of whom obstensively combined Christianity with their politics. Jews were of course saved from the Nazis and their allied by Christians, but the number of so-called Christians who joined in the killings far outweighed the number of Christians who worked to save lives.

    If Christians offend you so much, why don’t you and the rest of your people get out of Christian countries? There is no wall keeping you in.

    Subotai (7aa379)

  88. Liberals defend islam because they detest Christainity- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They have a big surprise coming when they discover what islam portends for their “progressivism.”

    mhr (efa965)

  89. Christianity cannot be divorced from the development of the best that is Western civilization. Maybe at times people (and I’m one of them) and nations fail to live up to the ideals of Christ, but many more before them failed to live up to the ideals of Socrates and Seneca (two philosophies very compatible with Christianity).

    But I take umbrage with the statement that people who defend Islam hate Christianity. We are people who know Muslims, even have them as family members, and we don’t want them demonized for the sake of some minor sect from Saudi Arabia.

    nk (db4a41)

  90. When that current of Islam, Deobandi/Wahhabi seems to be dominating religious instruction, sustenance,
    and charity, encouraging jihad and other direct action

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  91. More examples of how opposition to the ground zero mosque is bigoted. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/muslim-columnists-yes-the-ground-zero-mosque-is-a-deliberate-provocation/

    (sarcasm intended)

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

  92. here, some really hateful language in the last link:

    > On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.

    > Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.

    since she watched her mother’s murder live on national TV, i guess maureen dowd would say she has absolute moral authority, right?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

  93. nk:
    13. What JD said (“This is needlessly provocative, is insulting to the Islamic faith”) But I mean it.
    — Of course you do. Planned Parenthood offices are needlessly insulting to every woman on the planet. Are you ready to make all of them go away?

    15. Are we at war with all Islam?
    — Nope.
    Then why do we have troops in Saudi Arabia protecting the regime? Why do we send money to Pakistan? Bosnia? Kosovo? Turkey is a NATO ally.
    — I said “no”. Don’t you effing listen?
    In any case, when Gutfeld lays the foundation for his strip club, I’ll apologize. But it will never happen. It’s empty bluster.
    — So, when he’s planning to do it: it’s empty bluster, and insulting. But if he goes through with it: then it’s something worthy of apology? Would it no longer be insulting once it becomes a reality?

    69. What makes a bar “gay”, anyway?
    — Once you walk inside, you will know.
    [massive irony at this being comment “69” noted . . . and denounced]

    Icy Texan (8e2869)

  94. btw, i am pretty sure gutfeld is not a conservative. but he might be a pillow biter. he seems like a radically sleazy libertarian to me. Either that or he just delights in that persona.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

  95. When that current of Islam, Deobandi/Wahhabi seems to be dominating religious instruction, sustenance,
    and charity, encouraging jihad and other direct action

    Comment by ian cormac — 8/10/2010 @ 9:19 am

    They have a lot of money. Oil money. Bin Laden’s family is very rich in its own right and the Saudi Golden Apes also funnel a lot of funds to Wahabi “missionaries”. For two disgusting examples, beautiful jamis in Bosnia, from the fifteenth century, were desecretated for not being in compliance with orthodox Wahabi standards; ancient towers in Chechnya were blown up. The money came first and the vandals after. The Wahabis bought out the local officials, converted adherents, and the local people found themselves losing their heritage.

    nk (db4a41)

  96. The problem is Wahhabism, when the Sauds took over
    the shrines from the Hashemites, for the first time till the 1810s, he brokered a deal with the Ilkwan, the oil came later with the Philby/Loomis deal that led to the ARAMCO concession

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  97. – Once you walk inside, you will know.

    The last time a gay guy hit on me I was sixteen. It kind of hurts my feelings in a way. Have I gotten that old and ugly? 😉

    nk (db4a41)

  98. – So, when he’s planning to do it: it’s empty bluster, and insulting. But if he goes through with it: then it’s something worthy of apology? Would it no longer be insulting once it becomes a reality?

    Of course. I may disagree with his actions but he gave his money and his energy and that makes him worthy of serious consideration.

    Any homeless person, begging for quarters on the street, could say the same thing he said. How much respect are empty words worth?

    nk (db4a41)

  99. Wow, Kish really hates Christianity. That’s very sad.

    He thinks he gets to tell modern Christians that everything good they believe isn’t really Christianity. It’s like if I took the ugly parts of Judaisn and insisted that was the only part of Judaism that is real.

    What’s hilarious is how he went on and on digging for dog whistle anti-semitism in Christianity. He’s projecting.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  100. kishnevi:
    Because the Islamic community center is not a provocation. It’s really that simple.
    — And the reason why it is not a provocation is? because you said so? You really are that simple.

    Think of it this way–if it is so provocative, then it’s also provocative for a Muslim to so much as step foot on Manhattan. No, not just Manhattan, but anywhere in New York City, or even the entire US. You never know when or where some survivor will be so traumatized by the mere sight of a Moslem that he or she will run off and commit suicide.
    — In kishnevi’s world, symbols are not symbolic. One wonders if he’s okay with that cross at the cemetary in San Diego; the one that the ACLU is trying to tear down.

    It would also be provocative for a German cultural club to be built a couple of blocks away from a modern synagogue–the Holocaust, you know…
    — Mmmmm . . . beer, brats, and serving fraus! Of course, if there were EVIDENCE that said club had ties to a skinhead organization, then you would be absolutely correct.

    What I don’t understand is why, when presented with a group of Moslems whose public stance is that violence is not good and 9/11 was an evil act, you folks still go into hysterics.
    — Because people need to say what they mean, and mean what they say? As alluded to above, these folks allegedly have some very suspicious connections to some very bad people.

    It’s especially unbecoming in adherents of a religion which over sixteen out of the last twenty centuries imposed itself by violence, and killed or enslaved more people in the name of converting or conquering them, than Islam ever has, and over a far greater geographical area, as well.
    — The crusades and the inquisition lasted for over 16 centuries? Who knew? Implied in your statement is that Christianity stopped doing that, while portions of Islam continue to do so today.

    And it gives great propaganda fodder to the jihadis. “See, those devil Americans! They truly want to destroy Islam! And they don’t really believe in their vaunted rule of law and civil rights! No free speech or freedom of religion for Muslims! You can see it right here!”
    — Perfect display of liberal libertarianism: in the name of ‘freedom’ everything must be allowed, no matter how potentially destructive.

    So what if Saudi Arabians don’t allow churches? The idea is to show the Saudis by example that tolerance is a good thing.
    — Shades of the “we have to elect a black president so the world doesn’t think of us as racist” argument. BTW, we’re still waiting for ANY COUNTRY ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE to elect their first black head of state.

    The Saudis behead adulteresses. Would that justify us also beheading adulteresses?
    — Brilliant. You must have done very well on the debate team.

    your intolerance is strengthening the position of those Muslems who really do want to conquer us, and impose shariah on those of us whom they don’t end up killing
    — Because (God knows!) they never take any action unless we have first unjustly provoked them.

    the US (and the West in general) does things which get others angry. The anger may be irrational, but to expect others not to get angry, and then act on the basis of that anger, is even more irrational.
    — Therefore, you What? suggest that we live in abject fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, lest it set off those that are easily provoked? Yeah, there’s some “freedom” for ya!

    Icy Texan (8e2869)

  101. When was the last Christian conquest to punish the heathens or nonbelievers?

    The Bosnians being attacked by the Serbs would come to mind.

    And the Rwandan genocide was in part encouraged by Christian clergy.

    And while the Nazis organized it, the killings of the Holocaust were done in large part by German Christians and (in the Slavic countries, especially) by local Christians, many of whom obstensively combined Christianity with their politics. Jews were of course saved from the Nazis and their allied by Christians, but the number of so-called Christians who joined in the killings far outweighed the number of Christians who worked to save lives.

    The point being that Christianity has enough dead bodies (and slaves–what do you think was used to justify the African slave trade?)on its hands that any Christian should not hurry up to condemn other religions on those grounds.

    It is fatuous to equate every action of a government in a nominally Christian country with Christianity. You’re thinking of Christian as a culture or nationality, rather than a faith. I’m guessing you’re Jewish. Someone can be an atheist and still be Jewish, because it’s also a culture and ethnicity/nationality. There is no way of knowing that Nazi Christians outnumbered those who opposed Nazism or that “he killings of the Holocaust were done in large part by German Christians”. I for one seriously doubt it. By Christian I mean a believer in Jesus as Lord and Savior, not just someone who may have belonged to a church.

    Under the Nazis, the churches were brought under control of the state. Hitler and those around him were NOT Christians.

    Bosnia was not about religious belief.

    The anti-slavery movement was started by genuine Christians. Try looking up John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace, and William Wilberforce.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  102. It is fatuous to equate every action of a government in a nominally Christian country with Christianity.

    What’s funny is that enlightened Christianity, even though it is explicitly Christian and based on the teachings of Jesus, isn’t REALLY Christianity. Reverends freeing slaves isn’t either. but Hitler is.

    The dude is simply a bigot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  103. Regarding Greg Gutfeld’s Gay Bar: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/violent-muslim-homophobia-jihad-against.html

    The Ground Zero Victory Mosque is a well publicized example of a general phenomenon: Mosques mean trouble!

    In Europe (and soon in America), wherever Mosques are built, the locals can say goodbye to their homes, streets, neighborhoods and eventually their towns: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/mosque-blight.html

    Trencherbone (f3b605)

  104. The dude is simply a bigot.
    Utterly ironic, in light of the next comment, which links to something that is unabashedly bigoted.

    However, I’m not being bigoted: I’m just pointing out what ought to be a well known historical fact: that plenty of people who called themselves Christians, and believed themselves Christians in the sense you do, killed plenty of other people, well into the twentieth century, because they thought God wanted them to do it, or that God would be glorified therefrom. Bosnia and Rwanda had their share of it, even Northern Ireland.
    In specific reference to the Holocaust, I’m not saying the Nazis were Christians–I’m saying they had plenty of help from others, both German and non German, who would have protested heavily at the idea that they were not true Christians.
    But if you go back and read my comment, you will notice I talked about “so-called Christians” who killed, and [generic, un-adjectived]”Christians” who save, Jews.
    In reference to the enlightenment–I guess HeavenSent is not familiar with Voltaire, Diderot, and some of the other major figures in the Enlightenment, who, if they believed in God at all, only believed in Deism, and not any form of Bible-based Christianity. Newton, Wilberforce, and the others were Christians, but they were Christians acting on valued they had learned from the Enlightenment.

    Now, on to the main topic: I’ll repeat what I’ve said before, as simply as possible so no one can mistake what I’ve said.

    The whole crux of the conflict with the jihadis is to demonstrate to the non-jihadi Muslims that our way of law, rights, and tolerance works. Meanwhile the jihadis are working to prove that we are merely a bunch of hypocrites out to destroy Islam, and that their way, whether or not it works, has the authority of God behind it.

    That should be the guiding principle behind all your dealings with Islam and individual Moslems. Those of you who are against the WTC mosque are giving the jihadis a perfect demonstration that they are actually right. The actual motivations of the people building this place make no difference.

    And if you think that the mosque should not be built because your feelings would be hurt–sorry, you’ll get no sympathy from me. You should, however, get lots of sympathy from the lefties, since that’s their prime argument in so many topics.

    kishnevi (2c3adb)

  105. Xenophobia and bigotry is the only explanation. It has been deemed so.

    JD (abc2eb)

  106. Just like the health care bill and the budget

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  107. The Enlightenment depended on Christianity. Newton got his idea of an orderly universe that could be studied from the belief that the world has order because it was created by an intelligent being, far wiser than us; otherwise, superstitious paganism, the European equivalent of animism, would have continued to ruled the day.

    Voltaire and others went further and decided in their pride that human reason was sufficient and no need for any “superstition” existed.

    Others, such as Dostoyevsky, worked to show their opinion of where man was headed if they believed that humankind had surpassed the need to defer to God.

    I appreciate your pointing out your use of the phrase “so-called Christians”. However, blaming the actions of “so-called Christians” on Christianity is about as fair as blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few.

    Nonetheless, as the Muslim Association of Canada knows, to put a mosque at Ground Zero is at best showing indifference to the people they are supposedly reaching out to. If someone says they are trying to befriend me, yet purposefully do things that they know offend me, I’m going to think they are either insincere or have a serious problem understanding normal human behavior.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  108. However, I’m not being bigoted: I’m just pointing out what ought to be a well known historical fact

    Golly. Would you like me to point out what should be well known historical facts about Jews? Their involvement in communism, perhaps? Or slavery?

    Would you like to explain why you continue to live among we hateful neo-nazis? Surely you should flee for your life while you still can, if you believe a fraction of your own swill.

    The worst anti-white-Christian bigots out there are not blacks or Muslims, but Jews.

    Subotai (a84501)

  109. Kish

    > Utterly ironic, in light of the next comment, which links to something that is unabashedly bigoted.

    You are like a parody of a modern lefty, complaining that pointing out others are intolerant is itself intolerant.

    > However, I’m not being bigoted

    Said the man who held every bad thing done a person who happened to be Christian against all of Christianity, and claimed every advance in civilization advanced by people who were Christians was not due to their Christianity.

    > I’m just pointing out what ought to be a well known historical fact: that plenty of people who called themselves Christians, and believed themselves Christians in the sense you do, killed plenty of other people, well into the twentieth century, because they thought God wanted them to do it, or that God would be glorified therefrom. Bosnia and Rwanda had their share of it, even Northern Ireland.

    Except that Bosnia, Rwanda, and even Northern Ireland is not about faith. now I admit that there is a lot of misinformation on Ireland, with people always saying it is about the catholic and the protestants. But the fighting there is ethnic, not religious based. Its about native irish and the scotch-irish. Duh. In the other cases, you have misinformed yourself. No one has seriously claimed before you that Christianity motivated Rwanda or bosnia.

    > I’m not saying the Nazis were Christians

    Sorry, was that sentence supposed to be coherent?

    > Voltaire, Diderot, and some of the other major figures in the Enlightenment, who, if they believed in God at all, only believed in Deism, and not any form of Bible-based Christianity. Newton, Wilberforce, and the others were Christians, but they were Christians acting on valued they had learned from the Enlightenment.

    And Thomas Jefferson who signed his letters “in Jesus Christ’s name”—deists like that? Indeed the very term “enlightenment” has religious connotations that you refuse to see because it might make Christianity look good.

    And notice you don’t even mention my easy takedown of your claim that the people who freed the slaves were overwhelmingly Christian. You can’t even refute something that is genuinely a feather in the hat of Christianity, so you do your best to pretend it didn’t happen.

    > Meanwhile the jihadis are working to prove that we are merely a bunch of hypocrites out to destroy Islam, and that their way, whether or not it works, has the authority of God behind it.

    In which you impute motives to the terrorists that has no relationship to anything they have done or said, and just happens to fit your agenda. If you actually cared to learn about it, you would learn that in fact they despise our tolerance, consider our culture to be a weak and decadent one incapable of mustering the strength to fight. And what do you know, building that mosque at ground zero with Al Qaeda funding would do just that.

    By the way, what do you say to actual Muslims who say it shouldn’t be built there, that even agree with me that this would be seen as a victory mosque?

    And also, do you know what cordoba means. Before you get all tolerant and multi-culti, maybe you should learn about some of the other cultures you are promoting.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  110. Kish stereotypes an entire religion based on cherry picked examples that aren’t even slightly fair.

    He’s a bigot.

    I could stereotype Jews the same way, but of course, I have no problem with Jews and don’t think like Kishnevi/Mel Gibson.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  111. MD

    I don’t see it as a matter of offense, so much as waiving a white victory flag of surrender. But this is the best metaphor I could think of. its like building a Buddhist temple, complete with swastikas, within sight of Auschwitz.

    The Buddhists bear no blame for the association between swastikas and Nazis. But they aren’t idiots, either, and they should understand what they are saying. They are being insensitive jerks if they did that.

    I made up that hypothetical and then someone pointed out to me I was actually pretty close to a real life incident. There was going to be a convent of nuns near the same camp, and a lot of misunderstandings occurred and finally the pope stepped in and said, “while these nuns were not there to do anything actually offensive to anyone, we see that people are offended, so we will move the convent.” (paraphrase, of course)

    I am presbyterrian, but I have to admit that John Paul was a pretty good guy at times.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  112. Dustin FTW on Kish.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  113. Nonetheless, as the Muslim Association of Canada knows, to put a mosque at Ground Zero is at best showing indifference to the people they are supposedly reaching out to. If someone says they are trying to befriend me, yet purposefully do things that they know offend me, I’m going to think they are either insincere or have a serious problem understanding normal human behavior.

    You’re missing the third alternative: considering the idea that maybe you’re being too sensitive and shouldn’t be offended.

    kishnevi (fb9343)

  114. Aaron at 113:
    The problem with the Auschwitz convent was that it was to be specifically in memory of Catholic victims of Auschwitz (of whom of course there were plenty–not only converted Jews, but Poles and others) while ignoring the fact that while plenty of Gentiles died there, the overwhelming number of victims were Jews.

    To relate it to the current topic, think of the mosque being established in memory of the Muslim victims of 9/11, and totally ignoring everyone else who died that day.

    kishnevi (3a3033)

  115. kishnevi, considered the idea that I was too sensitive … but discovered that there were muslims who thought the idea was intended as a provocation and shook that off.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. Karl – The cognitive dissonance, could it be harnessed into energy, could power the US for decades.

    JD (abc2eb)

  117. Karl, that is AWESOME.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  118. Said the man who held every bad thing done a person who happened to be Christian against all of Christianity, and claimed every advance in civilization advanced by people who were Christians was not due to their Christianity.

    Where did I even come close to saying that? I said that lots of Christians have killed others in the name of Christ, and if you are a Christian you should bear that in mind when criticizing other religions for killing in the name of God.

    If you actually cared to learn about it, you would learn that in fact they despise our tolerance, consider our culture to be a weak and decadent one incapable of mustering the strength to fight

    I don’t care what the jihadis think. I’m referring to the non-jihadi Muslims that the jihadis are trying to either kill or convert to their cause, and that we should be trying our damnedest to bring over to our side.

    What the jihadis say to those other Muslims is that we hate Muslims and Islam, and don’t really apply our ideals of rule of law, freedom of religion, and tolerance. And here you guys go doing exactly that. No wonder we’re losing this “war on terror”.

    And that much of the good things you specifically claim for Christianity where not done from Christian values but from Enlightenment values that Christians had learned from the Enlightenment. And the foundation of the Enlightenment was the Renaissance revival of Greco-Roman literature, philosophy and learning, not anything in the Bible.

    And Thomas Jefferson who signed his letters “in Jesus Christ’s name”—deists like that
    You picked one of the worst examples possible. Jefferson was the one who made up his own edition of the Gospels. He cut out all the miracles and kept in only the moral teachings of Jesus, because he believed the miracles (including the Resurrection, which–I might be wrong, of course–I think is rather basic for a Christian to believe in) were made up stories.

    Out of the more important American Founding Fathers, the only one who comes close to being what you would consider a fellow believing Christian was John Adams.

    do you know what cordoba means
    Certainly do. Cordoba was a place where the Jews were a lot safer and more prosperous under Muslim rule than almost any place in Christian Europe, and from which the Christians, by means of riots, persecution and eventually outright exile, forced them out during a period that is conventionally dated 1391-1492==and one of the few safe places those Jews who did choose exile instead of forced conversion in 1492 found was in Muslim lands.

    So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.

    By the way, what do you say to actual Muslims who say it shouldn’t be built there, that even agree with me that this would be seen as a victory mosque?

    Same thing I’m saying to you: you’re wrong.

    kishnevi (9fe867)

  119. kishnevi, you seem to enjoy picking isolated “historical facts” while pretending that inconvenient ones don’t exist. Your snide remark above about Cordoba is hardly the most offensive example you’ve engaged in to date.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  120. I’m not going to read through all of the tripe about offending either side, I just want to point out that Glenn Beck delivered the money shot, while Greg was on his show today, tossing out the idea of naming the bar – You Mecca me Hot.

    sybilll (7e5ce8)

  121. So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.

    If you are so determined to see the world from a “Jewish point of view”, on what grounds do you object if other people view the world from a Christian point of view? Or a Muslim POV, for that matter.

    If your Jewish identity is far more important to you than the country you happen to be living in, how can you expect the “natives” of that country to look on you with approval?

    Subotai (c1531e)

  122. “Just pointing out that Christianity has a pretty bloody history itself. Sorry if your own religion’s history offends you, but it’s real history, and you’ll have to live with it.”

    Better to say the world has a bloody history. Your attempt to attribute events to religion where religion bears only a coincidental role betrays your bigotry, I’m sorry to say. Trying to pin the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe under orders of Nazis on Christianity because the orders were carried out willingly or not by citizens of countries that were majority Christian again betrays your intellectual dishonesty. Trying to say American Christians should feel guilt for those acts because it is “our religion”, for some presumed weird tribal connection or something, ignores the Enlightenment you are so excited about and rise of the nation state in the 19th century. Was World War I a war in the name of God like the others you are trying to pin on Christianity or just another mundane conflict like most over territory and other issues? How does that fit in your model? An ethnic conflict in Rwanda become religious because clergy exhorted their people to take action to protect themselves? Give me a break!

    How would you characterize the current Muslim/Christian violence in Nigeria or Indonesia?

    I reject you interpretation of how Christians feel or should feel, based both on your lack of knowledge and obvious bigotry.

    Why not switch and take the Muslim perspective now. Why, if they want to demonstrate that they are peaceful and not a threat to America, would they want to make such a provocative statement as building a Victory Mosque so close to Ground Zero? Explain that one.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  123. “do you know what cordoba means
    Certainly do.”

    kishnevi – Didn’t the Muslims also build a Mosque on top of the site of Christian church in Cordoba to mark their domination, sort of like the Victory Mosque at Ground Zero? The pattern has not changed.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  124. Cordoba was a place where the Jews were a lot safer and more prosperous under Muslim rule than almost any place in Christian Europe, and from which the Christians, by means of riots, persecution and eventually outright exile, forced them out during a period that is conventionally dated 1391-1492==and one of the few safe places those Jews who did choose exile instead of forced conversion in 1492 found was in Muslim lands.

    So, to repeat a question I asked before but you did not answer, why are you here? Shouldn’t you flee from this dreadful Christianist land and go live with your nice Muslim friends? If you believe a fraction of the crap you’re saying, you should.

    Subotai (c1531e)

  125. I don’t care what the jihadis think. I’m referring to the non-jihadi Muslims that the jihadis are trying to either kill or convert to their cause, and that we should be trying our damnedest to bring over to our side.

    I don’t much care what Muslims think. If they think we don’t like them, that’s a good thing. Perhaps it will give them a reason to stay in their own countries and out of ours.

    Subotai (c1531e)

  126. And Matthias Church in Budapest, and that church in Damascus, which became the Sultan Hamid mosque and
    Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, well you get the idea

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  127. Names for the bar:
    — The Camel’s Hump
    — Shepherd’s Bush
    — Separate Entrance
    — Sheik Yerbouti [thank you Frank Zappa]
    — Drawn & Quartered
    — Sacred Pork
    — Yay, Men! [think about it]
    — Mosquerade
    — Arabian Horse
    — Lesbanon [girls only]

    Icy Texan (95c5b1)

  128. “So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.”

    From a Christian POV it wasn’t. Who wins?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  129. “Velvet Sword” good name
    or maybe “Al Gayda” or
    “Jihard” or “Ba’ath House”

    ColonelHaiku (2d4d13)

  130. ColonelHaiku names
    most honorable but please
    make room “KoranHole”

    TimesDislaiku (67dc1a)

  131. 72 virgins are
    not necessarily girls
    hence “AllahSwallah”

    TimesDislaiku (67dc1a)

  132. What about a Hooter’s on the other side of the Cordoba Center on the same side of the street as the Gay Bar?

    agimarc (324b03)

  133. agimarc – Was that a dogwhistle for crissyhooten?

    JD (abc2eb)

  134. If your Jewish identity is far more important to you than the country you happen to be living in, how can you expect the “natives” of that country to look on you with approval?

    I don’t want your approval. The only approval I want is that of the One Who judges truly.

    I just want what exists now: being left alone to do what I think should be done. And don’t kill me like many of your fellow Christians in Europe used to for most of the past thousand years and more. Thank you very much, and if you disapprove, I don’t care.

    Didn’t the Muslims also build a Mosque on top of the site of Christian church in Cordoba to mark their domination, sort of like the Victory Mosque at Ground Zero? The pattern has not changed.

    The other examples cited by Ian are more in your favor, but in the case of Cordoba, the Muslims purchased the church before making into a mosque, and they let the Christians stay (as they did with Ian’s examples). When the Christians conquered Cordoba, they confiscated the mosque and turned it into a Cathedral, but they let the Muslims stay, but only until the start of the 1th century. For further details, look up the expulsion of the Moriscos.

    Trying to pin the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe under orders of Nazis on Christianity because the orders were carried out willingly or not by citizens of countries that were majority Christian again betrays your intellectual dishonesty.

    I said a whole bunch of Christians were involved (most of them willingly). I did not say that was Christianity’s fault–other than the fact that Christian institutions in Europe contributed to all that with over a thousand years of official anti-Semitism that was finally rejected after WWII.

    Trying to say American Christians should feel guilt for those acts because it is “our religion”,

    I didn’t say you should feel guilt for it. I should you acknowledge what other Christians did in the name of your religion, and consider what impact their actions have on your credibility when you condemn another religion for its violence in the name of God. I don’t expect you to accept blame for it, but I do expect you to accept facts as facts.

    Was World War I a war in the name of God
    Did I even hint at such? Nation states have nothing to do with this. The only Christian government I’ve referred to is that of Spain c. 1492.

    Am I claiming that all wars are the result of religion? No. I’m not even saying World War II was the result of religion. I’m just saying that Christians over the centuries have used their faith in God as a reason/excuse to kill and enslave their own millions. That’s a fact of Christian history as much as St. Francis of Assisi is a fact of Christian history.

    An ethnic conflict in Rwanda become religious because clergy exhorted their people to take action to protect themselves

    It would be much more accurate to say the some clergy (not all) exhorted their congregants to go out and kill.

    I reject you interpretation of how Christians feel or should feel, based both on your lack of knowledge and obvious bigotry.

    I state facts about Christian history and am accused of bigotry.

    You make assertions and allege non facts about Islam and Muslims and–that’s not bigotry?

    kishnevi (c8fa2f)

  135. “Sheikh Yerbouti’s” or the
    or “Al-Suq Akweer” even
    “Usuqa M’Diq’s”

    ColonelHaiku (2d4d13)

  136. You bring up long ago events, yet you dismiss the really incendiary recent rhetoric and actions associated with this mosque. Rauf supports Hamas, says he doesn’t believe in religious dialogue, says we were an accessory to the crime of 9/11, tsk tsked the burning of Christian churches in Malaya

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  137. kishnevi apparently is from that kindergarten of thought where the slave trade was carried out only by Christians and Jews …

    Conveniently forgetting that the slaves who were traded were bought as a commodity along the African coastline where they were being sold by Muslims, predominantly Arab slave-traders …

    He conveniently ignores the origins of the US Marines, set up to man US ships to fight off the Barbary Pirates who were capturing ships and selling the people they captured into slavery … yes, the Muslim Barbary Pirates …

    kishnevi stays here because, in spite of his own bigotry, he *does* realise that he would not fare anywhere near as well in the majority of the muslim countries around the planet … here, he can say pretty much what he likes, and can even believe pretty much what he likes, without having to worry about the imams and mullahs …

    kishnevi is kufr when it comes to western civilisation and the Enlightenment …

    Alasdair (1c2045)

  138. ian cormac #137 – kishnevi and his ilk are those who say we should not mention the Crusades because, for Muslims, the Crusades as thoguh they were “just yesterday” … my response to such folk, whose take on history goes back to convenient periods in isolation is to point out that, by those standards, I would not be unhappy to go back to the day-before-yesterday …

    The Crusades were about 800 years ago, give or take – just like yesterday … and were a response to the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land … go back a further 800 years – day before yesterday – and there is no Islam … Mohammed doesn’t exist – and the religion he founds has yet to kill a single person …

    kishnevi – would you like to discuss any more history ?

    Alasdair (1c2045)

  139. I just want what exists now: being left alone to do what I think should be done.

    Unfortunately you’re not leaving us alone to do what we think should be done. Which sort of precludes the possibility of us leaving yo alone.

    don’t kill me like many of your fellow Christians in Europe used to for most of the past thousand years and more.

    Boo fucking hoo. I’ll ask again the question you are stubbornly refusing to answer. Why are you here? Why are you living among people you hate? Why don’t you leave, perhaps to Israel, perhaps to live among those Muslims you think so highly of?

    Why?

    Subotai (c0d294)

  140. I’m just laughing at the banker who has to analyze the business plan of shoving a Hooters in between a Mosque and a gay bar.

    I’m also amazed that the Cordoba people are complaining about insensitivity. Amazed. Let them have their legal rights, whatever they actually are, but these are horrible people who actually are everything they were accused of being. This is simply an additional attack from 9/11. They expect one rule for Islam and one rule for everyone else. That was always the entire point. Submission.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. Aaron Worthing (A.W.)- What I meant by being “offensive” was very much like your anecdote. Forgiveable for not being thought of in that way, but once pointed out, to persist suggests not caring what the people think that you’re supposedly reaching out to. It doesn’t add up, or “seem kosher”.

    You’re missing the third alternative: considering the idea that maybe you’re being too sensitive and shouldn’t be offended.
    Comment by kishnevi

    I liked SPQR’s response.

    You know, I actually don’t mind at all interacting with people who see things a different way, when there is at least an acknowledgement of a point, whether one believes it wins the day or not. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to say that if other Muslims think the ground-zero mosque is an insensitive and bad idea that it is of no importance.

    Good night.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  142. “Was World War I a war in the name of God
    Did I even hint at such? Nation states have nothing to do with this.”

    I was asking a question since it involved violence by Christians. Your citation of Nazis did involve a nation state so you are contradicting yourself.

    “An ethnic conflict in Rwanda become religious because clergy exhorted their people to take action to protect themselves”

    This was another conflict you cited was done in the name of God which you have now backed away from.

    “I state facts about Christian history and am accused of bigotry.”

    You state opinions about how you believe people feel and conclude they should feel collective guilt over their religion and conclude their attitudes toward a Muslim contruction project in New York City opposed by 62% of New Yorkers are solely due to bigotry and xenophobia. Those are opinions, not facts, and bigoted ones at that.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  143. “I’m just saying that Christians over the centuries have used their faith in God as a reason/excuse to kill and enslave their own millions.”

    No, you are making it sound like the primary purpose of Christianity. People use all sorts of excuses for conquest. You have not cited Christianity as the primary purpose for a single conflict within the past 200 years. Do you get out much?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  144. BIGOTED XENOPHOBES !!!! DENOUNCED AND CONDEMNED !!!!

    JD (abc2eb)

  145. No, you are making it sound like the primary purpose of Christianity. People use all sorts of excuses for conquest. You have not cited Christianity as the primary purpose for a single conflict within the past 200 years. Do you get out much?

    I have not made it sound like the primary purpose of Christianity is killing people. You, on the other, sound like you believe exactly the same thing about Islam.

    You state opinions about how you believe people feel and conclude they should feel collective guilt over their religion and conclude their attitudes toward a Muslim contruction project in New York City opposed by 62% of New Yorkers are solely due to bigotry and xenophobia.

    I have not said you should feel collective guilt. I said you should be more aware of how Christians have used war, conquest, and just plain violence while claiming to fulfill God’s will–and be more aware of how that fact makes Christian criticism of Muslim violence seem sometimes hypocritical.

    I haven’t concluded anything about New Yorker’s attitudes. I have however come to a conclusion about your attitudes, and they reek of bigotry, xenophobia and ignorance.

    And go here:
    http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

    And scroll down to the comments posted under the names Jessica and Jae.

    Side note: Andrew Sullivan supports this idea of a gay bar. Sure you want to climb into the same bed with him, even if it’s only a metaphorical one?

    kishnevi (c8fa2f)

  146. IGNORANT XENOPHOBIC BIGOTS !!!!!

    JD (abc2eb)

  147. I’m just pointing out what ought to be a well known historical fact: that plenty of people who called themselves Christians, and believed themselves Christians in the sense you do, killed plenty of other people, well into the twentieth century, because they thought God wanted them to do it, or that God would be glorified therefrom.

    No you aren’t just doing that. You are claiming actions taken by governments were largely a result of Christianity. If you aren’t claiming that, I don’t really know what you are claiming. The number of people who were doing these things because they thought God wanted them to do it is unknowable, although you make these assertions. If there were some, that does not make your point. You imply that the motivation for those things was PRIMARILY Christian belief. If there were some Christians (or people who believed themselves Christians) involved, that falls way short of proving these generalizations you have been tossing around.

    Newton, Wilberforce, and the others were Christians, but they were Christians acting on valued they had learned from the Enlightenment.

    Where you getting that from?

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  148. I have however come to a conclusion about your attitudes, and they reek of bigotry, xenophobia and ignorance.

    Says the guy who thinks that all aspects of human life should revolve around the question, “Is it good for the Jews?”

    If we were a small fraction as bigoted and xenophobic as you are, you’d have been deported a long time ago.

    Subotai (c0d294)

  149. The point is the Cordoba mosque did replace the church, after Abderahman had gotten rid of his rivals

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  150. “I have not said you should feel collective guilt.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  151. ColonelHaiku – How about the Crusty Turban

    daleyrocks (940075)

  152. I would go with Arabian Goggles.

    JD (abc2eb)

  153. ________________________________________________

    In light of the history of Islam’s wonderful, noble, spectacular founder, building and operating a nudie bar, perhaps full of live sex acts, near the site of 9-11 would be quite appropriate. However, aiming it a gays?! That would be an INSULT!!! An INSULT, I say!!!!

    So throw in a bit of — or maybe a lot of — S&M (but not the simulated kind—real sadism, real masochism, and therefore real pain, real blood) and it will fit Muhammed to a “T.”

    <blockquote>beholdthebeast.com:

    Many Islamic historians admit that Muhammad married eleven wives. Those who think his escapades with women a measure of his greatness,
    admit that he had as many as twenty seven
    . In addition to these wives, Muhammad was also commanded by Allah to keep as many concubines
    (female captives in Jihad) as his right hand possessed.

    Pondering the Koranic text that granted these special privileges to Muhammad, one cannot resist the temptation to believe that Muhammad wanted the unrestricted freedom to have as many women as he wished, and used his “revelations” to prevent his wives and followers from placing any limitations on his carnal cravings.

    With fleets of wives at Muhammad’s disposal, coupled with his special privilege to have as many concubines as he desired, Muhammad’s passion for women seemed to know no bounds. He even took the only wife of his adopted son, Zaid.

    How Muhammad Treated His Opponents

    …Why should [Abu Nidal, Hamas, Islamic brotherhood, Mujahadin, Hisbollah, etc.] choose violence, anarchy, war and murder as a way of life, and even anticipate more of the same in Aljana? Part of the answer lies in the way and manner that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, treated his opponents.

    During his lifetime, Muhammad sent assassin after assassin (today we call them “death squads”) to eliminate his opponents. He rained curses upon the ones his assassins couldn’t track down. Here are a few examples:

    Muhammad sent Umayr b. Adi (Allah’s helper) to kill Asthma bint Marwan, a poetess who wrote against him. The assassin entered the woman’s abode at night and found her surrounded by her sleeping children, including a suckling child whom he pushed away from her breast. He then drove his sword through her body, murdering her.

    In another dreadful incident, Muhammad sent Salim b. Amir to assassinate a 120 year old Jew whose poetry attacked Muhammad. On hot summer nights, the Jew would sleep in the courtyard of his home. Salim knew that, so he sneaked in and plunged his sword into the old man’s liver, killing him.

    It is related by Ibn Hisham (quoting Ibn Ishaq) that Muhammad said, “Whomsoever among the men of the Jews you overcome, kill him.” That was enough incitement for Muhaisah ibn Mas’ud, who subsequently attacked and killed ibn Shunaimah, a Jewish merchant.

    The story of the murder of Ka’b ibnu’l Ashraf is told in Ibn Hisham’s Siratur Rasul vol. 2, p. 25. Ka’b ibnu’l Ashraf returned to Medina and praised the beauty of Muslim wives until the Muslims became annoyed.

    The Apostle of Allah said, “Who is with me in the matter of Ibnu’l Ashraf?” Muhammad ibn Malamah replied, “I am for thee in this affair, O Apostle of Allah: I will kill him.” He laid in ambush for three days, neither eating nor drinking until, with the assistance of five assassins, he killed Ka’b ibnu’l Ashraf.

    Muhammad appointed five other assassins, Abdullah ibn utaik, Masud ibn Sanan, Abdullah ibn Unais, Abu Quadatu’l Harith ibn Rab’i and Khaza’i ibn Utaik, to go to Khaiba to murder Abi’l Huqaiq. The deed was carried out successfully, to the supposed glory of Allah.

    On another occasion, Muhammad praised Zaid for commanding the brutal murder of an aged woman named Umm Kirfa. Her legs were tied to camels. These were driven in different directions until the unfortunate woman was torn asunder.

    Muhammad also sent “Amr ibn Umayyah and jabbar ibn Sakhar from Medina to Mecca to assassinate Abu Sufan ibn Harb. However, those hired killers failed in their mission because the plot was uncovered before they were able to strike. (Ibn Hishan Siratur Rasul vol. 3, pp.89,90)

    ________________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  154. Did you know that we are still finding new 9/11 victims’ remains as work progresses at the WTC site?

    Still.

    And I’m supposed to believe that the shady mosque backers don’t intend a provocation?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  155. Hussein’s Hershey Highway Hookah House.

    Matador (680433)

  156. Andrew Sullivan supports this idea of a gay bar. Sure you want to climb into the same bed with him, even if it’s only a metaphorical one?
    Comment by kishnevi — 8/10/2010 @ 8:08 pm

    — *shivering uncontrollably*

    Icy Texan (e1cc22)

  157. Kishy

    > Where did I even come close to saying that?

    It’s the pattern of your remarks. The most ridiculous example of that being when you asserted that Christianity had nothing to do with abolitionism. They sang Amazing Grace and the Battle Hymn of the Republic as they fought for freedom, but nah, no religion there.

    > I don’t care what the jihadis think. I’m referring to the non-jihadi Muslims that the jihadis are trying to either kill or convert to their cause,

    Ah, well, except you said this: “Meanwhile the jihadis are working to prove that we are merely a bunch of hypocrites out to destroy Islam[.]” So which is the truth? That you don’t care or that you do?

    Cut and paste is a bitch, ain’t it?

    > What the jihadis say to those other Muslims is that we hate Muslims and Islam

    They also say we are weak and decadent, that we will fold and surrender. And dang it if lefties like you aren’t trying to prove them right?

    > No wonder we’re losing this “war on terror”.

    You put the phrase “war on terror” in quotes. Doesn’t that say it all?

    > And that much of the good things you specifically claim for Christianity where not done from Christian values

    And that you say that only proves my point above. You hate christianity and are pretty ridiculously bigoted about it.

    > You picked one of the worst examples possible.

    I saw a lot of blah blah blah, did you refute my point he was not a deist?

    > the only one who comes close to being what you would consider a fellow believing Christian was John Adams.

    Proving you don’t know what you are talking about.

    > Cordoba was a place where the Jews were a lot safer and more prosperous under Muslim rule

    Mmm, yeah, I am sure that is the significance in the mind of that imam and his AQ financiers. Not that it was where they have a victory mosque in spain, but because of the jews.

    > So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.

    And isn’t that one of the major problems with your whole analysis? You can’t break out of your own perspective and see it from theirs.

    > Same thing I’m saying to you: you’re wrong.

    And those Muslim objectors are bigoted, too? Intolerant? Proving that we don’t really believe in freedom of religion and all that good stuff?

    > I just want what exists now: being left alone to do what I think should be done. And don’t kill me like many of your fellow Christians in Europe used to for most of the past thousand years and more.

    The cognitive dissonance is amazing. If anyone is going to kill you over religion, they are far more likely to shout “Allah akbar” than “Jesus is lord” as they are doing it. But you are like Rosie O’Donnell claiming fundamentalist Christians are dangerous and scary. Tell me, do you also think 9-11 was a government conspiracy, like her?

    > in the case of Cordoba, the Muslims purchased the church before making into a mosque

    Bwahahahaha. “Hi, we are the Moors that just kicked your ass. We would like to purchase this land for value.” Give me a break.

    As for the uncomfortability of Sullivan’s agreement, you just have to understand he is pro-gay-bar in general. Sort of like some guys are in favor of female stripper bars, in general. 😉

    Sybill

    > I just want to point out that Glenn Beck delivered the money shot, while Greg was on his show today, tossing out the idea of naming the bar – You Mecca me Hot.

    So far I like “suspicious packages.”

    Agimarc

    > What about a Hooter’s on the other side of the Cordoba Center on the same side of the street as the Gay Bar?

    Better proposal. How about an art gallery, featuring images of Mohammed? Perhaps starting with the Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy? All visible on the street.

    http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/search/label/Dreaded%20Stick%20Figures%20of%20Blasphemy

    Indeed I have one particular masterpiece in mind: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-cartoon_03.html

    It’s a real trend setter. Maybe we could put that on a billboard, test how tolerant they all are.

    Mark

    > Those who think his escapades with women a measure of his greatness, admit that he had as many as twenty seven

    Um wouldn’t the proper verb be “brag” rather than “admit”?

    > In another dreadful incident, Muhammad sent Salim b. Amir to assassinate a 120 year old Jew whose poetry attacked Muhammad

    Well, to be fair, these people sound like the beatniks of their time. and personally beatnicks send me into a rage, so there is that.

    By the way, he was 120 years old?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  158. Seriously, i am stuck on the idea of assassinating a 120 year old man. i mean how did they kill him? show him a pair of breasts? make a really loud noise behind him?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  159. A Hooters? What is this, Times Square? Please.

    Any of you investors check how many ground zero gay bars there already are? Or know anything about NYC?

    bart (a15b00)

  160. People like bart are simply annoying.

    JD (abc2eb)

  161. “If your Jewish identity is far more important to you than the country you happen to be living in, how can you expect the “natives” of that country to look on you with approval?”

    That’s creepy dude.

    bart (c6305a)

  162. JD

    How did you miss my shout out to you and your masterpiece?!

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  163. Yes, I most certainly did.

    JD (abc2eb)

  164. Hey – let’s make Ground Zero a place for every extreme point of view to camp out for permanent protest! That crazy anti-Gay Kansas church will be next, then radical atheists will move in to protest them, and on it goes.

    No, I don’t think this “bar” is a good idea. I would rather see something there that presents the evidence of why innocent people were slaughtered on 9-11 and who did it, that ties it directly to Islam. That this could never happen proves that the proposed counter measure misses the mark entirely. It demonstrates to all that we are cowards and whining losers.

    You need to be explicit with the truth. Anything less degenerates into a sick joke. The sad fact is that we may be free to open a gay bar but we are still not free to tell the truth.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  165. Of course it’s an absurd notion, so is the Mosque on a structure that was affected by the original event, bad taste all around

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  166. “Of course it’s an absurd notion, so is the Mosque on a structure that was affected by the original event, bad taste all around”

    But the bad taste is the draw. Don’t you want to see what a gay bar run and financed by spiteful righties will end up like?

    bart (603c39)

  167. Well Gutfeld is more of libertarian, by most indications, but he has always been promilitary

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  168. Don’t you want to see what a gay bar run and financed by spiteful righties will end up like?

    About as much as I want to see what a country run by spiteful lefties looks like.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  169. That’s creepy dude.

    What’s creepy is that kishnevi does not even pretend to have any loyalty to the country he lives in. In fact he’s made it clear that he loathes the people who are (nominally at any rate) his countrymen.

    But then, since you share his creepyness, it probably seems normal to you.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  170. sub

    dude, a little out of bounds. hating on christians is not the same as hating your country. you might suspect one leads to the other, but its not the same issue.

    We should always be a little hesitant before questioning a person’s patriotism.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  171. “What’s creepy is that kishnevi does not even pretend to have any loyalty to the country he lives in”

    But differentiating “jews” from “natives”? C’mmon. That is old school anti-semitic exclusion. Its specially creepy when applied to long time jewish areas like NYC.

    bart (842182)

  172. hating on christians is not the same as hating your country.

    Yes, it is, when your country is Christian. It is. Just as “hating on whites” is hating on your country, when your country is traditionally white.

    We should always be a little hesitant before questioning a person’s patriotism.

    Being “hesitant” does not mean we should never ever, no matter what the evidence presented to us, question a person’s patriotism. Stop thinking like a lefty. kishnevi has vomited his hatred of white Christians of European background all over this page.

    The only reason you’re willing to let him get away with it is that you have been conditioned to treat Jews (but nobody else) with kid gloves when they behave this way. If he was a Muslim, I’d be saying the exact same things to him. But if he was a Muslim, you’d be agreeing with me instead of defending the bigot.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  173. sub

    Now you are forcing me to defend this dick, Kish.

    No, you can hate christianity without hating america. he has denied that anything good ever done here is motivated by christianity. is that bigoted against christians? yeppers. but its allows alot of room to then say america is great despite its christianity. He has made it abundantly clear that every good thing in the world is result of non-christian beliefs, so he can logically say america is great despite the fact most of us are christians.

    Of course that represents a bigotry agaisnt christians and a complete lack of knowledge of, you know, history. but there you go.

    And really its taking us off topic to say drag whether he loves america into it. its enough to say he is an anti-christian bigot. And he is.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  174. Now you are forcing me to defend this dick, Kish

    I’m sure that you possess free will.


    No, you can hate christianity without hating america.

    I doubt that, but in any case his hatred is not directed at “Christianity” but at an ethnic group of people he sees as interchangeable with Christianity. Africa may be the fastest growing area of Christianity, but kishnevi has no beef with Christians of that particular hue. His hatred is directed at European Christians and their American descendants. Because he sees his own ethno-religious group as being at war with them. As he put it, he believes that people like me have spent the last thousand years or more killing people like him. You’re not paying close enough attention to what he is saying.

    its enough to say he is an anti-christian bigot.

    No, that only scratches the surface of his bigotry. You are assuming that “Christianity” means roughly the same to him as it does to you. You have yet to realize that “Christianity” for him is analogous to Judaism for Jews – the religious-cultural-social practice of a genetically related group of people.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  175. To kishnevi, all non-Jewish caucasian Americans are de facto Christians.

    Icy Texan (e1cc22)

  176. And really its taking us off topic to say drag whether he loves america into it.

    Let’s look at his own words.

    So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.

    Now I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with a member of some group arguing for the interests of his group over that of others. I do that myself all the time. I argue for the interests of America and Americans over those of other countries and peoples.

    The thing is, I do that as an American in America. If I lived in Korea and argued for the best interests of America and Americans, it would be perfectly appropriate for Koreans to question my loyalty to Korea. In fact they’d be stupid not to do so.

    kichnevi is free to see the best interests of Jews as being his guiding principle. And I am free to point out that that attitude, expressed by a person living outside the state of Israel, is disloyal to whatever other country he happens to be living in. It’s as much a logical truth as 2+2=4.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  177. Sub

    I will mostly leave my point said. I said my peace but one point to consider:

    > kishnevi has no beef with Christians of that particular hue [black]

    I’m not so sure of that. He denounced Christians in Rwanda, were they all white?

    That might change the optics of this a little.

    But hey look I am constantly pointing out that hatred of isreal is almost always anti-semitism. yes, in theory it is possible to hate isreal without hating jews generally, but when you hear people denounce the evil, “money-grubbing, hooked-nose zionists,” we all know what that person is talking about.

    Like take that famous moron who made that sign saying “Death to All Juice.” Everyone had a good laugh, saying what a moron. And he was stupid, just not way everyone thought he was. he was stupid because he thought by intentionally misspelling jews he would have plausible deniability. and to add to that he wrote in parathesis (you can barely see it) “zionist” before the word “juice.” So technically he said “Death to all Zionist Juice.” i am still wondering what zionist juice tastes like. 😉

    Btw i think that idiot turned out to be wrapped up in one of the terrorist incidents. i want to say the times square thing, but i am not sure.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  178. ah found the death to all juice guy story, and um, got the details on what exact terrorist activity he was engaged in all wrong. you can be set right here:

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202788.php

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  179. “Yes, it is, when your country is Christian. ”

    Most people say “Judeo-Christian.” We know it is pretense. They’re really not so down with the Jews. Thanks for not even pretending.

    “Africa may be the fastest growing area of Christianity, but kishnevi has no beef with Christians of that particular hue”

    He did bring up the Rwandan genocide….

    bart (ef7754)

  180. But hey look I am constantly pointing out that hatred of isreal is almost always anti-semitism. yes, in theory it is possible to hate isreal without hating jews generally, but when you hear people denounce the evil, “money-grubbing, hooked-nose zionists,” we all know what that person is talking about.

    That’s great. I applaud you on your clear vision. I’m just puzzled about how your eyesight can be so crystal clear in that case, but in the case of other hates everything is murky and unclear to you. kishnevi can say the equivalent of “evil, money-grubbing, hook-nosed zionists” but since he’s a Jew saying it about non-Jews, your moral compass seems to get a tad confused for some reason.

    You’re allowed to criticize Jews for behaving badly, as well as non-Jews. Really, you are.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  181. OUTFIDEL’s!

    ColonelHaiku (f2744f)

  182. Now you are forcing me to defend this dick,

    Well, this schmuck appreciates it at least.
    Subotai will of course deny it, but I’m as patriotic as he or any one else. That’s why, to answer his question, I stay here, in the country where I was born.

    The rest of your allegations about what I was saying are so out of whack with what I actually said that 1)I have to wonder at the reading comprehension abilities of at least some folks here and 2)I start to lose my temper. And when I start to lose my temper….well, it’s not a pretty sight. So I tend to walk away form situations like that.

    So I’m just going to walk away from this for now.
    I’ll only say that I’m not a bigot, I don’t hate Christians, I don’t take “is it good for the Jews” as my guiding principle, and I most certainly don’t hate America. But some people here don’t seem to understand that many of the 19th century accomplishments of Christians were not derived from what they read in the Bible, but instead from what they learned from Enlightenment sources. Which is why I said Christianity doesn’t really deserve the credit for those accomplishments, no matter how many gospel hymns were being sung by the people who did the dirty work of accomplishing them.

    Although I might add for Subotai’s information that “what is good for the Jews” and “what is good for the State of Israel” are increasingly two different things.

    And in reference to Thomas Jefferson, I was responding to a claim that he was a Christian–yes, he was a deist, and that was the point of my comment about him.

    So now I’m going to take my own advice about how to respond to someone who is provoking you–ignore the provocation. That’s the best response.

    So don’t expect to see me at least until my temper cools down some more.

    If, for God only know what reason, any of you wish to contact me, you can email me–the address is the nickname I use here at yahoo.com.

    kishnevi (394a94)

  183. Now it strikes me though that you’re worrying aboutChristian particularly American antiSemitism, of the right variety, which is present in Ron Paul
    rallies and assorted places, but the noxious associations of Imam Rauf, from the Perdana initiative which includes Malaysian prime minister Malathir, supports the Hamas IHH flotilla, which is in turn backed by Rashid Khalidi, has employed staff at the ICCthat have suggested jews were responsible for 9/11,
    we’re supposed not to get concerned about that, it’s only a provocation, what gives

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  184. be careful out there
    don’t take any them wooden
    nickels kish take care

    ColonelHaiku (f2744f)

  185. Sub/Kish

    To wax a little philosophical for a moment, I think one of the fundamental problems in Sub’s analysis is this. America is different from every other country in the world. In fact, depending on how you use the word “nation” you can accurately say that America is probably the only country that is not a nation.

    And it literally comes down to a deep historical confusion over what the term nation means. Before 1840 or so there was pretty much one definition. A nation was a group of people defined as having common ethnicity, religion, traditions, languages, etc. Generally a “national group” would then be expressed in the creation of a state, thus the nation-state. So the French circa 1800 shared an ethnicity, language, religion (I think) and thus were considered naturally a “nation.” And it was believed up until 1840 that a state needed a national identity to survive. That it was almost a law of nature.

    But in the 1840’s a number of German American philosophers in particular started to notice a few exceptions to that law of nature. First, of course was the “nation” of Germany, where they felt it was the most natural thing in the world for Germany to become a nation-state, but somehow it wasn’t. Italy had a similar problem. And then the other big contradiction of that theory: us. America had no common ethnicity, no common religion, etc. and yet somehow we were sticking together. And it only highlighted these issues that slavery, rather than ethnicity or denominational faith, was tearing us right down the middle.

    So what those philosophers came to think, and I think this is true, is that a certain ideology takes the place of ethnic, religious ties in America. I remember reading a story that imagined a communist takeover of America, where one man said (paraphrase), “if you make France a communist country its still France. But if you take away our freedom it’s not America anymore.” In doing so, they literally changed how English speakers understand the word “nation.” We hear someone in england described as a nationalist and we don’t understand what specifically they are describing. Or I should say, we sporadically understand that.

    The reason why it is easier to say that anti-isreali sentiment is really anti-Semitism in a thin disguise is that like most of the other “nations” in the world, isreal is uniquely identified with a certain “national” identity. Which is funny, because I don’t believe you have to be jewish to be a citizen, to vote, etc. But nonetheless isreal is considered the “jewish” state. And indeed those who hate isreal are much more likely to consider it a jewish nation—or “Zionist entity” as the favorite phrase of muslim dictators goes.

    By comparison, even most Christian Americans would recoil at calling us a Christian state. Now we are in the sense that we are and always have been a country chock full of Christians. But if by some mass conversion we all suddenly became jews, we wouldn’t say its not America anymore. In theory we could all convert to islam and still be America, so long as it is the islam of the policeman who gave his life for freedom and democracy I keep mentioning. Of course the deep contradiction is that in truth a lot of what this country is comes from our religion. For instance, Patrick Henry argued that we should support religious freedom “not because we are not Christians but because we are.” But imao, I think the answer is that the principles that Christ enunciated and we applied here are universal principles that people of other faiths feel compelled to believe as a result of their obvious truth. So maybe the best way to say it is Christianity created a shortcut to the America we founded in 1776 and mostly perfected by 1870.

    So that is a long way of saying you cannot equate America with christianity the same way you can equate isreal with Judaism. And its not just that, of course. I mean Alan Dershowitz will criticize isreal and its not merely the fact he is jewish that says he is not anti-semitic, but because of the content of his comments. Kish’s pattern is to say everything bad done by people who happened to be chrisitans is the fault of christianity, but everything good, including our founding and the abolition of slavery, is despite our christianity. When he praises things in American history but at the same time denies any credit to the Christians who did it as Christians, he is clearly being pro-american, and anti-christian.

    And Kish, yes, you have done that. the most obvious example of that was when you tried to claim christianity was not responsible for abolitionism. Sheesh.

    And you also say this:

    > But some people here don’t seem to understand that many of the 19th century accomplishments of Christians were not derived from what they read in the Bible, but instead from what they learned from Enlightenment sources

    But that asserts a certain expert knowledge about Christianity that you haven’t demonstrated. For instance you don’t seem to make the very easy connection between abolitionism and things like The Golden Rule. And while you can properly state exodus is a jewish story, that doesn’t change the fact that the story and its interpretation shapes christianity, too.

    I suspect the truth is that when you don’t see people citing the bible, you think they are not influenced by it. but you forget that Christians carry certain principles in their heart at all times by which they process everything else. For instance you can rightfully say that that the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth (section 1 only) , fifteenth, nineteenth and twenty fourth amendments were all specific rules derived from the golden rule. They might not have cited it, but when two Christians ask how you would want things done if you were accused of a crime, to name an example, you can be sure they are driven to ask that question by the golden rule.

    Maybe you have to be a believer to see all the Christian influences in these things, not because it makes you biased, but because it makes you understand Christianity in a way that a person with psychological distance cannot. For instance, I think I have mentioned that I have learning disabilities here. Personally I have a real love/hate relationship with shrinks in that regard. On one hand, they have devised a number of tests used to separate out the truly handicapped from the malingerers and are thus vital to being treated more fairly. On the other hand, when they try to analyze anything but the disability itself, its like you are reading an account of Jane Goodall with her chimps. They always stand outside of the disabled “subjects” and they fundamentally don’t get it, because they are not able to get in our heads.

    To be blunt, you sound like you can’t get in a christian’s head. And not being able to do that, you don’t see its influence. As I said up thread, I think you are trapped in your own perspective, unable to take another person’s view. Even when a Christian doesn’t specifically invoke their christianity, its influence is always there, like the oxygen in the air and the pull of gravity. Indeed, if you understood christianity well enough you would know why you might expect Christians to be hesitant to invoke the bible all the time when making laws and constitutions.

    I mean you don’t have to be disabled, to return to that metaphor, to believe that government is fundamentally stupid, that it tends to go to one size fits all solutions that don’t actually work for everyone, that in dealing with the government you tend to be disempowered and they treat the people they are supposed to serve like dirt, and that you cannot trust the government to treat you fairly and without discrimination. Yeah, you don’t have to have my background as a handicapped guy who faced discrimination in the public schools that was so severe that I dropped out, to believe all that. But having that kind of life experience sort of hits you over the head with those truths. And you don’t have to be Christians, for instance, to say that gee, maybe we should not be discriminating against people in the right to vote, but having that faith does kind of hit you over the head with the injustice of it.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  186. Subotai will of course deny it, but I’m as patriotic as he or any one else.

    The words you write here say otherwise. Let’s go to the video tape!

    while the Nazis organized it, the killings of the Holocaust were done in large part by German Christians and (in the Slavic countries, especially) by local Christians, many of whom obstensively combined Christianity with their politics. Jews were of course saved from the Nazis and their allied by Christians, but the number of so-called Christians who joined in the killings far outweighed the number of Christians who worked to save lives.

    The point being that Christianity has enough dead bodies (and slaves–what do you think was used to justify the African slave trade?)on its hands that any Christian should not hurry up to condemn other religions on those grounds.

    the Enlightenment was based on replacing divine revelation and authority (the Bible and the Church) with human reason as the final arbiter of value. Christian values did not free the slaves, make women equal, etc. Medieval Europe was full of slaves and even more full of women who were not equal to men. If Christianity was the source of freeing slaves and making women equal, then why did it not happen well before the Englightenment?

    The problem with the Auschwitz convent was that it was to be specifically in memory of Catholic victims of Auschwitz (of whom of course there were plenty–not only converted Jews, but Poles and others) while ignoring the fact that while plenty of Gentiles died there, the overwhelming number of victims were Jews.

    much of the good things you specifically claim for Christianity where not done from Christian values but from Enlightenment values that Christians had learned from the Enlightenment. And the foundation of the Enlightenment was the Renaissance revival of Greco-Roman literature, philosophy and learning, not anything in the Bible.

    Cordoba was a place where the Jews were a lot safer and more prosperous under Muslim rule than almost any place in Christian Europe, and from which the Christians, by means of riots, persecution and eventually outright exile, forced them out during a period that is conventionally dated 1391-1492==and one of the few safe places those Jews who did choose exile instead of forced conversion in 1492 found was in Muslim lands.

    So you see, from a Jewish point of view, Cordoba in Muslim hands was far superior to Cordoba in Christian hands.

    I said a whole bunch of Christians were involved (most of them willingly). I did not say that was Christianity’s fault–other than the fact that Christian institutions in Europe contributed to all that with over a thousand years of official anti-Semitism that was finally rejected after WWII.

    Your own words condemn you. You’re an out and out bigot whose only concern is what’s good for Jews. If you are as patriotic as anyone here, you managed not to demonstrate that even slightly in your words here.

    some people here don’t seem to understand that many of the 19th century accomplishments of Christians were not derived from what they read in the Bible, but instead from what they learned from Enlightenment sources.

    And according to you, those “Enlightenment sources” were just cribbing from “Greco-Roman literature” anyway!

    now I’m going to take my own advice about how to respond to someone who is provoking you

    What’s “provoking” you are your own hateful words which you’ve strewn all over this page. Try looking inside yourself for a change, if you’re capable of it. Try pondering on the Jewish and Muslim involvement in the slave trade rather than just the European Christian. Try opening your mind, Mr Enlightenment Fan.

    Subotai (20be2e)

  187. Well I don’t go that far, he’s entitled to his point of view, but it seems terribly misguided, worse yet when introduced to new information, he doesn’t adjust accordingly, this is more true on other threads with different topics, he is sincere
    unlike some of the other folks, that I’ve troll
    hammered out of existence.

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  188. I think one of the fundamental problems in Sub’s analysis is this. America is different from every other country in the world. In fact, depending on how you use the word “nation” you can accurately say that America is probably the only country that is not a nation.

    That’s a point of view, Aaron. Of course, it’s a left-wing POV. America is not in fact “different from every other country in the world”.


    the other big contradiction of that theory: us. America had no common ethnicity, no common religion, etc.

    Yes, Aaron, yes it had. America had a common ethnicity and a common religion.

    The reason why it is easier to say that anti-isreali sentiment is really anti-Semitism in a thin disguise is that like most of the other “nations” in the world, isreal is uniquely identified with a certain “national” identity.

    Are you Jewish yourself, Aaron?

    You come across as one of those annoying “Christian Zionists”, so-called, who are not actually all that Christian in practice. In particular, I don’t think America much needs people like you “defending” it by defining it as just some place on the map, the anti-nation, etc.

    Subotai (20be2e)

  189. even most Christian Americans would recoil at calling us a Christian state .. if by some mass conversion we all suddenly became jews, we wouldn’t say its not America anymore. In theory we could all convert to islam and still be America, so long as it is the islam of the policeman who gave his life for freedom and democracy

    Aaron, your America is not one I even remotely recognize. This is the sort of tripe I’d expect to hear from some radical left-wing professor.

    Your “America” has nothing to do with the actual American people. We could all be replaced by tentacled aliens from Antares and you’d still be telling yourself, “Hey, it’s still America! They believe in freedom and democracy!”

    Believing in freedom and democracy is not the definition of “American”. (Just as well – damn few Americans these days seem to believe in these things)

    Subotai (20be2e)

  190. A.W. – It is true that America is a majority Christian country, but I would identify myself as an American before identifying myself as a Christian. I can’t speak with respect to the percentage of others who would do the same.

    We keep hearing that all Muslims do not support terror, jihad and the forced conversion or domination of nonbelievers, yet we see few of such Muslims condemning such conduct or concepts. People keep asking where are the moderate Muslims? Some of the problems lie in the verses of the Koran and the Sura which seem extreme. Kishnevi asks why we do not believe what the Imam spearheading the project says. My response is that it is in conflict with his other public writings and utterances, not an uncommon occurrence for extremist Muslims attempting to curry favor in the West.

    He responds that we are bigoted against all Islam. Perhaps, perhaps not. My answer is to show me why we should not be. In majority Islamic country, countries following Islamic law, there is no separation between church and state, an anathema to American principles. The Imam proposing the 9/11 Mosque favors this. I do not, no matter what religion.

    Kishnevi’s response may well be that that is not the view of all Muslims. My counter is then let them come forward and tell us that. He has dismissed or avoided addressing the few Muslims who have come forward to point out that Cordoba house is indeed a bad idea and a slap in the face to America.

    In response to his recitation of a supposed litany of Christian sins over time, I would give him the same response he uses for Muslims, that is not my Christianity that justifies those actions. His fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity and intellectual dishonesty just akes him a plain old religious bigot.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  191. Sub

    > America is not in fact “different from every other country in the world”.

    Well, on second reading I suppose that there might be one other nation like us, but I am at loss to think of even one. But I am sorry, are you claiming that the liberals believe in American exceptionalism? Because since 9-11 every time I have heard anyone say America is different, that we are special, that we don’t do things the way the rest of the world does and that is a good thing, it is conservatives who say it. its liberals who want judges to be influenced by international law, who say we should be restrained by the UN and so on.

    For instance, would you say that William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection is a liberal? http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/08/we-are-not-exceptional-get-over-it.html Because that post is pretty clear he believes we are an exceptional nation, different from most.

    I really don’t know where you are coming from saying that.

    > America had a common ethnicity and a common religion.

    No, we haven’t. From the very beginning we have been a mix of Scotch, Irish, German, Dutch, English, black people, native Americans and on and on. The first person to die in our revolution was black. Before it was called New York, it was New Amsterdam, a dutch colony, and no, the English didn’t kill all the colonists when they took over. Meanwhile Mecklenburg was settled largely by Scottish and Scotch-irish people, as indeed much of the south was, and claims they declared independence from England before the rest of us did. Now there is good reason to doubt that claim but there is no question that a sizable population existed that were basically Scottish in origin. Meanwhile in other places, the English dominated.

    Nor have we been religiously monolithic, either. Maryland was founded as a specifically catholic colony and indeed most of the colonies had an official religion and they did not all agree on which one would apply. Now admittedly most of them could be called Christian, but for the theory of the nation state, that was not good enough; you had to be the same kind of Christian.

    So that’s just not historically true what you said. We have never been ethnically or religiously homogenous.

    > Are you Jewish yourself, Aaron?

    Nope. But I have literally seen anti-semitism first hand because some people assume I am due to my first name.

    > In particular, I don’t think America much needs people like you “defending” it by defining it as just some place on the map, the anti-nation, etc.

    When did I say that? we are the fucking greatest nation on earth. I have happily quoted Fred Thompson who rightly said that America “has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other nations in the history of the world combined.” I mean i can show you where I quoted him to Harvey over at imao, in a find the best fred Thompson quote and called it awesome.

    And we are a nation. But we are defined not by race, or religion but by ideology.

    Indeed I don’t even get that criticism in the context of your comment. Didn’t you just say that American exceptionalism is a left wing view? But then you turn around and accuse me of treating America as just one more nation on the map? Huh?

    > Believing in freedom and democracy is not the definition of “American”. (Just as well – damn few Americans these days seem to believe in these things)

    Well, Abraham Lincoln would disagree with you on that point. Here is him talking about the declaration of independence:

    > We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty—or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,—with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,—we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves—we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

    And the history geek can’t resist quoting the rest of the speech:

    > Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of “don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down” [Douglas’s “popular sovereignty” position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice—“Hit him again”], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge [Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices—“me” “no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of “no, no,”]

    > Let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026664.php

    As that speech demonstrates, also, there were those who felt otherwise. The nadir of that attitude came in Dredd Scott v. Sandford, where Chief Justice Roger Taney (easily our worst supreme court justice) declared that:

    > The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

    And in another part of the opinion:

    > [black people] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

    In short Dredd Scott held that a black man was not a citizen, and could not be made a citizen. As such he could not sue for his right to freedom. The decision is more famous for declaring that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, but in fact that holding was wholly gratuitous after holding that Scott had no right to sue at all. As for the declaration, Taney had this to say:

    > The general words above quoted [from the Declaration of Independence] would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

    So he concludes that in fact the declaration of independence applies to white people only.

    In short, there was a point in dispute at the time. Was every person, regardless of ethnicity or religion, an American? Or not? But after the civil war, the issue was officially settled in the constitution itself. The very first clause in the 14th Amendment states that every person born here (with some slight limitations) is an American citizen. So the view of Roger Taney was rejected and the view of Lincoln was accepted.

    Please tell me you are not throwing in your lott with Roger Taney. Please tell me you are not saying that if you are not the right color or ethnicity, or religion you are not an American. Because our constitution itself begs to differ.

    I am really having trouble believing you are writing what you are writing.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  192. daley

    well, there is no question as to two points.

    One some muslims can be very good people. i constantly tell the story of an iraqi policeman who gave his life on the big iraqi election day a few years back, holding a bomber in place until they both exploded. (i don’t call the bomber a suicide bomber because the man was retarded and there is a real dispute about whether he did this knowingly and voluntarily). at his funeral, the father of the cop said his son died in jihad–that is the jihad for democracy and freedom.

    So no doubt that some muslims are good, noble even and claim islam inspires that nobility.

    But i think its also hard to question that we haven’t heard nearly enough from them.

    Now its reasonable to wonder what that means about islam. But as for the ultimate question, is islam on balance a good or bad religion, i will frankly admit i don’t know and i have tried to keep my comments appropriately non-committal on that subject. i know there are bad muslims. i know there are some things done and taught allegedly in the name of Allah that are downright evil. And i know that Mohammed slept with a child who was 9 years old, so i think their chief prophet (pbuh)* was evil.

    But i also know there are good people who do good in the name of Allah. And i won’t even begin to guess who represents “true” islam.

    And yeah, kishy was not being fair to Christians.

    ————–

    * pbuh = pedophilia be upon him.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  193. Here’s a nice piece by Roger Simon at Pajamas Media being pursued by the “truth tellers” at CAIR for daring to speak his mind about Islam.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  194. Daley,

    you know after the mohammed cartoon controversy, if Cair is ONLY denouncing someone, i consider that progress. 🙂

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  195. God bless ya, AW.

    You get what this country is about.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  196. A.W. – False expressions of religious belief to disguise quests for wealth and power such as many of the adventures kishnevi describes do not make them legitimate expressions of Christianity. In Islam, however, Sharia anticipates a worldwide caliphate, which he will not acknowledge.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  197. Please tell me you are not throwing in your lott with Roger Taney. Please tell me you are not saying that if you are not the right color or ethnicity, or religion you are not an American. Because our constitution itself begs to differ.

    A) Your comments are way too long. You are swamping us in pixels here. Why not set up your own blog?

    b) The Constitution says nothing, zip, nada, about the color, ethnicity, or religion necessary to be an American. As with so many other things, that is left up to the American people themselves to decide. It’s not a Constitutional matter, at all.

    In your devotion to the idea that the Constitution says all the things you want it to, you are not that different from Judge Walker.

    Subotai (bd1b5d)

  198. cause since 9-11 every time I have heard anyone say America is different, that we are special, that we don’t do things the way the rest of the world does and that is a good thing, it is conservatives who say it

    No, it is neo-cons who say it. This idea that America is the “exceptional nation” is thoroughly unconservative.


    For instance, would you say that William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection is a liberal? http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/08/we-are-not-exceptional-get-over-it.html Because that post is pretty clear he believes we are an exceptional nation, different from most.

    Since his post consists of about six very brief sentences it is hard to tell where he is coming from there.

    From the very beginning we have been a mix of Scotch, Irish, German, Dutch, English, black people, native Americans and on and on.

    From the very beginning, Germany had a mixture of French, Jews, Cechs, Poles and so on. Does that mean that Germany was always a “proposition nation” as well?

    But we are defined not by race, or religion but by ideology.

    You’ve wandered into the wrong country. You missed your turn off at communist Russia, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Jacobin France. All of these were ideological nations. Being an ideological nation is not the exceptional thing you imagine it to be. It’s not the good thing you imagine it to be either.

    Judging by your self-congratulatory tone you actually believe yourself to be standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. But the ideological nation, the proposition nation, is as wicked an idea as has ever sprung from the mind of man.

    You have the audacity to quote me the Constitutional provisions for citizenship – has it somehow escaped your notice that the 14th nowhere places any ideological test whatsoever on citizenship?

    What do you think should be done with people, born in America, who reject the “ideology” which you think is the defining trait of our country? Should they all (me, and most commenters on this site) be deported? Are not most Americans “unAmerican” as the “ideological nation” adherents define the term?

    That’s why you can blather on about how “America” could still exist independently of the American people. Because “America” to you is not a country or nation at all. It’s some abstract Platonic ideal of what you think a country should be.

    You are a heretic, a person committing a category error. You seek to transfer to a country qualities which no country should ever have. Countries are not supposed to be ideological. Countries are not supposed to represent a perverted religious impulse.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with those impulses but the way you seek to express them is foolish at best, destructive a worst.

    Subotai (bd1b5d)

  199. Abraham Lincoln would disagree with you on that point. Here is him talking about the declaration of independence

    That’s the same Lincoln who favored returning the freed slaves to Africa, right?

    You’re are also wandering pretty far afield here. What set you off of this Civil War/anti-slavery rant? It’s not a reply to anything I’ve said.

    Subotai (bd1b5d)

  200. for the theory of the nation state, that was not good enough; you had to be the same kind of Christian.

    Germany is a nation state made up of a Catholic south and a Protestant north. I guess they they never heard of your rules.

    The same is true for every other nation. All of them had and have a dominant group, all of them had and have minority groups as well.

    Subotai (bd1b5d)

  201. Sub

    So bottom line, if you aren’t the right ethnicity and religion you are not a “real” American, even if the constitution calls you a citizen?

    Well, what pray tell faith and ethnicity gets this pass?

    The rest of it… you either get it or you don’t. I can’t help you.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  202. So bottom line, if you aren’t the right ethnicity and religion you are not a “real” American, even if the constitution calls you a citizen?

    You’re as stupid and dishonest as any lefty troll.

    Here’s a crazy idea – why don’t you respond to the things I actually say instead of to your own twisted fantasies?

    What is with your scare quotes around “real” Americans? I’ve searched all my comments in this thread looking for my mention of ‘”real” Americans’.

    I never made any. You concocted that out of your own poisoned imagination, as if trying to prove what I said about the evils of ideological thinking.

    Subotai (e3f074)

  203. Sub

    okay, then i misunderstood you. what are you trying to say? You say we are a nation in the sense that other nations are. so are you saying that we have to have that ethnic, religious unity or not.

    I am not trying to put words in your mouth, i have given you alot of the benefit of the doubt, but frankly you haven’t cleared it up. if you don’t believe that real americans are a certain ethnicity or religion, you have done a really shitty job explaining what you do mean.

    Which, hey, sometimes people do. but big picture, what do you think makes a person an american. not just what the constitution says but what does it take for you to consider someone an american. and you can say, “exactly what the constitution says.”

    But i really am asking and i am not trying to troll.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1604 secs.