I’d like to begin this post with two definitions borrowed from Dictionary.com:
________________________________________________
can
–auxiliary verb
1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
6. to have the possibility: A coin can land on either side.
________________________________________________
should
–auxiliary verb
1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.
________________________________________________
While many English words have multiple definitions, you’ll notice that the ones most relevant to the following text I have highlighted in red above. (For those not reading this on my actual blog page, I’m referring to definitions #4 under “can” and #3 under “should”) Keep these words and their respective highlighted definitions in mind as you read on. The reason will become clear.
So a lot of fuss is being made about the intention of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to establish the Cordoba House (now called Park51), the proposed Islamic cultural center that will include a mosque inside, within several blocks of Ground Zero in New York City. I will be the first to admit that I am one of the dissenting voices that opposes this idea, which should come as no surprise to those who know me well. My general disdain and mistrust of Islam clearly guides my opinions in such matters, and this situation is no exception. The notion of an Islamic facility so close to Ground Zero is something that riles me up and brings about some pretty powerful feelings of disgust.
There are those on the other side of the argument who insist that Islam itself did not bring down the towers and slay over 2900 people, so why should all of Islam and its followers be held accountable for the actions of a few fanatics? They would argue that those fanatics were not true Muslims, and that they did not follow the teachings nor the tenets of true Islam. They would argue that those terrorists merely hijacked Islam in order to justify their actions and further their political goals, not to further any religious ones.
To those people who love to apologize for our enemies' actions, I would point out that in the minds of the terrorists themselves, they were very much doing their deeds in the name of Islam. Deep down in their black hearts, they truly believed their actions to be sanctified and justified in the eyes of Allah and Mohammed the Prophet. We can argue all day about whether these individuals represent true Muslims, but what really matters is that what the terrorists did, they did because of their wholehearted belief that it was all for the glory of Allah. I find it interesting that this little tidbit is so readily dismissed by apologists in any kind of discussion on the matter.
I keep reading and hearing that it makes no sense to admonish a world full of around 1.57 billion mostly peace-loving moderate Muslims just because 19 extremists perpetrated 9/11. The statistical game starts to get played next, and then we are told that of all the Muslims in the world, something less than 1% of them are supposedly radicalized extremists. Well, as we all know, statistics can be obtained (or conjured up) from anywhere to support any side of any argument, so I tend to take all statistical "evidence" with a grain of salt in disputes such as this one. One of my favorite political quips that I stole from somewhere unknown is: "Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot?" That about sums up my faith in statistical evidence. You never know how much it's been tweaked, fudged, or adjusted to suit a given argument. Even catering to the apologists and playing their statistical game, 1% of 1.57 billion Muslims amounts to around 15.7 million radical extremists, if I’ve moved my decimal point correctly. Let's be generous and say only 5 percent of those radicalized elements are likely to engage in violent acts. Well, you still end up with around 785,000 potential terrorists out there. I would be willing to bet that the number of potential radicals that would readily engage in violent jihad is probably much higher than that, but I'm shooting from the hip on that and don't have any legitimate (or bogus) statistical evidence to back that up.
I guess when it comes to my opposition to the Cordoba House/Park51 project, I suppose it may be so strong because it's hard to know whether the inhabitants or visitors to the place may or may not be among those possible 785,000+ bad guys. And I've argued for years that just because a given Muslim doesn't engage in violent jihad, doesn't mean he/she doesn't sympathize with the cause and support such endeavors in other ways. The Islamic practice of zagat (charitable donations for the "poor" in Islamic nations) provides all kinds of funding for violent acts on the part of terrorist organizations. This has been discovered time and time again whenever our intelligence agencies follow the money trail of terrorist organizations. Much of that money is often obtained through zagat. Hamas and Hezbollah themselves have for years been working to win over the hearts and minds of their own enslaved societies by providing for their basic humanitarian needs wherever possible in the occupied territories, Lebanon, etc. It's a strategy that has worked well for them and their twisted goals, and "pious" Muslims the world over fork over zagat under the pretense that it is going to help the poor and needy, when in fact much of that money ends up funding the purchase of weapons and ammunition to perpetuate violent jihad.
I personally have a hard time believing that Cordoba House/Park51 will truly be the wonderful "beacon of cultural understanding and healing" that it purports it will be. My expectation is that there will be a great deal of anti-Western and/or anti-American propaganda taking place within its walls. I can hear the cries of the wise-ass left jumping in already: "Would you expect any less from the Muslim population after so much hatred and racism has been directed towards them over this mosque?" Well, let it be known that this anti-western sentiment has been around a lot longer than this mosque controversy. I believe that Islam at its purest is fundamentally incompatible with our western ideals. This is why I don't see the point in establishing yet another beach-head for our enemies to springboard a whole new wave of Islamist propaganda. And in the eyes of the radical extremists in the Islamic world, the establishment of this Islamic center at this location will be viewed as a secondary victory after 9/11. Let the crescent flag fly high! They may as well have just planted their flag atop the debris pile of the World Trade Center towers on 9/12/01 with the full blessing of the liberal left, all in the name of freedom of religion. I mean, after all it IS Islam's right to slaughter thousands of innocent infidels (and a number of their fellow Muslims) for the sake of their religion, right? We certainly can't dictate to Muslims how to prosecute their faith or their beliefs because that would clearly interfere with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. We are apparently obligated to let any religion do whatever it wants (without restraint) because the Constitution apparently says so. I suppose this means that satanic cults that would sacrifice human babies as a matter of procedure must be protected to the bitter end as well. We can't have the law telling the Satan worshippers to stop slaughtering innocent babies, because that would interfere with the Satan worshippers' ability to practice their freedom of religion.
This constant misapplication of the Constitution's content to sickly justify, or apologize for, radical Islam is becoming more systematic all the time. Radical Muslims know full well that they can exploit our own Constitution and our belief system against us, and they're doing so at every turn. And we're letting it happen! The problem is that in the interest of political correctness, more and more Americans are simply choosing to be politically correct rather than falling back on their own common sense. How closely are you going to cling to your ideals to make your point? Are your ideals so important that you're willing to allow an Islamic center to impose itself on Ground Zero, which will without question become a springboard for more rhetoric and violence against innocent people? When the first terror cell is born from Cordoba House/Park51 that successfully kills one person, two persons, or a dozen persons in the name of Islam, are you lefty liberals going to be perfectly okay with that because you stuck to your guns and "defended one of your most precious ideals of freedom of religion"? This is the point in the argument where the lefties chime in and ever-so-poignantly point out that, "the moment we compromise our most precious principles and ideals is the moment that we let the terrorists win". What a PATHETIC way to justify their own complete lack of common sense and their utter disregard of the obvious. That precious phrase of theirs sounds so noble on the surface, but when you peel it back it's essentially just handing over complacency to our most vicious enemies on a silver platter. Then after some terrorist catastrophe happens that can be directly attributed to their weak political correctness and their tenacious hold on their noble ideals, they'll be the first to find fault in someone else instead of looking in the mirror.
Freedom of religion is a dodgy topic, and it's sometimes a thin line between what is or is not a religion. And lately, more often than not, I see the liberal left abhorring any religion of any kind. This is surprising in light of the fact that they're so adamantly defending freedom of religion and waving it as their Constitutional banner in the Cordoba House/Park51 controversy, when freedom of religion and/or the Constitutionality of the debate is not even the real point of contention. I'm not sure why the left is so intent on defending religions in one breath while so readily denouncing them all in the next, but this is the way of things. I've read the anti-religion rhetoric online countless times where the left is concerned.
One of the biggest proponents of the Cordoba House/Park51 of late has been none other than New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He went so far as to say, "...there is nowhere in the five boroughs that is off limits to any religion." Well BRAVO, Mr. Bloomberg. What a lovely thing to say, and what a wonderfully pluralistic notion. Let's just build that Islamic terror cell right next to Ground Zero -- I'm glad you’re so confident there will not be any anti-Western propaganda preached from the imam's pulpit in this center of cultural understanding.
Heck, by Mr. Bloomberg's logic, we should build a Pastafarian church on the other side of the wall from the Kaaba shrine in Mecca. It's only fair. That way, Pastafarians can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster freely and openly in the lovely, tolerant Saudi Arabian culture and sing kum-bay-yah with all of those tolerant, peaceful Muslims next door. The Islamic world is such a lovely place, isn't it?
As soon as Bloomberg and his supporters come back down from la-la land, let me know. I cannot wait for the reality to set in for them regarding what this "cultural center" is going to promote from within its walls. It won't be a message of peace and understanding, I am confident of that.
And for the record, for all of you apologist lefties that keep calling my side of the debate "fear mongering", please be advised that I don't fear Islam. I simply loathe it and refuse to capitulate to its demands like you cowards do. There's a big difference.
Everyone, the crux of the matter is simply this. The question is not whether they CAN build the mosque at this location. Nobody is really arguing the Constitutionality of this matter. The law says the mosque CAN be built. The question is whether or not they SHOULD. The liberal left keeps waving the Constitution in everyone's faces and equating the opposition's arguments with arguments against the Constitution. This is not the case. If Muslims are so peace-loving and tolerant, then perhaps they should show a little bit of this supposed tolerance and understanding and choose a less sensitive location elsewhere to construct their mosque. Clearly, they have no interest in doing so. Once again, it's Islam's way or the highway. “Back down, lowly infidel: your law says I can build it wherever I see fit.” I'm sick of this nation catering to every whim of Islam. You should be too. The establishment of the Cordoba House/Park51 facility in such close proximity to Ground Zero flies in the face of freedom of religion because Islam itself does not ALLOW freedom of religion. In their minds, it is THE religion and can accept no other.
From that perspective, opposing this particularly inappropriate mosque can be seen as protecting the freedom of all other religions, because Islam certainly does not seem to embrace any such religious freedom, unless of course you're referring to Islam itself. In Islam, one is free to openly practice one religion: Islam. It is THE only religion -- just ask any devout Muslim, you silly doomed infidels. Dhimmitude awaits you all, with big, sharp, pointy teeth. Got jizya?
I scarcely know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteFirst, although you abhor it...your sentence "very much doing their deeds in the name of Islam" is misconstrued. Doing their deeds in the name of THEIR Islam would actually be a more correct statement. And there is a difference, though your writing seems to defend your stance that there isn't.
The KKK were, in their belief, the most true of Christians...and the Nazi's believed the same. Are we to believe, by your terse and committed defense and explanation that all Christians, by the sheer nature of being Christian, also share the beliefs of these two monstrosities and are not to be trusted? Down deep in places we don't talk about in Bible study? If I substituted Christian for every Islam/Muslim in your writing and substituted KKK and/or Nazi for terrorists or jihadists would it still hold water for you? Are is this logic only confined to Muslims? Are all white, male Christians sympathetic to the KKK? to the Nazi's?
You don't fear Islam and I respect that, I don't either. But please don't call me or any other ... "apologist leftists" a coward just because we don't subscribe to your methodology on the subject, however well written and defended it might be. To assume apologist or sympathetic or even empathetic = cowardice is a rather far leap, don't you think?
The downfall of your argument is the assumption or observance that the leftist/non-conservative movement is non-religious. That's simply not true. And actually, out of all of this, that's what makes me the most sad. I thought you smarter than to make such sweeping assumptions.
Please take my reply in the same spirit that your blog was written. Had i more time I would comment at length....
The 19 9/11 hijackers worshipped in mosques in Europe, in the U.S., and elsewhere, right alongside their "moderate" brethren, praying with them and listening to the same imams make the same sermons. They knelt side-by-side with the moderates, praying among their Muslim brothers. If "their Islam" is so far removed from this supposed mainstream moderate Islam I keep hearing about, then how is it that these radicals weren't turned around when spending time around their "benevolent" brethren? Because we are outsiders to their faith, we will never know the true content of the sermons given within any of those mosque walls. But it certainly makes one wonder just how moderate the "moderate majority" really is.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments regarding the KKK and the Nazis are certainly viable. I will concede that every religion has its fanatics -- I believe I've said as much in some of my prior blogs. But you know what? Here's where there's a noteworthy difference. Since the Nazis were, for the most part, defeated, and since the KKK hasn't had a recent lynching that I can recall, I don't recall Christianity on the larger scale really having imposed itself upon the world in an oppressive manner in recent times (within the last few centuries). There was a time when the Nazis certainly could have done so, and there was a time when the KKK was highly influential. I tend to think those examples are far less a threat now than they used to be (although neither movement is dead, obviously). The same cannot be said of Islam. When is the last time we've seen a Christian suicide bomber strap on a vest of explosives and blow up a bus, or throw acid in the face of fellow Christian women, or fly airplanes into buildings? Exactly....you haven't. And please don't wave Timothy MacVeigh as an example -- his actions were motivated more by revenge against the U.S. government for Koresh's Waco debacle. I suppose we have to consider David Koresh himself as a potential example of Christianity gone bad. As I recall, he thought he more or less WAS God. You'll notice that whenever elements of Christianity in this day and age opt to go extremist, they have to do so by splintering off and forming private little sects, cults, and such because mainstream Christianity won't have them. I don't think we can say the same for Islam. While I wasn't there, I'm willing to bet that Mohammed Atta got a friendly, brotherly pat on the back as he left his European mosque(s) and headed off to America to wage jihad. Allahu Akbar, brother.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteMosques worldwide preach intolerance and hatred of the West, and you know it full well. Madrassas begin brainwashing children all across Pakistan at a very early age. Palestinians teach their children that Jews are the devil using cartoons on TV; cartoons which promote suicidal attacks as a matter of course and personal responsibility. It's not like the extremist mosque or madrassa is a rare thing. Yes, Christians have crackpot churches and sects, but how often are they strapping on explosives as compared to our Muslim "friends"?
If this moderate majority is so moderate, then I would expect far fewer examples of extremist behavior. But we can find Islamic oppression at the root of many of the world's violent conflicts today. I'm not sure we can say the same of Christianity. In my mind, this is where your argument falls woefully flat.
Now as far as equating a far left viewpoint with cowardice, it's not such a far leap if you're readily prepared to back down to every demand that Islam throws your way, including the establishment of Park51. This center is a prime example of Islam thumbing its nose at us. If they actually bridge gaps and promote understanding among different faiths/cultures from within its walls, then fine -- I lose the bet and I'll give you a dollar. Chances are pretty good I'll get to keep my dollar. Imam Rauf isn't the saint he's purporting to be, if you do a little reading on him.
I don't believe your insistence that I called the leftist movement non-religious is entirely accurate. I was pointing out the inconsistency with which the left seems to make its arguments. Many on the left bash all religions, while slapping us in the face with a copy of the Constitution to argue about the right to have freedom of religion. Obviously, you have atheists, agnostics, and people of faith among your ranks. This is likely where some of those inconsistent arguments come from. I'm more concerned with how readily the left is willing to give in to (and apologize for) Islam, while at the same time removing Christ from Christmas and removing God from the pledge of allegiance. And all of this while screaming for freedom of religion.
I don't apologize for my opinions. I regret that they may offend those I call friends, but I refuse to apologize for my opinions and beliefs. I believe I am entitled to those. The Constitution says so.
For centuries? Really? last time I checked both the Nazi's and the KKK were quite active in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's....hardly eons ago, dear. And I'm sure they got healthy atta boys from like-minded Christians and non. I'm sure they "masked" their hatred quite well and knelt right alongside their Christian brothers while wearing white robes at night and goose-stepping on the weekend. By your account every Muslim in the Mosque knew what Atta was doing and are guilty by ommission? Then is every friend of McVeigh's guilty, as well? They MUST have known.
ReplyDeleteSo your suggestion, for us Christians, is that if the Mosques are promoting hatred towards the west (which is NOT true of all Mosques, have you been? I have.)...we should do the same to them. Eye for an eye? How very Muslim of you. So the answer is, in fact, to promote and support hatred, contempt and malice towards every person in the Middle East? That's the answer? You despise them for their belief system on us, yet promote the same against them, it's ludicrous and the cycle continues.
Neither my God nor Allah supports this, I can say that with 100% certainty.
There are Christians who think you can't cut your hair or wear pants as a woman. There are Christians who believe in transubstantiation and those that don't. Those that condemn homosexuality and abortion. They are bombing abortion clinics and beating gays. Because I'm a Christian, am I, too, to be condemned for their belief system. The Church is, in fact, teaching "hatred" for these issues, by your account, am I to be held liable for these atrocities? Your argument holds no real merit for me.
My problem isn't that you have your opinions nor that you do don't apologize for them. I actually support that. My problem is that more and more people are starting to think like you...and there is a broader acceptable judgment and stereotyping in this country that I find disgusting.
What's next? All black people are criminals because of the neighborhood they live in? I mean, they know it's going on, so they're clearly guilty.
How about this one? All white males should be considered in every incidence of pedophilia. The percentages do dictate that the overwhelming predominance of pedophiles are white males...so therefore I now hold you all suspect.
Well said Brian. I can tell by what you say that you have been doing your homework on the Islamic religion. I am now reading the book, "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel who has first hand experience in dealing with Muslims. As a child her home was blown up by Muslims because her family refused to convert to their religion. There is NO tolerance for any other belief system with the Muslims. Here is a quote from the Koran itself, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war" (Koran 9:5) "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah(non-Muslims) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone." (Koran 8:39) Does that sound tolerant to you?????
ReplyDeleteBecca,
ReplyDeleteSo the Nazis and the KKK have been "quite active" in recent times, eh? You may need to better define "quite active". Apparently the American press (who typically LOVES a good blood-lead headline) must be completely ignoring their heinous deeds, because I don't see them in the headlines EVERY DAY the way I do Islamic terrorism. Pick a day, any day, and I can find some form of Islamic absolutism at work in the news. Again, I CANNOT say the same about Christianity. And admit it: much of the American free press leans towards liberalism a bit more than conservativism. That would make the press more apt to side with your argument, and to find at least as much fault with Christianity as it does with Islam. But the articles just aren't there in the same quantities. Islam wins hands down when it comes to reported extremist incidents. I don't think that's coincidence or bias. That's just how the facts play out.
Your attempts to equate my disdain for Islam to an obligatory disdain for Christianity in order to illustrate your point do not work. You seem to have spent a lot of time trying to convince me of how evil Christianity is, and you completely ignored the fact that I conceded there are certainly examples of extremist Christians with violent intentions. Sorry, but one or two abortion clinics getting bombed or vandalized per year holds NO comparison to the one or two bombings PER DAY that we all see happening around the world at the hands of Muslims, each of which usually result in around a dozen fatalities and dozens more wounded. Muslim extremists have the edge on all of their enemies on sheer numbers alone, and those numbers are growing.
And we're supposed to sit idly by and accept the growing threat because it's the politically correct thing to do? Oh, wait, I can't call it a growing threat -- I forgot. Heaven forbid I be accused of fear mongering or Islamophobia. I don't know what watered-down, Americanized, cushy version of Islam you've been exposed to, but the brand of Islam that's coming our way (if we let it) is anything BUT tolerant or peaceful. We've been lucky in this country that we haven't seen more Islamic extremist attacks. That's a testament to our intelligence agencies and our troops on the ground doing their best to ensure that the threat is kept at bay as much as possible. But like anything else where Muslims are involved: give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Cater to the demand that hijab be allowed today, and we'll be catering to the demand the following day that the U.S. Government provide prayer mats for all who want one. After we've given that small demand the attention it didn't deserve, we'll next be forced to include signs in every building across the country that point out which way is east for prayer time. Once we've given in to that "small" consideration (at taxpayer expense), we'll next be asked to ensure that all restaurants include cuisine on the menu that is sensitive to Islamic restrictions. Once that's done, we'll be told that a Muslim eating in the same restaurant as someone who wishes to enjoy a pork sandwich is not acceptable, since Muslims do not eat pork. So this will require all restaurants have a separate room so that Muslims do not have to be exposed to pork products, or lowly infidels consuming pork products. Once we've gotten that out of the way, we'll next be told that American girls cannot wear revealing clothing anymore because it might just offend a nearby sensitive Muslim who apparently can't be troubled to look the other way. A minimal code of dress would need to be established for that purpose, including full head-to-toe coverings even when spending time at the beach. Okay, good. NOW we're on our way toward a more palatable, tolerant American culture that is acceptable to Islam.
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteLet's continue. Once we've provided all citizens with prayer mats (at taxpayer expense), we can now capitulate to the Islamic demand that all employers must provide prayer breaks five times a day so that Muslim worshippers can go to their shiny new mosque rooms in the office and orient themselves eastward with those snazzy new signs, plop their U.S.-issue prayer mat down and get down to praying some more for the demise of all infidel scumbags. When lunch time comes, the office break room for "Muslims only" (at their request) will provide separation from anything American that might offend them.
When the Muslims leave the office-mosque for the day and head home, they mustn't be exposed to men without beards on the streets or in other cars. Beards must now become the norm. We Americans, because we're so tolerant, forgiving, politically correct, and understanding of ALL faiths and cultures, will clearly have to capitulate and succumb to these demands too because, well, our newly re-written Constitution says that Islam must be accepted as much as any other faith or culture -- actually, a little bit more so than the others. But don't worry, the word "sharia" won't appear in the Constitution for at least another 5 to 10 years.
Exaggerations on my part? Maybe. But the French are already fighting the Islamic headscarf battle in their secular, open society. And the Muslims are raising cain about it. One Danish cartoonist draws a political cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb as a turban. He's as good as dead now if he isn't constantly looking over his shoulder. Yet in Islamic nations, I'm sure there are countless political cartoons degrading Christianity, Judaism, and all sorts of Western ideals. Funny, but we seem to be able to accept that. Why can't Muslims accept one simple critique in the form of a cartoon? Nope, they can't. Islam SAYS they can't. Depicting Allah or His prophet is forbidden. Fatwas have been issued calling for the head of the cartoonist. THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU WANT FOR AMERICA????
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI presume when you visited the mosque, you were asked to don a headscarf or hijab of some sort, yes? (for the sake of my argument, let's assume they did) Bravo. Capitulation number one is under your belt, sweetie. Rather than the Muslims take into consideration that you're an American Christian girl whose culture and religion do not call for a headscarf, they refused to allow themselves to be inconvenienced by your apparently offensive exposed hair just for a day, or just for an hour or two. Nope, Islamic custom calls for ALL women to cover that head. So they likely foisted one upon you. It all starts somewhere, and going back to the original point of this discussion, Park51 in New York, this ONE SEEMINGLY MINISCULE capitulation of accepting an Islamic mosque on sacred ground that is a sensitive issue for over 68% of Americans (according to some poll I saw), you will likely see that this Islamic demand is only the beginning. If Muslims can't even begin to comprehend how inappropriate this mosque is and cannot fathom simply putting it elsewhere, then you're beginning to see the intolerance inherent in Islam. This is the tip of the sword.
The point of the blog above was that if we allow ourselves to be bullied into accepting this mosque even though most of us don't want it there, then there will be more demands to come right on its heels. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
Just ask the Pakistani government when they tried to stem Taliban violence by reaching a truce agreement whereby Pakistan ceded some control of the Swat Valley to the Taliban and allowed them to institute Sharia law there, all in the hopes that the suicide bombings and beheadings around the rest of the country would stop. Within weeks, the Taliban had not only taken the Swat Valley and went on a vicious killing spree, but they continued their conquest and came within 60 miles of taking the capital of Pakistan. Pakistan gave them an inch, and they took more than a few miles of territory. This is the way of Islam -- it will push and push and push until it gets its way.
Unless, of course, SOMEONE steps up and gets in its way. This is where my blogs come from. I won't sit idly by and not speak up when I see the writing on the wall for what Islam expects us to become. I don't believe in political correctness, and I'll be the first to spit in the face of a Muslim who gets in my face telling me that I have to do something he wants under penalty of death. Give me liberty, or give me death. There is no liberty in Islam.
Brian, I didn't say "recent times" - I was pretty specific when I said the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. I was pointing out that when they were active, it wasn't ANCIENT history...it was 50-60 years ago.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of all of that...my larger question/point with all of that is - you are so eager to judge all of the Muslim people based on the actions of a few. Are you so eager to condemn Christians the same way? And the answer, is very clearly no. (And not because it's not "recent") Atrocity is atrocity no matter the frequency, and therefore I still believe the comparison holds weight.