Article

2003-08-11 Home Front

Unqualified and conservative turbans preside over US mosques

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-08-11 00:04|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Money talks. The Saudi (and others) funding is the issue that must be addressed. It seems that a rethink of religious law would make sense. I have no doubt that the incredible free pass that has been given to religion in the US has now been usurped by those who would happy overthrow the US by subversion. Painful as it might be to those who hold religious beliefs, surely they recognize that the state has some measure of business regulating religion. It has been an open door for abuse since our founding - and we've basically winked at the scams of the money-grubbers who prey on foolish people - that was only money. This is a very different situation - and national security is worthy of fresh attention.

Posted by Â·com 2003-8-11 12:43:04 AM|| 2003-8-11 12:43:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 A real effort then, for mainstream muslims, would be to create groups to counter the CAIR's and other nutbags like James Zogby, Ibrahim Hooper, getting face time on TV News shows defending the Sami Al-Arians and knucklehead Mike "from Intel".
Still waiting for that massive mainstream muslim movementâ¢ to rise up and publicly denounce the Saudis, Baathists, Paleos, etc.... After all, we keep reading that they are there...why do they stay silent? Fear of the Religion of Peace adherents?

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-11 9:41:54 AM|| 2003-8-11 9:41:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 We Christians can't counter the "nutbag" Christians, Frank G, so what makes you think that good Muslims can make a difference with "nutbag" Muslims?

Posted by Tom 2003-8-11 11:15:37 AM|| 2003-8-11 11:15:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Do you see any tacit support or nodding agreement with any Christians espousing overthrow of the U.S. and replacement with rule by the Vatican? or Anglican church, or...

When a Falwell or Robertson or ? runs their mouth, we christians are expected to denounce them, and rightfully so, to demonstrate they don't speak on our behalfs. I would expect the same of muslims, nothing less

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-11 11:39:50 AM|| 2003-8-11 11:39:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't notice Falwell (whom I like), and Robertson (whom I generally donât agree with), to be calling for the deaths of all the infidels. At worse, they are fools saying fooling things.

I am sure that there are self described "Christians" out there who are dangerous and violent but they probably number about .001% of all professing Christians. The problem with Islam - The Religion of Peace â¢ , is that a sizable minority of its adherents are dangerous and violent. The chance that some "moderate" majority among the Muslims will shout the nuts down here or anywhere else is silly. Besides, a lot of the "moderates" are only "moderate" in the sense that they don't want to do the killing of the infidels themselves.

And, according to the story, most of the mosques in the US are led by the above mentioned dangerous and violent nuts. Wonderful.

Posted by SPQR 2755 2003-8-11 2:23:42 PM|| 2003-8-11 2:23:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The difference between the Islamozoids and Falwell/Robertson is that the former feel at liberty to enforce their fatwas at the point of a gun that they are wielding, while the latter are satisfied to just pray and let God take care of the situation.

Another difference: the Islamozoids will justify the use of their guns, while Falwell/Robertson would reject violence and emphasize the ability of God to act in response to prayer. (Robertson moreso than Falwell.)

Posted by Ptah 2003-8-11 3:18:19 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-8-11 3:18:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I really don't think there would be many mosques in the US if not for Saudi funding. The 2 million attending vs. 6 million claimed is one of those "oh, shit" statistics. There ain't six million muslims in this country. Even if there are six million muslim immigrants (which I doubt), then four million have already become secular humanists or Mormons or belonged to persecuted groups (Bahai, Alawite, etc.) that ain't going anywhere near a sunni mosque and who probably came to America to escape precisely that sort of BS. We're absorbing them like we did the Bundists and the die hard Emperor-worshipping Nissei and the bomb throwing European wobblies (hope I'm being diverse enough). God Bless America.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-8-11 7:29:12 PM|| 2003-8-11 7:29:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 *com: slippery slope, that. Personally, I would never, ever help you persecute a man for a)what he believes or b)what he says. I would like to see the Democratic party crushed in America before it destroys our nation.... and I wouldn't completely rule out using violence to do it. Should the FBI be watching me? I don't think so.

Ahhhh, but the "hate crime" people will tell you that I should be put in jail for just saying what I just said. You should judge a man by what he does, not what he says.... or you think that he has said.

Not that I'm a big fan of The Religeon of Peace (tm), mind you

Posted by Secret Master 2003-8-11 8:57:28 PM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2003-8-11 8:57:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hmmmm. I recall a George Carlin routine about spending the night with a friend. The punchline, to keep this short, was the observation that the following subjective rule is true of everyone - that we are all guilty of this little blind spot:
My shit is stuff, your stuff is shit.

It doesn't matter who you use as an example, for as many will disagree as agree with you, nor to apply some wildly subjective quantification of there's only a few of us who are loonies - most of them are loonies.

What's needed, as always, is one set of effective rules, a level playing field, and no one outside or beyond the rules. That is the American way.

Everything else is merely self-serving prevarication - and falls into George's analysis of subjectivity.

Posted by Â·com 2003-8-11 9:04:08 PM|| 2003-8-11 9:04:08 PM|| Front Page Top

08:44 raptor
07:43 True German Ally
04:32 R. McLeod
04:32 R. McLeod
00:51 mojo
23:19 Steve White
23:19 Mark IV
23:01 Lucky
22:46 Bomb-a-rama
22:33 Denny
22:32 Â·com
22:23 Â·com
22:14 Frank G
22:14 Â·com
22:12 Frank G
22:03 Â·com
21:52 Ptah
21:49 Chuck
21:48 Chuck
21:42 SPQR 2755
21:32 Zhang Fei
21:31 Fred
21:28 Anon1
21:14 Â·com