Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II

Pages: 1 2

[Editor’s note: In a recent Frontpage interview, Prof. Fred Gottheil told Jamie Glazov that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, that denounced Israel for “human rights violations.” He asked these 675 academics to sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations against women, gays and lesbians in the Muslim Middle East. Only 27 agreed to sign it – less than 5 percent of the total who had signed Lloyd’s petition. Below we publish Prof. Gottheil’s statement.]

A Statement of Concern
Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians.

This document is not a petition. It is, instead, a statement of concern addressing the problem of human rights abuses that appears to be pervasive in the Middle East. Having offered your name last January to the list of academics on American campuses who petitioned President Obama to reconsider our relationship with Israel, we ask that you now join us in expressing your concern about human rights abuses practiced against gays and lesbians and against women in many of the Middle Eastern countries, including the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There are other gender-based human rights violations in the region but by concentrating on these particularly egregious ones, we will be able to focus support for the victims of these abuses, and perhaps in this way help change the environment that fosters such long-practiced violations.

This statement of concern, along with its list of academic signatories, will be put in the public domain; to be made available to our colleagues, to members of Congress, to government people in the Middle East, and to the media. To repeat: It does not call upon any persons, organizations, or governments to take specific action.

The information offered below is meant only to highlight the ideas held and practices condoned by people in authoritative positions in the Middle East. Documentation is derived from sources as widespread as United Nations agencies, survey research units, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, academic journals, NGOs such as Asylum-Law and Human Rights Watch, and from media reporting offered on the Internet, such as BBC.

Discrimination against Gays and Lesbians

Allegations and evidence of discrimination against gays and lesbians is compelling. Asylum-Law, an organization aiding asylum-seeking persons worldwide reports that treatment of gay men in Arab countries is particularly distressing. Punishment for acts of homosexuality varies. In Saudi Arabia, capital punishment – beheading – applies. Syrians convicted of practicing homosexuality serve three years’ imprisonment. Most other sources describe the physical abuse of and long-terms prison terms for gays in Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza. Specific laws against homosexuality exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Syria, and Libya. The 2001 amendment to Iraq’s 1990 Penal Code made homosexual behavior between consenting adults a crime. The 1991 Iranian Constitution allows execution for sodomy. Specifically, Articles 108-113: “Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Sharia judge to decide.” A documented testimony from a 19-year old Palestinian homosexual claims that he had been pressured by the al-Aqua Martyr’s Brigade to become a suicide bomber in order to purge his moral guilt.

Religious authority supports and even promotes these practices. According to prominent Muslim clerics, Sharia law mandates the death penalty for homosexuality. Among such authority, Cleric Sheikh Ali Amar offers that “Muslims believe that homosexual behavior is an offence against Islam and anyone who behaves this way should be sentenced to death without compassion.” Egyptian scholar Shaykh Dr. Yusuf Abdahhal al-Qaradawi, director of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar, cites Sharia law to declare that a Qatari Prince, ousted from political office on grounds of homosexuality, should be stoned to death. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqis’ Shitte Muslims concurs. Kuwaiti cleric Dr. Sa’d al-‘Inzi cites article 203 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code as sanctioning death: “According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.”

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination – wife beating, honor killing, and genital mutilation – against women is sanctioned by both legal and religious authority and has been planted in varying degrees into cultural habits and institutions. The legitimacy and justification for wife beating is found in the Surra 4:34: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others … good women are therefore obedient … and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.”

Various clerical interpretations of this Surra range from beating doesn’t mean physical, to beating means only open-handed slaps, to beating must avoid delicate parts of the body, to beating is a beating. That clerics differ on this matter is acknowledged, but the legitimacy of and justification for wife beating is nonetheless appreciated. Dr. Muhammas al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the University of Jordan argues that the central issue is guardianship of the family and that domination and subordination are properly gender based. Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, answers the question “Does Islam allow wife beating?” by replying that wife beating is permissible in cases of persistent insubordination.

Algerian-born Iman Abdel Qader Bouziane was expelled from France for advocating wife beating. Professor Sabri Abd al-Rauf of Al-Azhar University argued that the beatings are intended to instill fear. Sheik abd Al-Hamid al-Muhajir explained that the Koran stipulates when a husband can beat a disobedient wife. Sheik Muhmmad al-Mussayar, an Egyptian professor at Al-Azhar University describes what kind of woman may be beaten. Sheik Yousuf al-Badri, member of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, asserts that since wife beatings are noted in the Koran and Sunna, it “means we’re allowed to beat.” Egyptian Cleric Galal al-Khatib is straightforward and blunt: “only a rod would help.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Beverley

    Please publish the names of those who signed the document accusing Israel of human rights violation!!!! Lets name them and shame them.

  • Guest

    Egyptian Cleric Galal al-Khatib is straightforward and blunt: “only a rod would help.

    Looks like Galal Al Khatib is watching too many naughty movies… only a Rod will help LOL

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    Yet they beat, kill, rape, maim in the name of "allah" – Freedom will be maintained only by courage, determination, and sacrifice! But it will prevail.

  • jacob

    And to think there are American women that still married animals believing and applying
    these "principles" and got in the neck the worst way…

    Were/ are they plain stupid, ignorant or masochistic ???

    And as to the 675 academy morons that signed the letter protesting human rights
    "violations" by Israel, I fully agree with BEVERLY :

  • stephencuz

    "This is why I would not sign this petition…."
    Of course! You have a MORAL OBJECTION to speaking out on this because of the imagined purpose of its author. Not like there is any precedent from Progressives. They would never think the end justifies the means would you? You can rail against the "witch burners" and take credit (what a laugh) for our first amendment rights but the facts speak for themselves. Regardless of the words you use and the accusations you make, you have shown yourself to be…a coward.

  • aspacia

    Right, stoning, maiming, lashing are analogous to the West's previous mistreatment of both gays and women.

    Talk about faulty analogy.

    • guest

      I never said they were analogous, you're making things up. I said things would be much worse, how much i don't know, if it wasn't for progressive, etc. I said conservatives are oddly proud of the protections for gays here even though historically and still today they fight every single gays rights measure. I don't think most of you have any interest in the lives of gay Muslims, it's just a convenient stick to beat your opponents with.

      • coyote3

        You just made the case for conservatives. Let's assume you are correct. Conservatives really don't care about the rights of lesbians, gays, women. They even oppose those rights. Let's say that conservatives don't even care about the Palestinians. That is the whole point. These academics profess that the "do care", and therefore you would expect them to react favorably to the petition. You see, I never said I did care, one way or the other. So, if you send the peititon to me, you are not likely to get a response. Likewise, if you send the petition to just anyone, they may not be likely to respond. However, if you send it to people who "care", then you might expect a response.

        • guest

          Yea, not really. Sloppy thinking on your part. First of all, your "for the sake of argument" bit is irrelevant, you could have just left it out. Your basic point is that because they didn't sign the statement, they are hypocrites. The part about assuming I'm correct adds nothing to that point. Except, of course, to make my point which, for the 3rd or 4th time, is that I wouldn't sign a statement I agree with if I didn't trust/know the motives of the person/group behind it. Its' actually a very badly designed "experiment " since he actually has no idea why people didn't sign it. He takes not signing as proof of his thesis, but it's not proof. His test doesn't measure intent, yet intention is what he is trying to evaluate. As an econ prof, he really should return to his grad school research methods training. He gets an F.

          If I got this statement before hearing about it, the first thing I would have done is google his name. Subtracting all the hits that deal with this story, here's what you get: a personal website that is down, his ratemyprofessor page (ugh, not good, he clearly hasn't impressed his students in his chosen field), his university home page, the amazon site for his micro econ textbook. The first hit of any substance is a 2003 article on Arab migration in the 1920s which from a quick glance appears anti-Palestinian. Based on such little info I would not sign this statement. I don't know who this guy is or what he's up to. The statement isn't even linked to a campaign or set of demands, or anything specific. Total waste of time, send to the trash folder. Does that prove I don't care about women, gays in the Middle East? No, sorry, it doesn't. And I can think of 3 or 4 other reasonable scenarios (did it end up in some people's junk mail folder? We don't know, he doesn't have any way to check.) for why people didn't sign.

          • coyoyte3

            Well now, I guess all you can do is accuse people of sloppy thinking, when your own isn't too solid. It is obviously a compensation for some cultural, biological, or anthropological inferiority. I don't what the rest of your babble said, except it doesn't change one thing. I never said it "proves" anything. It was, of course, an unscientific exercise. I never said it "proved" these people are hypocrites. It is just that it seems odd that people who profess to "care" didn't respond differently. Again, it all depends on who you ask. A conservative, who doesn't care, or a regressive who does care.

          • guest

            Ahh, behold the conservative mind at work: "I don't what the rest of your babble said, except it doesn't change one thing."

          • coyote3

            Oh yes, and in addition to, or included among, those 3 or 4 other scenarios is that the people he addressed really don't care, or are, in fact hypocrites. Those possibilities are just and good, or bad, as yours.

      • Ryan

        The Soviet Union and China were horrid to gays. George W. Bush, in contrast secured equality in adoption laws for same sex couples and Sarah Palin supported same sex "civil" unions, same as Obama. When the Supreme court recently struck down "Don't ask don't tell" Obama pushed for a stay on the matter. "Hate crimes laws" are mostly bogus attempts to criminalize actions which are already illegal to try and curry favor with sections of a polititian's base. Look at those horrid people who don't want to make it illegal to hurt gay people! … um, no. I'm a supporter of same sex unions, I'm just sick of all the dishonesty that gets trotted out on this issue. (And no, I don't think same sex unions will lead to people marrying their dog. It may lend some support to legalizing polygamy.)

        Sure, Bush supported the DOM but even that doesn't even deny states the right to make their own decisions on the matter. It simply prevents one state from making a decision which will affect other states. Without that, you'd have, of necessity, thousands of people and dollars pouring in from out of state every time the issue was debated somewhere. Which creates its own problems.

  • Hoooah

    Wow, you are so enlightened. I wish I had the audacity to be as hypocritical as you. You are so petty that you refuse to agree with your own alleged principles of fairness and equal rights because they are spoken from someone you perceive as your political enemy. Furthermore, you cannot surrender your own prejudices against conservatives, and instead blatantly demonize them by trying to blame them for incidents that occurred 300 years ago. You would rather support Islamic regimes and their barbaric treatment of women and gays then to ever agree with someone you regard as conservative. You are DESPICABLE.

    • guest

      rant much? where do i express support for Islamic regimes? And right wing attacks on gays did not end 300 years ago.

  • therealend

    The presumed deviltry of Ms O'Donnell (Delaware Senate candidate) is the cause du Jour of the Left. As was/is the pregnancy of Bristol Palin. Or the professional and political aspirations of her mother who has a Downs Syndrome child (Trig). Or the lack of concern over the statements of the current President who stated he was AGAINST Gay Marriage. Maybe you guys just don't like consistency.

  • bdouglasaf1980

    Conservatives burned a few witches while gay men continue to kill each other with their deplorable behavior that they themselves could control. They murdered a helpless child and get almost no media attention.

    You self righteous hypocrit.

    Maybe, just maybe this country will go down to the islamic rule. Then we will see the true horror that is perpetrated against he outspoken professors, women and gays.

  • Juice

    Just looking at the picture of black blobs tells me that women shouldn't be seen or heard.

    • Beverley

      Sheash Juice what is your problem? You write like a real 'arse….'

  • andrew r

    I suspected from the interview there's no serious concern for women or homosexuals at work here, and the "statement of concern" hammered it home:

    "As academics who have already been a signatory to a petition declaring concern for human rights abuses practiced in one country of the Middle East, please exercise this privilege to express your concern now about the widely practiced and condoned discrimination against women, gays and lesbians in the many countries of that same region."

    This is a cynical exercise in exposing critics of US policy vis-a-vis Israel as hypocrites and glossing over Israel's human rights abuses. Not only that, the subtext behind that paragraph is that opposing the Israeli brand of racial segregation makes you an ally of the backward and reactionary forces in Arab countries, a point not lost on most of the comments here. If we're looking for homegrown allies of the Saudis and Egyptians, we might try looking at those who sell them 60 billion worth of fighter jets (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin) and dole out billions in military aid (our govt.). These are the same guys who help Israel oppress the Palestinians.

    A couple of alarming bits are this: "and perhaps in this way help change the environment that fosters such long-practiced violations." Because in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for the better part of a decade, we had no local allies who actively persecute women or foster sexist and homophobic legislation.

    And this: "It does not call upon any persons, organizations, or governments to take specific action." Well, 90 years of oil drilling in Saudi Arabia and Iran (Halliburton was drilling in Iran as late as 2005) should tell you what the big wigs of US capitalism care about human rights and what specific action they'll take on that.

    • Beverley

      ISRAEL IS FIGHTING FOR HER LIFE!!!! … or are you not aware of that? Those oppressed "Palestinians" should not even be there. It is not their country. Tell them to go home to Jordan or wherever.

      • andrew r

        Well, I'm glad you don't have any compunction about forcing people from their country at gunpoint. Wouldn't want the guilt to gnaw at you or anything.

  • http://batnutz.blogspot.com/ repsac3

    Dr. Gottheil:

    Thank you for releasing your Statement of Concern. (While I doubt you did so as a result of my e-mail or blog post, I still appreciate the quick response.)

    However, I'm still looking for the official version, complete with signatures, released in the public domain in the manner you promised in your Statement. (One would hate to think that this was just a stunt, and that you had no intention of doing so).

    I'm also hoping you'll release:
    1) the list of people to whom you e-mailed the statement
    2) any proof you have that some/all/any of the folks you e-mailed but who didn't reply actually read it (Did anyone reply with a "NO"?), and
    3) any follow-up you did to determine why these folks hadn't signed (phone calls making sure they had in fact received and read it, for instance).

    Personally, I find it kinda troubling that you folks are making such a big deal about the fact that many academics failed to reply to a "cold-call" e-mail campaign from a professor they likely never heard of…

    But as I said yesterday, I would like to hear it direct from the horse's mouths, as it were. The professors who didn't sign should be afforded the opportunity to explain why they didn't sign originally, and, now that they have another chance, whether they'd be willing to sign now. (Again, while I'm not an academic, I'm willing to affix my liberal "YES" to the statement. I'd be surprised to find there were many liberals who would disagree…)

    I again look forward to your further reply (in part 3, I'd imagine.)

  • slipperylips

    Homosexuality was taken off the mental illness list about 40 years ago. Why I'm not sure, however, that's not too far back and I don't seem to remember any beheadings. So maybe your embellishing a little to much.

  • bobbie

    A picture is worth a thousand words, etc. Now that's an "unjust" religion and for that matter an "unjust government structure."

  • Beverley

    In reply ro 'repsac3' seems they did not have any trouble reading and signing the documents accusing Israil of human rights violation. Where there is a will there is a way.

    • http://batnutz.blogspot.com/ repsac3

      While it was also written by a college academic, the Israel petition was posted online by a rights group that the prospective signers could Google to find out more about. (While there may've been an e-mail campaign as well–with a "sender" address from a rights group, rather than an individual stranger–the bulk of those who signed the Israel petition went to it, rather than having it come to them.) It was not a "cold call" e-mail campaign by a single professor they never heard of who had no history of dealing with Muslim rights issues.

      While I want to hear from the people who did/didn't sign before jumping to any conclusions, I believe it quite likely that the vast majority of Dr. Gottheil's e-mails were tossed out without ever having been read, and that many more weren't signed because they had no idea who he was or the interest he was representing.

      Should later facts prove my theory wrong, perhaps I'll come to agree with you, but the way it stands at present, I'm not prepared to indict the academy based on the fact that the majority of college professors who signed a petition on a human rights org website failed to read/respond to a different petition that showed up in their received e-mail from an individual stranger.

      For the record, I've sent two e-mails to Dr. Gottheil in the past 48 hours, and he hasn't responded to either of them. How long do I have to wait before accusing him of not caring about my concerns regarding this issue–an issue that he himself put into motion? (Granted, he's never heard of me or anything, and I have no media or academic credentials, but I fail to see why that should matter…) If he does not reply to my unsolicited e-mails, I declare it to be obvious proof that he does not really care about this issue.

  • Beverley

    In reply to 'repsac3' seems that did not have any trouble reading and signing the documents accusing Israel of human rights violation. Where there is a will there is a way.

  • Beverley

    Yikes all the whining by Guest about homosexuals and lesbians. Shame that is so much more righteous and important than all the men, women and children of Israel. Let's sell them down the river because the human rights of homosexuals and lesbians in America is a much more worthy cause.


    Dr. Gottheil has performed a noble service for his country and the world. While at this point academe's failure to sign on to the letter is not conclusive, I think it shortly will be. David Horowitz has proved beyond any doubt their disdain of America and Americans. The Statement of Concern seems to be very well researched and free of polemics. It states facts which if true reveal Islam in a way that politically correct leftists refuse to acknowledge. Unlike diatribes which are so often simply expressions of hate, the Statement of Concern is civil, deliberate, scholarly in its expression and may be proved or disproved simply by checking the facts. From my own reading I know several of them to be indisputably true.

    The Left is embracing Islam precisely as it embraced Lenin, Stalin, Cuba's Beria, Che Guievarra, Noriega and Mao Se Tung, this simply because they are enemies either of Israel or Israel and America.

    George Orwell gave a name to the English Left so beside themselves with admiration for Stalin they would conform their journals to the service of his ambition. He called them renegades, which, of course, is a synonym for traitor.

    The Statement of Concern describes precisely the kind of world view and practice leftist renegades are embracing. They really ought to be ashamed, except perhaps that because they are so psychotic, they have no idea what they are thinking and saying.


  • badaboo

    Dr. Gottheil , provided nothing more than a "bucket of steam " . He's been taken to task on the credulity of his "list ' , it's purpose is rather obvious .
    But Robert , you go get'em girl . Damn lefty psychotics !!

  • http://batnutz.blogspot.com/ repsac3

    Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

  • andrew r

    This article discusses repression in Lebanese law – against "unnatural sex acts" and excusing rape if the rapist and victim marry or if the couple is already married. It's written by a Lebanese-American. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/132/what-is-

    She also writes articles like this. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5424.shtm

    So here's the challenge: Will you who purport to care about repression of women and gays still listen to her after what she has to say about Lebanese law and Israeli war on Lebanon.

  • Ole Drack

    Who farted?

  • guest

    if you can see beyond the narrow field of presidential politics you might get my point. The civil rights movement, womens rights movement, gay rights movement, to the best of my knowledge, had insignificant conservative presence. You were as a group indifferent or hostile when those movements emerged but now like to brag about how good it is here for gays, women, minorities, etc. Had liberals, leftists, progressives not fought for those things, they would not exist. You disagree?

  • therealend

    Of course we disagree. The Left, with a few exceptions, 27 in this case, doesn't lift a finger or utter one syllable in support of homosexuals or adultresses in the Mddle East. This study further illustrated that point. They are indifferent as a group. As for this country, before there were any movements to advance this cause, homosexuals did go far in this country without support from the progressives or in spite of hostile efforts (conservatives, in your mind) to stop them. (ie J Edgar Hoover for one) It has always been far better over here, Don't you agree?

  • Ryan

    On the contrary, the civil rights as well as abolitionist movement was a religious movement and had many proponents among religious conservatives. I'm not as familiar with the suffragettes.

    Whether or not you think conservatives support 'gay rights' depends heavily on what you think constitutes a 'gay right.' As mentioned elsewhere, it was far better for a gay person in the USA in the 1950s than in the USSR or Maoist China.

  • guest

    Hoover, really? That's your example. We must have read different history books, I wasn't aware Hoover rose to the top of the FBi as an openly gay man in the 1940s. Come on, you need to do better than that.

    You are wrong on the silence of the left. There is a long tradition of Western leftists supporting actual women and gay movements in the Muslim world, long before conservatives discovered and "embraced" the issues. Big bad "liberal" funders like Ford Foundation and Open Society have, as one example, provided lots of money to organizations working on these issues (like RAWA in Afghanistan, which is critical of the US allied Northern Alliance as well as the Taliban. That's probably why you never heard of them). And a quick Google search will yield days worth of reading on the alliances between feminist and gay movements across the West/Muslim divide over the past 40 years. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

    if gays advanced in this country, they did it AS progressives, not in the absence of progressives. The gay rights movement was a progressive movement.

    You still don't address the most important question here: do conservatives really care about gay here issues, here or there, or is it just political opportunism? I suspect that if there was no fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, conservatives would never mention the plight of gays in Saudi Arabia, etc.

  • therealend

    I said Hoover for one. What's the matter with him? Doesn't fit your profile of a homosexual male? How about Liberace, then, or Rock Hudson, or Jim Naybors (sp?) How bad were they treated here? Denying that conservatives are opposed to human rights abuses is ridiculous. Do Leftist own that franchise? That it appears on a conservative website gauls you in some way? Is it that no one else can criticize public hangings and other horrendous acts of barbarity because that is only a province of the Left? Or is it that you can read minds? While your at it, why was so much attention paid to Sarah Palin's wardrobe? Or her daughter's sexual conduct? or her daughter's ex-fiance's accusations? We heard all about that and nothing about RAWA. Why is that?

  • therealend

    Okay, I'll repeat the question, why all the attention on one woman's attire and hardly a peep about human rights abuses in the Muslim world?

  • guest

    Got nothing to do about my profile. It's not even clear he was gay but is clear is that he didn't achieve his position as an openly gay man, so you can't use him as an example of our tolerance. Ditto Rock Hudson and Nabors. Liberace? Really, that's your example of how tolerant we were? How about focusing on the actual millions of regular gay people who lived closeted lives throughout the century?

    For the last time, I don't believe conservatives care about gay Muslims, the criticism is driven by politics not concern with them, that's what galls me. And as far as I can tell we would still have puic hangings here if some conservatives had their way.

  • therealend

    Nobody knew Liberace was gay? Because he wasn't open about it? You're joking right? There are things in this world you'd be surprized to learn. But go ahead and try to make the world fit to your views. And good luck with that.

  • guest

    Have no idea what the two have to do with each other. We're a celebrity obsessed culture, and Palin and her family have eagerly embraced celebrity-dom, so people pay attention to what they wear, even in so-called political commentary. That's more about the decline of real reporting than liberal/conservative. Both sides gobble up People Magazine and Dancing with the Stars, so Americans get the media they deserve.

  • guest

    Are you that thick? I didn't say Liberace, I said Hoover, Hudson and Nabors did not succeed as openly gay people, they are not examples of our tolerance. And Liberace's success is hardly proof of an open tolerant culture. You completely ignore my point about regular every day gay people over the course of the 20th century, that's where you would have to make your case about tolerance. But you can't so you change the subject.

  • therealend

    THe original subject of the article was about Left wing professors signing a petition condemning Israel by the hundreds and avoiding signing another petition condemning attrocities against gays by the nearly the same amount. You began the deviation from that topic by creating a new one: that conservatives are heartless and Leftists alone carry all the water. That about covers it. Don't get angry. You came here looking for a fight and I gave you one. So, you're welcome.

  • guest

    wrong again. I said the petition was a cheap political trick, that's why i for one wouldn't have signed it. No deviation there. Point two, never said conservatives were heartless in general, said I didn't believe for a second their concern for gay Muslims is genuine (back to the petition, no deviation), and that if it weren't for Islamic terrorism not one conservative would be speaking out in defense of them and demanding others do the same. Pay attention.

    The only other time I hear conservatives show "concern" about gays is in relation to Cuba. Gee, wonder why?

  • therealend

    The first I heard about the attrocities inflicted on Southern Sudanese by Northern Sudanese was from a Christian organization. The Southerners were executed or sold into slavery or mutilated. The only ones bringing them aid were Christian groups. I never saw any stories on this on any news channel or paper. Until the Sudanese started attacking Darfur (different part of Sudan) did the rest of the world notice. You can't claim you are the only ones capable of caring about the plight of others. In this case, the Left was absent. What did the Southern Sudanese have to do with national security or terror? You seem to be a very one-sided person. I would guess here that nobody thinks the way you imagine they do. You probably won't do anything about that for now. Maybe one day you will. If that's the way you want to believe, fine.The rest of us will do things our way too including pointing out the obvious: the biases against Israel and the very selective outrage of the Left. Many of us used to be Lefists and know how disingenuous the Left has been. Again, the article points that out.

  • guest

    You're like a drunken boxer stumbling around the ring looking for an out. First it's the petition, then it's Hoover, then it's Palin and now it's Sudan. Chasing you has gotten boring and pointless. As a parting shot, I don't consider Christians and conservatives the same. I would sign a petition by Catholics on global poverty, for example, even though I disagree with them on much b/c i believe they genuinely care. Not so with conservatives and gay Muslims.
    And consider this, maybe the reason you first heard about Sudan from Christian/conservative outlets is because that's where you spend your time. I first heard about it from a lefty academic org of researchers who work on Africa issues. So there.

    Finally, to paraphrase Kanye West, whether it's the Congo or Sudan, we don't hear much about Africans here because Americans don't care about Africans. I give lots of credit to Christian orgs that have been doing work on Sudan, whatever else we may disagree on.

  • therealend

    Honestly, you said nothing except that which was based on your OPINION of conservatives. Iwas travelling all over the line trying to keep up with your wandering point. The Left did focus much more on Palin's wardrobe than and poor soul in Iran being hung from a crane which is something I've never heard, read or seen on the Left's media. And I asked you why is that. Your reply was really just avoidance. Avoidance is a practice of the Left. Rwanda, Cambodia, even going back to the days of the Red Terror in the Soviet Union. You see only what you want to see. Do you understand that point? or is the next Joe the Plumber bashing from the Left going to distract your attention before then?