The Left’s Peretz Problem

Pages: 1 2

It doesn’t take much to provoke the modern furies of political correctness, but longtime New Republic editor-in-chief Martin Peretz touched off a still-raging storm earlier this month when he published a blog post lamenting the general failure of Muslims to protest the sectarian murder of their coreligionists in the Islamic world. In the passage that most incensed his critics, Peretz concluded that

…frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the [Ground Zero mosque champion] Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Judging by the howls of indignation and excoriation generated by that post, one might think that Peretz had called for the immediate extermination of all Muslims. Left-wing blogs condemned Peretz as a “racist” and a bigot. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called the post “debased.” The backlash was even more hostile at Harvard University, where Peretz had taught for over 40 years and where he was honored this weekend for an undergraduate research fund established in his name earlier this year. What was supposed to be a celebratory occasion instead became a public inquisition, as student protestors, bearing signs with quotes from Peretz – evidence, by their standards, of the consummate evil of his views – heckled the honoree and harangued him as he tried to exit the campus. In that harassment they were openly encouraged by some Harvard faculty and implicitly by the university’s administration, which all but sanctioned the protests when it called Peretz’s comments about Muslims “distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so.”

It is not to excuse the more inflammatory name-calling of Peretz’s critics to note that some of his comments were indeed offensive. In a follow-up to his initial post, a rightly “embarrassed” Peretz apologized for his crass and carelessly worded suggestion that Muslims should be denied First Amendment rights. And yet it remains the case that Peretz’s broader point, however artlessly made, was a sound one.

Pages: 1 2

  • Philosopherking

    I honestly believe we ought to say the most anger rousing thing to the left in order to piss them off. Eventually they will become so emotionally drained they would stop fighting.

    In fact, I'm going to go on another website and say things like "capitalism rocks" or "why are you guys into communism", or "Islam sucks". I enjoy watching the replies come in on a boring Saturday night. It hilarious and i would recommend that activity to anyone especially if you get your jollies from making other people mad.

    • votedagainstoby

      Have you seen the movie "UP"??
      If you have not, watch it for no other reason than to see the dog "SQUIRREL!!" sequence.

      This can be accomplished to the left by saying,.. wait for it,.. Sarah PALIN!!

      or if you REALLY want to make them crazy try "Sarah PALIN -2012"

      or "Sarah PALIN for PRESIDENT 2012"

      It WILL make them CRAZY. Just say'n.

    • sflbib

      While you're at it, ask them why their fascination and obsession with death and communism are the prime movers of their dementia.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    This experience should be instructive, but not in the way that Mr Peretz's leftist detractors might think. Instead of re-examining his view of Muslims, Martin might want to re-examine the liberal tenets that have shaped his world-view for so much of his life. The Left has abandoned not only Israel, but women, free speech, Western Civilization, empirical science, a color-blind society….and so much more.

    Time for Martin (and so many others) to catch up. It's simply not possible to reconcile the politics of the liberal/left with an honest exposition of Islamic supremacism and intolerance.

  • C.R.

    PERETZ'S ABOVE STATEMENT WAS AND IS CORRECT–AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THE LEFTISTS HATE IT–THEY HATE TRUTH!

    • Henry Rearden

      I agree. The Left cannot stand truth. Martin Peretz is one of those rare birds, and honest lefty. And that is why he is on his way to being a conservative.

  • imnokuffar

    Mulsims are wonderful, loving, kind, generous, and are the role model we should all aspire to. Thier religion is one of the wonders of humanity. Thier leaders are paragons of virtue and every Muslim should be immediately granted admission to the next life as obviously this one is not suitable for them. They are hounded by the filthy kuffar, blasphemed against and generally not understood or recognised for what they are. I am looking for volunteers to assist as many Muslims as possible to meet thier maker and therefore be rid of the chains and travails of this earthly existence.

    Any takers ?

    • Rbob

      There should be no problem enlisting volunteers for your glorious mission. No use keeping those heavenly virgins waiting. Make sure the mosques are full of Korans and muslims before we blow them up.

      • clarityrising

        Hey, and now since some whack-job cleric claimed there are in fact millions of virgins in heaven, not just 72, there's no waiting! Everybody can be accomodated within minutes after death; no fuss, no hassle. Why delay when you can have your virgin today!

    • fmobler

      You are talking about mass murder. Stop it please.

      I have nothing but contempt for Islam, but I refuse to stand by idly when I read a call to murder. I think we may be heading for the next war against Islam that the West keeps trying to avoid. But mass murder is not war against the totalitarian civilization of Islam.

      • Nick Shaw

        Sorry, fmobler, mass murder is what real war is all about. We can't get around that simple fact. If we are going to confront these demons we might as well do it now and get it over with while we still have a chance. America's strength is being whittled away by progressives within and it won't be too long before America is just another wimp at the World Government table asking, "Can we have some more?" I would rather die now protecting freedom than have my children die or be enslaved later. "Desert Glass" may not be a prospect that you or I enjoy speaking of but, there it is.

        • fmobler

          I did not say that war against Islam, horrible as is may be, is wrong. The original post did not call for a war (for example, one in which the West finally figures out that destroying Ka'bah is tactically the best thing to so, followed — assuming no capitulation — by vaporizing Medina). I understand that many Muslims will be killed. But there is a real moral distinction between killing in a war and murder. Heck, if all we want is to see more dead Muslims, we can just stand by and watch them to it to each other. I stand by my point that the original post was just recommending mass murder without any strategic, or even tactical reason.—

      • AB7

        Targeted (everyone should remember seeing the missile video going in a window) destruction of mosques (and not when the pious faithful followers of the religion of peace are at the pious peaceful call to prayer) would be the approach, not the killing of millions of people. Destruction of key Islamic sites over time resulting in civil wars within Islam and also some Muslims leaving the faith once all heck breaks loose, would be the goal. In particular, once Mecca is gone many Muslims would be forced to question their faith. Keeping Islam out of the West is the first crucial need. Once there are enough Muslims in the West any actions against Islamic sites worldwide will be impossible as they will resist from within our systems and organizations including even the military. We will be no different than any other Islamic country with various factions fighting within all of their institutions.

        • Nick Shaw

          I like your idea of targeting AB7 but, the uproar from the left worldwide, particularly within the US, would have the US rebuilding those mosques faster than they got knocked down. Just like now, now that I think of it. Nope, we have 2 options. Hit them really, really hard now and leave nobody for the left whine about. That would cure the resident Muslim population problem at the same time. Though I don't trust them, Islam in America would become Reformed (or moderate if you wish) overnight. Outlaw Islam as a hate group is another way The second involves pulling out everything American in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No more money by any route direct, indirect, charitable or aid. Salt the poppy fields and tactical nukes on Pakistan stockpiles. Then let them destroy themselves. I'd still outlaw Islam in the second scenario.

          • AB7

            And once the Muslims realized that we were targeting empty mosques they would just make sure there were always some people in all mosques, women, children, infidels, handicapped, as human shields.

            As for reformed Islam in America, don't count on it. The only answer is separationism, containing Islam as much as is possible in the lands that it has already subjugated and keeping it out of all of the other lands that are still free, at least America and hopefully the rest of the West. Once America and the West are back to having nearly zero Islam within their borders they will be able to deal more effectively with the problem of Islam in other lands, either by having no contact with it or by agitating for reform or engaging in limited commerce when necessary, but absolutely not providing any aid or construction to them at all.

          • Nick Shaw

            I'm glad you noticed the fly in the ointment with the targeting idea. I'm also glad we agree, kind of. Just using different methods.

        • fmobler

          That is not what was suggested earlier. Now you are talking about the strategy of precipitating a war and doing so with particular tactics. OK. Now we could talk about the prudence and effectiveness, etc. of these ideas. Fine. But the earlier post just suggested that Muslims need to be killed. No strategic point, no tactical point. Just killing. That is murder and we Westerners must make the distinction.—

    • http://www.myspace.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

      We will see many takers and see millions of people sad to see the great Mulsim people go right to the god that all have coming but it maybe a little hot.

    • Philosopherking

      I always wondered if a woman is going to heaven will their be 72 virgins for her?

      • Nick Shaw

        No but, there will be a guy with a stick to make them feel at home.

      • imnokuffar

        NO ! The lot of a Muslim woman is misery in this life and the next.

  • jacob

    AND I DARE ANY OF THE MUSLIMS AND THEIR APOLOGISTS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT HAS SO PROFUSELY APOLOGIZED TO HIS "COREELIGIONISTS" FOR THE "MISDEEDS" COMMITED BY "HIS" COUNTRY AGAINST THEM, TO PROVE THE WORDS OF MARTIN PERETZ FALSE

    • Kendrick1

      I wonder why the so-called United States-loving Muslim citizens are not as outraged as we are by the attacks and insults heaped upon us by their Muslim "brothers.'

      • Nick Shaw

        Many wonder the same thing Kendrick. Why does it take a Canadian Muslim to travel to the US to speak out against the Ground Zero mosque? It does cause one to wonder indeed.

  • Ret. Marine

    I have to agree with his sentiment. If the claim to separation between church and state was defined as clearly as it once stood, the state has no right to impose any religion upon its citizens nor do they have a right to assign a religion as they wish to its citizens, he would be correct. The present day circumstances being where they are, it is entirely possible that islam can not be assign religion rather a cult, a death cult at that. Tell me of any other religion who adheres to killing or conversion through the use of force and intimidation, anybody?

  • Ret. Marine

    Enter islam and its claim to be accepted as a religion. It is not a religion, it is in fact an ideology combined with the power of a so-called religion attached to a death cult. This needs to be established through legal means. I simply do not understand why it is that this has not come before the Supreme Courts of these United States. We have people calling themselves leaders who are in fact COWARDS, or dhimmis, or kaffirs, or just plain spiritually dead.

    • Rbob

      It is comforting to see that others look on this "cult" as I do. It is similar to the Ku Klux Klan and produces robots who want to kill.

  • John Beatty

    Ret. Marine

    Define "religion" for us, if you would. If it isn't an ideology, what is it?

    • M Rob

      Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion.

    • AB7

      As it relates to the issue of Islam and the concept of freedom of religion under the first amendment, the western understanding of religion is that is a "personal" issue between each individual and their god or gods. Islam however, even though it is called a religion and many people treat it like a religion, is equally a collective political system, that is, there isn't really a "personal" aspect of traditional Islam that can be separated from the collective rules and requirements forced upon the community – including non-Muslims. So it is the political ideology aspect of Islam that makes it incompatible with Western civilization and democracies as the goal of Islam is to literally replace those democracies erasing their so-called rights in the process.

    • Ret. Marine

      A faith in a higher being who created you and expects others to treat others with repect, love caring compassion, love and understanding, pick one and see what best suits you. What difference does it make when one or the other takes claim over life and death to insure their hatred?

  • Jane Baer

    The ultra radical leftists estabished their M.O. here in Santa Cruz, California where a handful of Mexican heroin dealers (& a few family members helping th efamily business of heroin dealing)trying to establish a street selling hard drug marketplace by the beach tourist route. The local city council was run by "radical" socialist UC Santa Cruz professors. a couple of decades later we have rampant Latino gang street violence radomly stabbing and shooting the hated whities, and of course killing each other in gang turf wars..

    • Indioviejo

      If they get to kill and stab some of those Marxist Professors whom you mention, they should be commended. LOL.

    • http://www.myspace.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

      Jane Baer can see L.A. And San Diego may as well be mexico city what you stated is the future of this nation.

  • moshav

    If the world became islamized, muslims would have to content themselves with slaughtering one another and, on occasion, any remaining dhimmis. islam is nothing if it is not institutionalized violence. It has been that way from the beginning. What movement founded by a pedophile, serial rapist, adulterer, thief, and mass murderer cannot be violent and how could it be anything else?

    • Nick Shaw

      Muslims already joyfully slaughter their own of differing sects in certain countries despite the benefit of having infidel targets. That says a lot in support of your comment.

  • tagalog

    By all means let the Left start attacking its own. Divide and conquer, eh?

  • AB7

    The author makes a huge mistake in so blithely and with such great assurance dismissing the suggestion that Islam should be denied first amendment rights. In fact, this question should be seriously debated including in congressional committees where any legislative changes necessary to exclude Islam from the first amendment protections should be in the process of being prepared and debated. The fact of the matter is that it is actually a matter of survival of the United States. If Islam is given first amendment protections and is allowed to spread forever, at some point, however long it takes, Islam will remove the first amendment itself! It is simply impossible to believe how people have become so brainwashed in their multicultural religion of tolerance that they are willing to accept giving first amendment protections to an ideology whose sole goal is the destruction of those same so-called protections.

    • Carbon Dioxide

      Your first sentence points out the power of assumed knowledge and how it operates in our PC world even in a publication I consider my teacher. Even in this bastion it is a given that Islam is to be the protected status of a religion.
      PC forces are on track to get the job done before Islamists shut down our Constitution.

      • Nick Shaw

        Unless we declare it a crisis and pass legislation without reading it. Hurry, hurry it's a crisis! Thanks BHO. Outlaw Islam as a hate group quick, before the lefties get organized (maybe they will leave the grunt work to the Coffee Party, that'll give us some more time) Yes Dims, we learned your lesson well!

    • LoneStar

      Well said. Although I wonder if your reasoning only applies to Muslims. Don't leftists and Muslims share the same goals? They both regard Christians and Jews as evil. They both share authoritarian tendencies and despise individual liberty, self-reliance, and true forms of tolerance. They both have a disregard for human life. And most importantly both groups see themselves as oppressed victims. I think Peretz just stopped drinking the kool aid and came to his senses.

      • Nick Shaw

        Well, except lefties in America don't chop your head off for slighting Alinsky, umm..yet.

  • Wesley69

    Peretz's crime, if you will, was not to be in line with the morally bankrupt educated elite of the Left. Freedom of speech exists for them, but not others with contrary views.. His comments about Muslim lives is dead on. They, indeed, are their own worst enemy. How can a terrorist, looking for martyrdom and the glories of Paradise, use children as human shields in battle? Where is the Left's outrage here? How is the Left, especially Feminists & Gays, do not speak out against Sharia sanctioned violence? One has but to turn to the internet to see a group of men viciously stoning a woman. Where is Harvard on all this? For a higher center of learning, I feel sad that open-mindedness shows deviance. Expression of it, is a thought crime. That’s around thing about elites – the arrogance to think that they are somehow immune from the forces of history.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    Thomas Jefferson

  • iatemine

    Does the Left not realize They are in bed with the Devil…literally? Muslims in general are Conservative, Radical Muslims are off the charts Conservative. The Liberal Progressive Left and all Their Allys are primarily in the crosshairs of the Islamic Militant wing and it is the Left , the Gays, Femenists, All the Anti-establishment Types that the Islamics would wipe off the planet first if They get the opportunity!
    The stupidity of the Left astounds Me.

    • M Rob

      The left are very much like Nazi's and remember who the Nazi's got in bed with……the muslims. To them it makes sense. They fail to realize that their muslims friends will eventually turn on them to.

    • clarityrising

      do not confuse socially conservative with politically conservative. The muslims today are politically leftist (fascist). So while their cultural goals mis-match, their political goals are the pretty much the same- domination of society by the government. This is where the western liberals' brain fails to grasp the difference in the two worlds; where they fail to realize that if muslims achieve their same political goal, it will crush their cultural one. Hence, western leftists are stupid.

    • Spider

      True the useful idiots and dihiiminies like these HARVORD INGRATES will be the first to be beheaded should Islam gain power. This same thing also occurred in all of the communist revolutions.

  • http://www.lifeshaven.net Gary McAleer

    I guess Harvard's high IQ standard is no measuring stick of moral discernment.

  • Nick Shaw

    Except for Mr. Beatty, who may simply be asking a serious question and , as such, should not be shunned but, answered (which I'll try to do in a second), everyone here voices my belief so I won't add to the discussion. Mr. Beatty, Islam is the only "religion" that expresses itself in every aspect of one's existence with rules to be followed lest you be shunned, if not killed. Name one religion that does that. I admit, I don't know the absolutes of all religions but, I can't think of any that condemn you to death if you disagree and voice your opinion. That's what makes it an ideology.

  • http://www.lifeshaven.net Gary McAleer

    Said Abraham Lincoln of tyrannical papal decrees but his words apply to today's tyrannical Islam: "Is it not an act of folly to give absolute liberty of conscience to a set of men who are publicly sworn to cut our throats the very day they have the opportunity? Is it right to give the privilege of citizenship to men who are sworn and public enemies of our constitution, our laws, our liberties, and our lives?…The power of life and death is the supreme power, and two supreme powers cannot exist on the same territory without anarchy, riots, bloodshed, and civil wars without end…Is it not an absurdity to give to a man a thing which he has sworn to hate, curse, and destroy?…I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, highest sense."–Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, pg. 300

  • votedagainstoby

    PISSING OFF THE LEFT – How to instructions;

    Have you seen the movie "UP"??
    If you have not, watch it for no other reason than to see the dog "SQUIRREL!!" sequence.

    This can be accomplished to the left by saying,.. wait for it,.. Sarah PALIN!!

    or if you REALLY want to make them crazy try "Sarah PALIN -2012"

    or "Sarah PALIN for PRESIDENT 2012"

    It WILL make them CRAZY. Just say'n.

  • Scaramouche

    Peretz seems to have had second thoughts about unleashing this torrent of vitriol, viz his over-the-top apology to Muslims: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/77607/martin-pe

  • Scaramouche

    Sorry, meant to post this apology: http://www.tnr.com/blog/77761/atonement

  • ajnn

    excellent point

  • Jim Johnson

    I fear not the free speech of Muslims.

    What I fear are the people who have the power to shut up those criticize Islam;

    and USE that power to censor the free speech of those who criticize Islam.

    Against the would be censors our most intense criticism should be directed and intensely so.

  • http://www.lifeshaven.net Gary McAleer

    Bro, we're in a whirlpool of national collapse. And we're nearing its center, to be flushed down the toilet of the elitists. So, my recommendation to you, my friend, is to leave all densely populated areas and move to where you have freedom to provide life-support to your family and those you love. It's no different than the depression of the 30's where the Amish and Mennonite Christians stood apart from any reliance on the fed for life support. OK? You have my sincere prayer and hope, Gary. May we stand together in the end.

    • Nick Shaw

      Thanks for the advice but, I'm way ahead of you. Down in Costa Rica with a big garden, chickens, working on rabbits, high walls and plenty of firepower. You keep yourself safe!

  • http://www.myspace.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    The system boys will never let anyone get out on line to see facts the only people afraid to talk will be the whites.

  • bessie

    Ivy League Fascism strikes Harvard

  • Nick Shaw

    I said I wasn't going to comment 'cause I agree with most who post here but, I had to answer fmobler on his/her comment and I think it deserves repeating here and not buried in the replies. Fmobler thinks it's extreme to go to war with Islam, calling it murder. My reply: Sorry, fmobler, mass murder is what real war is all about. We can't get around that simple fact. If we are going to confront these demons we might as well do it now and get it over with while we still have a chance. America's strength is being whittled away by progressives within and it won't be too long before America is just another wimp at the World Government table asking, "Can we have some more?" I would rather die now protecting freedom than have my children die or be enslaved later. "Desert Glass" may not be a prospect that you or I enjoy speaking of but, there it is.

    • bubba4

      While we still have a chance? You are aware of our military power right?

      We should get all the loonies over here that want to fight WWIII with Muslims and get all the radical Islamofacists that want their people to go to war with the West and just put them together in a stadium…and them go at it. Just for good measure kill the survivors of the battle as well and then the sane people in this world can get on with their lives.

      • Nick Shaw

        Yes I am aware and at this point in time it is still overwhelming if the US is willing to use it. As to getting everyone in a stadium, I'll go along with you as long as every radical Muslim is involved and they agree to stand by the outcome. Of course, you know that ain't gonna' happen.

    • fmobler

      Mr. Shaw didn't want to bury his response to me in a reply. That's good because it gives me a chance to be clearer. I most emphatically do not think it is extreme to go to war with Islam. In fact, I think we have no choice because the other side is already at was with us.

      I was only objecting to a single post that said nothing about "going to war" or anything of the sort. It merely, and a bit sarcastically, just said Muslims need killing. That is entirely different that declaring war, arguing about strategy, planning tactics and the rest. Just killing a few more Muslims (the body count is already high thanks to other faithful) is neither morally or even strategically defensible.

      By the way, mass murder is not what war is all about. Winning is what it is all about. Sadly, that usually requires a huge amount of killing, but surely it would be better to win without that. [I am not saying that is possible, just preferable were it possible.] If you think we should go to war *in order* to kill as many Muslims (commies, nazis, rebels, etc.) as possible, you are not talking about winning.

      • Nick Shaw

        Sorry fmobler, I mis-construed, however, you do realize your last paragraph is full of contradiction. REAL war is about killing people and blowing things up until the other side says "We give!" and changes their way of thinking, not this faux war we have played at since the end of WW11. I agree, it would be better to not go to war but, we have to be realistic when considering the enemy we now face. They do not wear uniforms like commies or nazis and use rules of war that are abhorant to any reasonable person of the 21st century. When the enemy can cloak themselves in the garb of women with impunity 'cause they will freak out when you want to check for a bomb…well…different and extreme methods may be our only recourse. Just sayin'. By the way, the "buried in the replies" refered to the closing up of replies after a certain number of responses are hit. You should have answered in "the clear" if you know what I mean.

        • fmobler

          I think we are a lot closer than it might seem. I think it is extremely important to make a distinction between killing in order to win a just war and killing for its own sake. I don't see that what I said was at all contradictory with the way Christians have regarded war from the earliest articulation of Just War theory. To conduct war justly, one tries to kill only enough (or as close as one can prudently get) to win. In the case at hand, Islam has never had a similar view of war. Wholesale slaughter, enslavement, the enrichment of warriors with booty, rape of women, is all supported by Mohamed's own exploits. So I fear that a just war will require a horrific amount of bloodshed. Nevertheless, this is not to be wished for. It is to be grieved over, but with the stark resolve to win and do what is needed.Lot's of people talk about Truman's decision to drop the 2nd bomb, claiming that even if the 1st one was necessary, the 2nd one was not. So it was immoral (again, even if you believe the 1st one wasn't). I don't subscribe to that idea at all. Prudential judgments that have horrible consequences are a part of war. Truman seems to have thought that the Japanese military would not capitulate if it thought Hiroshima was a “one off”. Whether he was right about that or not, he made a difficult call. The point is (a) the cause was just and (b) Truman seems to have believed he was acting in the best interest of winning the war with less over all bloodshed. Had he been given reasons to think that Japan would surrender quickly without Nagasaki, I think he would have chosen differently.In any case, I respect your position which, if I may paraphrase, seems to be that the West (aligned to India and Africa, I hope) can not afford to engage in a war with half measures. We need to defeat this ancient enemy.—

        • fmobler

          I think we are a lot closer than it might seem. I think it is extremely important to make a distinction between killing in order to win a just war and killing for its own sake. I don't see that what I said was at all contradictory with the way Christians have regarded war from the earliest articulation of Just War theory. To conduct war justly, one tries to kill only enough (or as close as one can prudently get) to win. In the case at hand, Islam has never had a similar view of war. Wholesale slaughter, enslavement, the enrichment of warriors with booty, rape of women, is all supported by Mohamed's own exploits. So I fear that a just war will require a horrific amount of bloodshed. Nevertheless, this is not to be wished for. It is to be grieved over, but with the stark resolve to win and do what is needed.Lot's of people talk about Truman's decision to drop the 2nd bomb, claiming that even if the 1st one was necessary, the 2nd one was not. So it was immoral (again, even if you believe the 1st one wasn't). I don't subscribe to that idea at all. Prudential judgments that have horrible consequences are a part of war. Truman seems to have thought that the Japanese military would not capitulate if it thought Hiroshima was a “one off”. Whether he was right about that or not, he made a difficult call. The point is (a) the cause was just and (b) Truman seems to have believed he was acting in the best interest of winning the war with less over all bloodshed. Had he been given reasons to think that Japan would surrender quickly without Nagasaki, I think he would have chosen differently.In any case, I respect your position which, if I may paraphrase, seems to be that the West (aligned to India and Africa, I hope) can not afford to engage in a war with half measures. We need to defeat this ancient enemy.— On Sat, 10/2/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

  • bubba4

    "Judging by the howls of indignation and excoriation generated by that post, one might think that Peretz had called for the immediate extermination of all Muslims. "

    I don't know…I think if someone said "life is cheap to Christians" and cited evangelical support of war, some of you would be offended….mainly because like this a$$hole, it would be a blanket statement making all Christians responsible for what some obese preacher like Haggee has to say.

    • LoneStar

      You really don't get it. We are not talking about someone hurting someone's feelings. We are talking about how dangerous the situation is when people are not allowed to freely criticize a religion. Your freedom has been taken from you. You now live under dhimmitude.

      Islam dominates this country. People are afraid to say anything negative about it because people like you start screaming racism and accusing people of hate speech. It's like living in Nazi Germany and criticizing Wagner. Also people are afraid of Muslims primarily for the reason Peretz says. Muslims will not categorically repudiate terrorism, degradation of women, and racism.

      If Hagee ever advocated violence against those who do not follow Christianity do you think any Christian in this country would support him? Hell no, he'd be talking to an empty church the next day or out on his keister looking for a new job. A preacher is nothing like an imam. Preachers are ordained and then a church body elects them. The body of the church can dismiss a preacher in NY second if they don't like what he says.

      Why don't Muslims condemn racism, homophobia, and terrorism?

      A man draws a cartoon of Mohamed and his life is in jeopardy. Did Muslims come to his rescue and support his first amendment rights? No they murdered a Nun.

      A man makes a movie about the evil way women are treated in barbaric muslim cultures. He is cut down in broad daylight. Do Muslims condemn his murderer and distance themselves from him. No in fact they support him and call him a hero.

      That is the difference.

      Meanwhile leftists can fund an artist with taxpayer money to put a statue of Jesus into a bottle of piss and put it on display. How many people did Christians kill? 0

    • fmobler

      Bubba, I am a Christian. If someone said that "life is cheap to Christians" and cited evangelical support of (some) wars, I'd react pretty much the way I am reacting to you now: shrug — not the most informed point of view, but hardly a capital offense. I wouldn't expect my pastor to issue a fatwa (I'm pretty sure authority to issue same is not in our church bylaws). I wouldn't even call you a bigot. I'd just get on with things.

      • Nick Shaw

        Maybe not bigot, though he has a problem with big boned folks but, troll nonetheless..

        • fmobler

          I only said “I wouldn't call (Bubba) a bigot”. He can answer to his own conscience.—

        • fmobler

          I only said “I wouldn't call (Bubba) a bigot”. He can answer to his own conscience.— On Sat, 10/2/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

  • steven segers

    this just shows how stalinist the left is, anybody who disagrees with them on even the smallest issue is instantly destroyed for it liberals are the MOST HATEFUL AND INTOLERANT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD

  • son of abraham

    In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deed. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong. – 5:45 The Holy Qur'an