Muslims: Halal Lunches in School are a Constitutional Right

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


halal-slaughter1

First Bill de Blasio provided special privileges to Muslims by adding Muslim, but not Hindu or Buddhist holidays, to the school calendar. During the Democratic primaries, he promised Muslims that he would bring Halal meals to city schools.

Now the Muslims are making their demands known. In a city with the largest Jewish population in the country, Kosher meals are not served in city schools. But as usual, Muslims are special and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

Marge Feinberg, another spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Education, added that the schools’ menus include vegetarian dishes. “Our kitchens and our kitchen staff are not equipped for specialty meat requirements,” she said. “We have a variety of non-meat options for children.”

But for labor leader Maf Misbha Uddin, the District Council 37 treasurer and founding president of Alliance of South Asian Association of Labor (ASAAL), halal food is not an issue of demand or will, but of religious freedom.

“I feel that serving halal food in school is our constitutional right since the constitution has ensured equal rights for all religious groups and ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle,” said Uddin, whose five children grew up in the city and never ate school lunches because halal menu choices were unavailable.

To no one’s surprise, Mustafa has no idea how Freedom of Religion works. It means freedom from government compulsion in areas of religion, a concept Muslims who push for theocracy everywhere they live simply refuse to understand.

It doesn’t mean a government entitlement to religious practice. That’s not freedom of religion, it’s theocracy.

All the stories about Muslim kids “going hungry” in school are nonsense. There are plenty of non-meat options for them. I went through school without having meat served. Having meat served is a luxury.

More problematically, many Halal certifying organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist and hate groups.

New Yorkers should not be forced to subsidize Muslim terrorism by Islamist pressure groups using their kids as human shields. Those kids aren’t starving in a corner somewhere as their lying parents would have you believe, they’re stuffing their faces with pizza and french fries.

  • USARetired

    These vermin called Muslims do not deserve any rights in this nation of law abiding citizens!

    • DB1954

      Well they will have to first understand what their rights are and what they are not. Apparently some have really bad ideas in that regard.

      • laura r

        they know they rule. what’s not to understand? repeat the chant: muslims are more imporant than me….again….again. the mexican was new black. now the muslim is the new mexican. how cool is that?

    • popseal

      Complain though we might, our DHIMMI leadership is falling over itself for these religious nut jobs. “Why”, you ask. A lot of State Department and Defense Department yokels are bureaucrats that stand for nothing but their promotion to the next GS grade, to say nothing of their cowardice.

  • Ethan

    As a practicing Christian, it is against my faith to consume the flesh of an animal sacrificed to a deity other than the One True God of Christianity, hence I cannot consume halal produce/meats, nor should any other practicing Anglican or Catholic or Baptist etc. I bring this up whenever I encounter a sale of halal meat and no similar sale of non-halal meat is offered. Amazing how FAST non-halal meat at low prices suddenly appears when my business card is accepted and read by the store manager. Try it sometime. You have rights as a Christian, too.

    • princesssong

      Ethan what animal is it? I thought it sounded like a disease. and do they sacrifice it to satan?

      • Ethan

        ANY animal sacrificed to the muslim moongod allah is verboten to practicing Christians as described. The moongod Allah, who thrives on hatred and bloodshed, is not the Yahweh of biblical Christianity. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed…

        • DB1954

          Allah isn’t Satan himself, but I’m told he’s a good stand-in. He’s just a minor demon who sometimes goes by the alias, Beelzebub.

          • CaoMoo

            Don’t know old mo after the whole Allah’s daughters affair in mecca said that he sometimes confused the words of Allah and the words of satan so…

        • Joe

          Sorry, verboten = forbidden… no, points for little used words… not to be a nazi about it, or anything :)

    • laura r

      kosher jews cant eat it either.

  • wileyvet

    In my small town there might be a handful of Muslims that have recently moved here, and yet every grocery store in town carries a line of Halal food, seemingly far more than could be eaten by the numbers here. One of my favorite things to do in one of them is to surreptitiously move the pork wieners over to cover the Halal wieners, so that they touch, and the Muslims will have to touch pork to get at their Halal wieners. I crack up, every time I do it.

    • princesssong

      I wouldn’t eat anything that said Halal on it anyway, it sounds like a disease.

      • DB1954

        You mean it’s not?

      • LadyMoonlight

        Sure, if there is a sticker on meat stating that it is halal. However, I guarantee you that you are eating halal meat and not realising it. Not everything is labelled you know.

        • princesssong

          Yes I know, I will be checking for sure Ladymoonlight lol

    • eggmanmb

      i’ll go ya one better, I have been a breakfast cook for 25 yrs & i can’t tell ya how many muslims have had their eggs cooked in bacon grease, which is the only thing i have every used to cook eggs with.

      • DB1954

        *snicker*

        • laura r

          stupid & immature. if i see you i will poison your eggs. just kidding.

      • wileyvet

        Nice!

      • IftikharA

        This is a free and democratic country and Muslim children
        have every right to demand Halal meat according to their beliefs. Muslim community is a part and parcel of this country and pay all sorts of taxes. Without immigration, British economy would bleed to death. Muslim community needs state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers as role models. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school. The Muslim
        community has been passing through a phase of fourth Crusades. The battleground is the field of education, where the young generation will be educated properly with the Holly Quran in one hand and Sciences in other hand to serve the British
        society and the world at large. A true Muslim is a citizen of the world, which has become a small global village.

        Actually Christianity and Islam has the same god. And the bible says don’t eat pork. Here’s an example. Not Helpful Leviticus 11:7-8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You
        shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. What does your Bible say about eating Halal meat then? As far as I recall it isn’t mentioned, although if you’re really Christian you should be following Leviticus anyway…

        There are hundreds of state and church schools where
        Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies so that non-Muslim children could enjoy their own meals in their own schools. The Muslim community has been passing through a phase of
        fourth Crusades. The battleground is the field of education, where the young generation will be educated properly with the Holly Quran in one hand and Sciences in other hand to serve humanity. A true Muslim is a citizen of the world, which has become a small global village. We are going to prepare our
        youth to achieve that objective in the long run. A true Muslim believes in Prophet Moses and the Prophet Jesus and without them one cannot be a Muslim.
        IA
        London School of Islamics Trust

        • SF Gal

          HEY TROLL! Get bored? Lonely? Why don’t you go elsewhere to satisfy your need for attention?

        • Drakken

          You effing inbred savages make no demands on us infidels in our own countries, Get the F**k out now because soon your not going to get a choice!

          • IftikharA

            It is easy to say” Go back to where you came from”, but do not forget that British Muslims are actually
            born and educated here. They are in the unenviable position of trying to combine two different worlds. That is no easy. We do not want to change you lot but we
            would like to see our children getting balanced Islamic education along with National Curriculum. We would like our children to learn and be well versed in
            standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time we would like our children to learn
            and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry. A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit. Bilingualism is an asset but British
            schooling regards it as a problem.

            We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of our biggest challenges is how we
            learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs and different way of life. According to a study by COMPAS, Muslims born
            and educated were given the impression of outsiders. The perception among Muslims is that they are unwelcome in Britain is undermining efforts to help
            them integrate into wider society. Most of them say that they have experienced race discrimination and religious prejudice. Muslims and Islam is promoted a
            fundamentalist and separatist by the western elite, which have negative impact on community and social cohesion. The number of racist incidents occurring in
            London Borough of Redbridge’s schools have reached their highest levels since record begin.

            A City or a locality, where Muslims are in majority is a ghetto. There is a tendency for people of similar
            backgrounds to live together in neighbourhoods. The term”ghettoisation” is inappropriate. The original ghettos in Europe during the middle ages were set up
            by law to confine the Jewish population to one area of a city. According to a research by an Australian academic that Muslim communities in Britain are being
            increasingly ghettoized in a trend that set back hopes of assimilation by years. Britain has now eight cities in the top 100 most ghettoized cities. The people
            from the Pakistani community in Bradford and Oldham and Leicester had trebled during the decade. A report by an academic Dr Alan Carling, that Bradford risks
            becoming a front line in the global clash between the West and Islam. But Islam and Muslims do not clash with the concepts of pluralism, secularism and
            globalisation. The native flight from Bradford’s inner-city wards showed clear evidence of an increase in segregation in the city since 1991. Native parents
            are avoiding sending their children in state schools where Muslims and other minorities are in majority. The dominance of Pakistani Muslims in the city has
            meant that Bradford has become bi-cultural.

            Immigrants are the creators of Britain new wealth, otherwise, inner cities deprived areas could not get new lease of life. The native Brits regard such areas as ghettoes. Integration is not religious and cultural, it is economic and Muslims are well integrated into
            British society and at the same time they are proud of their Islamic, linguistic and cultural identities, inspite of discrimination they have been facing in all walks of life. According to UN, 80% of British Muslims feel discriminated. They are less burden on social services. Immigrants made up 8.7% of the population, but accounted for 10.2% of all collected income tax

            It is often quoted by the Western media that Muslim schools ghettoizes the children, and even lead to
            their radicalisation if they are not integrated. There is no evidence that faith schools lead to a “ghettoized education system. In British schools, pupils are
            encouraged to focus too much on their similarities rather than their differences. The integrationist approach merely results in Muslims feeling that
            their faith, language and culture is not respected.

            A report by the Institute for Community Cohesion found that native parents were deserting some schools
            after finding their children out numbered by pupils from ethnic minorities. Schools in parts of England are becoming increasingly segregated. The study
            focused on 13 local authorities. Many of the schools and colleges are segregated and this was generally worsening over recent years. This is RACISM because
            British society is the home of institutional racism. My statement regarding Muslim schools where there is no place for non-Muslim child or a teacher is based on educational process and not on racism. Muslim children need Muslim teachers during their developmental periods. For higher studies and research, Muslim teacher is not a priority.
            IA
            London School of Islamics Trust
            http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Muslim children have the right to eat Halal. They don’t have the right to demand it from others.

        • Tim

          If you want a halal meal, brown-bag it.

          Don’t you dare compare your petty, narcissistic god Mohamm…I mean Allah to the God of the Bible. Jesus declared all foods clean, for what comes out of a man defiles him, not what goes in (meaning Mohammed was one of the most defiled human beings ever to live). If your prophet, Jesus, declared all foods clean, then what is Mohammed doing contradicting that by restricting your food intake again?

      • SF Gal

        Now that’s my kind of Jihad! Yes!!!

    • SoCalMike

      Wiley Vet,
      You’re the man!
      I’m going start doing the same.
      Maybe even film it on my GOPRO.

    • PILover

      You’re an idiot (as are all that post beneath you) and small-minded. Grocery stores stock what sell, fool. They make their decisions based on financial profit. Ignorance kills, regardless of religious identification.

    • Garvey … Once a tolerant bre

      Thats cause your a racist biggot.

      • Drakken

        Eff off back to mother Africa kaffir, there is a mud hut with your name on it awaiting you.

      • Mike

        “Your a bigot”? Learn to spell you ignorant imbicile. And islam is not a race, it’s a cult. Why do you goofs keep getting that wrong.

        • hiernonymous

          “Learn to spell you ignorant imbicile.”

          It’s imbecile.

        • SF Gal

          Because that’s how they get away with screaming “prejudice” and “racism,”‘and allow us to do away with eating the ultra-evil,’JELL-O.

    • LadyMoonlight

      Or you could make a line of Halal stickers for yourself (must be some way of doing it) and quickly and quietly stick your halal sticker on some pork wieners (which are what, exactly?). Only you would know about it, but I imagine it would be much more satisfying to you.

    • hiernonymous

      “….and the Muslims will have to touch pork to get at their Halal wieners.”

      You live in a really poor neighborhood? Around here, the weiners have wrap around them. Halal, kosher, regular – all you touch when you pick up the packages here is plastic.

  • Lizzie Basara

    This ‘squeaky wheel gets the grease’ program has to stop. Beggars cannot be choosers.

    • CaoMoo

      More like the ticking bomb gets defused program.

  • Danny Robertson

    Its time to take are country back. On April 16 2014. We march on Washington DC an Congress over to the white house and the supreme court. This is a peaceful march so people please remember this. Now all you Veterans an all red blooded Americans come to Washington DC on April 16 2014. We take back are country are construction the bill of rights. Freedom is not free. You must earn your freedom. God bless you and your family and America Amen.

    • DB1954

      You should demand that Congress do something to halt Muslim immigration to this country. Hussein will do nothing, and will only step up the pace of the Muslim floodtide into America. Congress can stop him but only if they find a pair.

    • Floyd Hair

      Danny Robertson that’s on May 16, 2014 not April 16

    • SF Gal

      While I admire the idea I assure you that it will come to nothing. You will be dubbed racist and crazy. The best form of defense is people standing up to Islamic oppression: YES. We will continue to provide Jell-O in schools; YES! We will have non-Islamic religious symbols in public places; YES! We will demand that you adhere to the US constitution and not complain about freedom of speech. But will this happen? Probably not. For all the talk in these guest boards, the fact remains that the Islamic call to prayer is still being played in Dearborne, MI,’five times a day. And there’s a massive mosque at Ground Zero, NYC. And the American citizens allowed it. This is our doing and we should all be embarrassed.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Well you need both. Anything that is an explicit attack against an “other” will be considered ipso facto xenophobia. You can’t just “other” anyone. Leftists respond emotionally to that kind of thing and you never get a chance to present your rational case.

        Standing up for the constitution is important for its own merits. It’s difficult for leftists to really argue with you except to pull out their silly theories that few people actually believe except for the radicals.

  • jr61020

    Having second thoughts NY about this communist idiot you elected? If not you should !!!

    • DB1954

      It’s actually a third time they elected a communist.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Obama I
        Obama II
        DeBlasio I

  • GSR

    As a life-long resident of Dearbornistan, Michigan, I hate to keep repeating this folks so please excuse me. It’s a function of high immigration. We didn’t have these issues in the USA just a decade or two ago because, Muslims WERE NOT HERE IN ANY NUMBERS (other than trivial numbers). It’s the immigration, friend.

    • DB1954

      Yes, but Hussein is flooding the country with Muslims from Syria and Somalia as fast as he possibly can.

    • iluvisrael

      exactly – when the moslem pop. reaches just 6 – 7% they begin to agitate and make demands – and trouble

    • laura r

      thats a no brainer. the numbers.

  • rch926

    send them all back to the desert

    • bjedwards

      in body bags

  • Ravn Rey

    sorry NY…you’re going to be the next muslim capital. see what happens is when Muslims form a small minority of a population, the
    message of Islam is “peace and tolerance” (Stealth Jihad). As numbers
    rise, so do complaints, as well as retaliatory attacks for perceived affronts
    (Defensive Jihad). When Muslims eventually establish a majority, all
    non-Muslims are violently subjugated (Offensive Jihad).

    • laura r

      i thught NY was the capital of the jews? an error has occured here.

      • Ravn Rey

        you’re right….an error has occurred when the progressive/communist mayor was elected by the morons in NY.

  • Guest

    Can
    a good Muslim be a good American?
    That question was forwarded to a person that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20
    years.
    The following is his forwarded reply:
    Theologically – no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
    Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except
    Islam (Quran, 2:256)
    Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and
    the Quran (Koran).
    Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in
    prayer five times a day.
    Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with
    Christians or Jews. (Quran 5:51)
    Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who
    teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
    Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and
    scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
    Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since
    it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
    Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
    freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every
    Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
    Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the
    Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
    heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
    Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very
    suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
    “good” Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish….it’s
    still the truth.
    You had better believe it.

  • Ravn Rey

    Ask yourself this: Can a good Muslim be a good American?
    That question was forwarded to a person that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20
    years.
    The following is his forwarded reply:
    Theologically – no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
    Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except
    Islam (Quran, 2:256)
    Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and
    the Quran (Koran).
    Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in
    prayer five times a day.
    Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with
    Christians or Jews. (Quran 5:51)
    Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who
    teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
    Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and
    scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
    Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since
    it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
    Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
    freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every
    Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
    Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the
    Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
    heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
    Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very
    suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
    “good” Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish….it’s
    still the truth.
    You had better believe it.

  • ‘Kathy Bruno

    They forget that jello is made with Pork too and they have been eating it for years and nothing has happened to them how stupid are they.

    • GSR

      Dearbornistan school system banned Jello a few years ago, due to pressure from Islamic groups in our area. Praise be to the Prophet!

      • laura r

        whats wrong w/ jello? if you dont like it, dont eat it.

        • SF Gal

          A “kaffir” invented it. That’s what the problem is.

  • Dede

    I hope people are paying attention!! This is exactly how the Muslims took over Europe. Now they are fighting to get their country back. This is just the beginning! With Obama and his cultist followers on the far left who bow down to the Muslims and fall all over themselves to please them, America is in trouble!

  • Lon Pirkl

    I thought cockroaches ate anything. That vermin is crawling into every country.

  • DB1954

    “I feel that serving halal food in school is our constitutional right since the constitution has ensured equal rights for all religious groups and ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle, ….”

    I was not aware that the Constitution “ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle.” I thought it just said that the government can’t establish a state religion or prohibit its free exercise. Says nothing about ensuring religious observance or obstacles.

    Must be a Sharia spin he borrowed from Barack Hussein Obama, that brilliant constitutional law scholar, who never taught a constitutional law class.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Religious obstacles from the state are to block the “oppressive” believers and enable the oppressed…like jihadis.

  • Floyd Hair

    America get ready for more Muslims there are 30,000 coming in the next few weeks and 500,000 coming in the next tear and many have ties with Muslim Terrorist Groups thanks to OBAMA

  • johannes

    If Muslims don’t want to eat what we grow whether it be meat or plant food that is discrimination against the farmer. All those that wont eat our food should be shipped out by boat or plane, and this is a must.

    • laura r

      what about the jews who eat kosher? ship them too?

  • popseal

    DHIMMI cowards continue to march themselves into Islamic servitude. Hey, wileyvet, love that idea maybe it’ll catch on………….

  • laura r

    i went to pubic schools which were 90% jewish. there was no kosher food. either you ate the food in the lunchroom, or brought your own.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      How did you survive the oppression of bringing your own lunch? It’s amazing stuff. A story of survival against all odds. Me too.

      • laura r

        we werent kosher, i just liked the home sandwiches better than the school food. i sometimes ate in the lunch room as well. these muslims are a pain in the neck. its like they come & the red sea parts.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          I had no problem eating PBJ every day. We had great breads, jams and even fresh peanut butter from home.

          Oh, that makes me privileged I guess. I did buy the fresh cold milk. But if I had to drink juice, I wouldn’t have gone looking for a lawyer.

          • laura r

            for what ever reason my mother packed my lunch in elementry school. i think i did buy the juice like you did. in jr high we ate @ a luncheonette. in high school i remember the lunch room, the tables the line the tray. i dont think many jews were kosher, as there were many students eatting the food. i had no idea i was a minority.

    • SF Gal

      Love factual arguments that blow arguments of persecution out of the water. Thank you!!

      • laura r

        jews never expected special treatment. if they wanted to be kosher & celebrate the holidays they went to a private yeshiva. if they wanted kosher food in the market, they opened their own markets. they did their own thing. btw, its against the jewish religion to recruit, or teach jewish law to a non jew. (unless they convert). jews & muslims are polar opposites. these muslims are lazy busybody takers.

        • SF Gal

          I know well. I was just thinking that, actually. The Jewish people hold all life sacred and precious. Islamists consider life to be disposable, and to get what they want at all costs. I had no idea; I thought it was only a small number who wanted to destroy everything that is not Islamic. You would not believe the shows I have watched, the testimonies I have read, about Islam. Horrifying and disgusting.

    • SF Gal

      Yes

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Meat served at school is a “human right?” I’m not sure I even once ate meat while at school. Not once. And I rarely ate food provided by the school.

    F these insane lunatics.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      objectivefactsmatter AKBAR!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Meat served at school is a “human right?” I’m not sure I even once ate meat while at school. Not once. And I rarely ate food provided by the school.

    F these insane lunatics.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    All those who want halal meals should bring them from home.

    School is meant to educate – NOT clothe, feed, toilet train.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Some people get censured for pointing out the truth.

  • SoCalMike

    Jihadi and supremacist Muslims learned to speak English from American and European fascists and communists.
    Is it any wonder they sound the same when they speak the same mind bending, eye glazing BS each and every time they open their mouths??

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Socialist SHlTler mein kampf is a Best Seller in the Arab/Muslim world.

      That fact demonstrates the depravity that is todays Islam.

  • Sherry

    This whole site is bull**** haha. it couldn’t be anymore biased and right-wing. You guys are extremists. Not majority of Muslims as you would like people to think.

    • Melanie Schielder

      seems like some body is out of touch with reality, have you taken a look at England, Britain, Australia, Sweden, and other “western nations” that Muslims move to, welcomed with open arms, only to expect free hand outs by those countries Governments, only to turn around and curse the very Government that’s “supporting” them and their 4 wives, and 10 plus kids them brain washed women are popping out for the male dominated “Religion” that claims to be peaceful, yet when they grow in numbers enough to over populate that very country, they start making more and more demands, forcing frivolous law suites towards privately owned and operated businesses “claiming” to be the victim, when in fact every Muslim claims peace, yet in fact we the People that are no longer sleeping sheep know the truth about Muslims and what’s to come in this country if they are allowed to continue the same way they have been in other “western Countries” Leftists like yourself are THE problem with this whole “bleeding heart” for the poor Muslims that need help, they don’t need help, you and other leftists are helping them complete their goals of FORCING Islam onto the entire world.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Socialist UK is “F”d – as is Eloi Sweden.

        G-d Bless Australia – a better friend of the US than Dhimmified UK.

    • Geoffrey_Britain

      “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” Socrates

      “Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S…

      The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.

      “Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.

      “Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question”

      http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/guess-who-u-s-muslims-are-voting-for/

      There are two kinds of Muslims; the devout who fully practice what Mohammad taught which is that all non-Muslims face a three-fold choice: conversion, dhimmitude or death. And the majority of Muslims, who are ‘cafeteria’ Muslims, picking and choosing what tenets of Islam they will practice and, as the percentage of Muslims increases in a non-Muslim majority society, the cafeteria Muslim becomes ever more devout.

      “Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not, there is only Islam. It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition.‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rejecting attempts to call Turkey the representative of moderate Islam, in 2003 commenting on the term “moderate Islam”

      • SF Gal

        Finally. Thank you.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        My response is that I believe that the prophet of Satan called Muhammed was Satans representative on Earth and all those who revere the prophet of Satan called Muhammed are agents of Satan.

      • SF

        Well stated and thorough – thank you. I watched a YouTube clip recently of a former Muslim talking about Islam. Apparently the term “moderate Islam”‘and Wahabbi (sp?)” Islam are Western terms. And now the Muslims are using that to define Islam. Ha!

    • SF Gal

      Well Sherry I am actually not a “Right-winger,” I just can’t tolerate one society insisting that they receive special privileges – and be allowed to blow us up. That’s all.

    • cxt

      Sherry
      Finding demands for specific religious based diets when they are given to nobody else to be arrogant and offputting, is not “extreme” it is rational.
      I read the orignal article and some dude was waling about his daughter “having” to eat peanut butter instead of a “hot meal.” I was sitting at my desk and eating a peanut butter sandwich at the time—a meal I packed myself BTW.
      Thinking to myself “really” between bites. So what I’m eating is viewed as a personal affront to this guy.
      Generations of Cathloics (sp) ate fish sticks and peanut butter on Fridays while people around them ate bar-b-que or burgers etc.. But this is too much for this dude to endure.
      Demanding everyone else cater to your personal whims is annoying in the extreme.
      And if I may say so–one of the fundemental issues with Islam. You and I might say something like “Wow-that dude is eating bar-b-que while my religion has me eating peanut butter—oh well, nobody said it would be easy to be a good catholic” (sp) While the Islamic dude in the original story seems to be saying “If I can’t eat it YOU should be forbidden from enjoying it too!!!!”
      The first is understandable while the latter a horrible POV IMO.

      • SF Gal

        Can’t argue sound rationale. Thank you!!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The death toll on front page is zero. What’s the death toll in the Muslim world?

      • hiernonymous

        A more appropriate comparison might be “how many people did al Awlaki kill?”

        • Drakken

          Who cares, a good jihadist is a dead jihadist and that inbred savage got what he deserved.

          • hiernonymous

            Maybe, maybe not. It’s beside the point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Directly or as an accessory?

            It would have been better to put him on trial as an American citizen in a perfect world. But a perfect world wouldn’t need to put anyone on trial I suppose.

            If you’re saying FPM is morally equivalent to jihadis that “merely” incite and instruct terrorists…that’s quite a stretch.

            I mean the articles that teach how to proceed with vigilante activities are well hidden. I can’t even find them myself.

          • hiernonymous

            “It would have been better to put him on trial as an American citizen in a perfect world.”

            I agree with that, but that’s not remotely my point.

            OP made a comment about this being an extremist site. Daniel’s rejoinder was that the death toll from the site was zero.

            The point I’m making is that the death toll from al Awlaki was zero, as well. His contribution to al Qa’ida’s cause was through ‘inspiration.’

            “If you’re saying FPM is morally equivalent to jihadis that “merely” incite and instruct terrorists…that’s quite a stretch.”

            It’s fortunate for me, then, that I didn’t make an argument about moral equivalence. I’m pointing out that Daniel’s response was not, in fact, responsive, and that the charge he needs to answer – if he wishes to answer it – is a charge of being extremist. Claiming that nobody on the site has blood directly on their hands is a bit of misdirection as far as responses go.

            “I mean the articles that teach how to proceed with vigilante activities are well hidden. I can’t even find them myself.”

            If you really wanted to go down that path, it wouldn’t be necessary to find “how-to” articles; it would be sufficient to find articles that inspired people to take a militant or violent response.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point then is that both FPM and our jihadi convert friend either failed or continue to fail to moderate their views sufficiently?

            They’re not morally equivalent to each other, but they fail to meet the standards of the “moderates?” And then fail in the same direction. Shades of grey I guess.

          • hiernonymous

            “The point then is that both FPM and our jihadi convert friend either
            failed or continue to fail to moderate their views sufficiently?”

            “The point” is simply that body count is an inappropriate and incomplete measure of harm.

            The degree to which frontpage is extremist and causes harm is OP’s argument to make, not mine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think that Muslim extremists are a lot more dangerous than “Islam-o-phobe” extremists. Casual use of labels like “extremist” some times leads people to draw the wrong conclusions.

            What are your thoughts on the article itself and the topic?

          • hiernonymous

            “I think that Muslim extremists are a lot more dangerous than “Islam-o-phobe” extremists.”

            Perhaps. “Dangerous to whom” is an obvious question. Another is “which extremists are we talking about.”

            “Casual use of labels like “extremist” some times leads people to draw the wrong conclusions.”

            That’s possible. You’d have to ask OP how casual his or her remark was.

            “What are your thoughts on the article itself and the topic?”

            It opened with a protestation that the mayor was giving Islam “special privileges” by adding Muslim holidays to the NYC public school calendar while leaving out the Buddhists and Hindus. Out of curiosity, I looked at this year’s calendar to see who already got time off. Right there near the beginning of the year, in September, I saw “Rosh Hashanah.”

            Presumbably, when I have a moment to peruse Daniel’s past articles, we’ll find him railing against NYC giving Judaism “special privileges” in the public schools – or we might conclude that Daniel was simply airing a bit of his own bias.

            The issue of providing halal meat in the schools didn’t raise my interest to the level of requiring a public statement on the matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s possible. You’d have to ask OP how casual his or her remark was.”

            It is my judgment that as it stands the statement is far too casual. It marks the OP as “extremist” by OP’s own standards.

            “The issue of providing halal meat in the schools didn’t raise my interest to the level of requiring a public statement on the matter.”

            What about the issue of coercing others to consume halal meats?

          • hiernonymous

            “It is my judgment that as it stands the statement is far too casual.”

            That’s interesting.

            “What about the issue of coercing others to consume halal meats?”

            You’d asked about my opinion on the article itself and the topic.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re right. The article didn’t go in to that. There are cases where halal meats become the only choice and I thought this article discussed that. I must be thinking of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575724/Parents-fury-pork-sausages-banned-school-menu-replaced-halal-meat.html and conflated the topics in my mind. That’s where I see it going but this aspect was not discussed here.

            The only thing coercive would be if we have to help fund it, or if the menu choices change for those not wanting halal. We’ll just see what happens.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It opened with a protestation that the mayor was giving Islam “special privileges” by adding Muslim holidays to the NYC public school calendar while leaving out the Buddhists and Hindus. Out of curiosity, I looked at this year’s calendar to see who already got time off. Right there near the beginning of the year, in September, I saw “Rosh Hashanah.”

            Presumbably, when I have a moment to peruse Daniel’s past articles, we’ll find him railing against NYC giving Judaism “special privileges” in the public schools – or we might conclude that Daniel was simply airing a bit of his own bias.

            Christians and Jews do have “special privileges” established because of the dominant culture. Most other religions understand that the USA is a nation established by Christians with liberty for all faiths. That doesn’t necessarily equate to radical egalitarianism and equal recognition down to the finest degree possible. That’s Utopian.

            I understand the atheist solution is simply to eradicate all religions. But it should not please anyone when a minority wants to be treated like the majority, when the majority simply asks to keep certain grandfathered traditions. You have to understand the concept of grandfathering to understand why it’s objectionable.

            But reasonable people can disagree. I think atheists should be in favor of preventing more religious holidays from being established rather than defending an alien culture’s alleged right to be treated like they deserve retroactive “grandfather” status. There weren’t really any Muslims around when the Revolutionary War was fought and if there were, they were not leading anything significant. This is not an Islamic culture, an Islamic republic or anything like that.

            It doesn’t make sense to extend additional privileges to new religions. Especially for people that want to strengthen the metaphorical wall of separation between “church” (any religious belief or symbol according to atheists today) and the state.

            A lot of people are biased towards American culture. It takes more than that to argue for laws that protect American culture, but it very often possible to do. There is nothing wrong with American culture. We just have to define the legal thresholds when conflicts arise.

          • hiernonymous

            “But it should not please anyone when a minority wants to be treated like the majority”

            Yes, they should know their place and stay in it.

            So “special privilege” is not inherently bad, we just want to be careful about what sorts of citizens we grant it to. That’s an interesting take.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, they should know their place and stay in it.”

            As individuals they are equal before the law. As a class they are not. If you or they want to promote collectivism, they’ll lose. If they simply must have some radical standard of absolute equality before the law they should argue for removal of grandfather status everywhere they find it. But you don’t revise history or pretend that grandfathering sets a precedent for elevating others by class. I suppose you could, but don’t expect to win just because of “equality.”

            It’s not impossible that Muslims could make it work, but it’s not their right to demand it.

          • hiernonymous

            “If they simply must have some radical standard of absolute equality
            before the law they should argue for removal of grandfather status
            everywhere they find it.”

            It’s interesting that you find equality before the law a radical standard.

            “But you don’t revise history or pretend that grandfathering sets a precedent for elevating others by class.”

            Since you continue to invoke ‘grandfathering,’ let’s take a closer look at that.

            The Grandfather clauses did not refer simply to the continuation of white voting privilege; they were a set of laws that exempted a privileged class from the effects of laws that ostensibly targeted all uneducated or poor voters. In other words, simply having Rosh Hoshanah on the NYC public school calendar is not grandfathering. An example of grandfathering would be if NYC passed a law or regulation eliminating all religious holidays from the school calendar, and a subsequent exception were made for those holidays which had been included on the calendar before a particular date.

            Nothing about ‘grandfathering’ really suggests how discrepancies in how different groups are treated should be remedied – whether by ‘elevating’ the disadvantaged group, or removing privilege from the advantaged group. However, your take is somewhat ahistorical, in that the actual source of the phrase – the Grandfather clauses – were, in fact, remedied by “elevating” the disadvantaged group. That is, they were eventually corrected, not by disenfranchising poor or illiterate white voters, but by removing the restrictions on black voters.

            “:..but it’s not their right to demand it.”

            Of course it’s their right to demand it. It may not be their right to have those demands met, of course.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s interesting that you find equality before the law a radical standard.”

            I don’t find it radical. Others do when they reinterpret it to mean that the law must provide for equality of social standing and any other made up rights they can come up with. Equal ability to pay for stuff is not equality before the law. Equality of my class relative to yours in social standing is not equality before the law as our constitution defines it.

          • hiernonymous

            You had referred to “some radical standard of absolute equality before the law.” Absolute equality before the law isn’t a radical standard, it’s an American ideal. Nothing about absolute equality before the law suggests equality of outcomes or changes in the laws themselves.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You had referred to “some radical standard of absolute equality before the law.” Absolute equality before the law isn’t a radical standard, it’s an American ideal. Nothing about absolute equality before the law suggests equality of outcomes or changes in the laws themselves.”

            I agree with you, but others want more. They want equality of result, not equality before the law and equal opportunity. They want the law to make them equal any time they are deficient or experience deficiencies. It’s a step towards the ideals of communism that they have in mind even if they don’t know where the ideas come from.

          • hiernonymous

            “I agree with you, but others want more. They want equality of result, not equality before the law and equal opportunity.”

            Then I’m at a loss to understand the wording of your previous, but no matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What I meant by “radical equality” was not that constitutional equality was or is radical but that they want something beyond what the constitution guarantees explicitly or implicitly. They want equality of condition that some people call egalitarianism.

            http://www.sociologyindex.com/equality_of_condition.htm

            Equality of condition, also known as equality of outcome, is a form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences in material condition between individuals or households in a society. Where there is very little difference in individuals’ possession of wealth, status andpower, there is equality of condition.

          • hiernonymous

            If that’s what you meant, it seems a bit of a digression. I see no indication of demands for “equality of outcome” in the article.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, but I’m referring to the larger motives for supporting these “multicultural” initiatives.

            There are factions that want increased government sovereignty. And interpreting rights in that way allows them to then point to the need for extra levels of government to judge and monitor fairness and essentially intervene more and more.

            That’s one of the biggest problems with collectivism: You can’t ever render a final judgment because the “solutions” always create new victims. It only ends with communism, which is of course delusional too.

            Incremental socialists (and many of them use socialism as a stepping stone to their dreams of communism) use these kinds of tactics to sort of try to point out the “inequalities of the system” and to show that we will always fail to meet (their) standards of equality. They present these standards as though they are universal when obviously they are not. They want to highlight the “class struggles” by making them worse rather than solving them with equality before the law. Equality before the law is not good enough for them.

          • hiernonymous

            “OK, but I’m referring to the larger motives for supporting these “multicultural” initiatives.”

            Of course you’re referring to ‘larger motives,” but a little bit of your obsession with communism goes a long way, and I don’t plan on pursuing every comment I make on Disqus into a conversation about “collectivism” simply because you’re one of the people who chose to respond. I have Palestinian friends who see Mossad behind red-light cameras, the change in Girl Scouts Thin Mints, and the Bucs’ quarterback woes, but I don’t feel obligated to share that filter in every conversation. I enjoy chatting with you, but I plan to stick more or less closely to the topic on this thread.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course you’re referring to ‘larger motives,” but a little bit of your obsession with communism goes a long way…”

            There are certainly some unresolved ideas in our historical conversations. Tracing ideas helps us understand them.

            Do you deny that collectivism is contradictory to the principals behind American equality before the law?

            Does marketing work? If you find elegant ways to sell your ideas, can you persuade people to follow? Is fraud always discernible when people engage in campaigns to sell their ideas?

            There is no coherent or unified movement towards socialism or communism. Citing Marx’s influence is nothing like saying that Mossad or “the Jews” are behind this or that. You’re trying to mock suggestions that you don’t want to take seriously for your own reasons, not because you have a rational reason to reject the possibility that I have valid concerns.

            If socialism came from the Bible or some other clearly identifiable source it would be OK to discuss that. There’s nothing wrong with rationally tracing ideas back to their sources. Illumination is good. Obfuscation is not good. That’s the basic guiding principal that I go by.

            Don’t tell me why my ideas remind you of something unpleasant, tell me why they are irrational.

          • hiernonymous

            “Do you deny that collectivism…”

            See my previous post.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You like to stay focused directly in front of you and larger patterns don’t interest you. That’s the only thing that I can infer unless you want to clear it up for me.

          • hiernonymous

            There was nothing unclear about my post. What you affect to infer from it doesn’t worry me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Then it should not worry you that I suspect you don’t like the conversations about the larger patterns because you might be one of the afflicted.

          • hiernonymous

            No, that doesn’t worry me. There are much more subtle ways to try to inflict one’s pet conversation on others. Good night!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But that (Marxist and socialist influence on modern politics) is the entire theme of the web site you’re visiting for these conversations. Are you trying to impose your preferences on the local majority?

            Just think about it.

          • hiernonymous

            No, you’re simply being a bit socially awkward. Whether a forum be online or brick and mortar, the fact that there is a common interest that draws its members together in no way implies that everyone, at all times, expects or is expected to limit themselves to a single topic of conversation. Online, we use the convention of the thread to set informal boundaries about the topic. It’s not sacred, and threads drift, of course, as this one is doing, but the custom is useful because of the limits of the medium.

            In this case, there was a pretty clear topic of conversation, and when you tried to change it, I explicitly informed you that I was not interested in engaging you on the new topic. Rather than accept that, you then proceeded to argue cajole, and even engage in a bit of adolescent manipulation (if you don’t play along, I’ll take it that you are ________. Seriously?). So who do you suppose is attempting to impose preferences?

            Think about it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What is “the point?”

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/the-point

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you are a medical doctor, you want to treat your patients and follow established protocols. But you also want your research peers to be tracing and finding causes for disease so that the protocols can be improved.

            You’re like the doctor that objects to certain research as offensive because the research itself can be unpleasant some times.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course it’s their right to demand it. It may not be their right to have those demands met, of course.”

            It’s their right to lobby for it, not demand it by trying to define something as a right that is not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nothing about ‘grandfathering’ really suggests how discrepancies in how different groups are treated should be remedied – whether by ‘elevating’ the disadvantaged group, or removing privilege from the advantaged group. However, your take is somewhat ahistorical, in that the actual source of the phrase – the Grandfather clauses – were, in fact, remedied by “elevating” the disadvantaged group. That is, they were eventually corrected, not by disenfranchising poor or illiterate white voters, but by removing the restrictions on black voters.”

            Grandfathering as a principal has been applied much more widely than that. It’s an acknowledgement of legacy and that some times compromises with those legacy issues are the best way forward. Obviously nobody considers it ideal.

          • hiernonymous

            “Grandfathering as a principal has been applied much more widely than that.”

            Really? Where and when, in any sense relevant to this discussion? You claimed that “grandfathering” did not imply a precedent for remedies that involved elevating the disadvantaged group, and I showed you that the namesake Grandfather clauses were remedied in precisely that fashion. How is your last response relevant?

            “Obviously nobody considers it ideal.”

            Then Daniel’s complaint about “special privilege” makes no sense as it stands.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You claimed that “grandfathering” did not imply a precedent for remedies that involved elevating the disadvantaged group, and I showed you that the namesake Grandfather clauses were remedied in precisely that fashion. ”

            Maybe I didn’t communicate clearly enough. Grandfathering as a principal is unique because it specifically deals with legacy issues. It’s not that the concept can’t ever be used again, but you can’t cite a certain party having the status as simple argument that you also have that right.

            My grandfather gets something because he was alive and it was promised to him, but his children don’t get it as part of the agreement. They might get it with some other rationale, but they can’t simply say “me too.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You claimed that “grandfathering” did not imply a precedent for remedies that involved elevating the disadvantaged group, and I showed you that the namesake Grandfather clauses were remedied in precisely that fashion. ”

            Because the grandfather status argument in those cases was deemed illegitimate. The best remedy is always equality before the law.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “An example of grandfathering would be if NYC passed a law or regulation eliminating all religious holidays from the school calendar, and a subsequent exception were made for those holidays which had been included on the calendar before a particular date.”

            Agreed. That would be an example.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So “special privilege” is not inherently bad, we just want to be careful about what sorts of citizens we grant it to. That’s an interesting take.”

            I’m assuming you know what “grandfathering” means.

            This is just wikipedia but it should do so we are talking about the same ideas:
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, I’m quite familiar with it. In fact, I just finished teaching my students about it two weeks past. The name comes from an attempt to prevent black Americans from voting while providing a sufficient legal fiction to prevent laws against just that from being invoked. One would think that a moment’s reflection on the origin of the name would suggest a reason that ‘grandfathering’ is not a particularly persuasive argument in favor of preserving special privilege.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your argument is not persuasive that grandfathering is always wrong. I didn’t say that it was always right or always wrong. It’s an attempt to deal with reality.

            In any case, it’s not a justification to expand special class treatment. It’s an acknowledgment that these special cases are part of our legacy. You seem to be arguing for expanding of special treatment by class and I’m just pointing out how we got here today.

            We should not expand it. We should have the conversation about destroying it separately from the conversation we’re having about expanding special treatment by class vis-a-vis halal food for Muslim students at the expense of others.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your argument is not persuasive that grandfathering is always wrong.”

            I didn’t suggest that it was always wrong. I was able to legally drink alcohol when I was 18; when I was 19, my state legislature raised the drinking age, but included a grandfather clause to prevent the law from affecting those who could already legally drink. There wasn’t anything wrong with that.

            In this case, the problem arises from preferential treatment of one religion over another by the government, not by any “grandfathering.” So far, I can’t even detect any grandfathering in play. The simple survival of a custom or law is not grandfathering, which requires an active effort to exempt such a custom or law from the workings of another that would otherwise extinguish it.

            “We should not expand it.”

            Plainly, the idea of the government extending formal preferential treatment to one religion over another is unsatisfactory. Whether the remedy is extending privilege to all or to none is of secondary interest to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That really avoids discussing the issue of coercing others to eat halal meats.

            Certain holidays have a de facto grandfather status. We are not expanding Christian holidays or Jewish holidays that I am aware of and the trend is to downplay or redefine them rather than adding new ones by appealing to religious rights that don’t. But that conversation is really distracting us from the one about coercing others to go along with new (for us) religious doctrines like halal meats.

          • hiernonymous

            “That really avoids discussing the issue of coercing others to eat halal meats.”

            It also avoids discussing the issue of whether the NFL should extend the regular season by two games.

            Where does the original article mention either?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Whether the remedy is extending privilege to all or to none is of secondary interest to me.”

            And therefore offering halal meats with tax subsidies and practically no way to avoid limiting non-halal choices to other students is a bad idea for you?

            The only fair way to do it would be so say that any group can apply to have private organizations serve food to those that want these special diets and they (who want the choices) are responsible for funding it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What do you think of France and their stupid elitist French culture? They’re so bigoted! We should eradicate all cultural distinctions. Cultural distinctions are inherently oppressive.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s a better question than you seem to realize. The French attempts to defend their culture from foreign pollution are simultaneously amusing and instructive. Anyone involved in studying the diffusion of language is familiar with the French Academy, and its attempts to prevent English words from infecting French by trying to find ‘better’ French words. The vulgar “hashtag” is verboten in official French documents, replaced by the much smoother ‘mot-dièse.’ “Wi-Fi” becomes “acces sans fil a l’internet.” And so on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Very good. But does it then follow that no cultural values are worth defending?

          • hiernonymous

            I think that, as a rule, when one is talking about “defending” cultural values, one is lamenting either a change in demographics or a change in generations. How does one “defend” against those?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Open discourse. Some times you might have to match the tactics of the attackers unfortunately.

            But of course make sure you’re not chasing phantoms and other nonexistent enemies.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m all for open discourse. That sounds refreshingly civilized. Much more so than, say, demonizing entire groups and advocating sealing the borders against them, etc. You sound much more reasonable than Mme. Geller, for example.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m a lot more reasonable. I’m just evidently not as interesting.

          • hiernonymous

            As an aside: I’m not sure I understand your discussion of “atheist” viewpoints. How is that relevant? There’s a distinctly secular point of view that represents the mainstream current of Western practice in government since the Enlightenment, but “secular” and “atheist” are very different concepts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            America has always been a secular nation. Atheists tend to be more hostile towards anything associated with religion in any fashion. They some times want an absolutely discrete separation between “church and state.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Atheists tend to be more hostile towards anything associated with religion in any fashion.”

            That’s interesting, but reflecting on what atheists want in the context of this conversation seems a bit out of place – the article hadn’t quoted any atheists weighing in, and nothing in the conversation to that point brought them up. It would seem to be far more appropriate to note that a run-of-the-mill secular perspective would oppose the selective granting of special privilege to only certain religions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It would seem to be far more appropriate to note that a run-of-the-mill secular perspective would oppose the selective granting of special privilege to only certain religions.”

            Atheists are more hostile towards the idea that a secular nation can tolerate religious holidays in recognition of our dominant culture.

          • hiernonymous

            Preferential religious holidays are not compatible with atheism or secularism. That an atheist might be more likely to actually voice an objection is neither here nor there.

            For that matter, I’m not aware that Rosh Hoshanah is celebrated by the “dominant culture” in the U.S. Obsevance of Jewish holidays is actually a recent development. They started being observed in NYC in the 1950s. Redondo Beach started celebrating them in 2010. Chagrin Falls, Ohio, began in 2003. Portland, Oregon, is currently considering it. Trying to roll “Jewish” and “Christian” together into a category of “dominant culture” and implying that both sets of holidays have always been celebrated here is more than a bit misleading.

            Bottom line: there’s no room for preferential religious treatment in a secular system.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Trying to roll “Jewish” and “Christian” together into a category of “dominant culture” and implying that both sets of holidays have always been celebrated here is more than a bit misleading.”

            Christians want to accommodate Jews not because Jews demand rights but because of the common history. There are subdivisions and factions, but ultimately this is a Judeo Christian culture.

            And there is nothing wrong with accommodating other religions if we can agree what is reasonable. But nobody has an absolute right to demand that we do. The standard of today is “reasonable accommodation.”

            They have a right to lobby, but it’s not a “right” to get their way.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bottom line: there’s no room for preferential religious treatment in a secular system.”

            That’s fine as a rational position, but do you want to freeze what we’ve established or remove all existing recognition? What about our currency?

            There’s huge diversity of views on how to handle the legacies. But most agree that we should not implement new recognition of new religions and new religious holidays and certainly we should not do stupid things like determine that a major mission for NASA is to improve Muslim self-esteem or host holiday dinners in the White House.

            Actually new holiday dinners for our politicians don’t bother me because that’s just diplomacy. I don’t feel the need to eradicate signs of other cultures. I welcome diversity. I do not welcome multiculturalism that wants to take away from the established culture based on collectivist principals of equality.

            We just don’t need to engage in collectivist thinking where we say for example that because this class was elevated historically we must now appease another class that is asking for the same elevation as a right or an alleged example of equality before the law. But we might find rational reasons to reject it or adopt it. And if we do find policy that favors Christians or Jews and truly interferes with equality before the law, then the religious folks need to give it up.

          • SF Gal

            Okay. I’ve got to agree here.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Quite a few.

          • hiernonymous

            For instance?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Should we begin with September 11?

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, let’s. How many people did al Awlaki kill on September 11?

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • hiernonymous

            0 is much lower than “quite a few.” That was a waste of time.

          • SF Gal

            Your argument does not have any merit. If you feel sorry for, or feel that the Islamists are oppressed then you need to go to an pro-Islam website.’This website is for those who are concerned about America losing its origins and the people losing their civil rights by being overly tolerant of those who wish to destroy us.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your argument does not have any merit.”

            If you show me that you understand what argument I’m making, and can show how it is without merit, I’ll be happy to read your argument. Your assertion, absent either of those elements, is so much noise.

            “If you feel sorry for, or feel that the Islamists are oppressed then you need to go to an pro-Islam website…”

            I’m not really comfortable with how quickly you’re trying to advance our relationship. I’m glad that you are concerned about my needs, but we’re not really there yet.

            “This website is for those who are concerned about America losing its
            origins and the people losing their civil rights by being overly
            tolerant of those who wish to destroy us. ”

            Yes, I’m aware of the sort of person who is attracted to this sort of web site. But that still leaves open the question of whether the site is intended as part of the marketplace of ideas, or as group therapy for disgruntled like-minded political partisans. I’m treating it as the former; you’re treating it as the latter. If those operating the site wish to retreat into a sort of onanistic exercise in mutal affirmation, they have several options: blocking posts that offer disagreement, or putting password protection on the site, or any number of possibilities. Those running the site appear to understand better than you the implications of such a step.

          • SF Gal

            I still don’t know what you think you are arguing over. You argue very well but I admit that I don’t see your point; I didn’t finish reading the multiple paragraphs.’The horrors of Islam, which stretch all over the globe (please read up on the CAR. Islam is the cause of that horror). You said that you are a teacher,’yes? I hope you teach your students about the dangers of any ideology that seeks to destroy anything in its path. Because that is the definition of Islam: The a Great Destroyer.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point is that people don’t destroy things unless they are “white imperialists” (like us) or they are oppressed.

            They (the poor oppressed classes of people that get “othered” by us mean colonialists) essentially have a free pass until the “colonialists” – or whatever label they use – are destroyed.

          • SF Gal

            Yeah! Cause unless you’re the “othered”‘party, you’re just ain’t right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The world just might be that simple. I guess. It might all be a dream. We just don’t know…just don’t think too hard and go where your Dear Leader tells you to.

          • hiernonymous

            “I still don’t know what you think you are arguing over… I didn’t finish reading the multiple paragraphs…”

            Well, if that doesn’t just sum up the primary problem with American politics, I don’t know what does. Here’s a translation:

            “I’m too lazy to find out what I’m talking about. But I’m going to talk about it anyway!”

            Tell me something, SF Gal, if you couldn’t force your way through a post as short as that, what reason could I possibly have for assuming that your opinion on Islam is rooted in any actual knowledge? If you can’t work your way through a couple of paragraphs, it’s nearly certain you didn’t bother working your way through multiple books, or take the time to do any original research, or do anything more than read the editorial diatribes of people like Daniel Greenfield and adopt them as your own opinions wholesale. You, and those like you, are exactly why Mr. Greenfield spends his time doing what he does, rather than engaging in real research and publishing at a more scholarly level. It’s a depressing thought.

          • SF Gal

            Please go to exmuslim.org and also review testimonies from actual former Muslims who talk about Islam – what they learned, what they believed, and why they left. You may be able to argue with me and the rest of this board all day long but you cannot, if you are a reasonable person, argue with someone’s true life experience. As for not reading all of your paragraphs, I didn’t read them because I don’t like to spend my time reading baseless arguements, no matter how much or how often you insist that they are valid.

          • hiernonymous

            Please go to exmuslim.org
            and also review testimonies from actual former Muslims who talk about
            Islam – what they learned, what they believed, and why they left.

            What in the world makes you think I haven’t? I don’t limit myself to sources of information that reinforce my biases. I’ve also lived among and spoken to many Muslims who continue to practice their faith.

            You may be able to argue with me and the rest of this board all day long
            but you cannot, if you are a reasonable person, argue with someone’s
            true life experience.

            The last I checked, everyone’s personal experience is true life, and many different people have many different experiences. If you mean that I have no reason to question the sincerity of their beliefs, that’s true. If you mean that I have no reason to question the conclusions they, or those who listen to them, come to, that’s nonsense. I find my own “true life experiences” questioned on these boards all the time, and well they should be.

            As for not reading all of your paragraphs, I didn’t read them because I
            don’t like to spend my time reading baseless arguements, no matter how
            much or how often you insist that they are valid.

            Presumably you understand that the uncomfortable thought buzzing around in the back of your mind, agitating for release, is the realization that you can’t possibly know that my arguments are “baseless” until you’ve read them. Don’t be dense.

          • SF Gal

            My “uncomfortable thought” is that you are the type to argue just to argue, and are also the type who will not take a stand for what is clearly true because you’d rather argue. That’s all I see in your arguments. Let me tell you one thing that you cannot argue with: Islam teaches that Jihad is a NECESSITY to be guaranteed paradise after you die – with the virgins, and alcohol, and food. The Islamists CELEBRATED And continue to celebrate 9/11. Islam is filth, the ideology is filth, and its followers are deluded. Go ahead and try to argue that. I do not care how many muslims you know. You should pay attention to those who LEFT ISLAM because they wanted freedom from oppression and violence. What don’t you understand?

          • hiernonymous

            That’s all I see in your arguments.

            Those would be the arguments that you already told me you don’t read? Why would your opinion of what you see in something you know little about mean anything to me?

            Let me tell you one thing that you cannot argue with: Islam teaches
            that Jihad is a NECESSITY to be guaranteed paradise after you die…

            Okay, you told me one thing. Now tell me how you know that to be true. What’s your background in Muslim theology? Are you parroting the first paragraph of a Daniel Pipes article, repeating an opinion you heard from Daniel Greenfield, or do you actually know what you’re talking about?

            Islam is filth, the ideology is filth, and its followers are deluded.

            People who think and talk like that tend to be the ones making the world a more violent place, not the ones helping to fix it.

            You should pay attention to those who LEFT ISLAM because they wanted freedom from oppression and violence.

            I do pay attention to them. Part of the problem with short attention span theater is that its adherents tend to assume that one must either be fully opposed to a doctrine/dogma, or fully embrace it.

            What don’t you understand?

            Many, many things – but in this case, I don’t understand the self-assurance of people who hardly know what they’re talking about assuring one another that the world would be a better place, not if said people did something to improve their own lives and own societies, but if we could do something about those _______________ (insert the religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, or political party that gaffes you off in the blank).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m too lazy to find out what I’m talking about. But I’m going to talk about it anyway!”

            Where have I seen THAT before?

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t know; where?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Truthrevolt.org

          • hiernonymous

            Pretty strong indictment of the site. I’ll take your word for it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’d just get confused.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re probably right; that comment just confused me, so I suppose you’re vindicated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Just saying. We’re all human.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            By the way I’m having DNS trouble so I can’t rejoin that conversation right now…but I will.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m not sure which conversation you’re talking about, but okay.

          • SF Gal

            HAHAHA! Kaffir!

          • SF Gal

            Aren’t you funny? Why don’t you bring your socialism arguments to some victims of Sept. 11, and see what they say? Do you ever discuss Sept. 11 with your so-called pupils, or are they all Islamists too?

          • hiernonymous

            What are you raving about now?

            Why don’t you bring your socialism arguments to some victims of Sept. 11, and see what they say?

            Because socialism has about as much to do with 9/11 as New Coke vs Classic Coke had to do with Isandlwana.

            Do you ever discuss Sept. 11 with your so-called pupils…

            I discuss it with my pupils at some length. Why do you ask?

            …or are they all Islamists too?”

            Too?

          • SF Gal

            Listen to me. I am not raving. But you are being obtuse and argumentative just because you can, which is a waste if everyone’s time. Knowing what 9/11′was and knowing the cause behind it you should know better than to try to argue any case for Islam. Unless of course you are an Islamist. If that is the case,’then I would understand better why you are choosing to waste your energy. End of argument. Total waste of my time.

          • hiernonymous

            Knowing what 9/11′was and knowing the cause behind it you should know
            better than to try to argue any case for Islam. Unless of course you are
            an Islamist.

            Those are the choices, huh? One either condemns Islam or one is an Islamist?

            End of argument.

            Doesn’t something have to exist before it can end?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Those are the choices, huh? One either condemns Islam or one is an Islamist?”

            People can discuss the range of possibilities in a cooperative conversation, but when it turns antagonist, it’s a natural human reaction to assume or at least prepare for the worst.

            That’s not a denial of the shades in between. Usually it’s a challenge or a counter attack.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m pointing out the fact that it’s a logical fallacy. You’re trying to explain why people are moved to offer logical fallacies.

            That’s not a denial of the shades in between. Usually it’s a challenge or a counter attack.

            Her comment was an explicit denial of the shades in between.

            Of course it was a challenge or a counter-attack, but that doesn’t render it any less fallacious.

            Still, most gallant of you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m pointing out the fact that it’s a logical fallacy. You’re trying to explain why people are moved to offer logical fallacies.”

            If it’s an absolute statement then it is or would be a logical fallacy. Some times the implication is that you should just be careful about some of the implications.

            If I say, since you’re not from here, you might be from there, that is not a logical fallcy because you might be. Even though only two possibilities are discussed we’re not limited to those to. Change to “you must be” and then of course it’s a logical fallacy without getting in to more evidence. Then again we might be talking about which hemisphere you’re from.

            But generally speaking I agree that the structure is very similar to logical fallacies but in informal discourse it’s usually meant as a caution that we might conclude you’re an enemy because you’re defending their narratives and acting in hostile fashion towards us.

            If you want to lead “xenophobes” towards more productive lines of thinking there are better ways to do it. Of course it usually takes more time for those productive routes. I’m not judging, just saying.

            I believe that I do my fair share at fighting xenophobia by helping people dissect the narratives to see which elements are valid. Therefore the other elementss can be discarded.

            Using shaming techniques isn’t very helpful in calming xenophobes because some of their fears might turn out to have a rational basis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Because socialism has about as much to do with 9/11 as New Coke vs Classic Coke had to do with Isandlwana.”

            Without the Soviet-Western cold war, do you think we’d have these same problems with worldwide Islamic terrorism? And if we still did have those problems, would they have the same kind of weapons and use the same kind of tactics?

          • hiernonymous

            Without the Soviet-Western cold war, do you think we’d have these same problems with worldwide Islamic terrorism?

            It’s unlikely that current events would be identical absent any significant past event, but that doesn’t demonstrate a causal link or even a close correlation. Given that both Western-Muslim confrontation and terrorism long pre-date the Cold War, you’d have to make a persuasive case indeed that modern Islamism is an offshoot of socialism. Ironically, it’s the Arab Socialism movement that put into place most of the governments the current Muslim extremists want to overthrow.

            And if we still did have those problems, would they have the same kind of weapons and use the same kind of tactics?

            Again, the logic underlying the question is suspect – are today’s weapons the result of socialism? At any rate, 9/11 involved flying airplanes into buildings; in what way are you arguing that this was a peculiarly socialist ‘weapon’ and tactic? If anything, it seems to draw more on the Japanese kamikaze than the tank factories of the Urals.

            Truly, any topic can be about collectivism, can’t it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s unlikely that current events would be identical absent any significant past event, but that doesn’t demonstrate a causal link or even a close correlation. ”

            I didn’t ask about inference. What’s the connection between Denmark and Germany? You can’t say there aren’t any. What’s the relevance to the conversation? Not clear yet. You can’t say without taking the time to hear the speaker that there are no relevant connections.

            “Truly, any topic can be about collectivism, can’t it?”

            Well, I guess any topic can be used as an illustration or an example but that doesn’t mean it’s wise to try to do so.

            But I’m sure you can’t be ignorant about what collectivism is, and how it defies traditional modern Western values. So there are probably far more valuable lessons than you are aware of at this moment. That’s possibly or I would say probably true. And it seems like you run from those lessons or at least you run from open acknowledgement of the issues.

            In fact it might be the most salient question when looking at behavior to see if someone has a collectivist orientation or an individualistic orientation because it colors virtually every other conversation we have about history and current events and therefore changes what people infer from all of those events.

            We must understand these distinctions if we’re going to understand each other. Not just you and me but every adversarial (and many cooperative) conversation(s) can be tainted by these worldview distortions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Given that both Western-Muslim confrontation and terrorism long pre-date the Cold War, you’d have to make a persuasive case indeed that modern Islamism is an offshoot of socialism.”

            It’s not an offshoot because most of them cite the ancient Islamic texts for justifications and for mapping out modern doctrines. But it’s undeniable that the Soviets wanted to use virtually any “oppressed” group of people as weapons against “capitalism” and more specifically put a lot of resources in to equipping and training jihadis and rebels all around the world.

            In the West we armed those in opposition. Obviously the Cold War provided lessons and material support and that made the movement much larger. It also led many Islamists to believe that “Allah” favors them by sort of having the non-Muslim would descend in to the chaos of Marxist rebellion and maniacal empires bent on global hegemony out of fear that they would not be the last one standing when Darwinism proved to apply to global politics as well as the animal kingdom.

            Obviously Islamic jihad, in whatever flavor you want to present it, did not originate in the 18th,19th or even 20th century “anti-colonial” uprisings. But it’s equally as obvious that these uprisings enabled the movements and gave many the sense that “Allah” favored such uprisings by providing the opportunities to rebel against non-Sharia sovereignty and non-Sharia practice.

            And some of the people joined the jihadis (most of them? I don’t know) because they genuinely believed they were being materially oppressed. And virtually all of them were deceived about how to get justice in the modern world.

          • hiernonymous

            But it’s undeniable that the Soviets wanted to use virtually any
            “oppressed” group of people as weapons against “capitalism” and more
            specifically put a lot of resources in to equipping and training jihadis
            and rebels all around the world.

            The Soviets certainly armed a large number of groups.

            In the West we armed those in opposition.

            That sounds so much more innocuous, doesn’t it?

            It also led many Islamists to believe that “Allah” favors them by sort
            of having the non-Muslim would descend in to the chaos of Marxist
            rebellion and maniacal empires bent on global hegemony out of fear that
            they would not be the last one standing when Darwinism proved to apply
            to global politics as well as the animal kingdom.

            Which Islamist thinker or thinkers did you have in mind when you drew this conclusion? It doesn’t seem to fit Mawdudi, or Hassan al Banna, or Sayyid Qutb, or Muhammad Farag, or Ali Shariati.

            It’s not really clear what argument you hope to make here. OP argued that my ‘socialism arguments,’ whatever she thought they might be, would be particularly offensive to the victims of 9/11, implying that ‘socialism’ played some particularly significant role in those attacks.

            Even if we were to stipulate that the Cold War exacerbated the tendency toward violence and terrorism – and we really have no way of knowing that, do we? – it wouldn’t follow that this was associated with “socialism” any more than it was with “capitalism.” That is to say, the Soviets and the Americans found themselves at loggerheads after WWII and proceeded to engage in proxy struggles all over the planet in which both sides armed any groups that could be used to oppose the other. It was the polarization and zero-sum nature of that game that was its defining characteristic, not its rallying ideologies. If you really think that those struggles were about ideology, I recommend dusting off your Thucydides and reading about the proxy wars between Athens and Sparta. It’s remarkable how similar they were, both in conduct and in justification.

            Obviously Islamic jihad, in whatever flavor you want to present it, did
            not originate in the 18th,19th or even 20th century “anti-colonial”
            uprisings. But it’s equally as obvious that these uprisings enabled the
            movements and gave many the sense that “Allah” favored such uprisings by
            providing the opportunities to rebel against non-Sharia sovereignty and
            non-Sharia practice.

            But the uprisings in question largely predated any Soviet or communist involvement; the Muslim Brothers, for example, were founded in 1928 to struggle against British colonial domination; the Soviet Union was still in the throes of establishing control over its own territory at that time. Mawdudi organized Jamaat-i-Islami in 1941 against British, not socialist, influence. Qutb started writing after his unpleasant experiences in the U.S., not after encountering socialists. When the Soviets did get involved in the Middle East, it was primarily with Arab governments, not “resistance groups,” and the hallmark of the next several decades of Arab history was the dominance of the Arab Socialist governments – against whom the Islamist groups were struggling. The terrorist groups that the Soviets did support tended to be secular, with very specific political objectives, such as the PLO.

            So if you’re arguing that socialism played an indirect role by helping create and support the “jahaliya” governments against whom the Islamists fought, I suppose you could give a bit of a nod there, but it hardly explains SF Gal’s comment. Similarly, if you’re arguing that the relative success of groups like the PLO then inspired Islamists, that’s not only a very tenouous basis for expecting 9/11 victims to be offended by socialism, it also ignores the fact that successful terrorist campaigns predated such; one might just as well cite the Stern Gang or the Black Hand and lay 9/11 at the feet of Zionism or Serb nationalism.

            Really, off the top of my head, the most significant influence on the Islaists that I can see coming out of the Communist world would be in Sayyid Qutb’s proposed path toward overthrowing the government of Egypt – and that influence was not in an economic or “socialist” sense at all, but in looking at Lenin’s approach to revolutionary warfare. Qutb drew on Lenin’s “Vanguard of the Proletariat” to propose a similar strategy in Egypt, in which a “Vanguard of the Faithful” would withdraw from participation in secular life and form a self-sufficient society of its own, ensuring that it had all the necessary skills – engineers, mathematicians, lawyers, teachers, etc. In fact, in a weird and wonderful way, both ideas are quite similar to what John Galt was trying to accomplish in “Galt’s Gulch” in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

            Bottom line: Trying to paint the Islamist movement as in any significant fashion the result of “socialism” requires the imposition of a lens that simultaneously filters out far more germane influences while magnifying the role of socialism. While I suppose I admire your enthusiasm for finding socialism or collectivism behind every interaction, I trust you also understand the draining nature of such monomania on those who do not share your … focus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bottom line: Trying to paint the Islamist movement as in any significant fashion as the result of “socialism” requires the imposition of a lens that simultaneously filters out far more germane influences while magnifying the role of socialism. While I suppose I admire your enthusiasm for finding socialism or collectivism behind every interaction, I trust you also understand the draining nature of such monomania on those who do not share your … focus.”

            No, the Islamist movements are obviously not the result of socialist ideology. My point is that our cultural civil wars created opportunities for others to exploit and attack us.

            It’s Chinese checkers and discussing the connections in reality will help to illuminate root causes and potential solutions. The fact that you went further than necessary in the analysis doesn’t mean that it is always a waste of time to look at connections and implications.

            Or to put it another way; this cultural and political war in the West between collectivists and individualists, particularly American individualists, enables third party enemies as well. That’s the most salient lesson from these conversations. Not that people upset about the WTC attacks should spend time being angry about socialism but they should be angry about the kind of delusion that leads to enabling others to destroy our way of life.

          • hiernonymous

            The fact that you went further than necessary in the analysis doesn’t
            mean that it is always a waste of time to look at connections and
            implications.

            The question in this thread is not whether it is “always” a waste of time, but whether it was appropriate in this case. If you still want to make the case that socialism should be a topic of particular sensitivity to 9/11 victims, that suggests that my analysis did not go too far.

            “…this cultural and political war in the West between collectivists and individualists…”

            That choice of words is itself an indication of bias; characterizing those you disagree with in current American politics as “collectivists” is more than a bit extreme. That said, that is a rabbit hole I do NOT intend to follow you down.

            “Not that people upset about the WTC attacks should spend time being angry about socialism…”

            Then we are in agreement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That choice of words is itself an indication of bias; characterizing those you disagree with in current American politics as “collectivists” is more than a bit extreme. That said, that is a rabbit hole I do NOT intend to follow you down.”

            Obviously I have an open bias that I believe is the fruit of rational analysis.

            My particular focus is on the collectivists. That doesn’t mean I believe all who disagree with me are collectivist. Don’t be silly.

          • hiernonymous

            “That doesn’t mean I believe all who disagree with me are collectivist. Don’t be silly.”

            The comment was offered in response to your characterization of the ongoing kulturkampf in the U.S. as being between “individualists and collectivists.” I’m not sure how else one could have taken that, unless it was just a bit of hyperbole.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s a paradigmatic view. You need to test it before you see if it’s useful or not and you didn’t bother to do that.

            That’s not to say that all conflict arises from that orientation but that all conflict is tainted by that orientation. The particular analysis and therefore solutions people seek to real problems are tainted by this orientation and that creates a very significant fault line.

            And because most people are blind to the distinctions, you get a lot of angry people talking past each other and “dehumanizing” each other. They “other” each other because they feel alienated by the other’s approach to problem solving.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Then we are in agreement.”

            I think we are about many things except for your approach towards people who do understand the larger narratives developed at this site. You don’t want to participate in the larger narrative arcs and that’s fine but you shouldn’t attack those that do and exhort you to do so as well.

          • hiernonymous

            I appreciate your interest in how I should participate. I’m quite satisfied at the moment, but should that change, I will let you know when your input is welcome.

            In the meantime, you might consider that larger narratives depend on sound foundations, and one of my interests is in examining those foundations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In the meantime, you might consider that larger narratives depend on sound foundations, and one of my interests is in examining those foundations.”

            Some of your contributions are very helpful for us and I’m glad it’s productive for you as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That sounds so much more innocuous, doesn’t it?”

            I think looking back and from above our intentions were much more innocuous. We viewed our actions as a response to people that wanted to undermine our interests in any way they could.

            In fact I’d say we were at times too lax about it. I don’t think anyone every planned to take over Russia and force “capitalism” on them.

            People sure did get aggressive in their responses at times but I don’t think we were ever the aggressor vis-a-vis the long game with the Soviets. If you focus in on a subset of events it can look that way though so I don’t get offended when people disagree. It depends on where they take their arguments.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, isn’t that interesting. I posted a comment on the nature of the Cold War, freedom, and ideology, and it was removed. Not held for moderation, but removed. I don’t know if you had a chance to see it. There was no improper language, personal insult, or anything I could determine was objectionable or against the site’s policy. If you had not had a chance to look at it, let me know, and I’ll post it to you on a site that finds such comments less threatening.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think that if an administrator elects to remove your comments due to content it will leave a status report for the public to see. If it just vanishes I think that’s a diqus technical problem. I get that a lot.

            “If you had not had a chance to look at it, let me know, and I’ll post it to you on a site that finds such comments less threatening.”

            I’ve been away a lot the last few days and even when I am here I have trouble getting disqus to log in. It seems OK right now. The DNS servers in this part of the world seem to have trouble updating internationally some times.

            I’d like to read it if you find the chance to try again. Thanks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Like I said, people did react strongly to communism and examined in a vacuum we can make it look like they have some irrational fear.

            We were aggressive against the Soviets when the Soviets were seen as a threat to our interests. Meaning the West and “capitalists,” not just the USA as a sovereign nation. They sort of indicated they needed the world to go along with them in their little revolution. That was seen as somewhat threatening.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It would be easy to find the right wing by looking for vigilante activities. Here we’re looking at people that are attacking us and want to charge our laws through illicitly through fraud and corruption of our political processes. Not to mention the violent actors and plotters…

      If you don’t see a problem, it might be your myopic vision rather than someone else’s irrational analysis.

      • SF Gal

        If we stood up for ourselves like the Islamists do, we may still have Christmas called “Christmas” as opposed to “Season’s Greetings,” or “Happy Holidays.” Maybe would could have kept Jell-O in schools, and kept Christ in the Christmas plays and songs. But America is too worried about appearing intolerant to do that. And the Islamists know it. Damn.

  • CaoMoo

    Islam the gift that keeps giving.

  • IftikharA

    You better teach your children in your own schools and let migrant communities teach their children according to their needs and demands. British Establishment and society should concentrate on the evils of their own society and stop trying to change the way of life of Muslims. Muslim community does not want to integrate with the British society, indulging in incivility, anti-social behaviour, drug and knife culture, binge drinking, teenage pregnancies and abortion. Prince
    Charles, while visiting the first grant maintained Muslim school in north
    London, said that the pupils would be the future ambassadors of Islam. But what
    about thousands of others, who attend state schools deemed to be “sink schools”?
    In education, there should be a choice and at present it is denied to the Muslim
    community. In the late 80s and early 90s, when I floated the idea of Muslim
    community schools, I was declared a “school hijacker” by an editorial in the
    Newham Recorder newspaper in east London. This clearly shows that the British media does not believe in choice and diversity in the field of education and has no respect for those who are different. Muslim schools, in spite of meager resources, have excelled to a further extent this year, with couple of schools achieving 100% A-C grades for five or more GCSEs. They beat well resourced state and independent schools in Birmingham and Hackney. Muslim schools are doing better because a majority of the teachers are Muslim. The pupils are not exposed to the pressures of racism, multiculturalism and bullying.

    There are hundreds of state primary and secondary schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion all such schools may be opted out to become Muslim Academies. This mean the Muslim children will get a decent education. Muslim schools turned out balanced citizens, more tolerant of others and less likely to succumb to criminality or extremism. Muslim schools give young people confidence in who they are and an understanding of Islam’s teaching of tolerance and respect which prepares them for a positive and fulfilling role in society. Muslim schools are attractive to Muslim parents because they have better discipline and teaching Islamic values. Children like discipline, structure and boundaries. Bilingual Muslim children need Bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods, who understand their needs and demands.
    IA
    London School of Islamics Trust

    • SF Gal

      “You better teach your children in your own schools…” Whom are you addressing? Who so you think you are? I have lived in this country all of my life and the only time the issue of Halal foods and muslim schools has cropped up is over the last few years. Why? If the Jewish community does not insist on Kosher foods be served in schools, how are the Muslims able to demand this? Because Americans have become stupid. Don’t worry, we are on to you.

      • IftikharA

        Birmingham school says sorry for serving non-Halal meat to Muslim pupils. Council catering staff had wrongly dished up the non-Halal food to Muslim pupils on December 12, but details have only just come to light. On Monday parents received a letter from Craig Jansen, head of the 1,400-pupil secondary school and sixth form, in which he apologised unreservedly for the incident.

        RESIDENTS across Harrow have vented their anger about proposals to have Halal-only menus in primary schools in the borough. Meat is meat. What does it matter how it’s killed? These stupid parents should find other things to whine
        about. Halal meat is more hygienically processed anyway.The newspaper revealed exclusively how Harrow Council has employed a catering company to only prepare
        Halal meat – to serve youngsters in Harrow. This is nothing new to my knowledge, Tower Hamlets council been doing Halal meat in schools for at least 3 years or more.

        A true Muslim is a citizen of the world, which has become a small global village. We are going to prepare our youth to achieve that objective in the long run. A true Muslim believes in Prophet Moses and the Prophet Jesus and without them one cannot be a Muslim. My suggestion is that in all state, independent and Christian based school special attention should be given to the teaching of Comparative Religion and Islam should be taught by qualified Muslim Teachers to
        make the children aware the closeness of Islam to Christianity and Judaism which will help them to think about Islam, as “A Pragmatic and Modern Way of Life,” during their life time. Those state schools where Muslim children are in majority may be opted out as Muslim Academies.

        There are hundreds of state and Church schools in Birmingham, Harrow and other big cities where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be opted out as Muslim Academies so that non-Muslim children could enjoy their own meals in their own schools. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
        IA
        London School of Islamics Trust
        http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

        • SF Gal

          From what I have read in the London news, Islamic extremism is evident in every aspect of English society. Your statements prove that assertion. I have to wonder if you are merely a sham,’trying to provoke a rise out of this guest. However, Sharia law gangs around south London insisting that pedestrians respect Sharia law: do not hold hands; drink alcohol; or walk past mosques. Most recently, an article about schools in Birmingham being taken over by Islamists: “British police are investigating a letter allegedly written by radical Salafi Muslims that detailed a plot to takeover schools in Birmingham, England and run them according to “strict Islamic principles.” The letter details a plan called “Operation Trojan Horse” – a five-step plan to take over schools with large Muslim populations with the help of ‘hardline’ parents.’”

          Clearly, you are among the proponents of this plan. Islam is filth. Just look at what it did to the Central African Republic. And now they’re crying because the Christians fought back. Typical Islam.

          • IftikharA

            I have been engaged in educational Jihad for the last 40 years. I set up the first Muslim school in London in 1981 and there are 188 Muslim school and only 12 are state funded. I would like to see each and every Muslim child in a Muslim school. I hope, one day my dream would come true.
            IA

          • SF gal

            I have a feeling that you are not who purport to be, rather, someone who wishes to get an emotional rant out of every guest on this board. I believe you are what is described as a “troll,” and that you spend all of your time trying to push people’s buttons. Sorry that I rose to your bait. Why don’t you find a new job and go elsewhere?

          • Drakken

            It is a nasty little muzzy who openly rejoices in goading the infidel. His and his kinds days in the west are numbered.

          • SF Gal

            I think he’s a troll – a nutjob instigator, at the very least. When you become irate you play into his game. I wouldn’t bother. I’m embarrassed that I responded to his form of crazy.

          • Drakken

            Look up his name, he is a muslim working in the UK to bring about its and our destruction.

          • SF Gal

            You’re certain he’s not just using the name as a prop? Because his answers are suplicious and sound robotic, as if he is copying his statements from varying sources. Ether way, he’s not getting my energy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And it’s the communists that recruited him to do so. He has no clue that he’s just a pawn.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s a passive-aggressive Islamic supremacist as far as I can see.

          • Drakken

            Sooner or later muslim, you and your kind will have pushed us infidels to a bridge to far, you take our tolerance, openness and kindness as an open invitation to rape, rob and murder us for our trouble, well muslim, those nice tolerant days are coming to an end, for what you are doing is opening Pandora’s Little Box of Horrors and make no mistake, a brutal nasty backlash against you and yours is coming, so I offer the invitation for you to leave, if you don’t, we will make a Serb blush in comparison as to what us infidels will do with you. God Bless the Crusades, for another one is coming. Deo Volente!

          • SF Gal

            Practicing al taqquia I see. Yes, we know that means. There is no education under Islam. Only war and death. The English government is investigating your precious Jihad War schools. You and your friends won’t last. You are pathetic.

        • SF Gal

          Mohammed was not a prophet. He was a pedophile, rapist, pillager, and warlord. Where did I learn this from? The testimonies of former Muslims – some of whom, at one stage in their lives, were very scary people. Their conversion to Christianity or even atheism allowed them to become educated, thoughtful, and devotees of humanity. Shame that you’re not in their league.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Halal meat IS NOT A RIGHT and may violate the law just in producing it.

          So keep it up. You’ll find yourself worse off for your aggressive posture.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Halal meat is more hygienically processed anyway.”

          More hygienic than what process? Sixth century desert tech?

        • SF Gal

          No longer. Ofsted is investigating your precious schools now. Park Academy has already been downgraded. School was opened by CHRISTIANS in 1905 and now it’s being investigated due to evidence of Islamic radicalization. Islam has no place in a civilized society. Do you recommend that your students drink camel urine? Because from what I learned of Mohammed’s teachings, by former Muslims,’drinking camel urine is one of Mo’s recommendations.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “You better teach your children in your own schools and let migrant communities teach their children according to their needs”

      So long as those migrants pay for it. And don’t teach their kids Jihad.

      • SF Gal

        Did you see the statement “There is no place for a non-Muslim child or teacher in a Muslim school.” How fair is that?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s bigoted.

          • SF Gal

            It’s outright discrimination and veiled hatred. And we are told that we have to learn how to understand Islam. How do you understand blatant hatred?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We have to understand that Islam is supremacist and intolerant of others… and we are expected to let them have their theocracy at our expense.

          • SF Gal

            I feel as if I’m in a dream. Is this really happening – are we really fighting with savages who still live in the 7th Century, praying to a moon god? I remember when we were all terrified that the Russians were going to press the “button” and destroy America. Turns out, we didn’t have to worry so much. Now our former enemy is a friend in our fight against the same savages. And they want to destroy what we are because they think their pagan moon god directs them to do so. I’ll tell you one thing. Putin may be a dictator and somewhat scary, but when he says “no,” he means it! We don’t have that luxury here. I’m almost jealous of the Russians. Putin has no problem standing up for his beliefs and stomps out anything that tries to destroy his people -’right or wrong. What happened to our Nation?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The barbarians are always at the gate. The trick is not forgetting that and letting down our guard.

            When people become too pampered and forget what the world outside the hearth fires of civilization look like and begin to celebrate that savagery, civilization falls.

        • ygalg

          that’s one thing at least in favor of non muslims.

  • AnnMarie

    They make me sick, they are so bossy and dictatorial and more than that, they hate christians or anyone that is not muslim and Islamist. Very pushy I would say, very, very pushy and insist on getting their own way like a bunch of 2 year olds. I think also that the Muslim women enjoy staying home and taking care of their children and their husbands for the most part. They would be fighting against the abuse otherwise, the covering up, not being allowed to go out without a husband, father or relative. They grow up that way. Yes, I do think they enjoy staying home and pushing their weight around in the different countries while they protest in the streets. Go back to where you came from because other than the Middle East, most countries are Christian and intend to stay that way.

  • Sarah

    This picture is plain awful and intentionally used to depict Muslims in a negative light. USA is a civilised Country yet the comments below stench of intolerance and prejudice.
    For Christian’s (Ethan comments), the arabic word for God is Allah, the same ONE God of the Christian and Jewish faiths.

    In the name of God, most merciful, God is great, is said at the time of slaughter to convey the importance of the action and with great care it is done when taking a life form.

    If you want to leave this critical exiting of life to a machine you can make that choice.

    • SF Gal

      I hear what you are saying and understand where your ideology comes from but unfortunately you are wrong. Islam teaches that Allah is a God of war and judgment; Yaweh is The Lord of peace and love. How did I learn this? Former Muslims who converted to Christianity after comparing the two religions and learning about the true horror of Islam. I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with Islam. Go to exmuslim.org if you don’t believe me.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      “Sarah”, Muslims are at war with people ALL OVER THE WORLD.

      Muslims murder Bahais, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians AND the wrong kind of Muslim.

      See the 135,000+ dead in Syria.

      The sad fact is that Islam has become a “religion” of terrorism.

      • SF Gal

        Islam is no just a religion. It is a governing body; an ideology; a faith; an identity. Anyone who goes against the principals of Islam are called enemies of Islam. All enemies of Islam must be killed, which is stated in the Qu’Ran. This is something that Amerocans do not understand, which is why they allow Islamist to claim special privileges, such as Halal school lunches and that no symbolism of Christianity – or any other faith – be shown among them. I wish that I had thought up a way to get special privileges too. I am an Irish American: I want only Guiness to be served in bars and restaurants. Is that doable? Probably not!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

        On the Syria issue…would such deaths be happening with the West silent if Assad were not allied with Vladimir Putin? Those non-Muslims are caught in the middle of a proxy war between the USA/Europe and Russia.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          There’s a grain of truth there, but are you calling them mindless pawns? Sure they use modern Western technologies, including weapons and communications systems and without those things they would be doing nothing but harassing women who don’t dress properly.

          Don’t be paternalistic. All humans are accountable for their own actions. They’re not caught in the middle. They attracted the Soviets who aided in their uprisings for their own “anti colonial” reasons. OTOH, the British led the way in freeing the Arabs from the Turkish masters, and that too did enable them earlier on.

          So while it is complicated, it’s not that hard to distinguish the actors and rate their accountability and relative levels of malice involved.

          • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

            More like innocents caught in the crossfire. The question does remain though: if those regimes would only turn away from Putin, would the dogs be called off? As it is, the West needs to get rid of both the pro-Putin regimes AND the Muslim Brotherhood (although there is a higher priority on the pro-Putin regimes).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “More like innocents caught in the crossfire.”

            Those too. That doesn’t refute what I said in any way because you can find all of the above.

            “The question does remain though: if those regimes would only turn away from Putin, would the dogs be called off?”

            I don’t’ think so. They used the modern regimes for material assistance. Once they have the material they will use it. Eventually we could starve them of material if we elected to.

            “As it is, the West needs to get rid of both the pro-Putin regimes AND the Muslim Brotherhood (although there is a higher priority on the pro-Putin regimes).”

            Yeah, but this episode of the game has been unfolding for ~ a century. The biggest weakness we have in the West is that we don’t really have a way to deal with enemies that can make and execute subversive plans that span generations of politician’s careers and even people’s entire lives.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s Halal slaughter. It wasn’t made up.

      This is the reality of it

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/eid-halal-slaughter-in-gaza-worst-animal-cruelty-in-history/

  • jag11

    They are not. Get over yourselves turds.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    This is a dangerous slippery slope…especially given that public schools are supposed to be religion-neutral (keep in mind that the operative term in freedom of religion is freedom). At the same time, one is not forced to eat the food provided in schools. However, this is also where school lunch money needs to be paid for in advance and put in a lockbox.

  • jon

    a dab of bacon grease on your bullet does wonders for preserving the barrel of your AR15….we should do that to all our bullets,and publicize the fact….

  • jon

    rub pork on every door you enter…..everywhere you go….just as a reminder….and throw a hogs head out in front of every “religious building”…..just as a reminder that this is our country….

    • carpe diem 36

      not true. this country is the kind of place that says live and let live. nothing should be forced on anyone, everything should be free from any hint of religion, any religion. do not serve meat of any kind in any school and you solve all the problems. jews do not eat pork, religious jews do not eat meat that was not prepared the Kosher way, Moslems do not eat pork or meat not prepared in their way. so big problems that was not a problem is solved. pizza, tuna, spaghetti, peanut butter all are good for kids and these should be served and do not ever give an opening to any religion, especially no Islam.

      • SF Gal

        Are you serious? In my entire life, I have NEVER seen, read, or heard of an argument regarding “kosher” food served in public or governmental cafeterias until the past five years. Why?? Because it’s popular now to side with Islam. That’s why.

        • laura r

          jews never needed that kind of validation. w/islam its 24/7. thats their MO. they come, they take, they complain.

          • SF Gal

            And Judaism is a real, historic, biblical culture as well as religion. Nobody in the world disputes Judaism or the authenticity of the Torah. Why? BECAUSE IT WASNT MADE UP BY A PEDOPHILE WARLORD. Oh yeah, you forgot “destroy,” among what Islam does – and stands for. I used to think all religions – whatever – worshipped the same Deity – at least the same idea. Turns out I was wrong – most of us were fooled.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You sure are picky about your prophets. Come on now…Moses was mean too. It’s all more or less the same.

          • SF Gal

            Well,’at least Moses was a bona fide prophet. He didn’t go around designating himself as a prophet and then write a book that includes masogny, pedophilia, and killing anything in his wake.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          the implication is that if you accept “Jewish demands” you must accept “Muslim demands” because it must be that simple. All objections are based on irrational xenophobia. This has been determined by science you know.

  • Mike

    If we could get them to try a pulled pork sandwich, it would settle the issue once they got a taste of my barbeque sauce.

  • aggiemom

    I have personal experience with the Muslim sense of deserving special treatment. At a school I used to work at there were some Muslim students (but not an overwhelming number), and the policy of the school district I work at is to always serve a meatless alternative for students who can’t eat meat for religious or other reasons. One day a Muslim boy went through the line and picked out a cheeseburger. When his mother saw it, she started chewing me out and telling me he couldn’t eat meat, as if I were supposed to look at him and know he’s Muslim and shouldn’t eat meat. I’m Catholic, and I’ve never demanded cafeteria staff to make sure my kids didn’t eat meat on Fridays in Lent — I always made a point to tell my kids not to do that because that’s our responsibility, not the school’s.

    • SF Gal

      Awesome argument. The problem however lies in the fact that you are reasonable and rational. Any group that demands an entire school system modify its policies according to the group’s specific needs is not rational or reasonable or fair. So nobody should be surprised.

  • Hard Little Machine

    They will probably stop allowing non Muslims to attend school soon.

  • SF Gal

    Telegraph UK: ” Government Intervenes in School “taken over” by Islamic Radicals – Birmingham, England.” Five schools are being investigated over charges of Islamic Radicisarion; ousting of non-Islamic teachers; physical abuse; Anti-Christian curriculum – cessation of Easter and Christmas activities; Playing of Bin Laden DVDs in classroom. Read all about it! It’s more than a nightmare. And this happened in ENGLAND.

  • SF Gal

    Daniel, please look up the article that I mentioned in the Telegraph UK. You will not believe it.

  • Jaque Albertson

    We all need to raise taxes to pay for more Obama Lunches!

    General Norman Seip supports Obama. ..And anyone who achieved a lifetime of
    political promotions and appointments and has a six digit retirement pay
    and gold plated benefits must be right! Our Hero!

    Help the little children! People are starving to death in America!

    Be Patriotic and support higher taxes for a strong Healthy America!

    Salute General Norman Seip and support healthy school lunches for America’s children!!,,