Here's Tim Tebow:
I understand there is a technicality involved; End Zone celebrations vs. a Quarterback celebrating in the back field. I understand that.
But the criticism seems to be going beyond that, if you ask me.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
If You Ask Me, Our Fellow Anti-Jihadists Going a Little Over The Top On Criticism of NFL Player Hussain Abdullah
Here's Hussain Abdullah celebrating a touchdown:
Here's Tim Tebow:
I understand there is a technicality involved; End Zone celebrations vs. a Quarterback celebrating in the back field. I understand that.
But the criticism seems to be going beyond that, if you ask me.
Here's Tim Tebow:
I understand there is a technicality involved; End Zone celebrations vs. a Quarterback celebrating in the back field. I understand that.
But the criticism seems to be going beyond that, if you ask me.
Here is the difference. The quarterback has always done it in the back, like many Latin American soccer players cross themselves before entering the field. They have always done that. But this Muslim player is doing this now, making a point. Has he done in the past? I don´t know because I don´t watch football, but I guess not, since his action is having such a reaction. When the Latin Americans do it, you notice if you are really looking. This Muslim player's action was carefully planned. Trust me.
ReplyDeleteNot all Muslims are beheading people, but I bet most Muslims are making points in any way they can for their faith.
"most Muslims are making points in any way they can for their faith"
ReplyDeleteYep exactly. I have heard a lot of people talking about the first amendment in connection with this. That's to lose sight of the big picture. It's Islam vs. Western Civilization, and we need to fight back on every single front, big and small. As far as the "freedom of religion" thing that people seem hung up on, the reality is we have three choices: 1) as a society, redefine "religion" so as to differentiate between the "wash the homeless guy's feet" type of religions and the "cut innocent people's heads off" "religion"; or, 2) amend the Constitution in one of many possible ways that achieves the right result; or 3) continue careening down the path of civilizational suicide. We have to choose, enough of the navel gazing.
How about a posting on just what 'devout' muzlims are praying for in their five times a day prayers?
ReplyDeleteThe main prayer, the fatiha, does not seek rain and is said 17 times per day.
The fatiha prays for the death and destruction of all non muzlims.
Anonymous #1
ReplyDeleteRosie O' Donnell does not "agree" with me.
What she said is not what I said.
Right?
Anonymous #2,
ReplyDeleteYou repeated what I wrote. I'm glad you agree with me.
Schutrum,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point. We need to legally explicate that Islam is a Religio-Political doctrine that seeks the overthrow of the United States government, and also that it is a racketeering organization which is punishable under RICO laws.
Lawyers need to do that. I can't do it.
Do you know any good lawyers?
"Do you know any good lawyers?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
But seriously, my view is that the law follows from behind. Everywhere the "law" is at issue, words are twisted and abused to fit whatever result is desired. Faithlessness in adherence to words is the way that the law follows society, rather than society following the law. So, when society views Islam as akin to Satanism or Naziism it may be ready to ban Muslim prayer in public or indict mosque leaders for the crimes of their members. Until then, it won't happen. When society is ready, it will happen. I should qualify my original point by saying that no amendment of the Constitution can drive a change in the way we treat Islam as opposed to other religions. There has to be a ground-up effort to make the distinction clear, and that starts with opposing Islam wherever it appears. Every instance of an NFL player bowing to the moon god in the endzone is an opportunity to argue with people and get the point across that Islam is different and should be treated not as a religion but as a violent, intolerant, brutal, anti-human totalitarian political system. People have to learn this, then legal change can come.
Great men shape history.
ReplyDeleteI agree, history is often moved by highly-motivated individuals or small groups, while the majority of people mostly just want to go about their lives. This happens through revolution of one sort or another. It doesn't happen through the law.
ReplyDeleteThe law basically boils down to a set of rules and principles that are complex enough that, once the people in charge of making a given decision make that decision, they are able to cobble together a brief that they can point to and say "look, this is how the law said it had to be all along" -- flexibility with language is also required. This is why the Left opposes Scalia's textualism in favor of an understanding that words on a page can be "living," and why they play so many word games, and are so partial to massive, incomprehensible, labrynthine legislation: these things help them do whatever it is they want to do anyway, and pretend they're still acting according to "law."
What about the way they brought down Capone? Or the way they brought down the Mafia in the 80's with RICO (not that I'm so foolish to think there is no more Mafia ....)
ReplyDeleteThose who sought to bring down the mob were never up against a dominant public belief that the mob was entitled to engage in their activities by virtue of the first amendment, that the mob constituted a religion or a race so that criticism of them and their activities was intolerant so we better tread on eggshells. No comparison. The public always saw the mob as criminals. There was likely a time, not so very long ago, where the dominant narrative about Islam was much more in line with the reality -- as recently as the 1980s and maybe 90s, people would refer to "Muslim fundamentalism." This is on the mark, since guys like Bin Laden and ISIS are following their religion precisely. Now we cannot escape the intentionally obfuscating phrase "radical Islam," and talk of individual terrorists "being radicalized." As if you take a normal Muslim with all the normal Muslim beliefs -- you know, peace, love, charity, tolerance, all the religion things -- and twist his mind around so that he believes in things that have "nothing to do with Islam," and he engages in "anti-Muslim activity" as the British government surrealistically puts it. So, there is now a very strong push, unseen by most, to color people's minds. It is CAIR, it is the left, it's the MSM, it's good old garden variety cowardice, refusing to look evil in the face and call it for what it is. This has to be changed, and this effort happens in the culture, on the ground. Nothing remotely like this was necessary in order to bring the weight of the law to bear in bringing down the mob. The culture has to awaken first, then we can deal with any number of currently unused weapons in our quiver, including the law.
ReplyDeleteAlright. You win. You're right after all. LOL
ReplyDeleteI have overwhelmed you with a barrage of words to the point of submission. I am a good lawyer after all!
ReplyDeleteYou have struck terror into my heart. You smote at the neck of my judgment, and severed my ratioinality. I am subdued, and I will not give you the Jizya.
ReplyDeleteAre you ready?
Yeah that's ok, I don't need any jizya.
ReplyDeleteBut I am subdued.
ReplyDelete