Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

The Inexplicable Liberal Defense of Islam

▼

The Inexplicable Liberal Defense of Islam

from JoeUser Forums

I want to be fair here. Not all liberals defend Islam. In fact, most that I know do NOT (except in the sense that they defend the rights of all humanity). But for those who do, their defense of Islam is inexplicable, considering their traditional political positions. Let's go over a few "liberal" positions for analysis, shall we?

The environment: Liberals are quick to condemn our dependence on fossil fuels in the west. They are quick to decry our environmental atrocities, while failing to hold Islamic countries accountable for the same.

Equal rights: Women are second class citizens in Islamic countries, and homosexuality is justification for murder in many villages, without  consequence from the national government.

Free Speech: Do I even have to go here?

Freedom of Religion: There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.

Democracy: virtually nonexistent

Civil Liberties: The Hussein regime in Iraq was a horribly ruthless and oppressive regime. Islamic countries are constantly at the top of Amnesty International's watch lists.

Fair labor standards: Again, Islamic countries come in on the low end.

Now, I will again reiterate that not all liberals defend Islam. But for those who do, I would be interested in knowing precisely WHY you do. The United States is far from perfect, but we have made TREMENDOUS strides in ensuring liberty and opportunity for all of our citizens, while working to preserve and better our environment. Why do you not hold Islam to the same standard?

politics
16,368 views 55 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you."


You are incorrect. It is a matter of jurisdiction. A federal court must show jurisdiction. A state court must cede jurisdiction first and the federal must accept, except where it is expressly granted. [No case citings for you as you disregard them anyway.]

'til dawn...
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you."


You are incorrect. It is a matter of jurisdiction. A federal court must show jurisdiction. A state court must cede jurisdiction first and the federal must accept, except where it is expressly granted. [No case citings for you as you disregard them anyway.]

'til dawn...


In your own quote you prove my point. And disregard case citings? BS
It's just as well you can type, for if you had to speak your mind, you'd be speechless. You could type every thing you know on the subject on back of a microscopic postage stamp and still have room leftover for a shopping list. Oh well, at least you only charge what your free advice is worth. As Abba Eban so aptly said: "His ignorance is encyclopedic."

I'm busy trying to imagine you with a personality. Maybe you'd be less boring once I got to know you, but I don't want to take that chance. You are like watching Amputee Field Hockey: pathetic, and very quickly disgusting. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if your father didn't make love with a plant and raised a blooming idiot; if you didn't have a face that people rub tree branches on to make ugly sticks. No, come to think of it, you would.

In conclusion, thank you. We were all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view however misguided it may be.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
So when I wrote that the US and Israel must negotiate with Hamas, for example, I don't think that I am being Liberal, just realistic.


I second that as long as Hamas shows good faith.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon: Your premise is wrong. If you wish to bash Islam so be it, but leave the liberals out of the argument. Bush himself many time has defended Islam as a decent religion, but doesn't preclude--as liberals would agree--denouncing extremists and terrorists.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you wish to bash Islam so be it, but leave the liberals out of the argument.


You miss my point entirely, steven. My point is that the left is rushing to defend Islam, when the tenets of MOST practitioners of the faith are diametrically opposed to everything the liberals claim.

As a conservative Christian, I am persona non grata in the American left because most see my private religious beliefs as being "oppressive". Why is that, when they defend a religion whose conservative elements hide their women behind burqas, refuse them education, and often stone them for infidelity?

Similarly, why do they chastise the president for the (addmittedly horrendous) US Patriot Act while defending nations where speaking your mind is likely to get you shot.

My argument IS to the point, Steven. Again, I was an active letter writer for Amnesty International for over a decade and a half. I KNOW the atrocities perpetrated by these governments, and find the liberal defense of them completely incomprehensible.