Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Koran-Burning Pastor to Protest Outside Michigan Mosque
UPDATE: A report on the April 22 protest has been included at the end of this post.
Fresh on the heels of burning the Koran after staging a “trial” of Islam, an act that led to deadly protests in Afghanistan, Florida pastor Terry Jones is planning a rally outside a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., this week, despite pleas from city officials to abandon his efforts.
Jones told the Detroit Free Press that he plans to visit the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America, to protest Shariah law and widespread jihad. Dearborn police and Wayne County prosecutors have filed a complaint that asks a judge to stop the event.
“The greatest danger is the likelihood of a riot ensuing complete with the discharge of firearms,” prosecutors say in the court filing. Dearborn Mayor John B. O’Reilly Jr. also has urged Jones to move his protest to one of the city’s “free speech” zones, including outside City Hall.
Their fears of a violent protest are warranted, given recent events in Afghanistan. Late last month, Jones and his tiny congregation at the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., held a little-noticed mock trial and “execution” of the Koran. After word spread that Jones had burned a Koran, an enraged mob stormed a United Nations building, killing men and women inside. Jones called the attack “very tragic” and said “the time has come to hold Islam accountable,” The New York Times reported.
Religious leaders are planning a counter-protest to the latest stunt of this mustachioed pastor, who other religious leaders in Michigan have called an “imposter of the Christian religion.”
Update: Terry Jones’ planned April 22 protest at the Dearborn mosque never took place, due to a last-minute legal contest between Jones and county officials. The Wayne County prosecutor’s office filed a court petition arguing that Jones’ planned protest could incite violence, and asked that Jones be required to post a “peace bond.” That led to a jury trial on Friday, after which the jury ruled against Jones. The judge then ordered that the bond be posted — but set the amount at just $1. Jones and his co-defendant, Wayne Sapp, refused to post the bond, and were briefly jailed. The bond was eventually posted on their behalf and they were quickly released — but by the conclusion of these proceedings, the scheduled time of the protest had passed. Jones has vowed to return to Dearborn for a new protest Friday — not at the mosque, but at Dearborn’s City Hall.
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:24 am
I think that he just seeks attention with these stunts, but that he does believe in the hatred that he spouts. It is unfortunate that a person projects such a hateful image of the Christian religion; needless to say, some elements of Christianity are violent and despicable without people like Jones, just as with Islam and Judaism. The murderous Taliban fanatics that slaughtered innocent people in Afghanistan projected an equally if not more hateful image of Islam, because they did not hesitate to use violence. They projected the image of Islam that Islamophobes allege is characteristic of all Muslims – a violent, intolerant death cult with no respect for free speech.
Jones, however, has the right to speak his mind, and he is not responsible for the actions of any violent fanatic with a gun, in a foreign country, who chooses to take his action as an impetus to kill. No prosecution is necessary. Burning a Qur’an is a harmless (meaning no direct physical violence is inflicted on anyone) way of expressing disapproval with Islam, and is an exercise of the freedom of speech. A BNP member recently burned a Qur’an in Britain and got arrested. That is an attack on free speech; anyone should be allowed to express his disapproval with a religion nonviolently. One is to take responsibility for one’s own actions. Any violent reaction to Qur’an burning is not the Qur’an burner’s fault, because it is someone’s choice whether to respond violently or not.
Attempts to confine protesters to “free speech zones” are an affront to free speech and a violation of the right to public assembly. They ought to be called “censorship zones”, and should be resisted. One should have the right to peacefully protest (or counter-protest) in any public place, and it is immoral to stop or remove someone who chooses to do so. This applies to Jones’ planned protest in Michigan as it does to anyone else.
on April 21st, 2011 at 3:29 am
On a side note: My parents are offended and don’t think the Qur’an should be burned, not because it is a holy book, but because it is a book. They think book burning is representative of an attack on literature, which they value very much. To people who prize the art of writing and disagree with book burning, I think that burning the Saudi flag would make the same point. It is not just an expression of dissent against the country, Saudi Arabia, but against Islam, because it has the Shahadah (the oath taken by Muslims) written on it. The Shahadah has the word “Allah” in it, and burning it is considered an attack on Islam.
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:15 am
” A BNP member recently burned a Qur’an in Britain and got arrested. That is an attack on free speech; anyone should be allowed to express his disapproval with a religion nonviolently”
American laws do not apply in the UK.
“Attempts to confine protesters to “free speech zones” are an affront to free speech and a violation of the right to public assembly.”
The right to free speech was never intended to be absolute. In fact it is relatively recent in American history that the 1st Amendment gained the respect it has these days. Even well into the middle of the 20th century, all manner of laws were used to censor or ban speech which would be tolerated today.
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am
Islamophobia is the number one story in America today. Terry Jones is a radical extremist who would launch a religious war if he had the power to do so. Islamophobia is now as severe as anti-Semitism was during the 1930s. Please, extend your coverage of Islamophobia.
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:25 am
I truly hope that some people who are able will show up at the Michigan mosque and surround Terry Jones and his hate mongers parading as Christians. His words and actions are very unchristian. Freedom of religion should apply to all religions in the United States of America. Since his “church” has such a small membership it should not take many people to surround those haters.
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:32 am
Terry Jones will face the day he will not be able to bargain with the truth. He does not understand that his belief is not required for something to be true. He has silent backers of all stripes. His acts are one branch of tyranny. He reminds me of the anti-Semitic priest of the 1960s.
on April 21st, 2011 at 11:34 am
Are you sure that his name isn’t “Jim Jones” and won’t soon be asking his believers to follow him to “Jones Town”?
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I’m wondering if anyone is asking questions related to the other side of Jones’ protest. Who is funding him to enable him to travel to Dearborn, with a gun at his side(I’m wondering if he has the necessary legal permission under Michigan state law to be able to carry)? He runs a shoestring operation with regard to his church in a backwater in Florida. The Phelps clan(I hesitate to refer to them as an actual church because Fred Phelps’ congregation is comprised of mainly his family and extended family) is able to travel all over the country being funded by their continuing winning of lawsuits, so I can understand. But, who is financing Jones? This enquiring mind wants to know.
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:12 pm
I agree with Fatima.
Rev. Jones is doing a disservice here on earth though, and I hope he finds a more eternally realistic viewpoint on this side of the grave so that his influence can actually be transformed for a good effect here and now.
I really appreciated the cool head of the Islamic clergy person who brought the violent protesters (of Jones’ Koran-burning) up short by pointing out that by burning buildings they had inadvertently burned more holy Korans than he had.
Let’s all be reasonable here, now, in each other’s presence.
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I believe there are laws in this country by which one can be arrested, jailed, charged with and tried for “inciting a riot” – free speech notwithstanding. Lets hope riots will not occur in Michigan, but if they do, I say to jail they all should go. Perhaps the Phelps law firm of Topeka would appear for the defense. Now wouldn’t THAT be a hoot!!
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Jonas wrote:
“Any violent reaction to Qur’an burning is not the Qur’an burner’s fault, because it is someone’s choice whether to respond violently or not.”
Spoken like a true utilitarian. But on the narrow understanding of causality you’re promoting, the person who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater has caused no harm because it’s up to the individual theatergoers to decide whether they’ll react by panicking and trampling each other to death, so they’re the ones to blame. A more realistic approach might be to ask whether any of those people in Afghanistan would still be alive today if Jones had not pulled his Quran-burning stunt.
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:21 pm
The Presbyterian church I am a member of is active in the Interfaith community, to help build bridges not bombs.
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“The right to free speech was never intended to be absolute.”
It was never intended to be limited to only small, proscribed locations, either. There is no free speech if you can’t speak it in public.
And what was allowed 50 years ago is irrelevant today. Interracial marriage was banned 50 years ago but we rightly reject that ban today.
on April 21st, 2011 at 12:35 pm
max m will, I think if they were to seriously investigate the churches around central Florida, they’d find where the money was coming from. Many of the churches in the area openly advocate for and support things like that.
I know that a lot of people really backed Jones. You should have heard the sort of hateful language that was said in public back when Jones was just threatening to burn the Koran.
Oh, and he may be operating his “church” on a shoestring, but I’d bet that he rakes in far more than that. I also wish that churches would be required to report on their financial dealings, like they used to.
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:01 pm
What kind of Christian is Mr Jones. It’s bad enough that he has such a lack of respect that he burns a holy book, but he also knows, for certain, that he will get people killed, as his last act did. The deaths that have followed his protests are as much his responsibility as the the vicious animals who actually did the killing. It would help remedy things if Christian groups donated Korans (European spelling) to Islamic Centres, or donated cash to the Red Crescent, or other worthy Islamic charity. As a Christian I say that Koran burning is not in my name.
on April 21st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Mr. Jones can have his little protest, unfortunately people will grow tired of it, and he will no longer have an audience. He will be forgotten.
It seems to me that people are afraid to offend the Muslins. You have gotten to be kidding? Why is teir feeling more important by the left, but it’s okay the damn the Chrisatian religion.
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Do you think he would do it without police protection?
Jones obviously seeks martyrdom as the only way he would ever be noticed or remembered is with his negative acts. Like a child craving attention, he resorts to bad behavior as long as someone will pay him the attention he craves. A person may have the right to burn a cross, but to burn one in front of a Black person’s home would be foolhardy. Likewise, burning the Qur’an in from of a Muslim mosque is equally foolhardy. Violence – most certainly. Death – very likely. Stupidity level – monumental. Like most stupid things they rarely have any actual rhyme or reason. Jones and his ilk only serve to show that we as Americans still have among us some of the most ridiculous backward minds on the planet. Fortunately, we’re not alone. There are plenty of stupid people all over the world doing equally dumb things to garner attention. The most disappointing thing is that even now in the 21st century we still need to learn to grow up and get along. Wonder if Jones would appreciate a Muslim burning a bible in front of his church?
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
As the “Rev”(one hesitates to dignify him with title of clergyman as he was never validly ordained apparently) plans to protest outside the Detroit Mosque tomorrow(which is Good Friday, Christianity’s holiest day next to Christmas), I can only presume that he hates Allah more than he loves Jesus!
on April 21st, 2011 at 5:14 pm
To Concerned Citizen, this isn’t about being afraid to offend anyone. It is about humanity and not living a life filled with hate.
Substitute the mosque with a church or synagogue. Substitute this protest with a protest against halakhah or the tenets of Christianity. A group of people showing up to protest in front of a house of worship and malign its beliefs and intimidate its followers is at least a hate incident.
All the people of Dearborn need to surround that mosque with an interfaith human buffer, and turn away the hate. Show the power of non violent civil protest!
Meanwhile, our communities will spend taxpayer dollars for security every time Terry Jones and his group shows up somewhere.
This was just posted by the Detroit News, “A Quran-burning pastor will face a trial this afternoon, after refusing to pay a bond ordered by a judge for his planned Good Friday protest of the Islamic Center of America.” See http://www.detnews.com/article.....gh-protest.
on April 21st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
@Ruslan – I’m aware of the many cases of censorship in America, both historical and modern, and the total disregard for the Constitution that has been exhibited, even in the recent past. That’s why I’m glad that I was born in the mid-’90s. Regardless of that censorship and the non-literal interpretation of the first amendment in the past, free speech is not (legally) dealt with that way today in the USA. Nor should it be.
As for Britain, freedom of speech is an international human right, along with the unconditional right to life (no, it has nothing to do with abortion) and freedom of public assembly. Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of expression (I know, the UDHR is frequently ignored and never fully adhered to by any country), and the preamble states that “…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech…has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
@CM – I’m not really familiar with the utilitarian philosophical works, and indeed didn’t know what utilitarianism was until now. Keep in mind that I didn’t say all cases of speech or expression that offend others and cause violent emotional reactions (i.e., a bullying victim turning into a school shooter) are solely the fault of those who respond with physical violence, because there are always exceptions. But in cases of Qur’an incineration, or flag burning, or Bible-torching (I don’t know of any times where a bible was burned, but if it did…), I do think that what you quoted from my previous post applies.
There is no evidence that suggests that “Pastor” Jones will be carrying a firearm.
on April 21st, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Pastor Jones what are you gaining by burning the Qur’an and protesting? Why don’t you just join the military and do some good become a chaplin and peel potatoes or something to that effect. What kind of unchristian pastor are you I have never heard of such ridiculous behavior.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:10 am
I think he should go to downtown Mecca and start running his mouth.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 12:21 am
Concerned Citizen–
I, for one, am not afraid to affend Muslin. Or for that matter, Cotton, Wool, Linen, or any other fabric. On a serious note, I think that this attempt to suggest that the citizens of Dearborn would be capable of the atrocities commited in Afghanistan does them a complete disservice. In fact, one of the more influential Imams in the area has spoken out against the legal efforts to quash this ridiculous person’s right to free speech.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 am
I had totally forgotten about this guy….I guess a lot of other people did too, so he is feeling a bit neglected. Like my mother always said – an ignored child will settle for negative attention – if it’s all they can get.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 2:16 am
“Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of expression (I know, the UDHR is frequently ignored and never fully adhered to by any country), and the preamble states that “…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech…has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
As this document is typically ignored in significant ways by virtually every nation on the face of the Earth, we must conclude that definite “human rights” do not actually exist. Also, some “rights” are contradictory. For example, there is a right to work and a right to private property.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 9:16 am
Jonas,
I was inferring from your username and comments that you’re an objectivist, and my view is that objectivism is just a sort of quasi-Nietzschean, hyperindividualistic form of utilitarianism. If I was mistaken about that being your perspective, I apologize.
But I still think the important point is that Jones does bear some responsibility for those deaths in Afghanistan. He certainly has a right to his opinion about Islam and also a right to express that opinion, but he has plenty of less-inflammatory means of expressing it. He can’t light the fuse and then wash his hands of the resulting explosion, to mix a couple of metaphors.
The U.S. Constitution supports the idea that citizens have a responsibility to avoid harm in their public political expressions, by specifying that citizens have a right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I’d underline “peaceably” if I could; it means, for example, that riot or incitement to riot and other non-peaceable behavior is not protected.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Let’s hope this guy doesn’t get together with Rev. Fred Phelps, they’re both nuts from the same crazy tree.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
@CM – You were also mistaken about my “username”, which is, btw, my real name (no, I’m not related to Ayn). You’re right about objectivism (I edited Wikipedia, which has a considerable amount of them [but not the majority of editors] and was even founded by one, for four years). It’s actually quite cultish.
Burning a religious symbol does not harm anyone (that is, unless it is on someone’s person). There will be no resulting injury to over a billion Muslims just because their holy book was burned. Therefore, it is not contradictory to any clause mandating peaceable assembly (the Qur’an burning wasn’t ‘assembly’, either). It is not to be assumed that Jones’ protest will result in rioting, either, and if it doesn’t result in violence, it will not violate the “peaceable assembly” clause.
While one may argue about whether it was “inflammatory”, it seems his intent was to voice his disagreement with the religion, and that was a public expression of such disagreement. It was not an order or suggestion to “kill your Muslim neighbor” (or burn them), or to “bomb a local mosque”.
One has the right to protest in front of a religious institution. If this turns out the same as the protest filmed by CAIR, with people yelling to Muslims walking by that “Muhammad was a child molester”, then it will be harassment. But we shouldn’t make presumptions. All people (even Islamophobes) are not the same.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Also, it was the Taliban who decided to kill innocents because their religious symbol was burned. I think it’s an insult to Muslims to say that Muslims are not capable of resisting reacting with such unjustified brutality (or that they would even consider doing such a thing). Remember, the pious, Godly, (self-)righteous choirboys who killed people in Afghanistan are the ones who did this:
http://www.rawa.us/movies/beating.mpg
(watch as this woman, blue-burqa-clad and bent at the waist, is beaten by Taliban mutaween thugs while a little girl, without her mandatory veil, runs away in horror. The mutaween were the religious enforcers from the ironically-named Committee for the Protection of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, under the Taliban regime, and still active under the same name in US-backed Saudi Arabia, whose people live under the suffocating boot of fanaticism. WHO IS COMMITTING THE ‘UNNATURAL ACT’ NOW? What is the Mutaween thug shouting? It sounds like “Mu’ammar Gaddafi”.)
It is ‘people’ like that who make Islamophobic delusions more believable.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
David Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has this to say:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispat.....opment.php
“All of this is blatantly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts.
[...]
That it now involves someone who preaches against civil rights for Muslims is not a legally relevant difference; the government must protect the right to protest and protect those who engage in protest from violent reaction no matter how heinous the message of the protest may be.”
This.
on April 22nd, 2011 at 7:56 pm
It would seem that Jones did have a firearm in his possession during his visit to Michigan. One wonders, why?
Quran-Burning Pastor’s Gun Accidentally Goes Off In Michigan</a?
on April 23rd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Jonas Rand,
this is an argument that could be had for both sides! Now, let’s look back at the Bush years, simply for this argument of free speech. Remember when someone wore a t-shirt on a plane that dissed Bush? Remember, that person was told to either turn the t-shirt inside-out or they would not be allowed to fly? Then, you had the instances where protestors were arrested while outside at the RNC conventions.
My opinion on this, it is a double standard attached with vicious bullying.
As far as standing up for Jones, again, it is almost like you are saying it is okay for emotional abuse, intimidation, and daring someone to act out against the ‘more powerful,’ which to me looks like racism/discrimination.
These actions by Jones also sends a confusing message to the Muslim world – they are not fully accepted here, will never have their full rights here, but, on the other hand, we can go to their countries and we are saviors, we like them, and we are their friends, but, we also want them to change their entire way of life? Please, explain this to me! Also, please explain what is wrong with Muslims being offended over the Quran, as well as Americans being offended over material things, i.e. money.
on April 24th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Shouldn’t have bought those floor mats with the big target on them.
on April 25th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Skinnyminny,
While I do not remember the specific incident to which you’re referring (I was 4 years old when Bush got elected), there were several such times when goons from the TSA harassed innocent American citizens for clothing they thought of as “provocative”. Harassment on airplanes for such obviously harmless things as an anti-Bush shirt, or a little gun pendant, only create unnecessary hurdles for airplane passengers. I oppose the creation of such hurdles by TSA on principle, as the harassment is a draconian measure befitting of totalitarian police states, not democracies.
All censorship of free speech (I’d say that, in America, it was more common in the Bush era) is wrong. You’re right that it’s a double standard (of political correctness) with the right-wingers. but I don’t perpetuate that double standard as to the speech that I defend. If you want to wear an anti-Bush (or anti-war, in the case of Katie Sierra) shirt, it should be your right to do so; I think it’s much less provocative than burning a Qur’an. What would be more provocative than both of those exercises of free speech, would be any attempt to stop/censor the free speech.
What’s ironic is that, despite this double standard on the right-wing (supporting the TSA’s plane censorship, while crying “censorship” at attempts to stop Terry Jones), they are the first to make accusations of “PC” at the short gains in racial justice that have taken place (such as affirmative action or diversity training).
on April 25th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
michael carmichael,
“Islamophobia is now as severe as anti-Semitism was during the 1930s.”
During the 1930s, antisemitism was so bad that Jews fleed Europe for Palestine and the United States. This was followed by the mass murder of six million Jews. Today, Muslims are immigrating to the United States and Europe in huge numbers. There is no mass murder of six million Muslims coming.
To compare the modern “Islamophobia” with 1930s antisemitism is absurd.
on April 25th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I don’t know what Americans are offended over money, nor have I ever heard of any prominent and controversial incident of money destruction. I do know, however, that Alex Jones, a right-wing jingoistic American conspiracy theorist radio host, is shown here (though without explanation) burning a US dollar. There was, as far as I know, no controversy or offense at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsD_a4wujH8
A double standard regarding free speech may send a mixed message to Muslims. Jones’ action did not contribute to a positive environment. But the war in Afghanistan is an act of imperialism and it is due to the unjustified murder of civilians, not to allowing the burning of the Qur’an by a fanatical moron (who hates Muslims), that anti-US sentiment is so prominent in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan alone is evidence that America is not there to “liberate” Afghans, but to wage an imperialist war for control of Afghanistan’s natural resources (a trillion dollars’ worth!) and support the Karzai régime, which is collaborating with the Taliban. The hypocrisy in the agenda of “liberating Afghans” is evident; also, it gives the Taliban a recruiting base (those whose families were victimized at the hands of US occupation forces).
I don’t believe the government’s handling of the Qur’an burning situation created a contradiction between our supposed agenda in Afghanistan and our society’s views on Muslims, because President Obama condemned the action as insensitive and made it clear enough, IMO, that most Americans do not hate Muslims. However, that doesn’t change the fact that a contradiction exists: the TSA harassment of imams on the airplane, for example, showed that our government is not free of discrimination. By and large, I don’t think this really helped fan the flames of anti-American hatred, except among a dedicated group of oppressive fanatics (the murderers of UN peacekeepers).
The murderers ‘protesting’ the Qur’an burning in Afghanistan were not people whose agenda is supported by most Afghans (neither are Karzai, the Northern Alliance, Dostum, or Rabbani). They were Taliban or other fanatical warlord-supporters, who were trying to gain support based around this non-issue (meaning that it has no relevance for Afghans), because Afghans are almost all Muslims and take their religion seriously.
on April 25th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Jonas Rand,
Okay, in some parts of your comments we sort of agree, and then others vastly disagree. While I don’t claim to speak for the Muslims, I can say that everyone, and I mean everyone hold value for different things, and it’s their right. Just a simple example, in the west (most, not all), people love their animals, i.e., dogs, in most, if not all, of the muslim world, dogs are considered dirty. Are you following me on this – I am saying that different people value different things.
But back to the free speech, on Saturday, 4-23-2011, KFI640 AM radio, not sure if the name is Phil Henry or Hendries show, a guest by the name (not sure if it’s a pseudonym or not) Vernon Dozier, alleged to be an educator and diversity teacher/lecturer made some eye raising comments about the case in Sta Ana Califas, a man convicted of putting his semen in a woman’s bottled water. Mr. Dozier made comments in the line of saying that if it was Ariana Huffington or Martha Stewart, most men would be happy. Most men are happy this sad incident happened to this woman because they are suffering from the effects of affirmative action, minorities…and they have lost their jobs/buying power because of it. Later, he asked a black caller what if he was still in Africa, and asked another male caller if he was gay because he didn’t sleep with an attractive younger female.
I use the example above, because regardless if it is considered free speech by some, this is crossing the line and this type of speech has consequences. It makes me wonder how some people can be so insensitive toward others and not feel a thing as if they have an artificial heart. I mentioned money, because it appears this is only thing that causes people to do things they shouldn’t or normally wouldn’t do if they had it – i.e., look at the economy now, do you think the big corporations care about what they are doing to the people – raising gas prices, food prices, utility prices, bank fees – they all feel that we should take the brunt, and they all raise their prices at the same time.
on April 26th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Skinnyminny, I love the way you think. the dog thing was common in the ancient world, and all references in the Bible to dogs are bad. There was a reference to the cats in a palace in one of the books we didn’t get but is in the basement of the Vatican. I believe the point of that reference was that everybody benefits from a just and prosperous society. Today that is not the case, as you are well aware.
on April 26th, 2011 at 12:37 am
“During the 1930s, antisemitism was so bad that Jews fleed Europe for Palestine and the United States. This was followed by the mass murder of six million Jews. Today, Muslims are immigrating to the United States and Europe in huge numbers. There is no mass murder of six million Muslims coming”
So we can’t compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism until someone kills six million Muslims? Would 5.9 million Muslims due? Michael Savage says we should kill 100 million.
I’m very sorry but your comment is idiotic. The tone, techniques, and methods of Islamophobia are the same as anti-Semitism, whether in the 1930s or not. Perhaps nobody ever told you, but anti-semitism existed in a lot of countries which never joined the Axis or participated in the extermination of Jews- like the United States for example.
Let’s look at some methods used by Islamophobes and anti-Semites:
1. Muslims/Jews are said to be one monolithic group, with their own interests, which they serve above all else.
2. The actions of any individual Muslim/Jew or group thereof are associated with Muslims or Jews as a whole.
3. The evil of Islam is alleged to be revealed in the Quran and Hadith, that of Judaism mostly from the Talmud.
4. If a Jewish scholar attempts to explain the Talmud, this is dismissed because the Talmud allegedly requires him not to tell the truth about its content, and sanctions if not demands that he lie about it. Folks like Robert Spencer accuse Muslim scholars of “Taqqiya”‘, an obscure concept that they have totally twisted. Basically they say that any Muslim who attempts to explain something in the Quran is lying, and this lying is sanctioned if not demanded by Allah.
5. Jews are making inroads into power; Muslims are making inroads into power.
6. There are separate, irreconcilable European and Jewish mentalities(which all Jews are assumed to have). There are irreconcilable differences between the European and Muslim mentalities.
7.Jews are plotting world domination, Muslims are plotting world domination.
These are just a few examples. And while thus far, nobody has gone out and exterminated 6 million Muslims, Islamophobia has led to crimes against Muslims, including persecution and ethnic cleansing(e.g. Bosnia). It has also facilitated wars in the Middle East such as Iraq, which have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not a few million if we were to count the deaths in Iraq from the first Gulf War to the present.
on April 26th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Let me add one more point to my comment above…
The propaganda aimed at Jews in Germany and Europe in the 1930′s didn’t necessarily turn most people into vicious Jew-killers. What it did do was make people completely apathetic and/or hostile to the plight of Jews. If the Nazis could actually get Germans as a whole to actively support the wholesale slaughter of Jews and other peoples labeled as undesirables, there would have been no need to cover up and hide these programs from the populace. The effect of the propaganda was that many ordinary people felt no inclination to ask what was happening to the Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, etc.
Muslims around the world are being bombed, shot, deported, and discplaced every day, but thanks to decades of propaganda, most people simply do not care, and many silently or at least quietly approve. These Muslims have been dehumanized and painted as “the other”, in the same ways as Jews and Eastern Slavs once were.
So will it lead to wholesale extermination of Muslims? Probably not. Does it help perpetuate ongoing violence and imperialist actions against Muslim populations? Yes.
on April 26th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Ruslan,
We can’t compare the two since Muslims are not fleeing the nations where Islamophobia is allegedly rampant. Instead, the Muslim population in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and North America is expanding. If michael carmichael’s view was correct, we would see hundreds of thousands going the opposite direction.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ims10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....rojections
We should note that most religiously-motivated hate crimes today are antisemitic, not anti-Muslim. Again, if carmichael’s view was correct, this would be reversed.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html
Most of your comparisons of the methods of Judaism’s critics and Islam’s critics could be made between the any two religions’ critics, yet carmichael has not compared modern discrimination against, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses to 1930s antisemitism. It also ignores the racial aspects of 1930s antisemitism, while I have not seen a critic of Islam worth noting has suggested that Islam is biological.
Re #7, some radical Muslims have said that Muslims should conquer the world. I have never seen a radical Jew, not even Meir Kahne, say the same thing about Jews.
The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were primarily based on ethnicity. Serb ultra-nationalist propaganda looks totally different from the propaganda of Pastor Jones, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, et al (although some paleoconservatives in the US have clumsily attempted to link those conflicts with radical Islam). Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians are very Western and almost totally pro-US.
The majority of Muslims who died violently in Iraq from 1991 to now were killed by other Muslims. Are you arguing that Muslims who kill other Muslims were influenced by Western “Islamophobia”?
“Muslims around the world are being bombed, shot, deported, and discplaced every day[...]”
Again, mostly by other Muslims.
“[B]ut thanks to decades of propaganda, most people simply do not care[...]”
For the third time in as many decades, NATO countries are currently spending millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent the mass murder of Muslims. Muslim nations (including the Palestinian Authority) receive tons of US and European aid and millions of dollars in private and taxpayer money have gone to Muslim victims of other Muslims in Darfur. Disagree or criticize these actions if you wish, but I simply do not see how you can honestly type those words.
“So will [Islamophobia] lead to wholesale extermination of Muslims? Probably not.”
So you also disagree with carmichael? If 1930s antisemitism was “as severe as” modern “Islamophobia” we would see wholesale extermination of Muslims soon.
on April 26th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Sam Molloy,
thanks for your kind words. I try extremely hard to get my point across without offending unintended/innocent people. But, sometimes, as you can see in my comments, I may come off as harsh/bitter or just straight up ghetto – but, this seems to work as far as being understood, especially when it comes to the tea salesperson/groupie/bandit (I use these terms, because I’m not quite sure if I even understand their cause, or who/what they represent).
It saddens me, that people who yell free speech don’t realize that words hurt. Emotional abuse have scars just like physical abuse. It reminds me of when I used to see the news (I canceled cable, so I don’t see the news often) people who suffer emotional abuse eventually snap, thereby catching the abuser off guard. This usually catches everyone off guard, actually. Or, should I say, surprise people who didn’t or couldn’t believe a person has a breaking point.
I think the biggest mistake that some people who yell free speech make is the lack of good communication skills, and conflict resolution skills. I say this because, it’s not always what you say, but what you say, and when/where you say it. For example, you walk into a rowdy crowd and say something to the crowd that they feel is disrespectful, someone in the crowd will say, ‘you’re not going to take that are you…’ thereby urging/challenging a duel.
I mentioned street degree about a week ago – here goes, for an example, where I live in L.A., looking or staring at someone can cause big problems – it can be disrespectful. A wrong hand gesture can cause big problems, but so can words/slang – for a simple example, the term ‘fag’ in Europe can be used as cigarette, yet, it is considered very disrespectful in the U.S. because this term is used in a derogatory manner towards the LGBT community. As a multi-racial black in America, if I went to Egypt I would be called ‘abeed’ which is slave in Arabic (I think that’s the correct spelling). On that same note, if I went to Nigeria, or some of the other African nation, they would deny that I am black and say that I am more white than black.
To sum it all up, we are all human, we all have feelings, we all have the same needs.
on April 27th, 2011 at 6:25 am
Oh I see what you mean now. We don’t need to worry about Islamophobia until people are being driven out of their homelands, persecuted by law, and rounded up into concentration camps.
The rest of this is just a lot of typical right-wing talking points.
on April 27th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Ruslan,
“We don’t need to worry about Islamophobia[...]”
While I’m not a fan of the term “Islamophobia”, no part of my post indicates that I think discrimination against Muslims is not something we as a society need to worry about. It seems impossible to have a conversation without you making up strawmen.
“The rest of this is just a lot of typical right-wing talking points.”
There is no shame in not responding to a point if no response can be made to it, but accusing someone of using “right-wing talking points” is not a good enough criticism. It raises too many questions. If I did use talking points, is that a bad thing? I suppose if I stole my arguments from someone else then I’m not very original, but are we showing off writing skills or having a discussion? Are you accusing me of plagarism? Why are they “right-wing”? Does being right-wing or left-wing automatically make an argument invalid? Were your April 26th posts talking points too? They seemed to repeat points I have heard people make them before, so the same criticisms apply.
on April 27th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Excellent sophistry Ian. The bottom line is that in virtually every article dealing with Islam, you find a way to claim that Islamophobia isn’t so bad, and we should actually worry about Islamification of America. In this post you are basically saying that because Muslims aren’t being driven out of their own countries wholesale, or rounded up into camps, we can’t make clear comparisons between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. This is ridiculous. If someone had taken a stand against anti-Semitism in its milder forms, perhaps there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. That’s the whole point of groups like the SPLC highlighting things like this.
If you want to know what a right-wing talking point is, this:
“For the third time in as many decades, NATO countries are currently spending millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent the mass murder of Muslims. ”
Nonsense. NATO does not fight to save any lives. It fights to increase its own influence and by extension, advance the interests of its principle members.
on April 27th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
@Skinnyminny. That radio incident was an example of personally insulting and verbally degrading a person. I think that does cross the line, and that it’s different from the Qur’an burning in that it targeted someone personally (actually, two people). As for his sexism – he had a right to say that, but it is spreading prejudice, and if I was “Phil Henry or Hendries”, I would have apologized and not invited the guest on again. However, I think LEGAL action should not be taken. The same with Dr. Laura’s despicable racism. “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Simply put, I agree that the world does need conditioning for a multicultural, accepting, tolerant environment that is inclusive to all people and discourages hatred and is culturally sensitive. However, when cultural sensitivity comes into conflict to one’s right to free speech, other than in cases of intimidation, I (and the ACLU) stand on the side of free speech.
In response to Ruslan and Ian, Islamophobia and intolerance toward Muslims really is out of control in this country. I don’t like Nazi comparisons, but the propaganda is just as intense as around the mid-late ’30s against Jews.
Side note: I have developed greater disgust at Terry Jones, because I recently learned that his church is an abusive cult, which makes people labour for twelve long hours every day, without pay, packing furniture for his wife’s business.
on April 28th, 2011 at 10:46 am
“In response to Ruslan and Ian, Islamophobia and intolerance toward Muslims really is out of control in this country. I don’t like Nazi comparisons, but the propaganda is just as intense as around the mid-late ’30s against Jews”
The problem is that Ian is basically using the extreme example of anti-Semitism in Germany, as opposed to the anti-Semitism in countries like the USA or England. Were Jews leaving the USA in droves? Of course not. But it would be ludicrous to say that there wasn’t mainstream anti-Semitism in America at the time, and it frequently resembled what is said about Muslims today.
Perhaps as a compromise we can compare it to anti-Catholic persecution from the 19th century to early 20th. Read some of Jack Chick’s anti-Catholic tracts, and you will see a definite resemblance.
on April 28th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Ruslan,
“NATO does not fight to save any lives. It fights to increase its own influence and by extension, advance the interests of its principle members.”
Could you be more specific? What interests of NATO’s principle members were being advanced in Bosnia and Kosovo and are being advanced in Libya aside from protecting the lives of (mostly Muslim) civilians?
“Ian is basically using the extreme example of anti-Semitism in Germany, as opposed to the anti-Semitism in countries like the USA or England.”
Carmichael was not geographically specific, so I saw no reason to be either.
on April 28th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
“Could you be more specific? What interests of NATO’s principle members were being advanced in Bosnia and Kosovo and are being advanced in Libya aside from protecting the lves of (mostly Muslim) civilians?”
In the case of Yugoslavia, it was breaking down and weakening Eastern European states, which has been the norm since 1991. More importantly, it helped establish NATO as a police force in Eastern Europe, to justify its existence, and to establish it as a sort of international authority. It was also to check any attempt by Russia for regaining influence in the region. In Libya, it is most likely to block access to China, which was receiving a large amount of its oil from that country; recently 30,000 Chinese workers were forced to leave. It is also a great way to ensure that Tunisia and Egypt don’t become unacceptably democratic.
“Carmichael was not geographically specific, so I saw no reason to be either”
But you were. You limited yourself to the most extreme locales of anti-Semitism so as to invalidate comparisons of Islamophobia.
I cannot speak for the other guy but my point is that the techniques of Islamophobia are almost identical to those used by anti-Semites, even to this day. Some of those I already outlined.
on April 29th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Ruslan,
“In the case of Yugoslavia, it was breaking down and weakening Eastern European states, which has been the norm since 1991. More importantly, it helped establish NATO as a police force in Eastern Europe, to justify its existence, and to establish it as a sort of international authority.”
This doesn’t explain why it took so long for NATO to intervine. If that was its goal, the intervention would’ve started as soon as Croatia and Slovenia broke away.
“In Libya, it is most likely to block access to China[...]”
There are many, many countries close to NATO nations with closer links to China.
“It is also a great way to ensure that Tunisia and Egypt don’t become unacceptably democratic.”
I don’t follow. Please explain.
on April 29th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“This doesn’t explain why it took so long for NATO to intervine. If that was its goal, the intervention would’ve started as soon as Croatia and Slovenia broke away.”
The Slovenian war lasted about 10 days. The Serbs in Croatia carved out a separate republic of Krajina from the lands they historically occupied. Croatia and Slovenia, both having been recognized very quickly by the major NATO players, were firmly in that camp. It wasn’t until the war in Bosnia that NATO could come up with some kind of pretext for getting more deeply involved in the region.
“There are many, many countries close to NATO nations with closer links to China.”
Are they having armed insurgencies, partially led by a man who has known ties to the CIA? And perhaps you’d like to name some of those “many countries” close to NATO nations with ties to China. Nations which are also sources for a significant amount of China’s oil.
“I don’t follow. Please explain”
Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have led to the fall of two trusted Western puppets. Should these uprisings continue and put someone into power in either nation who is unacceptable to the West, it would be nice to have a potential base of operations from whence to lean on either of those new governments.