Comparing Palestinians To Nazi's

ThinkProgress reports that Ben Shapiro on Townhall.Com recently said of the Palestinians:

"The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core."

Orthodox Jew and radically Conservative Shapiro also claimed :

"They are as responsible for their government’s longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis’."

Why doesn't Shapiro just come out and say what he means? Shapiro obviously despises all Palestinian people. It is Shapiro who sounds "rotten to the core." This guy gives me the chills.

By this very same misguided logic every American citizen is also guilty of the torture and sexual violation of inmates in Abu Ghraib. By this logic every American citizen is responsible for the all the atrocities our government ever carried out.

I've heard this logic before.... where was it? Oh yeah, it was Osama bin Laden when he said it was OK to kill American civilians because we elect our leaders so we are responsible for what they do.

Shapiro's animosity and hatred towards all Palestinians is not justified, I don't understand his viciousness. Is this simple transference?

The Germans had contempt for all Jews and hated everything about them, just like Shapiro has contempt for all Palestinians and hates everything about them. So to my ears Shapiro is the one who sounds like the fascist.

Why compare the Palestinians to the Nazi's?

The Nazi's had concentration camps, gas chambers, and modern weaponry.

The Palestinians live in walled cities which they are not allowed to leave from without the permission of the Israeli's. The weapons of the bad guys? Malfunctioning AK-47's and homemade "rockets".

There are so many fundamental differences between the Nazi's and the Palestinians it isn't even funny.

For one, there are not hundreds of thousands of armed Palestinians with tanks and airplanes making line invasions into a neighboring country and throwing a particular ethnic group into ovens.

More importantly, it is the Palestinians who are living in strife and oppression. I see a holocaust of sorts, but it isn't happening to the Jews. I see a destruction of a society, a destruction being pushed from the outside and aided from the inside. I see injustice, which leads to widespread anger and eventual violence.

The German Nazi's invaded neighboring countries in a quest for world domination, the Palestinians want their own country and there has to be a way to work on that, but as long as their are pretentious self serving racist around like Shapiro it will be an uphill battle.

This archetype of people only feed into the militants hostility and anger and only make it easier for them to find recruits.

What do they need propaganda video's for when all they really need is a few articles written by Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager translated into Arabic? Then the militants can say "See how much they hate you? They don't want peace, peace is a lie."

Comparing the Palestinians to the Nazi's is to compare apples and oranges and I think this Shapiro character must have a hideous mind.

Christian, Muslim or Jew - An Extremist Is An Extremist

Security think tank EastWest Institute has issued a report that according to the AP shows :

"Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism,"

and

"extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith."

While this report shows many of us something we have already suspected for years - it helps shed light on the fact that Islam is not the only religion that can be radicalized, all religion can be radicalized in the wrong hands.

We should always be aware of extremism in our backyard, it doesn't matter if a person is willing to kill in the name of Jesus, Mohammad or Moses - if they are willing to kill and have their unruly conviction in God behind them, then they are in fact dangerous.

This post is not intended to be demeaning or condescending towards people of faith, it is intended to highlight the fact that all religion can be radicalized, Christianity and Judaism is not somehow immune and Islam is not the only religion that can be hijacked and used for violent and political purposes that are actually in contradiction with many of the core religious teachings.

We have to understand and identify extremist in our own mist to ensure our own people are not using faith and religion to guide our country into it's own form of extremism.

Side note : And yes, I know I am not telling many of you anything you don't already know... But now you have a think tank report to add to your evidence arsenal against the radical religious right.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Religion In Schools In England

You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.

Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.

So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?

Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.

What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.

I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.

Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.

It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?

Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.

For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.

Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?

That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??

Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.

But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?

Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?

Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?

Bigotry In America Part 2
Related : Bigotry In America, You Bet.

The fact of the matter is that I can't even believe in the year 2006 we are even having a debate about religious choice and equality in the United States. The constitution is crystal clear about religious freedoms.

Recently there has been controversy over the fact that the African American newly elected Democratic Congressman from Minnesota who happens to be Muslim wants to take his oath on the Koran.

Now hold on there. Wait just one minute before you think you can go and spout off about how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to take their oath on the Koran... I know some Christians have a tendency to make judgements and statements before dusting off the constitution and reading the thing.

Since the constitution is long and boring to Republicans, let me simplify it :

In Article. VI. of the United States Constitution it is written that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Can you read that? It's that simple! You don't like it? Then YOU get out, because clearly it is YOUR ideals are unconstitutional and therefore unAmerican.

The people who have a problem with Keith Ellison are the problem, they are the force that threatens to undermine American ideals and society because they don't even understand American ideals or the guidelines set forth in the Constitution by the founding fathers, men who philosophised more in one day than these neoconservative critics have in a lifetime.

Keith Ellison's choice of religion is not the problem, nor is the fact that he would like to take his Oath on the Koran. The constitution protects the rights of all religions or lack thereof, of not only the people, but those who represent them.

In time and age in America I cannot believe we are even having this debate. It is very simple, and for those who don't understand they need to either read the Constitution or retract themselves from this debate that shouldn't even need to be debated.

In this time and age, here we are in Iraq, in the Middle East in general, and we are preaching about this thing called Democracy. We think we have this experimental Democracy thing down so pat that we can just be spreading it all around the world like it's New Year's cheer.

Here we are in Iraq saying "Sunni, Shia, Kurds, you need to get along, and treat each other with equality. You need to be more secular, and not judge people based on their religion."

MEANWHILE, here we are at home harassing this American Muslim man who was fairly elected about... his religion. Clearly this country is still composed of bigots who don't practice what they preach.

Not only is it unconstitutional, it's downright hypocritical, and it truly exposes Right for what it is : A xenophobic, unAmerican, unconstitutional bunch vision-less racist who only hold this country back from progression.

It's an ugly statement, but their vileness and hypocrisy is astoundingly backwards and surprisingly similar to the type of ideology we are struggling to defeat in the Middle East.

Keith Ellison and his Koran are not going to upset the fabric of reality or Americanism. In fact, it embraces it. Some people have a poor perception of America and believe that the constitution and equal rights only apply to certain people.

You cannot grant full rights to atheist, Agnostics, Quakers, Christians and Jews and refuse them to Muslims.

Specifically because it is unconstitutional, but especially because we are attempting to democratize the Middle East while telling the Muslims that other sects of Muslims or Christians and Jews all deserve equal rights and that you shouldn't treat people differently because of their religion.

While it is becoming painfully apparent that Muslims are not equal in America, even if they are American, educated and successful.

An article I found on CBS illustrates it rather well with the following

"the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience. "

and

"For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress," it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test."

After examining this situation I have fully realized for perhaps the first time how important a secular government is.

With constitutional dumb asses like Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode and bigoted crusaders like Dennis Prager who cannon handle themselves when someone of an "opposing" religion wishes to take an Oath on their own holy book, maybe a new approach should be taken.

If it's such a big deal to these people, they can't handle the slightest bit of diversity that they think they can punish Muslims, then maybe everyone should be collectivly punished and no one is allowed to use any holy book to take their oath by.

How do the religious ideologues like that? Take an affirmation on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights, that's what your there to uphold in the first place.

I don't believe such a resolution should be made, but the point is that if there cannot be a Koran then there cannot be a Bible, or a Torah or any other holy book present during the Oath.

In conclusion, Ellison's request is Constitutional, and his opponents are not in compliance with with that. It is the opponents who are threatening American ideals, not Keith Ellison.

Furthermore it is ludicrous to try to teach other nations about religious equality and tolerance when it is so apparently absent here.

Bigotry In America? You Bet.

There are milestones in our great Democracy. To name a few would be to name the freeing of the slaves, allowing woman to vote and allowing minorities to hold political office.

Multiculturalism and religious equality are qualities embedded in the Constitution and the documents that America is founded on. For instance, in Article. VI. it is written

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Amendment to the Constitution also reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To reach further back one can site The Declaration Of Independence, which in it's opening lines states

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Note that it is written "endowed by their creator" not endowed by my creator or your creator or the creator, but the creator of the individual. It is written to protect the religions and beliefs of all Americans, not just some.

So what really shocks me, in the year 2006 is when people who think they are true Americans exhibit and display some very truly unAmerican traits, such as racism and/or religious intolerance.

These people often claim that if America allows religious harmony and equality that it will "undermines American civilization".

This idea is laughable because multiculturalism and religious tolerance does not undermine American civilization, it builds American civilization and it advances American civilization and it serves as a role model to the world.

But there are many intolerant bigots still living amongst us. Like I wrote, they claim to know what "American values" are and talk about the "voice of the American people" a lot and they say they want to "protect" American culture all while they try to tear it apart, but mostly it is just intolerance and xenophobia.

In the 2006 elections America saw it's first Muslim Congressman elected in the entire history of the country, this is another milestone in our Democracy, specifically because our Constitution reflects that people of all religions are allowed to serve in political office and that "no religious test" shall be required. It is one quality in which our Constitution is more advanced than others.

I did not expect, but I should have figured that some people in this country would be tremendously opposed to Ellison taking his Oath on a Koran or even the fact that he was Muslim.

However I was actually shocked and somewhat dismayed when right wing pundit Dennis Prager attacked newly elected Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Ellison is a Muslim man, fairly elected and has asked that he could be sworn in on the Koran, rather than the Bible.

Again, Article. VI of The United States Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Again, the first Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Dennis Prager claimed in a recent column that letting Ellison take his oath on the Koran rather than the typical Bible "undermines American civilization" and made insinuations that Ellison was making a statement such as "my culture trumps America's culture" by wanting to use a Koran rather than a Bible.

Prager produced some of the most crackpot theories and accusation in his recent column in which he claims "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

WOW, that's pretty.. what do you call it... bigoted? Narrow minded? He doesn't even realize that when he is spouting off about "American values" that he is contradicting the guidelines set forth in the Constitution, all while claiming to be a patriot!

In the inflammatory column Prager goes on to write "In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."

Prager even compares letting Ellison take his oath with the Koran to letting someone take their oath with Hitler's "Mein Kampf".

First, Mein Kampf is not a Holy Book, and Second it is highly unlikely Nazi will ever be sworn into any office in America and Third most neo Nazi's embrace Christian ideals anyway.

Is this guy Prager even serious or is he too busy making a mockery of himself? He's practically frothing at the mouth, insinuating that Ellison or his supporters would mock the Bible. Not only that Prager is claiming that America is vehemently opposed to this heinous act of exercising ones Constitutional rights.

Allowing Ellison to take his oath on the Koran will not disrupt the fabric of American society, and it does not show disrespect for American society.

Our Constitution was set up in such a way to allow room for and protect religious minorities in public life and in office. Allowing one to practice their own religion does not surrender one to confirming the legitimacy of another person's religion but does confirm an equal and civil society.

By the way, Prager, beg you please, do some research before even writing about this subject again or maybe even read up on that whole Constitution thing.

Personal Note : Sometimes people who claim to want to protect American civilization actually inherently try to destroy it. Their ideals of American civilization are much different from the one outlined in the Constitution of the United States which serve to protect minorities and religions.

As written above, I believe it is another milestone in our great Democracy to see a Muslim elected to Congress. There was a time when people like Dennis Prager railed against letting Catholics, African Americans and woman run for office.

Last, I look forward to hearing the right wing conspiracy theories that will inevitably hatch around that Muslim Congressman and his "leftist supporters" and I am sure if Prager does not start the conspiracy theory about the "Leftist and Muslim Agenda To Overthrow American Values With Homosexuals And Flag Burners" then I am sure Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson will pick up on it soon enough.