| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Cox and Forkum, you will be missed (cartoon via Gates of Vienna)
We all know what this resolution is all about, and what the Ramadan iftar dinners at the Pentagon and the White House are all about. All are designed to reassure Muslims that we know that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islam has nothing to do with jihadist terrorism. In fact, this resolution, and those iftars, are caused by jihad terrorism; if Islamic terrorism weren't an international phenomenon, and if the United States weren't engaged in efforts, however ill-conceived and wrongheaded, to defend ourselves against that terrorism, there would be no need for such initiatives at all. The need for them arises out of a sense of guilt, tinged with fear: yes, we've got our troops in two Muslim countries, but we know you chaps aren't all bad, eh wot, and you've got a grand religion there, and...please don't hate us.
Instead of passing resolutions congratulations Muslims for Ramadan, and instead of holding iftar dinners in the Pentagon and the White House -- or at very least in addition to doing so -- the U.S. ought to be placing responsibility where it actually lies. Where are the Congressional resolutions calling upon Muslim groups in America to renounce Sharia and political Islam, and to institute comprehensive, transparent programs teaching against Islamic supremacism in U.S. mosques and Muslim schools? Where are the Congressional resolutions calling upon Muslims in the U.S. to condemn not just "terrorism," but Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, and other jihad terror groups, and to back up their condemnations with active cooperation with anti-terror efforts?
The Republicans who voted "present" on the Ramadan resolution don't say any of this. But I suspect that some were thinking it.
By Jackie Kucinich for The Hill (thanks to Greg Allen):
Forty-one Republicans, more than 20 percent of the caucus, and one Democrat voted “present” on a resolution recognizing the commencement of Ramadan on Tuesday.The 42 lawmakers make up more than 10 percent of the members voting on the resolution. There were zero “no” votes, and 14 members did not vote.
The resolution recognized “the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world,” rejected “hatred, bigotry and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide” and “[commended] Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence and terror.”
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) dismissed the resolution as political correctness gone too far.
“This resolution is an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country,” Tancredo said. “I am not opposed to commending any religion for their faith. The problem is that any attempt to do so for Jews or Christians is immediately condemned as ‘breaching’ the non-existent line between church and state by the same elite.”
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, “I voted ‘present’ because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
Joining Tancredo in his “present” vote were Republican Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Jo Bonner (Ala.), Mary Bono (Calif.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.), Michael Burgess (Texas), Steve Buyer (Ind.), John Carter (Texas), Mike Conaway (Texas), Nathan Deal (Ga.), Terry Everett (Ala.), Mary Fallin (Okla.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Virgil Goode (Va.), Kay Granger (Texas), Robin Hayes (N.C.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Kenny Marchant (Texas), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Tom Price (Ga.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), Mark Souder (Ind.), Mac Thornberry (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Zach Wamp (Tenn.), Dave Weldon (Fla.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), Don Young (Alaska) and Bill Young (Fla.), as well as Democrat Mike McIntyre (N.C.).
Posted by Robert at October 4, 2007 12:15 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Why should anyone be "commended" for their religion? Is believing in this or that religion some special exploit, some feat of derring-do, that needs to be commended?
There are those who deserve commendation for ceasing to believe in Islam and bravely writing about it. In a better world, those whose duty it is to protect us, and instruct us, and therefore have a duty -- a duty they must cease to ignore --to learn about Islam, and not from the army of hirelings of Muslim states, and apologists for Islam, who are running around all the capitals of the Western world. In a rightly-ordered world, the brave dissenters, those who in the case of Islam are the equivalent of Andrey Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Yuri Galanskov and Valery Chalidze and Anatoliy Yakobson and all the others, the best people in the Soviet Union, who helped bring that system down by irrefutably showing what was wrong, morally and in other ways, with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and helped to unnerve and demoralize, starting with the educated children of the Nomenklatura, the Party's rulers, who could not gainsay their arguments.
No, don't expect any resolutions "commending" those who signed that St. Petersburg (Florida) Declaraton, including Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Mithal al-Alusi, and many others.
But why was this resolution, seemingly innocuous, but in fact sinister in its goal -- to implicate Congressmen in ways they do not yet realize, implicate them psychologically in the defense of Islam -- ever brought to a vote?
One is beginning to feel about Congressmen the way Mark Twain felt about them, and Will Rogers. The contempt, if expressed as they did it, amuses, but it doesn't make for a healthy polity, one able to defend itself against the greatest internal menace, one that is unprecedented in its means and its resources, that this country, and that the entire West along with it, has ever faced.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 4, 2007 12:47 PM
80% of Congress in favor of murder-suiciding America.
Posted by: Zeno at October 4, 2007 1:01 PM
90% of Congress in favor of murder-suiciding America.
Posted by: Zeno at October 4, 2007 1:02 PM
What was last years vote?
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 4, 2007 1:05 PM
If "CON" is the opposite of "PRO" what's the opposite of PROGRESS?
Unfreaking believable. By institutionalizing stupidity, these guys have risen to a whole new level of "Stupid Is As Stupid Does". In quoting Forrest Gump's mother, I'm quoting the character, NOT the actress.
Posted by: walterc at October 4, 2007 1:10 PM
My Congressman voted "I'm here." Those of you whose reps voted for this POS legslitation need to send an e-mail, letter, or make a phone call and demand why they chose to vote for it, and explain why they may not get your vote on 2008.
Grenbeck, the vote was Oct. 2. 07.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 4, 2007 1:16 PM
Typo?
legslitation: A bill or an act designed to show our enemy that they are clueless about the tactics and strategy of the enemy's war to make sharia law supreme.
That was not a typo, honest Abe.
at October 4, 2007 1:21 PM
We're supposed to celebrate the 20 or so people who, knowing with every fiber of their being that this resolution is complete and utter bullshit, could not muster the courage to stand up and say "No"?
Instead they abstain and say,"present." Hopefully, not for long.
What else can we commend?
I commend Bulgaria. Well done Bulgaria.
I commend the Atlantic Ocean. A truly great ocean.
I commend squirrels. All those nuts...
I commend Kentucky Fried Chicken.
I commend the internet. It is a good thing.
I commend Haley's Comet, hoping for its safe return.
And for that matter, I commend interstellar space wherever it exists.
at October 4, 2007 1:22 PM
What more important those 80% absent were doing? Damn! I am so scared and can only hope that there absence will not cause uproar among the brotherhood of our masters (Ummah). After all we dhimmis are supposed to be subdued by and pay respect to the Allah and his slaves. I am tremebling with fear!!
Posted by: pagan at October 4, 2007 1:23 PM
Folks, this is a subtle form of dissent.
By merely voting "present", they are not voting for the resoultion.
They are saying, I was present when the resolution was read.
Posted by: LoneRanger at October 4, 2007 1:30 PM
Islam is a great religion only because one billion creatures claim to be followers. If one billion beople believed that God resided in a garage in Buffalo, would that be so great?
Just about every person who subscribes to a religious belief does so, why? Their parents subscribed to that religion, and only for that reason. It proves that children can be taught to believe anything, and I mean anything. I learned the little song "Jesus Loves the Little Children" at a young age and asked my mother why so many children had polio. Her answers meant well but were unsatisfactory. If everyone analyzed a set of religious texts to the exent that Jason Long and others have, there would be no religion.
Some people make fun of people who believe that Allah actually rode a strange creature to heaven and back. Those same people get angry when one questions whether Christ rose from the dead and was bodily sent to heaven.
This is the Big However: No Christian or Jew has ever threatened to kill me because of what I believe.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 4, 2007 1:47 PM
Tomorrow can they present the same for Christianity?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 4, 2007 2:24 PM
Who were the 14 who didnt vote?
Any idea?
at October 4, 2007 2:25 PM
It's a good guess that, though they didn't want to give this BS the time of day, but rather also not incur the wrath of unindicted co-conspirators like CAIR by voting "(HELL) no", they simply voted "present".
A very uncomfortable position to say the least.
Besides, ironic that the eminent purveyors of "separation of church and state!" would push such hypocrisy.
Oh, that's right...forgot...that only applies to Christianity.
at October 4, 2007 2:38 PM
Excellent C&F cartoon.
Posted by: Bigfoot at October 4, 2007 2:53 PM
Let's hope this travesty will have the effect of reducing the frequent comments on JW/DW regarding dhimmitude in the UK and Canada!
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 4, 2007 4:11 PM
Probably not...though all 3 countries may have enough on their respective plates, it's one reason why I try to avoid it-we in the US haven't much room to talk...and this is case-in-point.
(when I do, I do so from the perspective of appealing to distant relatives as if still family)
One thing for sure...at least we all know such BS isn't reflective of the majority populace in each respective country either. I hope we keep that in mind throughout this..."ordeal".
Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 4:23 PM
Yeah, we're all in the same boat - with idiotic politicians at the helm!
Maybe it's time for a mutiny.
at October 4, 2007 4:59 PM
Wouldn't take much...
here, we had 2 near-mutinies in the Navy last decade (especially over the balkan fiasco), MASS mutiny, including some flag support where it originated from.
("Flags"-USNavySpeak for "Admirals")
Most are ready to "reign fiery justice from the sky" right now...trust me, it wouldn't take much. lol
Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 5:46 PM
Who were the 14 who didnt vote?
Any idea?
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig
I have a link to the voting roll on my blog.
www.USorThemonline.com
I was very disappointed to see some voting yeah, instead of neah or at least "present.
Sue Myrick and Peter King voted yeah.
Posted by: USorThem at October 4, 2007 5:54 PM
"Some people make fun of people who believe that Allah actually rode a strange creature to heaven and back. Those same people get angry when one questions whether Christ rose from the dead and was bodily sent to heaven." Pelayo
What's your point by saying "we get angry"?
The story of a guy who rode to heaven on a magical horse is clearly the creation of an immature mind. And because its linked to a dangerous and deadly ideology, it deserves all the ridicule and more.
Don't equate people who grow up Christian with people who grow up Muslim. Apples and oranges.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 4, 2007 5:58 PM
Commend the ideology that is defined by war on us. Smart.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 4, 2007 6:03 PM
It did take courage for these reps to vote present. The person who does the most to fix something is the one blamed the most for not finishing the job. Everyone sits around telling him why he isn't doing it right.
It was less than a year ago that Virgil Goode stood up. Cicero said what made an orator was a good man skilled in speaking. From one to twenty in less than a year.
Congressman won't kowtow to CAIR, stands by "Islamophobic" letter
December 21, 2006
Begala said on CNN that Virgil Goode was a bigot and an idiot. We have made progress since then.
Rejecting Ramadan is hard because Ramadan doesn't have a reputation as the worst part of Islam. This is really standing up to Islam itself, not just some radical portion. That is what Goode did by saying he was against Muslim immigration, all Muslim immigration. That was saying its Islam, not just some radical part of Islam.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at October 4, 2007 9:31 PM
tsuga-
The Congressional dolts were voting to commend Mythical Islam, the one that does not yet exist, but, which they think that- if they just wish hard enough and speak about loud enough- will magically come into existence.
Through their tolerance. And by this benevolent show of "pluralism".
The same way that their forefathers in political foolishness wished that Hitler would have "no more territorial demands", and by pretending it was so in 1938, ended the threat of WW II.
That delusion worked out real well, too.
Crapulous clowns.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 4, 2007 9:36 PM
TPM Muckraker was one of the first websites on the left to "out" the Virgil Goode letter to his constituents. They had saturation coverage. There are comments pro and con. The first article at TPM on Goode and Ellison on TPM was on Dec 19, 2006. They link to the Dec 7 Goode Letter that was posted on Dec 20 at Talking Points Memo. The C-Ville Weekly obtained the letter and "outed" Goode.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/virgil_goode/
at October 4, 2007 9:51 PM
Peter "too many mosques in America" King voted "yeah"??? How??? What is he, a total hypocrite?
Posted by: darcy at October 4, 2007 10:22 PM
What's worse
CAIR Welcomes House Ramadan Resolution
Posted 10/3/2007 12:42:00 PM
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/2/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today welcomed a resolution recognizing the Islamic fast of Ramadan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday. The non-binding motion passed 376-0.
The resolution "recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world" and expresses "deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion."
The full text of the resolution can be seen here:
You can see how your Representative voted here:
For a full transcript of the discussion, click here:
at October 4, 2007 10:22 PM
darcy:
Probably fallout for his comment... he had to look dhimmi.
Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2007 10:41 PM
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) dismissed the resolution as political correctness gone too far.
“This resolution is an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country,” Tancredo said. “I am not opposed to commending any religion for their faith. The problem is that any attempt to do so for Jews or Christians is immediately condemned as ‘breaching’ the non-existent line between church and state by the same elite.”
This is the Tancredo I know. http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Posted by: Alert at October 4, 2007 11:02 PM
Wait an effing second. Did Tancredo vote 'yes'?
Posted by: Alert at October 4, 2007 11:18 PM
é strengstens verboten de dire qualcosa ugualmente violente che lo che dicono i mostri musulmai.
Questa cosa non mi piace. sono lei chi fanno la violenza contro tutto il mondo.
Fa tempo di fare una lezione eternale agli stronzi barbari dell'Oriente veconi.
Affanculo!
Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 5, 2007 12:47 AM
ofcourse, it is not a comparison of apples and oranges; it is a comparison of Golden Delicious to Winesap. Apple varieties to apple varieties.
I have been cursed at for my beliefs, a string of epithets that would make a 19th Century sailor blush. I once stated that I believed that flood was a myth carried over from other, earlier peoples. The nice Baptist gentleman called me a "hell bound son of a bitch."
There is a difference between fundamentalist Christians and similar Muslims. The Muslim would have cut my head off.
You miss the point, Mohammed going to heaven and a risen Jesus going to heaven require the same degree of faith.
at October 5, 2007 12:53 AM
“This resolution is an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country,” Tancredo said. “I am not opposed to commending any religion for their faith. The problem is that any attempt to do so for Jews or Christians is immediately condemned as ‘breaching’ the non-existent line between church and state by the same elite.”
Damn.. took the words right out of my mouth.. and PLEASE keep on taking 'em, Mr. Tom!!
at October 5, 2007 2:11 AM
....it doesn't make for a healthy polity, one able to defend itself against the greatest internal menace, one that is unprecedented in its means and its resources, that this country, and that the entire West along with it, has ever faced.
Posted by: Hugh
Molto buona questa spiegazione!
Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 5, 2007 2:15 AM
October 12th is on approach. May the support they give, by even considering this "bill", have them, each and every one, eat every word.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 5, 2007 3:27 AM
This is going to be a fight sooner than I thought.
"Powerful delusion".
at October 5, 2007 11:44 AM
Pelayo, no YOU miss the point. What you are doing is indulging in moral relativism.
If the Muslims didn't cut your head off, they would have forced you and your children to believe that the origin of the world is a fish.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 5, 2007 10:25 PM
It is not moral relativism. I attribute no morals in these two examples, only that Muslims and Christians beleive in similar, fantastic events; and it requires faith. One definition of faith is "belief in something for which there is no proof." I have amended that definition to read "faith is a belief in something that defies all physical laws and is impossible."
Posted by: Pelayo at October 6, 2007 2:27 PM
Congress Crosses the Line. Where is the Outrage?
Muslims Against Sharia condemn politically correct cowardice of the United States Congress. We call on every American Muslims to contact their congressmen, and voice their disgust with Congress' blatant disregard for the United States Constitution.
Congressional Resolution HRES 635 EH:
"House of Representatives ... acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal"
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
at October 6, 2007 4:16 PM
Sorry for the late reply.
Pelayo again I still don't see your point from your first post, nor did I get your point from the second post. Christians have as much right to be angry at attacks on their beliefs as anyone else, even Muslims. And Christians have as much prerogative to attack the Islamic ideology as anyone else, including atheists.
You say there is no morals in what you are doing, but it does not change the fact what you are doing comes under the definition of moral relativism. I see you subscribe to the Christopher Hitchens way of thinking.
And I’m not going to have theological argument with you here.
at October 8, 2007 11:35 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)