Dhimmi Watch: ACLU, CAIR demand apology for letter written by private school group

December 24, 2004

ACLU, CAIR demand apology for letter written by private school group

Will questions that Muslims find uncomfortable soon be illegal in America? Never mind that the question quoted below — does your school teach a particular verse of the Qur'an — is entirely reasonable. And forget that jihadists around the world have told us that they are fighting to establish the caliphate and Sharia wherever they can. You simply can't ask American Muslims what they think of such things. To do so would be "anti-Muslim." From the Houston Chronicle, with thanks to Hutchrun:

A national Islamic organization has demanded an apology from a Texas-based private school association after claiming its director took an "alarmingly intolerant and hostile attitude toward Islam and Muslims."
The protest by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations was prompted by a letter sent by the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools to the representatives of an Islamic school in Houston.

Dar-Ul-Arqam, which enrolls more than 300 students at three area locations under the supervision of the Islamic Education Institute of Texas, has been seeking membership for its Adel Road campus in the private school association, known as TAPPS. The association includes 238 schools across the state, including Awty International School, Incarnate Word Academy, Northland Christian School and St. Thomas High School in the Houston area.

Membership typically expands opportunities for private-school students to compete against other schools in academic and athletic events.

The letter, apparently signed by TAPPS Director Edd Burleson, has the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas calling for an investigation, according to Alamdar Hamdani, a Houston member of the ACLU board. The Anti-Defamation League also has expressed concern.

In his correspondence, Burleson quoted a verse from the Quran as calling on Muslims to be violent toward Christians and Jews. He noted that most TAPPS member schools are Christian. "Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?" he asked in the two-page letter, which included 10 questions.

He asks about the school's attitude toward "the spread of Islam in America" and the goals of the school "in this regard."

Finally, he suggests that some TAPPS members may not be tolerant of Muslims: "Why do you think that the current member schools of TAPPS will not be biased against your school, based on the fundamental difference in your religion and Christianity, since about 90% of TAPPS schools embrace Christianity?"...

Iesa Galloway, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Houston office, said Burleson sent a similar letter to an Islamic school in the Dallas area. He said he was awaiting details of that case.

Besides demanding an apology, Galloway's group has asked for reprimands against those responsible for the letter.

"The TAPPS letter, a symbol of religious intolerance, has no place in a nation that was originally built by those seeking asylum from such intolerance," Galloway said in correspondence he sent this week to the TAPPS board.

Dar-Ul-Arqam's Adel Road campus enrolls some 175 students and already participates in the Grapevine-based Private School Interscholastic Association, according to Khaled Katbi, a school representative.

But that association's programs are only available through middle school. So representatives of Dar-Ul-Arqam began looking for an association that would offer scholastic competition for its 19 high school students.

On Nov. 4, Katbi went before the TAPPS board to seek membership for his school. Board members asked him if the school taught from the Quran, and Katbi said it did.

"Their questions were reasonable," Katbi said. "I did not sense hostility."

A week later, Katbi got a letter from Burleson that included questions Burleson said the school needed to answer before it could be admitted to TAPPS.

"Do you teach your students to 'Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (Koran 8:37)?" Burleson asked.

Katbi said he was "astonished" by the letter. He did not reply to the questions.

The bylaws of TAPPS do not indicate that the organization is open only to Christian schools.

Hamdani, the ACLU representative, said the organization would come under special restrictions if it accepts federal funding. But the TAPPS Web site indicates that the nonprofit organization relies on dues from member schools and sporting-event fees.

"It's the venom in that letter that's so disturbing," Hamdani said. While the letter is structured as a series of questions, he said, "they're really more assumptions than questions."

Martin B. Cominsky, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the letter "assumes some offensive stereotypes about what Islam is all about."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., said he was not aware of any other cases in which Islamic schools had difficulty joining private-school organizations.

He said the letter reflects "the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment" that has emerged since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Posted by Robert at December 24, 2004 8:04 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

There should be a christians schools only association which muslim schools can't join.

Posted by: Voltaire

at December 24, 2004 8:42 AM

How dare TAPPS, a private institution, exercise their freedom to associate with whom they please? They are obviously trying to get around government busybodies by not taking federal money. That will have to stop immediately.

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney

at December 24, 2004 8:44 AM

"...the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas calling for an investigation, according to Alamdar Hamdani, a Houston member of the ACLU board."

Sounds like the local ACLU has been infiltrated by muslims using it for their own agenda.

Is this be happening on a nation-wide basis? If so, rgently needs to be exposed in the media.

Posted by: Benelux

at December 24, 2004 8:55 AM

"... the letter reflects "the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment" that has emerged since the terrorist attacks of 2001."

Nope. Sounds like this Burleson fellow is on the ball. He's savvy to what Islam is all about, what it is REALLY, truthfully about. His letter reflects the rise in knowledge of Islam by more and more non-Muslims, who were justifiably shocked and disgusted by the terrorist attacks of 2001, and the continuing atrocities done in the name of Islam since. And not gullibly, easily convinced of the "Islam is Peace" nonsense CAIR and ilk insist on forcing down everyone's throats.

This sounds similar to the Victorian court case here in Oz - basically they don't want you asking questions about Islam or exposing it to open, honest discussion. For it is very uncomfortable for them. Embarrassing even. Threatening too, for to expose Islam for what it really is, is to threaten their place in our societies, their goals, their power. Like a vampire that needs the dark to thrive, so does Islam.

Posted by: feralee

at December 24, 2004 8:57 AM

Every American should be mindful of the case in the Australian State of Victoria, and the even closer anti-hate speech legislation that has chilled free speech in Canada.

Becoming aware and discussing that which is harmful in Islam, as well as in Christianity and other religion, is a right that we could easily lose if the ACLU continues to be allowed to mount cases with activist judges to undermine the Constitution, which after all, is a set of ideas that will be demolished and abrogated if Islam is allowed to get a foothold.

Posted by: epg

at December 24, 2004 9:16 AM

The ACLU and CAIr are demanding an apology.

They sure as hell aren't likely to get one.

If they take this case to court, they face 2 real risks:
[1] They've no legal ground on which to force TAPPS into anything.
[2] The risk of giving massive publicity to the questions raised.

Again, I suspect, just like the swiftboat vets story, the lamestream media will try its darnest best to presume the questions raised are nonsensical and basekless rather than actually investigate if they correaspond to what the koran says and what that islamic school teaches.

Feralee, you're right. Am closely following the stae of victoria case. Its going to the supreme court I believe. Let's hope for the best, for all our sakes.

OT
Instapundit reports that cnandian conservatives have gotten a beautiful x'mas present: fox news added to their channel bouquet. Yeah, I know it doesn't sound liek much here in the US but up north, this is cause for celebration!

Posted by: voletti

at December 24, 2004 9:26 AM

"It's the venom in that letter that's so disturbing," Hamdani said.

I find the venom in the koran more disturbing, of which the letter quotes.

Posted by: Belisarius

at December 24, 2004 9:33 AM

The only things that these organizations can even attempt to do to this private school organization is a.) have their tax-exempt status revoked or b.) have legislation introduced in the state legislature to take some type of action.

This organization's tax return is on guidestar.org and is available for public view. They do not and never have received any federal funding.

Note that the school didn't respond once they received the letter from TAPPS in mid-November.

Wouldn't a Christian desire to attempt to answer questions about their religious beliefs instead of being offended and running to the media for cover?

And the letter, posted to CAIR's national web site, shows a December 20 fax stamp on it ... implying that the school, and its supporters, waited for some length of time to attempt to create a public firestorm regarding this issue.

And when? Just before Christianity's observance of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: PrivateSchoolGuy

at December 24, 2004 9:39 AM

TAPPS should publish the letter, reference the particular version of the koran they cite in their letter, sue the ACLU and CAIR for harassment, libel and violation of freedom to assemble, and let the proverbial sh*t hit the fan.

The same attorneys who have done pro bono work helping Daniel Pipes fight the islamofascists would be happy to help.

Posted by: 3812Michelle

at December 24, 2004 9:44 AM

Just answer the damn question, sir!

www.dutchdisease.com

Posted by: Leveller

at December 24, 2004 10:00 AM

"Do you teach your students to 'Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme' (Koran 8:37)?" Burleson asked.

Katbi said he was "astonished" by the letter. He did not reply to the questions.

This above quote from the article strikes me as very telling.

I recently started reading "Islam and Dhimmitude - Where Civilizations Collide" by Bat Ye'or. Quoting from page 74 - reflecting impressions made in the18th century - seems the more things change . . .the more they stay the same:

Muslim conduct was in accordance with the koranic verses forbidding friendship and association with the People of the Book.

"This reservation was also imposed on foreigners as a Danish scholar traveling in the Orient warned in 1762:

It will not be amiss to add one slight observation concerning the brokers of different nations. A stranger can not be too much on his guard against Mahometan brokers. [...] Through all the countries in the East, Mahommetan merchants have the knavery to seek to irritate the Christians, when after having duped them, they fear their resentment: And then, when any term of repoach is uttered by the strangers in the heat of passion, the rascally Musselmans make a great noise, under pretence that their religion is abused, and threaten to complain to the magistrates. Several Europeans have been obliged to pay considerable sums by these arts of knaves who have previously cheated them. 94"

Posted by: justamomof4

at December 24, 2004 10:01 AM

Just a Mom

Thats kinda true, an Armenian freind of mine tried to warn and help me dealing with some turks once, it was twisted

Posted by: meredith

at December 24, 2004 11:04 AM

Does anyone know if TAPPS has a website or is there a link to this subject?

It would be interesting to know if the 10 questions have been published.

I think the gentleman's question is understandable given the history of how Islam was spread throughout Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

The West is accused of Colonialism or Imperialism by those in the Middle East. France is reaping the effects of it's own colonialsim in North Africa. The expansion of Islam during Mohammed's time and centuries after can be considered nothing more than Religious Imperialism. Because it is Allah's will, it is condoned.

American's have to face the fact that ANY criticism of Islam will result in you being accused of racism or intolerance or "Islamaphobia." I will NOT be silent.

Though not completely insulated from such accusations if "criticizing" islam, one of the best ways to "raise your voice" is to use their texts. I would recommend getting and reading the Qur'an, one that has a translation by an Arabic speaker (If not used, you can be accused of taking suras out-of-context because the translation is by a non-arabic speaker), the Hadiths (Sayings of Mohammed which muslims believe is indispenable in understanding the Qur'an (( that is one question I've wanted to ask muslims, why does the infallible word of Allah need to be interpreted and who has the authority if you don't have a direct line to Gabriel again for accuraccy)), the last and very helpful is the Reliance on the Traveller by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. This is basically "How to be a good muslim." It covers every aspect of life, even how to urinate and defecate.

The other fact that most people do not realize is that Islam is not merely a religion. It is also a political system with it's own laws, sharia, and ruler, the Kalifah. It has a "Manifest destiny" as well which is to make the world Islamic.

Americans need to see that what communism was to the 20th century; Islam is to the 21st century. The clash of civilizations has begun.

Educate yourselves and your family members, relatives and friends. Don't vilify muslims because it only makes us look intolerant and play into the stereotypes of those who are blind to this threat. Another reason not to is because there are muslims who are Americans and are law-abiding and contribute to this country and we look like hypocrites. I know some of them personally. Talk about the oppressive and violent aspects of the religion. Understand the concept of dhimmitude and explain it to others. It is in direct conflict with our Bill of Rights.

If you are a praying person, pray and if you can fast, for those who desire us harm.

We are in the beginnings of a war of Ideologies. One of the best ways to fight an ideology is to fight it with another ideology. I choose to fight it with Christianity. We can also fight it with contrasting democracy, freedom, liberty, and human rights in light of the political nature of Islam and how it would be applied to non-muslim.

Merry Christmas

Posted by: Nodhimmi

at December 24, 2004 11:18 AM

EPG:

I'm Canadian and, so far as I know, the anti-hate speech laws have been used to deal with the likes of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, et al. It may also be used to deal with the mad mullahs we have in Canada. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to go out and defame individuals or recognizable groups. Burleson is not guilty of speaking hatefully, just tactlessness in putting tough questions to the Muslim school's reps.

Posted by: waterdragon52

at December 24, 2004 11:23 AM

Nodhimmi:

TAPPS' web site is http://www.tapps.net/

The letter containing the ten (10) questions can be found here:

http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/TAPPSletter.pdf

Waterdragon52:

I know Mr. Burleson personally. When I read the letter referenced in the .PDF file above, I see a concerted effort to ask questions that many of its member schools may ask of the Board (which is made up of seven individuals from protestant church schools and two from catholic schools) if they had admitted the school for membership without this level of review.

Posted by: PrivateSchoolGuy

at December 24, 2004 11:39 AM

find it amazing that we are at a point now in America that we could be drawn into court for just daring to question the hateful tenets of the Quran and hadith.

One of the reasons the ACLU has been successful in their legal challenges, is simply that people cannot afford the court costs to defeat them in court and there are laws that allow the ACLU to collect their costs for from the cummunities that these trials occur in .

Our we just suppose to ignore this fascist ideology and put our collective heads in the sand?

ACLU-- this is the organization that tried to defend the Aryan nation , this is the group that was started by an American cummunist party organizer, this is the group that would love to do away with anything, or any object that reflects the Christian faith.

Posted by: Mackie

at December 24, 2004 12:26 PM

The ACLU is also the organization that defends NAMBLA(national association of men boy love of America)which promotes homosexuality with young boys....
The american public has to keep a close eye on this one,for if the ACLU and CAIR win,a precedent will be set,and freedom of speech/any criticism of islam will become illegal.
The ONLY way to defeat the ACLU is a public uprise against the law that allows their lawyers to be payd from taxpayers money.

Posted by: adela

at December 24, 2004 1:08 PM

With the dubious history of CAIR's founders, board members and employees why are they allowed to continue to operate? Where does their money come from? I cannot believe an organization so obviously anti-American and with an agenda that seems aimed at undermining everything America stands for can be funded with "clean" money.

Posted by: Greg

at December 24, 2004 1:08 PM

PrivateSchoolGuy

I hope I haven't been misunderstood. I don't dispute the thinking behind the questions asked. I suggest that they may have been posed more tactfully and the wheat could still be separated from the chaff without making the TAPP appear to be ignorant or bigotted, because that is how this will be played out by CAIR et al. We know there are mullahs in the US and Canada who preach and teach this crap, but we don't know if they are all into this. I may be wrong, but think much of the Jihaddist stuff is the result of the Saudi efforts to spread Wahhabism over the last 30 years or so combined with the very effective PR from the pro-Palestinian types. (We are only blowing people up to avenge the refugees line.)

An interesting test, by contrast, would be for a Jewish, Hindu or Sikh private school to also apply for membership to see if they could pass the same test. (I say this as a Jew as it appears this organization, to date, is comprised only of Protestant and Catholic schools.)

Muslim proponents can't have it both ways although it would seem that they would like to. The organization they seek to join is within its rights to ensure that there are no significant "philosophical" differences between the members. If the tenets being taught by the Muslim schools in question are hostile and belligerent toward other faiths, then they aren't acceptable members.

Posted by: waterdragon52

at December 24, 2004 1:24 PM

In the school's letter it says 8:37 according to article above, but the correct citation is Koran 8:39 Shakir: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah...

The ACLU wants to get involved because the way the civil rights laws are written, the judge is allowed to award steep fine and the payment of attorney's fees, which, of course, are jacked up sky high.

When the ACLU reads this type of story, it sees free publicity and at least a half million in attorney's fees going to one of its members who will then transfer some of the loot to the ACLU.

Posted by: markjames

at December 24, 2004 2:19 PM

I personally I thank God for the ACLU. So what if it is a barb in society? Why shouldn't it be? It serves a very valuable function in a free society. Democracy needs protection on all fronts and must function without bias of the favor one particularly likes. Freedom is just that the freedom to question and force definitions of legal jurisprudence. From FIRE:

Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

This is not to say I don't think that Islam's diamal practices are just. I in fact detest them. But I value liberty more. Look at OZ, Britain or Europe, they have lost their freedoms. The ACLU and dozens of other advocay groups would be filing suit after suit to force the government to step away if it tried such things. Free speech can not be curbed even if one calls for cessation of this type of shit. I am cofident that the good people of Texas see it for what it is—no more, no less.

Posted by: Michael in SC

at December 24, 2004 2:36 PM

Mr. Burleson knows his stuff!

He certainly did ask the right questions about a venomous 'religion' which in fact is an ideology much worse than Communism ever was!

We need more people like him!

Posted by: Terminator

at December 24, 2004 2:44 PM

Here are the questions. I would like to hear what JW/DW regulars think about how they think the CAIR/ACLU types will exploit them and in the interest of providing guidance for organizations like TAPPS who will face similar legal assaults in the future, also how the questions might be better posed:

1. Going back in history, there is nothing in the Koran that fully embraces Christianity or Judaism in the way a Christian an/or [sic] Jew understands his religion. Why, then, are you interested in joining an association whose basic beliefs your religion condemns?

2. The Koran clearly tells you not to mix with (and even eliminate) the infidels. Christians and Jews fall into that category. Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs?

3. Do you teach your students to "Make war on them (Christians and Jews) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns Supreme" (Koran 8:37)

4. Does the Koran, which you teach to your students, instruct them "not to make friendship with Jews and Christians, but to war against them (Koran 5:51) ......"kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:19)

5. Islamic literature says that the Koran affirms the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians, yet the Koran radically denies the central aspects of the Christian message as well as the Jewish message, including, but not limited to:
A. The core themes of the Torah concerning sacrifice and atonement
B. The crucifixion of Jesus
C. The Deity of Jesus
D. Jesus' messianic title -- "Son of God"
E. The very nature of God, as Christians or Jews see Him.
F. The necessity and means of salvation
G. The triune God of the Bible
H. The fall and sinful nature of man.
What is your response to each of these?

6. Does your school embrace any of the spiritualization that the Koran has undergone in recent years, whereby your group actually use Christian concepts which are foreign to Islamic and traditional thinking and explain these adaptations as "the Spirit o Islam" [sic]? (Ex. celebrating Christmas)

7. Why do Muslims continue to claim that the Bible is corrupt? When was the Bible allegedly polluted? Why does the Koran not clearly state that the Bible is polluted?

8. What is your attitude about the spread of Islam in America? What are the goals of your school in this regard?

9. How do you think your school would benefit TAPPS if you are approved for membership?

10. Why do you think that the current member schools of TAPPS will not be biased against your school, based on fundamental difference in your religion and Christianity, since about 90% of TAPPS schools embrace Christianity?

My initial reaction is that whoever is called to defend these people has their hands full. Predators will circle around the edges of a herd, seeking out the weak and sickly. It appears on the surface that TAPPS has stumbled badly enough to be noticed by the big cats at CAIR and ACLU.

This case may just turn into the type of devastating legal precedence that could erode the successes realized to date by anti-jihad activists and impede any progress for a decade to come so I'd like to see a thorough critical examination expressed here at JW/DW. As we all know, the stakes are very high indeed, far higher than the folks at TAPPS probably realize.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan

at December 24, 2004 2:52 PM

Thank you, Hulegu for posting the questions from the TAPPS letter. I agree that we all have a very big stake in the outcome of any cases like this one.

Here is my take on question 1.:

1. Going back in history, there is nothing in the Koran that fully embraces Christianity or Judaism in the way a Christian an/or [sic] Jew understands his religion. Why, then, are you interested in joining an association whose basic beliefs your religion condemns?

This "question" begins with a statement that is ambiguous and impossible to resolve. What does "fully embraces" mean? How exactly, does a Christian or Jew "understand" his religion? Which Jews and Christians? What are the "basic beliefs" of the association and how does Islam "condemn" them?

I would suggest that question number 1. is a non-starter and is a good candidate for the apology letter.

Posted by: DrMack

at December 24, 2004 3:05 PM

Let's pretend, boys and girls, that I was a member school of the KKK and wanted to join the association. Would it be offensive if the association asked me if I excluded anyone who wasn't white and born in America?

Methinks that my application wouldn't even have made it to the Q/A position, it would have gone directly into the trash can where it so rightly belongs.

Islam teaches universal hatred towards anyone who isn't a follower of their "prophet." The folks who asked the questions deserve a hearty pat on the back and shake of the hand.

Posted by: Sunny Vail

at December 24, 2004 4:04 PM

Dr. Mack:

Ambigious and broad, but never the less it is a reasonable question for discussion. Your attempt to deflect the need for open and honest answers represents your apologetic thinking. There is no need for an apology from a question that seeks only the truth. I suppose your next comment will come from the Old Testament.

Posted by: Mackie

at December 24, 2004 4:18 PM

The questions that were asked were perfectly appropriate, but ther3e is so much more to ask. We know why CAIR objects. What is the reason that ACLU gives? Does it think that it would be inappropriate for answers to those questions to be given? What about a question based on the life of Muhammad? Would it be appropriate, given that TAPPS is an association of schools, to ask the following:

"We understand that Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as the most perfect of men, al-insan al-kamil.. Are we correct in this understanding?

And we understand further that the biography of Muhammad, called the sira, and the record of all that he did, and said, and even of his silences, a record which consists of separate reports which have been carefully and meticulously studied and winnowed by men who devoted their lives to such study, called muhaddithin, is called the hadith (or “ahadith”). Are we correct in this understanding?

And we are further given to understand that along with the Qur’an, it is the hadith and the sira that are guides for Muslims, and indeed, together provide the Sunna, or the customary ways of Muhammad and his Companions. And it is out of the Qur’an and the Sunna that the shari’a, or Holy Law of Islam, is derived.

Have we got it right so far?

And in reading the sira, we learn many things about Muhammad, in Mecca, and then in Medina (then called Yathrib). And we find out many of the things he told his followers, and the battles he engaged in, nearly 80 in all. We find out the kind of treaties he made with his enemies, and how he regarded those treaties. We find out about his various wives. We find out how he reacted to those he considered his enemies, or threats in some indeterminate way, or who perhaps did not treat him with the respect he felt he deserved.

And among the things we believe, that in reading the sira, we discovered about Muhammad, was that his last, and favorite, wife, was one Aisha, the daughter of one of his chief associates. We read that he saw Aisha when she was six, and it was then that she was betrothed to him, but that Muhammad waited until she was nine in order to consummate the marriage, by having sexual intercourse with her.

And of course, we do recognize that this took place in 7th century Arabia. And we recognize as well that child-brides – usually a little older in Europe, however, even then – were not unknown in the world. However, what we would like to know is if, because Muhammad is regarded as that perfect man and model for all time, al-insan al-kamil, whether or not Muslims today in fact regard his relationship with Aisha as something to be followed, or ignored, or deplored, or what?

Why do we ask this? Well, for one thing, when the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, virtually the first law passed in the Islamic Republic of Iran, pushed by Khomeini, was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine – precisely because that was the age when Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha. So it would appear that the “model of Muhammad” is not theoretical, but vividly present for at least a good many Muslims – those, for example, who run the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As our series of original questions indicate, we wish to make sure that no potential members of TAPPS or indeed of any other school group have, as part of their curriculum any teachings, or indeed any reliance on any canonical texts, which can reasonably be said, in their present use, to inculcate hatred of other groups. In other words, if certain texts exist, any passages in them which are read purely as historical, and are quite clearly deplored by those who read them aloud, putting them back into historical context and explaining that they are simply intolerable to modern minds – well, that would be fine. And to the extent that this is necessary in the reading of either the Hebrew or the Christian Bible, we believe that such steps have been taken. But if they have not, we will be the first to make sure that such texts are subject to such criticism and distancing. And of course we would expect that to be true of, just to take an example, any passages in Muslim texts that might preach hatred, or violence, or deliberate deception, of the Unbliever or Infidel. Would that not be in keeping with the norms of a modern, advanced, pluralist society?

And in asking questions about the record of Muhammad’s life, we do so only to the extent that what Muhammad said and did is still taken as a model of human behavior, never to be criticized, always to be defended and indeed, admired and emulated. In raising the question about the behavior of Muhammad with Aisha, we have simply raised an issue that, as a confederation of schools, we have every right – indeed, we have a solemn obligation – to raise.

For this is no theoretical matter. Muslims are certainly aware – and indeed have raised the issue frequently –of the recent scandal, involving members of the Catholic priesthood, centering on but not limited to the Archdiocese of Boston. At least one of the priests who was deeply involved turned out to have been, and to have been known to have been, a supporter of a group that calls itself the “Man-Boy Love Assocation.” The title is undoubtedly self-explanatory. What was disturbing, and what of course also led to litigation, was that some in the Church hierarchy appeared to have known about this priest’s support for the “Man-Boy Love Assocation.”

Our worries, therefore, are hardly unfounded, that we need to thoroughly investigatecertain matters, in order to avoid potential scandal, and because our association of schools may be seen as somehow endorsing the curricula of its members, we cannot be too careful. If it turns out that, in teaching that Muhammad was the best of men, al-insan al-kamil, and a model for all Muslims and for all time, in everything he did or said, then of course we must consider very carefully the nature of his behavior. Indeed, since many of our schools are Christian schools, and even though Christians believe that Jesus was both a man and divine, the Son of God, we do believe that His acts, and His sayings, are a model for Christians to at least attempt to emulate. Naturally we welcome, and think it important, that people find out what the acts and deeds of Jesus were, what he preached, what the lessons of his life offer. Indeed, it would not be fair to have a Chirstian school that did not make absolutely clear what it was all about, what its main teacings were, and what it was that Jesus did in his life, and what, Christians believe, was accomplished by his death.

And in the same way, we understand, people of other faiths welcome study of their central figures. The Life of the Buddha, for example, is certainly something that Buddhists encourage non-Buddhists to find out about, in as much detail as they can. Surely, therefore, far from resenting any study of the sira or the hadith in detail, Muslims would welcome the same study and scrutiny of what Muhammad said, and did.

And this is particularly important given that he is such a central figure in Islam, held up as such a model. We need to examine his behavior, and because Muslims regard him not as a figure in history, but essentially a figure outside of history, with his way of life in 7th century Arabia relevant today, this is important.

And that is why a number of incidents in Muhammad’s life – Aisha, Asma bint Marwan, the massacre of the prisoners of the Bani Qurayza, the treaty-making at al-Hudaibiyya, the attack on the farmers of the Khaybar oasis, and hundreds of other incidents and sayings attributed to Muhammad – where troubling, may require some clarification. The law put into effect when the Islamic Republic of Iran was first established by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his tens of millions of enthusiastic supporters, which lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine – as we undersand it was based entirley on the fact that Muhammad had been betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and his having had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine.

No one could be unaware that even in Western Christendom some kings made marriages to girls as young as 12 or 13. There may even have been, somewhere, a king who married an l1-year-old. But in the modern Western world, such things are not done. And any man who had sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old would be arrested for pedophilia, and severely punished.

So we think it not illegitimate to find out if, as part of your school curriculum, you teach that Muhammad was, in all of his words and acts, someone who was admirable, a model, al-insan al-kamil to be emulated, or if you put his acts and deeds in historical context, and make clear that only thus can they be received. Otherwise, a good many problems arise, not the least of which would appear to be the seeming endorsement, or failure to deplore, the teaching that such acts and deeds are those of a completely honorable man, indeed a man who should be taken as the model for all time. And this we cannot be expected to do.

Nor does the matter of Aisha exhaust other questions we have, about the man who is offered as a role model for Muslims. One would like to know if Muslims, and of course their children, are taught that everything Muhammad did was right, and worthy of emulation. We need to know if, when Muhammad ordered the murder of a woman, Asma bint Marwan, or of a 90-year-old man who had earned his displeasure, or when he viewed, approvingly, the decapitation of 600-900 helpless prisoners, members of the Jewish tribe of the Bani Qurayza, and when he ordered an attack, for booty, on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, whether or not these are offered as events in history, to be understood in context as the kind of thing that went on in 7th century Arabia, or whether everything Muhammad said and did is to be taken by Muslims as a model for all time. This is something we need to discuss.

It does not inspire confidence when there are attempts to suppress such questions, either by CAIR or by the ACLU. The demand for apologies, the threats for lawsuits, the threats of other kinds of action which we see among Muslim pouplations all over the Western world in an assault not merely free speech, but on the most elementary kinds of inquiry -- make us feel as though the ACLU, at least, has come unhinged from its moorings, and is clearly on the side of speech suppression. One wonders how the ACLU's president, Mr. Romero, and others on the Board justify their action in this matter, as indeed they seem to have a remarkable interest in protecting from critical scrutiny the belief-system known as Islam. Why is there such solicitousness by the ACLU to protect, from answering some highly pertinent questions, Muslm school authorities? Would it be appropriate, or inappropriate, of a school run by David Duke, rumored to preach race-hatred or the divine right of whites to rule over non-whites, were to apply to TAPPS, and we were to ask questions about whether or not the school did, in fact, include such teachings as part of its curriculum or its assigned reading? Is it the position of the ACLU that such an inquriy would be illegitimate?

Is that what the ACLU wants to become? The Defender of a Faith, a Faith about which it apparently chooses to know next to nothing. Is it relying on assurances from Muslim spokesmen? On the belief that “all religions mean the same”? Where is the evidence for this? On what does the ACLU rely? And if the ACLU is relying on certain people whom, it would not be difficult to show, are apologists through and through, perhaps it should make inquiries among the thousands of articulate people who have left Islam to tell what they learned about the belief-system of Islam, and what they understand its teachings to be. If the ACLU wishes to defend something without bothering to find out what that something is – and here the ACLU is essentially attempting to force an association of schools not to engage in what might be called perfectly understandable, indeed necessary, due diligence – then it will be shown up, and rather quickly, not only for its crude attempt to suppress speech and free inquiry (a free inquiry which ought to be the first thing it wishes to protect, for free speech without free inquiry is hardly worth it – the mere expression of an inarticulate howl rather than informed argument).

And perhaps we can also have a further inquiry, with a deliberately noisy public debate, into the nature of what the school in question l teaches about the proper role and destiny of Islam in the world, and the goals which all good Muslims are supposed towork toward, fil sabih Allah, “in the way of Allah.” Let Qur’an and hadith and sira be fully and carefully examined. Let passages that disturb be brought to light, and examined. Let scholarship, of the past and present, that has taken as its study the history of Muslim conquest, and the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims by their Muslim conquerors, be made the subject of academic and non-academic investigation, so that instead of airily repeating clichés and romantic notions of what life in Islamic Spain, for example, may have been, one will be grounded in fact, as to what happened to Hindus (and Buddhists) in India under Muslm rule, to Zoroastrianism in Persia, to Christians in Mesopotamia and Syria and North Africa and Spain, to Jews in Judea, and elsewhere in the Middle East, all through 1400 years where both Muslims and non-Muslims left a record, and where travelers also left their own testimony, and where hundreds of students of Islam have engaged in important work that, for various reasons, has not, in the last few decades, received quite the attention so much of it deserves.

One wants to know precisely what goes on in the classroom, of this Muslim school, to find out not about the five canonical prayers and Ramadan and the other requirements of the Five Pillars, but the teachings, the attitudes, and the atmospherics, pertaining to Infidels, that we believe, upon careful study, to be at the very center of Islam.

If the ACLU and CAIR would like to pursue this matter, we will of course wish to focus attention not only on the life of Muhammad, and on Aisha, but on numerous other events – too numerous to list in full here – in his life. These would include the murder of Asma bint Marwan, and other tart-tongued critics, the apparent approval with which Muhammad regarded the execution, by beheading, of between 600 and 900 prisoners of the Bani Qurayza, the ordering or approval of a number of assassinations, the attack on the inoffensive Jews of the Khaybar Oasis, the endorsement of slavery – which endorsement is perfectly understandable, given the age, but becomes a matter of some worry given that Muhammad, who may well have been “kind” to his slaves, nonetheless offers a belief-system that clearly – again, for all time – endorses slavery. We need to know what this means, because the record even today of black slaves taken by Arab masters, in the Sudan, in Mali, in Mauritania, and by reports, in Arabia itself despite the formal abolition of slavery just a few decades ago, is something that needs to be explored. It is also of note that no Islamic group of nations, nor the Arab League, has condemned outright the slave trade in the southern Sudan, conducted by Muslim Arabs against black non-Muslim Africans.

Similiarly, the treatment of women, as sanctioned in the Qur’an and hadith, need to be the subject of some elucidation. We understand that some Muslims explain that the mistreatment – in Western eyes—of women in Muslim countries has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and simply reflects the influence of local “culture.” Yet that “culture” is itself rooted completely in Islam, and we need to know if there are passages in the canonical texts – the texts that students in your schools no doubt are asked to become thoroughly acquainted with, beginning with the Qur’an and later adding parts of the hadith and the sira – that might explain such mistreatment.

Of course, we are sure that a full, free, and very public airing of all of these matters will do so much to encourage understanding of Islam. And that, we have been given to believe, is exactly what CAIR wishes Americans to have – a better understanding of Islam.

And so do we.

Posted by: Hugh

at December 24, 2004 7:45 PM

I'm confused..is Hooper and CAIR claiming the verse from the Quran is wrong,or that it's true but people shouldn't have the right to expose it to non-Muslims.

CAIR needs to get their lies straight,they either support free-speech or they don't,they can't claim protection when they spew their antisemitic rants and then demand to stop others from comments that hurt their feelings and expose the truth about Islam and "Muhammed the pedophile".

Posted by: ala-sux

at December 24, 2004 7:59 PM

As individuals and as institutions, we have to learn how to effectively engage the Muslims and their dhimmi sycophants like the ACLU. Their strategy of conquest is a script that has been well honed for more than a thousand years. The so-called "Method of the Prophets" begins with the seemingly innocuous ad-Da'wah ilallaah (lit. call to Allah). Of course 13 centuries of experience has shown us that this phase of their conquest is just a set up for the use of violence to follow with justification provided by the fact of rejection of the da'wah which offers the society under assault the Sophie's choice of conversion, submission to dhimmitude, or death.

I'm just saying that "questions" like number one are not effective. It is better to hit them between the eyes with canonical facts as Hugh suggests. To use Hulegu's metaphor, institutions that shoot from the hip with statements like number one are easy prey. We need to help institutions like them to not set themselves up so easily for the ambush of the wolves.

Posted by: DrMack

at December 24, 2004 8:59 PM

Voltaire

Why should there be a 'christians only' school association. In the Texas Association there were 90% christian and 10% other schools whatever the other is. Why should the 'other' be dropped just to keep the muslims out? If people start thinking like that then the muslims are already successfully starting a 'divide and conquer' strategy. People should just stand strong and say they don't want muslims. There are certainly enough valid reasons why they're unwanted and plenty of 'others' besides christians who want nothing to do with muslims.

As concerns the ACLU, I'm sure they do good things most of which I would probably agree with but.... why isn't it a civil liberty to be ideologically opposed to islam in the same way that people can be opposed to fascism or nazism or breeding animals for fur coats? Let's say hypothetically that you believe in equality between men and women, support animal rights (halal slaughter is unnecessary cruelty to animals), believe that homosexuals should have equal civil rights, believe in free speach etc. etc. All of these things are fundamentally opposed by muslims with the koran as justification. Why should I or an organisation I'm involved with be 'forced' to cooperate or join forces with muslims? Where's my liberty then? I'm sure I'd be able to come up with very few valid grounds to, for example, exclude buddhists from my 'organisation' but islam???? I think people including the lawyers at the ACLU need to start reading up on world history and might want to read some excerpts from the koran so they know who they're defending. That being said maybe it's time that (1) the pig farmers union joined the association of halal butchers (2) the nudist movement joined the muslim purity league (3) The verbal pornography association joined the muslim reading forum, etc. Any refusals should be promptly reported to the ACLU.

Merry Christmas

Posted by: Arhopala

at December 24, 2004 10:13 PM

Go to google for " Calcutta Petition" and read of the Muslim massacres of Hindus ....also the 1995 judgement...

The Hindus of the Western World should be our allies against political Islam....

Posted by: rad

at December 24, 2004 10:58 PM

Oops forgot to mention...go to Daniel Pipes references on Cair and read Shafer Parker's 4 pager on CAIR and CAIR-CAN an eye opener as to what is happening in somnolent Canada.

Western Standard Aug. 2, 2004 [ Westernstandard.ca]

Posted by: rad

at December 24, 2004 11:04 PM

Misleading title. The ACLU is not demanding an apology, merely asking for an investigation. If the group receives federal funds they cannot be exclusionary. The impression I get is that that is what the ACLU would like investigated, which is entirely valid. CAIR can take a giant leap, but the ACLU is a consistent voice for freedom in this country, protecting the rights of Christian, and atheist, leftist and conservative (who defended the privacy of Limbaugh's medical records?)--always with no thanks from the general public, which uncritically accepts soundbites by demagogic pols about its "radical agenda."

Posted by: Hugh Bristic

at December 24, 2004 11:23 PM

December 2004 ?EXTORTION! How the ACLU is destroying America using your money

The American Civil Liberties Union is engaged in a long-term, relentless and well-funded campaign to remove every vestige of Christian expression from America's government, schools and public property.

But that much you already know.

What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it ?such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.

That's the stunning, in-depth, investigative story told for the first time in the December edition of Whistleblower, titled "EXTORTION: How the ACLU is destroying America using your money."

The headlines assault us daily: "Silent Night" can't be sung at school; the Defense Department must stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops; a tiny Christian cross must be removed from the Los Angeles County seal; Nativity scenes on a courthouse lawn are unconstitutional. Americans' heads are spinning, as they wonder what the next judicial outrage will be: Removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency? Firing all military chaplains? Expunging all references to God in America's founding documents?

More than any other group, the American Civil Liberties Union ?founded by avowed communist Roger Baldwin ?is behind what many are calling a legal jihad against public expression of the Christian faith in America.

And though most Americans have heard some of the legal horror stories, very few understand what the ACLU really is, how it operates, what its real agenda is, and where it gets the massive funding that fuels its constant lawsuits and intimidation strategies.

The December Whistleblower, perhaps for the first time, rips open this powerful organization and shows how it uses little-known laws, threats and extortionist tactics to legally wrest money from its victims ?especially the unwilling taxpayer. Most importantly, it shows how Americans can actually fight back and defeat the ACLU.

Partial contents of this special issue of Whistleblower are:

"The ACLU must be destroyed" by Joseph Farah, explaining forthrightly the focus of this month's magazine.

"Suing the pants off America" by Sherrie Gossett, a groundbreaking and in-depth investigative report exposing how the ACLU uses litigation, recruiting and legal "extortion" to keep its coffers full.

"ACLU founder: 'Communism is the goal,'" by Joseph Farah, revealing the group's shocking roots. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, who zealously sought to recreate America in the Soviet image, once said: "I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

"ACLU fulfilling communist agenda," by Devvy Kidd, showing how, to this day, the controversial organization is fulfilling specific goals of subversion.

"Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation" by David Kupelian. How did ACLU radicals and activist judges manage to convert Christianity ?the original basis of America's laws, culture and institutions ?into a forbidden behavior? This in-depth examination shows exactly how, when and why Americans "bought into" the unconstitutional myth of "the separation of church and state."

"700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits," profiling how one legal group has mobilized hundreds of attorneys to protect the nation's schools from the ACLU "grinch" during this Christmas season.

"Apartheid humanism" by Joseph Farah, an insightful look at what separation of "church" and "state" really means for America.

"Taliban come to Los Angeles" by Dennis Prager, in which the well-known Jewish commentator reveals the real reason the ACLU is threatened by the tiny Christian cross in the Los Angeles County seal.

"Former ACLU attorney now crusades to de-fund it," by Rees Lloyd. Once a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, and honored by the group for his "pioneering efforts in the area of workers' rights," Lloyd is today pioneering a very different effort ?one to stop the ACLU, which he calls "the Taliban of American liberal secularism." Lloyd points to specific legislation that will ?if passed ?stop the unwilling taxpayer support of the ACLU once and for all.
"The ACLU is never going to change," says WND Editor Joseph Farah. "It is an anti-American organization. It is a group that seeks to destroy all that makes America a unique experiment in freedom. It is an organization in league with all of America's enemies. It is an organization that hates God, hates what is right, decent and morally upright."

"If you want to stop the ACLU for once and for all," adds WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, "you really must get this issue of Whistleblower. It's got the information you need to starve this organization of the money it needs to survive ?namely, yours."

IMPORTANT NOTE: The subscription price for Whistleblower will be increased on Feb. 1, 2005. So subscribe or renew your subscription or give a gift subscription now and lock in the old, lower price for your Whistleblower subscription!
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=108

Posted by: hutchrun

at December 24, 2004 11:38 PM

Yes, you're right Arhopala.

Posted by: Voltaire

at December 24, 2004 11:38 PM

Just to add some information ...

"Why should there be a 'christians only' school association. In the Texas Association there were 90% christian and 10% other schools whatever the other is. Why should the 'other' be dropped just to keep the muslims out?"

There is no suggestion by the TAPPS leadership that the 10% should be dropped out. They are simply stating that schools such as Brook Hill School in Bullard or Bending Oaks School in Dallas (where Lance Armstrong graduated from after leaving public school in the middle of his senior year), which is not affiliated with a church at all, or Emory High School in Houston, which is Jewish.

An Adventist school, Burton Adventist Academy in the D-FW Metroplex, is currently a member of the organization as well.

There would not even be a need for a primarily athletic association, such as TAPPS (although it also sponsors academic competition), in Texas if the University Interscholastic League (UIL) -- the public school body in the state -- admitted all private and parochial high schools. (There are also two other private school organizations -- the SPC, made up of Ivy League-like prep schools, and T-CAL, who is very upfront that TAPPS doesn't base its entire operation on Christianity and has had their member schools claim to have problems with non-church-affiliated schools as well as Catholic schools.) Under the threat of a federal lawsuit, the UIL admitted Dallas Jesuit College Prep and Houston's Strake Jesuit College Prep before the start of the 2003-2004 school because TAPPS decided not to admit Strake Jesuit, who applied, because their enrollment was significantly larger than all other schools in TAPPS -- giving them a favorable advantage in many athletic events.

"The ACLU is not demanding an apology, merely asking for an investigation. If the group receives federal funds they cannot be exclusionary. The impression I get is that that is what the ACLU would like investigated, which is entirely valid."

TAPPS' tax return is available on http://www.guidestar.org/. I'm a very, very comfortable that this return represents that their money specifically comes from three sources -- annual membership fees (flat $ per school), event fees (set amount $ per sport per school), and admission at state championship events. (If it wasn't an accurate accounting of their finances, they would be on the hook for tax fraud in an investigation.) The director, Edd Burleson, is paid a salary as are two office staff members based in Salado. The Board members serve as volunteers and are reimbursed only for their expenses to and from Board meetings and state championship events.

Posted by: PrivateSchoolGuy

at December 24, 2004 11:58 PM

The ACLU has taken every clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and wiped its stinking rectal sphincters with them.

Posted by: Kepha1

at December 25, 2004 12:40 AM

In the late 1940s and 1950s, the ACLU was worthy of support. Martin Dies and the House Un-American Activities Committee were bullies who needed to be reined in, years before Joseph Welch of Hale & Dorr came to the rescue during the Army-McCarthy hearings. But your grandfather's ACLU no longer exists. Roger Baldwin doesn't come to Beetlebung Corner any more. And when the ACLU saw a Nazi march on Skokie, Illinois, which was deliberately chosen to inflame -- and surely the "fighting words" doctrine could have been invoked -- and to upset the inhabitants, for Skokie had the highest proportion of Nazi death-camp survivors of any city outside Israel, it was the beginning of the decline into what is now an organization that does not, in the slightest, choose to register, in the faintest quiver of any of its antennae, the nature of Islam or that, just possibly, Islam itself might be a form of fascism made respectable by that one word "religion."

Indeed, the ACLU seems to have gone out of its way, in certain states, for even for certain positions in the national level, to hire people who have long records of engaging in virtually full-time anti-Israel or pro-Arab activities.

But here, as it is Donner-and-Blitzen time, I will only reprint what I posted last Bastille Day. None of the facts has had to be changed to protect the guilty. Here is the lineup, yet again:

"If you would like some idea as to the kind of people wrapping themselves in the mantle of Roger Baldwin, and historic memories of the old, perfectly admirable ACLU, which has metamorphosed into something quite different and quite sinister, you need only look at one Nancy Murray (do google her, and do google her daughter Rebecca -- and while googling both their names, also google the word "Israel" or "Palestine"), who is, in one of the most important ACLU states, Massachusetts, in charge of defending, like some female Horatio at the bridge, our "precious Constitutional liberties" -- the absence of which liberties, in the completely corrupt, vicious, murderous, and racist regime of Arafat and the PLO, has never seemed to bother Nancy or her daughter Rebecca (who was at the Muqatta, defending Arafat with her own body), seems not to have bothered Nancy Murray (or her daughter) -- indeed, before she landed her sinister gig at the ACLU, she seems to have been quite a busy bee on behalf of Arafat, the PLO, e tutti quanti.

And if that isn't enough, do look up Matt Bowles as well, the "National Field Coordinator" for the ACLU who was photographed trying to coordinate the shouting down of Daniel Pipes at a lecture -- talk about attempts to limit Free Speech from those Gestapo troops behind the Patriot Act, indeed."

Posted by: Hugh at July 14, 2004 09:59 AM

Bastille Day veut remercier infiniment la Fete de Noel, a titre personnelle et au nom de son gouvernement. Peut-etre, next year, Bastille Day will be able return the petit service ou faveur, hein, and something can be reposted from today on that future July 14? Et pourquoi pas?

For in this matter of self-defense against the belief-system and adherents of Islam, Bastille Day and Christmas, seemingly so different -- the secular enlightenment-and-declaration-of-human-rights marching oompahpah band, with its trumpets and its cymbals, and the Christmas B-minor mass choir, looking and sounding positively angelic, are in this together -- and, if you come to think about it, on the same side.

Posted by: Hugh

at December 25, 2004 1:46 AM

From what I understand some of our hard earned tax dollars fund the ACLU. WTF!? It's like paying someone to extort you! And that is precisely what the ACLU does. It hates America, it hates Christianity and religion for the most part excluding Islam. It hates the boy scouts!They loathe morality and wholesome values. They embrace any vile person or group that opposes America's survival. ACLU's slogan should be:

You hate America? We love you!

Working together to undermine America!

Check out these links. One is a petition to stop tax payer funding of the ACLU ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/ACLU/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41691

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Ashcroft Cannot Force the ACLU to Check Employees Against a "Black List" - ACLU Will Reject CFC Funds and Challenge Government Policy in Court

July 31, 2004

Statement from ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero Regarding Patriot Act Restrictions on Combined Federal Campaign Donations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK -- The Patriot Act and the government's "war on terror" are threatening the ability of America's non-profit charities to do their essential work and we have John Ashcroft to thank for it. By requiring non-profit charities to check their employees against a "black list" in order to receive donations from the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), John Ashcroft and this administration have created a climate of fear and intimidation that undermines the health and well-being of this nation. Organizations that enhance and promote America's health and education, the arts and the environment, children's services and religious life are threatened by the web of fear that emanates from the Patriot Act and the war on terror, and that is wrong.

Let me be clear. The ACLU will not be intimidated. We will not compromise. We will never check any of our employees against a government list. And we absolutely will not accept any funding that undermines or threatens our principles or our mission.

The ACLU would never have signed the CFC's funding agreement if we believed for one minute we would have to check our employees against a list. Our legal advice indicates otherwise, but based on statements reported today by the director of the CFC asserting that the ACLU "could be ruled temporarily ineligible for inclusion or they could be permanently excluded" for violating the government's policy, our position is clear.

We have found in ACLU litigation regarding other watch lists that these lists are notoriously riddled with error and do not provide individuals with a means to correct false information. If a name matches up against the CFC lists, employers would be required to violate the privacy rights of employees and ask inappropriate questions that trample employees' associational rights.

The ACLU will resign from the CFC rather than accept its terms that violate our fundamental principles.

Furthermore, we will determine the best course for challenging the CFC restrictions in court. And, in this climate of fear and intimidation, we act not only on our behalf, but on behalf of our nation's non-profits, to defend ourselves against John Ashcroft and a government that tramples on the Constitution in the name of national security.

It is a sad day when the thousands of trusted organizations that rely on the CFC - from the largest charities to the smallest community centers - are made unknowing victims of the government's extreme policy. But ultimately, it is the nation's weakest and most vulnerable who will truly suffer - those who depend most on the essential services of these charities and non-profits. The ACLU will work aggressively to reverse this dangerous policy and defend the rights of non-profit organizations against an increasingly intrusive government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Kemaste

at December 25, 2004 2:11 AM

From what I understand some of our hard earned tax dollars fund the ACLU. WTF!? It's like paying someone to extort you! And that is precisely what the ACLU does. It hates America, it hates Christianity and religion for the most part (excluding Islam.) It hates the boy scouts!They loathe morality and wholesome values. They embrace any vile person or group that opposes America's survival. ACLU's slogan should be:

You hate America? We love you!

Working together to undermine America!

Check out these links. One is a petition to stop tax payer funding of the ACLU ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/ACLU/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41691

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The ACLU will resign from the CFC rather than accept its terms that violate our fundamental principles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Kemaste

at December 25, 2004 2:13 AM

From what I understand some of our hard earned tax dollars fund the ACLU. WTF!? It's like paying someone to extort you! And that is precisely what the ACLU does. It hates America, it hates Christianity and religion for the most part (excluding Islam.) It hates the boy scouts!They loathe morality and wholesome values. They embrace any vile person or group that opposes America's survival. ACLU's slogan should be:

You hate America? We love you!

Working together to undermine America!

Check out these links. One is a petition to stop tax payer funding of the ACLU ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/ACLU/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41691

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The ACLU will resign from the CFC rather than accept its terms that violate our fundamental principles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Kemaste

at December 25, 2004 2:22 AM

From what I understand some of our hard earned tax dollars fund the ACLU. WTF!? It's like paying someone to extort you! And that is precisely what the ACLU does. It hates America, it hates Christianity and religion for the most part (excluding Islam.) It hates the boy scouts!They loathe morality and wholesome values. They embrace any vile person or group that opposes America's survival. ACLU's slogan should be:

You hate America? We love you!

Working together to undermine America!

Check out these links. One is a petition to stop tax payer funding of the ACLU ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/ACLU/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41691

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The ACLU will resign from the CFC rather than accept its terms that violate our fundamental principles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Kemaste

at December 25, 2004 2:25 AM

EEE GADs....Sorry about the repeat! It Kicked me off for taking too much time and I...I ...awww, never mind!

Posted by: Kemaste

at December 25, 2004 2:28 AM

Somewhat offside in this discussion, but somebody mentioned the 10 commandments. In The Netherlands they are controversial.

Immediately after the brutal ritual slaughter of the Dutch film maker and writer Theo van Gogh by an extremist muslim, a Rotterdam artist painted "Thou shalt not kill" on his house. Within 15 minutes a municipal cleaning team was wiping it off. The adjoining mosq had complained at the mayor's office, claiming the graffiti was "offensive" to their religious feelings.

A man from the neighborhood protested, asking: "How can a universal ethical rule be offensive to anyone?", but he was arrested by the police. The whole thing was recorded by a local tv-station.
The Rotterdam mayor is a member of the liberal party. To me he is a dhimmi.

This is how far the victimist power of the muslims has already come in The Netherlands.

Posted by: Bernadette de Wit

at December 25, 2004 7:16 AM

Hugh, your reasoning sounds impeachable and implacable, as usual.

Question is, doesn´t it show a flaw in our way of thinking -that of our culture and the emanation from it our legal system happens to be-that we have to resort to such an obvious, almost infantile arguments to defend our position when confronted by a bunch of automatons solely concerned with their own barbaric, exclusive vision of life and the world? In fact, it is just the very existence of the controversy what denounces the fatal flaw I am referring to.

The trees prevent us all from seeing the forest, which means that before attempting to defend our civilization from whatever attack coming from whichever the quarter, we should ask ourselves whether it is worth defending it as it is. In my opinion, the automated Muslims just happened to be passing by when they discovered how weak our collective soul is, before committing themselves to our destruction, even at a subliminal level if you wish.

Take for instance the perilous state of our demographic figures, the result of our own abortionist laws, individual selfishness, reckless economic system and the steady erosion of the family values, all done by ourselves alone. It really doesn’t matter who takes the spade to bury us under the debris we have created. Corpses shouldn’t remain on the surface if only for hygienic reasons; and that is why (among other considerations) we all assume the undertaker is a benefactor, don’t we?

So let’s once and for all accept the sobering truth: we indeed are our worst enemy. The basic nature of the debate we are contemplating in this page is a good proof of it, if only because it clearly shows that we have permitted our enemy to fight us on our own basis and rules, helped by our own kindred, established as they are into the hearty of our system, a demonstration that we are not as clever or superior as we proclaim.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

at December 25, 2004 8:12 AM

Just passing by Cid Campeador? Just passing by? The muslims have been trying to take over Europe ever since they spilt out of their Arabian dust bowl. Fortunately the Byzantine empire was more resilient than the Sassanian and was able to stop the first wave; unfortunate, however, for the once-great Persians. Since then the muslims have gained temporary footholds in Spain, Southern Italy, remained in the Balkans, and were barely defeated in France and the outskirts of Vienna. When Western Europe could have united to defend Constantinople, they did nothing. Anyway the point is that the muslims weren't passing by.

You ask if western civilisation is worth defending. The answer is YES! Any civilisation/religion, Persian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist is worth defending against the great destroyer of cultures islam. Abortion and individuality have nothing to do with the degradation of Western culture. Allowing people to decide not to have babies is a fundamental human right denied to muslim women. I do agree with you, however, in blaming the present economic system of free market globalisation, which has seriously eroded the family in the west, particularly in the Anglo-American west. Just opening up and allowing anyone who wants to come in is also just pure insanity that only benefits the very wealthy by guaranteeing a continuous source of cheap labour and permanent unemployment and erosion of employee's rights.

Posted by: Arhopala

at December 25, 2004 8:44 AM

I don't think the Combined Federal Campaign qualifies as a government handout. As I understand it, it is simply a way for federal employees to have donations to listed charities be deducted from their paycheck pre-tax. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.

Posted by: Hugh Bristic

at December 25, 2004 9:14 AM

Arhopala,

'Passing by' is a manner of speach used in the same sense as lions -alwayys in the prawl- happen to pass by the lame gazelle that will be their next meal. The arabs that invaded Spain - my country- didn't really invaded us from the start. A bunch of them came over just to help the sons of Witiza, the visigoth King who upon his death was replaced by Don Rodrigo, following the rules according to which their monarchy was electoral in character, not hereditary. After a couple of previous successful attempts to transform it, those Witizan SOBs reclaimed their poorly established inheritance privilege, been cast aside by the system this time around. They treacherously decided to dethrone Don Rodrigo with the help of the Moors, recently converted to the Islam. After the battle of Guadalete (711 a.d.) in which the two wings of the by then powerful Catholic Army defected, the helpers became masters of the situation on seeing how rotten and weak the society of their callers was. It was piece-of-cake for them to grant certain privileges to the Witizans and resume the fighting against the demoralized rest. That is why and how a few thousand (no more than 30,000) of second-thought invaders victoriuosly arrived to te Pyrenees only two and half years later. This is what I call 'passer-byers'.

The parallel to what we are contemplating today is striking and it prompts me to admit that we wouldn´t be discussing in this JW blog all these worrisome matters would it no be for our own sins or -simply stated- mistakes.

As a consequence, it is my opinion that before going headlong against the present-day Moors we would be better adviced by weeding out the Witizians in our midst, meaning by it the correction of our ways, our laws, our very spirit, so as to make utterly ridiculous that those automatic islamic morons ever pose a threat to us.

We soccer fans say that it is not the goalkepper who stops a penalty but the lousy performance of the striker is what permits the former to beat the odds.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

at December 25, 2004 3:05 PM

Just google NAMBLA,read about this vile,horrible,immoral,dangerous organization and then find out some of the NAMBLA members that murdered,raped and tortured many young american boys.
All of the murderers and rapists were full members of NAMBLA,indoctrinated by NAMBLA,supported by NAMBLA....and defended in courts,by none other than the devil...the ACLU.
If i could,i would sacrifice years of my life,just to destroy this monster that is called the ACLU.
God bless America.

Posted by: adela

at December 25, 2004 6:16 PM

True Cid

There is much to reform in European politics, much, but this reformation should be to weed out the muslim immigrants. In the New Year everyone in Holland will be forced to carry around identity cards, everyone. Why? Because of the terrorist threat, illegal immigration, and the staggering muslim crime rate in Holland. It really p..'s me off that the civil liberties of Dutch people are being curbed due to the muslim influx in Holland. Until quite recently it would have been unthinkable to introduce mandatory id cards because of the memories of the second world war when the nazi's forced the Dutch to carry id's. Unfortunately this process goes so slowly that we'll either end up in a police state or some kind of caliphate without us even knowing what happened along the way.

What is NAMBLA?

Posted by: Arhopala

at December 25, 2004 7:21 PM

The fact that the ACLU defends NAMBLA in this case shows their consistent support for free speech and the rule of law, even for those despised by society (rightly so, in this case). If you would read the news reports about the issue, they are not defending the idea of being able to rape and murder children (obviously), or even of being able to have sex with children. The parents of a child who was murdered by pedophiles, claim that one of the men viewed the NAMBLA web site before the killing and had NAMBLA materials. They are suing NAMBLA for inciting the murder. According to the ACLU, NAMBLA does not encourage coercion, rape, or violence. Therefore, as abhorent as the organization may be, it is not, UNDER THE LAW, guilty of incitement. Some people, apparently, believe in the rule of law only for those they like and agree with. Don't like NAMBLA? Say so. Don't believe age-of-consent laws should be abolished? Vote for politicians who agree with you (which is, of course, every one). You do not, however, have the right to deny NAMBLA members equal protection under the law. This is why I LOVE the ACLU--they protect the rights of people, no matter who they are!

Posted by: Hugh Bristic

at December 25, 2004 7:37 PM

Will questions that Muslims find uncomfortable soon be illegal in America?

First, the law that allows the ACLU to collect attorney fees in civil cases whether they win or lose should be abolished. Cutting off funding to the ACLU will decrease stories and situations like this one rapidly. The legal fees they collect are paid with our tax dollars, and it's a disgrace.

As for the crybaby Muslims, They're in the wrong country if they think they'll ever stop everyone from expressing criticism, which the crybaby Muslims have severely intertwined with racism.

Their actions around the world have earned them their reputation, and the way everyone feels about them. ESPN Radio has a "Just Shut Up" segment for the whining athletes that expect pampering 24 hours a day. Perhaps stories like this should follow suit and tell the crybaby Muslims to Just Shut Up.....

Posted by: DCWatson

at December 25, 2004 8:59 PM

I have to agree with Hugh Bristic on this one. I can't understand why so many people here criticise an organisation that is there to protect civil liberties. By limiting the power of such an organisation all you're doing is limiting peoples freedom i.e. liberty. The problem is not the ACLU, but the muslims who are abusing western liberties. In Holland we will soon be less free because for the first time since Nazi occupation everyone will have to permanently carry an id around. Why? Because of the islamic terrorist threat and crime, of which the muslims are disproportionately involved in. We should be protecting the many liberties of the west by focusing on those who pose the greatest threat to those liberties i.e. muslims. I'm free to express my disgust with islam and that right should be defended by the likes of the ACLU. I'm free to advocate sending the muslims back where they came from i.e. the most effective means of combating the terrorist threat while maintaining our liberties in the west is to not have muslims in the west. What we should be asking therefore is why countries like the US and the Netherlands are willing to sacrifice our personal liberties just so we can keep the muslims around and not be branded 'racists' by the 'international community'?

Posted by: Arhopala

at December 25, 2004 9:53 PM

Let's suppose that bin Laden and party achieve their objective and America becomes an Islamic nation under Sharia law. I wonder if the apologetics, defenders, and supporters of Islam have contemplated their fate under such a regime? I mean, if the Taliban was any indication of what we might expect with their public executions in the soccer stadium, I would suspect we might be watching members of the media, Hollywood, the ACLU, among others as spectator sport at the Rose Bowl.

Maybe they underestimate the damage they do to the country and don't believe they have anything to fear?

Posted by: Greg

at December 26, 2004 12:31 AM

Arhopala,

As for your assertion: “Abortion and individuality have nothing to do with the degradation of Western culture. Allowing people to decide not to have babies is a fundamental human right denied to muslim women”

I only can say that I couldn´t disagree with the very mussies more than I do with this proclamation of yours. Just think that the demographic catastrophy gravitating upon our heads is by itself all what the Western Civilization foes need to push us into the graves we ourselves are digging on that account alone. It is a resounding proof of the mussie’s poor intelligence that they have turned their cards so prematurely. By just waiting some fifty years they would have inherited all and each of our societies through their voting rights, to dispense with our cherished democratic values ever after. If in the face of this stark reality you still refuse to call it degradation, so be it. But don’t count on reality heeding your whimsical definition or lack of it.

It is my humble opinion that there is a time to enjoy life and a time to fight for it and you simply cannot have it both ways (safety and freedom) when your enemies in your midst are famoulsly using your liberties to turn them against you. It seems contradictory to me that you are prepared to weed out the infliltrated muslims (aren't they all?) despite the freedoms granted to them by the laws in your country while expressing relunctance to do likewise towards the scourge represented by the libertarians who at all costs seem to prefer to succumb rather than renounce to their privileges.

Anyway, the battle for survival is already lost through depopulation, the crime Nature never forgives. I can hear 'her' saying to us: "Keep on enjoying recreational sex while you can and perpetuate the transgression through your love for tolerance, for pleasure and for all sorts of magnificent individual freedom, disregarding at your own peril that all life is about is not the individual but the species.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

at December 26, 2004 5:55 AM

Arhopala,

(I have corrected some spelling and syntactic errors in my previous post so as to render it more legible and understandable):

I only can say that I couldn´t disagree with the very muzzies more than I do with this proclamation of yours. Just think that the demographic catastrophe gravitating upon our heads is by itself all what the Western Civilization foes need to push us into the graves we ourselves are digging on that account alone. It is a resounding proof of the muzzies’ poor intelligence that they have turned their cards on so prematurely. By just waiting some fifty years they would have inherited all and each of our societies through their voting rights, to dispense with our cherished democratic values ever after. If in the face of this stark reality you still refuse to call it degradation, so be it. But don’t count on reality heeding your whimsical definition or lack of it.

It is my humble opinion that there is a time to enjoy life and a time to fight for it and you simply cannot have it both ways (safety and freedom) when your enemies in your midst are famously using your liberties to turn them against you. It seems contradictory to me that you are prepared to weed out the infiltrated Muslims (aren't they all?) despite the freedoms granted to them by the laws in your country while expressing reluctance to do likewise towards the scourge represented by the libertarians who at all costs seem to prefer to succumb rather than renounce to their privileges.

Anyway, the battle for survival is already lost through depopulation, the social crime Nature never forgives. I can hear 'her' saying to us: "Keep on enjoying recreational sex while you can and perpetuate the transgression through your love for tolerance, for pleasure and for all sorts of magnificent individual freedoms, disregarding at your own peril that all life is about ain’t the individual but the species.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

at December 26, 2004 6:06 AM

"Anyway, the battle for survival is already lost through depopulation, the social crime Nature never forgives. I can hear 'her' saying to us: "Keep on enjoying recreational sex while you can and perpetuate the transgression through your love for tolerance, for pleasure and for all sorts of magnificent individual freedoms, disregarding at your own peril that all life is about ain’t the individual but the species."

Cid Campeador

I couldn't disagree with you more. What do you suggest? That we outbreed the muslims in Europe. Are you serious? That's the surest route to complete anarchy and pays no heed to the biological fact that humans and human groups are territorial. A lowered fertility is also a natural response to an improved duration and quality of life. Western women are also too smart just to give up their education, career etc. just so they can keep breeding. I would also like to think that we prefer to invest in the quality of our children rather than the quantity. That being said the government can do a lot more too facilitate hard-working women to combine career and family. I get the impression that you suggest that we should forget about enjoying life, start breeding, let the muslims alone to breed and see where we wind up. I think I know the answer to that one: civil war and extreme strife. The only humane answer I therefore see is humane repatriation of the muslims to their countries of origin with the exception of the few apostates that is that truly appreciate their lives in the west. Finally, I'm surprised you also seem to know so well what nature wants because the major threat to nature is human overpopulation.

Posted by: Arhopala

at December 26, 2004 7:54 AM

I would like to remind Cid Campeador of the succesful abortion law in The Netherlands. Until the early 90s we had the lowest abortion figures of the Western World, thanks to a liberal, pragmatic abortion law. (Before, they were higher because of European abortion tourism, now obsolete.)

This may sound paradoxical to you, but it makes sense. The combined policy of free choice for women *and* prevention - realistic sexual education, e.g. at schools and in the media and overall distribution of contraceptives - caused these statistics.

It worked. Dutch women were well aware of how to plan their pregnancy. However, this situation came to an end because of the many unskilled non-Western immigrants my country welcomed.
So now we still have the free abortion law (accompanied by certain careful ethical procedures, of course), but the statistics have gone up again. Most clients at abortion clinics are black, muslim or otherwise of a non-Western origine.
The hypocricical culture of the immigrant underclasses do not promote realistic sex education. Many immigrant girls and women even consider abortion as a completely acceptable means of contraception, after the act.

Should the Netherlands curb the freedom of indigenous women who feel responsible for preventing unnecessary abortion? Just because less smart immigrant girls and women don't get it or just don't care?
I don't think so. Moralising over women and girls will never have the abortion figures do down again. Limiting unskilled immigration will help more. But we will have to educate the black & muslim people in our country too.

Posted by: Bernadette de Wit

at December 26, 2004 9:46 AM

Arhopala, Bernadette,

Simply because that is an impossible endeavour, I do not suggest that we start breeding like rabbits, neither do I try to find a solution to the juncture we have placed ourselves into. What I do is to analyse the elements on play before doing or simply proposing anything foolish or taking us to a worse 'cul de sac' than the one we are already in.

In absolute terms, overpopulation indeed is not desirable but, following sublimally the laws of Nature, the inner workings of our democracies favour it (the larger number)against the dimishing crowd who chose to live comfortable lifes disregarding the also diminishing future of their social creations that,, by the way, were designwed having not in mind the sort of situation we are facing. Our communal fate (that of all Western societies)is (almost)already written in the wall and at this point it would be infantile starting to quarrel to place the blame here or there.

My sad prediction is that we will not overcome the present crisis without a revolution and perhaps civil war. Otherwise, we had better learning to live according to de 'carpe diem' motto which a cynic would say it is not a bad option after all.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

at December 26, 2004 12:56 PM

Cid

I agree with what you say in that I don't believe that Europe and European democracy can ever be compatible with islam. The only route I see is repatriation. Unfortunately this stigmatises me as a racist and right-wing fascist in many peoples eyes. I fail, however, to see what's wrong or inhumane with having people who adhere to an inherently anti-western and in my eyes inhuman religion return to where they came from and practice their religion there. I also don't think that our centuries old European cultures are something that anyone has the right to sacrifice in the period of a couple of generations.

Posted by: Arhopala