The self-appointed “fact-checker” Snopes is just another corrupt hard-Left mouthpiece, as I demonstrated here. And here they go again. In this case, Snopes sets up a straw man, claiming that the stories about this court implied that the New Jersey town had imposed Sharia blasphemy laws outright, and issued a blanket ban on criticism of Islam. In reality, no one is saying that. Basking Ridge, New Jersey banned criticism of Islam and Muslims at a planning meeting regarding a mosque project. By misstating the opposition to this ruling, Snopes’ “mostly false” ruling gives the impression that there wasn’t any prohibition of Islam or Muslims at all, and that the whole thing is just a “right-wing” fabrication.
This is sophisticated, skillful lying, but it’s lying nonetheless. Snopes is not a fact-checker, it’s a deliberately misleading Leftist propaganda site.
“Did a New Jersey Town Forbid Residents From Criticizing Islam?,” Snopes, August 8, 2017:
As part of a lawsuit settlement, residents are barred from discussing Muslims or Islam at a planning commission meeting.
CLAIM
A town in New Jersey has forbidden residents from criticizing Muslims or Islam in keeping with sharia law.
RATING
MOSTLY FALSEWHAT’S TRUE
The town’s officials and residents cannot use a planning meeting to criticize Islam or those who practice it. The meeting in question was set by a religious discrimination lawsuit settlement for the purpose of approving a mosque’s building permit.
WHAT’S FALSE
Private citizens are not barred from discussing Islam.
ORIGIN
On 2 August 2017, the blog American News posted a story reporting that a New Jersey town had prohibited residents from criticizing Muslims or Islam, in keeping with sharia law (a code of behavior conduct practiced by observant Muslims), citing a story posted by the conspiratorial blog World Net Daily (WND).
Both stories misleadingly feature 2009 photographs from a demonstration against a Dutch politician in London, which is completely unrelated to the events in New Jersey. The American News story reports:
According to reports from World Net Daily, a New Jersey township that was sued by a group of Muslims for refusing to approve a massive mosque project is now returning to court because of a settlement agreement that restricts anyone from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.”
It’s important to note that a key tenet of Shariah bans any negative comments about the religion. According to the Thomas More Law Center who sued the township on behalf of two residents whose home is within 200 feet of the proposed mega-mosque, the settlement “reads more like an instrument of surrender.”
The settlements came in May 2017 after the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and the Department of Justice sued the township for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a law that requires all religious persons and institutions to be treated equally when seeking building permits for places of worship.
Both American News and WND are referring to a portion of the settlement between ISBR and the local government of Bernards Township in New Jersey, which agreed to pay $3.25 million and allow ISBR to build a mosque on property they already own after four years of public hearings. (The Justice Department also settled separately with the town.)
The agreement outlines a single Planning Commission meeting in which ISBR’s final site plan approval will be discussed and voted upon. Per the settlement, the meeting discussion will be tightly limited to items on the agenda. The meeting will not adjourn until it is complete, and cannot be extended beyond one session, “even if the hearing must continue beyond 12:00 midnight and into the next day.” At this hearing, witness testimony is also tightly curtailed, and one of the rules is:
No commentary regarding Islam or Muslims will be permitted.
In response to the limitation on discussion of Islam or Muslim people, Thomas More Law Center — a conservative activist law firm — has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two residents who live near the proposed mosque site, Christopher and Loretta Quick, claiming that the limitation on discussion of Islam and Muslims during the planning meeting is a violation of their “right to engage in constitutionally protected speech at an upcoming public hearing.” It is on their lawsuit that these stories are based, but they are crafted to lead readers to believe that all city residents are prohibited from any criticism of Islam or its followers. This is untrue….
John A. Marre says
So the politicians are working hard to bring in more Muslims and to Islamize the USA. No surprise there.
Dawn says
If it were Christianity they would have no criticising it right ! My mind is getting so tired of it !
Manuel 2 Paleologus says
Join the club!!!
John Forbes says
HOPEFULLY ENOUGH AMERICANS get tired of the LIES & ISLAMIC attacks on the Constitution & FREE SPEECH that the majority demand an end to this !
The AMERICAN LAWS & CONSTITUTION must stand supreme above SHARIA & ISLAM or you all lose !
Democracy has to be fought for & not taken for granted !!
mortimer says
There are 4,200 different religions. Are we to ban all comments about 4,200 different religions. That will eventually lead to censor that bans any discussion on any topic in which two people have a disagreement.
WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH OF TWO OPINIONS IS THE RIGHT ONE?
Basking Ridge, New Jersey must ban discussion of 4,200 different religions or it must admit it does not have the right to ban discussing ONE religion, thus giving ONE religion special rights not afforded to the 4,199 OTHER religions.
mortimer says
-Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
-Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs that are “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”
Westman says
So, it’s not a gag order, it’s just a gag. Much better.
somehistory says
islum gags maggots. The poor little worms have to dispose of the foul bodies of those who kill themselves for their fake faith.
eduardo odraude says
Islam is politics and religion in one. That is widely acknowledged in the Islamic world. One can resist Islam based on its politics, which are totalitarian and discriminate against non-Muslims. Whenever someone defending Islam talks about freedom of religion, remind them you are not talking about the religious aspect — you are talking about Islam’s inherently political nature and what it leads to. The Constitution blocks discrimination on the basis of religion, but it does not block discrimination against a totalitarian, seditious politics. Fight the politics of it, otherwise you are wasting your energy banging your head against the brick wall of the Constitution. Don’t deny Islam is a religion, that’s banging your head against the wall of reality. Just emphasize that the religion is inherently political and totalitarian. That’s reality.
miriamrove says
I live very close to this township. It is a beautiful place and very upscale. Muslims are hell bent to take and make great places into a large s…hole. m
gravenimage says
Grimly true, miriam.
somehistory says
islum demands that moslums do whatever non moslums wish they wouldn’t do, have a problem with them doing, are hurt by the moslems doing it, are harmed or killed when moslums do it.
They would build on a toxic dump site if they thought non moslums would object.
politicalqrm says
I’m familiar with that area, also… My question: are there that many muslims in the area or are they transporting them in? Doesn’t seem like Basking Ridge or surrounding area would have a large population of muslims.
It’s an attempt to foul a beautiful area with their 7th century culture
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
I gave up on Snopes long ago, when they deliberately gave a false reason why “Kentucky Fried Chicken” changed its name to “KFC”. They explained later that they invented a false reason (that the state government of Kentucky claimed the right to the word “Kentucky”) just to teach people a lesson about the dangers of being too credulous. Thus Snopes foolishly destroyed the only asset they had: a reputation for factuality. It would be nice if there were a source for verifying facts; Snopes ain’t it. (Disclaimer: Possibly this had to do instead with the change of the name of the “Kentucky Derby” to the “Run for the Roses”.) In any case, Snopes lost their credibility years ago.
gravenimage says
I’d missed that–appalling, Mark.
Terry says
Mark,
One of the two money men originally behind KFC was Mr Brown ( the other was his father) who later was a governor of Kentucky. (Married to a former beauty queen-I think Miss America)
Terry says
I don’t think any politician would do something that would hurt another politicians wallet.
Guest says
I don’t even know what it is they’re trying to say.
gravenimage says
Snopes is trying to imply that there was no real ban on citizens criticizing Islam–even though they make it clear that there was. The facts of the case–as reported by Snopes itself–do not match its conclusion.
Mark Berlinger says
The Ex-Mikkelsons, Google’s credibility reference to indiscriminate modern liberals and the easily mislead, are leftist, anti-Christian and unaccomplished as researchers, authors or investigators.
Joe says
It is indeed carefully crafted lying. There is more than what Robert mentioned:
Note the carefully crafted lying in the ‘WHAT IS TRUE’ section: “The town’s officials and residents cannot use a planning meeting to criticize Islam or those who practice it.”
“Cannot USE a town meeting TO ….”. It’s crafted to suggest that the ruling only prevents the people from MISUSING the town meeting; the assumption that the criticism of Islam is illegitimate is built in.
gravenimage says
Snopes says claim NJ town forbade criticism of Islam “false,” then quotes: “No commentary regarding Islam permitted”
CLAIM
A town in New Jersey has forbidden residents from criticizing Muslims or Islam in keeping with sharia law.
RATING
MOSTLY FALSE
WHAT’S TRUE
The town’s officials and residents cannot use a planning meeting to criticize Islam or those who practice it. The meeting in question was set by a religious discrimination lawsuit settlement for the purpose of approving a mosque’s building permit.
WHAT’S FALSE
Private citizens are not barred from discussing Islam.
………………………
But private citizens are not allowed to criticize Islam at that public planning meeting. Sounds like prevention of criticism of Islam to me.
Snopes–where all the details may be accurate, but their conclusion is completely false. I’ve run into this at their site before.
Michael Warden says
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2017/08/09/uk-police-are-now-warning-british-citizens-not-to-criticize-islam-or-else/
“If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize”. (Voltaire).
A nation can withstand its ambitious, even its fools but it cannot withstand
the enemy within. (Marcus Tullius Cicero).
John A. Marre says
Muslims have become a solid voting block. It obviously votes democrat, and in return democrats like Hillary give them a free pass to do whatever they want.
Linda says
If I was a resident of the NJ City in question I would attend the planning committee meeting and strongly object to the islamic call to prayer five times per day. I guess this would be classified as a criticism of the evil theology of islam, most likely I would be banned from any future meetings. The noise ordinances should apply to this community; we cannot have wake-up roosters in our semi-rural community (thank God) so why should one special group impose their pollution on an entire community. Who in their right mind wants to hear the islamic caterwauling over loud speakers or shouted from the tower? Great way to tank property values and build the next islamic dominated community with sharia rules.
Lydia says
Uh, are they all on drugs or what???
Commentary includes criticism. If no commentary is allowed, no criticism is allowed either.
(Some may need to draw themselves a venn diagram here… like the author of that article claiming the claim was false and he himself accidentally states that it is true by quoting that sentence!)
It’s a screamer!
“Snopes says claim NJ town forbade criticism of Islam “false,” then quotes: “No commentary regarding Islam permitted” ”
So he himself admits that it was true, unless he does not get it that criticism involves commentary, criticism is a form of commentary. Wow. So little critical thinking, reasoning, and logic left in the world these days… !
Lydia says
By the way, the 1st amendment applies EVERYWHERE here and I WILL exercise it when I so choose.
And, even if it is not respected, or the US is taken over by the invaders of the brain snatchers, or whatever, I will STILL continue to exercise my GOD given right to freedom of speech and I will definitely continue to criticize islam, as I do now all the time, and I would be doing in NJ if I were at the right place at the right time over there (when the ban was in effect).
They are such idiots.
Guy Macher says
Will you people just shut up!!!!!??? Nothing ever has anything to do with Islam!!
Keys says
City Council Meeting Agenda
August 9, 2017
I. Roll Call
II. Minutes
III. Discussion Items
Happy Hog / Sultry Sow, Inc. is seeking a building permit and zoning variance to
construct a high tech pig farm and processing plant near West and Main Sts.
Community input welcome except –
“PROHIBITED! Positively no commentary pertaining to pigs, pork, or poop will be
permitted”.
IV. Action Items
Approval of said HH / SS, Inc. variance and permit.
Jack Holan says
As a Fact Checker Snopes is light on the Facts and Heavy on the the opinion side without distinguishes hong. If this had not been a Loretta Lynch/Eric Holder DOJ with Admiral Barack Hussein Obama secretly ushering in Muslim Brotherhoos Leaders into the White House through back doors not signing the Official WH Guest Registerer into clandestine mtings with BHO, it would have been a different environment. Let’s see this happening again under Jeff Sessions.
Carolyne says
You have more faith in AG Sessions than I do. So far he has proven himself to be a wimp.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
Snopes is verifiably truth-challenged:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
And the guy’s a pig.
boakai ngombu says
since this is to be a planning meeting …
wondering whether or not there are to be restrictions regarding animal slaughter
wondering whether there will be secure fencing to keep the goats and sheep in
wondering whether there will be adequate surveillance cameras, etc. to protect the building from vandals
wondering whether building codes will be properly enforced
UNCLE VLADDI says
I’ve never read a Snopes article that wasn’t a blatant lie.
Does Cass Sunstein run it?!
As fortibus85 once said:
I have come to the conclusion that there are four basic types of liberals.
High Education Low Reality Voters
Low Information Voters
Low Morality Voters
Traitors and Tyrants and/or spreaders of deceit
Snopes and its owners’ agenda obviously fall into the last category.
…
Snopes is still at it, and this time they’ve been caught lying in public!
http://conservativetribune.com/fact-check-website-caught-lie/
…AND again, here:
http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/
😉
Daniel F X Dravot says
Snopes is not famous for being meticulous with the truth.
gfmucci says
On numerous occasions I’ve observed Snopes speaking out of both sides of their socialist/progressive mouth. If they were Islamic, we’d call it “dualism” where two opposing thoughts are claimed to both be true at the same time.
In Western thought and practice, this is called “insanity.”
Jay says
WHAT’S FALSE
Private citizens are not barred from discussing Islam.
Soo… It’s false that people are NOT barred from discussing Islam. This means it IS TRUE that people ARE barred from discussing Islam.
Tripped yourselves up by your own Snopes.
rabrooks says
Hasn’t it always been harram for an infidel to read, recite or even touch a koran? That pretty much covers it……