But hey, I guess we should be more accepting of other cultures.
Gay City Councillor Rejected by Muslim Group

All the Pro-Sadaam folks here are gonna have trouble supporting him over W now... Well maybe not, republicans are worse.

PhillyFan, HUH?

All the pro-sadaam folks around here...

I mean, how can you support him now? he's more anti-gay... than anti-gay W. But i think ya'all hate W more than anti-gay sadaam. Even tho he's more anti-gay.

I'm sure all the pro-Saddam gay folks out there will be so confused that Islam is anti-gay - it's shocking news to me! It's not like they didn't chop a few faggot heads off in Saudi Arabia last year.

In fact, this form of intolerance is relatively mild for the really religious - and it relatively commonplace as well. Let's see, there was the anti-tax group that reneged on hiring a faggot, the Catholic diocese of Denver who left the local council of churches because it let the fag church (MCC) in, the prayers and turned backs for Jim Kolbe at the Republican Convention.

Nothing new here - just another group of "religious" people that think they're better than everyone else.

Phillyfan should we then invade Zimbabwe?
Saudi Arabia?
I do not understand your linkage here....

But when Muslims are bigots like this, or crash planes or whatever, all we hear is talk about "celebrating diversity" and "respecting other's cultures" and "root causes." With Christians it's just bad, with Muslims it's multiculturalism at work.

It would suck to be called a racist for calling one of these strict muslims an intolerant towel head.

Phillyfan I wouldnt call ou that!
Anyway this is one of the concerns I have about the push for federal funding for "faith based" orgs.

Anti-gay is an absolute...how can you be more anti-gay or less anti-gay. You are either a homophobe or you are not -- there is no middle ground on this issue. Enough said.

Not really enough said. To tell you the truth, nothing is black and white, or pro-gay or Anti-gay. I head a great term this weekend called R-Gay. Technically I'm an "R-Gay". Which means that some of the people I know don't like "those Homo-sex-shuals", but they like me. So when they talk to other people about gay issues, and I come up, they say, we don't like gays usually, but hey, MSUBobact is R-gay guy. So I'm ok because they know me, but the rest of "the Homo-sex-shueals" are bad. Then after about 3 or 4 weeks of knowing me they realize that all my friends are cool, and finally realize that being gay is not such a terrible thing. That's how our "adjenda" is being pushed, if there is one, by changing attitudes one person at a time. Ok, back to the original discussion. I think that PF was Making an attempt at a joke, and you all took it very seriously.

Wasn't W the very one saying this kind of crapola, right after 9/11? Didn't most Muslims in the US vote for W (who courted them assiduously) in 2000, and not just because a Jewish man, Joe Lieberman, was on the Democratic ticket? Didn't W even pose with that terrorist-assister down, Sami Al Hasmi or whatever his name was, in Florida? What's W's excuse?

Also, phillyfan, Saddam was far less of an Islamicist than W's close friends, the Saudi bin Ladens. FIFTEEN*** of the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. ZERO-ZILCHO-NONE were from Iraq. Osama bin Laden the mastermind of death and terror, is a Saudi. The other major Al Qaeda players come from our "friend" nations, like Egypt, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, etc. NOT ONE is known to be Iraqi.

So conflating Saddam with these crackpots is just idiotic. He's a horror, they're a horror, but not the same.

***Corrected thanks to CITT!

[ September 24, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

And now we learn of a second Islamic US serviceman being charged with spying on military property in as many days. Conclusion: We're better off with NONE of them around! Ferdinand and Isabella got it right: unless Arabs - or anyone else in the U.S. for that matter - put loyalty to this country first and renounce whatever creed they're using to justify their crimes second, deport them all NOW! :mad:

I don't think anyone has to renounce their religion, only the small-minded and bigoted interpretations of that religion.

When any group, religious or otherwise, cannot tolerate the peaceful behavior of others, that is a problem, be they christian evangelists, muslim fanatics, jewish orthodox radicals, black, white, brown, yellow, whatever.

Setting tolerant people against each other is demogogic. It is often used to suppress them.

"anyone else in the U.S. for that matter - put loyalty to this country first and renounce whatever creed they're using to justify their crimes second, deport them all NOW!" (gmginsfo)

I hope this statement includes Roy Moore, Bill Pryor and most of the elected officials in Alabama!

What's your problem with Bill Pryor? He did put his duty as Alabama A.G. first and courageously stood up to demagogue Roy Moore. Don't understand why you opt to lump the two of them together.

Actually 15 were from Saudi Arabia ... which is still bad enough. The other four, I believe, were Egyptian. Another alleged friend in the Arab world.

They kicked the Jews out of Spain too.

They got THAT part wrong! wink

Yes, I think Bush has been way to easy on Islam in general.

"What's your problem with Bill Pryor? He did put his duty as Alabama A.G. first and courageously stood up to demagogue Roy Moore. Don't understand why you opt to lump the two of them together." (CITT)

Well at least you agree Moore is a demagogue.
And yes, technically Pryor did opt for the 'Rule of Law' over Moore.

I would not - (as you said) claim that Pryor stood up to Moore however -

"Pryor again sprang to Moore’s legal aid and named attorneys with Religious Right connections to help in the defense. “I look forward to providing a vigorous defense of the Ten Commandments and feel strongly that the display of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the judicial building does not violate the First Amendment,” The Birmingham News quoted Pryor as saying in a Nov. 3, 2001, article." (AU.ORG)

However, I mentioned Pryor is this thread (Muslim Intolerance) to illustrate or counter that there is Christian Intolerance as well as Moslem.

Don't forget CITT, Pryor filed an amicus brief in LAWRENCE which supported the Texas position. In this brief, Pryor compared homosexuality to prostitution, adultery etc...


I don't want to turn this into a Pryor thread, but surely even you CITT, can understand why I inserted Pryor into a discussion of Religious Intolerance against gays! eek!

I think this just shows how dangerous it is to allow religion to play a large role in politics and government. Any religion. Let's face it, guys: basically every world religion condemns homosexuality -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. If you're looking for gay acceptance, organized religion simply is not the place to turn.

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/a47ba2ae/bc...c.Qdc_ASmLDpP_H

[ September 24, 2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]

Actually, Bob, I would say the last time we mixed politics and religion was the Pryor nomination itself, in which Democrats sought to score political points by claiming Pryor was too Catholic/religious to be a judge. I live just a stone's throw away from the Capitol where this was all taking place, and maybe I just don't get out enought but I swear I didn't see anybody getting burned at the stake. It would have been quite a story for the grandkids if I had, but I guess I just missed it.

Conor500, I couldn't agree with you more. We're kidding ourselves if we think there's some organized religion out there that fully accepts gays and lesbians. I personally don't think Islam is any more or less homophobic than Christianity. On the contrary, I think Christianity has been much, much, more vocal about their intolerance of gays. Let's not forget that woman who made that comment about the Fab Five and how they should be portrayed dying of AIDS.

Hey Will, Thanks for the info.

(psst. Bobcat jestures to William to come over here. In a wisper into Will's ear, "I was trying to lighten the mood." )

That's why I loves me my Bobcat!

Ahhhh Shucks. You always make me feel special GJ! I think I need a trip to DC one of these days.

For f&$*'s sake, that's one comment from one member of one religion, and this post is coming from a guy who I'm sure would be furious if somebody tried to the nutcases from NAMBLA, for example, as examples of the gay community as a whole. At least this woman didn't stone the guy to death, which is what governments do when they're based on Islamic principles. But hey, I guess Muslims really don't have to be openly discriminatory towards a group of people when they just kill them off. Also, at least in America if that woman tried to seize power by gaining elected office we have a system by which she could be held accountable for rhetoric like that.

Governments based on Christian principles might also invoke the death penalty for homosexuality, with biblical justification. We're just fortunate that there aren't any currently...fortunately Ferdinand and Isabella aren't around to drum up the progroms and burn the heretics. In any event, if we're talking about intolerance in THIS country, what was done here was no different than what Christian groups have done.

And it seems hypocritical in the extreme for someone who defended the boy scout's refusal to hire gay people to attack this group. At least this city councillor's livelihood is not threatened by their actions.

William, the point of religious tolerance, which I try to preach despite my own outrage at my own Church, is that we all have to live with those who disagree with us on matters of faith and morals. The problems with the Muslims you originally posted about AND the anti-gay "pro-family" people is that they demand everyone else regard their religion as superior. Therefore they can demand not to have to interact with those people who don't follow their religious beliefs.

The Pryor thing was exactly the same - the problem was NOT that he was Catholic, the problem was he seemed to argue in this writings that one can put one's religion above the law, as Moore did, which is the worst form of religious intolerace. Quite frankly, given the Catholic Church's recent edict that Catholic politicians and judges MUST rule according to Catholic theology and not the secular laws of their countries, I believe it is right, necessary and appropriate to demand that Catholic office-seekers and potential judges disavow the Church's demand. If someone cannot rule according to our laws, and not their Church, they do not belong on the bench or in office.

The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee never once asked Pryor about his religion. His religion was first and only brought up by the chairman of the committee Orrin Hatch. The Democrats on the committee, some of whom are Catholic, sought only to expose Pryor's out-of-the-mainstream views on several issues.

Yeah, right, it had nothing to do with Pryor's religion. His was just "too firm in his beliefs." And which beliefs would those be? That he likes ice cream, or that math is sometimes difficult? Halfway intelligent people don't need things to be spelled out for them.

Are you talking about the Moore guy in Alabama whom Pryor opposed in the whole Ten Commandments fiasco? I assume that his doing his job in that situation is somehow more proof that he can't really do his job, but I really don't even care to hear the whole rationalization.

Well, it's not "Arabs" per se--some of them are Christians, like the Chaldean Iraqis (none of whom have been charged or linked to Al Qaeda), but fanatical Muslims from across the globe. Some are Arab (Saudi, Yemeni, Egyptian, Palestinians, etc.), some are Persian (Iranian), some are from the Indian subcontinent (like the Pakistanis, or Muslim Indians), some are south-Asian (the wackos in Indonesia and the Phillippines), some are black Africans (the people from Tanzania, for example), some are from the trans-Caucasus (the Chechnyans). So it's not Arabs, but fanatical Muslims, or as CITT says, Islamo-facists, who sort of operate outside states.

Let's NOT follow Ferdinand and Isabela's lead, however. They sanctioned the Holy Inquisitions's burning conversos, marranos and others, including queers, at the stake!

I don't believe Mr. Pryor is being held up simply because he is Catholic. Plenty of Catholics and other pro-life nominees have made it through the confirmation process without any trouble. What we don't need as federal judges are people who are going to try and impose their religious beliefs on others. I guess what you're suggesting is that as long as someone holds a belief that's rooted in religion, you can't attack the belief because in doing so you're attacking their religion. This makes it hard to attack anyone's beliefs regarding homosexuality because those beliefs are almost always rooted in some sort of religious teaching. Mr. Pryor's virulently anti-gay positions are off limits because in the end, they're based in his Catholicism, and those senators going after Mr. Pryor's homophobic views were being anti-Catholic.

I would have to say Islam is no different in the regard that people use it as a way to defend their ideals, as would a Christian fundamentalist. You cant nescessarily condemn the whole religion. You should condemn the people who are using it as a form of ill will towards others. I may not agree with the bible or koran or any of that, but they have their right to believe in what it says. Just dont use it to destroy someone else.

Hey William1865, that's just my opinion, okay? Besides, I'm certainly not implying that all Christians in this country denounce homosexuality but they have been the most vocal about it. I'm certain many people here would probably agree with me. By the way, I have several Muslim friends who were horrified about the possible stoning of that woman. I think she may have gotten a reprieve, I'm not certain. One of them even told me that many Muslim countries often interpret Islam to their own interests, much like people from other religions do. And to Dallas UNC, I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you.

In regards to William1865's reply to me on 9/24 (sorry I can'[t quote it - I am using one of those hotel WebTV devices, and it is not as functional as a real computer):

The fact the Pryor did his job in the Moore case does not change the underlying questions about his legal philoso-phy - does he believe in the rule of secular law or the ruleof religion?

The gripe about Pryor was that because of his religious beliefs he would not be able to do his job. He did his job despite his actions potentially going against his personal beliefs. So now the gripe about Pryor is that...he can't do his job because of his religious beliefs.