Thanks for welcoming me back, Denise. Yes, I had a very good time visiting friends and family in Boston, Buffalo and Ithaca. A beloved Uncle is a former John Birch Society Guy, but I missed the chance of talking to him this time. It's a pity, because I scherish our conversations and because he is a great humanitarian and a warm hearted fella when it comes down to specifics, much as I hear President Reagan was as well. Hal put in a lot of time doing very low paying work with the retarded and with psychiatric folks when he could have made a lot of money doing other stuff at full price in his private prasctice.
I hope I'm somewhere near as decent a guy.
I also had another run in with the INS in Rochester while traveling down to Ithaca in Trailways this year, but the INS agent this time with a remarkablke man with a great deal of thoughtfulness to him, and we were able to have a good conversation about the poilicy.
I must say thanks in part to some of the conversations I've had here with folks on the Right, but also thanks to the extraordinary openness of this particular guy, who had little in common with the folks I saw during my last go-around with the INS. This was a remarkably thoughtful guy, as I said. Good to see them no matter where they're found.
1) Thanks for the link. I'll need some time to look at that, and I'd rather not react in advance of information.
... I'm wondering why you consider it racist to fight against the establishment of Sharia Law in the U.S.
Thank you for asking, Denise.
Because nobody is trying to establish Sharia Law in the United States, just as nobody is trying to enshrine Ancient Mosaic Law in The United States.
Treating either as the Law of The Land would not work here. Both are too Draconian for our culture in many respects, and I would be against both. I feel that being told who would be appropriate slaves, for example, would be wrong, since in my country there are no appropriate slaves, and that, Denise, is in Mosaic Law. Specifying the punishment for mixing linen and wool would be inappropriate because in my country there should be no such punishment. Both Sharia and Mosaic Law specify stoning for some crimes, and I would fight against that in any case.
But that isn't the issue, because nobody has asked that either be used as law of the land.
To bring up either would only provoke racial ond religious strife, since neither would be permitted as the Law of The Land in My country. Or in your, for that matter. Our country has the firstr Ammendment which prohibits favor being given to one or another religious group, and since Sharia Law favors Muslims, it is illegal by constitution in our country, as the people who have moved to ban it already know.
They depend on you not to know and to get upset at those Muslims about it, or potentially — in the case of Mosaic Law — to get upset at those Jews about it.
You know very well that to get upset about something this stupid in relation to the Jews would be racist, and we'd call it anti-semitic, and for good reason. It'd be a round-about way of stuirring up anti-Jewish feeling.
Same with the Muslims, Denise. It's simply a way of stirring up anti-Muslim feeling by bringing up an issue that you'd be hard-pressed to find an American Muslim to support.
Even President Bush, our last President Bush, was careful to draw a clear line between Muslims and the terrorists. He was very clear about telling the American People that Islam was a religion of Peace, and the Al Qaeda folks were a bunch of very far out fringe folks who had and have today little if anything to do with mainstream Islam. It's one of the Things that I agree with President Bush on.
The folks who are bringing this Sharia Law issue up now, if they've any memory, know what they're doing, and it isn't pretty. It's racist. It's attempting to focus hatred on Muslims over a phony issue.
Support it if you will, but support it with a full understanding of what you're being asked to stand behind and with a clear understanding of what you're doing. It's racial and religious hatred, Denise.
Can you supply evidence of racism by Gingrich, Limbaugh and Breitbart?
The behavior of Breitbart through this latest brouhaha is enough for me, especially, for his putting forward of the edited and doctored excerpt of that speech and for his loathsome reactions at being found out and confronted. The editing and distortion process seems to be a tactic that Republicans have grown fond of in recent years.
Mr. Gingrich for his attempts to stirr up racial and religious conflict in his comments about Sharia Law. The man has a Ph.D. and acts as though he doesn't know about the first Ammendment.
And Mr, Limbaugh for his comments about the President getting the Job of President because he's black.
Does this mean that he thinks that the other Presidents wouldn't have been able to get the job if they weren't White? That would be a comment equally as racist, and both comments are designed to stir up racial antagonisms. His comments about the President not being able to get a job except as a black tour guide seemed racist to me as well, considering he was President of the Harvard Law Review.
Do you have any idea what sort of job offers people who edit the Harvard Law Review get when they leave school? If you don't, then you might consider that it's the top honor of the top law school in the country. Nobody hands it to anybody simply because they're anything but smart and competent.
4) Mike, nice picture, you're looking great, nice to see you again.
About Sharia Law, I don't like it. See above.
About the Republican use of the Issue — Racist.