CAIR Asks Obama to Address Rising Anti-Islam Hate

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asked US President Obama to address the rising trend which it terms as “alarming level of anti-Islam hate” in the country.

The Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization sent a letter to Obama and drew attention to recent sufferings of Muslims in the states. Also, hate-filled paintings, Quran defamations, anti-Islam remarks and vandalism at mosques were cited in the letter and serious concern was expressed.

“President Obama is in the best position to address the alarming level of anti-Islam hate in our nation and to urge religious and political leaders to speak out in support of tolerance and mutual understanding,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Awad,

When that Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), starts speaking out loud and clear about all the un-American acts being perpetrated by Muslims in the US and start forcing said Muslims to "clean up their acts" ....... then they will have a right to bitch and complain.

CAIR is using the same tactics that have been employed by most of the black leaders for years n' years ........ and there are quite a few non-PC people who don't really give a crap.

SamCogar wrote:When that Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), starts speaking out loud and clear about all the un-American acts being perpetrated by Muslims in the US and start forcing said Muslims to "clean up their acts" ....... then they will have a right to bitch and complain.

CAIR is using the same tactics that have been employed by most of the black leaders for years n' years ........ and there are quite a few non-PC people who don't really give a crap.

I would be interested in what non-PC people are. Don't use computers? I think that tolerance is a good thing and all of Islam isn't contained in what happened on September 11, 2001. There is a physician in our community who is a Moslem, says right out that he believes Osama should be tried and executed, and he is a terrific person who treats patients whether they can pay or not. Especially children. I also do PCA work on occasion (Personal Care Attendant) and one of the disabled children whose house I go to is a patient of his. I went with him to an appointment to help his mother. He is one of the best people I have ever met. There are extremists in every faith. I would call a Catholic member of Opus Dei who wears a piece of barbed wire around their leg to simulate Jesus' suffering an extremist. I would call Timothy McVeigh an extremist. I refuse to condemn all Moslems for the actions of some any more than I condemn all Christians for the actions of some.

What is a MOSLEM?

Excuse me if you prefer we shall use Muslim. Does that make your obsession for the miniscule more manageable? Should I point it out next time you spell a word wrong? I've seen a few of your mispellings.

But in actuality Moslem is a legitimate usage for Muslim. Though some find it offensive as some Christians do the term fundamentalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/muslim

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in actuality Moslem is a legitimate usage for Muslim. Though some find it offensive as some Christians do the term fundamentalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/muslim

Says who? I didn't see it anywhere in the wike reference you posted. Is it only because you say so?

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I would be interested in what non-PC people are.

Would you also be interested in knowing what non-beer-drinking people are?

How about non-partisan Democrats? Betcha you would really, really be interested in knowing what they are.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I refuse to condemn all Moslems for the actions of some any more than I condemn all Christians for the actions of some.

I don't condem all Moslems or Christians for the actions of a few of either.

But I do condem all Moslems or Christians who do not condem the dastardly actions and deeds of their brethern.

And that goes for all Democrats, Republicans, etc., also.

One can not claim the moral or social "high ground" ..........

if they refuse to condem the dastardly actions and deeds of their brethern.

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them. (Josephus)
.

Hi AC and Aaron,

Obviously not every Muslim wishes ill upon others, and many are exceptionally kind people. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and the French.

However, some belief systems are more readily amenable to fostering violent extremism, and at least at this moment the bulk of religious terror is coming from islam.

I am not surprised that there is a kind Muslim doctor in your town, AC, just as three of my closest friends are atheists, one with downright communist tendencies. Just as communism killed tens of millions of people, however, the dark side of a substantial amount of Islam worldwide must be confronted rather than explained away.

Sam
Cogar wrote:But I do condem all Moslems or Christians who do not condem the dastardly actions and deeds of their brethern.

Amen!!! Funny how you don't hear much out fo the Muslim world condemning the actions of their extremeist breathern. Additionally its like Sheik said thishas to be confront not explained or excused away.

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:But in actuality Moslem is a legitimate usage for Muslim. Though some find it offensive as some Christians do the term fundamentalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/muslim

Says who? I didn't see it anywhere in the wike reference you posted. Is it only because you say so?

Obviously Aaron you can't read. It says clearly that some Muslims find the usage offensive. Try taking some reading classes.

SamCogar wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I would be interested in what non-PC people are.

Would you also be interested in knowing what non-beer-drinking people are?

How about non-partisan Democrats? Betcha you would really, really be interested in knowing what they are.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I refuse to condemn all Moslems for the actions of some any more than I condemn all Christians for the actions of some.

I don't condem all Moslems or Christians for the actions of a few of either.

But I do condem all Moslems or Christians who do not condem the dastardly actions and deeds of their brethern.

And that goes for all Democrats, Republicans, etc., also.

One can not claim the moral or social "high ground" ..........

if they refuse to condem the dastardly actions and deeds of their brethern.

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them. (Josephus)
.

Ah Sam your usual hysterical self. I agree with you however that one must condemn actions even by their brethren that are wrongful, immoral, unethical, or illegal.

SheikBen wrote:Hi AC and Aaron,

Obviously not every Muslim wishes ill upon others, and many are exceptionally kind people. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and the French.

However, some belief systems are more readily amenable to fostering violent extremism, and at least at this moment the bulk of religious terror is coming from islam.

I am not surprised that there is a kind Muslim doctor in your town, AC, just as three of my closest friends are atheists, one with downright communist tendencies. Just as communism killed tens of millions of people, however, the dark side of a substantial amount of Islam worldwide must be confronted rather than explained away.

I don't disagree Michael that right now there is a hard core of extremism in the Muslim world. Here in America there are some, but the majority are just hardworking Americans. The school portion of the program I work for has Muslim students and I've met most of the parents. All seem like average Americans who work hard to care for their special needs children. I would also like to see people take that portion of the Muslim population into consideration. In the UK there are some extremists but primarily they are also just law abiding citizens. I just don't want to see the whole judged by the actions of some. There are also other countries which are primarily Muslim that we never hear a peep out of violence or extremism coming from.

In one response you agreed with Sam (who owns you by the way on EVERY subject-were you in prison you would be his beatch) that the vast majority of mOslims should denounce their radical brethren for their extremist views and actions but in the very next you completely exonerate (it means free somebody of blame and guilt) those same mOslims and heap praise upon them for being innocent, everyday law abiding citizens.

Chalk one up to Cato for being right about you and moderates as nothing more then a fence sitter who can’t make up their mind on issues.

Actually Sam hasn't had me on anything. You are so laughable it isn't really funny. It is sad so very sad. I condemn those who engage in violence. But state that there are many who are law abiding. And there are. There is nothing illegitimate about that point of view except perhaps in your tunnel vision world which knows no shades of anything but black and white.

The mind of someone who has no capability of independant thinking. I would also condemn the James Kopp's, the Eric Robert Rudolph's, the Timothy McVeigh's, the Terry Nichols. The Slobadan Miloseviches who held himself a Christian (Orthodox-in case you didn't know, which I presume) as he engaged in 'ethnic cleansing'. Should I then condemn all Christians including SheikBen who is obviously a good man. Condemn him for the actions of some?

AC,

It is a theological point, but I am not a "good man." I appreciate your kind words, but as a Christians I believe that there has only been one Good man in history, and we crucified him. Romans 3:23 "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

More to the point in discussion, however, if you engage in the macabre practice of counting the number of people murdered in the name of a given religion over the past hundred years, it would be atheism at number one, German ancestor worship at number two (crucifixes were replaced by swastikas in Germany, and the Lutheran church was disestablished by Hitler in the 1930s) and Islam and number three.

German ancestor worship has been dealt with, and the atheist violence of the communists is largely a thing of the past (although a Cuban friend of mine illustrates how the half of his family that followed Fidel are doing fine, while the christians in his family are not).

Lastly, Timothy McVeigh did not have Biblical bases for his attacks, did he? What specifically in the Scriptures did he quote as rationale for how he acted?

But even if I give you McVeigh and the abortion clinic bombings, in terms of pure numbers Islam would be far ahead in the recent violence sweepstakes, and considering the actions in the Sudan, way far ahead.

As for Milosevic, while there is no excusing his behavior, remember that the only reason his side had any power was that the Croats backed Hitler.

SheikBen wrote:AC,

It is a theological point, but I am not a "good man." I appreciate your kind words, but as a Christians I believe that there has only been one Good man in history, and we crucified him. Romans 3:23 "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

More to the point in discussion, however, if you engage in the macabre practice of counting the number of people murdered in the name of a given religion over the past hundred years, it would be atheism at number one, German ancestor worship at number two (crucifixes were replaced by swastikas in Germany, and the Lutheran church was disestablished by Hitler in the 1930s) and Islam and number three.

German ancestor worship has been dealt with, and the atheist violence of the communists is largely a thing of the past (although a Cuban friend of mine illustrates how the half of his family that followed Fidel are doing fine, while the christians in his family are not).

Lastly, Timothy McVeigh did not have Biblical bases for his attacks, did he? What specifically in the Scriptures did he quote as rationale for how he acted?

But even if I give you McVeigh and the abortion clinic bombings, in terms of pure numbers Islam would be far ahead in the recent violence sweepstakes, and considering the actions in the Sudan, way far ahead.

As for Milosevic, while there is no excusing his behavior, remember that the only reason his side had any power was that the Croats backed Hitler.

Yes Islam is ahead right now in the sweepstakes. I don't disagree with that. But previously Christians were ahead in the sweepstakes. My question is where does it all stop? When do different religions have mutual respect for one another? When does the killing of people over religion come to a permanent end? Will the sweepstakes change hands again? Will Christians once again be ahead? Muslims would probably have a different interpretation than you and I for who is ahead in the sweepstakes.