Wednesday, August 31, 2011

CAIR is NOT the amusement park !!!

Yesterday, there was a Muslim riot at Playland in Rye, New York. Who was behind it? Two radicalized, pro-shariah organizations--CAIR and the Muslim American Society (MAS)--which orchestrated the confrontation and is now busily generating publicity that casts their members as victims.

It seems that Muslims converged on the park to celebrate the end of Ramadan, and then a few Muslim women got into an argument with ride operators over a safety rule. This escalated into what CAIR is calling a blatant example of discrimination and abuse of power.

It actually involved Muslims punching and spitting on park employees and cops, and it resulted in two injured park rangers and 15 arrests (including two felony charges).

Some of the rides (and this is standard at amusement parks) have restrictions in place to ensure passenger safety.

Often, roller coasters have height requirements, and these aren't suspended when the Little People Club of North America goes to Six Flags.

If you wear glasses, you're also supposed to remove them on a lot of rides. Is that fair to the near-sighted? Or: does the person sitting in the car behind a myopic passenger have the "right" to enjoy the ride without getting whacked in the face when bifocals become projectiles?

According to the parks director, "parks officials “painstakingly” told the organizer about the headgear ban, said (Peter)Tartaglia. But he said that the rules might not have been communicated by the organizer to some attendees."

I doubt that.  I would bet a thousand dollars that when Mr. Tartaglia's staff went over these rules with MAS organizers, their ears pricked up: A gift from God! Another opportunity to force a non-Muslim entity to comply with shariah ! How sweet is that?

Further, I bet another thousand dollars that MAS conveyed this information to their members and told them how to find opportunities to exploit this.

Here's why this is NOT an example of bias: Muslim men not wearing headgear WERE allowed on the ride. So were Muslim women who were not wearing hijab. So obviously this is not about Muslims.

The majority of Muslim women in the US do NOT wear hijab. You never think about that because they blend in with everyone else. Hijab is, as I've stated before, a political tool and is not mandated by the Qur'an.

As for the idea that Muslimas wear hijab out of modesty and because they want to be appreciated for their "minds" and not their physical appearance, what's with the trend of the fancy hijabs with all the bling? How are you not calling attention to yourself by calling attention to yourself? Take a look at the video of the park incident....these fancy-schmancy hijabs are not about keeping a low profile, they're about proclaiming an affiliation with militant Islam, demanding special treatment, and then, when told they have to follow the same rules as everyone else, screaming BIAS !!!!!

Examples of so-called "islamophobia" are so difficult to find, they have to be fabricated. This is one of those times. This was a set-up from the beginning, and the police responded the way they were expected to, which just "proved" that Muslims were being picked on.

This is significant: "A park cashier told a Journal News reporter that a woman wearing a hijab either pushed or hit a ride operator who forbade her from going on the ride. She said a police officer tried to restrain the woman and the woman’s husband took offense, at which point a multiple-person fight broke out."

Note that even though the aggressor, according to the witness, was a hijab-wearing woman, the husband took offense at a response from a cop, who was more than likely male. This is also part of CAIR's shariah-in-the-public sector initiative: they say so on their own website, where you can download "guides" for law enforcement, healthcare workers, school personnel, and employers.

All of those entities are supposed to be educated about Islam so that they don't cause offense, which means they have to comply with, for instance, gender-segregation rules. A male cop is NEVER supposed to touch a Muslim female, and a female cop is NEVER supposed to lay a finger on a male Muslim. That's ridiculous--police are never supposed to detain a person of the opposite sex if they might be Muslim?

In this case, MAS and CAIR knew that hijab-wearing women would be the perfect test of park policy: when the park enforced the rules, the women would become victims, even if this meant they had to physically assault park employees in order to force a confrontation. And then, no matter how the employee responded, it would be WRONG. The employee could either allow him/herself to be punched, the employee could fight back (anti-Muslim battery),the employee could rely on the cops (who would respond inappropriately by violating shariah and restraining a woman)....or the park could modify its rules to say, "No headgear allowed on rides, except for Muslim women who are to be treated with kid gloves and allowed to do anything they want."

Discrimination, whether it's FOR or AGAINST a group, is still discrimination.

I really hate that CAIR is always the spokes-organization for Muslims. The media, without fail, seeks their input whenever any Muslim-related story appears in the news. But even someone who is not schooled in Islamic culture, or who only has a general understanding of Muslim beliefs, should be able to recognize CAIR for what it is: radical, fundamentalist, political, and extreme.

This is as if the mainstream news organizations, like the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times, only solicited opinions involving black social issues from the Black Panthers. Never the NAACP, never leaders of more specific organizations that actually do have insight into whatever issue comes up. If the American public were told, over and over again, that the Black Panthers is the only group that represents black Americans, and that their opinion is the only opinion that counts, that would convey a very narrow and subjective view of black concerns.

Yet that's what the media does with CAIR.  They imbue CAIR with all this fake authority, and then CAIR gets to make up the rules. And no one questions this!

Or, actually, I have tried to point this out in Letters to the Editor, but then the paper prints rebuttals from--you guessed it, CAIR !! And they never call me out on the facts, they resort to name-calling.

CAIR's leadership has been in bed with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other nefarious groups since its inception. They've received money from questionable sources. Again and again, they've made a big deal out of "Islamohpobia" incidents which then turn out to have been perpetrated by Muslims.

And, as I said above, they issue "guides" for training non-Muslims how to observe shariah. That's what happened at the amusement park, and it's happening all over the country.

A number of years ago, long before 9/11, the local paper carried a story about the park district's emerging problem with Muslim women at the swimming pool.  The park had a rule that insisted on swimwear for anyone at the pool, and it also required anyone entering the pool area to shower and walk through a foot bath. This is standard. It's a public health issue. You can't march in off the street and jump into a swimming pool, and you can't walk around poolside wearing street shoes that have just tromped through who knows what.

Several Muslim women banded together and pressured the park supervisor to suspend these rules for them because they thought it was unfair to deny them access on the basis of their religion...they wanted to enter the pool area fully clothed. But the rules weren't religiously-based. They had no intention of swimming--they had children who were in the pool--and they wanted to hang out and socialize with each other while their kids swam. 

Adults are supposed to accompany children at pools, but they're supposed to be supervising their kids IN the pool, not observing them from the general area.

If this sort of rule is so unimportant, why have any restriction around the pool at all? Why not let dogs hop in and swim with their owners--a lot of Newfoundlands would love it. 

I wrote a letter to the paper defending the park supervisor, and I got hate mail accusing me of bigotry. I also got a phone call from the supervisor thanking me for sticking up for him. 

He told me that the paper had reported on only the tip of the iceburg. In fact, this group of women had bullied their way into the pool area and had taken it upon themselves to openly criticize women who, in their opinion, were NOT appropriately attired. In other words, women who were in swimming suits. Women who came to the pool to swim felt intimidated and harrassed, but when they complained about non-swimmers making their day at the pool an ordeal, they, too, were called "bigots." 

That's probably the way this incident will play out, too.  The amusement park will probably be forced to back down, otherwise they'll be perceived as being mean and intolerant.

It will take an accident or an injury to change that, but it probably won't result in rteinstating the no-headgear rule. It will probably result in a bug lawsuit and shuttering the park for good.

And that will be a victory for CAIR, too--because, like the Ayatollah Khomeini said, "There is no fun in Islam!"

Monday, August 8, 2011

Anders Breivik's Religion: Fundamentalist Christian Secular Agnosticism

Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik is the new poster boy for Christian terrorism.  Thus far our generation has had to pretty much make do with agnostic-but-had-a-Catholic-family Tim McVeigh. But in the post-9/11 world, the balance was so unfair to Islamic terrorists, who struck more than 17,000 times. 

LUCKILY, Breivik issued a manifesto in which he described himself as "Christian". What a relief! Now we can talk about the Norway attacks every time a jihadi makes an attempt on civilian lives.

[In fact, within a week of Breivik's heinous killing spree, a young Muslim soldier who had gone AWOL was arrested near Fort Hood before he could carry out a murderous rampage. Naser Jason Abdo's plan was to detonate explosions at area restaurants frequented by soldiers and their families, and then to machinegun anyone who survived the blasts.

Abdo had won the right to be a conscientious objector because he refused to fight against Muslims. In all the publicity surrounding that campaign last year, he even said, "I just want Americans to know we're not all terrorists." Famous last words!

This, following the more successful "statement" of Fort Hood jihadi and US Army major Nidal Hasan, as well as two other jihadi attacks involving American military personnel, should probably alert the military to the possibility that Muslim soldiers, by definition, are more of a threat than any other enlistees with any other ideologies.]

But now we have Breivik, who calls himself a Crusader. You can't get more Christian than that!

Well, you can.  Because it turns out the Breivik, unlike most of the fundamentalists I know who are often found singing in the choir on Sunday and who can quote Scripture for practically any occasion, Breivik's definition of Christianity DOES NOT INVOLVE A BELIEF IN GOD OR A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS. 

He states, several times, that belief in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is unnecessary. (Although he does admit that some people may find such beliefs a comforting "emotional crutch.") He says he personally has no raltionship with Jesus Christ and no belief in the Trinity.

He believes that science ALWAYS trumps faith, and that the Bible isn't all that big a deal--it's just another crutch.  

He does, however, love getting Christmas presents and sees nothing wrong with that. 

He goes on to explain the difference between a benign "cultural Christianity" which would allow Easter dinner, Christmas gifts and carols, and lighting Christmas trees, versus actual belief in the Trinity and any sort of practice (attending church, for instance). The former is fun, the latter is not important, but as long as its influence is limited, probably not harmful. 

Western Europe has been going down this road for years. Most Europeans identify as either Catholic or Protestant, but they don't practice except when they're christened, married and buried. Central/Eastern Europeans tend to be more observant, partly because the Church was  persecuted for generations and this intensified the determination of the faithful.

In the US, Christmas has become largely secular, and we have had this debate in my own house. My sons maintain that exchanging gifts and lighting the tree is fun and an important tradition, but they reject Catholicism. They don't think our traditions have any connection to our beliefs. This despite the fact that the traditions as we've practiced them--lighting the advent candles, attending mass, setting up the manger, reading the birth narrative of Jesus, and the non-meat Polish Christmas Eve feast with my in-laws--have all been distinctly focused on Christ.

I think "secular" Christians who light the tree and exchange gifts without any context may continue to do so for any number of years, but I also think they will one day stop and say, "Wait--WHY are we doing this?" I don't think they'll sustain those traditions if they're totally meaningless. To say that everyone else on the block is doing it won't cut it.

So Breivik was one of those guys--an agnostic who nonetheless did not want to be cut out of all the holiday cheer.

In other words, an agnostic who didn't have the backbone to actually make a break from Christianity.

Breivik does go into some detail in his manifesto regarding Christian culture, as he calls it. It's because he doesn't have another ideological tag for what he sees as a pan-European culture that is not Marxist or Muslim--two ideolgies that are collectivist and dedicated to eliminating individualism. He also likes the history of Christianity, regarding the Crusades, which he sees as a great real-life video game (he was addicted to World of Warcraft and Call of Duty, really violent games). The Crusades, in Breivik's mind, involved good versus evil, the way his video games do.

When he went on his killing spree at the youth camp, he crossed the line from playing video games in his mom's basement to acting them out with live ammo. But in video games, your opponants are also armed and can kill you off at any level. He not only had a psychological break that put him in "game mode" with real weapons against an unarmed, unaware target, he was CHEATING.

One big difference between devout Muslim jihadis and Breivik is that jihadis ARE well-versed in the tenets of their faith, they DO know the Qur'an, and they DO take seriously the Prophet Mohammad's injunction "to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." They're not "cultural Muslims" who enjoy a nice lamb kebab on their main holiday, Eid. Not only that, but they also have imams who describe jihadi warriors as heroes and martyrs. I haven't --yet--heard any Christian leaders celebrating the Norway attack.

It's not surprising that Breivik's description of what he calls Christianity is so far from what practicing Christians actually believe. He is totally ignorant of the Bible, the tenets of the faith, and the foundation of all those traditions he is loathe to give up--like his Christmas bonus and a paid day off.

It's also not surprising that you will not hear any of this in all the news reports about Breivik, in print or on the air. Painting Breivik a Christian, even though he really isn't one, serves a very important purpose: it silences people who dare to speak the truth about the Islamist agenda.