Response to commenter Funk Soul Bruhva

Submitted by J.D. (United States), Feb 1, 2005 at 15:40

please read my last post: "Response to 'Illegal'", for an explanation of why the actions described are NOT illegal. Too many people come to this site and vent their unabashed bigotry. If any of the things being said here about "Islam" were said about Judaism, they would instantly be decried as "anti-semitic",... When did diatribes and faulty conclusions replace academics and scholarship? where is the outrage? People bash the ACLU for their stances, but at least they represent all parties equally whenever civil liberties are at stake, even if they might not agree with what is being done. they even represented members of the KKK in NY in court when they were challenging a restriction on their free expression, despite SURELY disagreeing with their views. ...

... If this is posted, then I applaud Mr. Pipes for at least allowing discussion of various points of view, ...

In response to the comment of "Treasonous":
first and foremost, i highly doubt your statement, pasted below:

"I have read the quran and hadith..."

That is quite an assertion. Do you know how many hadith COLLECTIONS there are, not to mention how many hadith are in each collection? which ones did you read? what verses of the quran did you read? just the ones in listed in articles, or did you read it for yourself, in context? that is quite a feat, to read all of those materials, especially for someone who seems to hate the topic so much.

Second:
"Is not the teaching of any religion in schools unconstitutional or at least illegal?"

this is not true, unless the STATE has a general law against all teaching about religion. Read my previous post for information. also, the article by Pipes did not say that the school was teaching religion, it said that the students were to take measures to get it talked about. that is very different from the teachers and school board teaching the material.

Finally:

"Actually, I prefer they ban fundamentalist Islam completely, as it is a frontal attack on our Constitution..."

Since you obviously have not read our Constitution nearly as closely as you claim to have read all Islamic doctrines, as evidenced from your comments reprinted above under "Second", I wonder how you are possibly qualified to make such a brazen assertion. I also wonder, since you are so ready to talk authoritatively on one topic about which you are uneducated, how many other topics do you treat similarly? Is this a common M.O. for you? it really undermines your authority to speak on other topics. How can i take anything you say seriously if i have to check every statement for accuracy?

I hope that my comments are posted on this site, in spite of my difference of opinion with Mr. Pipes and many of the people on this site. I want to stimulate meaningful debate and bring competing viewpoints to the discussion, in the true spirit of the First Amendment and the founders' ideas of free speech and informed debate.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".