Most of the articles I've read this morning are of the fainting-couch sort, with much decrying of WikiLeaks' latest releases, consisting of embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables. MEH, I say; there's nothing there we didn't know or surmise. That Obama is a two-faced man with as much disregard for foreign leaders as he has for American citizens? Who knew?
Dan Collins is raking some Wiki Leaves, if you're interested.
So, instead of completely mesmerizing myself in teh Wiki, I found this little piece of rot nestled amongst the rest of the turds on the front page of the New York Times.
The NYT's unnamed editor flushes out another editorial, a piece mostly designed as red meat for their far-Left readership: "Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma"...
For a few days this month, it was illegal in Oklahoma for a state judge to base a court decision on Islamic religious law or consider any form of international law. It was a manufactured problem; the issue has never come up in the state’s courts. But more than 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma still approved a state constitutional amendment to that effect, apparently persuaded by anti-Islamic activists, and a few cynical politicians, that Oklahoma was about to be brought under Islam’s heel. ...Oh! still crying over the butt-hurt in November, these Leftists, hoping to find an 'easy target' on whom to blame their losses: fear-mongering haters, scaring up all these Republican voters! We will editorialize them to THE BITTER END!
It is fear-mongering, of course, and all too successful. As James McKinley Jr. recently reported in The Times, the issue helped drive the high Republican turnout at the polls in Oklahoma.
That, combined with the national Republican wave, helped give the party veto-proof control of the Legislature and a Republican governor for the first time. Now Republicans in several other states are talking about similar measures. Muslim leaders in Oklahoma say they are getting more hate mail.
It’s bad enough that in its hatred the state amendment singles out a religion’s law for condemnation, in violation of the nation’s Constitution. Or that it forbids a longstanding practice of mentioning the laws of other nations in a legal ruling. It is not even clear what the implications might be if the courts allowed this measure.
No one noticed the Christmas Tree Bomber in Oregon, that fellow who was a Beserker Baptist, right? Oh, his name was Mohamed (Mohammed’s Child) Mohamud, you say? Bad timing, NYT; should've held this editorial for a couple weeks longer.
This comment, from a regular New York Times Reader who is Leftist...
Demagogues couldn't mislead American voters if the voters would seek out information from various sources, better evaluate the information, remember American and world history, and, most important, devote serious time and energy to becoming well-informed, thoughtful citizens. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen." Until it does, American voters, will likely follow any instigator or fanatic or cynic who catches their fancy.That's funny, Cordelia28 from Astoria Oregon, considering it's likely that you voted for Obama, a man who rode in on "HOPE" and "CHANGE" and little else of substance; a man who rode the fanatical cynicism for the policies of and the sponsored hatreds for George Bush. Aren't you proud, today, that BHO is your prezzidint? Are you one of the 38% who still approve without qualification?
This Oklahoma law is preemptively stalling what we see happening in European countries, including (the formerly) Great Britain. I suppose American liberals, mostly atheists, feel that since they've managed to throttle Christianity that there's no other religion that they can't bring to heel, that all religions are as easily subdued as Christianity.
That's not the case, really. Look to European countries, as you do for your economic revelations, for examples of Shariah Law's pernicious tendrils in their societies; and look at the harm the (lack of) integration has wrought from Great Britain to France to Spain.
Best we keep this law intact. If it'll make you feel better, consider it another sprout of the 'Separation of Church and State' doctrine you hold in such high regard.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Have a comment? Not a liar or a griefer, a spammer or a foul internet troll?
Feel free to comment, then.
Not getting published? See the "Complaints" tab. All comments to this blog are reviewed before being published, on my schedule.
And I am very busy.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.