Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Rahman update

This is not good news. Once again, Muslim clerics, both in Afghanistan and abroad, who oppose this understanding of Islamic law have to step up to the plate.

I’m torn, wondering what would have happened if the Bush Administration had been able to resolve this quietly and diplomatically, thereby postponing what I hope would be an inevitable showdown between Karzai and the conservatives.

Discussions - 18 Comments

I go to that Washington Times article and the large ad over to the right side for "conservative t-shirts" (really?) has a woman modeling a shirt that says "Imagine No Liberals." So, the fundamentalist Muslims want to execute a Christian, and the fundamentalist Right (which overlaps heavily with fundamentalist Christians) fantasizes about a world with no liberals. Remember when Ann Coulter said, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, that "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." And let the record show that the woman who doesn’t think women should be allowed to vote (can you say American Taliban or, maybe, Manliness?) has received kudos and THREE mugs from blog contributor Mr. Schramm. Depressing situations, whether I look far or near.

It’s one thing to joke about "executing" liberals; it is another to insist on executing those who disagree with you. Liberals and conservatives alike need to unite in prayer for this man, who may indeed end up a martyr for his faith. The "religion of peace" craves martyrdom that sends a message of terror; the religion of Christ endures martyrdom to preserve the message of God’s love. Will the West ever acknowledge what is going on here?

Hey Frank, its a joke, lighten up. Trying to draw equivalence between Coulter and the Taliban is silly.

Frank, we aren’t suggesting we kill the liberals, we ARE suggesting that life might be better if there were no liberals.

Now, I don’t truly subscribe to such a notion, but the fact is that the conservatives in America are NOT going to kill you if you are a liberal.

By the way, hyperbole and bombastic rhetoric is one thing, but when was the last time anyone was put on trial for their political views?

....

...

That’s what I thought!

Well, putting aside the fact that Coulter has said she was serious (on Hannity and Colmes) about the executing-liberals remark, I don’t see how it’s a joke. Right, I don’t like most conservative ideas or policies, and often don’t like hardcore conservatives personally, but if I suggested that we start executing them, I don’t see where the joke would be - unless it’s simply humor a notch or two below "Beavis & Butthead."

For those who missed the subtlety, I wasn’t saying that Ann Coulter and her suggestions are exactly the same as what the Taliban are doing/have done, or as bad as what the Afghani court may do to the Christian convert. If we set up the Taliban & Afghani court examples as 10s on a 1-10 scale of frightening destructions of basic rights and freedoms, I’d still rank Coulter as a 4 or 5 going down the same dangerous path, and that seems more than bad enough, doesn’t it? Coulter is very popular, and not exactly shunned by the Bush/Cheney administration (Cheney & Coulter both spoke at this year’s CPAC)

TexasDude, I’m not clear on what you meant in comment 4. WHAT DON’T you subscribe to, exactly? That life might be better if there were no liberals OR that conservatives are not going to kill someone who is a liberal? The way you wrote that, it reads like the latter. Some clarification would help there.

TexasDude,



I’m not giving any support to Frank’s arguments or anything like that. But I do think that there have been some Americans who have been put on trial for their politically views in the history of our country (thankfully, not recently . . .).



The only specific case that I can speak with any authority about is that of Richard T. Ely. He was a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was put before the Board of Regents to be tried with indoctrinating his students (which there was absolutely no evidence of). In the opinions of most historians, this was a tactic used to get Ely (who was a well-known Hegelian and a huge lover of the Administrative State) kicked out of the university.



While you may argue that that’s not really what you meant (if you meant a trial in a United States Court), I would certainly suggest that even this type of trial is ridiculous and absolutely absurd in a country where political toleration is allowed (usually).



Of course, I’m not saying that the indoctrination of students (when such a claim can be justified) is okay. Or that this academic trial is, at all, anything like what’s happening in other countries. I’m just trying to point out that a man’s political beliefs have certainly been used in the past to unfairly jeapordize his good name (and I’m sure that there are many, many conservative professors who would agree with me on this point).



That’s just a little bit of what I think . . . take it for what it’s worth . . .

"Frank, we aren’t suggesting we kill the liberals, we ARE suggesting that life might be better if there were no liberals."

Oh yeah, that’s as clear as mud. Sorta sounds like a speech from "Hitler: The Early Years" regarding the Jews. Exactly how can such a "suggestion" be useful, constructive, helpful, humorous or anything worthwhile?

Frank, there wasn’t any subtlety in your initial post on this thread.

The thread was about the very real possible execution of a former Muslim who converted to Christianity. You then compared the Islamic Fundamentalists with the fundamentalist right and the Christian fundamentalists. Right after that you mention Ann Coulter’s statement about an American, John Walker Lindh aka the American Taliban, who went over to Afghanistan to fight against us. The last thing you do is state that both situations are depressing.

No, no subtlety at all.

Did Coulter truly say that we should execute liberals?

Aside from being red meat, that quote was about the travesty of justice that was done when even a person who goes to fight for the other side in a war can not be convicted of treason and executed for the same. She also, in the same quote, compares liberals to being closeted traitors who aren’t willing to out themselves like the American Taliban did.

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.” – Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb 2, 2002

Here’s an excerpt from a column of hers in 2001 that touches the subject to a degree ...

’He became a Muslim and ended up fighting with the Taliban against America. (Maybe this conflict does have something to do with Islam.) While studying at an Islamic school in Pakistan, he said he met "many people connected with the Taliban" and his "heart became attached to that." The Taliban may execute people for sport, blow up thousand-year-old Buddhist statues, treat women like goats (and vice versa) – but at least they aren’t sneaky Luciferian Masons!’ - Ann Coulter, When Johnny Comes Slinking Home, Frontpage Magazine, December 13, 2001

In that column, she also makes it clear that the American Taliban came from a liberal household and that, in the end, he, too was liberal. You could argue that she was trying to demonstrate that the liberals are not the tolerant people that they claim to be.

Yes, Matt, I meant in a US court, but I suppose you can mean it in a figeratively way, in which then a lot of Americans, (conservatives, liberals, and other) have been put on trial for their respective views.

Anyway, I don’t support the view that the world would be a better place without liberals and I don’t support the view that conservatives are going to kill liberals or even want to.

Here is a take that sums my attitude up rather nicely. Assuming you care:-)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/no-tolerance-for-islam_b_17807.html

"I do not believe violence is the answer. Wars are sometimes, though very infrequently, the only viable solution." Huffington

Huh? Only non-violent wars? Oye.

"How are you supposed to have a conversation with people this irrational? Chipping away at their madness is hopeless.... There must be an open dialogue about whether religion makes sense." Huffington

So we’re to have a dialogue without a conversation?...Got it.

Huffington can go to hell.

Just kidding Coughlan, don’t you get it? Huffington can go to hell? Huffington doesn’t believe hell exists?...never mind.

Brian,

Apparently, Huffington, you and I agree on more than we would care to admit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we all agree that there are times when "live and let live" could be practiced but an individual or a group choose not to practice "live and let live," who instead choose to impose his/her/their will on others unnecessarily, because of his/her/their religion or lack of religion. I also think we agree that such individuals and groups should be neutralized. We all agree that the use of violence to neutralize these individuals and groups should be a last resort.

The only thing we disagree on, perhaps, is the point at which we reach the last resort.

hey no worries, I think it was just one of afghanistan’s new ’faith-based initiatives’

The only thing we disagree on, perhaps, is the point at which we reach the last resort.


By golly, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.


If I really believed we were in a life and death struggle for a secular world versus a fascist theocratic freakshow, I’d be the first to wheel out the nukes. Well, maybe not the nukes, but a shooting war? Sure.


I just think that the EU/US having 60% of global wealth, and 75% of global weapons proves thats codswallop.


An analogy. The white south africans had probably 80% of the wealth and 95% of the weapons. Yet they recognised that their position of strength was at the expense of others, and they took a radical and courageous decision, to put themselves at risk for the good of others.


Thats what we have to do. We have to allow the developing world unfettered access to our markets, in some cases even allowing them to keep some barriers while we drop ours.


If they say they are not building nuclear weapons, and we cannot prove categorically that they are, we need to take them at their word and run the same risks that everyone has done since the first atomic test.


We need to identify the parts of the world most desperatly in need of help, and stump up the cash.


We need to pursue terrorism through the legal system, and ensure that the system has the laws and structures to work, and that we all are subject to it.

Terrorism thru legal system ...

Yep, that’s the ticket.

While we are at, let’s reconstruct the United States wall betwenn the military and law enforcement so that no intel shall be shareed.

Yep, that worked well ... didn’t it?

The only thing we disagree on, perhaps, is the point at which we reach the last resort.
By golly, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Comment by me.


If I really believed we were in a life and death struggle for a secular world versus a fascist theocratic freakshow, I’d be the first to wheel out the nukes. Well, maybe not the nukes, but a shooting war? Sure. Comment 16 by Brian Coughlan

Therein lies our disagreement. Texas Dude and I, and a few others, believe we will have reached the last resort with Iran long before you do, Brian. We also believe the risk of death to a greater number of people exists if we take the approach you suggest. I would much rather you say to me "I told you so" than for me to say to you "I told you so." If I have to say it to you, there won’t be an Israel.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8303