Distressing Dearborn

I’d heard some various things about Dearborn Michigan and Islam. Generally ignored them. There’s always somebody grumpy at somebody else.

Yet IF the assertions in this story are correct, it is a distressing turn of events. My take on things is that you have a Christian group deliberately “getting in the face” of Muslims (at their Mosques and at various meetings) and being a PITA. (EVEN if just ‘exercising their rights’ to talk and hand out materials. I’d not want an Islamic Brigade Of Believers greeting me outside my Church each sunday…) BUT, further down in the story, the tactics being used against them look rather like entrapment and selective enforcement.

Yes, there is a fundamental conflict between evangelical Christianity and Islam (as BOTH assert a need to convert / proselytize to others and Islam is intolerant of such speech and freedom). Yet to have the power of the legal structures asymmetrically employed is a great evil. I’ll just quote a couple of bits. You can read more at the link:


Later that day, we began hearing horror stories of Christians whose rights had been violated. The Muslim security guards (one of whom had “Hezbollah” tattooed down his arm) were using the no-distribution rule to harass and persecute certain Christians. Instead of merely stopping these Christians from distributing items, security guards were entrapping Christians who weren’t distributing anything but were only attempting to evangelize. Again and again, a plain-clothes security guard would walk up to a Christian and say, “Hey, I see you’ve got a pocket Bible. Can I see it? I want to look something up.” Then, as soon as the Christian attempted to hand the Bible over, security would take a picture and escort the Christian to police for violating festival rules. Thus, Muslim security guards were getting Christians into trouble for breaking the rules, even when Christians weren’t breaking the rules. The goal was to keep certain Christian evangelists from witnessing to Muslims. (Note: This even happened to me at the festival. I had a pamphlet in my pocket, and a plain-clothes security guard asked me for it. Since I had already heard about this security guard using the same tactic to get Christians in trouble, I didn’t fall for it. When I refused, I was told that I had better not talk to anyone about Christianity. These were the sorts of things leading up to our encounter with security.)

After finishing our debates on Sunday, we returned for the final day of the festival. We were disturbed when we again noticed an inconsistency. Christians were being targeted and harassed for evangelizing, yet Muslims were free to distribute t-shirts with a boy peeing on an Israeli flag.

This part sounds a bit paranoid, yet ‘names names’ and has non-members of their organization listed as observers and there is video confirmation for some of it:

When festival security guards (who had been embarrassed by our YouTube video demonstrating their thug tactics) realized we had returned to the festival, they began conspiring to have us kicked out. Leading the conspiracy was the Arab Chamber of Commerce’s Norma Haidous, the Muslim woman who had assaulted Mary Jo at last year’s festival (and one of the three individuals police had assured us would be banned from the festival). How do we know about the plot? Security revealed their plan to an Arab Christian, whom they mistakenly thought was a Muslim (due to his Arab garb). This Arab Christian later informed us of the plot against us. Additionally, a New York police sergeant who was visiting the festival overheard the plotting of festival security, and he also informed us of what was going on. Indeed, the New York police sergeant even contacted Dearborn Police Sergeant Mrowka to let him know that security was attempting to set us up. Sergeant Mrowka, however, refused to intervene. (Sergeant Mrowka later gave the order to arrest us. Was he in on the plot from the beginning?)

The double standards at the festival were quite disturbing. Officially, people were only free to distribute materials at their booths. However, since Muslim security guards were in charge of enforcing this rule, it was applied selectively. As we walked through the festival, we saw numerous people distributing items outside of booths. Yet, if a Christian (assuming he hadn’t earned the favor of the Arab Chamber of Commerce) were to hand out a tract or pamphlet, he would be harassed, bullied, and taken to police.

and further down:

According to Dearborn Mayor John O’Reilly, police ordered us to break up our conversation, but we refused. We also deliberately blocked a tent exit in order to cause a scene. These were supposedly the reasons for our arrest. These are interesting claims, since Mayor O’Reilly watched the video footage of our arrests, and since the video footage proves that the mayor’s claims are false. I asked police if we should move, and they said, “No, you’re fine.” I don’t speak Dearbornese, so I didn’t realize that “You’re fine” means “Leave now or we’ll arrest you.”

As there is video to one effect, and police claims to the opposite (despite their police statements on video to the contrary) something doesn’t add up.


It seems that holding a camera in Dearborn is unofficially illegal. That’s the only possible justification for having Paul and me arrested, since we were simply holding video cameras. Later, of course, the Mayor realized that there are no laws on the books against filming a dialogue, so he had to invent a story about me blocking a tent entrance in order to justify my arrest. But those pesky video cameras of ours just don’t lie.

It goes on and gets a bit worse from there. One interesting note for completion is this:

Following our acquittals in Dearborn, Mayor John O’Reilly continued his barrage of false accusations against us. I responded to some of the mayor’s deliberate misrepresentations of our views:

So some part of the process worked as an acquittal happened.

I also have to admit that I fell into the group who was dismissive of the “Sharia in Dearborn” claim as it just is NOT under Sharia Law… yet I find the following description of the failure to make a distinction between being ruled by Sharia vs. having partial application of Sharia; well, it exactly describes the error I made:

As is always the case, it’s easy to misinterpret things when one hasn’t carefully examined the facts. This happened when political candidate Sharron Angle claimed that Dearborn is under Sharia law. Due to this claim, Angle was repeatedly ridiculed by the media. To clear up the misunderstanding, consider the difference between the following claims:

CLAIM #1: Dearborn is under Sharia.
CLAIM #2: Someone enforced Sharia in Dearborn.

The first claim suggests that the city is officially governed by Sharia. The second simply claims that someone carried out some tenet of Islamic law. For instance, if someone in Dearborn steals a radio, and, in accordance with Islamic law, a Muslim chops off his hand, I would say that someone enforced Sharia in Dearborn.

As we have repeatedly stated on our blog, we are claiming that someone has enforced Sharia in Dearborn. When I find that I am not free to distribute materials outside of a booth, while numerous Muslims are free to distribute materials outside of their booths, and I learn that Muslim security guards are the ones behind this situation, I conclude that someone is implementing an element of Sharia. When Muslim security guards physically assault Christians for questioning Islam at a booth, I conclude that someone has enforced Sharia. When Christians get arrested while having a peaceful discussion with Muslims (and the Muslims don’t get arrested), I conclude that someone has enforced Sharia. Does this mean that the entire city is governed by Sharia, or that the city has seceded from the United States? Not at all. It seems that many of our critics believe that there are only two possibilities: Either (1) a city is completely, totally, utterly governed by Sharia, or (2) Sharia has no impact at all. These alternatives, however, are incomplete. A third alternative is that Sharia has a limited impact in the city, and I would say that this is the case in Dearborn.

In Conclusion

Clearly Dearborn is going to be the “test case” for Islam taking over a community, expelling competing views, dominating the legal structures, and eventually implementing Sharia. Don’t know if it will take a year, a decade, or a century, but that is the direction of the process. It will bear watching.

I came to that “summary of events” posting from this link:


Sharia Judge Michael J. Callahan Nullifies the Fourth Amendment Rights of Christians in Michigan
Michigan’s war against the Constitutional rights of Christians has reached its peak.

In every state in this country, with one exception, a police officer cannot seize a person or her property without probable cause (a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime).

IMHO a bit over the top. There is a broader conflict playing out in society with “Police with cameras” vs “Public with cameras” being contested in many places and venues. YOU can be told to turn off your camera by police in many venues and failure to comply results in arrest for “resisting an officer” (or their orders). Several professional news folks have been dealt with that way (including some big names). Yet YOU can not tell the police to shut off their cameras. It’s not just a Sharia vs Christians thing. Yet in this case it looks to be presented that way. (And driven by a Sharia vs Christians local causality.)

A Camera Idea

So, as I’m unlikely to do much with this camera idea, I’m going to donate another “Bright Idea” to the world. It might already be ‘out there’, but I’ve not seen one. The basic problem is that holding up your cell phone is clearly ‘filming’. The Camera itself is tiny. About the size of a small broach or tie clip. Soo….

Put a camera in a bit of jewelry, button, hat, handbag, whatever… and have it transmit via BlueTooth to the cell phone that is in a pocket. The Cell Phone is set up to immediately transmit the image to a remote computer. All the equipment can be confiscated, the video lives on… Takes some software (not a lot) and some hardware (a small camera with bluetooth built in and perhaps a built in MPEG compression chip depending on how much data bluetooth can carry) The whole thing ought to be about the size of a large “ear bud” that does the same thing for sound; though without the compression.

At that point, without a close physical inspection of every person in the area, you have no idea WHO is capturing video and who is not. (For TLAs, a scanner will pick up the signals, and for serious “issues” BlueTooth frequencies can be jammed, so major approved police operations can still be done; or I’d not share the idea…) It is just the ‘random on the street’ events that can no longer be swept under the rug via confiscation of equipment…

FWIW, I’m still agnostic on the question of “ban cameras” vs “film everything”. I can see both arguments. What I’m very much NOT agnostic on is the question of symmetry. If ONE SIDE can film, both can. If ONE SIDE can distribute materials and speak, both can. If ONE SIDE can demand banning folks from the public square both can

Or all three sides….

No Legal Solution

One thing that is quite clear, though, is that this will not be solved by the courts. There is a fundamental conflict between Islam and Western Culture as well as a conflict between Islam and Christianity (and an avowed hatred of Israel). While the folks ‘getting in the grill’ of the Arabs / Islamists in Dearborn are not being particularly “understanding”, they are acting inside classical western ideals of freedom of speech and self promotion. That Islam reacts badly and that the local courts have endorsed that bad behaviour (no doubt in the interest of avoiding conflict / promoting ‘peace’) ought to be the “news”.

As we saw in an earlier thread, “Islamic Peace” largely means “convert to Islam and we’ll leave you alone” (IMHO reading the Koran and Hadith.) As that kind of ‘peace’ is antagonistic to being a Christian, Jew, or even just believing in Western Culture (either / any of Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, or Enlightenment) the true outcome can only be non-peace (in the traditional non-Muslim meaning…). It looks to me like we have an early view of the future unfolding in Dearborn. The major question just being: Will the USA roll over and suffer “conversion for peace”, or will it recognize the antagonistic nature of these behaviours to Western Ideals.?

(Me? While I’d love to have a world where Islam has a ‘reformation’ process as did Christianity, and abandons the violent and aggressive aspects of Hadith, I do not think it possible. Christianity had ‘conversion by the sword’ early on and was very aggressive “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”… it was able to change since the Bible is a stand alone document subject to many ‘interpretations’. The Koran is pretty much locked in stone, with the Hadith a bit more variable, but also pretty much fixed at the known quotes. Reading them, there is nearly no room to moderate the virulent and aggressive, violent and fundamentally asymmetrical nature of Islam. So I very reluctantly conclude that the best that can be achieved is “separated and respectful”, as any attempt at an ‘integrated and accepting’ mixing will instead result in The Lebanon Process…)

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events, Religion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Distressing Dearborn

  1. E.M. Smith,

    Are not dangerous conflicts between

    a.) Different scientific conclusions,
    a.) Different religions, and
    b.) Science and religion

    Selfish expressions of deep-seated insecurities, like the seven deadly sins (pride, anger, etc.) ?

    I may not be able to communicate it, but I am now firmly convinced that the physical universe described by the best available experimental data and observations [1] can be reconciled with different religions and different images of God.


    [1] Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron J. 19, 123-150 (2012)

    Click to access V19N2MAN.pdf

  2. EM – I’ve seen pen cameras for sale, though the BlueTooth version is probably not easily available. The pen camera would be less likely to be noticed, though, and somewhat better than the hidden camera in a handbag I’ve seen some undercover reporters use.

    The ethical issue of whether photography or video is allowed by one side or another has probably been overtaken by technology – it’s possible so it’s going to happen. Much the same as having an eyewitness, but without the forgetfulness. Still, there’s a lot of things you can do with a video editor. One other point that comes up there, though, is the two sides – police and public. Three if you say Christians, Muslims and police, or four, five…. It does seem to be getting confrontational.

    Any evangelical point of view can be a PITA, and it does seem to me that the shakier the logical basis the more people are in your face wanting you to convert. Something about “if more people say they believe it then I’ll feel more secure” maybe. Or it could be simply a “you’re not the same as me” thing – must be some survival-value in that for it to be as strong as it is, but damned if I can see the benefit since I’ve always found a diverse set of people working together do a better job (providing they all accept the others’ differences).

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    Globalists/New World Order´s elite/zionists/reptilians or whatever, are in the process of cheating the arab world (while historically made them fight among themselves: Shias against Sunnis and vice-versa) that they would allow them a place in their NWO, so they can establish a big Califate, so they get the help of Saudis and others (a.k.a. “al qaeda”) to fight for “democracy”, while establishing Muslim-Brotherhoods everywhere…it doesn´t matter if there are some “christian casualties”. Business is OIL, then, after they fulfill their goal they will be discarded along with all religions by forming a NEW WORLD RELIGION, as anyone can read at:
    And, if there is some doubt, to visit its first Church at the UN building in NY.

  4. BobN says:

    I have been following the Dearborn issue for years and just see it growing as a sore in the side of this country. They can think and do anything they want, but when their behavior tries to subjugate the agreed laws of the land, there will be real problems. What I find very surprising is why the local police force continuously defers to the Muslims and ignores the rule of law. I believe the police force has become intimidated and to not cause open revolt they cave on legal issues. This is the first step to downfall of a society.
    One of my strongest beliefs is the Islam and Western Society are incompatible and will never coexist. With this belief, I think we should limit, if not prohibit the open immigration of those that are Muslims. The present crowd in Washington seems hell bent on bringing in Muslims as the people of choice. Just look at HB1388 that just passed. Congress approved 20 million to bring in members of Hamas. Pay them to live here, free housing and transportation to a group that is on the terrorist list. They keep bringing big groups in as refugees at the tax payers expense. I think there is an agenda and that agenda is to make the US a Muslim country. Call me crazy.

  5. Petrossa says:

    Conclusion: Religion in general causes strife. Time to let go of the anachronism and strike freedom of religion from the constitution, that way everybody has the same protection under the law and not more protection for special groups. It’s discriminatory.
    Religion behind the front door and in the prayerhouses. Nowhere else. Works fine in France since 1904, when the law for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 was written.

  6. jim2 says:

    Whether or not the Dearborn issue has been accurately portrayed, as citizens of the United States, we need to get back to and enforce the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That will thwart ANY religion taking over the government. And we should enforce it with deadly force, if necessary.

  7. David says:

    Re BobN says

    Well, I cannot call you crazy, but I would like a link in regard to millions of dollars going to the cost of importing members of Hamas.

  8. David says:

    Petrossa, everybody does have equal protection, and striking fredom of religion would not engender equall protection of individual liberty. Beyond that religion is not the cause of problems, human nature is. As witness I point to the twentieth century, full of non-religious agnostic/atheist political ideolgy, and the many million innocent victims of deeath by non religious statist governments. It is the dark side of human nature, active in both religious totalitarian violence, and non religious totalitarian violence, which is responsible for discord and genocide.

  9. jim2 says:

    I don’t see why those opposing the Islamists can’t take the same route taken by atheists – take them to court for violation of the separation of church and state.

  10. Pascvaks says:

    Imagine if all the Irish had stayed in Boston (or NYC;-), or all the Vietnamese and Mong had been sent to NOLA, and all the Muslims to Dearborn, and all the Chinese to San Francisco, and all the Native Americans to Oklahoma City, and all the Poles to Chicago, and all the Greeks to Laramie, and all the atheists to Hollywood, and all the Mormons to Mexico City… geeeeesh.. what a mess of a revolting development that would be!!

    People are soft-skinned and confrontational, I know it sounds stupid but it seems to be true.

    National policies only well address national issues, when they fail things explode, when they step into areas they are not meant to address things (aka ‘people’) also explode.

    Police are like people, soft-skinned and confrontational. Police policies only well address local issues, when they fail things explode, when they step into areas they are not meant to address things (aka ‘people’) also explode.

    Religious fanatics are a little like people, they look like people, but they are super confrontational, have no skin to speak of, and explode at the flick of a switch (or for no real reason at all, or less). Avoid at all costs! (Regardless of faith, all religious fanatics are deadly dangerous to ‘normal’ people.)

    Matters of faith are between a real people and their god or whatever(s).

    In public, matters of faith are called “politics”.

    In politics the majority rules, usually.

    In life, when the majority doesn’t get its way people get hurt.

    People move around. That’s good!

    People mix and blend. That’s very good!

    People learn from other people. That’s fantastic!

    PS: There’s a religious or political or economic or social fanatic born every minute. That’s not good. While they may have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these were life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, it really doesn’t matter once they get out into the real world if they start acting like a idiot bastard at a family reunion. Remember the Golden Rule, everyone else does, Dearborn will get as good and as bad as it gives.

    (There really ought to be a way of keeping the idiot rabble rousers out of towns; no doubt Dearborn is toast –probably sooner than later.)

  11. jim2 says:

    This problem fits into the larger problem of immigration – legal and illegal. IMO, we need to cut off all illegal immigration to the extent possible. Then we need to be picky about legal immigrants. In the case of Muslims, they should have to supply their family tree back to great grand parents, a list of friends, and their Mulla. The submit a DNA sample and have the CIA do a thorough investigation into the truth of it all. If there are any links to militant Islamists, don’t let them in.

  12. Petrossa says:


    I beg to differ with you.
    Religion is THE most powerful catalyst of evil. It directly calls upon primal instincts and can be used to make people do horrendous things as exemplified by history.

    Perhaps they’d do those things also without religion, but that would be much harder to organize. The best example everyone uses is nazism. Which is a bad example because the most evil things were done by relatively a few people. Not by hordes as with religion by a simple call to action.

    Here in Europe we are way ahead of these skirmishes like Dearborn. Factual physical repression is taking place. Entire neighborhoods are completely under sharia. You enter those as a female dressed casually you’ll be attacked.
    For police it’s a nogo area.
    If the freedom of religion is stricken those kind of people can no longer appeal to freedom of religion to impose their worldview on others and are no longer protected from the secular law as they are now.

    What happens is as soon as they get into court for a religion related crime (which is a rare thing in itself) any lawyer worth his salt gets them off on religious grounds as long they didn’t commit murder.

    Judges here even go as far to hand out lower sentences at islamic crime gang members on the basis they come from a ‘shame culture’ so they are already punished by shame.

    This whole thing is getting seriously out of hand and all governments seem unable to come to terms with it bound by the fear of an islamic revolt.

    Intercultural fights are breaking out, where citizens who have enough take matters into their own hands, resulting in them getting very harsh sentences which in turn stokes the fire of discontent.

  13. Pascvaks says:

    More thought :
    Wouldn’t it be neat (sarcasm intended) if some Mullah, or Mufti, or Ayatollah, or other, would write up a list of about 95 things wrong with Islam today and post it on the doors to the Great Mosque (Masjid al Haram) in Mecca? Seems to me about 500 years ago a little German priest did something very much like that and shook up the Roman Church. Once they kicked Rome off of the stairway to heaven things got a whole lot friendlier toward everything and everyone. Well, it did after all the little wars were over and Kennedy got elected. Just a thought.

  14. Petrossa says:

    Unfortunately no such thing is allowed according to islam. The koran (and its blahblah around it) is the undived everlasting truth even before it was written. You are not allowed to question any part of it. There is neat circular reasoning in it to take into account verses that contradict each other, the latest one the most true one. Which is big fun for islamic ‘scholars’ because they are hard to date.

    Anyone that dares question it is punishable by death. In view of the many zany antics of islamists i seriously doubt that anyone would dare put his name to such a paper in the next few hundred years , or if the paper would stay intact for even a second after reading.

    They’d probably burn the door to be sure even no contact with the heretic paper would be left.

  15. boballab says:


    There is a couple of things that should be kept at the forefront of people’s minds when discussing this (This is an older incident I have had a discussion about somewhere else).

    1. The event where things took place was at the 17th Annual ARAB international festival. While many people assume ARAB culture = Islam that is not true. Arab culture predates Mohammed and Islam encompenses more than Arabs.

    2. The event takes place on city streets. They block off a section of the city of Dearborn streets and have their festival.

    The 17th Arab International Festival attracted a large crowd June 15-17, making it a successful festival during Father’s Day weekend. Families from the United States and Canada packed Warren Avenue between Schaefer Road and Wyoming Street in Dearborn to celebrate the community’s Arab heritage.


    3. More occurred there than what you have. At one place Christians were physically assaulted and the county Sheriffs Office did nothing but told the Christians they had no right to be on a public street.

    Hundreds of angry Muslims threw chunks of concrete and eggs at a team of Christians, spraying them with urine and cursing at them – all while police stood by and then threatened the victims with “disorderly conduct.”

    Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Somalia?

    No. Dearborn, Mich.


    4. The Christian group has filed a 1st Amendment lawsuit against Deputy’s of the Wayne county Sheriffs Office.

    The federal civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan names as defendants officials from the Wayne County sheriff’s office who “sided with the Muslim mob intent on suppressing the Christians’ speech.”

    The complaint explains authorities not only failed to protect the Christians, they ordered them to leave the Arab Festival under threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct.”

    However, not one Muslim was arrested for the attack that left several members of the Christian group bloodied, the complaint states.

    Among the defendants is Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar, a Muslim who was featured in the now-canceled show “All American Muslim,” which appeared on The Learning Channel.


    5. The Sheriff and his office are a sponsor of the event so were not impartial civil servants.

    “We’re very happy with the success of the festival,” said Festival Director Fay Beydoun.

    Beydoun said we are grateful for the support of our sponsors, especially Ford Motor Company, the contribution of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Benny Napoleon, the help of volunteers from Impact International and the support of the business community along Warren Avenue and the community at large.


    Some defenders of the Mob that attacked the Christians point to a mounted pigs head, however that is not a legal excuse for the mob nor the Sheriff’s Office since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this before. In Virginia v. Black the SCOTUS stated that the KKK can legally burn a cross in public.

    Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable “threats of intimidation” and the Ku Klux Klan’s protected “messages of shared ideology.” However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.

    In Virginia v. Black the Court found that Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion stating, “a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the attempt to intimidate.” In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for “true threats.” Under that carve-out, “a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.”

    The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia’s statute which stated “Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons,” holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its “indiscriminate coverage.” The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.


    The Deputy Sheriffs are going to have to try and find a way to spin how a much smaller group of Christians being attacked by a larger group of Muslims for having a pigs head is somehow intimidating and a “true threat” to the Muslims.

  16. Pascvaks says:

    Please! We’re talking about people here, not lawyers. If you change the name of the primary group to something else (Catholic Celts, Orthedox Russians, AME Blacks, Italians, Welshmen, Bavarian Germans, Swiss Chocolates, etc.) and insert the same shinannigans by outsiders you end up with the same results and/or some very dead outsiders having some unbelievable accidents using the public toilets.

    It is a little difficult to seperate some things once they’re mixed, and heated, and stirred, and reduced. Yes, there’s the Muslim issue, and there’s the ethnic issue, and there’s the ‘This is Our Block Party, Get The Hell Out of Here!” issue.

    If you’re ever inclined to go to a real Block Party (not a Manhatten Put On) make sure you ‘fit in’ and DON’T piss off the locals.

  17. Pascvaks says:

    @Petrossa – “Unfortunately no such thing is allowed according to Islam. The koran (and its blahblah around it) is the undived everlasting truth even before it was written. You are not allowed to question any part of it.”

    Yes, normally I’d agree, but… there are exceptions to every rule, especially for Powerful Insiders with lots of ‘friends’; it’s amazing how fast the words on a piece of paper can change when they’re re-writen in blood. Remember, while there will be no more Prophets, there will be lots of others who will be Devinely Inspired and Led; many lots of others.

  18. Duster says:

    There’s a fundamental conflict between the Bill of Rights and practitioners of ANY religion who assert the right to dictate what you can or cannot say, see, or do. Christian Dominionists are just as creepy as Hezzbollah and generally more tolerated, though they have effectively same goals as any Muslim fundy has – to run your life according to their tenets. They just use different labels. “Have no truck with the senseless thing …” – Rudyard Kipling

  19. BobN says:

    @ Duster – Wat you say is true, but the number of Crazy people is in the Hundreds of Millions if not Billion for the Muslims, Any group with those numbers can’t be ignored.

  20. Zeke says:

    An amendment barring the courts from using Sharia or Int’l law in rendering decisions was passed by 70% of the voters in Oklahoma. “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.” This amendment has been blocked by a federal court. These kinds of battles are being waged in other states as well.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz29b7THBnF

  21. E.M.Smith says:


    There are some very odd parallels in the Genesis story and science as we understand it today. All it takes for things to line up exactly right is to set the clock to a relativity driven time reference from the initial big bang…

    IMHO there is a significant divergence between many religions and an understanding of God and The Universe… but that’s for another posting on another day… Lets just say that things like Islam and Catholicism have wandered a long way from what I consider “religiosity”…


    Odd… we “clash” from time to time on your NWO fixation; yet I fully agree that part of The Game is to get group fighting group (so we ‘need’ someone in charge…). A strategy clearly used by Great Britain during their global colonial years. (Iraq was constructed by Britain just so that there could not be peace…)

    I don’t think it takes much outside agitation to get Sunni and Shia going at each other… but yes, it does look like the intent is to let the House Of Saud plant mosques all over the globe and have peace while all around them folks get destabilization. It does look like an intent to dangle a ‘new Caliphate’ as the big carrot in exchange for free flowing oil. ( I’d not be at all surprised to see Saudi ‘take over’ the Arab World as some kind of “First among equals” forming an Arab Block Caliphate… as a reward for keeping the oil flowing… I’m also pretty sure The House of Saud is playing their own game for World Domination…)


    OK “You’re Crazy”…. Happy? ;-)

    IMHO the intent is not to make the USA a Muslim state (not on the part of congress, though it is on the part of Global Islam) but rather to ‘balance the books’ with a minority voting block that will offset the Jewish vote while being in the pocket of the Democrats.

    Eventually someone will realize that this is a very bad idea. I’d generally had a “Let’s just all get along” attitude. But having looked more closely at the Hadith (Yet Another Posting in the wings…) I’ve come to the same conclusion you have reached. Not compatible with western values.

    Why does ‘the rule of law’ get waived? Because Police see their first and foremost duty as keeping the peace not enforcing the law. A dozen times a day (an hour?) a cop ‘lets things slide’ in the interests of peace instead of the law. Never get let off on a ticket?…


    SOME religions cause strife. Not all, by a long shot. I think you have a narrow view of religions…


    Bingo! It is human nature, not religion, that is the problem. Some religions help to dampen that nature (Judaism, Christianity recently – though not in the early years, Buddhism, Hinduism) others not so much… and a few even exacerbate it. At this point the track record of Islam is one of violence and training folks for violence and dominance desires. (It’s in the Hadith…)


    One would hope… but courts are very slow…


    I’m rather fond of China Town in San Francisco and Japan Town and Little Saigon in San Jose! Good authentic restaurants and a different style to things…


    We will never have effective border control as long as the Democrats see it as a way to get more Democrat votes…


    Communism suppressed religion. Look at the MILLIONS killed by various communist regimes, from Cambodia to Viet Nam to Soviet Empire to the MILLIONS killed in and by China to….

    The notion that it is Religion that’s the problem is just daft on the face of it. Add in Nazis and Fascists, then season with some Napoleonic Wars, stir in the Tribal Wars of Africa, the American extirpation of Native Americans… Oh, and all the various Race Riots of the world. The black guys calling me “honky” do not know my religions ( I’m not sure I do ;-)

    Religion is “chump change” on the world stage, outside of the Muslim Jihadis…

    That Europe is handling it’s “Muslim Problem” badly is not an argument that ALL religion is evil.

    I do agree, though, that it’s time to remove the “anything goes if you call it religion” idea…


    When they do that, they ‘wake up dead’… A guy founded such a Mosque in the USA (link in that not finished posting…) and got poisoned….

    Petrossa has it right on that. But even then you need to layer on the Hadith (which are far worse than the Koran in terms of ‘peace’…) It is largely the same as a “personality cult” where every minor aspect of behaviour is to be duplicated. Including all the 700 AD cultural norms and “kill first, think second” and slavery and oppression of any non-Muslims is A-OK!


    Reminds me of some events down in Alabama in years gone by when “local police” thought they were immune from Federal law…


    The problem is that the “locals” have a policy of violence and intimidation and assault. That is EVER allowed. The Police are expected to assure that… they didn’t.


    There’s an odd escalation… Judaism was not very prone to ‘in your face’ nor proselytizing. Christianity mutated it all some, got violent (conversion by the sword was a Christian process… as was the Inquisition), had a mellowing age, but still has a bit “pushy” and feels compelled to convert the world… Then Islam takes a “Christianity Lite” through a carnival warpy mirror and goes all Jihadi on your ass…. Don’t want to see the next iteration ;-)


    I suspect a boat load of Arab Oil Money is sloshing it’s way through back passages to buy the U.S. Law they like. There’s evidence for that, but not good evidence. It will only get worse.

  22. Jeff Alberts says:

    My bright idea for the world would be an appeal to reason, and to forget about gods.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  23. Petrossa says:

    ALL religions cause strife. Case in point, the supposedly most peaceful religion in the world:
    “A glance at history, however, reveals that not all the many and widely varying forms of Buddhism have been free of doctrinal fanaticism, nor free of the violent and exploitative pursuits so characteristic of other religions. In Sri Lanka there is a legendary and almost sacred recorded history about the triumphant battles waged by Buddhist kings of yore. During the twentieth century, Buddhists clashed violently with each other and with non-Buddhists in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, India, and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, armed battles between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils have taken many lives on both sides. In 1998 the U.S. State Department listed thirty of the world’s most violent and dangerous extremist groups. Over half of them were religious, specifically Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist. ”

  24. E.M.Smith says:


    The “null case” is that it isn’t religion that’s the issue, just people. You have not made a case that the null proposition is invalid. The existence proof of Communist Regimes killing millions does make the case that religion is unnecessary for mass murder and destruction. Furthermore, looking at, oh, The USA where a very large number of folks are very religious and the conflict between them is substantially nil, argues strongly that religion is just not ‘THE’ issue…

  25. Petrossa says:

    I have this strange feeling you are exactly doing what you accuse me off. Over history for millenia people slaughtered in the name of a deity. You pose that relatively a few people for a relatively short period of time don’t slaughter each other in one place whilst at the same time a vast number of people in another place are still massmurdering and worse in the name of a deity somehow proves it isn’t religion.

    That logic escapes me.

  26. Pascvaks says:

    @Petrossa –
    Some say ‘god’ did it when Nature decimates, some say ‘religion’ did it when humans act like humans. What we say and who we blame depends on our paradigm. I’m fairly sure that if ‘religion’ were removed from the equation that we’d have to insert something of equal value to account for history. Who’s in charge? And who writes ‘history’? Or says what the meaning of ‘is’ is? Scratch a religion and find a man.

  27. jim2 says:

    Petrossa – Here are some of tools to help determine religion’s part in slaughter.

    Democide table:

    Democide table, Communist only, therefore no religion involved:

    A war timeline – this really shows human’s true nature and includes a blub about each war:

  28. Petrossa says:

    Sure, it’s man who commits the act. Religion is the catalyst. Where you need a pretty good demagogue the stir up the masses to commit untold crimes of slaughter and mayhem, it only needs one religious leader to cause the same.

    Religion is the easy direct way to manipulate the masses. Burn a ‘holy’ book and see the world go up in flames. Burn a book on philosophy and no one minds.

    your timelimes are a bit limited in scope. A bit like proving AGW, depends where and how you look and you can make anything look like anything.
    Especially if you go by bodycount, because the better the weapons and the more organized the strife the higher they will be.
    Doesn’t say anything about the strife itself. A pretty meaningless exercise.

    Religion, as i said is a direct line to the beast. Demagogues need to first mass the masses, takes time, effort, the right person and the right circumstances.

  29. Pascvaks says:

    @Petrossa – OK! I’m fairly sure you’ll become a little more easy about definitions and more understanding of why you’re reading the comments that seem at variance with what you’re saying. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t.

    Words are pathetic. They are more likely to miss the target than not.
    Sometimes you can’t break through no matter how hard you pound.
    Sometimes you find yourself in strange places you never intended to enter.
    Words suck!;-)

  30. jim2 says:

    The time line goes back centuries. Recorded history is the limit AFAIK.

  31. Petrossa says:

    True Pascvaks. Often people speak the same language, have a conversation, both feel they are in agreement, and both walk away with a totally different take on it. (most often male/female conversation ;) )

    The other day my wife: We should go to the mall. Me: Sure. and i went about my business. In the afternoon a somewhat miffed wife came back from the mall so i asked what was the matter. Well, i hadn’t gone with her to the mall when she asked it before.
    I said: you asked me nothing, you just told me we should go, which i took as a statement, not a question. Once upon a time we should go to the mall. Next time say: we are going to the mall now.

    It doesn’t go into how the wars where for the most part under the name of some deity. Sure conquest, etc. But always ‘guided’ by the/a god(s). Prayers, offerings, blessings. The promise of a good afterlife if dying in battle etc. One wonders how far they would gotten their troops if there weren’t some paradise after death. If the fighters knew that death meant death, no glory no nothing. Just death,

    One wonders how many ‘martyrs’ would stills trap on a bombvest and blow themselves up if they weren’t told and believed they’d go straight to paradise with 72 grapes, uuuh virgins..

  32. Gary says:

    Ishmael and Isaac will be slugging it out when that Great and Terrible Day dawns. Abraham should have stuck with the prophecy instead of taking Sarah’s advice.

  33. jim2 says:

    Don’t know how accurate or complete this is, but here is a history of religious wars.

    In times past, wars were fought for land, riches, and slaves. But again, can’t tell you the breakdown of causes of all the wars.

  34. jim2 says:

    Oh, the brief history of religious wars:


  35. E.M.Smith says:


    It’s really pretty simple:

    Evil Bastards will use any tool and any ideology available to rise to dominance and do so via murdering those who oppose them; often in other countries. IF religion is a usable tool for that, then it is used (not causal). IF religion is not acceptable, some other tool will be found.

    So “in the old days” the folks who wanted to subjugate others did so “in the name of Christ” in the formation of the Holy Roman Empire or the Crusades. While Islam did “conversion by the sword” the other way. Now that’s not so popular an excuse, so we don’t see much in the way of ‘religious wars’ in small little areas like, oh, North America, South America, The Pacific Basin, Australia, New Zealand, China, Russia, etc.

    Were religion causal, then we’d have a whole lot more wars of religion. At present, about all we’ve got going is the Islam vs “everyone else”. That, largely, comes out of the aggressive and violent nature of Islam vs the Infidel. BUT even some large part of that isn’t so much driven by religion as by those who have greed and envy against “the other”. And find religion a useful tool.

    In particular, Communism was entirely antithetical to religion. Yet we had a LOT of wars and conflict and death and dying due to that ideology over the years.

    So my point is simply this: It doesn’t matter what the ideology is. It doesn’t matter if folks are religious or not. All that matters is that the same basic human drives to dominance and avarice will find an excuse. When religion is available, they will use it too. But in that case religion is no more causal than in Communism or Capitalism or race or …

    Put another way: Over the thousands of years the Gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt were substantially the same. (The names varied a bit, but they mapped to the same gods). That didn’t encourage, nor prevent, nearly constant war between those folks / area. The only real change was when Christianity came along (modulo that whole ‘one God’ episode in Egypt that passed relatively peacefully). Then most of the same area converted to Christianity. That didn’t prevent them from continuing the ongoing wars and conflict even as “Christian on Christian”. As we’ve seen, early Islam was based on a Christian origin. Didn’t prevent them from attacking the rest of Christendom… Even now, Sunni and Shia are both Muslims, yet love nothing more than attacking each other.

    More recently: What religion was the driver for World War I ? Oh, none. It was about the decay of empire. How about World War II? Oh, none. It was about the attempt at world domination by a non-religious entity. How about the cold war? Oh, none. Ideology again. Vietnam? Nope. Korea? Nope.

    Roll it back: Persian empire? Nope. Just wanted domination. How about that old Khan and the Mongolian Hoard? Let folks keep their local religions…

    THE major driver is the desire for empire and dominance (or more recently colonies and dominance) or very recently, economic dominance. Religion is a bit player and used, not causal.

    BTW, lots of folks go to war without the comfort of religion, but often find it during battle. Me? I was a pretty staunch agnostic when the draft lotto was held. Had my number been less than 100, I’d have been in green and up for dying…


    See the Communist USSR Empire for an existence proof of your assertion…


    Interesting links…


    The allegory is still valid. Brothers fight brothers. Neighbors fight neighbors. Religion is the crutch, not the cause.


    It’s typically about power and resources first, everything else later. Who has the land, oil, timber, rivers, whatever; and who wants it. The Roman Empire did not form to spread the Roman Religion (in fact, their religions adapted over time to the new conquests).

    The history of Empires is of spreading the empire, then the religion adapts later (or sometimes is tossed out wholesale). The history of Kingdoms is about the King wanting more, and getting it; then the question of religion is raised… Frankly, through much of European History, the wars were between different members of ONE large “Royal Family” fighting over who gets the stuff… The religion would change, but not the Royal Family who gets the goods…

  36. omanuel says:

    My views on religion and God are evolving, and will probably be evolving when I die.

    Since I plan to be travel on Fri/Sat/Sun, let me briefly summarize where I am now:

    I believe science and religion are attempts to describe the powerful force that

    a.) Sustains life, love, truth, creativity, critical thinking
    b.) Made the chemical elements
    c.) Gave birth to the world

    The Force is “God, Nature, Reality, Father of Light, Spirit of the Universe, etc”

    The Force can be revealed by experimentation, observation, reflection, meditation, prayer, contemplation.

    Here in the Solar System – a region of space centered on the Sun that is large enough to contain 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earths (10^19 Earths) – the Force comes from the Sun’s pulsar core and controls everything within 120 AU of the solar core.


    If life exists beyond the Solar System, I suspect the Force will be the nearest pulsar – but that is pure speculation.

  37. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Omanuel: What you call “the force”, our Most Holy Sun Absolute, is at the center of our galaxy, where the density of vibrations and frequency is the highest, from there on it develops an involving octave, as Do,Si,La, Sol, Fa, Mi, Re, Do:

  38. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M……and it´s not a fantasy:

  39. Pascvaks says:

    FWIW –
    After my two ritual morning Strawberry PopTarts and popping my meds it occured to me to add in jest: If we get rid of the gods, who’s going to get rid of the devils, the other side of the coin? I have a feeling it will be harder to rid ourselves of the latter than the former; and, in fact, I really doubt that the gods will give a damn one way or the other, they can turn their backs on us and start over elsewhere, right?

    (Pssst.. Remember ? We invented gods to get rid of devils. Let’s get rid of the devils before we get rid of the gods. OK?;-)

  40. jim2 says:

    Here’s a related bit of news …
    “A panel of US Army judges ruled Thursday that a soldier accused of the Fort Hood massacre must appear in court clean-shaven, upholding a trial judge’s earlier order.

    Major Nidal Hasan, charged with the November 2009 shooting spree that left 13 dead at the Texas military base, had argued that he had a right to keep his beard as an expression of his Islamic faith, but the US Army Criminal Court of Appeals sided with the judge overseeing his court-martial.

    The court concluded that the trial judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, was correct in finding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “does not provide Hasan the right to wear a beard while in uniform during his upcoming court martial,” according to a US Army statement.

    The judges agreed that “Hasan did not prove his beard was an expression of a sincerely held religious belief,” it said.”


  41. Zeke says:

    Thank you EM Smith. I think the prosecution against states which have lawfully passed amendments specifically barring states from using Sharia or International law are: the ACLU and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). And they are well funded as you said.

  42. Zeke says:

    And no conversation on the subject of Sharia law in the US would be complete without the inimitable, the lovely Brigitte Gabriel. Brigitte here points out that as she speaks, there are 85 Sharia courts operating in Britain alone.

    Begins at 55 sec.

  43. jim2 says:

    WRT Nidal Hasan. It would be good if they let him grow out his beard. Additionally, they should have him wear a suicide vest packed with fake dynamite, and show a video of 9/11 with the plane flying through the buildings and the Twin Towers crashing down at the beginning of each court session.

Comments are closed.