With the Reaping of the Harvest of the Arab Summer Comes a Sowing of Real Spring for Islam

PCFreespeech2013SM

As the bitter harvest of the “Arab Summer” is brought in there are signs that the seeds of a true Arab/Muslim “Spring” may already be sown.

Things are getting… interesting, Virginia; all is not as the talking heads (as opposed to Talking Heads, a Punk group in the 70’s – 80’s of truly original musical genius) would have us believe. It seems that not only have the people of Egypt tossed out the cleric-backed Morsi, they are turning a deaf ear to their imams’ efforts to “twist the population’s religious arm” to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s political influence.

Muslim Brotherhood’s bid to scapegoat Christians failing, say Egyptians

By Lisa Daftari

As their nation descends into violent chaos, Egyptians are increasingly blaming the Muslim Brotherhood, despite attempts by the Islamist group to scapegoat Christians and the military, according to several sources …

The Muslim Brotherhood has lost all sympathy with their points due to their violence,” said a Long Island, N.Y., Egyptian-American [visiting] in a Cairo suburb…”

The man, a Coptic Christian who asked that his name not be used until he and his family are safely back in the U.S…. arrived in the Cairo suburb of Heliopolis last weekend, just days after Muslim Brotherhood supporters began clashing violently with security forces. Since then, nightly curfews, angry mobs and closed roads that cut off supplies to restaurants and groceries have made his homeland unrecognizable… The violence began when, more than a month after the military stripped President Mohammad Morsi of power and took him into custody, authorities cleared camps of protesters in Cairo.

Take note that it was only after a full month, when the camps of core protesters themselves were dispersed, was there any violence from the citizenry; they had rejoiced in the streets, and on TV during that month. This would lead one to believe that the violence is coming from a small (in relation to the population as a whole) core of Brotherhood supporters and will crumble swiftly unless given life-support by massive foreign intervention of some sort; both weapons/cannon-fodder smuggling and ‘sanctuary‘ in some nearby sovereign area come to mind.

That action prompted a violent uprising in which more than 1,000 people have been killed. Morsi, who(m) critics said had put the nation on a path toward Islamist rule, is now facing accusations of conspiring with Hamas to escape from prison during the 2011 uprising and complicity in the killing and torture of protesters outside his Cairo palace in December.

…Christian and Muslim … are solidly behind the military, which has been criticized by the west for its decisive crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

I am Muslim and I am against terrorism and I support the revolution [which ousted Morsi] and I support all the decisions of the Egyptian army forces,” …  “We love Egypt so much and we hope the foreign countries stop misunderstanding about us and the situation now in Egypt.”

The fact is that in Egypt, like in Iran the actual people of Egypt overwhelmingly prefer a more “enlightened” version of Islam despite being dominated, and often hoodwinked, by a “tiny minority of radicals“; I am referring to the Imams not terrorists, who are just the ‘useful idiots‘ the Imams use to steal power.

Even at mosques, the tide seems to be turning against the Muslim Brotherhood, according to one man who spoke from Cairo.

They gather around mosques, from five to 100 of them, to show they are important and the goal is to go and cut off the roads and rally to get more supporters,” he said.

Sometimes during Friday prayers, the sheikh wants to push people to support the Muslim Brotherhood, but modern Muslims are dominant and not deceived anymore with fake words that defending the Muslim Brotherhood is defending Islam,” he said.

One former jihadist and Salafist cleric who spoke to Mid-East Christian News said the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to focus anger against the nation’s Christian minority, which did not support Morsi, but was hardly alone in that stance.

The Brotherhood lost everything, politically and economically,” Osama el-Quossi told MCN. “They lost the citizens’ sympathy, so they used religion to gain support of ordinary people.

Methinks, Virginia that when yo add in the polls showing the vast lack of support for groups like CAIR and MPAC amongst the deen it looks like the clergy of Islam might be facing a “stockholder” revolt that will replace all the “board-members” with Imams who actually share the same reality that Muslims-as-people live with every day, and enjoy.

In sum; While Pakistan and Afghanistan are cultures long used to ongoing sectarian strife other nations like Turkey, Egypt and most of the more Eastern Muslim countries are seeing mostly problems fomented by power/money from outside their own borders and ethnic/religious groups. I want to make note though that Egypt’s record under Mubarak in its treatment of the Copts (the original Egyptian culture before the forced Arab cultural assimilation introduced by the invasion of Islam).

In fact, it seems that if President Obama had supported the grassroots revolt in Iran a couple years ago, and not thrown his weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood after Mubarak was ousted, we might already have seen a real Arab Spring; I have high hopes for the next 12 months though; the ‘Black Hats‘ (Imams) are starting to realize that the “townsfolk” (deen) all hate them, even if the ‘White Hats‘ (secularists) can be jerks themselves often enough. I can see their point; far preferable is the religious nut who is a total pain in the neck when compared to someone who wants to cut off your head.

To the Muslim world; Good Luck with your Enlightenment and Reformation, I promise you, it will be interesting.

CNN Cheers on Hamas as They Make Their Own Children Bleed!

We All Saved! CNN has put out a FAQ on Hamas and Israel and their conflict! World Peace is IMMANENT!

Problem:

That FAQ was actually almost MOSTLY objective; but boy is that ‘mostly’ a big one!

Did you notice Virginia, that the author left out the fact that after Hamas won enough of the Gazan elections to control the Strip they violently and illegally ejected all non-Hamas persons of authority from their positions and made Gaza a virtually independent HAMAS territory; while the West Bank remains controlled by a somewhat pseudo-democratic mix of Fatah and Hamas and others?

Their violent conversion of political dominance into dictatorial control in Gaza puts a very different spin on a lot of things that have happened since then!

The author might as well put on a sweater declaring “Hamas, Hamas! RAH! RAH! RAH!”

The tone of the language used about the Palestinians is very neutral, objective and non-judgmental while the language used to describe the actions of Israelis is full of prejudice and filtered through a bigoted lens.

Some Examples

Four years after the last major conflict in the region, Israel and Hamas are once again on the brink of war in Gaza. So what is the group, and what does it hope to achieve by its rocket attacks on Israeli targets?

A psychologist might find it amusing to note that usually, when insider describes something like their political, criminal, or terrorist group for the most part they refer to them with terms like “the group” rather than the more formal names used by outsiders such as “the Catholics” or “the Smith’s” or “the Bronco’s.

Terms like “the Church, “the family” or “the team” are reserved (mostly) for group’s with which the speaker likely self-identifies. Yet here Hamas is referred to as “the group.” It is as though a member of a new Christian cult explaining to you what “the group” was about as opposed to someone telling you about “the Moonies” –  a term that a non-Moonie would use to explain “that group” as opposed to “The Group“; just saying.

After failing to mention any of Hamas’ more ‘unsavory’ activities in the years since its founding the author goes on to say:

Hamas’s refusal to recognize the state of Israel is one reason why it’s been excluded from peace talks. In 1993…

Then it never mentions the bombings, rocket attacks, and relentless television propagandizing on the Palestinian people by Fatah and Hamas; the “FAQ” even fails to notice the recent Palestinian government dedication of a public square in celebration of the mother of several suicide bombers. A woman who expressed the wish that all of her sons would die killing as many Israeli civilians as possible; that occurred in the “moderate: West Bank

Later on we have this gem, remember Virginia that virtually all of the Muslims you see on TV declare that ‘Jihad’ and ‘Holy War’ are not at all the same thing!

However, the founding charter of Hamas, published in 1988, called for jihad, or holy war, and marked a decisive split with the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy of nonviolence.

After the FAQ gives paragraph after paragraph of “facts” simply stated regarding Hamas’ actions (All reported in the most neutral tones, whether good or heinous but focused almost solely on the positive) we get this kind of tone about the Israelis:

Israel also accuses Hamas of using civilians in Gaza as a “human shield,” and the territory’s schools and hospitals as a cover for military hardware…”They bury their military infrastructure inside civilian areas,””

Given that everything in the sentence above is an established fact about the tactics Hamas uses regarding civilians, hospitals and children it is hard to understand the sudden change in tone from the Hamas description earlier in the ‘FAQ‘:

Hamas has sections dedicated to religious, military, political and security activities. It runs a social welfare program, and operates a number of schools, hospitals and religious institutions. It also has about 12,500 security personnel.

The FAQ reads like it was written half by an actual moderate seeking to explain facts on the ground and half by an actual member of Hamas; then some utterly clueless CNN suit chose which to include in the limited of space they had for this piece; this FAQ explains nothing but the need for people to go out and look at information for themselves to decided who did what to whom in each case.

GO ISRAEL!

 

Dearborn Michigan Arab Festival Enforces Sharia Law: Christians Be Silent or Be Mobbed

bugs-bunny-minuteman-jihad-crusade-islamists

Having lived in New Orleans a number of years and having spent a lot of time observing Jackson Square, where all the Tarot and Palm readers hang out, I have seen a great many Christian street preachers at work. Many of them are obnoxious and some are positively toxic and flout the law left and right because the “rightness” of their faith has convinced them that they can do no wrong in the service of their god.

On the other hand many are sincere, faith-feeling folk with a great inner love and compassion for their fellow man; whether I agreed with their message or not, such people were never offensive to me. But, other than the few who flouted the law, like the fellow with the megaphone from Radio Shack who already knew it was illegal but used it for over an hour until TOLD by the police not to use it, only then did he comply; and repeated this tactic with another shift of police later in the day! Then there was the man who stood on the steps of the Saint Louise Cathedral during service and preached (to the square, back to the church, I guess this made it ok in his mind) a hellfire and damnation rant that included just about everyone in the square, including the parishioners in the building behind him, as hell-bound sinners in need of his message for their soul’s sake.

The fun thing about freedom of speech though, others were free to answer back! It is not right to disrupt someone’s legal speech, but responding is certainly ok! I answered a few myself when they crossed the line. I went toe to toe with the megaphone man and with greater volume (thank you theater training) gave him hell for not having enough passion in Christ to preach the message with his own lungs, relying on devil spawned technology to shove his words into unwilling ears. Yes Virginia, I can have an attitude, but I always have fun! I have also stood BETWEEN an obnoxious but legal preacher and a bunch of immature Pagan types who wanted to mess with him in ways that were more obnoxious than what he had done himself… Hypocrisy is never fun to watch and the Square was my professional home and I defended it.

The thing is though, this was all verbal, in 8 years I never saw anyone who wasn’t obviously mentally disturbed or blind drunk every try, note I said try not succeed, in initiating violence or mob intimidation tactics. The video that follows shows something very different from anything I ever witnessed, regardless of the religion of the preacher or the crowd.

I would want to talk to a lawyer but, I do believe that the actions of the crowd, and its instigator/leaders, can be seen as an active, spontaneous, conspiracy to deny the preacher his civil rights! Recast the scene with a black man preaching to white townsfolk about joining his church in 1945 Alabama and it would appear a heinous violation of the preacher’s identity as a human being by a hateful, bigoted mob. The man even appears Arab, but, for daring to preach any “gospel” but theirs he is all but set upon and the mob is allowed to intimidate the man to leave a public space where he has been exercising his rights… If this video is not a bit Orwellian to you, then Virginia, you just have not been paying attention.

Act 17 Apologetics is, in my opinion a bit aggressive but, they come nowhere near crossing the line on first amendment rights to share religious “opinion” in the public square, as such they are to be defended in their rights as vehemently as any co-religionist of ALL Americans!

Frankly, the cops should have loudly told the crowd that the man had the right to preach all he wanted and that if they persisted in harrasing him to leave they would be arrested for conspiracy to violate his civil rights and any RICO/Mob related laws they could think of that might apply, now go back to your festival and have fun, or else!

Islamophobia? Kuffar? New Designs in the Heretics Crusade Shop!

 

Here we have two new designs for gear at Heretics crusade’s Cafepress Shop!

First we have a design with Kafir (infidel) in arabic and “infidel” in a psuedo-Arabic looking font… this comes int two variations; one with a casual font and the other with a more stylized font; islamophobes Unite, you have nothing to lose but your head!

The second design is a colorful rendering of “If You Support Gays, Women and The First Amendment then YOU Too Might Be Islamophobic! Whatever happend to the concept of free speech and separation of church and state?

infidel_kafir_heretics_crusade

infidel_kafir_hertetics-crusade

kafir_infidel_heretics-crusade

kafir_infidel_heretics-crusade

kafir_infidel_heretics-crusade_islamophobia

kafir_infidel_heretics-crusade_islamophobia

kafir_infidel_heretics-crusade_islamophobia

And dozens of other items with these designs…

Reform in the Muslim World… What Would It Look Like?

muslimahs live in silence and fear

Just daydreaming…

A Muslim boy whose parents fear his increasing radicalization and association with fundamentalist Imams is surprised when his father allows him to join an online Islamist Gaming Site called Teen Muttawa.

The boy logs on, and soon finds himself with two or three friends who show him the duties he must perform as a good Muslim, without questioning, despite his misgivings; Islam is submission, he is told, not interpretation; the Human conscience is not to be trusted in the face of the Word of Allah, as represented by the Shari’ah.

After a time he is allowed to join in a “game” that shows information about Muslims who have become apostate in the eyes of the group. The members vote after each revelation at to what the group should do, pursue, or relent, show mercy or show none, punish or kill. Random high ranking members are assigned to carry out and record the verdicts. The virtual world being embraced by Shari’a excites the boy.

After three days of almost solid “gaming” the boy finds himself viewing a girl in proper niqab walking in a part of town no girl the boy knew would go to.

He votes to pursue… recalling inunctions from his mentors that even his sister can sin and bring dishonor if she strays or is tempted from Islam.  The majority agrees.

The next shot shows the girl from a distance, obviously not escorted, in a secluded place. The boy is so offended by her behavior, he contrasts it to his sisters unfailing modesty and purity. This makes him want to punish the girl for the dishonor she is putting on HER family; who must be already shamed of her; how could such a person not show signs of their rebellion?

He votes to pursue. The majority agrees.

Now he sees the girl talking to a man labeled as haraam to her; then a shot of her embracing him, and another of the man leaving the scene. The boy recalls how his own sister had not even spoken of a boy once their father had declared against him.

The boy votes to arrest. The majority of “Muttawa” agree.

Information is brought in that the girl met her school friend whom she had fallen in love with. Her family had forbidden a marriage and he was moving to another city; she had met him to say goodbye though not even a kiss would she allow herself of him.

The boy votes to execute; the families honor is stained regardless if adultery occurred.  The majority agree.

Later that morning, as he finishes his prayers and prepares to finally sleep he gets an email with the results of the “verdict“. This is an exciting moment, when he can see the reality of his participation in the holy system of Allah’s punishment and reward for those who submit and those who pretend they may not.

He opens the email, loads the attached jpg; it is his sister… whom he realizes a moment too late is standing behind him with a baseball bat, and three similarly armed, and condemned, friends.

(optional Hitchcock style TV apologia can have parents intervening after boy is “scared straight.”)

An Education Into “The Religion of Peace”, Islam – In a Nutshell

Here we have a Professor at a KUWAITI university speaking his mind. Yes I said Kuwaiti, the country whose men were french kissing our troops just a few years ago when we saved them from Iraq.

This video is a comprehensive education for the ignorant Moderate and reactionarily Leftist. Watch this man’s face; see the "innocent" glee that warms his features at some of the things he says.

Remember, to Reform Islam is not to destroy Islam. Reforming Islam is all that can save it, because I am not the only soul in the West who will not lie down to what this man prays for to Allah to be our fate.

What I find interesting is how these people just know that they cannot ever compete face to face with Western forces, ideological, political, or military. They wish for dirty trickery, or even for some infidel to do their job for them; Allah willing.

It is this poor self image and lack of confidence masking as certainty that will help us to prevail.
Greece was conquered by Rome, Rome fell to the barbarian hordes but, who did the Islamic empires fall to? Answer: themselves; greed, corruption, and infighting did the deed with little to no outside interference.

Patience, education and their own inherent self-destruction is all we need to win!

LimBamian Politics 101: 2010 The Limbaugh-Obama Mentality Takes Hold

idylls king 0013

In 2010 we have fully entered a new era of politics that I call the Limbaugh-Obama, or LimBama period.

This era’s new mentality is neither Left nor Right wing. Instead it applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum,indeed all sides.  It is the ability to purport to believe in republican democracy and the Constitution, while firmly believing that political perfection is only prevented by the “Opposition” being allowed to participate in the legislative process.

The Constitution is replaced (ideologically at least, for the WORDs “The Constitution” will still ring out when freedom is but a memory) by the simple rule:

WE do not HAVE to play “fair” because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!

The because part of this unwritten commandment comes in many forms in the minds of partisans:

We defend the downtrodden and repressed

We have God (Allah) in our hearts and you are fooled by Satan

We serve the long-term interest of Human Survival

We serve Mother Earth

Yada, yada, yada… it is all a bunch of self serving baloney from minds so lost in group think that they can’t SEE the surface of the swamp let alone know their common sense had drowned!

It all only has ONE ‘because’:

Because WE WANT THE POWER, though we prove by our methods that we do not deserve it, and will surely abuse it for our selfish personal goals.

Muslim Marriage: A lesson in Moderate Thought

 

Once again I am posting a blog that the hard-core Rightists will just not be able to swallow without gagging. But then again, the true Leftists will reject what I say as well, so I guess that I am still fulfilling my mission; pissing off those who need to be pissed off; example: that thing in the Bible about the motes and beams is especially true in politics and organised religion.

The unreconstructed Leftist will be puzzled at why a “rabid Islamophobic” like The Heretic Crusader should DEFEND a practice of Islam. The answer is really quite simple, I don’t. The Islamic practice is to treat women as chattel property. To be Muslimah is to be bought, and sold, and hoarded. To orthodox Islam a woman is only fulfilled if she daily, unfailingly and willingly makes a classic 1950’s housewife look like a libertine whore; her “desire” is to be a domestic animal fully trained to care for a husband’s sex, food and house; incidentally caring for children and lastly, herself; this mindset in an orthodox Imam’s eye makes her “holy“!

When the customs of veiling, and purdah, and child marriage, and the absolute authority of the husband are considered the issue of polygamy becomes incidental.

In traditional Christian marriages there are certainly many opportunities for abuse. This is no reason to ban marriage, or parenting for that matter, though it is clearly in the children’s interest not to be subject to the possibility of abusive parents using religious authority to do evil to their kids; or yours for that matter.

On top of all of that, traditional Islamic reasoning also says that humans attempting to judge the morality of Islamic rules is not valid; it is to be obeyed, not interpreted; which is the very reason that system is so susceptible abuse.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Why should polygamy be a crime? KEYSAR TRAD
October 2, 2009

In a liberal society such as Australia, it should not be a crime to have more than one wife, argues Keysar Trad.

IN JUNE last year, Triple J’s current affairs program Hack ran an item on plural relationships. The ABC’s youth broadcaster interviewed me about polygyny, a form of polygamous marriage in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. A bisexual couple were also interviewed.

To my surprise, I was reported on the ABC’s respected current affairs program AM the next morning. Without speaking to me again and after seeking comments from the Attorney-General’s office, AM ran the line: “Undeterred Keysar Trad says he’s hoping to find another wife to join his family. To do so, he says, would be to honour his first wife.”

No such comment had aired on Hack. The media then spent more than a week mocking the practice of a husband having two or more wives simultaneously. No one took issue with the bisexual relationship, which involved one man and his female partner, who also had a relationship with another woman.

Did he say it? Did he not? Who knows, but note that he said that the comment never “aired“, not that he never said it off the air; who knows?

It is central to my points though, that Mr. Trad has conflated a heterosexual man having two women )told by their religion that they are his servants, sex slaves and less than him, in brains and judgment, in the eyes of God) and a relationship say, between a man and 2 bisexual woman; to have a second woman in that situation is truly being fair to the woman. That kind of marriage would be completely different from the traditional Islamic ideal of “honoring” a wife by marrying a younger woman to relieve her of chores, and some of the “burden” of sex.

At the end of an interview on 2UE, Mike Carlton declared that, as a Judeo-Christian nation, we marry one person for life. After a pause, he added that we just have lots of affairs on the side.

In Western society, the “other woman” in an affair is stigmatised. She faces significant pressure to keep the relationship secret to protect her man because modern society frowns on plural heterosexual relations. If she fell pregnant, society – including her partner – could place great pressure on her to have an abortion.

The mistress in an affair should have rights. She needs to be protected if she decides to end the relationship because the man refuses to live up to her expectations and leave his wife.

I am not sure just where Mr. Trad (good name that for a traditionalist) got his impressions. Films from the 60’s maybe? In my experience that while he is right that Western society is monogamous mainly as an offshoot of Church influence his analysis of our sex lives is far from accurate.

First off, he seems to completely miss out on the idea that the woman’s goal may not be the man’s divorce and marriage to her. As to the pressure for an abortion, that is unlikely to be decided mainly on that basis. The woman’s desire to have or not have that man’s baby is far more likely to control her final decision; he has no legal say in it, a concept that Mr. Trad surely finds incomprehensible. On top of that, the power a woman has to cause trouble in the man’s life, both social and legal, give her the upper hand against all but true bounders.

The problems are not what Mr. Trad imagines, they are more involved with the fact that affairs are NOT committed relationships but flings. I am not going to condemn a responsible fling by a persistently deprived spouse but, the subject is marriage not sex as I recall. Let us move on.

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, must have been paying attention. A few months later, he introduced legislation granting rights to the second woman so that she could also share the assets of her married lover.

The problem of deception, however, does not go away. Why in the liberal 21st century must we live a lie in relationships? And why do we continue to maintain a facade that monogamy is a perfect institution, when studies consistently reveal that most men admit to having affairs? Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.

More cultural misunderstanding here. The legislation merely recognizes a fact; a long term lover has a share in one’s interests. In the U.S. we call it palimony and it is applied when a relationship is long term and stable. It especially applies where a financial burden has been assumed by one or both of the parties in either direction. The issue is Interdependence. Children are always the legal responsibility of both genetic parents.

Islam openly acknowledges this fact of human nature and stipulates a regulatory framework for plural relations. But modern Western society, suspicious of all things Islamic, fails to recognise the qualities of Muslim marriage and family.

Whoops, I have to step in on that little gem. “Islam acknowledges” which “fact of human nature“? That men are horny dogs and are happiest with a cooking, cleaning sex slave at home who thinks she will go to hell if she does not lick the pus from his nose? (That last was a quote from Mohammed about a wife’s duties by the way in one semi-reliable collection of the acts of Mohammed)

The regulatory framework that us Westerners are so suspicious of is known as Sharia. It commands that woman are worth half what a man is and, that she must cover herself except for face and hands lest she “Tempt” some pious man into raping her. It legalizes the rape of an unwilling wife, and sets down in no uncertain terms the rules for having sexual relations with a prepubescent WIFE.

No thanks Mr. Trad, the concept of multiple marriage is not the problem here, the problem is the systematic subjugation of the female by the Islamic, now how did you put it, Regulatory Framework Acknowledging Certain Facts of Life.

Seeing how well it has worked in Islamic lands I hope Mr. Trad forgives us if we give it a pass for now.

Legally enforceable monogamy was introduced by Emperor Justinian in the year 534. Justinian himself kept a courtesan as a mistress. He married her after the death of his wife, Euphemia, and only after he convinced Justin, his predecessor, to change the law so that senators could marry actresses and courtesans.

Ahh, good old Justinian. A superstitious fool who took credit for every victory because of his prayers but, almost lost the empire from ignoring military readiness in favor of those same prayers. If not for a man named Belisarius there would have been no Constantinople left for the Muslims to invade and occupy.

Yet another tribute to the “One Truth” idiots, and their ability to deny any reality while clinging to their possession of “rightness“.

Justinian is said to have criminalized plural unions under the influence of St Augustine, though Augustine clearly stated in his treatise on marriage that having several wives is not “contrary to the nature of marriage”. Yet like other church fathers, Augustine preferred celibacy, or monogamous marriage if one could not be celibate.

Well it seems that Mr. Trad is well versed in Church history, but it is unclear that this information either supports or denies polygamy. Mr. Trad seems to be making that case that it was solely the Church Fathers that came up with the idea. This is simply untrue as the Romans had abandoned multiple wives centuries before this time. Indeed it was likely the influx of Eastern culture that flooded the Empire that caused the subject even to come up by Justinian’s time.

And to me this all is beside the point. Marriage is for the economic and emotional stability of parents and children, anything more than that is a fringe benefit. Every other aspect of a marriage can be had without the relationship being one. We marry to have a partner, a friend, someone to have our back and someone to give ours to. A person to dedicate our energies to making happy even when we find it hard to want to make ourselves happy. This is the job of a spouse, to live every moment knowing you are not alone, knowing that what you do is important to one you love. It is also putting more than one person to the task of building a home and prosperity no matter how the labor is divided.

Over the years, I have counseled adulterers from different faith backgrounds. I never tried to punish, hurt or expose them. I tried to guide them to mend their ways. I tried to help them understand that sex outside marriage was neither in their best interests nor in the best interests of society. If they were married, I did my best to ensure that their marriage remained safe and stable. Had they been in plural unions that conformed to the Islamic regulatory framework, such relationships would not have been adulterous, but divinely sanctioned unions.

Now all of that except the building of a home can be had, with a little more effort and trouble, by a “couple” that is not married or living together. But when we start talking about children that stability and those shared resources become much more important. It is possible for a single parent to raise a fine child. But it is horribly hard on that parent.

We marry to build in the material world and to never be alone in the adventure of life and to give the best environment for our children. It is not because God told us to, it is because we are at our best when we are not alone.

Wow, I love it when an Islamist hangs himself with his own words; it makes my job easier. From his words I get the impression that he includes non-married, but sexually active, people as “adulterers“.

Not a word about the effect on the spouse, merely an admonition to be “safe” and “stable“. What does he tell them? Always use a condom and do not get caught? Given that both the Koran and ahadith say that a lie told to keep the peace is condoned; does he advise against coming clean if caught?

But the part that is the real zinger is how he tells them all that if they only were Muslim they could have their cake and eat it too. Given that there is no stigma to casual divorce (when initiated by the man at any rate) in Islam, it is quite possible for a man who can afford it to marry the regulation four wives, and simply divorce any that become unattractive or stop “pleasing” him in any way. (Heff, have you ever thought about just converting?) He can then find another to marry (buy) and refill his quota.

Is it just me, or do any of my readers out there see the problem for the woman in this “Regulatory Framework” that is so praised as a solution to the perversions of our Western sexual practices?

Australian law has maintained the Justinian facade that a marriage is one man and one woman, and that every other relationship must be kept secret. Under Australian law, bigamy attracts penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, polygamous marriages conducted overseas are recognized under family law for the purpose of property settlements.

Here is where Mr. Trad and I very slightly cross paths. I see no reason that a man and two women, or two women, or two men, or three women and two men, should not contract a “marriage” with all the legal rights and duties implied by Western customs. My diversion with Mr. Trad’s Islamic model is that I feel all parties in such marriages should be equal under the law and that no party under 18 may be entered into such contracts.

There is also a new factor that the West needs to confront. I feel it is unconstitutional for us to use the law to say someone cannot marry because of religious “law“.

What then do we do to prevent either Christians, Jews, Mormons or Muslims from marrying wives kept ignorant and then imprisoned in the home (and burka) away from eyes that can see signs of abuse and neglect?

When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.

As I see it, to preserve our traditions and especially the Constitution we must allow the marriages (subject to the above limits on age and coercion) and do what we do already about radical Mormons and Christians (and I believe a few Jews), we keep an eye open for abuses and act if there is cause. This is all that is done for any spouse or child in any abusing family. Society can only apply fair rules and hope the facade of the evil cracks before they harm the innocent. But is that not what we have ALWAYS been limited to in a civil society?

If a woman in a traditional marriage shows signs of abuse someone hopefully sees it and does something. It is not just to try to apply a tighter control on ANY social group than that. But it is certainly in our rights as a society, in my opinion, to see to it that NO legal relationship shows the stigma of abuse. It is NOT in our right to say how many people are involved in that family absent those stigma.

Yeah? So? I have read the Sharia marriage rules; the payment is seen to “purchase” the man’s right to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina. No, I am not being crude, it really is THAT blatantly put.

Further, until the man has had a chance to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina, he is not required to pay her. However if he has the opportunity, but fails to “enjoy” his possession, he must pay her, and get his jollies later.

Any children of this marriage are seen as the property of the man; at best the divorced mother might get to keep them ‘til they hit puberty.

Further the divorced woman is supposed to get all her property returned to her but, this rarely happens unless her family is strong enough to force the issue. Many times a husband simply coerces his wife into signing her assets “freely” over to him sometime before he casts her off.

Islamic marriage is no solution for the issues of sex outside of marriage either. The Koran, ahadith and all Sharia are clear that having sex with non-Muslim “possessions of the right hand” is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with what Mr. Trad calls Human Nature. Islam treats these women, and the children that might result, as non-entities; useful to legally slake the lust of a “moral” Muslim man. This is new “morality” that will save the ‘decadent’ West?

There is no requirement for such a union to be “legally” registered with a secular body that does not recognize the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation’s criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.

Not secret, except from the law and anyone who might report abuses you mean. This article is starting to read like a Dah’wah (Religious recruiting) aimed at adulterous, wife beating pedophiles wishing to sanctify their illegalities in the name of God by becoming Muslims.

According to this a Muslim marriage is ONLY concerned with obeying Sharia rules, and is outside the jurisdiction of mere human laws. If I take him at face value, and I have no reason not to, and look at what Sharia says about marriage, then he is promoting the idea that a man can come home from work and take his wife from her cooking to have sex with her in any fashion he likes. He can then beat her (lightly) if she has refused to obey his whims after verbal admonitions (telling her that God will only love her if she does what her husband desires) and an short period “making” her sleep apart from his no-doubt desirable bod.

Sharia tells the devout Muslim man that he is not allowed to cause physical (what about emotional) harm to his “wife” if she is “not yet able to bear intercourse” from being too young in body. It does allow him to do ANYTHING else with her, or make her do things for him, to the same effect as “enjoying” her vagina “properly” so long as his “play” does not result in this physical harm.

Had enough yet? This is all as mainstream in Islam as “For Richer and for Poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.” is in the West.

Yes, marriage needs to be reformed but, allowing traditional Islamic forms to spread in the West would be a very bad thing to this Moderate Jeffersonian.

This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.

Mr. Trad, Oh! Mr. Trad! You left a part out!!! The Koran says that if he can’t treat more than one WIFE fairly he should only have one WIFE and whatever other sex partners he likes that are “possessions of the right hand.” This has been interpreted by various scholars as meaning anything from sex slaves to any non-Islamic prostitute. The exact limit depends on your school of Islam, and the opinion of your Imam.

Islamic sex in and of itself (as in old school Christianity and Judaism) is seen as a defilement in and of itself. The only question a Muslim man need concern himself with is whether it is ALLOWED for him to have sex with this woman or that.

Since he is forbidden to marry a non-Muslim then by Islamic law the woman has no rights and is no threat to his marriage bed. Any children are either abandoned as bastards to her or, adopted and raised Muslim; the choice is the whim of the man.

There is nothing in Islam to prevent a “devout” man from being highly adulterous by Western standards; it all depends on how and who he has sex with as to whether it is a sin or not.

I fail to see, Mr. Trad, how this would HELP any of the issues that we face here in the West.

Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband’s time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.

Well, I can see this argument having some validity, but only as much as it has when applied to men. I want to see anyone, Christian or Muslim or whoever explain how it is o.k. for a man to have two wives who share him but not o.k. for one woman to be shared by two men. Explain without resorting to “God told me so” arguments that is. Personally I see no problem with either one if all agree and especially if the two same sex partners are highly bisexual. In that case in fact it almost becomes required to have the third for a stable relationship without huge tension, or sex outside the marriage occurring regularly.

In most cases, the husband ends up providing separate accommodation. The women can agree to share dwellings – it’s entirely up to them. Many men in Western society complain about their mother-in-law or a “nagging” wife. If his wife and in-laws were difficult, would he seek more of the same? The willingness of a man to take on another wife is in fact a form of praise to his first wife.

Oh really? “You know dear, you are so un-troubling, and your parents are so nice to me; I know it is only for your sake that they are not nasty slobs when they visit.

In tribute to your skills at wifely things I shall marry 15 year old Tasha. I am quite willing to chance that she will not live up to your example but, I am sure that you are so good that I must be blessed by God in my marriages.”

Is this the logic Mr. Trad? Just who allowed you to pull THAT one from their emotionally constipated rectum?
And have you addressed how the issue of wealthy old men who can afford to A) bribe parents into agreeing to the marriage, and B) keep separate households for 4 wives, affects the chances of Salim on the Street to get married before he is past 50; assuming he is wealthy by then?

Oh, Mr. Trad, do you think about how limiting multi-partner marriages to multiple women for one men will affect the ratio of single young men to single young women? Are you in fact thinking about anything, but how cool it would be to have God tell you that if you can afford it you can be Hugh Hefner, as long as you follow a few simple, and morally undemanding, rules?

While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying “yes” more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt’s research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.

What planet is this man from again? As far as I can tell Islam regards a married threesome (or one with sex slaves) as not forbidden (haram) but simply not recommended. So, do it if you really like, but pray extra afterward when you are making yourself clean again before God.

As far as the rest of it goes, I would imagine that worldwide there are as many frustrated and unfulfilled wives as there are similar husbands; I would like to see how Mr. Trad would view sex if he got a chance to make love with a woman who had not had her clitoris cut off, and been, at the least, programmed from birth to regard sex as for his enjoyment only.

What a lack of joy to be in bed with any woman who believes her own desires are a sign of evil and only by performing like a shameless whore her husbands every desire can she be sexually “healthy.”

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.

Again, I think Mr. Trad is still living in the Middle East. In the West we realize that it is the men more often cannot keep up after a certain age. But then again, if Western men were sleeping with women who are “circumcised“, and treated like dogs that can cook and clean and screw, Western women also might be a tad less than horny from time to time.

Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?

Mr. Trad here forgets his own emphasis on the idea that a man should not marry more wives than he can be “fair” to. Is it at all fair to marry a woman, then marry another that is a “real” love?

Can you imagine being that first woman so “honored“? But this fits in with the Modern Muslim, and old-school Judeo-Christian, view that a woman is a burden instead of a prize and partner.

And let us not forget that even if the man admits that he cannot be fair to the first wife when he meets his “true love” he can simply do what a Western man would do; get a divorce and remarry; the difference is that in the West a man, or a woman, will think twice and thrice before taking this step because of the legal and social ramifications; ramifications that are absent for the most part in Islam with its easy marriage and divorce for men only.

A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalize that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?

Well, generally any man with “multiple girlfriends” does not really have a true emotional attachment to any of them. For the girls to marry him would be to chain themselves to a “master” who’s heart is not engaged.

Is the total focus in Islam on only the man coming clear yet? Can we “reform marriage” in the West by taking two steps backward, or is Mr. Trad just rationalizing in the dark?

Keysar Trad is president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia. He will deliver a speech on why polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Opera House today.

Wow, if that is the best he can do in making Islamic polygamy attractive to Western minds, I would love to hear about the other “values” he commends.

A Tribute to Dr. Dana Cloud of the University of Texas

My dear Dana, you have truly made not only my day and week but quite possibly my month. What boon have you done me you ask? Well I am not quite sure how to put this Doctor Cloud but your over educated and DETERMINEDLY ignorant stance in defense of the indefensible overloads my humour hopper with raw materials for commentary about the silliness of you and all whom you call ally. I know this is rude but you measured the rope and put it around your neck and jumped. I just came along afterward to use your folly to create cautionary tales for those who still can be saved.

Truly, after the easy fun shredding your “rebuke” of David Horowitz, how wondrerful to find a whole blogrole of Radical, Progressive Thought to play in like a sandbox of the illogical.

On to the first victim: one Billie Murray, snickeringly enough considering today’s posts a Doc candidate in Communications Studies, will give us her devastatingly poignant tale of hate speech, violence and censorship….by the Left.

Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14April 21, 2009
The letter was written by Billie Murray, Ph.D. Candidate at UNC Chapel Hill. H

April 16, 2009

Dear Chancellor Thorp:

I want to express my concerns over the events of April 14, 2009. Currently, I am a Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest.

Specializing in what again? A specialist in the rhetoric of protest? Is that the same as Guru of Spin? Yes? O.K. lets move on then.

I have been a part of the UNC system for 6 years and a student and member of the UNC-Chapel Hill community for over 4 years. During that time I have witnessed some of UNC’s proudest, shining moments and consider those less shining to be opportunities for growth and progress. As a member of this community, a first-hand witness to the protest events on April 14th, and as a scholar of free speech issues, (GDeW) A scholar of Free Speech that does not appear to know free speech LAW) I believe it is my responsibility to address what I see as precisely one of those opportunities.

Billie knows what is good, and what is bad, and will now lay down the law as to what the chancellor SHOULD be thinking. Billie must have a thought police badge, that or delusions of relevance.

In the days leading up to April 14th, I reviewed a number of emails, websites and other literature about the Youth for Western Civilization, Tom Tancredo, and proposed responses to his presence and the presence of the YWC chapter on campus. I attended the event on the 14th as a researcher of social protest and free speech and to stand in solidarity with those students who felt threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo in our community.

As far as I can tell this means Billie went there mainly to study the effectiveness of the protest tactics while taking part in said protest.

During the protest, I watched as some of my students were roughly pushed to the ground by police officers, sprayed withpepper spray, and threatened with a taser.

Billie doesn’t mention until later that these students were loudly doing their best to disrupt the speech when the police did these things in an attempt to get the overgrown children to obey the law and the customs of all decent adults on the Right as well as the those on the Left.

I helped some students to the bathroom on the second floor of Bingham Hall to rinse the spray from their noses, mouths, and eyes. Needless to say I was afraid for their safety and my own.

Well when you break the law, violently disrespect your university and the guest speaking, and won’t back down until the police threaten to taser you, then YES Virginia, you SHOULD feel you have led them into an unsafe venture. That twinge you felt was maturity trying to be born.

The Students for a Democratic Society released a statement today detailing a side of this story that has been absent from police accounts, the Daily Tar Heel, and other mainstream media sources. In the interests of free speech, that side of the story deserves to be heard, and I encourage you to hear their voices.

That side has been missing to this point because it is so self serving and inane that no one with sense has brought it up til now. Thank you for correcting our oversight Billie!

I can’t say I wasn’t warned that something violent might occur at this event. A faculty member in my department who researches hate speech sent out an email requesting that anyone deciding to take part in the protest use caution because demonstrations against hate groups can increase the likelihood of violence. I suppose I should have known from my own extensive experience and research that this violence most often comes not from protestors(sic), but from the “protectors” of free speech. It seems only Mr. Tancredo’s free speech rights and safety were of concern on Tuesday, not the free speech rights and safety of your own students. The apology issued to Mr. Tancredo on the grounds that he felt threatened and was unable to be heard was out of place. An apology should be issued to those students who feel threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo and the violent silencing of their own voices at the hands of police officers.

Let me be short and sweet Billie, free speech is what you disrupted, you never had YOUR turn at the podium, and you prevented the dissenters with real questions from being heard.

Go reserve your own space and say what you will. That is free speech. Making sure an opinion you don’t agree with is not heard at all is simple censorship no matter who does it.

I am afraid you suffer from the arrogance of self assurance, You feel that you are so “right” that you can do no wrong in defense of it. If I were your chancellor I would assign you several semesters of remedial history to learn the many examples of why that is a bad idea.

Other arguments have surfaced since the events that a cursory review of the history of protest would reveal as commonplace. For example, protests just give those protested against the publicity they crave, and there are better ways to deal with these groups. But I ask you, what are these better ways? In your notice to students you suggest that: “There’s a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that’s often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.”

And this is bad to you? You get the hives if someone you don’t like actually gets to have their say? How fascist is that?

While I might agree that sometimes silence can be golden, Alice Walker reminds us that “no person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow.”

This demand for silence also reveals a misunderstanding about one of the main goals of protest, both historically and in the current moment, to disrupt. Protestors(sic) often seek to disrupt our comfort zones in order to bring light to injustices. Silence is not disruptive. Disruption requires volume, and they were loud. Yes, a window was broken. But there seems to be more concern over this small piece of damaged property than over the overreaction of police in spraying and threatening bodily harm to the students.

Silly Me! Here I thought legitimate protest was about communicating to the public urgent information. But all along it was supposed to be about disrupting legitimate speech in order to obtain political hegemony by intimidation and provocation. I feel SO STUPID. Or maybe it is Billie who is misunderstanding things?

Threats of criminal and Honor Court charges against the students who exercised their free speech rights is indicative of how effectively they embodied their power to express themselves and protect their community from the silencing effect of hate speech.

You mean the scheduled speech of a peaceful group was violently disrupted by illegal protest designed to stifle free expression, and the perpetrators then turned around and claimed victim status for not being held up as heroes for violating the civil rights of people with opinions of which they disapprove? That IS what you are saying, isn’t it Billie?

We often lament the lack of involvement of young people in politics and issues of importance. But how quick we have been to encourage their silence, demonize their expressions, chill their participation, and discipline and punish them when they have any real effect.

I would have hoped you would have noticed, at your advanced age, but adults tend to get down on children whenever they try to ape adult activities but do not understand reality and break laws and ,and begin to hurt people and property. They especially do not like children causing such chaos and then blaming the adults. In a nutshell – if you and your friends would stop behaving like asses and you would find that your opportunities for effective public discourse will expand exponentially.

Some have argued that it is not entirely clear that YWC or Mr. Tancredo are/were engaging in hate speech. Your own comments refer to his talk as being about “immigration.” However, a review of Mr. Tancredo’s past speeches and YWC literature makes it quite clear that a rhetoric of “anti-immigration” is being used to thinly disguise intolerance, racism, fear, and attacks on the cultural identities of people of color who should “assimilate” into Western Culture.

Why should any culture allow people who CHOOSE to come to their land, but refuse to follow the laws of the new culture, to demand a rightto create an indigestible foreign body in that culture? Do you similarly defend the rights of Americans to move to Saudi Arabia and vent their spleens all over the law because the law is misogynistic and homophobic? No? WHY THE HELL NOT?

It is quite clear that whatever hidden agendas might, or might not, be held by YWC, our dear Billie has no more to go on than her own desire to believe that their message is invalid and void of meaningful content. And “Our Local Radical” feels this is sufficient to raise dramatically the bar on banning disruptive protests.

As purveyors of higher education, we have a responsibility to our students to be more critical and discerning and to teach them to be more critical and discerning about the rhetoric to which they are exposed.

Shocking isn’t it? But I guess you have to be allowed to have your say in an open forum too, despite your self-serving lunacy. That is called free speech. If your view was valid, anyone who honestly FELT that YOUR message was hateful, not a hard argument to make, could rightly disrupt YOUR efforts to make yourself heard in an open forum. Can you spell hypocrisy? Knew you could.

You don’t need to be a rhetorical scholar to see the insidiousness of this rhetoric. Hate speech (or if you prefer to err on the side of simple racist rhetoric) does not promote social justice or any other democratic values. Hate speech silences free speech by humiliating, denigrating, instilling fear, and inciting violence.

We still have to establish that the goal of the group and speaker were to make hateful speeches with no practical content. All we have is YOUR feelings that their message is somehow so evil that to even hear it would taint the tender minds of “your” students and so constitute “hate speech“.

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech.

Yes, it has, by the bloody U.S. Supreme court, in accordance with decades and decades of concurring opinions.

While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others.

Why not just come right out and say “Free speech is for Me, not for Thee”, sign your PC-Nazi, Party card and be done with it. Do you really think your chancellor will be impressed by your stunning “logic” and arrogantly ignorant attitude of moral superiority?

The litmus test for these “better stories” include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are “different.”

We only can allow “free speech” that promotes tolerance? What about speech about intolerant people like racists and thugs and dictators? What about speech that condemns hateful speech? My dear Billie YOU are guilty of promoting an intolerant attitude toward this group and this speaker! Should YOU be suppressed in your ideal world? You created the incident, you created the only hate speech to be heard that day, and you now want to be lionized for all your efforts to “enlighten” the poor ignorant administration and petted over as a victim in a crises that you yourself precipitated in all its glorious fascist glamour.

Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

1) Who told YOU what these mysterious new goals of “a democracy” were, and assigned you as the gatekeeper against the expression of any ideas contrary to those goals? I thought that was for the democracy to decide on its own.

2) You are the one who seems to hate and fear the message they bring. Could it be that YOU are the one that needs to open your mind?

3) Your hate speech did indeed silence free speech, including that of DECENT members of your own general ideology. Aren’t you PROUD of yourself? Someone noticed you.

Mr. Tancredois a former Congressperson and Presidential candidate. Therefore, he is someone with a great deal of political power, who has had many and will continue to have many opportunities to have his voice heard. I do not lament his speech being disrupted in this particular instance.

Well, it seems Billie feels that Mr. Tancredo has had more of a platform than Billie feels he should be allowed. According to her inbred sense of “truth” it is evident that God Almighty wants Billie to rein in Mr. Tancredo’s arrogant and hateful activities until such time as the LEFT has had an opportunity to counter program any potential audiences.

What I do lament is that the students who attended Mr. Tancredo’s speech with the goal of engaging in dialogue or debate with him, did not get the opportunity to have their voices heard. Their voices are too often silenced it seems.

Yes Billie, your group’s protest silenced the voices of citizens, not The School or the student group or the speaker or the police; you.

However, it is my understanding that the groups who organized the protest have since been in conversation with these students to apologize and find productive ways to work in solidarity so as to avoid a similar clash of communication strategies in the future.

You call tactics to disallow a group’s ability to communicate at all a “communication strategy”? Do you consider the death penalty to be a rehabilitative measure?

But as a teacher of communication, (Sniggering laugh, Dr. Pepper in nose, wet keyboard; sorry, could NOT help it) I would say to those students desiring dialogue, I admire your resolve.

However Billie plans to thwart it if possible so nya nya nya!

However, to have a truly productive dialogue with someone holding contrary views, all must come to the table willing to respect the diversity of others, trust in their goodwill, and prepared to be honest and open-minded. I do not believe that given the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tancredo or members of the YWC, you would have found these conditions to be present.

Well that is for sure; you have demonstrated that you have no respect for this group, you have no trust for their stated, declare yourself to be untrustworthy (for righteous you claim) yourself, AND you have a closed mind & are proud of it.  As to your honesty, well anyone who commits a crime both legal, and then claims that it was a moral necessity forced on them by the opposition has a bit to learn about the subject.

In closing, I would like to ask you, Chancellor Thorp, to use this moment as an opportunity to truly hear your students’ diverse voices when they say to you that they will not be silent when racism threatens their community. Use this opportunity to forge a dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and university police so as to have more productive, peaceful interactions in the future that protect our students and their rights.

Yes chancellor Thorp, let your students know that unless they respect the universal rules of civil discourse they will be censured, and then if they persist in their brown shirt tactics, expelled as incorrigible troublemakers unable to “play nice with others”.

Respectfully,
Billie Murray

Dear little Billie,  just what was respectful about that diatribe?