Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

35 Responses to “French Teacher’s Assault Against Islam”

1. jake says:

   October 7, 2006 at 9:06 AM

   “Do I think that Rubin was a murdering Jewish terrorist? You bet.”

   Who did he murder? Does it make no difference to you if someone’s convicted or not? The accusation is all that counts I guess for a morally confused individual as yourself. And you’re still firing blanks with your silly “quotes”. Of course being on the left means words are the only thing that counts.

   “Violence in self-defense is absolutely justifiable.”
   Irv Rubin interview, Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1995″

   This is supposed to be an indictment of Rubin? You’re completely moronic. Btw, it was the ADL who had keys to Odeh’s office not the JDL. What do you think that was about?

   Reply
2. BB says:

   October 7, 2006 at 7:45 PM

   “…Here’s another problem I have with anti-Muslim folk like you. In this country, most people’s attitude toward this would be: “Muslims want anti-blasphemy laws? Good for them. Let ‘em try. If they can get a majority they can have them. But until they do by God there won’t be anti-blasphemy laws here. And I’ll do my damndest to ensure that there won’t ever be.”

   Why are you so freaked out by Muslims using their constitutional rights as citizens to lobby for laws they find important to themselves? To me, this should be an obligation of a good citizen. A citizen who does not advocate for such legislation is doing himself and his fellow citizens a disservice….”

   What is freaky about anti-blasphemy laws is that one man’s blasphemy is another’s free speech. In a free country, free expression and speech are paramount. Free countries cannot force people of any faith or of no faith at all to conform to the dictates of another religion’s idea of what is blasphemy and what isn’t. How would you as a Muslim like to live in country where your belief that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God was punishable as blasphemy? How would you like to have to pay a fine or be jailed or even worse, be executed, because you say to your children that as Muslims you believe thus and thus and it happens to be blasphemy in another’s religion? The shoe doesn’t fit so well on your foot, does it?

   Anti-blasphemy laws will come back on you as a blasphemer of someone else’s faith or other faiths will demand laws protecting their religion. Such laws will harm the free practice of your religion only because each faith’s doctrines contradict those of others, as competing faiths invariably do. Appreciate this paradoxes of free societies: free citizens of faith tolerate the so-called blasphemy of others in order to enjoy practicing of their own faith. You won’t find that in any theocracy or secular autocracy.

   Reply
3. Richard Silverstein says:

   October 7, 2006 at 8:18 PM

   What is freaky about anti-blasphemy laws is that one man’s blasphemy is another’s free speech. In a free country, free expression and speech are paramount. Free countries cannot force people of any faith or of no faith at all to conform to the dictates of another religion’s idea of what is blasphemy and what isn’t.

   I think yr. point is well taken. I didn’t mean to say that if by some wild improbability Muslims in a western country managed to muster a majority to approve such laws that I would be happy about it. As I wrote, I would fight them like Hell. And I would urge an appeal of the legislation to the Supreme Court where I have confidence it would be repealed for precisely the reasons you provide.

   Democracy is a very delicate & shaky structure. That’s why there are checks & balances. Congress can pass just about any law it wishes. But the Court has the final say as to whether these laws pass constitutional muster.

   Reply
4. Richard Silverstein says:

   October 7, 2006 at 8:41 PM

   Who did he murder? Does it make no difference to you if someone’s convicted or not?

   Irv Rubin was perfectly happy to see the murder of of Arabs & said so many times. I am convinced that he & Earl Krugel were intimately involved in the assassination of Alex Odeh as is the FBI. I don’t know whether they planted the bomb or made the bomb or only initiated the plot & left its execution to others. But either way their figurative footprints are all over the crime. The fact that the government never solved that case leaves me deeply saddened both for Alex’s wonderful family, for Arab Americans, & for those of us Jews who despise the JDL way of homicidal rage against Arabs.

   Other JDL leaders who were close to Rubin WERE convicted of murder & imprisoned though they initially, I’m ashamed to say, tried to use Israel as a refuge from U.S. justice. There was an ethos of murder in that organization which was motivated & inspired by Rubin.

   In most cases, I’d like to see a person indicted & convicted before I call him a murderer. I relax my standards slightly in Rubin’s case.

   I note that Earl Krugel, his co-defendant in their final case together copped a plea for 20 years undoubtedly because he felt the case was airtight & he was liable to go away for longer if he didn’t. I firmly believe that Rubin would’ve been convicted as well. Now, theses charges only involved plotting to assassination Rep. Darrell Issa. But I have no doubt that had he not been caught, Irv & Earl would’ve succeeded.

   Btw, it was the ADL who had keys to Odeh’s office not the JDL

   I know fr. first hand information fr. a former ADL employee that the ADL engages (or at least engaged when he was employed there) in black bag jobs against groups they deemed as dangerous to Jews. It is entirely possible that the ADL had keys to Alex’s office. But a black bag job is different than murder. The ADL has never been credibly charged with murdering anyone. The same can’t be said for the JDL.

   I didn’t call you a “moron” & you don’t have a right to hurl such insults in this blog (read the rule above the comment box). If you want to take a dump somewhere do it at yr own site. Do it again & you’ll be banned here.

   Reply
5. Richard Silverstein says:

   October 3, 2006 at 1:15 PM

   Has anyone here ever had an intellectual religious debate with a muslim [sic]? None? Neither have I. The intellectual part is impossible. Every man of Islam I personally know (and I know quite a few) is willing and ready to kill if ANYONE tries to throw an insult at Mohammad, and would even make a similar threat to you for bringing it up.

   This is a patently false statement. If the only Muslims you know are ones ready to kill you for insulting their prophet, then you must have the Al Qaeda phone book (if there is such a thing). Why don’t you branch out in life a bit & start by reading Tariq Ramadan’s website and then do a Google search for ‘Muslim tolerance’ or some other set of keywords that might open yr eyes to a different Muslim world than the twisted one you’ve been frequenting.

   Reply