Interesting perspective on the Islamic Saudi school controversy in Fairfax County:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200903194061/homeland-security/islamist-hate-exposed-islamist-school-in-fairfax-county-virginia.html

So wealthy Saudis are paying off certain Fairfax County officials to get their way?

Near the bottom of the article, it states:

"Local residents were astonished at the treatment they received from the commissioners as compared to the deferential and preferred treatment given by Islamic Saudi Academy proponents."

There is no need to bribe anybody. We have more than enough mutton-headed proponents of diversity in the County government to allow this expansion to go through completely unchecked, based solely on the fact that it is non-Americans that are asking to expand in an ecologically-protected area. If this were a Christian school, it would've been shot down before the paperwork was even signed.

(Or something like that. I was not impressed with the County's impartiality in this case based on the Planning Commission hearing I attended back in March, to say the least.)

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no need to bribe anybody. We have more
> than enough mutton-headed proponents of diversity
> in the County government to allow this expansion
> to go through completely unchecked, based solely
> on the fact that it is non-Americans that are
> asking to expand in an ecologically-protected
> area. If this were a Christian school, it
> would've been shot down before the paperwork was
> even signed.
>
> (Or something like that. I was not impressed with
> the County's impartiality in this case based on
> the Planning Commission hearing I attended back in
> March, to say the least.)

Well said and thanks for sharing. +1

Any way of finding if they contributed any money to the campaign coffers including that of Jerry Connally?

Fairfax Co. Board of Supervisors will be voting on it tonight:

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=722&sid=1696405

Wish someone in the county office who knows more would bring information to the public.

info: What information? The County has repeatedly shown that it has no interest in stopping this building from happening, even though it's (a) completely out of character for the rural Pope's Head Road, would (b) cause innumerable traffic problems (and potentially fatalities) to bring 600 students down that road every day, and (c) is opposed by everyone who lives around the site. All concerns about the site are brushed aside with the most condescending pooh-pooh's imaginable.

For whatever reason, the odds of this being stopped are precisely zero.

Why should it be stopped? Stop all Catholic School and Evangelical schools and Id support that as well as Islamic Schools. They all teach hate.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Bledbetter is right. The location alone is terrible. Traffic for homeowners will be a nightmare. It would never have made it this far if it were any other type of school. Wonder how long ago the school acquired the land.

According to the WTOP link, the Fairfax County Planning Commission recommends approving the school's expansion. The planning commission seems to be too intimidated by the Muslim group to say no.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should it be stopped? Stop all Catholic
> School and Evangelical schools and Id support that
> as well as Islamic Schools. They all teach hate.


There is no place for religious schools in the 21st Century - they're all there for the indoctrination of children

Ditto churches, temples, mosques etc

Providing any zoning, tax or legal privileges for religious organizations for any purpose is a dark age hangover which should be stopped

Location: They didn't seem intimidated to me, but rather, it seemed as if they came to the meeting preferring to hear one side of the story. Not generally a good demeanor for an "impartial" public commission to have, but it seems to be the direction our country is going.

Vince(1): That's ridiculous. Parents who wish to remove their children from the public school system should *always* be allowed the option to do so, and schools which are close to their beliefs should *always* be allowed. There is, however, NO shortage of land in the county that is not protected by environmental conservation easements, or located along dangerous two-lane roads that such schools would be more appropriately built on.

Here's one perspective on the IS*A school community's strategy for manipulating the Fairfax County planning:

http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2009/07/islamic-saudi-academy-expansion-on.html

What spin!

close them all: You know, there was a country that tried to do that once. Maybe you can remind me: How awesomely did things turn out for Soviet Russia again?

Maybe you're not familiar, but the United States is a country that was founded on *freedom*. Amongst those freedoms is the liberty to choose whatever upbringing you feel is most appropriate for your OWN children, without some forum ninny providing the usual nincompoopish input.

;)

Bledbetter, were you at the meeting in March? Is the description in the Marooned in Marin blog an accurate account?

Question: Yes it is 100% accurate. There were more people in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting than have ever been recorded in that board room before, and well over 99% of them were from ISA.

I have a few photos from the meeting posted here: http://snappedshot.com/archives/3700-Creeping-Sharia-in-Fairfax-County,-Virginia.html

Can provide more, if I can find where I stashed them away.

Thank you for your reply, bledbetter. It's shocking and pathetic that some Fairfax County politicians prefer to run over residents than stand up to bullies taking advantage of the freedoms built in to our political procedures.

Shame on the planning people who support the expansion, and shame on the repugnant school community.

ten (and wow)! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your reply, bledbetter. It's
> shocking and pathetic that some Fairfax County
> politicians prefer to run over residents than
> stand up to bullies taking advantage of the
> freedoms built in to our political procedures.
>
> Shame on the planning people who support the
> expansion, and shame on the repugnant school
> community.


Im in complete agreement, lets try to remember to remember these travesties at election time instead of low turnouts for "elections that dont really matter"

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> close them all: You know, there was a country that
> tried to do that once. Maybe you can remind me:
> How awesomely did things turn out for Soviet
> Russia again?
>
> Maybe you're not familiar, but the United States
> is a country that was founded on *freedom*.
> Amongst those freedoms is the liberty to choose
> whatever upbringing you feel is most appropriate
> for your OWN children, without some forum ninny
> providing the usual nincompoopish input.
>
> ;)


But of course the only people left out of this are the children who are indoctrinated with religion before they have enough world knowledge to understand how ridiculous the whole thing is. This leads them to make ill-informed, irrational and socially corrosive decisions in later life.

Having recently encountered a number of 8 yearolds who claim they've been born-again, I remain convinced of the pervasive and corrosive effects of religion in this country,

If children want to explore religion as adults, fine - but they shouldn't be indoctrinated from the cradle, usually with one or other random example from the grab bag of incompatible theologies and superstitions depending solely on the prior indoctrination of their parents

That's not freedom - that's child abuse

close them all: You have no right to dictate to other people how their children should be raised. You do have full control over your own, of course, including the right to raise them to be as anti-religious as you want.

It's not "Child abuse," it's "Freedom of choice." I thought you liberal types were FOR that. ;)

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> close them all: You have no right to dictate to
> other people how their children should be raised.
> You do have full control over your own, of course,
> including the right to raise them to be as
> anti-religious as you want.
>
> It's not "Child abuse," it's "Freedom of choice."
> I thought you liberal types were FOR that. ;)


Who said I was liberal? I just happen to think that religion remains a cancer in American society

I certainly do have the right to advocate that the tax and zoning advantages given to to religious groups and their schools run counter to the public good, and are, to my reading, unconstitutional, as is the version of the Pledge corrupted by religious zealots in the 1950s.

Society has taken unto itself certain abilities to determine how children can or cannot be raised - for example we ban child-incest and bonded labor

close them all: Telling other people what they should do with their children is stock and trade for what "liberals" do today. Merely tarring you based on your perceived (collectivist) suggestions.

Anyway, I'll table this topic for now. I think we've gotten to the point in our argument where we begin to suggest that each other's mother's wear army boots, which won't do either of us any good. I'm all for living and letting live, if it's okay with you. ;)

What can you expect from the county when the President himself bows to the king of Saudi Arabia?

the spin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's one perspective on the IS*A school
> community's strategy for manipulating the Fairfax
> County planning:
>
> http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2009/07/islami
> c-saudi-academy-expansion-on.html
>
> What spin!

More from the Northern Virginiastan blog:

http://northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com/

Yeah!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef011570e86c5c970c-popup

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> close them all: Telling other people what they
> should do with their children is stock and trade
> for what "liberals" do today. Merely tarring you
> based on your perceived (collectivist)
> suggestions.
>
> Anyway, I'll table this topic for now. I think
> we've gotten to the point in our argument where we
> begin to suggest that each other's mother's wear
> army boots, which won't do either of us any good.
> I'm all for living and letting live, if it's okay
> with you. ;)

actually, my mother did used to wear army boots and carry a machine gun protecting the free world from communists - caught it from her father who picked the habit up fighting facists

neither had much good to say about religion

BTW - there's nothing collectivist about criticizing religions impact on society - actually its conservatism (which is by definition, well, conservative) that has most to do with forcing views on people not liberalism (which by definition is, well, liberal) but as you say, that's another argument

close them all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW - there's nothing collectivist about
> criticizing religions impact on society - actually
> its conservatism (which is by definition, well,
> conservative) that has most to do with forcing
> views on people not liberalism (which by
> definition is, well, liberal) but as you say,
> that's another argument

Which is why liberal programs always seem to need such byzantine bureaucracies to not "force their views" on people, right? ;)

If only we had just that _one_ more social program. THEN the world would be a perfect, peace-loving place... Just like in China and Russia and North Korea and Vietnam and Cambodia and Sri Lanka and much of Latin America, right? ;);)

Anyway, hope you understand that I'm messing around over here. I mean no ill will in the least!

B.

;)

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2015 10:42PM by WingNut.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a condition of the school remaining should
> be Saudi Arabia be required to have a reciprical
> agreement to allow the Yankees to run some kind of
> nutty extremist Christian school in Riyadh. Of
> course they would never allow it, so send them
> packing.


They won't allow any non-muslim religion to even hold a service on saudi land. I think technically, the penalty for possessing a bible is death (while I doubt they'd actually try to execute someone for it.)


But the real problem is that this school teaches the Wahhabi form of islam, which is the same version that the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda use as the foundation of their hatred for the infidel and jihad against the west. It is a vile and hateful sect of islam, and it is being actively funded and spread by the Saudi Royal Family.

The fact that we allow the very sect that spawned al Qaeda and 15 of the 19 hijackers to have a school right outside our nation's capital says a lot about who really owns this country, and whose interests "our" politicians serve.

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> close them all: You have no right to dictate to
> other people how their children should be raised.
> You do have full control over your own, of course,
> including the right to raise them to be as
> anti-religious as you want.
>
> It's not "Child abuse," it's "Freedom of choice."
> I thought you liberal types were FOR that. ;)


its not really free choice when you are raised to believe something from an age where you dont even know what you are learning... and thus why religion hasnt died out. because we teach our children at an age before they can think rationaly on their own, so they grow up to not question it. So yea, not so much freedom of choice if you are too young to think about it.

Have not seen any news about last night's meeting. Anyone know how it went?

The public hearings went until around 1015; the decision was deferred until the August 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting. The record is still open for residents who want to submit comments for the record.

If ISA bring in 100s of supporters and opponents bring in 10-15, the BoS has to conclude that ordinary people just don't care.

I have not yet determined that multi-culturalism is doomed to failure, given that we've tried it for perhaps 50 years and we've tried fear of 'the other' for the 8,000 years before that. Other posters in this thread seem to have determined multi-culturalism is a doomed experiment, and so opposing this school is the only logical thing to do.

bledbetter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no need to bribe anybody. We have more
> than enough mutton-headed proponents of diversity
> in the County government to allow this expansion
> to go through completely unchecked, based solely
> on the fact that it is non-Americans that are
> asking to expand in an ecologically-protected
> area. If this were a Christian school, it
> would've been shot down before the paperwork was
> even signed.
>
> (Or something like that. I was not impressed with
> the County's impartiality in this case based on
> the Planning Commission hearing I attended back in
> March, to say the least.)


The PC members are all County Supervisor appointed, and since the vast majority of our County Supervisors are Liberal, go figure. They're the reason that Fairfax County has become not only a haven for Illegals, but also home turf for Extremist Mosques (Near Falls Church for instance), and now this pos school. I wonder what their excuse will be when the next Atta happens to be a student of this so called "Academy".

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If ISA bring in 100s of supporters and opponents
> bring in 10-15, the BoS has to conclude that
> ordinary people just don't care.
>
> I have not yet determined that multi-culturalism
> is doomed to failure, given that we've tried it
> for perhaps 50 years and we've tried fear of 'the
> other' for the 8,000 years before that. Other
> posters in this thread seem to have determined
> multi-culturalism is a doomed experiment, and so
> opposing this school is the only logical thing to
> do.


You cannot practice "multi-culturalism" to the detriment of your own Nation, and your own values. There is no question that we as a Nation are amongst the most accepting people in the world, but we need to stop with this limp-wristed apologist mindset. If you didn't learn such a lesson on 9/11, then you're about as thick as they come.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bledbetter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > close them all: You have no right to dictate to
> > other people how their children should be
> raised.
> > You do have full control over your own, of
> course,
> > including the right to raise them to be as
> > anti-religious as you want.
> >
> > It's not "Child abuse," it's "Freedom of
> choice."
> > I thought you liberal types were FOR that. ;)
>
>
> its not really free choice when you are raised to
> believe something from an age where you dont even
> know what you are learning... and thus why
> religion hasnt died out. because we teach our
> children at an age before they can think rationaly
> on their own, so they grow up to not question it.
> So yea, not so much freedom of choice if you are
> too young to think about it.


So are you claiming that religion is somehow "irrational"?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should it be stopped? Stop all Catholic
> School and Evangelical schools and Id support that
> as well as Islamic Schools. They all teach hate.


Yeah, because last week I witnessed a bunch of Catholic Nuns detonate an IED near Tikrit, which left a convoy of GIs injured and killed, and I saw some Evangelical students running planes into the Sears Tower. Wow, what an amazing sense of logic you have.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If ISA bring in 100s of supporters and opponents
> bring in 10-15, the BoS has to conclude that
> ordinary people just don't care.
>
> I have not yet determined that multi-culturalism
> is doomed to failure, given that we've tried it
> for perhaps 50 years and we've tried fear of 'the
> other' for the 8,000 years before that. Other
> posters in this thread seem to have determined
> multi-culturalism is a doomed experiment, and so
> opposing this school is the only logical thing to
> do.


The Saudi school will have nothing to do with multi-culturalism. In fact, if they actually accepted American students in their school, to teach them the hatred and strict sharia-law, beyond even the taliban's ideas, I think there would be much greater outrage.

This school is for Saudi children, and will have nothing to do with "infidels" and western thinking or ideals.

I'll defend against the irrational "post-9/11" anti-muslim hatred until I'm blue in the face, but this is not a criticism against muslims, this is a criticism against a very hateful, rabid and uncompromising form of islam, one that is directly responsible for the line of thinking that created al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and other very virulent and intolerant forms of islam.

Seriously, you should read a book called "Hatred's Kingdom". It isn't anti-muslim, it is anti-Wahhabi. The Saudi government is shared by the Royal Family of Ibn Al-Saud, and the Wahhabi clerics. That country is worse than Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it. Worse than Iran, even.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If ISA bring in 100s of supporters and
> opponents
> > bring in 10-15, the BoS has to conclude that
> > ordinary people just don't care.
> >
> > I have not yet determined that
> multi-culturalism
> > is doomed to failure, given that we've tried it
> > for perhaps 50 years and we've tried fear of
> 'the
> > other' for the 8,000 years before that. Other
> > posters in this thread seem to have determined
> > multi-culturalism is a doomed experiment, and
> so
> > opposing this school is the only logical thing
> to
> > do.
>
>
> The Saudi school will have nothing to do with
> multi-culturalism. In fact, if they actually
> accepted American students in their school, to
> teach them the hatred and strict sharia-law,
> beyond even the taliban's ideas, I think there
> would be much greater outrage.
>
> This school is for Saudi children, and will have
> nothing to do with "infidels" and western thinking
> or ideals.
>
> I'll defend against the irrational "post-9/11"
> anti-muslim hatred until I'm blue in the face, but
> this is not a criticism against muslims, this is a
> criticism against a very hateful, rabid and
> uncompromising form of islam, one that is directly
> responsible for the line of thinking that created
> al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and other very
> virulent and intolerant forms of islam.
>
> Seriously, you should read a book called "Hatred's
> Kingdom". It isn't anti-muslim, it is
> anti-Wahhabi. The Saudi government is shared by
> the Royal Family of Ibn Al-Saud, and the Wahhabi
> clerics. That country is worse than Afghanistan
> when the Taliban ruled it. Worse than Iran, even.

+1

We've got our own nuts in America, why keep importing more because some of us are scared to step out of PC mode and call it like it is?

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So are you claiming that religion is somehow
> "irrational"?


By definition

When something relies on a self proclaimed recourse to 'faith' in opposition to contrary evidence, it is by definition 'irrational'

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why should it be stopped? Stop all Catholic
> > School and Evangelical schools and Id support
> that
> > as well as Islamic Schools. They all teach
> hate.
>
>
> Yeah, because last week I witnessed a bunch of
> Catholic Nuns detonate an IED near Tikrit, which
> left a convoy of GIs injured and killed, and I saw
> some Evangelical students running planes into the
> Sears Tower. Wow, what an amazing sense of logic
> you have.

Well, you do see a lot of evangelical cheer leading for Israel's invasions and occupations based on the idea of religious prophecy, as well as Rummy's Iraq briefings to Bush covered in religious texts and you do see the Vatican campaigning to prevent family planning in developing nations dooming them to cyclical poverty.

If you're a religious zealot, you use the tools at hand - I find it hard to squeeze a cigarette paper between any of them

Why put up with any of them?

Shouldn't have to


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1C_NWMRs8Q

close them all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So are you claiming that religion is somehow
> > "irrational"?
>
>
> By definition
>
> When something relies on a self proclaimed
> recourse to 'faith' in opposition to contrary
> evidence, it is by definition 'irrational'


But the point remains, when has science (The basic drive for evidentiary support of theories) ever been able to irrefutably contradict religion? Some of the greatest minds in science will even be the first to admit that their work has proven the existence of God to them, for any number of reasons, the least of which involves the fact that there is an infinite amount of that which we cannot explain, and what we cannot comprehend. You might be correct in certain specific examples, such as the Salem Witch Trials for instance, but what you are referring to is an issue pertaining to extremes and a lack of logic. Religion and Logic in their own right do not run contradictory to eachother.

close them all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Why should it be stopped? Stop all Catholic
> > > School and Evangelical schools and Id support
> > that
> > > as well as Islamic Schools. They all teach
> > hate.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, because last week I witnessed a bunch of
> > Catholic Nuns detonate an IED near Tikrit,
> which
> > left a convoy of GIs injured and killed, and I
> saw
> > some Evangelical students running planes into
> the
> > Sears Tower. Wow, what an amazing sense of
> logic
> > you have.
>
> Well, you do see a lot of evangelical cheer
> leading for Israel's invasions and occupations
> based on the idea of religious prophecy, as well
> as Rummy's Iraq briefings to Bush covered in
> religious texts and you do see the Vatican
> campaigning to prevent family planning in
> developing nations dooming them to cyclical
> poverty.
>
> If you're a religious zealot, you use the tools at
> hand - I find it hard to squeeze a cigarette paper
> between any of them
>
> Why put up with any of them?


A Zealot however denotes an extreme individual, and simply teaching someone religion is not "extreme". The only problem arises when a specific sect or misconstrued teaching of a religion is put forth which causes violence and harm, then, and then only should we ever be against that specific aspect of that particular religion. The problem with the Saudi Academy, to be specific, has to do with radicalized Wahhabism, which is an extremist oriented teaching of Islam. It does not condemn the entire religion to be against such teachings, and by in fact going after and against radicalized elements, the sooner the mainstream aspect of such a religion will replace it (Either through force or teachings).

The bottom line as well, is that no aspect of any religion has been as responsible for violence within the 20th and 21st Century as Jihadi/Wahhabi Islamic based philosophies and their subsequent sects and followers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 12:55AM by ThePackLeader.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the point remains, when has science (The basic
> drive for evidentiary support of theories) ever
> been able to irrefutably contradict religion? Some
> of the greatest minds in science will even be the
> first to admit that their work has proven the
> existence of God to them, for any number of
> reasons, the least of which involves the fact that
> there is an infinite amount of that which we
> cannot explain, and what we cannot comprehend. You
> might be correct in certain specific examples,
> such as the Salem Witch Trials for instance, but
> what you are referring to is an issue pertaining
> to extremes and a lack of logic. Religion and
> Logic in their own right do not run contradictory
> to eachother.


"God" is the underlying ordering principle to the universe.

How did cells evolve to create the optic nerve, or the retina, or the cornea? How did cells evolve to create the brain, or the liver, or the heart, lungs, etc.

Yes, we all know there is an ordering principle that rules the entire universe, and that created the universe, and that spawned life.

The problem with many peoples' experience with religion and "God" is that they think it is a person sitting in a cloud making real time decisions about them in particular.

They actually believe the shit being fed to them in those mega churches or mosques, and they really think that they can be "saved" by killing abortion doctors, or infidel Americans, or Israelis, or whatever the fuck else.

God is abstract. He or it may really exist. Or it could just be the ordering principle of life and the universe. To think otherwise is misanthropormophizing something no human could ever understand. Trying to turn it into something human when it isn't human at all.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But the point remains, when has science (The
> basic
> > drive for evidentiary support of theories) ever
> > been able to irrefutably contradict religion?
> Some
> > of the greatest minds in science will even be
> the
> > first to admit that their work has proven the
> > existence of God to them, for any number of
> > reasons, the least of which involves the fact
> that
> > there is an infinite amount of that which we
> > cannot explain, and what we cannot comprehend.
> You
> > might be correct in certain specific examples,
> > such as the Salem Witch Trials for instance,
> but
> > what you are referring to is an issue
> pertaining
> > to extremes and a lack of logic. Religion and
> > Logic in their own right do not run
> contradictory
> > to eachother.
>
>
> "God" is the underlying ordering principle to the
> universe.
>
> How did cells evolve to create the optic nerve, or
> the retina, or the cornea? How did cells evolve
> to create the brain, or the liver, or the heart,
> lungs, etc.
>
> Yes, we all know there is an ordering principle
> that rules the entire universe, and that created
> the universe, and that spawned life.
>
> The problem with many peoples' experience with
> religion and "God" is that they think it is a
> person sitting in a cloud making real time
> decisions about them in particular.
>
> They actually believe the shit being fed to them
> in those mega churches or mosques, and they really
> think that they can be "saved" by killing abortion
> doctors, or infidel Americans, or Israelis, or
> whatever the fuck else.
>
> God is abstract. He or it may really exist. Or
> it could just be the ordering principle of life
> and the universe. To think otherwise is
> misanthropormophizing something no human could
> ever understand. Trying to turn it into something
> human when it isn't human at all.


I have no idea what religion you or others have any experience with, if any at all, but the Christian definition of God (That I am familiar with) is that he represents an all encompassing entity, not a person (Like an Angel or Saint for instance).

Those abortion doctors you mention, and other such killings, are the works of a few nutjobs, and nothing more. They have occurred on such a limited basis compared to the militant Islam problem currently facing us however, and therefore even though they bring forth the fact that we have whackos and extremists in EVERY Religion, and EVERY walk of life known to man, they should be placed into a relevant context.

Hey, I agree with you that people do allow themselves to be brainwashed, and I believe Thomas Jefferson when he essentially mentioned the fact that we do ourselves a favor when we practice our faith and religion with logic and common sense. Such advice would have prevented countless problems over the past centuries, including occurrences such as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Burning and Drowning of "Witches", Heretics, and so forth, and the current (as you mention) wanting and fiending by certain radicalized Muslims in their quest to succeed in killing "Infidels". In Pakistan for instance, they typically have bombings every Friday after Prayer, and the only reason this is so, is because the Imams get everyone hyped up on hate filled rhetoric, and soon enough they just act as a senseless mob of ignorant rioters roaming the city streets looking for heads to roll.

Yes. and the fox news channel militia nutjobs are doing exactly the same thing.

That's why Tiller was shot.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bledbetter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > close them all: You have no right to dictate
> to
> > > other people how their children should be
> > raised.
> > > You do have full control over your own, of
> > course,
> > > including the right to raise them to be as
> > > anti-religious as you want.
> > >
> > > It's not "Child abuse," it's "Freedom of
> > choice."
> > > I thought you liberal types were FOR that.
> ;)
> >
> >
> > its not really free choice when you are raised
> to
> > believe something from an age where you dont
> even
> > know what you are learning... and thus why
> > religion hasnt died out. because we teach our
> > children at an age before they can think
> rationaly
> > on their own, so they grow up to not question
> it.
> > So yea, not so much freedom of choice if you
> are
> > too young to think about it.
>
>
> So are you claiming that religion is somehow
> "irrational"?


yes. clearly it is. But thats not what i was opposing, i was opposing the words he/she used "freedom of choice", at the age of 20 it may be a free choice made under your own will. But to have something hammered into your head at the age of 3 until you leave your house is something totally different.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> close them all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ThePackLeader Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > So are you claiming that religion is somehow
> > > "irrational"?
> >
> >
> > By definition
> >
> > When something relies on a self proclaimed
> > recourse to 'faith' in opposition to contrary
> > evidence, it is by definition 'irrational'
>
>
> But the point remains, when has science (The basic
> drive for evidentiary support of theories) ever
> been able to irrefutably contradict religion?

Science does that every day. It happened when we learned that Earth was nto the center of the Universe which everything revolves around. It happened when we learned the Earth was Billions of years old and not just a few thousand as the bible stated. Science can refute and contradict most things in the bible. It cannot however prove/disprove the existance of a creator.

Some
> of the greatest minds in science will even be the
> first to admit that their work has proven the
> existence of God to them, for any number of
> reasons, the least of which involves the fact that
> there is an infinite amount of that which we
> cannot explain, and what we cannot comprehend.

I would put these people in the same catagory as i would Einstein. He believed in the god of Espinoza. Not a god in the traditional sense, sitting in a cloud watching over us and judging our every action. He was refering to the machine it self being "god" not the creator of that machine. In other words, the wonder of nature, the infinite complexity of the universe and the laws that govern it, those are the things that he was calling "god", existance if you will. Not a man in the sky.


You
> might be correct in certain specific examples,
> such as the Salem Witch Trials for instance, but
> what you are referring to is an issue pertaining
> to extremes and a lack of logic. Religion and
> Logic in their own right do not run contradictory
> to eachother.

It is logical to believe "everything must have a creator, something cannot come out of nothing." It is not however logical to follow islam or the Bible, as there are too many contradictions between what was thought then, and what science has shown us now. A specific example of this would be homosexuality (a current hot button issue). Now the bible opposes homosexuality because it is "unnatural" or against gods will. If you were living 2 thousand years ago it may seem that a man should not be with another man because he cant have children, thus it goes against gods will. But as we look at nature today (which i would call "gods will") we see that there is indeed homosexuality in nature. In all species accross the board. Why would god allow this? well it seems to be a population controll mechanism. So what looked to be unnatural when it was written (by man) 2 thousand years ago, we can see now, may have just been natures way of balancing population (or a simple genetic mistake).

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. and the fox news channel militia nutjobs are
> doing exactly the same thing.
>
> That's why Tiller was shot.

FNC does suck, but Tillers shooter was a hardcore, anti-tax, pro-life militant decades before Fox was on the air.

Thurston, I'm ashamed at you for using the same scapegoating the msm loves.

bledbetter Wrote:
> If this were a Christian school, it would've been shot down
> before the paperwork was even signed.

It's funny you should put it that way, because the ISA on Pope's Head
used to be Fairfax Christian School. (I went there in the 60s.)

Using Spacy's information, I found this (thanks, Brian Ledbetter!):

http://actdcmetro.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/isa-fairfax-christian-school-responds/

That ISA community must enjoy pulling this crafty stunt over on the county. They must feel that no one can stop them, because they'll pull out the ol' "DISCRIMINATION" cry. That always scares the knee-jerk liberals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701384.html?wprss=rss_metro

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria obliged Monday, saying that although he "begged to differ" with some aspects of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's decision, he had concluded that the risk of ever releasing Abu Ali is too great.

"I cannot put the safety of the American citizenry at risk," he said, citing Abu Ali's "unwillingness to renounce the beliefs that led to his terrorist activities."

The new sentence was imposed after Abu Ali told the judge he was being mistreated in prison and blamed his conviction by a federal jury on "a rogue Justice Department." Abu Ali, who grew up in Northern Virginia and was valedictorian of his 1999 class at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County, is being held at a highly secure federal prison in Colorado known as the "supermax."

"I cannot pretend that this is justice," said Abu Ali, who concluded his remarks by "reminding" the judge "that one day you will go before the divine tribunal. Allah, he knows the doings of every soul. If you are comfortable with that, then you can decree whatever you want to decree."

What are they teaching in the Islamic Saudi Academic, if this valedictorian (and other graduates) engage in anti-American activities?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_re_us/us_bush_plot_sentencing

top graduate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are they teaching in the Islamic Saudi
> Academic, if this valedictorian (and other
> graduates) engage in anti-American activities?

It's been pretty well documented what they are teaching there. It is a terrorist training school, basically.

Spacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> top graduate Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What are they teaching in the Islamic Saudi
> > Academic, if this valedictorian (and other
> > graduates) engage in anti-American activities?
>
> It's been pretty well documented what they are
> teaching there. It is a terrorist training
> school, basically.

Well, it isn't exactly a terrorist training school.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia is a state ruled by a sort of "shared" monarchy. There's the house of ibn Al Saud, and the Wahhabi clerics.

The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the ideology that is behind almost all of the extremist and terrorist groups within Islam.

So it isn't surprising that someone taught in one of their many schools or who attends one of their many mosques that they fund in this country and all over the world would become a terrorist.

However, they are very careful about not crossing the line between "teaching islam" and "training terrorists".

They just give them enough radicalized and hate-filled versions of Islamic teachings to motivate some kids to then latch onto one radical movement or another, and to then attend real terrorist training camps.

The Saudi Monarchs are complicit, but only because they wish to keep enjoying oil wealth, while they know that without the support of the sorts of people who would stone a woman to death for being raped or cut off the hands of a beggar, they could never maintain control over their little patch of sand long enough to get rich off the oil underneath it.


I'm sure there are many saudi students who attend that school and don't become terrorists.

However, there are some that do who will grow up to become radical nutjobs. They'll become true terrorists later, with training somewhere else.

Calling that school a terrorist training school won't resolve the problem of that school being 100% against American interests, serving an oil monarchy backed by islamic extremists, and spreading a version of islam that is hostile to Western society and governments.

It is what you mean by "terrorist training school" in some ways, but that word is loaded and will not uncover the vile ideology being taught there, because they aren't actually "training terrorists", they are just giving children just the right hatred so that SOME may become terrorists.

Read "Hatred's Kingdom" for a crash course in why Saudi Arabia is our real enemy, while acting like our friend to our faces.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Read "Hatred's Kingdom" for a crash course in why
> Saudi Arabia is our real enemy, while acting like
> our friend to our faces.


Our real enemies are

*religion
*poverty and unreasonable wealth inequalities
*fear
*disproportionately strong military/security institutions
*our own (usually short-term) careless and partisan interventions
*our tendency to ratchet up conflicts rather than developing equity and regional solutions
*our own willful lack of understanding of the rest of the world
*our own internal market demands for energy, drugs, diamonds etc

Look at most of the groups and nations that see themselves, or act, as our enemies, or are so unstable as to be breeding grounds for our enemies and you'll see these factors at play

Saudi...Pakistan....Israel...Russia...China...the Horn of Africa...Venezuela

"Using Spacy's information, I found this (thanks, Brian Ledbetter!):"

You're welcome! :)

(Dang, who's reposting my articles all over the place?)

Thurston Moore Wrote [...stuff]

Well said.

Saudi Arabia's culture is shocking, beyond anything the Board sitting here in their NoVA bubble, can imagine. Hatred's Kingdom should be required reading for every member. Of course, if the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi doesn't elicit some concern, they probably won't bother to read a book.

From Hatred's Kingdom:

“The Arab world appeared to be under the misapprehension that they were fighting the Jews….We are now not fighting the Jews but the tyrannical imperialist states whose greedy aims are to captivate the nations of the world in order to enslave and exploit the weak…The true enemies of the Arabs in Palestine are not the Jews….but the imperialist states of Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union”

Prince Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Saudi Arabia, in a speech at Mecca in 1948

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Hatred's Kingdom:
>
> “The Arab world appeared to be under the
> misapprehension that they were fighting the
> Jews….We are now not fighting the Jews but the
> tyrannical imperialist states whose greedy aims
> are to captivate the nations of the world in order
> to enslave and exploit the weak…The true enemies
> of the Arabs in Palestine are not the Jews….but
> the imperialist states of Great Britain, the
> United States of America, and the Soviet Union”
>
> Prince Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Saudi
> Arabia, in a speech at Mecca in 1948


I'm not sure why you find this surprising - it was a perfectly rational viewpoint considering the context.

The region had been a playground for the imperial powers for centuries - a situation which intensified with the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire as a result of WWI. Between the wars, France and Britain in particular had been busy interfering and redrawing boundaries. Many Arabs felt that they had been badly mislead and the that the positive trend in relationships started by people like Lawrence had been replaced by business-as-usual imperial behaviors.

Between the wars, not all Arab rulers or nations were hostile to the development of a homeland for regional Jewry in Palestine.

However, as the situation evolved.

WWII swept over much of the region, polarizing many and ushering in the new realities of a bipolar world with a much strengthened and expansionary US and USSR and the UK and France still controlling many of their colonies. Mass immigration of European Jews was accompanied by terrorism by Zionist groups such as the Irgun and Lehi - for example the bombing of the King David Hotel. The state of Israel was then imposed by the victors of WWII through the UN over the clear objections of the countries in the region,

In highlighting that the objectives of the Great Powers were now rarely those of the Arabs, Faisal was clearly correct.

What he could not have foreseen was that the region would become a key element of the proxy campaigns of the cold war, the scale and impact of migration to Israel and the degree to which Israel would become a belligerent militarized arm of western policy in the region.

How we got from there to here is a good example of the failure of western policy in the region. Rather than helping emerging countries to use the wealth created by oil to build liberal democracies and stabilizing middle classes, we chose to back a range of autocrats and despots throughout the wider area and where possible exploit regional tensions to block Soviet ambitions.

In that kind of environment, its no surprise that religious extremism, dissatisfaction and terrorism grew.

Its important that we remember that its our involvement in the region that drive the attitudes and behaviors of the countries in the area towards us - not the other way around. They couldn't care less about what we do here - they care what we do there.

Saudi Arabia has its objectives, constraints and internal dynamics, Egypt has theirs, Israel has theirs. The fact that occasionally they align with ours is a coincidence - we have certainly rarely had their best interests in mind.

We let Saudi have a free pass in its support for religious extremism (and co-opted them into funding the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan-) in the same way that we give Israel (also held hostage by its own religious extremists) one for its brutal suppression of the Palestinian Arabs (and coopted them into our strategy of regional offshore balancing)

We need to grow up at stop picking favorites in the region and pretending that any of our 'allies' there have our interests at heart including Saudi, Pakistan and Israel.

The cold war is over - time for new rules.

of course Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure why you find this surprising - it was
> a perfectly rational viewpoint considering the
> context.


I don't find it surprising. I just don't think the majority of people really understand the nature of the saudi regime and the wahhabi clerics who support them.

And yes, it is a perfectly rational viewpoint, just as it is a perfectly rational viewpoint for the North Vietnamese to support the viet cong in South Vietnam because we were bombing Hanoi. In wars and other situations of opposing sides, each side is acting perfectly rational, even if neither side would ever acknowledge the basic rationality of each viewpoint.

Also, it seems like you are implying that this is an out-of-date quote. Because I assure you, if anything, the quote is more important today than it was back then. Keep in mind that in 1948, we hadn't really embarked on our more egregious meddlings in the ME, and we just got done assuring Saudi Arabia unending defense in exchange for unending access to their oil during World War II. Saudi Arabia is even more threatened, today, by modernization and "western thinking" than they were back then. Women are protesting their subjugated role in society by driving and posting video online, information is streaming into the country and creating doubts about the middle ages draconian moral standards, more and more saudi students are studying in western universities then returning home with western ideas.

They hate us for our "freedoms" alright. Not the Iraqis, but the ideological source and funding for al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, they sure do. But they love us for our money and appetite for oil!

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I would add that the reason we didn't encourage the growth of a stabilizing middle class and liberal democracies was because we wanted to have access to their oil, and it's much easier to deal with a dictator than it is to deal with the will of the people when dealing with extracting mineral or oil resources from a region. Sort of the same reason there are wars or dictators in the gold and diamond regions. A politically empowered people would demand more in return for those resources. A dictator is just happy if he and his minions get rich.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2009 10:49PM by Thurston Moore.