68 Comments

1. Norman Simms:

Dear Phyllis

Once more you enter the fray and point out how far the barbarians have not only gathered at the gates but begun to infiltrate the heart of the city. I listened to Obama’s speech with a sinking feeling, alrready alerted to the way his rhetoric swells in rising tides of platitutde and fatuous supposed truisms–but actually dangerous falzse and distorted versions of the truth. In a very important way, just as treatment of the Jews has always been a touchstone to reveal the presence of dangerous impurities in the ideology abnd belif-0systems of the speakedrs, so too now, perhaps more than ever, attitudes towards women are markers of where the real human valuies of a society lie. In this war–this is the clash civilizations, or more to the point, the clash of civilizations and their opposites–it is the tell-tale signs that must be decoded, interpreted, analyzed, and held up to scrutiny: the headscarf, the right to drive a car, the need to ask a younger brother’s permission or a grandson’s nod of approval before a female speaks in public.

Norman

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:33 am 2. MiamaMan:

Thanks, great article.

Obama’s speech in Cairo is shameful for those who understand the threat of Islam. For some, the general public, the politicians who support him, the appeasers, even those on the right of the political spectrum that still naively repeat, as former President G. W. Bush did, that “Islam is a religious of peace”, may have sound conciliatory, even a necessity.

Conciliatory it was, alas, I am afraid it was understood in Islamic countries in a different way than he intended. As a sign of weakness, as a green light to greater influence of Islam in the United States. Basically, Obama said: “If you leave us in peace, do not attack us, cut off our heads, behave like we do in the West, we won’t try to impose anything on you, you can worship Allah in the US, everything can continues as it is, including the abuse on women, your Sharia law, discrimination of homosexuals, and against our own main Christian religion, and others that you do not tolerate.”

Add to that Obama’s statement that the US is one of the biggest Muslim countries, when in reality is around 46th in Muslim population, near Oman, in percentage may be 2-3%, his bending of American history to affect an influence of Islam that never existed nor can be proven in any way (not a single founding father or signatory to the Declaration of Independence was Muslim), and you have to question his motives. What are his motives?
How strong is the influence of Black Liberation Theology here? He attended Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years, right? Or of Louis Farrakhan behind Reverend Wright? How much is the “white race” responsible for this entire problem in his head? Aren’t the whites, the West, as he said, who sidelined Muslim countries during the cold war, been dismissed, even derisive of them? It seems to me that Obama is verily for us, consciously or subconsciously, a Trojan Horse. He apparently believes himself to be partly an agent of change, partly an avenging angel. You can feel now, after all, the uneasiness on the faces of Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, after the hoopla of the elections, the hope of “change”, as they discover who he really is and wants.

Jun 8, 2009 - 2:22 am 3. David Thomson:

I noticed immediately that Barack Obama did not mention a woman’s right NOT to wear a hijab. This is also the same man who called a female reporter “sweetie” during the presidential campaign. But why should this be surprising? The politically correct establishment normally considers women as second-class citizens. That’s why he was chosen over Hillary. Dark skinned men always rate higher than any woman. And everybody has the right to dump on white men, the cancer infecting the world. They rank the lowest on the totem pole. It is most bizarre that few care that Obama spoke at the University of Cairo, which apparently only allows Muslims to attend.

We should also pay attention to Obama’s historical illiteracy. How can a Harvard University graduate be so abysmally ignorant concerning Islam? He possesses a comic book understanding of Islam’s place in the history books. One is reminded of the radical left’s attempts to rewrite history in order to exaggerate the contributions of Africans. Those associated with Harvard should be deeply ashamed.

Jun 8, 2009 - 4:35 am 4. George Jochnowitz:

There are questions Obama did not touch: Should a woman be allowed to go shopping? What if she isn’t? What if she isn’t allowed to see a male doctor, as was the case in Afghanistan under the Taliban? What if she isn’t allowed to be a doctor, as was the case in Afghnistan under the Taliban?

Has Obama ever read anything by people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Someome should ask him at his next news conference.

Jun 8, 2009 - 5:57 am 5. BettyJean:

I just happen to have some French feedback to add to this discussion:
http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28469&Itemid=33

Feminists attack Obama over Islamic veil
Saturday, 06 June 2009

French feminists attacked US President Barack Obama’s defence of the Islamic veil yesterday, accusing him of dealing a blow to the rights of millions of women in order to appease religious sentiment.
Obama was due to arrive in Paris later in the day, after a Middle East tour in which he gave a speech in which he accused countries like France of hiding “hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”
France bans girls and young women from wearing Muslim headscarves in state schools, and women’s rights campaigners here see its widespread and sometimes compulsory use in the Islamic world as an abuse of women’s rights.
One French women’s rights group, Ni Putes Ni Soumises (”Neither whores, nor submissives”), said: “Reducing the dialogue between civilisations to a dialogue between religions is once again to instrumentalise women.
“By attacking secularism and defending the veil, the President of the United States [...] has hurt the struggle of millions of women, some of whom pay with their lives every day to escape fundamentalist violence,” it said.
Anne Saugier, president of the International Women’s Rights League that was founded by Simone de Beauvoir, accused Obama of seeking to reconcile the United States with Muslims “on the backs of women.”
“What a slap in the face for those women in Algeria, Iran and Afghanistan who died in atrocious conditions for having refused to wear what they consider the most radical sign of their oppression and segregation,” she said.
Wearing some variety of headdress – whether a scarf over the hair, a veil or face mask or a full length “burqua” – is compulsory in some Muslim majority countries and common among Muslim communities in others.
It is considered by some a sign of women’s subjugation and repression, and banned in some public institutions in some countries, but in his speech in Cairo on Thursday, Obama went out of his way to defend it on three occasions.
“It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear,” he said.

Jun 8, 2009 - 8:41 am 6. Pajamas Media » Obama Throws Muslim Women Under the Bus:

[...] Read the rest of the story here. [...]

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:15 am 7. Isabella Francesca:

please check out this video and Obama’s speech…….we are all concerned with this Muslim support

Research has been done on this and the numbers in this video are accurate.
Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic realities, begin reproducing again, and share the gospel with Muslims.
Muslim Demographics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:15 am 8. The Shadow:

I wish Ms Chesler had bothered to read his speech before making a fool of herself

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:35 am 9. AThinkingPerson:

Obama’s “Throw it under the bus list” is continuing to grow. First it was the Constitution, then our children’s economic futures, then the GM shareholders, then the dignity of the Supreme Court. Who knew he would throw women’s rights under the bus too? Does he actually have a conscience or must that be bought too?

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:37 am 10. Will:

Could it have anything to do with Barak Hussein Obama’s Muslim religion Hmmmmmmmm? Christian’s better WAKE UP and NOW!

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:44 am 11. AThinkingPerson:

The Shadow must enjoy the subjugation of women. Nice to know there are still neanderthals still dragging their knuckles around the planet. Scary.

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:52 am 12. Paul -Indiana:

#8. Has The Shadow read the article? Ms. Chesler makes valid points.

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:52 am 13. oldguy:

Obama voters, “ever dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight”?

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:58 am 14. Self-hating Boomer:

Hey, goes the unwritten subscript– these women are not terrorists. They are modest and kind, gentle and submissive, far more obedient than their (pesky, upstart) North American counterparts. Indeed, veiled or headscarved women can also be modern and educated–just the kind of citizens and immigrants who are, perhaps, more worthy than….your ordinary western slut.

Maybe because the western sluts who write this stuff like the idea of less competition? Perish the thought, of course, that they may end up having to conform to sharia…

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:59 am 15. Self-hating Boomer:

But there’s something more. Let’s face it: The Islamic face-veil and headscarf have become symbols of “jihad” and Islamic religious apartheid or intolerance in the West.

They’re the new Che shirts. They also have the potential to become something far worse – a cloak for crime. A crowd of faceless islamobots (not all necessarily female) mug someone. What’s law enforcement supposed to do? Arrest the entire mob?

Covering the hair is one thing. Covering the face is quite another. That opens the door to all manner of chicanery.

Just wait when it happens. The intelligentsia will be gobsmacked. They’ll ask “how could we have ever imagined that this would happen?

Jun 8, 2009 - 11:05 am 16. Carol:

As always, thank you Ms. Chesler, for your insightful work.

Just as the msm and a vast swath of the electorate were tripping over themselves this past year to support Obama lest they appear racist, so too are many tripping over themselves to appear accepting, open-minded, modern, or whatever the h*** they think to be or act unphased by the ways in which Islam oppresses women’s rights. These people cherry pick the kinds of rights they proporte to be concerned with. They are the sort that seem passionate about their concerns for Palestinians while caring not about the fate of Israeli’s, and so forth.

As a PJM reader, I can always count on your pieces to say the words that far too few are willing to say. Your work is always refreshing to read, while also deeply disturbing in the nature of what you report.

One final thought: These full face coverings also mask certain kinds of physical abuse that has befallen these women.

Jun 8, 2009 - 11:51 am 17. "progressive"watch:

In these horror murders,there is dishonor to the murderers and horror to murdered women victims and to all rational free people. Barak Obama’s stance in his conversation with
Sarkozy seem to be that it is freedom of religion for Muslim men to force women to wear hijabs. Does Obama think that freedom of religion does not include Muslim women. Maybe he learned it in his youth?

Shadow,your remarks haave no substance.

Jun 8, 2009 - 12:11 pm 18. Self-hating Boomer:

One final thought: These full face coverings also mask certain kinds of physical abuse that has befallen these women.

Which comes under the heading of “all manner of chicanery”. Brought to you by the Chicago chicanery clan.

Jun 8, 2009 - 12:21 pm 19. Mary Jackson:

An excellent article.

Obama objects to Westerners “dictating” to Muslim women what they can wear. He is apparently happy for their fathers and brothers to dictate to them – even to the point of honour killing.

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:21 pm 20. Cybergeezer:

Obama’s a closet muslim; A sleeper cell all of his own.

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:24 pm 21. Ms. Attitude:

Mmmmkay, I’m against making women submissive. I do not want to wear a hijab, no desire to. I also do not have the desire to wear the head coverings of the Mennonite women. Early Christian women wore head covers based on 1 Corinthians 11:5. The Pilgrim women had head coverings.

Are there records as to whether or not the Mennonite or early Christian women are/were abused for uncovering their heads?

If a law is made in the US, with the way the liberals want to treat everyone the same, would the law state that no women can cover her head? In France, with their no religious symbols, would I be able to wear my cross necklace? Where would we draw the line?

As for covering the face, those of us that have lived in very cold areas have put a scarf over our face. Snow ski slopes are covered with covered faces.

I think an employer can make a dress code against no head cover or face cover in their office. I believe our government can do the same in this day and age in regards to covered faces on a drivers license or admittance on government property. A bank, store or private property owner has the right to refuse service to someone who will not show their face.

If a person is physically abused, for any reason, by another person then a crime is committed and should be punished accordingly. Men abuse and murder women for many reasons. And vice versa.

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:25 pm 22. Self-hating Boomer:

Ms. Attitude, what you just laid out is perfectly reasonable. That’s why government policy will do something else.

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:36 pm 23. Professor Guvinoff:

Wearing the hijab is in some basic ways comparable to wearing sunglasses. They allow the wearer to be secretive, sometimes for good reasons (protection against unfair social oppression or intense sunlight) but, in the comfort of the shade and in the freedom of an open society, the reasons are less evident, and worthy of questioning.

One can wonder whether the wearing of the masking accessory is just a matter of shyness and/or modesty, or deliberate dissimulation, as is common practice in playing poker. The former can be a genuine desire for privacy, well inderstood in the western mind, whereas the latter can be perceived as manipulative and unfair towards the native women, who live by a more open standard, and wear their facial expression instead of hiding it.

When we travel to muslim countries we are left with a small fraction of our customary freedom. The west does not need to be anywhere near so restrictive, but it should require the muslim immigrants , or any immigrants for that matter, to adopt the western standards, which do NOT exclude islam. If they do come to the west, it is for its attractions, and if such benefits are to be enjoyed, the costs (openeness and sincerity) also have to be borne.

When we mindlessly show leniency (timidity, actually) towards the perpetrators of honor killings, we are not protecting the muslim women, who are our guests as much as their male counterparts.

So the president was insincere, and unjust, because it’s not about the hijabs, it’s about the women. One’s obsession with image will inevitable lead to throwing truth itself under the bus, and everything else worthy of respect with it.

If a US president was really sincere about speaking the truth to the muslim world, he would be entitled to ask the muslim countries to accept the christians as we accept the muslims in the US. Flattery will get you nowhere, and will only make someone else suffer. Some student of history!

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:47 pm 24. The Shadow:

DopeyPerson – Good to hear from you. You remain the poster nut of the wingnut crowd

Jun 8, 2009 - 1:54 pm 25. Annie:

I work at a public library in a big northeast city, and I’m always surprised by the occasional African American Muslim woman who shows up shrouded in a burqua. Sometimes, when the figure in a burqua is really tall-like over 6′2″-I can’t be sure if the person in the burqua is a woman at all. It’s kind of scary.

Jun 8, 2009 - 2:17 pm 26. Avitar:

Let the ladies try protesting the excessive taxes ala lady Godiva and you will see Obama’s tolerance compared to Obama’s Islamic oppression. Obama would authorize the use of deadly force if protesting taxes became a fad.

Jun 8, 2009 - 2:24 pm 27. AThinkingPerson:

The Shadow: And you remain ever without a coherent point. All is right with the world.

Jun 8, 2009 - 2:36 pm 28. Ed Wallis:

Oh, c’mon, Phyllis : GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

Obama’s take is more like Goebbels’ :

FREEDOM. Women have it! Just like the white corpustles, as long as they’re doing their job and following the rules…they’re free to do whatever they want!!!

I do NOT use the “sarcasm” tag here. Do your own research.

Jun 8, 2009 - 3:58 pm 29. MiamaMan:

8. The Shadow:

[I wish Ms Chesler had bothered to read his speech before making a fool of herself]

Shadow, please beware of yourself…did you know that Jung define the Shadow as all that is dark in ourselves?

The Persona, on the contrary, Jung said, is that front that we show others. It is Obama’s Persona who spoke in Cairo the other day. It is usually his Persona the one that has been fooling around people lately.

A little knowledge of psychology would have taught us to be careful, and look instead a little under Obama’s mask and into his Anima, which is the unconscious feminine element in men. There was little empathy for his Anima in his Cairo speech, which shows somehow an arrogant Animus (the opposite: Dreams of My Father!).

Lack of self-knowledge is the first cause of neurosis. Mr. Teleprompter shows certain signs of fetishism, indication of phobia to the white color, and a slight touch of “low mood”.

Soon we will have to engage a Kenyan “brujo”, a medicine man that cutting a chicken’s head and reading its entrails (a process also described by Jung in his introduction to that Chinese divination book, the I Ching, randomness – synchronicity), will bring wholeness to his soul.

Jun 8, 2009 - 4:10 pm 30. Peter the Bubblehead:

8. The Shadow wrote:
I wish Ms Chesler had bothered to read his speech before making a fool of herself

Peter asks: Really? What speech did you read? Because the one I read, a direct transcription of the speech The Won made in Cairo, mentions nothing that Ms Chesler points out.

Jun 8, 2009 - 5:51 pm 31. Kenrick:

Your umbrage at President Obama’s positive reference to wearing the headscarf seems a tad over the top. He addressed the central problem of women’s rights, and yet allowed that that right includes wearing a headscarf. I’m afraid you have imbibed too much of a radical (not just Muslim, but it includes Muslims) notion that “my enemy’s enemies are my friends” and conversely that “my enemy’s friends are my enemies.” It is an all or nothing mindset which seems to have no respect for nuance and for the need to find common ground if peace is to be acheived in the Middle East. Or do you believe that a Middle East peace which failed to acheive your particular objectives is worthless?

I think Obama is on the right track and that his way is far more likely to make secularism palatable by assuring Muslims that U.S. secularism does not demand the rejection of Islamic religious and spiritual values (in this case, modesty). Your tone is polarizing and I suspect you do not mind that fact. But then, you do not have to search for peace and an end to war in the Middle East. President Obama does.

Jun 8, 2009 - 6:21 pm 32. LALA:

Obama voted anti Israel throughout his career, short as it is. He is pro
Islam or at least sympathetic enough to ignore their hatred for women. This is part of the reason I didn’t vote for him. I do like some of the things he’s doing, but yes he threw Muslim women under the bus as I knew he would and so should of you if you studied his voting record.

Jun 8, 2009 - 6:55 pm 33. David Levavi:

African Americans, challenged as they are by identity issues, nurture the fantasy that only in Islam did black people ever achieve greatness.

Once there were great cities in Africa, centers of learning and culture where African scholars in flowing Islamic robes lectured in philosophy, science and mathematics–so goes the African imagining of a past African-Islamic utopia from which Africans were cruelly wrenched by white slavers.

Sound absurd? It is. Sound shame-based and pathetic? It is. Sound racist? It is. But it nonetheless remains a popular fantasy.

It is popular myth among African Americans that Islam is more welcoming of black people than Christianity. Kinder to Black folk than Christianity. Preposterous? You bet. But that’s the perception.

The Islamists have seized on this fantasy and exploited it for all it is worth. Declared themselves people of color and become equal partners with African Americans in the struggle for civil rights for oppressed minorities.

All funny stuff if it weren’t socially corrosive and antithetical to the individual and civil rights of Americans at large.

Barak Obama is a bright, charming, Chicago racialist pol. He understands spoils, graft and no-holds-barred,race-rooted urban politics. He is an accomplished master at blowing smoke at the white man.

But Obama is a naif. For all his sleazy local political sophistication he is full of childish fantasy. And his ideas appear to be fixed. Events occasionally force him to make minor corrections but he’s ambitious, proud and stubborn. His tragic inclination is to twist reality to suit his imagination thereof.

And the Arab sheiks wear those flowing white robes. Very ethnic and indigenous. Deeply traditional. Proud folk, the Arabs. And, as said, very down with the racial thing. Cool dudes all around.

So what’s all this complaint about Islam and women’s rights?

Jun 8, 2009 - 7:32 pm 34. Paul of Alexandria:

Kenrick (31):

….I think Obama is on the right track and that his way is far more likely to make secularism palatable by assuring Muslims that U.S. secularism does not demand the rejection of Islamic religious and spiritual values (in this case, modesty).

The fact that U.S. secularism does demand the rejection of Islamic religious and spiritual values aside, modesty isn’t the point. I recommend that everybody pursuing this discussion read The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai. Make sure that you get the most recent edition, since it contains some updated material.

Mr. Patai points out that the reason behind the covering of women, especially the burqua, isn’t “modesty” but rather fear. Women have – according to the Arab mindset – a predatory sexual power over men, and men are liable to lose control under their influence.

Professor Guvinoff (23) has it precisely right. We in the West expect both men and women to be able to control themselves in public. In yielding to Muslim custom, we do not promote “modesty” but rather surrender to their worldview.

Jun 8, 2009 - 7:51 pm 35. fred:

In the Qur’an and ahadith and Sharia Law women are chattel. Nothing more. In Sharia courts, their testimony is one-half that of a man’s. And in heaven the women that are there are the sex kittens of the mujahadeen.

Anyone who truly is interesting in what the authentic Islam is could (and should) go right to the sources and find it. It’s all there, in every degrading detail, including poor six year old Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad.

Obonga has no serious impact on this retrograde heresy and cult. However, a brave man like Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros is having an impact, because what he does is merely read to Muslims what is in their Qur’an and traditions. Every embarrassing detail of it. He minimally editorializes, and simply relies on the words of Allah, Muhammad, and Muhammad’s deeds.

Jun 8, 2009 - 7:55 pm 36. fred:

Edit to my last post:

Should read: “Anyone who is truly interested…”

My apologies.

P.S. I wish there was an edit function. Richard Fernandez has one on his blog. PJM should universalize it.

Jun 8, 2009 - 7:57 pm 37. Marie Claude:

well, one more time, O has shown his inclination ! how comes when he is on a trip to reconcile “old Europe” with the “new world”, that he is talking on how should islam be accepted by us, and what women should wear ! This weren’t policy dicussions, but interference in domestic policies of a country, where human rights have no way to beef of them, where women have the protection of the laws.

For those who find our option a bit too secular, it is ignoring that we know how the muslims are behaving, they would want to set their sharia law for all, in our country that had so many religions wars in the past centuries, secularity is a guaranty that none would impose his/her religious beliefs on others, we are vaccinated from religious integrisms, and this president of Karnaval, that doesn’t know one iota of history , come and told us what to do, what an idiot, as Chirac would say, “he lose the occasion to shut up”, I think, now that the French who didn’t know what kind of man he is, they will have no more doubt ! he is the representant of the antic muslims, cuz the modern muslims don’t make a deal with religion attributs, they transcended their faith.

I bet Sarko will not comply, just to annoy him, and for me it’s fine !

Jun 8, 2009 - 8:56 pm 38. Horace Wells:

The whole column seems to be based on Phylis’s assumption that the fate of Muslim women are utterly dependent on Obama’s or some western writers’ rheoteric. It doesn’t. Barking at Muslims like some talk show host might cheer up the die hard anti-jihadist types here who mostly hate Islam lock stock and barrel, but it will not cause mass female uprisings in the Islamic world. Does anyone else notice this childish logic in her thinking?

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:12 pm 39. john from cinncinatti:

i haven’t seen a magazine cover with Michele Obama wearing a hajib? can he beat her if she refuses to wear one?

Jun 9, 2009 - 12:31 am 40. MiamaMan:

31. Kenrick:

Please allow me to respectfully disagree.

1) Your statement: “I think Obama is on the right track and that his way is far more likely to make secularism palatable by assuring Muslims that U.S. secularism does not demand the rejection of Islamic religious and spiritual values (in this case, modesty”

With this mindset we will, literally, be eaten alive. You are playing with fire. Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence caused the Partition of India, and millions of dead. If Hitler would have been stopped by the French when he re-occupated the Ruhr, no World War II. There is no compromise with Islam, my friend, either you convert of else. And this else is very scary.

2) Your statement: “Or do you believe that a Middle East peace which failed to achieve your particular objectives is worthless?

What peace, sir? In Oslo Arafat was given what he never even dreamed; did not accept it, went back home and started the Intifada.
Hezbollah and Hamas, both Iran proxies, want to destroy Israel, period, no peace. Iran use them to weaken Israel, now Hezbollah, now Hamas, again Hezbollah.

3) Your statement: “But then, you do not have to search for peace and an end to war in the Middle East. President Obama does”.

Who says that Obama must do this? Who appointed him the Robin Hood of the world? The Palestinians and Israelis must search for peace, but as long as the “boss” Iran continues to call for another Holocaust, denying the previous one, calling Israel a stinking corpse, a cancer in the region…who can negotiate like that?

There are times in the long and winding path of humanity when a certain hurdle is crossed, and I think this is one of them. No amount of negotiation, appeasement, cajoling, posturing, understanding, will get us out of the Islam’s onslaught, only “balls” will.
We have put some much energy in hate and mistrust that only a big blast will solve (dissolve) the problem.

Jun 9, 2009 - 5:18 am 41. Ed Wallis:

NO, Horace #38, I don’t think anyone else notices the nonsense you suggest…

…I do think everyone notices the hypocrisy of SOBama saying – in effect:

“I defend the rights of American women to be beaten, and the right of all Americans to submit to my will.”

Jun 9, 2009 - 5:25 am 42. Madashell:

Horace says: “Does anyone else notice this childish logic in her thinking?”

No Horace, but I do notice the sinister tone of your thinking. Mercilessly oppressed women, also known as chattel, aren’t apt to rise up when they know that their oppressors tend to carry AK-47s and shoot them in the head if they do. That’s if all goes well. If things don’t go well, they might be raped first and then be killed, or perhaps just have a bit of acid thrown in their faces for fun. Maybe a nice beating followed by a beheading might be in order. I know that makes you feel big and strong and manly, Horace.

Jun 9, 2009 - 5:47 am 43. Meryl:

“I fear that President Obama does not understand the difference between a free choice and a forced choice”

I think he understands the difference perfectly.

He’s planning ahead and trusting that WE do not have a choice–when American tourists are forced to don yards of crap on our heads before we go into the Capitol so that we don’t offend the wife of the Muslim congressman from Minnesota.

It’s impossible to exaggerate the danger that Soetero represents to the United States of America.

(Oh, by the way: Big bulletin this afternoon! Soetero’s just “had it” with this out of control spending, and he’s DEMANDING that Congress “codify pay-as-you-go” spending plans. Putin has GOT to be rolling on the floor.)

Jun 9, 2009 - 12:36 pm 44. Meryl:

correction in 43:

He’s planning and trusting that WE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT we WILL not have a choice when WE are forced…..

Jun 9, 2009 - 12:37 pm 45. MiamaMan:

Très bien dit Marie-Claude (La Pucelle).

Ceci est votre ami, l’idiot.

Ne vous inquiétez pas, Le Roi Bling Bling n’a pas peur de la Ch–py Obama. Houdini Sarkozy est vraiment un moderne Bertrand du Guesclin, l’Aigle de la Bretagne. Houdini veulent être enterré à St. Dennis, à côté de l’illustre guerrier.

Jun 9, 2009 - 2:03 pm 46. The Anchoress — A First Things Blog:

[...] What Hath Toni Morrison wrought?: The inevitable line and the debatable. [...]

Jun 9, 2009 - 2:30 pm 47. MiamaMan:

Sehr gut gesagt, Madame Marie-Claude (Die Pucelle).

Dies ist ihr freund, der Idiot.

Der King of Bling Bling ist unabhängig, er beantwortet Reichkanzler Obama richtig. Herr Houdini Sarkozy will sein wie Bertrand Du Gueslin, der Adler von der Bretagne. Er will zu begraben in St. Dennis zusammen mit dem berühmten krieger.

Jun 9, 2009 - 4:29 pm 48. Self-hating Boomer:

Putin has GOT to be rolling on the floor.

Or busily taking notes.

Jun 9, 2009 - 4:33 pm 49. Marie Claude:

OK, MiamaMan, I have seen you ! LMAO

Jun 9, 2009 - 6:16 pm 50. Uriel:

Obama believes the power of his words will be enough to change everything. It won’t. He never uses words which challenge his audience to become more than themselves, to give up on falsely held believes, or to do anything challenging or concrete. What he does do is reinforce prejudices and delusions, pander to feelings of entitlement or injustice, and demand contrition or sacrifice from people who are never in the audience (and are frequently despised by it). He is after point of fact nothing more than a charismatic demagogue. He can make people hungry for what ever vague promises they believe they are hearing in his words; however, his words will not inspire people to soul search and change their beliefs. There will be no peace (worth having) until that happens.

Jun 9, 2009 - 8:07 pm 51. Marie Claude:

“Les autorités françaises s’étonnent néanmoins des propos de M. Obama relatifs à la législation française sur le port du voile islamique dans les établissements scolaires1. Ils constituent une ingérence inacceptable dans les affaires intérieures de la République Française.”

Bingo !

http://www.causeur.fr/la-france-ne-fera-pas-la-vassale,2523

Jun 9, 2009 - 8:23 pm 52. Sama:

“What’s more, Jews and Catholics are not honor-murdering their daughters and wives because they refuse to veil their faces, their hair, or their bodies. Mainly Muslims do that.”
Umm..this makes muslims sound like they honor murder everyday. Honor Murders are not against the law -no clue why- and murdering is against religion, and they do it anyway.
Honor killing dont happen because the girl doesnt want to put on a veil, they happen when the girl has sex before marriage, and it is thought that murdering her saves her family name’s reputation AND it is also a punishment for her.

Jun 10, 2009 - 2:56 am 53. Kenrick:

This is a reply to Miamaman # 43.

You open your reply with the following paragraph:

“With this mindset we will, literally, be eaten alive. You are playing with fire. Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence caused the Partition of India, and millions of dead. If Hitler would have been stopped by the French when he re-occupied the Ruhr, no World War II. There is no compromise with Islam, my friend, either you convert or else. And this else is very scary”.

First of all, it is unlikely that you or anyone reading this will be “literally eaten alive.” Your response clearly draws a line in the sand: you will have nothing with those who advocate and work for peace. Given what you say, I can only presume that you would have agreed with Godse, Gandhi’s assassin. Now that is a very inflammatory thing for me to say, but it flows logically from your argument.

Fear and hatred are easy. The streets around the world are full of it. And the way in which they are justified is that the barbaric and beastly “other” will destroy us if we do not first destroy him/her/them. That is, as I understand it, the justification for honor killings of women: that the taint of “dishonor” will destroy a family, so better to destroy the taint. It was the justification for a war of pre=emption when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The Bosnian Serbs used the same justification to justify their massacres of Muslims. The Hutus used it to justify the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda. Even Hitler used it to justify his invasions and genocides.

If you tell me, “well that proves that the world is the way it is and no amount of negotiation for peace will change it,” I admit you could be right.

But I have yet to meet a true immortal. You and I are going to die anyway; our families are going to die; our ancestors have passed away and our descendants will, like us, one day no longer be. At that time, the earth will eat our bodies, literally. That will be true whether we strive for peace successfully or not. Whether we live “safely” in this country, free from the threat of the Muslim hordes, or whether we do not.

Given the fact that we are going to die, the question we are left with is, “How are we going to live?” You don’t want to be an animal torn apart by other animals. I don’t want to be an animal. Period. I prefer to live as a human being, striving for a sense of commonality with my fellow human beings, Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus. If this is preference is not shared by the majority, it seems nonetheless the only worthwhile one. I may disagree with them in some of their perspectives, just as I disagree with you. But I have no desire to eliminate the possibility of different perspectives than to eliminate disagreement.

That said, “perusasion is better”. There is a hierarchy of truth, in the sense that some are higher than others. We can know the fact that the hierarchy exists, without knowing for certain its constituents. But I only mean by this the simple fact that an apple has more reality than the sculpture of an apple, or a painting of an apple, or a sketch of one. One provides taste and nourishment; the others are mere images. And so I disagree with you and have tried to explain why.

Because I think, ultimately, no human being really wants to live in a world indistinguishable from descriptions of hell. Some may resign themselves to it because they cannot permit themselves to believe anything else is possible. Do you really want the world you described? Or simply believe its inevitable, “the way things are”? “It is what it is” is a truism, but “it’s not what it seems” is also a truism. Good luck and may God be with you.

By the way, if you want to learn about a version of Islam very different from the one you have learned about, check out some of the literature and websites on Sufism. If there is a militant Islam (and who could deny that there are militant Muslims), it is not true that the majority of Muslims are militant. Like Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and atheists, they come in a wide variety of colors and forms. Sufism is the Islam of the heart. At its core is Jesus’ statement, “Not my will but Thine be done.” Amen.

Jun 10, 2009 - 7:37 am 54. MiamaMan:

53. Kenrick:

Thanks for your answer.

May the Mother give you quiet in the mind, purity, calm, and peace, is my petition for you.

1) “Eaten alive” is a metaphor, not to be taken literally. No, I do not condemn Gandhi’s assassin, not there is such conclusion flowing from my argument at all. Your presumption is incorrect and premature. You are stretching the truth to make a point. What I condemn is the futility of appeasement in the face of Evil. Gandhi sent an open letter to the British to stop resisting and to welcome Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini with open arms. A mistake?

2) Yet, the key in your post is that: [Given the fact that we are going to die, the question we are left with is, “How are we going to live?"]. You are correct about the importance of fulfilling our Dharma while living. I work and strive for the future premise that this is not final, that death is not final. The conversation of Nachiketas in the Upanishad with Yama (Lord of Death) is a hint.

3) It is important to restrain the circumlocutions of the intellect, it goes hither and thither, but it is incapable of reaching TRUTH.

4) Years practicing meditation and Brahma Abhyasa (Concentration on God), here and in India has taught me the quality of the witness, to stay detached, to effect Vairagya (detachment): A group of children playing in the fairground merry make, bump into each other, laugh, but their inner thought in on their Mother, who left them in the morning at the nursery. Likewise, I worship the Mother, the creative power of the Almighty Father.

5) “Brahma Ekam Eva Advitiyam” (God in one without a second). Let us see time and death for what they are, a teaching, but temporary.

There is nothing but God. The Almighty Father never spends Itself. As the Vedas state, he is here but also transcended. His motives are based on Love, which is eternal.

Let me finish with a prayer in Sanskrit from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Asato Ma Sad Gamaya (Lead us from the Unreal to the Real).

Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya (Lead us from darkness to Light)

Mrityor Ma Amritam Gamaya (Lead us from death to immortality).

Jun 10, 2009 - 8:44 am 55. MiamaMan:

53. Kenrick:

2nd Reply:

I am familiar with Sufism. We studied Sufism in an Indian ashram under the guidance of French Swami Sarveshwarananda Giri:
http://www.hariharanandakriyayoga.org/english/who_we_are/swamiji/swamiji_index.html

Each Abrahamic religion; namely, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has developed a less dogmatic, as you say “more towards the heart”, mystic system of beliefs. For the Jews Kabbalah, for the Christian the Gnostics, for Islam Sufism. All 3 have often dabbled in the concept of metempsychosis (reincarnation).

Sufis are often discriminated against, and persecuted in several Muslim countries.

Jun 10, 2009 - 6:14 pm 56. Kenrick:

Reply to MiamaMan # 54 & 55

Miamaman: Thank you so much for your sharing. The point of love in your heart, and the point in mine is, I think, what President Obama is aiming for. He is, if you’ll pardon the convolution, an idealistic realist. Perhaps that is how you would describe yourself as well. Regarding the “circumlocutions of the intellect” and its inability to reach the truth, I agree completely. However, there is a lesser known faculty within the intellect– Wisdom– which has the capacity for greater penetration. Ultimately, Wisdom originates in the Divine and so it is the only faculty capable of penetrating the Divine.

Regarding the detachment you have cultivated, I replied so strongly because the outrage you expressed originally did not seem especially detached.

And, while it is true that the Sufis are discriminated and persecuted, still at various times upwards of 90% of Muslims around the world have had Sufi connections. For the Sufis, there is true Islam (surrender to/love for God) and false Islam (bigoted/angry/vengeful). From this perspective, Sufism is true Islam. What the haters believe cannot affect this. And, in this world, it is said that “the closer you are to God, the more the world will reject you.”

By the way, you said you do not condemn Gandhi’s assassin. Was that a typo?

I would be interested in pursuing some of this discussion via email directly if you have any interest.

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:25 pm 57. MiamaMan:

56. Kenrick

Thanks Kenrick.

[By the way, you said you do not condemn Gandhi’s assassin. Was that a typo?]

A typo, I condemn Gandhi’s assassination and his assassin.

On the faculty of detachment, you can express outrage and still be detached.

It would be great if the Islamic world would simply follows Sufism. That would certainly be a solution to the current problem.

Jun 11, 2009 - 4:13 am 58. Paul -Indiana:

#39. I wonder if Michelle Obama beats her husband?

Jun 11, 2009 - 8:29 am 59. Kenrick:

Last reply to Miamaman # 57

It would be great if Muslims Sufism and if Christians followed Christ and if Jews followed Moses and the prophets and if Hindus followed the teachings of Krishna or Murugan, and if Buddhists followed the way of the Buddha. Then we would be one family. I suspect Jesus and Muhammad and Moses and Krishna and the Buddha would all embrace as brothers and wonder at the inanities spoken and atrocities committed in their names.

Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ral.), the sheikh with whom I have studied for many years, has said, “Unity is love without attachment.” I’m not sure what outrage without attachment is, however.

Peace.

Jun 11, 2009 - 10:12 am 60. D. Cooper:

Curious as to why you think the President of the United States is obligated to do anything about the state of women in other countries. He’s been in office for just a few months; these practices you speak of have gone on for decades if not centuries. Why did you not point the finger of blame solely at Obama and not at Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Ford or Kennedy? Oh I know why, because he’s BLACK.

I agree that women should not be discounted or treated like trash or property, nor abused in any way. But get real girlfriend. It’s not President Obama’s job to save the entire world. It’s his job to make sure that we are safely protected by laws, and that women HERE don’t get treated with such callous disrespect. That’s all. All other blame you assign to President Obama is merely political and/or racist backlash.

Jun 11, 2009 - 2:26 pm 61. Kenrick:

Response to D. Cooper:

Obama is obligated to work to improve the state of women for the very same reason he espoused the rights of all women to be educated: Because women’s rights are critical to transforming the Muslim world and that transformation is key to the possibilities for peace, which means peace for the United States. That said, I’m afraid you’re right about the blame assigned Obama in the general comments. I wish it were not so, but when so many comments are so filled with anger and hatred, there has to be more than a simple speech. Most of the comments written here were probably already in mind before he ever gave his Cairo speech.

Jun 11, 2009 - 7:10 pm 62. The Weekend Claw 6-12-09 - AllMilitary.com's Military Blog:

[...] history to serve his purpose of sucking up to that evil “religion.” On top of that, I just wonder why the liberal women simply stand by and nod their heads to His nonsense, when the Religion of Perpetual Hatred and Outrage demands that [...]

Jun 12, 2009 - 8:33 am 63. MiamaMan:

59. Kenrick:

1) Your Statement: [Last reply to Miamaman # 57]

I hope to hear from’ya again! (excuse my Fargo, Paul Bunyan, accent).

2) Your Statement: [Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (ral.), the sheikh with whom I have studied for many years, has said, “Unity is love without attachment.” I’m not sure what outrage without attachment is, however.]

Outrage without attachment is like going to a ball game, yelling, jumping, even throwing an empty beer can, without caring in the least who wins.

3) Your Statement: [The point of love in your heart, and the point in mine is, I think, what President Obama is aiming for.]

Touché! I wish I could concur with you here.

4) A Comment on Mahatma Gandhi (did not have time before): He was verily a Mahatma (In Sanskrit Maha = Great and Atma = Soul) and a saint. Unfortunately he was a little “Loony Tunes”. He must have died a broken man, for not a single one of his teachings was being followed in Nehru’s India:

a) The Charka (spinning wheel) was discharged. He wanted everyone to use a Charka daily to provide for clothing in the 20th century (outsourcing?).

b) His bucolic view of India was rapidly discharged, and India went full speed into industrialization.

c) Celibacy. Apparently not followed either, as India went full speed into overpopulation.

d) Ahimsa or Not-injury (In Sanskrit the prefix “a” negates, so Himsa in injury): At his core the Mahatma was a Christian, not a Hindu. He did not hesitate to commit violence on his own body by fasting to bend others to his will. He read the Baghavad Gita, but did not understand its teachings. When Krishna, on the plain of Kurukshetra, told Arjuna to fight, He meant it.

Jun 12, 2009 - 4:09 pm 64. Chesler Chronicles » End The Illegal Occupation of Jerusalem:

[...] It wasn’t a pro-Muslim woman speech either as I’ve previously written. [...]

Jun 16, 2009 - 10:17 pm 65. Lynn:

“there’s no contradiction between America and Islam because we have Muslim Americans who actually have higher education and income averages than is the average in the United States”

Is this an example of an Obamism? I so miss the Bushisms they made me smile, as the Obamisms don’t.

I wish all people’s who think that women should cover up, would instead have to walk around with closed eyes, so as not to see women without burqas and hijabs.

It would be funny to watch them bump into walls and trip on cracks in the sidewalk.

Obama is an ignorant man and I would like to see him be the first to walk around with his eyes closed because that to me is how he views the world.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:33 am 66. littleleers:

Obama has thrown defensless Muslim women under the bus. He bows to the Saudi King. He refuses to see the horrible practice of “gender apartheid” in the KSA. As a black man and someone who ought to know something about slavery, doesn’t he see what is going on???

Yes, there are those women who choose to cover up. But, there are just as many women who do not want to and are FORCED to by their father, brother, or husband. In the KSA, the will be arrested by the religous police if caught not wearing an abaya. They cannot leave home without a male relative (guardianship law).
Their husbands can marry up to four wives, including women for a “one night stand”. That is called a “muta marriage”. That sanctifies the adultery for the Wahhabists in Allah’s eyes.

If a woman here in the U.S. chooses not to wear a covering and her husband insists, then there is no choice. To not obey her husband means to receive a beating! If you live in the U.S., please do not assume these women are wearing the garb to insult us or to intimidate us. More than likely, it is the man behind the women intimidating her and our culture!

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:11 am 67. Chesler Chronicles » Sarkozy vs Obama on The Burqa: Sarkozy Wins in a Landslide!:

[...] is why I described Obama’s Cairo speech as “throwing Muslim women under the bus.” Obama is literally signaling to the Muslim world that they will be able to create a parallel [...]

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:08 am 68. The Lesbian Mafia:

this article is so thorough and well written, not only was it a joy to read but i far more educational than any of Barks hour long speeches. the only think i learn when that gas bag speaks is how stupid this country is …

Jul 22, 2009 - 1:20 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: