Wade Burleson on Multiculturalism

[Haruo]

This Fethullah Gulen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethullah_G%C3%BClen

How is this "radical Islam" demanding the subjugation of American culture to Sharia Law? Seems like this guy denounces terrorism and is working to open dialogue with "people of the book," Jews and Christians, which he does not refer to as infidels. That's not radical Islam.

Sandy, I would encourage you to look beyond Wikipedia for information regarding any individual, including me.

Can you provide better (in your view) information on Gülen, who turns out to be male (your reference to "her adherents" had me imagining a radical feminist ayatollah)?

[Wade Burleson]

There can be no demands that extreme Muslim religious practices be accommodated by Americans....Muslim women cannot wear hijabs (the female headdress) in public to hide their facial identity.

Big Daddy,

The emphasis in the sentence is on the predicate "to hide their facial identity."

American culture has the right to demand that a woman reveal her face for security purposes, including airport screenings, entrances to public buildings, etc...

I do not care what a woman wears on her head. It is wearing a hijab designed to hide facial identity that becomes an individual freedom which should be subjected to American cultural demands and never be accomodated in the United States. Leaders in France, Germany and other European nations are in complete agreement with this view as well.

[Wade Burleson]

This Fethullah Gulen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethullah_G%C3%BClen

How is this "radical Islam" demanding the subjugation of American culture to Sharia Law? Seems like this guy denounces terrorism and is working to open dialogue with "people of the book," Jews and Christians, which he does not refer to as infidels. That's not radical Islam.

Sandy, I would encourage you to look beyond Wikipedia for information regarding any individual, including me.

Can you provide better (in your view) information on Gülen, who turns out to be male (your reference to "her adherents" had me imagining a radical feminist ayatollah)?

I am headed out of the office, so this will be my last post of the day on the topic. I enjoyed the conversation.

You may read more about Gulen in the post "Turkey Has Fallen to Radical Muslims While America Slept" at wadeburleson.com

The pronoun "her" referenced Gulen ideology or was an unintentional typo. I type way too fast.

Blessings to all.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Again, I think you meant something other than hijab. A hijab does not cover the face.

Your blog post statement implied a blanket ban on the hijab. You didn't mention security concerns at airports.

Of course women must not wear clothing that covers their face in some instances. See above my comments about the compelling state interest. There are instances when a compelling state interest would require that a piece of religious clothing covering the face be removed as you note. But your statement did not mention those instances.

[Sandy]

The wikipedia article, unlike your blog post, has a long list of documentation and references, which is why I posted it instead of a long list of references. Your blog post reads like a script from any one of half a dozen right wing political organizations which have been pushing the "pro-Muslim" accusation at President Obama since he first mentioned running for President. This has the paranoiac stink of Hagee or Robertson all over it. The music minister at my old church bought into this and pushed a lot of that stuff, most of which had no substantiation.

I'd be interested to see evidence regarding the curriculum of the charter schools that he operates in the US. Charter schools, like public schools, are supposed to be religiously neutral, and there's no way a "movement" could come out of such a small, fractional group of schools that would sweep through and be capable of "taking over" the US government. If the schools are teaching Islamic principles on the public's dime, it should be easy enough, through the legal system, to squash that pretty quickly.

[Stephen Fox]

At least she should be in this discussion.

Still I think the prevailing wind of Diarmaid MacCulloch's last 150 pages of his magnum opus that Strobe Talbott and I recommend trumps spiritually the musings of Burleson and Swain. OTOH heard a German Protestant at Furman five years ago bemoaning the frustrations with the Muslim community in Berlin and their failure to assimilate.

Charles Kimball is now in Burleson's vicinity. I think they should have lunch.

[Stephen Fox]

Here is hoping Wade can further define himself in light of these reports.

And after close read of these two sources, seriously, Wade, get in touch with Charles Kimball at OU and Have lunch.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/139168699 ... hariah-law

Check the facts and guard against even the hint of fabrication as Robert Parham requests below.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/anti-shariah ... -cms-17822

[Haruo]

Just so we can get these neopharisees to quit wearing yarmulkes...

[Sandy]

"We all know what Shariah law does to women – women must wear burqas, women are subject to humiliation and into controlled marriages under Shariah law," said Berman, according to Associated Press. "We want to prevent it from ever happening in Texas."

He testified: "This is now happening all over Europe ... It's being done in Dearborn, Mich., right now. It's being done in Dearborn, Mich., because of a large population of Middle Easterners. And the judges in Dearborn are using and allowing to be used Shariah law."

Asked the source of his information, Berman said, "I heard it on a radio station here on my way in to the Capitol one day."

(emphasis mine)

That says it all.

Actually, here in Pennsylvania, Republican state legislators have been caught introducing legislation that they cut and pasted off of the websites of special interest groups. No writing, no thought to it, they simply do the bidding of the special interests that paid their way into office. Can't wait for the backlash over that at the ballot box.

[Neil Heath]

Actually, here in Pennsylvania, Republican state legislators have been caught introducing legislation that they cut and pasted off of the websites of special interest groups. No writing, no thought to it, they simply do the bidding of the special interests that paid their way into office. Can't wait for the backlash over that at the ballot box.

No matter what pile you shovel it from, manure is still manure.

And the smell does tend to stay on you no matter how hard you try to hide what you've been doing.

[Gene Scarborough]

Either we follow the Constitution with respect to the freedom of religion or we don't. Sharia Law is from a civilization where there is no freedom of religion and no separation of government from religion. Its harshness and obsession probably bespeaks a cultural schizophrenia. I know that when those fundamentalist Muslims have wealth and take the yacht to the coast of France, they are filled with wine / women / and riotous living before they return home to their pretense!!!

The women play the same game. My wife owned a business next door to a lady of that pursuasion. Her business was that of a beauty solon. Siham had a new hairdresser in her 20's. She would come to work in the traditional garb----then remove it to reveal tight sweater and pants enhancing her most lovely curves.

It is all a game, but with attached control and hostility which can deprive women of their genitals and get them stoned if they go against it. I suspect that time will change it all in a free society----as long as we maintain our Constitutional freedoms put in place by wise founders of this free nation. It's not any more perfect than the people who inhabit it, but it's a significant improvement over the abuses of the Old World and Middle East.

[Haruo]

I am interested in seeing how the courts in Dearborn, Michigan are allowing sharia to overrule American legal principles. Wade, anyone? Specific cases. And how they've fared on appeal.

[Sandy]

The only sources saying that Sharia Law is being practiced in Dearborn, Michigan are the untrustworthy right wing sites, like Sharron Angle and the "I heard it on the radio so it must be true" crowd. The credible evidence doesn't support the claim. These are deliberate distortions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43451.html

[Haruo]

When they tell me I can't put a fish on my bumper, I'll say, who do you think you are, the Turkish Army?

[Haruo]

Seriously, so far all the stuff I've seen from Wade deals not with American politics but with Turkish politics. I am not sure how much weight to give the dire predictions about Turkey, but to the extent that we say "democracy" to describe a military dictatorship, perhaps we should not be surprised when the people turn out to have a low opinion of western democracy. The Turkish military establishment has been very determinedly secularist (which is not really to say democratic) since Atatürk's days, and perhaps women's rights will be one of the casualties. Or not. I am not clear that Islamic political religiosity necessarily looks like the Taliban. Islamic history certainly doesn't bear that out; Aisha led an army, remember, and so did queens of Yemen. The cloistering of wives is something the Muslims appear to have learned from the Byzantines. (According to some scholars, that is.) Many very progressive, freedom-minded Islamic women see as much value or more in veiling than in flaunting hair and face. (But my understanding is that while on Hajj women are not allowed to wear burqas.) When we talk about being Judeo-Christian, let's remember Solomon, let's ask ourselves how old Abishag was, and let's not forget how the UCC folks treated us Baptists (and the Quakers) when they were in power. That latter being right here in what's now the America Wade wants to preserve. Don't tell me Cotton Mather wasn't civilized!

[Haruo]

Mind you, I'm not at all in favor of sharia overwhelming our laws. I just don't see much (if any) evidence that most American Muslims, let alone any significant number of non-Muslim Americans, favor such a thing, and while I support Baptist defence of religious freedom for all, I'm not sure how it is advanced when the means involve curtailing the religious freedom of the Turks that Roger Williams (admittedly only talking about males in this context) said should be full participants in the secular state.

[Haruo]

In the America I came from, the Lone Ranger was a good guy, heck, even Zorro was a hero (though I'm not sure what his immigration status was). I can't see that if they'd been women they would have been any less heroic. It's not American culture that demands women bare their faces for security, it's security concerns (or at least it's alleged security concerns; I'll admit I'm not a great fan of airport screenings in general, facial or otherwise). I am quite sure that security forces in Islamic states are quite as empowered to view women's faces as ours are, the contrary tradition of their cultures notwithstanding.

[Haruo]

Can you provide better (in your view) information on Gülen, who turns out to be male (your reference to "her adherents" had me imagining a radical feminist ayatollah)?

I am headed out of the office, so this will be my last post of the day on the topic. I enjoyed the conversation.

You may read more about Gulen in the post "Turkey Has Fallen to Radical Muslims While America Slept" at wadeburleson.com

Thanks, Wade. Interesting stuff. I'll ask my local Turk, Nevzat, for his take on it. I think he's pretty much of a secularist, but I could be wrong.

[Jim]

Not many Christians today subscribe to OT laws other than the Ten Commandments, which Christ approved and refined/defined and instructed believers to follow.

No, though there are some who do. There are also Jewish groups which subscribe to them. And the practice of Judaism which subscribes to OT law has no tolerance for Christianity or any other religious belief. However, with regard to some of the more "extreme" practices of Old Testament law, there is a line where the civil authority of the rule of law draws a line. Religious liberty does have its constitutional limits, set by the interpretation of the courts, and it has generally been pretty consistent in those limitations. The line is generally drawn where the exercise of religious freedom interferes with, or restricts the rights of those who haven't opted to participate in one way or another.

The book of Deutoronomy, for example, notes that parents have the right to submit their rebellious children for stoning. This is not a mere punishment for disobedience, but is the exercise of the death penalty, under OT law, for adult children who outright rebel against their parent's authority. The Christian doctrine of grace precludes the practice of this particular law in the church, and any parents who stoned their rebellious children would be subject to the civil authority for committing first degree murder, and "practicing their religious freedom" wouldn't hold up in court as a defense.

You'll forgive me for not seeing any connection with or response to what I posted. This is what I said: Recognizing Sharia law for the illegal, monstrous system that it is is perfectly in order, though civil law outlaws its tenets, just as it would have outlawed Mohammed in his day for the lecherous pedophile that he was. So your lecture to the unwashed might have made you feel better but it didn't do much for me. I'll just have to try harder. Actually, I'm against stoning children except for the worst crimes such as being seen and heard. As for the Jews, I didn't know they are also Christians, the group to which I specifically referred in the quote.

[Alan Carter]

So the Republicans do "cut and paste"? I guess the Democrats do "Call Pelosi and spend." I'm sure the Democrats view Muslims as potential Democrat votes so they will be sponsoring pro-Muslim legislation in the near future if they haven't already done so. Welcome to America.

[Gene Scarborough]

Alan---

Can't you be a little more realistic than this?

The troubles we have---which are growing rapidly with the reduction of bond ratings as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not a time for political rhetoric and finger-pointing.

What is wrong with getting real / putting together constructive spending along with a fair tax for all / moving to quickly end this 4-year long fiasco. We need a cooperating Congress to begin to solve this!

This is as close to the Great Depression as anything in my lifetime from 1946. The title has changed from Recession to "The Great Recession." For me, as a small business owner, it has been 30% of earnings for the last 4 years---and NOTHING since July 4.

THAT IS DEPRESSION as far as I am personally concerned---and every small businessman I consult is in the same trouble! You can only hang on for so long with fingers and toenails bleeding. When you have trouble paying your light bill and can't afford $4-a-gallon diesel to even go and talk with potential customers, then maybe you will get a clue!!!!

[Alan Carter]

I already have a clue and it is cut the spending. The tax rate sure isn't "fair" since 10% of the people are paying well over 80% of the taxes in this country and 50% pay nothing. Since most people aren't open to more taxation, then someone needs to get real about cutting spending. Just cutting waste and corruption would do it for starters. And btw, I have trouble buying lightbulbs and paying for gasoline just like everyone else.

[Gene Scarborough]

I TOTALLY AGREE that spending cuts are necessary---along the lines of AT LEAST 30% immediately!!!

When we are ALL sharing in the reductions, it is hard to feel good about OIL, especially, paying NOTHING! Just as prices were lowering slightly on fuel, NC added another .10-a-gallon tax to it as of July 1. Hardly helpful in hard times!

[Sandy]

I already have a clue and it is cut the spending. The tax rate sure isn't "fair" since 10% of the people are paying well over 80% of the taxes in this country and 50% pay nothing. Since most people aren't open to more taxation, then someone needs to get real about cutting spending. Just cutting waste and corruption would do it for starters. And btw, I have trouble buying lightbulbs and paying for gasoline just like everyone else.

Among the 50% who pay nothing are a good percentage of the wealthiest 1%, and a long, long list of corporations and major business enterprises which take full advantage of the loopholes that can only be utilized if your income is up in those brackets. So you are right. The tax rate isn't fair.

It seems that the source for most, if not all, of this hysteria over Sharia Law in the United States is bogus. It's being invented and promoted by some talk radio deejays and then cited as fact by legislators who, when asked for the source of their information, say "I heard it on the radio." Now there's some real credibility for you. I pointed out that some Republican legislators here in PA have been caught cutting and pasting legislative proposals off special interest websites virtually word for word. You can speculate all you want to about what Democrats do, especially if you don't like them, but it seems like Republicans are prone to this sort of thing. It's a credibility issue. All of the things that have prompted the introduction of legislation to ban the practice of sharia law in the US aren't actually happening, they've been made up. And it isn't the Democrats who are proposing the legislation and feeding the hysteria.

[Gene Scarborough]

Strong, Sandy---very strong and accurate to a "T."