Muslim Speaker Attacks Israel at MLK Tribute

[UkrainianAmerican]

The Israeli consul general in Montreal walked out of an interfaith memorial ceremony for Martin Luther King Jr., when Yahya Abdul Rahman of the Montreal Muslim News Network used his speech to launch attacks on Israel: Anti-Israel comments mar King tribute. Rahman had some very interesting comments when asked about his speech:
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=C58790E5-7E01-45EA-81CE-4CE6A9C1A9A3


Rahman said yesterday he has no regrets or apologies to offer, because “from my vantage point it was also a political event.”

“As a Muslim, I don’t make a separation between religion and politics,” he said in a phone interview. “Religion and politics are intertwined and there is absolutely no separation for me at all.
”I was there as a representative of my faith community, and I said what was most pressing on my heart.

“If other people were offended by it, it just proves my point - that sometimes people who espouse liberal values, when it rubs them the wrong way, it reveals their liberalism doesn’t go very deep at all.”

That’s an excellent summation of radical Islamic ideology and tactics; shower scorn on one of the most basic tenets of Western democracy—the separation of church and state—and at the same time invoke liberal guilt icons to confuse the multiculti crowd and excuse the most reprehensible intolerance.

[SeanAshi]

Abdul Rahman
Isn't he part of the Palestinian Authority?

[Falco]

It's a shame that they take such an event to spread values that are not at the heart of our society.

[UkrainianAmerican]

It's a shame that they take such an event to spread values that are not at the heart of our society.
Indeed.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well, er, not to defend what he said, but he did bring up an interesting point in his defense.

Many people mistakenly believe that in the US there is some kind of "separation of church and state". This is a bit of a misnomer.

Government, or "state" functions by and derives all power from law. Law is derived from religious principles. Therefore, there's clearly a tight relationship between religion and government.

What the US constitution says is that the gov't will not officially recognize, or prohibit the practice of any religion. Sort of saying there won't be any official "state" religion, or you can't be a >insert kooky religion here<. Over years of leftward movement (a term I just made up), it's come to loosely mean that religion has no place within government.

Odd, since all our money carries religious slogans, all Senate sessions start with a prayer, and you have to swear on a Bible in court.

Yeah, the guy is a tool, but he makes a good point with the politics/religion thing. It's how we define values. Which of course goes a long way towards showing what kind of values he embraces...

[Falco]

Well, er, not to defend what he said, but he did bring up an interesting point in his defense.

Many people mistakenly believe that in the US there is some kind of "separation of church and state". This is a bit of a misnomer.

Government, or "state" functions by and derives all power from law. Law is derived from religious principles. Therefore, there's clearly a tight relationship between religion and government.

What the US constitution says is that the gov't will not officially recognize, or prohibit the practice of any religion. Sort of saying there won't be any official "state" religion, or you can't be a >insert kooky religion here<. Over years of leftward movement (a term I just made up), it's come to loosely mean that religion has no place within government.

Odd, since all our money carries religious slogans, all Senate sessions start with a prayer, and you have to swear on a Bible in court.

Yeah, the guy is a tool, but he makes a good point with the politics/religion thing. It's how we define values. Which of course goes a long way towards showing what kind of values he embraces...

Even though this is true, the US president is not the religious leader of the country, nor does he have any inluence on the christian religion.

[StarvingStudent47]

Nothing is more ironic than preaching against Israel at an MLK rally.


". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

Text copied from http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/ml_king.html

[cut]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

(not my personal opinion btw.. before you start stressing) I don't think all MLK opinions are right simply because of what he did. He was human after all.



Even though this is true, the US president is not the religious leader of the country, nor does he have any inluence on the christian religion.

the point is the christian religion has a big influence on Bush, does it not?

[He219]

the point is the christian religion has a big influence on Bush, does it not?

Bush's religion influences his character and not his occupation, if thats what you are alluding to ...
;)

It reminds me of the fear people had of JFK and the influence the Pope would have over the policies of the United States.

[Combat Wombat]

Many people mistakenly believe that in the US there is some kind of "separation of church and state". This is a bit of a misnomer.

Government, or "state" functions by and derives all power from law. Law is derived from religious principles. Therefore, there's clearly a tight relationship between religion and government.


There is a seperation of state and "Church". The seperation church is different from a total seperation from religion.

[fantassin]

Bush's religion influences his character and not his occupation, if thats what you are alluding to ...


I beg to differ...all his talks about "good and evil", all the claptrap about the former Delta Force officer who said "his" god was better than the muslim god who was just an "idol"...current american politics are absolutely bathing in religion or what they think is religion.

On a course with the US Army a few years back, a Ranger (a sgt) told me he was writing a book called "How to be a Christian Ranger". It's typically american (not saying it's wrong, just different); I can't picture a French paratrooper NCO writing such a book.

That promotion of religions on the public scene is at the heart of the current war on terrorism and both sides bear a responsability in this.

[S'13]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

Please explain... :|

Just to give you an idea of what Zionism is, here is the meaning of the word according to the dictionary.


A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Bush's religion influences his character and not his occupation, if thats what you are alluding to ...


I beg to differ...all his talks about "good and evil", all the claptrap about the former Delta Force officer who said "his" god was better than the muslim god who was just an "idol"...current american politics are absolutely bathing in religion or what they think is religion.

On a course with the US Army a few years back, a Ranger (a sgt) told me he was writing a book called "How to be a Christian Ranger". It's typically american (not saying it's wrong, just different); I can't picture a French paratrooper NCO writing such a book.

That promotion of religions on the public scene is at the heart of the current war on terrorism and both sides bear a responsability in this.
Um, and whats wrong with using religion in your speeches? Sure as hell doesnt bother me (I am compltely secular/atheist). The policies and decisions of the Bush Administration are based on sound logic and rational thought, no religion.

[cut]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

Please explain... :|

Just to give you an idea of what Zionism is, here is the meaning of the word according to the dictionary.


A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.

[S'13]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

Please explain... :|

Just to give you an idea of what Zionism is, here is the meaning of the word according to the dictionary.


A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.

What you say here is more clear, what I didn't understand was this: " if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist?"
I didn't understand this comment since the goal of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel and the preservation of that homeland.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Many people mistakenly believe that in the US there is some kind of "separation of church and state". This is a bit of a misnomer.

Government, or "state" functions by and derives all power from law. Law is derived from religious principles. Therefore, there's clearly a tight relationship between religion and government.


There is a seperation of state and "Church". The seperation church is different from a total seperation from religion.

You lost me there.

The words "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. It says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That's all. The popular myth springs from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Congregation in 1802. There had been widespread rumors that another religion, the Congregationalists, would become the "official" American religion, and he was simply trying to dispel the rumor.

[cut]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

Please explain... :|

Just to give you an idea of what Zionism is, here is the meaning of the word according to the dictionary.


A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.

What you say here is more clear, what I didn't understand was this: " if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist?" This is because one of the goals of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel and the preservation of that homeland.

:cantbeli: sorry, I keep typing should instead of shouldn't, I'm just a spastic :|

[S'13]

I think that is wrong, if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist? and yet it does not make them anti-semite.

Please explain... :|

Just to give you an idea of what Zionism is, here is the meaning of the word according to the dictionary.


A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.

What you say here is more clear, what I didn't understand was this: " if someone believes that their should be a jewish state in the middle east, does that not make them anti-zionist?" This is because one of the goals of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel and the preservation of that homeland.

:cantbeli: sorry, I keep typing should instead of shouldn't, I'm just a spastic :|

It's ok, sometimes happens to me also... ;)

[gilgoul]

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.[/quote]

SO, by denying to a certain people, ethny, religious group or however you define the jewish people, the right to freely determine it`s destiny and enjoy sovereignty on the land of its ancestors, you draw a difference between this people and the others, that makes you an antisemite, unless you consider that other groups should`nt be granted any right either, ant that would n`t be flatering for you.
:|

[UkrainianAmerican]

I was going by what MLK said in starving's quote, but it works with this aswell, if someone dissagrees with the Israeli government or does not support the development of the state of Israel, that by this definition anti-zionist, and yet that doesn't mean they are automatically anti-semite.

SO, by denying to a certain people, ethny, religious group or however you define the jewish people, the right to freely determine it`s destiny and enjoy sovereignty on the land of its ancestors, you draw a difference between this people and the others, that makes you an antisemite, unless you consider that other groups should`nt be granted any right either, ant that would n`t be flatering for you.
:|[/quote]
nicely said.

[WARPIG]

Even though this is true, the US president is not the religious leader of the country, nor does he have any inluence on the christian religion.

the point is the christian religion has a big influence on Bush, does it not?

You sort of answered yourself cut. Christianity influences Bush but Bush does not influence Christianity.
His faith calls on him to be open and obvious in his beliefs but he does not use his position to influence others to his faith.
Several great points on this thread. As 2sheds pointed out... Our countries values are based largely on Christian principals.
Thanks for pointing out that misnomer.
Although legally we have adopted that seperation of church and state phrase, the fact remains that our laws and values are based on religion. I think the misunderstanding is that people expect that religion has no place in state affairs. That is pretty naive. As 2sheds pointed out ..our law neither recognizes nor prohibits but in practice the Christian religion is still visible in our government. Most of it is tolerated out of tradition, but the fact remains that our governments roots were established in Christianity.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's an interesting topic (the religion & government thing). Without basing what's "right" and "wrong" in religion, what are we left with? We'd only have each person's definition of what's OK to do at the moment. A society can't function that way. There'd be chaos, anarchy, dogs & cats living together...mass hysteria.

The substrate of what we consider right & wrong as a society is so elemental that most people just float over it without even considering its source. It's oddly funny when you pin new age/atheist/secular humanist types down & make them define what's right & wrong & why that is. The only thing that they can use as the underpinning element is "because I say so". Well, if stealing their wallet is only wrong because they say so, and it's up to everybody to make up their own rules, then I say it's OK to take it (can't say steal it, because I don't consider it stealing). Such is the society we'd be left with. Not that I'm a religious person, but it's an interesting topic.

I'll stop babbling now & return us to our normally scheduled thread....

[Combat Wombat]

The words "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. It says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


An establishment of religion is an organized religious body and in the case of catholicism its called the church. The founders didn't want to have the religious organizations dictating law or hold anyinfluence over the creation of law. They saw that as one of the many reasons there was so much politicol upheavel in europe.