Hat tip to Pajamas Media
For all of you who deride any mention of the application of Sharia in the US, read this disturbing story from Pajamas Media.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/star-of-david-carved-on-infidel%e2%80%99s-back-in-st-louis/
Someone obviously forgot to tell these Somali immigrants that we don't allow this type of religious enforcement in the US. This is a hate crime, but few will call it that. Our mainstream media is not interested in this type of hate crime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Disagree with your post completely.
First of all, Pajama's media is an amateur conservative news site and I would take any exclusive article from them with a pound of salt.
Secondly, even if the story is 100% true the incident would be a case of a hate crime committed by Muslims and not an example of Islamic law being applied much less condoned in St. Louis or America.
Does your hate of Islam/Muslims know any bounds Gary Fouse???
Thank you for answering my questions. I rest my case.
"For all of you who deride any mention of the application of Sharia in the US..."
This is not an "application of Sharia in the US." This is assault, battery, and mayhem, committed by private citizens who are liable to prosecution. Any word on arrests?
IF this treatment were
a) commanded by a court of law, as an appropriate penalty for apostasty, or,
b) excused by a directed verdict of acquittal in a court of law, on the ground that Sharia justified the action,
THAT would be "the application of Sharia in the US."
As for what did happen, since nobody's version of "Sharia" is the law in the U.S., the usual police investigation is in order, and should proceed. (When a defense committee calls a news conference, or families show up in court calling the defendants martyrs, that is the time to tell them "No dice, we don't do it like that in America.")
It is of course true that the kiddies in the Pajama Party are a band of merry faux conservative pranksters, not a reliable news source, but I doubt this would have been totally made up from whole cloth. And Anony Mouse does not appear to be elevating the discussion to a higher level. A "pseudo-ethnic cult of hate"? Yeah, right.
Gee Siarlys, Why did they do it in the first place?
Why did who do what in the first place? Specify your subjects before placing undue reliance on pronouns Mr. Professor of English.
Pajama Party?
The perps?
The Jews?
The police?
Siarlys,
Why did the Somalis attack the Muslim? Why did they carve a Star of David in his back? They did it because they hate Jews and they concluded that a Muslim who expressed love for Jews was going against Islam and had to be punished. Does that answer all your questions? I think I have been clear.
Why is that even a question Gary? That is a point we all agree on.
After all the comments preceding your question, you really weren't at all clear.
Now that you have made yourself clear, what is your point? We agree on the facts. Highlighting these facts doesn't change my analysis. Why should it?
And when did you become a fan of prosecuting "hate crimes" rather than routinely notifying the proud perpetrators that mayhem is mayhem, murder is murder, they get no breaks for righteous indignation about someone else's speech, PERIOD?
(P.S. Looking over the context of your question one last time, perhaps it entirely escaped you that the phrase "pseudo-ethnic cult of hate" was introduced by Anony Mouse, as his or her description of Judaism. That's what I was being sarcastic about. Alter your perspective any?)
Siarlys,
Actually, I agree with you that hate crimes should be prosecuted on the substantive act itself. The motive should be an element of proof rather than a charge unto itself. I have made this point long ago, but if everybody is going to focus on "hate crime", what is wrong with pointing out certain hate crimes that political correctness woyuld rather not recognize?
That is relevant if, and only if, there is a hesitation to prosecute a straight up crime, for fear of appearing politically incorrect.
You haven't given one hint that the police are not following up on this case, or that local authorities are not going to prosecute.
I can well imagine that if there are arrests and a trial, there will be outrage voices from the families and neighbors of the accused. But that is them, not our legal system.
I am even beginning to understand why they might respond that way. In a good part of the middle east, under many empires, including the Ottoman Turks, it was common practice that large cities had a Greek area, ruled by Greek authorities according to Greek civil and religious law, an Armenian area, ruled by Armenian authorities, according to Armenian civil and religious law, etc. etc. etc. Everyone paid taxes to the Sultan of course.
So, some of these immigrants may be genuinely perplexed that President Obama is NOT the Sultan, that their little community does NOT have any legal right to police itself according to its own laws. But, they need to sort that out, because, they don't -- and anyone of their own ethnic group or religion is as free as the children of 19th century strict German immigrant parents to make their own choices.
Our law deals with individual citizens, not with communities of subjects. Someone from the (Bush) state department should have explained that, BEFORE inviting an entire rejected ethnicity in Somalia to resettle here.
Post a Comment