High Pucker Factors Are Not Just for Caliphates Anymore

In a WND exclusive, former journalist now propagandist Bob Unruh, when he isn’t writing about “Obama’s detention camps”, bashing gays, or birther-izing, ejaculates about one of the favorite Republican fantasies: the foisting of an Islamic Caliphate (is here any other kind?) on the American people. His claim is that its “goals [were] given boost when [the] Obama administration legitimizes ban on criticism.” You wouldn’t know from Unruh that the front-running GOP candidate just said he doesn’t believe in Separation of Church and State and does believe that Satan is attacking America and that we need to become a theocracy to “save” (e.g. destroy) our country.

Unruh is one of WND’s stable of paranoid conspiracy enthusiasts. He wants to up your pucker-factor where Islam is concerned. Don’t worry about the theocracy in our midst, which currently happens to be an alliance of hardcore Protestants and Catholics, including presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. In fact, Santorum brings to mind all those fears of a Catholic president JFK was so anxious to put to rest in 1960. He is that Catholic your protestant mama warned you about.

But the problem for Unruh isn’t all the theocracy-talk in our Republican presidential debates, or Republican speeches, or coming from fundamentalist mega-churches or televangelists or FOX News but a “caliphate-planning conference” to be held by “Muslims” soon (I’m still thinking about Baptist Caliphates). He claims that this move toward a caliphate “was given a boost of support by the Obama administration recently when it allowed a three-day “Istanbul Process” conference in Washington.”

The coming event, Caliphate Conference 2012, is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Kern describes as a “pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Shariah law.”

Okay…so I should worry about a global Islamic state ruled by Sharia law more than a global Christian state ruled by Mosaic law? If so, why? There is no essential difference between the two law codes. It’s the Taliban either way. For non-monotheists like me, or for atheists or secularists, one is as bad as the other. In fact, for most Christians as well as most Muslims, one is as bad as the other.

Why is Unruh upset about the Caliphate Conference 2012 but has no qualms about Rick Perry’s prayerfast, The Response, held in Houston in 2011? The Response was for Christians only – the right kind of Christian, though non-Christians were welcome to experience the joys of group-psychosis, er…conversion. That was the idea, after all, to return America to God – to make America a Christian nation.

A video promoting the Caliphate Conference 2012 tells us this (you can watch an English translation at The Blaze):

“The relentless decline of Capitalism has begun. The time has come to fight against poverty. Time to obliterate the injustices. Time for the correct system.”

But how is this any different than the message of The Response?

“We believe that America is in a state of crisis. Not just politically, financially or morally, but because we are a nation that has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles. According to the Bible, the answer to a nation in such crisis is to gather in humility and repentance and ask God to intervene. The Response will be a historic gathering of people from across the nation to pray and fast for America.”

I detect no discernible difference. There is no such thing as good theocracies and bad theocracies. History has shown us all theocracies are bad. That’s why our Founding Fathers didn’t create one; that’s why we have the First Amendment.

But here’s the thing Unruh doesn’t want you to know: Most Muslims don’t want a caliphate. Most Christians don’t want a theocracy, even if it’s Christian. But Unruh doesn’t want you thinking like that. Eager to push his puckerrific Islamophobic agenda, he says:

The 57-member OIC has been proposing a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of Muhammad or his followers for years, but it never was successful under its earlier plans that were portrayed as a ban on the “defamation of religions.” Actually, support for the idea had started waning.

Again, I don’t see much difference. We have people like Brian Fischer pushing laws against blasphemy. We have Republican presidential candidates, not just conferences attended by fundamentalist Christians but actual presidential candidates, falling over each other to wage war on the First Amendment and to put special protections in place for Christians. I did mention that Rick Santorum does not believe in the Separation of Church and State, right?

What difference is there between saying you can’t criticize Christianity and saying you can’t criticize Islam? Why is one supposed to have a high pucker-factor and not the other? Both should scare the living bejeezus/beallah out of you. But Unruh is aghast:

But then it proposed Resolution 16/18, a plan for countries to “combat” things like “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The idea was adopted in the U.N. General Assembly just a few weeks ago and Kern’s analysis notes that it would be largely ineffectual as long as the West doesn’t jump behind it.

This Kern he speaks of is Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at Madrid’s Grupo de Estudio (also of the Stonegate Institute). Unruh tells us that Kern’s opinion is that Obama’s decision “gave the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.”

Now if you look at HRC 16/18 you see this title:

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

Wow, that sounds….nice. Is that really so awful? Tolerance? Thomas Jefferson, after all, whom conservatives have tried to co-opt to their cause, wrote The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in 1779 and it was passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1786. James Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments against state-supported religion (specifically Christian). The Constitution itself, Article 6, paragraph 3, mandates that no religious test be required for candidates and the First Amendment mandates no state-supported religion (something we are doing regardless, with the Bush-era Faith Based Initiatives).

But this is my real question: Why is tolerance something to get upset about? Is hate really that essential to Christian identity that the world’s largest religion can’t exist without it? Is gay-bashing, Islam-bashing, Pagan-bashing, atheist-bashing, etc, that important? And even if Islam is about hate and intolerance, as Unruh’s fellow nut-jobs claim (it’s not), why must Christians respond in kind? What happened to turning the other cheek?

This is what Hilary Clinton had to say on December 14, 2011 at the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief Conference held in Washington, DC:

SECRETRY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone, and I want to thank you all for participating in this conference where we are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms – the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.

Now, the United States is hosting this conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere, faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are. And as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear, each of us is born free to practice any religion, to change our religion, or to have none at all. No state may grant these freedoms as a privilege or take them away as a punishment if you believe, as I do and as our country does, that they are not rights bestowed by any government. They are rights endowed by our Creator within each of us. And therefore, we have a special obligation to protect these God-given rights.

And if a government does try to deny them or take them away, it amounts to a rejection of that universal right. And it also amounts to a repudiation of that fundamental conviction that we are all created equal before God. Therefore, restricting the practice of anyone’s faith is a threat to the human rights of all individuals. Communities of faith are not confined by geopolitical borders. Wherever you are in the world, there will certainly be people whose religious beliefs differ from your own, maybe by just a little bit or maybe by a lot. And my ability to practice my religious faith freely does not, and indeed cannot, diminish yours.

Here is the part Unruh and his fellow religious bigots really hate:

Religion can be such a powerful bond, but we also recognize that it can be misused to create conflict. There are those who, for reasons actually having little to do with religion, seek to instill fear or contempt for those of another creed. So we believe that it is the duty of every government to ensure that individuals are not subject to violence, discrimination, or intimidation because of their faith or their lack of faith. That is the commitment that the world made to religious freedom more than 60 years ago when we adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Clinton speaks of the delicate balance between free speech and protecting people from violence and discrimination:

Now, in the United States, we continue to combat intolerance because it is – unfortunately, seems to be part of human nature. It is hurtful when bigotry pollutes the public sphere, but the state does not silence ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might be, because we believe that in the end, the best way to treat offensive speech is by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and good speech that overwhelms it.

So we do speak out and condemn hateful speech. In fact, we think it is our duty to do so, but we don’t ban it or criminalize it. And over the centuries, what we have found is that the rough edges get rubbed off, and people are free to believe and speak, even though they may hold diametrically opposing views.

Now, with Resolution 1618, we have clarified these dual objectives. We embrace the role that free expression plays in bolstering religious tolerance. We have agreed to build a culture of understanding and acceptance through concrete measures to combat discrimination and violence, such as education and outreach, and we are working together to achieve those objectives.

This is what Kern calls a “diplomatic coup” for supporters of an Islamic Caliphate. Kern claims that the “explicit aim” of the Istanbul Process is to make it a crime to criticize Islam. It is amazing what a tizzy Christians can work themselves into over this idea, even while telling us it is a crime (or ought to be) to criticize Christianity!

Unruh claims that Clinton’s comments “open the door for attacks on people making statements about their own beliefs, which someone else would choose to decry as “hatred.” Isn’t that exactly what we’re being told if we say “no thank you” to Unruh’s Christian fundamentalists? That we’re guilty of hate crimes against Christianity if we utter any criticism of it? If we fail to say “Merry Christmas”?Apparently, only fundamentalist Christians are allowed to have “their own beliefs.” Certainly, from all the rhetoric, atheists, secularist, Pagans, Muslims, gays and lesbians, feminists, etc, are not.

Unruh writes:

WND previously has written about the Islamic-led Defamation of Religions proposal in the United Nations. It was “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Yes, only Christians should have special protections. We get it. Apparently it’s a threat to Christian freedoms for other religions to have freedoms too. Can’t have that!

What is amusing about all Unruh’s hyperbolic ranting is that supporters of a Caliphate will be no more happy with Clinton’s words than Unruh. They don’t want freedom of religion – they want imposition of their religion just like Unruh wants imposition of his. They particularly don’t care about religious minorities, no more than Unruh does. As Clinton went on to say, “we know that governments which fear religion can be quite oppressive, but we know that societies which think there’s only one religion can be equally oppressive.”

Unruh seems to recognize that comment applies to him. What he fails to recognize is that he (and his religion) is no different and no better than those Caliphate supporters he criticizes.

6 Replies to “High Pucker Factors Are Not Just for Caliphates Anymore”

  1. I think it’s important to note that for every person we have here criticizing Islam, the people of Islam are watching those words and exhibit the same fear of Christianity that Christianity exhibits of Islam. It is apparent that these hard-line Christian people are not comfortable with her own religion they would not have to attack someone else’s. As well as the fact that Islam is just as big and just as powerful as Christianity, It’s only natural that two religions based on love would hate each other so much.

    I totally agree that hard-line Christians are fundamentalists the Barrett exact resemblance to the Taliban type of Islamic rule. And I think it’s one of the biggest reasons that these fundamentalist are trying so hard to get control of the American government. They need a war to end the threat of another religion. As it is so amazing that two religions have to work so hard to destroy each other? I am sure Jesus is just so proud of both of them. And the sarcasm for my feelings on these two religions doesn’t end there. Please note that I am not talking about the normal everyday Christians but the fundamentalist like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry Michelle Bachmann and all of the Christian hate groups.

  2. Bill Maher one of the biggest vocal critics of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism used to draw a distinction between the two. Basically, he felt that Islamic fundies were a greater threat because of the level of violence and death. Well, after the incidents in Norway, he changed his tune a bit.

    Living in Texas, I have seen and met these good ‘ol boys that commune and train with firearms at their “Bible retreats” to take the war to the liberals and “homos” out to destroy our country. Dominionists will attempt to use legislation to take away our rights and freedoms, and their “soldiers” will back it up with violence. Be afraid son. Be very afraid.

  3. “…my real question: Why is tolerance something to get upset about? Is hate really that essential to Christian identity that the world’s largest religion can’t exist without it?”

    Back in 1995, the UN celebrated a “Year of Tolerance”. Federico Mayor, director-general of UNESCO, made the following remarks in New York:

    “…Fighting intolerance takes both state action and individual responsibility. Governments must adhere to the international standards for human rights, must ban and punish hate crimes and discrimination against all vulnerable groups, must ensure equal access to justice and equal opportunity for all. Individuals must become tolerance teachers within their own families and communities. We must get to know our neighbors and the cultures and the religions that surround us in order to achieve an appreciation for diversity. Education for tolerance is the best investment we can make in our own future security…”

    To answer your question, Hraf, apparently not. Tolerance is learned; it takes education. But now we know, according to the new, revised, “Dignitatis Humanae” declared by latest fundie-christian charismatic, Pope-President Richard Sanatorium I, that, education makes him throw up because it’s for snobs…or was it education is for snobs and it makes him throw up.

    (hummm, and all along, I thought little Ricky was some kind of a
    charlatan sociopath, but no, he’s bulimic with low self-esteem!
    Who knew…)

  4. Mr. Haraldsson, Franklin Graham has written a plea to his flock: ‘Political Correctness Gone Amok’

    “One of the most sinister and menacing threats to our society today lurks under the lethal guise of two small initials—PC.

    I’m talking about political correctness—the maddening and prevailing public sentiment of offending no one (except Christians). It has infected our schools, government, universities, and the marketplace, leaving no room for moral absolutes or the authoritative truth of Scripture.

    Instead, political correctness demands tolerance of everything as it panders to the godless values of pluralism, marginalizing and even persecuting men and women of faith…”

    persecuted parasite here: http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=8496

  5. “PC” is just good manners. Simple good manners of the kind decent parents still teach their children. Nothing more; nothing less.

    The term “PC” was and remains a pejorative term, slipped into the language by “conservatives” to make the idea that expending a bit of thought and effort to avoid hurting people’s most heart felt feelings is a terrible and unjust burden forced upon them by “liberals”.

    If they feel pressure to not call people sneering or insulting names or display hurtful historic symbols that’s a terrible imposition on their “liberty”. And if others will not listen politely to their harangues to put their religious symbols in the public schools, parks, and buildings and agree that the USA is a “Christian Nation”, it is they who are being discriminated against.

    No it’s not. As my grandmother used to say – “Use your manners.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.