Comments on: View From France: Better “Freedom Fries” Than Obama’s Hijab Slap

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:44:44 +0000

Frum sez: "Indirectly, some legislators reasoned that by banning the head scarf, Muslim children might better assimilate."

Jews didn't have a problem assimilating into many countries, despite the fact that devout Jews still wear yarmulkes.

The difference between Jews and Muslims isn't what they wear. It's what they plan.

Despite what anti-Semites claim, Jews didn't come to America to take over the country. All they wanted was to find work and practice their faith in private.

Jews never had any rabbis who preached the hate and venom of some of the radical Islamist imams in Europe (including in Britain). Jewish rabbis never claimed "Someday, the Star of David will fly over 10 Downing Street and the White House!"--but there are radical Muslim imams in Europe who tell their flocks that someday, Islam will take over Europe.

The difference between Judaism and Islam is that Islam contains a geo-political program, as well as mysticism. Moderate Muslim imams claim that this program was intended only for the early days of Islam, when it was threatened with eradication by the other faiths. Radical Muslim imams claim that this program is just as relevant to today's world--that the wars started by Mohammed still go on today until Islam conquers the world.

And a nation run by extremist Muslims is going to be an uncomfortable one for Jews, Christians, gays, lesbians, feminists, liberals, and atheists. The Middle East has proven that.

David Frum, the French, and the feminists should focus on THAT, and not what Muslims wear. What's on a Muslim's head is far less important than the ideas inside his head.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:02:28 +0000

I'm beginning to wonder -- have Frum and his pals been too long at this game to have any real, deep ideological principles?

After reading this blog for a couple months, I am now in agreement with Rush and the far right on one point at least: to lead, you need to believe in something. I don't happen to agree with what Rush and Sarah Palin believe, but their popularity definitely comes from the fact that they really do have principles, and stick to them.

So does Obama, by the way -- though he did a bit of triangulation to get elected, you can pretty much go through his speeches and see that he never outright lied about what he believes, or how he would lead. In spite of the fact that he's to the left of the center of the American populace, I predict he will be re-elected, and remain popular, just as FDR and Reagan did before him.

If the right wants to lead again, they need to find someone with a pair of balls. Someone who believes something deep in his/her soul, and fights for that core set of principles in everything they do. Unfortunately for the uber-conservatives, that person cannot be anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-hispanic, and anti-intellectual. That combination just won't win an election.

Before he fell off the deep end, McCain actually had some of these qualities. I know the right wingers don't want to believe that, but it's true. However, the absolute necessity of him kow-towing to the social/religious wing of the party, which he hates with a passion deep in his core (and they hate him), seems to have sapped the humanity out of the poor guy, and he was never the same again. Regardless of what you think of Palin, picking her was deeply cynical, because clearly McCain shares little in terms of actual beliefs with her. He did it because he thought it would help him win.

Mitt Romney does not fit the bill. He believes anything he thinks will get him elected. The closest thing to someone like this is Huckabee, and he's just too damn conservative to have a chance. Jindal? nope. Pawlenty? not gonna happen. So who?

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:52:51 +0000

So government intrusion into personal matters such as daily dress is OK for conservatives as long as it forces Muslims to 'assimilate'? Puhleeze...

Let's get some intellectual rigor into this debate. The French/Turkish 'solution' to cultural problems -- laws -- is beyond stupid. It's created a situation where, far from being forced to wear the veil by their parents, these Muslim kids now see it as a betrayal of their culture and pride *not* to wear it.

It's like when a government (France?) tries to control prices -- you just create a black market. You cannot legislate faith or identity. It just can't be done. It's stupid, it's un-American, and Obama called them on it. It's actually rather Bush-like of him in this one case -- he's making a claim of moral absolutism: it's always wrong to tell someone how to dress.

France -- where Purple was illegal unless you were born of the ruling class. How did that turn out for them?

By: nealjking

nealjking — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:17:17 +0000

There is a ban on religious clothing in France and in Turkey.I’ve discussed this with proponents in both cultures, and I still don’t get it. People should be free to wear what they want; except when there is an unavoidable security or safety issue.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:49:28 +0000

Mr. Granville writes: "The emergence of some mainstream opposition to the 'multicultural' model is long overdue and should be welcomed."

Mainstream?

The French ban on "visible" religious signs also includes yarmulkes, by the way. If a Jewish male student wears a yarmulke to public school, he faces expulsion. Not just suspension, but expulsion. Just like a female Islamic student wearing hijab.

In Europe, the backlash against Islamic radicalism is sparking a kind of neo-fascism. You can see it in French politics and in the rise of Vlaams Belang and other such groups.

Vlaams Belang is against ANY Muslim immigration. And in their platform, they have some other zingers, like demanding amnesty for all Nazi war criminals left over from WW2.

The European Union can't really promote "assimilation," because the E.U. long ago made common cause with the Islamists in the Middle East as a counterweight to American hegemony.

So instead they can do what Europe has a grand tradition of doing--Fascist repression.

By: midcon

midcon — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:42:07 +0000

I have noticed that the articles seem to be hewing more and more to the right, including David’s. Maybe Frum has begun to feel that the way to craft a new majority is to return to the fold. The articles are particularly critical of Obama’s MidEast trip and lack of adherence to the Israel party line, coupled with his moderate words to Muslims.It is difficult to discern whether David is acting reflexively to change in the U.S. and Israeli relationship or making a sharp right turn. As president, Obama has the obligation and authority to employ diplomacy in equal measures to employing the military as an instrument of foreign policy. At the moment he is choosing diplomacy in he dealings with the Muslim tribes. Whether civilized behavior will have affect on tribalism remains to be seen.

By: krove

krove — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:04:15 +0000

Do these people get paid for writing this total BS. Why is Frum turning this site into a laughing stock by giving a platform to these nit picking people who have nothing really to say but say it anyway?

By: ltwpolitics

ltwpolitics — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:44:58 +0000

So we should ban crosses too? It’s not about “multiculturalism,” but about a basic freedom: that of religious expression. I’m surprised that the NM gives space to this tripe that if coming from the mouth of a liberal American would be viewed as beyond the pale. But evidently Frum is eager to provide a platform for the French xenophobic left if it somehow insults Obama. With enemies like these, Obama only looks better.