Boston Globe Frets Over City’s Muslims After Marathon Bombing

Before the dust has settled, before any idea of who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing and why is determined, the Boston Globe is fretting for the city’s Muslims claiming that there will surely be a “backlash” if the bombers are found to be Islamic extremists. This despite that even after 9/11 there was never any real backlash against Muslims in this country.

For the Boston Globe, columnist Yvonne Abraham opens her piece sonorously noting that Boston’s “Imams have been praying for Monday’s bombings” and fretfully claims they are also “praying” that the perpetrator isn’t a Muslim.

Abraham then goes on to claim that Boston’s Muslims experienced a “backlash” after the attacks by Islamic extremists on Sept. 11, 2001. She even outrageously evokes Japanese internment camps from WWII.

He recalls the backlash that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He remembers being afraid to send his children to school for a few days afterward, and the way some began to view all Muslims with suspicion, even hostility. A few fringe-dwellers even spoke of internment camps like those that held Japanese-Americans during the ≠Second World War.

This is all nonsense. No one talked of putting Muslims in concentration camps. Further, Muslims did not experience any backlash in the United States immediately after 9/11 or since.

A look at the FBI’s hate crime statistics shows such a tiny number of crimes against Muslims that they aren’t even worth mentioning. Out of a nation of over 300 million people, in the very year of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there were only 481 incidents of anti-Muslim crimes reported (That year there were 1043 anti-Jewish crimes) and in the years after 2001 those incident fell precipitously.

More recently the 2011 hate crimes against Muslims totaled a mere 157 incidents. On the other hand, anti-Jewish incidents totaled a far higher 771 incidents. In 2010 it was a low 160 anti-Muslim hate crimes.

Certainly any attack on someone based solely on their religious preferences is disgusting, but in a nation of millions, these low numbers show no such thing as a “backlash” against Muslims in 2001 or since. The Boston Globe is just peddling a falsehood here.

Abraham goes on to say that only Muslims would be tarred en masse if the terrorists turn out to be one of them.

If the terrorist turns out to be a disaffected survivalist, a white supremacist, or some other flavor of domestic extremist, he will stand in a courtroom alone, with only infamy for company. If he is a Muslim, thousands will be called upon to answer, by association and stereotype, for his actions.

This is another falsehood. If the murdering terrorists that perpetrated this crime in Boston end up being white, or “survivalists,” or tax protesters, or anything of the kind the Old Media will tar every Republican and every Tea Party group as conspirators equally as guilty as the terrorists. They will hardly “stand alone” in the eyes of denizens of the media like Yvonne Abraham.

Abraham also gives a local Boston Imam a few lines to say that the attacks during the Marathon are “like something from overseas that might be affiliated to Islam.” Here Abraham is trying to paint such attacks as always foreign to our own homegrown Muslims. But the fact is, many of the bombings that the FBI and other authorities have thwarted over the last ten years were perpetrated by American bred Muslim converts, not “overseas” Muslims.

One last thing that Abraham writes actually refutes her entire woe-filled premise that Muslims are in danger here. Abraham notes that Massachusetts State Police had stationed cruisers outside her Imam’s Mosque proving that, far from finding Muslims left unprotected and oppressed, Americans are protecting Boston’s Muslims’ right to free religious expression by making sure nothing happens to them. Such careful protection of a minority religion would never happen to Christians in Muslim countries.

For the Boston Bombers, the President is Just Putting On Ayers ...
How’s that Arab Spring thingy working out for you Mr. President?
  • GarandFan

    “Old Media will tar every Republican and every Tea Party group as conspirators equally as guilty as the terrorists.”

    But…but…but they’ll do it with “nuance”.

  • jim_m

    Frauds. There was no great increase in attacks on muslims after 9/11. Once again it is the left stoking racial hate and violence. Much like the crazy race merchants who create alleged racial attacks on themselves the left will create a racial incident in order to assert themselves as superior to the rest of us.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah, most of the attacks were on Sikhs wearing turbans by morons.

      • jim_m

        Well, you should have known better.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I suppose you’d be happier if their turbans were made by geniuses?

        You elitists are all the same.

        • jim_m

          Funny how Chico ignores the fact that anti-Semitic incidents far outnumber the anti-muslim ones. Why do you suppose that is?

          • Commander_Chico

            Jim crying “anti-Semittttticcc.” There you go again.

            Those FBI stats are generally suspect. Are you telling me you believe “anti-black” bias incidents outnumbered “anti-white” bias incidents 4 to 1?

          • jim_m

            I did no such thing. I asked why it is that you ignored the data presented. You are the one admitting that you are an anti-Semite.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am ignoring the data because it’s meaningless and suspect.

            These numbers mean nothing to me. Tell me about a specific incident, we can discuss that.

            First, the anti-black/anti-white numbers are likely skewed to the point of bullshit. That indicates the rest of the numbers are BS, too.

            Second, what is an “incident?” Is it a beating, murder, or a scrawled epithet or swastika on a toilet stall in a high school?

            Funny how you can rail against the government, then accept their “data” when it suits you.

          • jim_m

            I argue against the government and its manifest incompetence. However, I frequently will cite its own statistics to demonstrate my points.

            Government data is generally decent data and is often the only source for information (particularly when you are looking at epidemiological data or government spending data)

            I would invite you to produce a comment where I complained against the use of government figures simply because they were government figures(real government figures and not political party figures. There is a difference between obama saying that 90% of the public backs gun control and the FBI reporting murder rates)

            You can’t do it. You’re just showing how full of BS you are.

          • Commander_Chico

            You said nothing to refute my criticism of this “data.” The anti-black vs anti-white numbers are bullshit. There is no standard for an “incident” – could be anything from grafitti to murder. The numbers mean nothing.

          • fustian24

            If I understand your point, you believe there are many more anti-white incidents than are being reported?

            No quibble with that from me.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, that is what I am saying.

          • herddog505

            So, let me see if I’ve got this right:

            — When presented with data from the FBI about hate crimes against Muslims vs. hate crimes against Jews, you instinctively call “BS” on the Muslim stats (“there’s gotta be A LOT more!”) and, by implication, on the JEWISH stats (“there’s gotta be a lot less!”).

            Seriously?

            Say… is the grass on your planet green? Or is “green” a BS color?

          • Commander_Chico

            Did I say any of that?

            The only thing I said was that I doubt there are 4 anti-black “incidents” for every 1 anti-white “incident” and that this cast doubt on the veracity of all the numbers.

          • fustian24

            Let’s try this: do you believe that there are more anti-Jewish incidents or anti-Muslim incidents?

            On the basis of nothing more than intuition and anecdotal evidence, I would guess that there are many more anti-Jewish problems.

          • Commander_Chico

            I have no idea, and since the “incidents” are not specified, it does not make any difference.

            I suppose you could weight the “incidents.” Would one murder be worth 10,000 graffiti vandalisms?

  • jim_m

    I am sure that the left sees events such as this as evidence of the overt racism of Americans.

    Now that police have cornered the second gunman, I wonder what excuses will flow from the left? I am sure we won’t have to wait as long as tomorrow morning to hear how this punk was driven to it by GOP policies.

    • Neurotic Knight

      Both of them were white, so it is not an issue of racism

      • jim_m

        Racism/anti-religious hate. There, does that make you happy? In the common usage most people draw a distinction between people of western European dissent and people of middle eastern dissent. These men appeared to be and were culturally closer to middle eastern dissent.

        Some lefties like to play word games about who is considered “caucasian”. The genetic/scientific definition is different from the common understanding. Trying to make points by switching arbitrarily between the two definition is juvenile.

        • Neurotic Knight

          No race something you are born into racism like feminism or LGBT rights is defending for who you are. Religion is something you choose much like political ideology, there is a difference. I am from India, but i am not comfortable with Islam, does it make me racist because most muslims are same race, which can’t be because i am of that race too, so are many hindus , christians etc. I can hate your choice, without hating you, if you are not aware people are capable of changing their religion unlike sex or race.

          • jim_m

            Again, I am speaking of the common usage and not the strict literal construction. It is a common usage to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-muslim behavior with racism. I am sorry to have offended your sense of these definitions.

            [edit] And you also neglect to acknowledge that one is born into a culture and a family that has a religion and that upbringing has a lot to do with one’s adult views. Finally there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation has any genetic foundation.

          • Neurotic Knight

            Really, There quite a lot of proof for sexual orientation being genetic, but that was not the topic, so as for culture, am sure plenty of muslims have become atheists and reverse has occurred so too, just because your entire town believes something doesnt make it true or respectable.

          • jim_m

            Actually, there have been no studies that demonstrate that claim. It is clearly a matter of dispute. While there were several studies back in the 90’s that made such a claim they were all discredited on a rational scientific basis. There is no genetic basis for such a claim recognized by the general scientific community. Claiming such is the same sort of pseudo-scientific, ideologically driven claim of consensus that is used to silence real scientific discovery.

            In fact genetic predisposition toward homosexuality would run counter to evolutionary theory and as such any genetically driven homosexual tendencies should have been eradicated from all species millennia ago.

          • Neurotic Knight

            But in any case, the discussion is not about homosexuality is it, good job on sidetracking

        • Brucehenry

          D-E-S-C-E-N-T

  • LiberalNightmare

    Funny, no one was worried about the anti-tea party backlash earlier this week.

  • jim_m

    Punk has been arrested! Hopefully we can find out how far this goes.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I was listening on scanner – PD had him cornered for over an hour.

      The fact that he was allowed to surrender is evidence that he got more mercy than he gave any of his victims.

      • jim_m

        Been watching the local Boston TV online. Far better coverage from the local affiliate than from the national network stiffs.

  • r.a.

    Warner writes: “Further, Muslims did not experience any backlash in the United States immediately after 9/11 or since.”

    There was certainly a backlash, and the FBI stats show this pretty clearly.

    WTH wrote: “A look at the FBI’s hate crime statistics shows such a tiny number of crimes against Muslims that they aren’t even worth mentioning. Out of a nation of over 300 million people, in the very year of the attacks on
    the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there were only 481 incidents
    of anti-Muslim crimes reported (That year there were 1043 anti-Jewish
    crimes) and in the years after 2001 those incident fell precipitously.”

    Your argument is ridiculous. First of all, the FBI mentions those 481 incidents because they do matter. They are, contrary to what you argue, absolutely worth mentioning. It’s pretty deplorable that you are trying to dismiss these hate crimes. Second, your argument about these FBI stats makes it quite clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about. In order to understand whether or not there was a backlash, you’d have to look at the stats before and after 9/11/2001. That’s how you can see if there’s a change or difference. So here’s a little lesson in reading the FBI stats you provided:

    In 1999, the FBI reports 32 anti-Islamic incidents, perpetrated by 14 known offenders. In 2000, there were 28 anti-Islamic incidents, perpetrated by 20 known offenders. Statistically, very little change between 1999 and 2000. However, in 2001 there is a clear change. The number of anti-Islamic incidents jumps to 481, ,which is about 17 times the previous year (481 incidents, 334 offenders). In 2002, the number of incidents drops to 155, but that is still 5 times higher than the pre-2001 level. As you point out above, the number of anti-Islamic hate crimes hovers around 160 incidents per year through 2011. Again this is about 5 times the level before 2001. So, these stats do in fact reflect an increased rate of anti-Islamic hate crimes after 9/11. In other words, yes, there was a backlash. And it shows up in the stats you referenced.

    Nice try dismissing this issue with more of your shoddy “reporting.” Next time, try actually looking at the stats before you post your nonsense.

    PS: Yes, the total number of anti-Jewish hate crimes is higher than those perpetrated against Muslims. There is undeniably a disturbingly high level of anti-Jewish hate crimes. These crimes cannot be brushed aside. Just as there is an alarmingly high rate of anti-black hate crimes (2899 incidents in 2001, 2076 in 2011) that we have to address. While the number of anti-Muslim incidents is lower overall, the total is still quite significant and demands attention. All of these crimes are terrible, and all of them merit our concern and attention. None of these hate crimes should be written off, ignored, or dismissed.

    • jim_m

      Tell it to Chico, who claims that the FBI stats are bullshit.

      You lefties can’t have it both ways. Either the stats tell a story or they are BS.

      As far as I am concerned the BS comes mostly from you guys.

      • r.a.

        im not chico. i make my own arguments, jim. stats aren’t everything, but they certainly provide insight into this issue. check the stats and get back to me. and cut the shit.

        • jim_m

          Again incidents targeting muslims did go up, but not as much as the left frets so loudly about.

          If it isn’t a problem that incidents against Jews running more than double that against muslims ( and more recently closer to 6x those against muslims). Then why are we worried about an increase in incidents against muslims when there actually is a rational reason to mistrust muslims as a group seeing as how a large segment of muslims support the violent murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11? (surveys back in 2001-2002 suggested that up to 60% of muslims overseas supported terrorism against the West)

          The problem is that your outrage is selective and is only found when it is politically advantageous. It is hypocritical and disgusting. You ignore an outrage of discrimination that is many times worse than the one you complain about but then that is because many of your fellow travelers (like Chico) are virulent anti-Semites and so you ignore those issues.

          When you actually start being outraged about discrimination that is really a problem, then I will actually believe that you are sincerely concerned about discrimination. Until then I can only conclude that your feigned outrage is only a pose and for political gain.

          • r.a.

            “Again incidents targeting muslims did go up, but not as much as the left frets so loudly about”

            It went up 17 times in 2001 according to these stats. Is that insignificant to you? It’s not to me.

            “If it isn’t a problem that incidents against Jews running more than double that against muslims ( and more recently closer to 6x those against muslims).”

            You clearly did not read what I wrote. The incidents against Jews are just as deplorable. This isn’t some zero sum game. Also, be careful when looking at raw totals without paying attention to population percentages. Jews account for about 1.7 percent of the population, while Muslims are at about 0.6 percent (stats according to CIA world fact book). See if you can figure out what that means when talking about the total number of hate crimes committed against each group.

            “Then why are we worried about an increase in incidents against muslims when there actually is a rational reason to mistrust muslims as a group seeing as how a large segment of muslims support the violent murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11?”

            Wow. You’re REALLY making this argument?

            “The problem is that your outrage is selective and is only found when it is politically advantageous. It is hypocritical and disgusting. You ignore an outrage of discrimination that is many times worse…”

            Your argument is crap. As I said above, the hate crimes committed against Jews are just as terrible. It’s not an either or choice here. All hate crimes are deplorable. I’m not ignoring anything. Stop playing the fool here.

            “When you actually start being outraged about discrimination that is really a problem, then I will actually believe that you are sincerely concerned about discrimination.”

            Jeez. As I said in the comment you clearly didn’t read, all of these cases of hate crimes are “really a problem.” None should be dismissed. The incidents against Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites, hispanics etc are all deplorable and deserve our critical attention.

          • jim_m

            When a relatively small number goes up it is easy for it to go up many fold. The issue is that the absolute number of incidents did not go up that much, nor did the rate per the muslim population go up that much.

            My argument from the start has been about the absolute number of incidents, which has always remained small and that larger absolute numbers of incidents of religious discrimination go largely unnoticed by the left (actually, they go largely perpetrated and protected by the left when you get down to it)

          • r.a.

            Your incredible bias is showing. The number of hate crimes went from about 30 in 2000 to 481 in 2001. That is SEVENTEEN TIMES HIGHER. This is much different than a case in which an incident rate goes from 2 to 8 and we call it a 400 percent increase. The increase of hate crimes against Muslims is absolutely significant. Amazing that your bias holds up so strongly in the face of clear evidence.

            “My argument from the start has been about the absolute number of incidents, which has always remained small and that larger absolute numbers of incidents of religious discrimination go largely unnoticed by the left…”

            Your argument is shit. Again, you seem unable to grasp the importance of understanding how these total incidents should be seen in relation to population percentages. The US population has about 1.7 percent Jews, and about 0.6 percent Muslims. The former is almost three times the latter. This matters if you want to start making comparative arguments about discrimination against different groups.

          • jim_m

            There are about 6.6 Million Jews in the US and about 2.5 million muslims. I don’t know where you learned math but that isn’t going to render the percentages you posted.

            And you display epic ignorance about statistics if you think that my point is without basis. You are relying upon very small numbers and saying that the fold increase in incidents is important. But if I had only one incident last year and had 10 this year I could claim a 1000% increase. Is that important? Probably not.

            THAT is my argument about anti-muslim incidents. You have failed to establish that the absolute increase is meaningful in the context of anti religious incidents in general. We have shown you that anti-Semitic incidents are fare in excess of anti-muslim incidents and in your bigotry you shrug it off as unimportant even though it far exceeds anti-muslim incidents.

            Anti-muslim incidents increase to a little more than half the anti-Semitic incidents and it is a crisis and as anti-muslim incidents recede to 1/10th that of anti-Semitic incidents you still say that it is the anti-muslim incidents that are the problem.

            Your bigotry is manifest for everyone to see. You aren’t really interested in anti-religious hate. You are interested in an issue that you can beat up your opposition with.

          • r.a.

            Ok, let me cut to the chase here. I fully understand the problems with stats and the use of small numbers when talking about percentage increases. Like when a news report says that crime increased 400 percent, but the actual incident rate only went from 2 to 8. That’s a classic misuse of stats.

            However, in this case the rate increase of hate crimes is definitely significant. The incidents went from about 30 in 2000 to 481 in 2001. That’s about 450 more incidents than the previous year. This is 17 times more. Are you seriously arguing that this is some insignificant change? Really? This is absolutely a meaningful increase.

            Now, for the second part of your argument: you keep trying to argue that because the number of crimes against Jews is higher, somehow this makes the hate crimes against Muslims invalid. This is a bad argument. You also keep calling people antisemitic if they recognize that these hate crimes against Muslims are a problem. This is another bad argument. Yes, the crimes against Jews here in the US are ridiculously high, and this is a deplorable, terrible situation that deserves serious attention. But this does not invalidate the fact that Muslims are also persecuted, and that there was indeed a backlash against them after 9/11 (which the stats demonstrate). Your logic here is really faulty. In my view, both examples of hate crimes are “the problem,” and both deserve attention. DO YOU GET IT?

            “Your bigotry is manifest for everyone to see. You aren’t really
            interested in anti-religious hate. You are interested in an issue that you can beat up your opposition with.”

            Right. You’re the one that’s on here basically saying that it’s reasonable that Muslims are “less trusted.” You’re the one who is completely ignoring all evidence that goes against your worldview. You’re the one who’s ignoring the stats. You’re the one who’s misusing stats to try to prove your bigoted arguments. You’re the one, along with Warner, who is dismissing hate crimes against Muslims as insignificant. You are the one with the *blatant* ideological bias against Muslims. I am arguing that hate crimes against Muslims AND JEWS are equally reprehensible, terrible, deplorable, and worthy of our attention. None of these hate crimes should be dismissed. That’s my argument. And I responded to this post because Warner has once again shown that he is incredibly fast and loose when it comes to honest argumentation. The very stats that he cites proves him completely wrong.

          • jim_m

            I’m arguing that the change had a legitimate cause even if the expression was not legitimate. I am further arguing that there are worse problems of discrimination that you simply don’t care about and your self righteousness is simply an ideological pose.

            And yes, individual crimes are equally reprehensible and should be addressed on an individual basis. However, your complaint is that the aggregate numbers are a problem and I am trying to get through to you that the aggregate numbers the instance you are so upset about are not as troubling as the one I am comparing them to.

          • r.a.

            9/11 did not provide a legit reason for hate crimes against Muslims. That statement is a reflection of the bias you have going on here. I think it’s amazing that you keep wanting to argue that one form of discrimination is worse and another is dismissible. I am arguing that both matter, and both deserve attention. Your bias shows through quite clearly here because you keep trying to dismiss the crimes against Muslims. Those crimes should not be dismissed. I find the crimes against Muslims and the crimes against Jews to be deeply troubling. Both merit our attention. Why are you so adamant about dismissing hate crimes against Muslims? Yes, we have a ridiculously high rate of antisemitism, and this is a deep, persistent problem in the US. I fully agree that this is a serious issue. But that’s not the only problem we face. I seriously do not understand why you are willing to recognize one problem but are so strident about dismissing the other.

          • jim_m

            I did not say it provided a legitimate reason for hate crimes. I said it provided a legitimate reason for bias. There is a difference.

          • r.a.

            Well, you’re still wrong. 9/11 did not provide a legit reason for either hate crimes or bias against the millions of Muslims who didn’t have a damn thing to do with those events. Your prejudice is really showing through here.

          • jim_m

            US population is about 2.1% Jewish and some estimates place muslim population at 1.5%

            So even your statistics themselves are crap. Why is it OK for the anti-Semitic incidents to be so much greater than anti-muslim? Why do you hate Jews so much? None of the lefties on this thread have yet to explain why it is that it is so acceptable for there to be 771 anti-Semitic incidents in 2011 and only 157 anti-muslim.

            Why does the left find it acceptable for anti-Semitic incidents to be 491% of anti-muslim incidents when there are only 40% more Jews than muslims? Why do you find this acceptable? Why do you get so offended when someone points out this discrepancy?

          • r.a.

            “US population is about 2.1% Jewish and some estimates place muslim population at 1.5%”

            First of all, you’re cherry picking numbers from various surveys and making a bad comparison with these two figures. That’s a completely invalid use of stats.

            Second, the page you cite on American Jews gives the same estimate as the source I used:

            The population of American religious adherents of Judaism was estimated to be approximately 5,128,000 or 1.7% [5] of the total population in 2007

            Third, as for the Muslim population, I noticed that you skipped over the 2010 PEW research center estimate of 0.8 percent and went right for the estimate of 1.5 percent which came from Britannica. More willfully ignorant cherry picking on your part.

            The stats I used are not crap. The estimates I used were from the CIA world fact book. They put the numbers of Jews and Muslims at 1.7 and 0.6 percent respectively. If you have a problem with their numbers, feel free to contact them.

            “Why is it OK for the anti-Semitic incidents to be so much greater than anti-muslim?”

            It’s not ok. When did I ever say it was ok? Your argumentative tactics are truly noxious, as JWH says.

            “Why do you hate Jews so much?”

            More of your bullshit. You are totally out of control. You seriously need to stop dude. Resorting to these kinds tactics just makes you look more and more foolish.

            “None of the lefties on this thread have yet to explain why it is that it is so acceptable for there to be 771 anti-Semitic incidents in 2011 and only 157 anti-muslim.”

            IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, dude. No hate crimes are acceptable. If I recognize the fact that the 157 hate crimes against Muslims are deplorable, that does not mean I cannot also recognize that the crimes against Jews are also deplorable. Your argument is insane.

            “Why does the left find it acceptable for anti-Semitic incidents to be 491% of anti-muslim incidents when there are only 40% more Jews than muslims? Why do you find this acceptable? Why do you get so offended when someone points out this discrepancy?”

            None of it is acceptable. I am not sure where you get this from. But, once again, your use of stats is really poor. Let me explain this to you slowly. First of all, the 40 percent figure you get is invalid because you are not comparing like survey numbers (the 2.1 percent and 1.5 percent numbers you cite above, which are from two different sources). You can’t just cherry pick the high/low numbers you like–that’s a completely invalid use of stats. The CIA world fact book shows that the percentages of Jews and Muslims is 1.7 and 0.6 respectively. The 2007 PEW survey came to the same numbers (link below). Based upon the data from these pretty reputable (and comparable) sources, there are about 2.8 times more Jews than Muslims in the US. Yes, stats have their limits. But if you are going to use them then you need to do so with at least some measure of honesty and attention to detail.

            As for your ridiculous questions, I don’t find any of this acceptable. The crimes against Jews are deplorable, as I have said multiple times on this thread. None of these hate crimes should be dismissed. Clearly, there is a high rate of antisemitism here in the US, and this is a serious problem. But this does not mean that the crimes against Muslims are somehow any less worthy of attention. Again, the argument you are putting forth here is totally bankrupt.

            If you keep up with this crap I am not going to respond. The last time I had an extended debate with you things went down a similar path. If you are only going to keep responding with this noxious crap then don’t bother.

            Sources, which you more than likely will not check:

            2007 PEW survey: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf

            CIA World Fact Book (look at section on religion): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

          • jim_m

            You weren’t cherry picking? Your numbers skewed to the other extreme to minimize the muslim population to make the rate seem far higher. My numbers included a higher count of Jewish people, which made the Jewish numbers seems smaller, a fact that ran counter to my argument.

            In other words I used numbers that were equivocal to my argument while you used ones that maximized yours. You were far more dishonest, if dishonest it was, in your selection of your dataC

          • r.a.

            Dude, what you are doing is the epitome of cherry picking. I used numbers that came from one source. This is a reasonable use of stats. You took two different numbers from two different sources and made your comparison–that’s called cherry picking. That’s a faulty use of stats to back your argument. Either you don’t understand stats or you are just completely dishonest.

          • r.a.

            Jim, overall you’re just coming across as a complete bigot who is unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts your clearly strident worldview. You are also resorting to extremely disingenuous and outright obnoxious debate tactics. You don’t consider evidence, you clearly do not carefully read comments, and you throw around all kinds of baseless accusations. Once again, I can only conclude that it is completely pointless to engage in any sort of discussion with you. Good luck.

          • jim_m

            I have ony been asking why it is that you willfully ignore more violence and more religiously bigoted incident against Jews and complain about a far smaller number of incidents against muslims.

            The answer is that you won’t address that fact. The answer is:

            YES THE LEFT IS ANTISEMITIC!!!

            And that includes you too since you will not face the fact of your bias.

          • r.a.

            Ok, you’re just trolling and acting like an ass now. This is pointless.

          • jim_m

            I have asked you and Chico repeatedly to explain why the significantly higher incidence of anti-Semitic acts is not an issue and you have steadfastly refused to offer any sort of explanation. Given that you completely avoid the issue my only conclusion is that bias leads you to reject a significantly larger number of hate crimes as insignificant.

            Your anti-Semitic bias leads you to reject hate incidents against Jews as not being worthy of complaining about. Whether you admit it or not, you are indeed rejecting these incidents as having any significance. You reject them and declare that a far lower number of anti-muslim incidents (incidents that actually have a rational, if fear based, cause) is more important. You reject real bias crimes in favor of complaining about crimes that have a logical predecessor.

          • r.a.

            I am forced to conclude that you do not actually read my comments. I have written repeatedly that the crimes against Jews do matter, that they are significant, and that they merit our attention. But this post is actually about whether or not there was a backlash against Muslims, and you are clearly just using this argument to sidetrack the thread. Your “you don’t care about antisemitism” line is an obvious attempt to derail things, and it’s one of the most disingenuous arguments I have seen from you–and that’s saying something.

            “You reject them and declare that a far lower number of anti-muslim incidents … is more important.”

            That is a blatant lie. Please, please point out where I said that one is more important than another. You can’t because you are lying, and you know it.

            “You reject real bias crimes in favor of complaining about crimes that have a logical predecessor.”

            That statement is where your bias is coming out here. You see antisemitic crimes as “real crimes,” while you write off hate crimes against Muslims because they have a “logical predecessor”??? Really. News flash: Hate crimes against random Muslims after 9/11 were not excusable, logical, or rational. They were deplorable, every bit as deplorable as crimes against Jews, blacks, and any number of other social groups.

            I am not sure why I have wasted time replying to you about any of this. Good luck with your bigotry.

  • JWH
    • jim_m

      The issue was not whether or not there was any backlash, but that it has been greatly overstated by the racialist left.

      Nor is it surprising that they are the targets of discrimination. But why do you fail to ask the question why they are the second most frequently targeted? Since you state that they are the second most targeted by religion, why do you not ask the question of why Jews are the most targeted? Why did muslims not get targeted as often as Jews EVEN AFTER 9/11?

      Why don’t you care? Why doesn’t anyone on the left care about that?

      • JWH

        The issue was not whether or not there was any backlash, but that it has been greatly overstated by the racialist left.

        Further, Muslimsdid not experience any backlash in the United States immediately after 9/11 or since.

        • jim_m

          Liar. My statement previously was the following: ” There was no great increase in attacks on muslims after 9/11″

          I stand behind that statement. In terms of religious based incidents muslims never have been the most frequently targeted group. Not ever. Not even once.

          • JWH

            From Warner’s post:

            Further, Muslimsdid not experience any backlash in the United States immediately after 9/11 or since.

          • jim_m

            OK.

            However, while there was an empirical increase in the total number of incidents, it still did not rise to the level of incidents against other groups.

            It is interesting that the left wrings their hands over an increase in incidents against muslims when incidents against other groups (against Jews for instance) are far more common and where there is a causative event for incidents against muslims whereas there in no record of any event where one could say that Jews have provoked violence against them.

            Again I ask why is it that the left doesn’t care? The answer is obvious. Even Chico admits it.

            The increase of incidents against muslims never rose to the baseline level of anti-Semitic incidents. But somehow these few incidents are more important than the thousand+ annual incidents against Jews.

            Your hypocrisy is repulsive.

          • JWH

            Furthermore, Jim:

            Since you state that they are the second most targeted by religion, why do you not ask the question of why Jews are the most targeted? Why did muslims not get targeted as often as Jews EVEN AFTER 9/11?

            I have made no such statements. I linked to another person’s article to refute Warner Todd Huston’s original article. If you have an argument with the “racialist left,” then go dig up a member of the “racialist left” and argue with him.

            I am not one of them.

          • jim_m

            That’s fine. I have made a separate point and I stand by that.

            You and Ryan and Chico can explain why the relatively minor number of anti-muslim incidents is a problem when you are completely unconcerned by the significantly larger number of ant-Semitic incidents that continue to occur annually and without any provocation.

          • JWH

            And you have made it in the most noxious way possible. Your method seems to be:

            1) Define a noxious quality based on your own biases of the moment;
            2) Attribute that quality to all liberals in general;
            3) Find the nearest person who looks most like a liberal to you, and find them guilty of the noxious quality.

            If I followed the Jim_M school of debating, I would grab the nearest Methodist minister by the lapels, shove him against a wall, and yell at him because he acquiesced to the Spanish Inquisition.

          • jim_m

            And you would be wrong for doing so since the inquisition was in 1481 and John Wesley, the founder of Methodism wasn’t born until 1703. The Methodists could not have been complicit in the inquisition.

            You find it noxious because you are simply seeing how repulsive your own argument is. You complain that a group which is responsible for thousands of attacks on innocent civilians globally, every year finds itself the relatively infrequent target of discrimination. At the same time you ignore attacks on a group that is an active participant in our democracy.

            You are caught in the injustice of your own complaint. Deal with it.

          • JWH

            No, Jim. I am caught in nothing. And I argue nothing with you. I offered a simple counterpoint to Warner’s article, and now I name your tactics. That is all. I find myself tired of your antics, and oddly, rather impervious to your particular brand of invective.

            I know who I am and what I do, including a lot of the good and much of the evil I have put into this world. And all of that — my identity, my opinions, and my deeds — have absolutely nothing to do with your perception of who I am.

          • jim_m

            I’m glad that you have a good sense of self esteem.

            Seriously, I just find the whining from the left about anti-muslim discrimination to be a bunch of crap. If you really cared about religious discrimination you would actually take a stand against all religious discrimination and you would actually be concerned about the religious discrimination that is most frequent.

            You aren’t and that says a lot about what your real purpose for the concern trolling is.

          • r.a.

            “Seriously, I just find the whining from the left about anti-muslim discrimination to be a bunch of crap.”

            That’s because you ignore all information that does not conform to your own strong, reactionary biases. This is nothing new with you.

          • JWH

            Jim, if you believe anti-Semitism is a problem in this country, then do something about it. Join a non-profit. Start a blog chronicling such incidents in this country. Highlight incidents that you feel aren’t getting sufficient play in the media. Donate some money to a fund for crime victims.

            For all I know, you may already do all of these to fight anti-Semitism, perhaps more. And if you do, that’s great. Keep it up.

            But in this thread, you’re just trying to harangue liberals as hypocrites because you find them insufficiently anti-anti-Semitic.

          • jim_m

            No. I find you inconsistent in your claim to be about religious tolerance. You are no such thing. Your tolerance is completely selective and based on political expediency and prejudice.

          • JWH

            Jim. Your argument is invalid. I present to you, my ultimate counterargument, which you cannot prevail against:

          • jim_m

            Where did you get the video of Chico?

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah make a big donation to the SPLC.

          • jim_m

            Only Chico would recommend fighting bigotry by donating to an organization that cannot bring itself to hire a black person into any position of authority.

            Why would I fight hate by making a donation to another hate group? I could make a donation to the Klan, that’s another left wing hate group founded by democrats. Or perhaps I could just give you the money, it would be the same thing.

          • r.a.

            That pretty much sums it up.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am not concerned with anything but serious crimes like murders, assaults and arson.

            Most of these “incidents” are things like throwing pork into a mosque or spraypainting swastikas on a synagogue, or less, like “I’ll kick your ass, [hebe] [haji]!!”

          • Rdmurphy42

            According to the latest hate crime statistics available, there were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A closer look: 65.7 percent of them were committed against Jews. Against Muslims? 7.7 percent. […]
            Another interesting data point: 4.7 percent of hate crimes in 2008 were motivated by anti-Catholic bias. Another 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant. So from a raw numbers perspective, there were more hate crimes against Christians in America in 2008 than there were against Muslims. Given our large Christian population, it’s true that each Christian is far less likely to be victimized, but the numbers still show that religious haters have not been singling out Muslims.

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/inconvenient-truth-10-times-more-hate-crimes-against-jews-muslims#ixzz2R0AghkS9

          • herddog505

            I disagree. I take a “broken window” approach, i.e. if we address even the small incidents of anti-[insert group here]ism, it helps to prevent the big incidents like (as you say) murder, arson and assault.

            Where I think those of us on the right have a problem is that lefties, instead of treating things on a case-by-case basis, use “hate crimes” as evidence that Americans – especially white Americans – are evil, depraved, hateful people who are ALL guilty. Further, there seems to be an overreaction, i.e. reverse discrimination.

            Let the victim be avenged and compensated. Let the guilty be caught and punished. Leave everybody else alone.

          • jim_m

            then go dig up a member of the “racialist left” and argue with him.

            I’ve been arguing with Chicco.

            I also maintain that “racist left” is a redundancy since the left looks not at people’s character, but at the color of their skin. The left cannot look at someone without seeing race first and usually they never get to issues of character.

          • r.a.

            Your previous statement was flat wrong. The rate increased 17 times after 9/11. It’s right there in the stats. It’s simple jim. If you stop freaking out and take the time to look you will see that you are totally wrong. Admit it and move on.

          • jim_m

            I have been consistent in talking about the absolute numberr of incidents, which did not rise significantly. You can talk about the rate increasing by 17 times, but when the rate is relatively low (which it was) increasing many times is not meaningful.

            For example: I recall a study back in the 1980’s that suggested that for a pregnant woman to have even one drink of alcohol would increase the risk of congenital leukemia 1000x. That sounds really bad until you realize that the rate of congenital leukemia is so small that even at 1000x the risk it almost never happens.

            That is my point with anti-muslim incidents. In the scheme of things the actual absolute number of incidents was not that great of an increase and that increase was transient.

            The left has made this into a phantom issue and steadfastly ignores other forms of religious hate that are for more frequent and concerning.

          • r.a.

            More weak arguments from you. The number went from 30 in 2000 to 481 in 2001!!! This is not some small increase. You are being ridiculous here.

            “That is my point with anti-muslim incidents. In the scheme of things the actual absolute number of incidents was not that great of an increase and that increase was transient.”

            Your point is crap. The absolute number shot up in 2001, and stayed about 5 times higher than the pre-9/11 level for years after. Before 9/11 the hate crimes against Muslims were quite low. In 2001 they spiked quite sharply. After that they went down but did not drop back down to the previous level. It’s amazing that you ignore this so stridently. All you’re doing here is ignoring evidence that does not conform to your worldview. As usual, arguing with you is pointless because you tend to use disingenuous argumentation and you ignore facts that you don’t like. And when you’re wrong you just double down and start trolling and name calling. Good luck with that.

            Also, the issue of hate crimes is not some zero sum game. One can acknowledge that there are serious issues with hate crimes against Muslims while also realizing that there is a lot of antisemitism as well. Both are real problems that deserve our concern and attention.

          • jim_m

            The size of the absolute number is the issue. You have failed to establish that the absolute number is a problem. And let’s not look at the spike, but at the longer term trend. The trend does not demonstrate an existing bias against muslims at all. The long term rate of anti-muslim incidents is lower than anti-Semitic events and you don’t care about the latter and you won’t give a reason why it is that you don’t care about the latter.

            We are left to guess why it is that you are perfectly OK with a rate of anti-semitic incidents that you declare is absolutely unacceptable when committed against muslims. The only conclusion left to us is that you possess a bias against one group.

          • r.a.

            Your arguments are insane. Warner argued that there was no backlash against Muslims. There clearly was a backlash, and it’s clear since the number of incident rose in 2001 about 450 from the previous year. And while the numbers dropped, they stayed at a level about 5 times higher than before 9/11.

            Just because the rate of incidents against Muslims is LOWER does not mean this is insignificant. Muslims are the #2 targeted religious group up through 2011. This matters.

            Of course the hate crimes against Jews matter. We have anti-Muslim bias here in the US, and we also have a really high rate of antisemitism. I have written here REPEATEDLY that both are deplorable. I don’t know how else to get this into your head. But you keep making these stupid accusations. Clearly you do not read–or you’re just a dishonest, bigoted troll.

            READ THIS: Hate crimes against Muslims are deplorable and unacceptable. Hate crimes against Jews are also deplorable and unacceptable. Get it? Can you read this? Do you have your glasses on?

            In the end it’s incredibly ironic that you–the one with the clear, impenetrable ideological bias–are so quick to go around calling everyone else bigots.

      • herddog505

        The issue was not whether or not there was any backlash, but that it has been greatly overstated by the racialist left.

        I agree. To hear lefties tell it, there are Muslims dangling from every tree and lamppost in the land, and nasty ol’ reichwingers have plans to herd them into camps.

        I think it really betrays their fundamental view of our country, which is that it is basically evil, full of white fundamentalist Christians who hate anybody (blacks, Muslims, homosexuals) who are different from them and keep nasty ol’ assault weapons around for the sole purpose of shooting them and anybody who stops the lynchings.

    • herddog505

      This article is weak beer. The author basically tries to argue that because non-Muslim Americans tend to be rather more (ahem) aware of Muslims, because Muslim groups get scrutiny from the police (“the cops SPIED ON THEM!”), and because Muslims report feeling a bit more singled out, there’s a (you’ll forgive the expression) jihad in our country against them.

      Let’s look at the facts in the particular case of the Boston bombing:

      — MiniTru and lefties (BIRM), right out of the gate, were blaming WHITE people. Yes, there was certainly suspicion of Muslim terrorists, but there were not mobs in the street, beating Muslims or burning Muslims shops or mosques;

      — According to the hand-wringing article cited by WTH, evidence of the anti-Muslim backlash, of well-known Islamophobia, is… that the Boston PD stationed a cruiser at a mosque to protect it.

      I think I’ve made clear on this board before that I’ve got no patience with islamophobes. However, I’ve got equally little patience with the victim card, with efforts to make out that our country is a hotbed of islamophobia. Given that Barry and Co. refused to even call the Ft. Hood shooting terrorism (I believe that they STILL refer to it as “workplace violence”!), I think that the problems with the lefty approach to this – hysteria over imagined “backlash” – is pretty evident.

  • Home of the Free

    I personally believe that it is a GREAT disrespect to the dead and injured heroes murdered in this horrendous massacre to argue over partisan politics. As an American and a veteran I am amazed that either party or their supporters, could use such a tragedy to point fingers and further their political agenda.

    Everyone who has posted in the comments saying “hooray for our side” needs to seriously reconsider whether a tragedy is really about adding ammunition to their trivial political arguments, or about paying respect to dead and injured Americans.

    • fustian24

      Spare me the sanctimony.

      If an Islamic terrorist kills me, I freely give permission for anyone to exploit the hell out of this circumstance in order to help keep more people safe.

      People only trot out your argument when they disagree with the direction the tragedy takes us.

      You’re talking nonsense man!

  • TomInCali

    A few fringe-dwellers even spoke of internment camps like those that held Japanese-Americans during the ≠Second World War.

    This is all nonsense. No one talked of putting Muslims in concentration camps.

    Except those who did, such as Michelle Malkin and Daniel Pipes.

    Further, Muslims did not experience any backlash in the United States immediately after 9/11 or since.

    Handily show to be false by other commenters.

    This is what is wrong with Huston, and why it seems like Wizbang is going from a passionate exchange of ideas to an echo chamber of absurdity. Huston can just either dismiss or deliberately lie about truths that are easily verifiable, and then write a whole post based on his fake premise. And then when others dare to call him on it, people blindly rush to defend him, even to the point of claiming Huston didn’t say what you can clearly see him saying just by scrolling up a bit.

    • jim_m

      Links backing your BS about Pipes and Malkin would be appropriate here

      • TomInCali

        So would your learning to use Google.

        • herddog505

          I think that you ought to read the article you link to; it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.

          For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population.

          In America, this intimidation [by Muslim and lefties aginst such measures – hd505] results in large part from a revisionist interpretation of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of ethnic Japanese during World War II. Although more than 60 years past, these events matter yet deeply today, permitting the victimization lobby, in compensation for the supposed horrors of internment, to condemn in advance any use of ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion in formulating domestic security policy.

          Ms. Malkin has done the singular service of breaking the academic single-note scholarship on a critical subject, cutting through a shabby, stultifying consensus to reveal how, “given what was known and not known at the time,” President Roosevelt and his staff did the right thing.

          She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies and engage in what she calls “threat profiling.” These steps may entail bothersome or offensive measures but, she argues, they are preferable to “being incinerated at your office desk by a flaming hijacked plane.”

          This is hardly a call for locking up Muslims in camps, but rather a call to actually focus on the source of MOST terrorist attacks against our country and a discussion of one reason that we DON’T do that. Indeed, Pipes filed AND WON a lawsuit against a Muslim group that falsely claimed that he DID want to round them up into camps.*

          I note that lefties were all about “profiling” early on in this attack; you people were not only SURE that it was white Tea Party RAAAAACISTS with assault weapons, but actually HOPING^ that it was. In a similar manner, you aren’t above mass punishment against people who’ve done no wrong; in the wake of Newtown, you people were blaming the NRA and every gun owner in America, making out that we delight in arming lunatics and want children to be murdered.**

          Now, you’re trying to prove that we Americans are total Islamophobes, and that we just can’t wait to start lynching Muslims. Statistics? PFFT! You KNOW that a modern-day klan is getting fired up, ready to herd Muslims into camps (Michelle Malkin said so!), lynch them, beat them, and otherwise take out our raaaaacist hatred on them.

          Bah.

          ====

          (*) http://www.danielpipes.org/2782/the-canadian-islamic-congress-an-islamist-apology

          (^) http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

          Here’s Cwissy Matthews suspecting people who don’t like taxes:

          http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/15/tingles-and-dem-rep-william-keating-think-tax-day-might-have-been-motivation-for-boston-terror-attack/

          Here’s Fat Mikey:

          http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/16/michael-moore-alleges-that-the-tea-party-was-behind-the-boston-massacre-bombings/

          Nick Kristoff blamed Republicans in the Senate:

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/15/Kristof-Republicans-ATF

          Etc.

          (**) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/bloomberg-nra_n_2341733.html

          • TomInCali

            Only here could someone comment on an article citing a book called “In Defense of Internment”, yet claim it does not advocate locking people up.

          • herddog505

            Again, do try to read what you’re posting, will you? The full title of the book is:

            In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror [emphasis mine – hd505]

            Malkin’s point – and this was explained by Pipes – is that liberals and certain Muslim groups have used internment as a catch-all boogeyman for why we ought not conduct profiling as part of the WoT, which policy leads to such idiocy as frisking grandmothers, nuns, and small children (and my wife, for that matter). Malkin’s point – again, explained by Pipes – is that IN THAT TIME AND PLACE, this type of racial profiling made sense. It is NOT a battle cry to start rounding up Muslims and locking them into 21st century Manzanars. Even those idiots at MMfA figured it out:

            Michelle Malkin defended WWII internment, racial profiling today

            http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/08/10/michelle-malkin-defended-wwii-internment-racial/131627

            The whining and name-calling against Malkin in this case reminds me of democrats who, back when welfare reform was starting to be discussed in the late ’80s, equated “workfare” with slavery. Today, we see voter ID equated with Jim Crow. Lefties are very, very practiced at hysterical comparisons between policies that they don’t like and things that are absolutely wicked; Malkin didn’t buy into it in this case.

            Now, I’m sure that, if you dig around enough on the web, you’ll find some clown who thinks that we OUGHT to round up Muslims (you’ll probably also find some fool who thinks that the sun goes ’round the earth). But I doubt that you’ll find any serious, credible, mainstream conservative who suggests it, least of all Pipes or Malkin.
            Civil liberties in America are in far more danger from do-gooder lefties than they are from mean ol’ reichwingers. Big Gulp, anyone?

        • Your assertion, your obligation to provide supporting evidence.

    • r.a.

      Huston is demonstrably wrong. But there’s no way he’ll ever review the actual data and reconsider his ridiculous argument. He’ll just look the other way. It’s ironic that the FBI stats he references clearly prove that his argument is totally stupid.

    • Commander_Chico

      Warner himself advocated outlawing Islam, which would be unconstitutional, of course.

      • Jwb10001

        Taking away guns is also unconstitutional, you have no problem with restricting gun ownership after all guns are dangerous. What about restrictions on dangerous forms of religion (Westboro or some militant Jewish group should they resort to violence as an example) No that part of the constitution is not to be messed with only the parts you think should be messed with right?

        • Commander_Chico

          Except that I support the right to have guns.

          • Single shot factory pre-loaded and sealed .22 CB, with an automatic GPS location and a 911 call when fired?

            For home defense, of course. Anything beyond 50 feet, and the bullet would be more likely to bounce than penetrate.

            Hmm. Might be a market for one of those, come to think of it… Among the intelligentsia who think “There might be some need for a gun for home defense”, but are put off by those icky looking black things.

            Maybe shape it into something like a bud vase? That’d allow room for the electronics and a battery. Point the mouth of the vase at the perp and press a button, then hope for the best. Maybe paint it a nice paisley pattern? That should make it acceptable to the fashion conscious…

          • Commander_Chico

            No, I was thinking of Barrett .50 semis with AP. Just in case we have to fight tyranny.

          • I’d love to get one of those, but the cost is a trifle steep. $7k+, depending on options, and then you’ve got to worry about feeding them.

            Now, THIS ad I thought was interesting.

            http://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=74819

            Can’t hardly find new SKSs in the US. And combined with a case of ammo for $360? Hell of a deal, even if the receiver’s limited to 5 rounds.

          • jim_m

            I seem to recall that your formulation was that actve service and ex-military and current and retired law enforcment should be allowed to have guns but that the average citizen should have strict controls placed over him.

          • Jwb10001

            You have a very odd way of showing it.

  • jim_m

    Let’s not be holding our breath fabout or the apologies for the left blaming conservatives. Once again the left instinctively moves to politicize an event by blaming their political opponents and fretting that the real culprits will be persecuted unfairly.

    They are bigots who apply selective outrage not against unfair or immoral actions, but only against their ideological opponents. Any bigotry is acceptable as long as it is in service of their ideology. Their complaints about bias are biased themselves, claiming to be concerned about anti-religious bias but only complaining about it when it is politically expedient and when it is against their ideological opponents. Their own hate is ignored.

    Their faux outrage at being called on this is laughable

  • Vagabond661

    Muslim terrorists to Muslims is like Westboro Baptists to Christians. We know the difference.

    • fustian24

      Maybe.

      I haven’t read it all yet, but I’ve read parts of the Koran and from the little I’ve read, I can’t help but wonder if the Islamists may be reading it correctly.

      If you travel in the Middle East, you will often find a kind of “Gideon’s” Koran in your hotel room. One night I opened it randomly and started reading about the equitable division of plunder after sacking a city, and under what conditions it is permissible to rape and steal the women. It’s a troubling document.

      And there are many former Muslims that make that case.

      And, for what it’s worth, I know quite a few Muslims and I applaud those that choose to read it differently.

      • Brucehenry

        Well damn, dude, you ever read the Old Testament?

        • Vagabond661

          As a society, i think we have evolved from some the practices that happened back before Christ was born. For example it has only been a couple of hundred years ago that slavery was acceptable in this country. In fact, it’s still acceptable in other countries. And Hillary and John Kerry don’t care about things that happened last October.

          But I see your point. Both religious books have some disturbing passages. Cain slewing his brother, for example. Not unlike Dzhokhar running down his brother Tamerlan.

        • fustian24

          Personally, I find the notion of a God that requires worship to be awfully suspicious. Why so needy?

        • Jwb10001

          And do we have some evidence of violent Christians plotting to fly planes into buildings or creating oppressive governments that require honor killings or beheadings or mutilation or hold women to be the property of men or require death for homosexuality or on and on? If so I join you in absolute condemnation, but so far I don’t know of any. I do understand that there are extremist among supposed Christians (Westboro) but do you really believe them to be of a number even close to the number of extremist Muslims? Do you find them committing the kind of atrocities that we see from radical Islam? Seems most Christians have moved beyond the absolute literal reading of the old testament. Perhaps most Muslims have as well, but they are doing a very poor job of purging their ranks of the filth that is radical Islam. I hope that the moderate/liberal voices inside Islam will win the day, any day now would be good.

  • Constitution First

    The Globe is still in Business? Who knew?