http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022198.php#comments

Tantor on August 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM

A lot to think about.
I heard Syed Soharwardy, the nut who filed one of the complaints against Ezra and heard a lot of things you’ve argued.

Update: see botton of topic for news on restoration of Labor Day benefits….

Exactly. The ultimate goal of unions is to maximize the pay of its members while minimizing the labor they do for it. If they could get their members a day off for Snaildarter Day, they’d do it. That shortsightedness is being played by the Muslims to serve their own end, which is to conquer the world for Allah.

Allahpundit: “Like I said in the post, it all comes down to freedom of contract. The union agreed to the new deal, so that’s that.”

Actually, it’s not quite that, AP. One of the commenters on the story in a local paper who claimed to be a union member said that they never voted on the holiday, that it was negotiated behind closed doors by the union leaders without consultation with the membership. When it was presented to the membership, the leaders told them it was a done deal. So it was presented as a detail in a bigger package, which the membership could accept or reject as a whole. There was no line item veto for the membership. Of course, this is how the petty tyrants of unions push agreements through that are otherwise unacceptable to their memberships. You feed the dog a bitter pill by wrapping it in hamburger.

It reminds me of how the communists infiltrated the unions in Hollywood. They would do all the normal business of the union in the daylight hours but do their radical business at night in the wee hours after the regular membership went home to get some sleep to go to work the next day. Joe Sixpack didn’t care if the union leadership struck a few radical public poses in the union’s name as long as they delivered steady work and raises.

Big S: “What is that impact? People wanting to celebrate their religion’s holidays, and negotiating a way to do it? They were going to celebrate it anyway, but now they don’t have to go in to work that day. If there are enough Muslims in your town, maybe you’ll get an extra day off someday too, if your employer chooses to negotiate one. Maybe kids in school will not have to go to class on Eid, just like they probably don’t have to go on Christmas, Easter, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur. If you’re not Muslim, you can spend those extra days off drinking or going to church or whatever it is you like to do. I don’t see any real problems here.’

You won’t see the real problem until it’s too late. About the time Muslims form 10% of the population is when the problems begin, the Muslim-only sections of town are established, the police are driven out, and Muslims demand to be ruled by their own law. When Muslims form the majority, you won’t get to do whatever you like to do. You certainly won’t be drinking nor going to church nor celebrating non-Muslim holidays. You will be either converting to Islam, accepting a dhimmi status as an inferior subject of Muslim rule, or being killed. That’s where all this is heading.

HAJ, how do you know that to be true when Muslims have a doctrine, taqqiyya, of lying to infidels, especially when they are too weak to actively fight non-Muslims who hold power over them? I have seen many Muslim marches and demonstrations and even riots in support of terror but none in support of anything non-Muslim. Where are the Muslim demonstrations for democracy in Iraq, let alone American/infidel victory there?

Johan Klaus: “It’s just the tone of this unnerves me. We can’t paint all Muslims as the enemy.”

Have you examined the tone of the Muslim community, Johan? Does that unnerve you? Certainly if Muslims took a stand against Islamic terror, against Islamic bigotry, against Islamic extremism and publicly promoted democracy, tolerance, and individual rights as the better course it would so much easier to accept them as allies and friends. Where are those Muslims, Johan?

I went to the supposed anti-war march pitched by Muslims and ANSWER here in Washington, DC a couple years ago during the Israeli confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon, blogging it up here. A few things struck me. First, it was not an anti-war rally, but rather a pro-Hezbollah and anti-US rally. I was struck to find a couple Jewish groups there protesting FOR Hezbollah and against Israel. However, there were no such deviations on the Muslim side. Everyone promoted exactly the same position in lockstep.

There is no middle in Islam. It’s the Muslim way or the highway. You are not allowed to dissent, not allowed to think differently, not allowed to go against the majority, which is directed by the most radical elements.

When Muslims in general sympathize with such a radical view of Islam and casually adopt its anti-American views, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge them on those views, every one of them, all the time, everywhere.

I too have a copy of Mark Steyn’s America Alone, and he recommended a dialogue with Islam to help Islam reform itself.

HotAirJosef on August 9, 2008 at 12:59 AM

One could sooner spin gold from straw.

HotAirJosef

I just hope the wind is towards “liberty & justice for all”.

I hope so. But what I meant was that the venues in which the Islamic jihad threat can be discussed fully and honestly are continuing to shrink.

Robert Spencer on August 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Utoh.
It is the jihad threat that unnerves me, not the average Muslim trying to get through life and hopefully realizing that America is on the side of the better angels. I am all for accommodation of particular religious holidays – as long as its a set of personal holidays/days of leave. But, for example the invented belief of the hijab – I hear from reliable sources that is an invention of the oppressive jihadis, we should not.
I just hope we can walk a fine line here. I too have a copy of Mark Steyn’s America Alone, and he recommended a dialogue with Islam to help Islam reform itself.

The Qur’an is NOT just a religious document. It is a blueprint for the subjugation of anyone who disagrees with its content.

That in itself should be enough to alert even the most casual of observers to the basic intent of that poisonous book and the implications therein.

hillbillyjim on August 8, 2008 at 11:32 PM

In other words: UNCLE MOHAMMAD WANTS YOU! And he’s pretty much condemning you to hell if you don’t agree. SUBMIT.

SUBMIT. That is the basic message of the Qur’an.

Don’t take my word for it; read it for yourself.

Just food for thought.

That in itself should be enough to alert even the most casual of observers to the basic intent of that poisonous book and the implications therein.

HotAirJosef on August 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM

I see what is happening in Europe. Remember all of the riots in France?

Robert Spencer:…it is foolish for American companies to adopt a posture of accommodation…

You hit the nail on the head.

Zorro on August 8, 2008 at 9:23 PM

I agree wholeheartedly. Accommodation does not lead to reciprocal compromise from the Muslims; conversely, it leads to demands for more accommodation, and tacit acceptance of their philosophies and practices.

Anyone who thinks that Islam is benign needs to read Mr. Spencer’s Sunday blog here on HotAir, and consider the fact that Islam is not just a religion, but a religion coupled with a political philosophy that will accept nothing less than total domination/(SUBMISSION FOR KAFIRS).

To borrow a phrase: It’s in the Koran.

Robert Spencer:…it is foolish for American companies to adopt a posture of accommodation…

You hit the nail on the head.

Multiculturalism will be the death of us all if we are not careful.

Blind devotion to the idea of multiculturalism will be the death of us all if we are not careful.

Better.

— that I am magnifying the importance of isolated instances of accommodation…

Not at all.

If anything, it needs to be amplified more. I am dismayed by the lack of attention to the subject in our increasingly ineffective mainstream media.

Multiculturalism will be the death of us all if we are not careful.

That’s a very interesting perspective. I will think that over. Meanwhile, I think it is also important that I address the other concern — that I am magnifying the importance of isolated instances of accommodation, and exaggerating their place in the Islamic supremacist program as delineated by the Brotherhood memorandum. I will do my best to address this at Jihad Watch in the near future.

Yes — they would not be seen as unreasonable were they not connected to the Islamic supremacist agenda

This particular demand seems unreasonable to me regardless of connection to any agenda. To me, it is akin to changing the work calendar to accommodate a portion of the workforce that wants to celebrate “Outer Mongolian Flag Day” or “Illigitemate Mothers’Day.” It has no place in our society as a recognized holiday.

At any rate, thank you for your input. Also, thank you for your weekly Qur’an blog which I read faithfully, although I seldom comment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You’re welcome, you’re welcome, you’re welcome!

I don’t believe, as some implied in the last thread on this subject, that Tyson has any interest in advancing Islamic beliefs.

Of course they don’t.

I do believe that they made a misguided decision that is consistent with their past behavior, in that they are taking a short-term view towards what seems best for their bottom line.

Of course they are.

However, I do believe that this must be viewed in the context of the larger picture; this is another example of giving in to demands that would be seen as unreasonable, were they not connected to Islam and the push by groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to create the notion that opposition to such changes is “racist”, xenophobic, etc.

Yes — they would not be seen as unreasonable were they not connected to the Islamic supremacist agenda, which is a matter of record and established from the words of the Islamic supremacists themselves.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of incrementalism, “creep” if you will, as the paranoid fantasies of the unenlightened, until you look at the pattern of conduct of these groups and the resulting compromises and concessions made in order to mollify them and the consequential demands for more.

Not just their conduct. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum of 1991. They themselves have explained exactly what they’re up to.

This is nothing new. It is a pattern, and sadly, it seems to be working.

And working quite well — witness the difficulty even of otherwise perceptive analysts even to comprehend that it is happening.

It has to do with a great deal more than simply freedom of contract, and the opponents of Tyson on this issue are not simply “This Is A Christian Nation” hysterics, as Allahpundit disappointingly implies with his last link above.

There is a perfectly justifiable reason to oppose the union’s action here — one that has nothing to do with religious cheerleading or chauvinism. It has to do with the fact that avowedly Islamic supremacist groups are pursuing an agenda in the U.S. that involves compelling American groups to accommodate Islamic practices and beliefs, bit by bit, until the “miserable house” of “Western civilization” is “destroyed.” This is not hysterical or hearsay. It is by the own words of a Muslim Brotherhood operative in a strategic plan for America enunciated in 1991.

Given that such an initiative exists, and is being put advanced today by Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S., it is foolish for American companies to adopt a posture of accommodation — even when such accommodation might be entirely reasonable and in keeping with American pluralism in other contexts, when requested by groups that do not have this supremacist agenda.

Details here.

Robert Spencer on August 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I don’t believe, as some implied in the last thread on this subject, that Tyson has any interest in advancing Islamic beliefs. I do believe that they made a misguided decision that is consistent with their past behavior, in that they are taking a short-term view towards what seems best for their bottom line.

However, I do believe that this must be viewed in the context of the larger picture; this is another example of giving in to demands that would be seen as unreasonable, were they not connected to Islam and the push by groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to create the notion that opposition to such changes is “racist”, xenophobic, etc.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of incrementalism, “creep” if you will, as the paranoid fantasies of the unenlightened, until you look at the pattern of conduct of these groups and the resulting compromises and concessions made in order to mollify them and the consequential demands for more.

This is nothing new. It is a pattern, and sadly, it seems to be working.

Robert Spencer on August 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

The man makes a point.

I just hope the wind is towards “liberty & justice for all”.

I hope so. But what I meant was that the venues in which the Islamic jihad threat can be discussed fully and honestly are continuing to shrink.

just hope the wind is towards “liberty & justice for all”. Obviously, I am very much for going after al Qaeda and its relative the Islamic Brotherhood – it’s the average Muslims caught in the middle I have concern for.

HotAirJosef on August 8, 2008 at 7:10 PM

I hope he has as much concern for you.

Robert Spencer on August 8, 2008 at 7:04 PM

I just hope the wind is towards “liberty & justice for all”. Obviously, I am very much for going after al Qaeda and its relative the Islamic Brotherhood – it’s the average Muslims caught in the middle I have concern for.