My latest in PJ Media:
Most Western media analyses of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s decision Friday to convert Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque have asserted that Erdogan has wanted to do this because the move is popular among Turks and will shore up his base. But there is a great deal more to it: The conversion of Hagia Sophia to a mosque is actually as clear an indication of Erdogan’s overall plans as Mein Kampf was of Hitler’s, and just as sinister, as well as just as likely to be disregarded until it is too late.
The Jerusalem Post reported Saturday that following the announcement that Hagia Sophia would again become a mosque, the Turkish Presidency website stated: “The resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the footsteps of the will of Muslims across the world to come… the resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the reignition of the fire of hope of Muslims and all oppressed, wrong, downtrodden and exploited.”
The Post added that Erdogan “linked the decision to reviving Islam from Bukhara in Uzbekistan to Andalusia in Spain. This terminology, linking al-Aqsa in Jerusalem to Hagia Sophia and Spain, is a kind of coded terminology for a wider religious agenda.”
No kidding. Erdogan is signaling his aspiration to restore the caliphate, the single unified Islamic government to which, in Sunni Islam, all Muslims owe allegiance. The last caliphate was abolished by the secular Turkish government in 1924; now that Erdogan has just about completed his work of destroying Turkish secularism, he is moving more directly than ever to reestablish the caliphate that the secularists themselves destroyed.
In light of that, the reconversion of Hagia Sophia to a mosque has enormous importance. For nearly 1,000 years, from 537 to 1453, Hagia Sophia was the foremost cathedral in Christendom. When the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror finally defeated the Byzantine Empire and took Constantinople on May 29, 1453, he almost immediately had the Islamic call to prayer proclaimed from Hagia Sophia, so as to herald its conversion to a mosque.
The glory days of the caliphate and Hagia Sophia’s status as a mosque thus went together. Hagia Sophia stood as a symbol of the triumph of Islam over Christianity, and of the power of the Ottoman Empire. Erdogan is positioning himself as a new Mehmet, destroying the monument to secularism that the Hagia Sophia museum has been since 1935, and emulating his illustrious predecessor by converting it to a mosque once again.
There is more. Read the rest here.
Ade Fegan says
To put a better handle on it for you …
The cathedral Hagia Sophia was completed 34 years before the (false) prophet of islam was born
Mike says
yep and the Religion of Peace is supposed to be the most resent religion so it’s the most currest they say
so I think I write a book that is a no a bible that make Islam out of date
mortimer says
The world’s most INTOLERANT religion shows its true supremacist face.
How would Muslims feel if the Hindus seized the Kaaba and made it a temple of Vishnu?
Ade Fegan says
only one way to find out 🙂
Sabri S. says
And next, “Israel” will be converted back to an Islamic country, which is exactly what it was prior to 1948. Then the development of the country and surrounding region will be evenly allocated. Al Hamdulilah!
gravenimage says
Sabri S. doesn’t want *anyone* to live free of the Muslim heel. He believes he has the right to rape and murder us all if we do not submit to his vicious creed.
Peter Buckley says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4NuMemZB0I
mortimer says
Muslims can never again say they are tolerant.
Kepha says
The Muslims are honest enough to admit that they aren’t tolerant. The meme of Islamic tolerance was a bit of wishful thinking cooked up by various Western thinkers who were on the outs with the current orthodoxies of their homelands.
gravenimage says
Sometimes Muslims are honest about this, Kepha–when they believe they are in power.
When they are not, they are not above using Taqiyya to lull us into a false sense of security–including claiming that Islam is tolerant.
Here’s the former Cat Stevens–Yusuf Islam, who wanted to see Salman Rushdie murdered and said he would help–lying about Islamic tolerance:
https://catstevens.com/think/spiritual-domain/tolerance-in-islam/
mortimer says
Kepha, you are naïve. Just do a google search ‘IS ISLAM TOLERANT?’
Then search ‘HOW TOLERANT IS ISLAM?’
You will find a PACK OF LIES! Sharia law is NOT tolerant.
It’s 99% lies about Islamic tolerance.
What is the evidence of your claim. I produced solid evidence for my claim … google it.
Michael Copeland says
“My religion doesn’t tolerate other religion. It doesn’t tolerate.”
Abu Bakr, Australia.
TruthSeeker says
Standard operating procedure of invasive Muslims everywhere is to take over architecture of the locals and make it their own. In a couple of centuries Muslims will vociferously claim their ancestors built the amazing structures. That’s what they did in India. All that they claim as their own was built prior to the Muslim invasion. Uncouth, marauding savages cannot build beautiful works of art
skip says
Only 55 seconds. Off topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOHjnme8Hg
gravenimage says
Silly conspiracy theory.
Actually, animal-to-human viral jumps are all too common. The Spanish Flu, Bird Flu, Asian Flu, AIDS, and many more human diseases all began in animals.
That being said, if China has acted sooner and been more honest then COVID-19 likely could have been contained early on. This is a different matter, though.
skip says
I’m impressed gravenimage. I didn’t know you had a doctorate in virology.
gravenimage says
skip, this is pretty common knowledge. Are you saying animal to human virus transmissions do not exist?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546865/
In fact, I also could have mentioned SARS and Ebola.
skip says
And “common knowledge” knows for a fact that Islam is the religion of peace.
gravenimage says
Good lord–is skip here saying that scientists from all over the world have been lying for centuries about many diseases having animal origins? For what possible purpose?
skip says
Since you’re so good at it, graven, I’ll let you have the last word.
James Lincoln says
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan.
I’ll reserve judgment about his theory regarding COVID-19 until I can get definitive corroborating evidence – if it exists.
He does have a solid understanding of islam and published an interesting article in the American Report regarding why muslims don’t assimilate. The link is below.
https://theamericanreport.org/2016/05/11/muslims-dont-assimilate-infiltrate/
GreekEmpress says
Thanks for the link, Mr. Lincoln.
I hadn’t heard of Dr. Sellin before now.
Wellington says
Well, perhaps Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and who graduated first in his class from West Point, will understand the “implications” involved in all of these Erdogan shenanigans, but guaranteed the vast majority of State Department employees (all part of the DC Swamp that Trump has tried to drain) will either remain utterly clueless or, even worse, actively complicit.
The enemy without is Islam (which is inexorably becoming as well a secondary enemy within—think Omar as an example). The principal enemy within is Leftism (aided by clueless RINOs) and which is deeply entrenched in the State Department and throughout the federal government.
Not a good combo. Indicative of the menace America faces and, by extension, all of the West.
Fluid times. No doubt. Sure hope that such “fluidity” doesn’t end up helping the forces of liberty’s enemies, no greater enemy of liberty being the Islamic faith itself.
Anyone thinking that Islam stands for freedom is either an ignoramus or a liar. No third alternative exists. Sure hope Pompeo grasps this. Better.
Kepha says
Now, as a former “swamp creature” with service in Thailand, China, and the Bureau of Central African Affairs, I’m sre there are others in the aptly named Foggy Bottom who are aware of the what’s really happening.
gravenimage says
I hope so, Kepha.
curious says
@Wellington, I respect you and agree that the enemy without is Islam, which is becoming a secondary enemy within, but your comments about Leftism can seem overly partisan and might cause you to overlook some of the people selling out for Petrodollars.
First of all, it was President Nixon who made secret deals with KSA to shift the USD from the gold standard to the Petrodollar standard. Those deals enabled gulf Muslims to charge as much as the market would bear for oil, provided they accepted only Petrodollars as payment, and invested enough of the proceeds in the USA. With that money, KSA hijacked NATO by (1) hiring “think tanks” and ostensibly liberal institutions to perpetrate Petrodollar hypnosis, (2) becoming the world’s largest weapons importer, thus wielding additional influence via the military industrial complex. You may read further details on many sites, including this:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275354/saudi-arabia-gulf-washington
The functions of the Saudi war in Yemen include maintaining the military relationships. Nixon was not a leftist, and few would call him a RINO, and the merchants of war are not leftists.
Bush 43 failed to protect the USA from the 9/11 attacks, and he colluded instead with Bandar Bush to use the attacks as an excuse to protect the Saudis from their enemy Saddam Hussein. Bush 43 was neither a leftist nor a RINO.
A self-styled “conservative” traitor will sell you out as cheaply as any other traitor would. Many have done so.
In contrast, most of the progress of the last 120 years results from leftists. Women’s suffrage resulted from a 70y struggle led mostly by pacifist women whom you might call leftists. The progress of African Americans from Jim Crow to full equality took 90 years and was often led by pacifists whom you might call Leftists. The progress of gay couples from criminals to married couples resulted from a 60y struggle led in large part by self-identified leftists, although some might not otherwise have become Leftists.
Consider for example the late, great, Frank Kameny. After completing his PhD in astronomy at Harvard and teaching at Georgetown, he went to work for the Army Map Service. “Kameny was the most conventional of men, focused utterly on his work” until he was fired because he refused to answer when the Army if he was gay. He was then banned from any federal employment, at the beginning of the space race. That “radicalized” him.
What would you have Kameny do, as a brilliant astronomer barred from federal employment at the beginning of the space race? What would you expect gay married couples to do, when one major party campaigns on taking away their marriages?
When you blame the Left, you overlook the culpability of Nixon, W, and the merchants of war, and you blame instead people who would otherwise be patriotic Americans if they had not been forced to protest, and radicalized by obviously unfair policies that self-styled “conservatives” insisted upon, and that Republicans continue to campaign for.
President Lincoln, a founding Republican, said famously that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a nation so divided cannot long endure. Dividing Americans against each other only divides America against itself. Traitors can unfortunately be found on “both” sides of the political aisle; follow the Petrodollars, and you will see they are not a partisan issue.
elee says
Curious, you have my applause for your post. I don’t think it will be well received here. Well, I keep asking people to stop alienating people who want to join them in alerting the world to the dangers that Islam poses, oh and while they’re at it, take the time to show me the error of my ways. I urge you to emulate Woodward and Bernstein. Follow the money.
curious says
Thanks @elee 🙂
gravenimage says
curious, there have definitely been problems on both sides of the aisle–it is not *just* the left that has been clueless about the threat of Islam.
Wellington says
Thank you for your reply, curious. Several points I have.
First, I said the “principal enemy within” is Leftism, not the only one.
Second, I agree with you about non-Leftists doing harm to America as well but I did mention in my post above that RINOs aided the Left often times. I look upon someone like Nixon as pretty much a RINO. For instance, he provided America with more onerous environmental regulations than any other President except Obama. And I want a clean environment but a lot of EPA regulations are ridiculous (e.g., drainage ditches along highways considered “wetlands”).
Third, while conservatism from a half century ago or so is essentially the same, really hasn’t changed at all, old fashion liberalism has morphed into modern liberalism, call it leftism if you like. No one knows this better than old fashion liberals like Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus of Law at Harvard, who has decried the shut down of freedom on college campuses by leftists who he has, I think rightly, accused of betraying traditional liberalism by making a distinction between free speech and hate speech. And have you not noticed that the controlling factor in the Democratic Party today is the group of Far Left loons like AOC, Omar, Pressley, Schiff and Tlaib and who have pushed that pathetic, disgusting woman, Nancy Pelosi farther and farther leftwards? My God, Joe Biden has said he’ll put Beto O-Rourke in charge of gun control if elected President! The Democratic Party of fifty, sixty, seventy years ago is almost gone and one know this or should know it. So, harkening back to liberals of old like FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson, etc. is recalling what pretty much no longer exists.
Fourth, I think you’re a bit too hasty in attributing reform to people on the left. The first states to give women the right to vote were very conservative states like Wyoming and Utah. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, opposed the 19th Amendment. The famous Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954 which started the modern Civil Rights Era occurred under a Republican Chief Justice, Earl Warren, and the decision in that case was a 9-0 decision. As another example, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. I believe you give too much credit to liberals and not enough to conservatives.
I think this is enough for now and I again thank you for your reply.
P.S. I disagree that Bush 43 failed to protect America from the 9/11 attacks. There was failure all around by the federal government. The Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) that Bush got in August of 2001 was a generic warning about Islamic terrorism and nothing truly specific. FDR was warned about the Japanese very likely attacking us, but he didn’t know where—the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, etc. Hawaii was on the list but FDR and his military advisers thought that if the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it would be a sabotage attack and not a military one. So many people say that FDR knew Peal Harbor was coming, ditto for Bush 43 about 9/11, but it is quite easy in hindsight to get things right and falsely accuse others. BTW, and for the record, I think Bush 43 most definitely is a RINO as was his father.
curious says
P.S. @Wellington, further to being a strict constructionist:
1) the Constitution prohibits any State from depriving any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws;
2) the implication is, if the State may deny some who consider themselves persons the equal protection of the laws, then they are not persons, or at least not whole persons. Maybe 3/5 of a person, maybe 4/5 person, but not a whole person.
To call same-sex couples children of a lesser god dreaming of a lesser dream, one that does not even pass what you call “the laugh test”, does not sound funny to me. I love comedy and enjoy a good joke as much as the next person, but that comment tells me that you are laughing without joking, i.e. mocking millions of people for no reason other than your own failure or refusal to see their equal personhood. That is unfortunately not a topic as to which I can “agree to disagree”.
Wellington says
One more point, curious. While I don’t give a damn if someone is gay, I supported civil unions for gay couples as well as for others like two old sisters living together for purposes such as tax-free inheritance and hospital visitation rights.
Personally, I think gay marriage is absurd and I don’t think that maintaining that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is evidence of bigotry. In fact, I think it is evidence of bigotry if you aver that unless you are for gay marriage you are a bigot. And I might ask you if you are not a supporter of polygamous marriages or polyandrous ones, but others want this, then aren’t you open to charges of bigotry yourself by those who think otherwise?
And do you really want to maintain that for generations, centuries, millennia, that requiring different gender in marriage is oh so woeful? Though not religious myself, I don’t see how a believing Christian can support gay marriage when it is clearly laid out in the Old Testament (e.g., in Leviticus) and in the New Testament (e.g., in Romans) that same-sex activity is abominable in the eyes of God. Does this make all devout Christians who oppose gay marriage haters?
elee says
Thank you for reasoning together with curious and with all who read.
Wellington says
Thank you, elee, for that. I do appreciate it as I have no doubt “curious” does. The only thing that would have made this give and take better is if it had been discussed while consuming several pitchers of beer or some other alcoholic beverage of one’s choice. Take care.
gravenimage says
Good exchange.
curious says
@Wellington, thank you for taking the time to reply, and I agree about the beer. I agree also that some conservatives (e.g. Anthony Kennedy and Ted Olson) have done truly great things, and I love Margaret Hoover, whose PBS show I recommend highly.
Regarding same-sex marriage, I think you are simply mistaken, for several reasons.
1) The Christian tradition is more diverse and flexible than you might realize. When you see Christian women with short hair, and certainly every denomination that ordains women to speak out over the congregation, you are seeing proof that Christians have generally moved beyond the writings attributed to Paul, who was not even an original disciple. Unlike the Koran, the Bible had expressly different authors who disagreed with each other, and the Judeo-Christian tradition allows people to disagree too. All Christians and most Jews have moved beyond Leviticus. Leviticus uses the word “abomination” 19 times, prohibits wearing clothing of mixed fiber, prohibits cutting the corners of your beard, etc. Leviticus is a uniform code for a subset of Jews in Judea, similar to the Amish in Pennsylvania or the Uniform Code of Military Justice; even the minority of Jews who follow Leviticus would not want everyone else to do so, as part of the point is to identify as a separate group with a distinctive uniform. Christianity rejected expressly the rules of Leviticus, making Leviticus irrelevant to most Americans. To limit the legal definition of marriage based on the Bible is the core definition of bigotry (“By God”), and violated the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
2) The only opposition that was not based on bigotry or hatred was based on ignorance. Some claimed marriage was tied inherently to children, but that ignored the many same-sex couples who have children and the many opposite sex couples who don’t. Others asserted a circular definitional argument, but that ignored the documented history of same-sex marriages going back millenia, including centuries in Christian churches (see the marriage liturgies involving Serge and Bacchus).
3) “Equal” is a binary concept: either you have equal rights, or you don’t. Civil unions might have some benefit, but were rightly called “back of the bus” marriage. Even if you could make civil unions a legal duplicate of marriage, the result would be segregation for the sole purpose of discriminating against same-sex couples. There was no benefit from excluding same-sex couples from the equal protection of the laws governing marriage, but there was obvious harm. It is definitely not “bigotry” to say that persons should not be denied the equal protection of the laws.
4) regarding polygamy, the answer is basic math. Equal means equal. 2=2. 23.
5) regarding incest, the answer is that incestuous marriages change family dynamics and tend to produce pods and tribes that don’t get along, much like primitive primate species pods. The requirement to marry outside the family enables larger and more cooperative civilizations. Compare Muslim populations, where cousin marriages are common, to Christian populations, where incest is prohibited. The ban on incest compels people to form larger community relationships outside their own biological families.
6) I suspect you have not spent much time in the homes of married same-sex couples and their children. If you did, you would see there is nothing “absurd” about their marriages. Perhaps they don’t invite you, due to your plainly wrong opinions on this topic.
I think you are also mistaken about Bush 43 and 9/11. The August PDB warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike inside the USA noted specifically the tactic of hijacking airliners and using them as missiles. NSA director Rice claimed absurdly that the administration could not act on that warning without knowing the specific targets. The administration could have warned airlines to lock cockpit doors from the start of boarding to the end of de-planing, and not to cooperate with hijackers (as had been the prior practice). A simple “Katy bar” would have prevented 9/11. Forewarned is forearmed, and the administration failed to warn the airlines and tell them to secure the doors and not to cooperate with hijackers. In addition, Bush 43 imported Muslims and even renewed Mohamad Atta’s visa in 2002, after Atta had already died hijacking one of the planes on 9/11. W’s fumbled “crusade” in Iraq made matters even worse, including relying on foreign Muslim translators while dismissing non-Muslim Americans due to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; predictably, the Muslims lied and misdirected American firepower against tribal enemies who might otherwise have been our friends. The W 43 administration was the worst national security failure in American history, much worse than Pearl Harbor. At least after Pearl Harbor, the USA fought the real enemies, instead of attacking falsely the enemies of the President’s family and cronies and simultaneously importing enemies who hate us.
As for leftism vs liberalism, the issue is more complex than you seem to acknowledge. I oppose most restrictions on “hate speech,” but I can understand and make the arguments on all sides. Can you? You have perhaps inadvertently illustrated one argument in favor, which is the “minority stress” and sheer fatigue that can result from having to contend with the same ignorant falsehoods and insults over and over again. If people go to university to study astronomy, for example, then an argument can be made that they do not have equal terms and conditions if they must devote half their time to addressing commonplace ignorance about other topics, or else put up with being constantly defamed. At many universities, beer-fueled conversations are integral to the experience; I loved visiting MIT and the fascinating parties and conversations that went on all night, but I never saw anything like ignorance at MIT, and I never heard anything that sounded remotely like “hate speech”, and those two facts are closely related: ignorance and hate speech go together like chicken & egg. On the whole, I think the risks of most “hate speech” codes outweigh the benefits, but I can see there is a balance, and liberals and conservatives might reasonably favor a more civil and collegial environment bringing in people from more backgrounds to participate in the shared experience. Universities depend on applicants, and a place that limits itself explicitly or implicitly to only white straight cis-male football players would not draw enough applicants to be competitive in the current market. As a result, liberalism can be a double-edged sword. Reading other sites, I feel dismayed by the deliberate incivility and outright hostility against empathy that online commenters (or trolls) tend to show. Their ‘hate speech’ tends to induce leftism as more people feel a need to form coalitions in order to achieve any progress towards improvement. This pattern illustrates elee’s comment that by alienating people, you drive them to form coalitions against you, and such internal divisions give the external enemy (Islam) an opportunity it would otherwise not have.
Cheers, and please look forward to a pitcher of beer after the pandemic quarantines.
curious says
P.S. @Wellington, further to my comment above regarding Leviticus, the text distinguishes between (a) laws of general application and (b) the uniform code to separate a subset of Jews from the rest of the population. Specifically, 24:22 says, “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country….” Exodus 12:49 says, “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” That principle of the Judeo-Christian tradition underpin the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Islam contradicts that principle, and the 14th Amendment, by commanding discrimination against non-Muslims. Islam is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, its advocates (Muslims) should be banned from immigration. One might also argue that Islam itself should be banned, but that would get close to banning “hate speech”, which the Koran is full of.
A liberal might say to let the Mohamadan and the Christian debate illuminated by the oculus of reason. The problem is, a critical mass of Mohamadans murder anyone who criticizes their dead charlatan Mohamad or his hateful fraud of Islam. How can you have a debate on level ground, when one side murders the other? Allowing Muslims to organize and to build mosques devoted to hate speech (the Koran) and a violent totalitarian doctrine illustrates a paradox of liberalism: when you resolve to tolerate everything, the most intolerant and intolerable can prevail.
Wellington says
curious: Thanks for your reply. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree about gay marriage. One is not limited because they oppose such. Might as well say you are limited because you don’t think a man should become a nun or limited because you think a woman should not become a monk. Besides, do you really think Jesus would have been OK with gay marriage? Really? Jesus was actually quite conservative morally speaking, even to the point of being a prude. Minus heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage, I don’t see Jesus approving of any other kind of sex, including masturbation. And forget Leviticus. Assuming the New Testament is divinely inspired, as Christians believe, what part of Paul’s complete condemnation of homosexuality in First Corinthians and Romans (even specifically lesbianism in Romans 1:26) doesn’t apply anymore? Did it ever? If so, when? If not now, why?
Don’t forget, I’m not religious in the least but to Christians Jesus is God present on earth for a third of a century and is to be followed completely. Your approach is rather like that of those who think of the American Constitution as a living, breathing document, which ends up insuring that the Constitution can be pretty much what you want it to be. I am a strict constructionist. Words means things and are not possessed of different meanings based on the zeitgeist of an era. Were I a Christian I would conclude that all sex minus that within heterosexual marriage is verboten.
And I don’t agree with you about civil unions. They could have de facto accomplished what marriage does minus that word and, oh yes, once again I think words mean things. I remember being brought up Catholic and reading in my catechism that the main purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. It’s not first and foremost about kissy/face-huggy/bear “stuff.” Two guys can’t procreate. Neither can two women. I think traditional Catholicism has it right. Besides, for me, “I now pronounce you man and man” or “I now pronounce you wife and wife” has absurdity written all over it. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
On the matter of polygamy or polyandry, one might ask who are you to enforce your idea of equality upon others? It’s kinda’ like saying I’m going to force equality upon you whether you like it or not. But we do agree here. I think polygamy is a guarantee that women can’t be equal to men (but many women don’t think they are, for instance a hell of a lot of Muslim women—and many other women as well, for example a lot of Asian women). As for polyandry, before DNA evidence the offspring could not be certain of their full parentage. Now they could be but I ain’t traveling down that road ever. I have to wonder about any man that would.
As for the August 6th, 2001 PDB, this was one of many PDBs warning of some possible attack by al Qaeda using various methods. In hindsight, to say that Bush should have only focused on this specific threat and no others is unrealistic. A President probably most days in his PDB is warned of some threat or another. To act upon all possible threats would paralyze the country.
Respecting old fashion liberalism v. leftism, no I don’t think it is more complex than I can grasp. Leftism is the newest totalitarian ideology and has betrayed liberalism. It is intolerant of ideas other than its own and this results in leftists, contra old fashion liberals, asserting that if you don’t agree with them you are not only wrong but bad; you are a heretic from the new true faith. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an old fashion liberal, saw this coming a long time ago, having its origins in that wretched decade, the 1960’s. Robert Spencer himself has been subjected to leftist hate. Old fashion liberalism and conservatism are not involved with shouting people down but leftism is.
And I don’t want any restrictions on hate speech minus personal threats. Go down the road of perhaps, maybe, kinda’ having some hate speech disallowed and it will become a very slippery slope very quickly. I want NO distinction drawn between free speech and hate speech by the government because once you do that then you put free speech in Orwellian jeopardy, though I readily concede that civility is important. I rather like the way Mark Twain put it, to wit, that Americans have the right to do and say most anything they want and the good sense not to exercise that right on many occasions. Unfortunately, Twain lived in a time when good sense pretty much prevailed throughout the body politic. Those days are long gone. Damn.
Thanks for the exchange.
curious says
Thanks @Wellington, and for the record I recognize your _ability_ to grasp complexity, though some of your comments might not always reflect it.
Regarding being “a strict constructionist”, the 14th Amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It makes no exception for the laws governing marriage. It does not say “except for gay couples.” I cite also the recent SCOTUS decision written by strict constructionist Justice Gorsuch, stating discrimination against persons who are gay constitutes discrimination “on account of sex” for the obvious reason that their actions would be considered appropriate if done by someone of the opposite sex. HIs decision followed those of many federal and state judges who had already reached the same conclusion. The same argument applies to marriage: if it is legal for a woman to get married to a man, then it is legal for a woman to get married to a woman. “I now pronounce you married.”
Regarding religion, half of all Christians (and everyone who is not Christian) disagree with Catholics, who are anyway a minority in the USA, so your catechism does not matter to most people. Many Christian denominations reject the writings attributed to Paul, e.g. by celebrating same-sex marriages and ordaining women. If you wish to debate Christian theology, I suggest you consider Presbyterian minister Chris Hedges (https://www.truthdig.com/author/chris_hedges/), who has personally officiated at least one same-sex marriage. SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is Jewish, officiated at another. Moreover, even mostly Catholic countries in Europe and Latin America have recognized same-sex marriage, so they too disagree with you.
Likewise, whether two people can procreate has never determined whether they have a right to the equal proection of the laws governing marriage. As I said, many same-sex couples have children, and many opposite-sex couples do not, so restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on stereotypes about procreation shows ignorance of the facts. Lazy indulgence in then familiar “truthiness” of familiar stereotyping at the expense of the facts is a plainly wrong opinion, and reminds me of flat earthers and their obstinacy or desire for attention at any cost. Only astronauts have directly seen the shape of the earth, but the weight of evidence shows the flat earthers are plainly wrong. Similarly, if a “young earth” creationist insists on rejecting all the evidence of evolution and geology, and denounces all scientists as damnable sinners, (s)he should not expect to do very well in an environment that teaches science and depends on science. Conversely, for a person who is outnumbered, disproving such obviously wrong opinions over and over again becomes tedious, especially when certain people insist on them because of a catechism (bigotry in its purest form, By God).
As for your inability or refusal to “see how a believing Christian can support gay marriage”, I refer you again to my comment above quoting Exodus and Leviticus: Leviticus sets out a uniform code for a subset of the population of Judea, like the Amish in Pennsylvania, but both books stipulate one law for both them and the strangers who live among them. The Amish don’t expect or want everyone to dress like Amish, but they do recognize that other people have the same legal right to get married. Interfaith couples, atheist couples, couples that include a spouse getting re-married after a prior divorce: even most Catholics agree that they all have the same rights concerning marriage, even if the Vatican disapproves. It seems frankly very strange to me that you don’t (or won’t) see what they see, but it reminds me of a quotation based on the Bible: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” (See Jeremiah 5:21 “”Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.”)
Wellington says
curious: I’ll try to make this brief.
Part of being a strict constructionist, as I am, is taking into account original intent. I don’t think a single person who helped to frame the 14th Amendment (e.g., Thaddeus Stevens) thought it would apply to two men or two women marrying each other.
Actually, I think it a travesty of constitutional law (and I am a lawyer) that one could ever conclude that gay marriage is a right found in the 14th Amendment (ditto for a right to an abortion in the Constitution—AND I am pro-choice). Just because you want something to exist in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it does—but the living, breathing approach to the Constitution, which I think hugely erroneous, can result in all kinds of ultimately indefensible conclusions respecting what the Constitution really says.
Respecting the recent SCOTUS decision you mentioned, it also is a travesty since no one framing the 1964 Civil Rights Act had gay marriage in mind even remotely. Original intent again is key as the two dissenters in that decision, Thomas and Alito, pointed out in detail.
Per your invoking Christians who are OK with gay marriage (but hey, think Jesus would have been?), I don’t care how many Christians do. I mentioned the Catholic Catechism because I think it is correct about the main purpose of marriage, irrespective of whether Catholics constitute 1% of the American population or 30% of the population. Right is right regardless of what percentage of people think otherwise.
Finally, curious, is there any way a person can object to gay marriage without you, one way or another, castigating such a person? I don’t try, as you have with me, both implicitly and explicitly, to tell you that you are deficient because you think gay marriage a good thing. I support your right to endorse gay marriage and I don’t think you deficient for doing so. I “merely” disagree with you. Can you not extend the same courtesy to me?
curious says
@Wellington, your reply saddens me, because I had respected you. You claim to be a strict constructionist and a lawyer, but when you don’t like the result of strict construction, you switch disingenuously to original intent, even though any lawyer would know those are contradictory doctrines. Aside from your obvious abandoment of strict construction, your foray into original intent collapses amid the absence of any relevant legislative record. As a true strict constructionist would say, and this applies especially to the 14th amendment and Title VII, all we know really of the diverse authors’ and enactors’ intent is what they wrote and enacted. Moreover, the marriage and Title VII cases are now settled law per SCOTUS, so any lawyer would know stare decisis applies. I have to wonder, do you dissemble chronically or only regarding the equal protection of the laws? If the latter, then why?
In addition, your claim to civility collides with your mockery of more than a million Americans whom you would deny the equal protection of the laws by taking away their marriages. Failure to see that would require a profound lack of self-awareness, frankly hypocrisy.
I approached this site with curiosity, wondering how Robert Spencer’s opposition to violence and discriminatory legal codes could generate such widespread antipathy. Thank you for helping me to see some of the reasons.
I do still hope you will enjoy a pitcher of beer, but it will not be with me. I can take a joke as well as the next person, but you are not joking. I hold the same right to the equal protection of the laws as any other citizen, and I prefer not to socialize with people who insult me while pretending not to.
curious says
P.S. @Wellington, by mockery, I refer specifically to your “laugh test”, by which you would rescind the marriages of more than a million Americans, because you laugh at them. There is nothing wrong with laughing in itself, but it becomes very wrong when misused as a pretext to take away substantive rights including the equal protection of the laws.
Wellington says
curious: For the record, I consider strict construction of the Constitution and original intent to be two sides of the same legal coin. I often use the two interchangeably. I do not agree at all that they are two different things. So, we have another disagreement.
As for my jocularity about gay marriage, I certainly don’t mean to be cruel and indeed defend gay rights in sundry ways, but as someone who sees marriage as an institution that requires opposite gender, and since I am disinclined to get depressed about this, a light humor about it is part of my approach to dealing with this issue, ditto for all the cis-gender nonsense, transgender situations, there really being not two genders but, I forget, how many are there now—8?, 19?, 37?. It’s not cruelty that prompts my amusement about all this but the absurdity of life often times.
Wellington says
curious: I just went to Wikipedia after I posted my last comment to you. Now, I think Wikipedia leans left (e.g., it rather enthusiastically states that Jihad Watch has been described as anti-Muslim conspiracy website), but on the matter of strict construction and original intent it states the following:
“Strict construction is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning of constitutions and laws.”
I don’t know how you came up with the idea that strict construction and original intent are opposed to one another. I am a lawyer, have spoken to many other lawyers over the years (both liberal and conservative) and they too, regardless of their political leanings, have done as I have done, as the Wikipedia quote I provided above demonstrates, i.e., look upon strict construction and original intent as integrally related, two sides of the same legal coin as I put it in my above post to you.
curious says
@Wellington, your citation of Wikipedia surprises me, because Wikipedia is not a source. In fact, Wikipedia admits that Wikipedia is not a source. I have to wonder how you might fare in litigation with a brief citing Wikpedia as a source. I rely on actual sources. For example, compare:
“The term strict constructionism refers to a philosophy of law that would restrict judicial interpretation of the law, as well as of the U.S. Constitution, to apply the text of the law, exactly as written, in making judgements and rulings. In other words, under strict constructionist principles, judges would not be allowed to consider the intent of the law, but be held to enforcing the actual wording.”
https://legaldictionary.net/strict-constructionism/
Even the Wikipedia article you cited says, “Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges—in this view—should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself.”
You project your preferred outcome onto the past, but you have no proof of your claim that the authors and enactors intended whatever you want them to have intended. You project what you might call a “conservative” (but actually regressive) intent onto people who were deliberately changing the law in a progressive direction. A true strict constructionist would hold them to what they wrote.
Compare:
“All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” -MLK Jr
“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” – Strict constructionist Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 SCOTUS majority including CJ Roberts, in Bostock v. Clayton County.
That is strict construction. Your projection of your own desires onto other people is neither strict construction nor genuine originalism, but merely self-serving to rationalize saying whatever you want (for reasons of identity and emotion). The Vatican closet cases penetrated your mind with their identity, making you support their political positions even after you have renounced Christianity. One rule for you, another for everyone else: that is hypocrisy, and prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
Wellington says
curious: Disagree. Per Black’s Legal Dictionary: “The rule of strict construction has no definite or precise meaning….” (And this would help to explain the Wikipedia quote I supplied you which disagrees with the legal dictionary quote you supplied me.)
So, there are many like myself, certainly the deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who are of the legal opinion that strict construction MUST take into account original intent. Ah, just like lawyers and judges to disagree vehemently about the very issue before them. Isn’t it interesting how many 5-4 or 6-3 decisions exist in US Supreme Court history? This betokens that highly trained legal minds can come to exact opposite opinions about a statute or constitutional provision.
I think strict construction MUST take into account original intent, otherwise one is tyrannized by words themselves, restricted to such a narrow view of strict construction that it borders on the ridiculous. And arguing in the alternative, which is the wont of lawyers, EVEN assuming I am wrong in asserting that strict construction and original intent go together like a horse and buggy, for you to accuse me of being disingenuous in your 4:14 A.M. post of today is dispostive of how, as I have noticed more and more, you are trying to make me into some kind of deceitful, bad person, which is so typical of Leftism, which must not only tell the “other” that they are wrong, but also bad. I have not done this to you but you have done this to me. I merely disagree with you and think you wrong. You wish to tell me that I am not only wrong but possessed of a negative character. This is very cheap of you but so very Leftist.
curious says
@Wellington: Pot, meet kettle: you began by calling me unworthy of the equal person of the laws, implying necessarily that I am less than a whole person, and even mocking me. I refuted your arguments and pointed out that they are disingenous, e.g. when you cherry-picked a selective quotation from Wikipedia, desperately searchinfg for anything that might rationalize saying what you want emotionally to believe. SCOTUS and whole countries with Catholic majorities disagree with you, yet you insist relentlessly on serving the self-loathing closet cases who poisoned your mind on orders from the Vatican. And now, you call me “cheap”, and yet complain that you are somehow the victim being insulted. My heart does not bleed for you.
curious says
@Wellington, lastly, I hope we can agree on one point: Islam hates us both.
Also, the debate has helped me to understand why most people dismiss jihadwatch.org, and why it continues falling in the rankings of website popularity, even as Islam continues to grow and reports of jihad terror attacks accumulate. I am trying to understand processes of decision-making, including the roles of what I call autophobia (fear of self, e.g. the self-loathing homosexual closet cases who populate the Vatican and much of the Republican party) and allophobia (fear of everyone else, e.g. xenophobia). I had also been trying to understand why racism, sexism, and homophobia are so often found together, and often with xenophobia too. As for the website ranking, I think many people decide based on identity and emotion, and then rationalize (as you do) by cherry-picking whatever they can find to support their a priori prejudices. Many rely on heuristics including association: they see whole articles sourced only to WetFart or Faux Noise (the latter being statistically proven to make people misinformed/uninformed than people who watch no news at all), and maybe also see comments that are absurdly sexist or desperately rationalizing anti-gay discrimination, or openly racist (e.g. against Arabs, lumping together Muslims and Christians). One way and another, they end up dismissing the whole site as lacking credibility and populated by what I would call allophobes. They forget the fact that even the boy who cried wolf was eventually telling the truth, i.e. even xenophobes can be correct about Islam and the agenda of KSA, fueled by Nixon’s petrodollar deals.
.Bridgette says
The Christian west must punish them enough so that their hand is forced to turn it back into the museum.
gravenimage says
Yes–sanctions, sanctions, sanctions.
elee says
That’s already been done to the max. When First World tourists stopped coming and spending they tried replacing them with Russian-bloc and Persian tourists. So what else does the first world buy from Turkey? A little contraband ISIS oil, antiquities, contraband Persian gold…….nothing big enough to hurt the country in general, regardless of its effects on Erdogan himself. Well maybe western Europe could try to stop expatriate remittances, but that would end up being a huge fight…..
curious says
Western Europe is currently paying jizya to Turkey every time Erdogun threatens to send ‘refugees’ across the border into the west. The western Europeans have armies, but refuse to defend their own borders, so they choose to pay jizya instead.
That is in addition to the money his family made on oil deals with the Islamic State. Even the USA has paid jizya to Turkey on behalf of the military industrial complex as part of the phony “alliance” among NATO countries.
Turkey should be expelled from NATO, and the USA should remove all bases from Turkey unless going to war against Turkey.
elee says
Spot on curious IMHO. Europe is rife with fifth columnists coordinated out of Turkish embassies and Diyanet offices. And what do you suppose the Diyanet is up to at its lavish American offices in Lanham, Maryland?
David Grisez says
Here we have another arrogant power hungry world leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He obviously wants to bring back a new form of the Ottoman Empire. These ambitions when carried out will likely result in another World War.
Brian Hoff says
There are more muslim inside Turkey compare to christian. Can the local christian support it as christian church.
gravenimage says
What “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam” here means is that his coreligionists murdered most of the “filthy Infidels” there a hundred years ago, so there are few survivors.
And the idea that Erdogan has turned Hagia Sophia from a museum to a Mosque out of concern for the poor Christians not being able to maintain it as a Church is grotesquely laughable. In fact, Christians from all over the world, especially Orthodox Christians, would flock to this Church.
Here is what Erdogan is *really* saying about this Muslim supremacist move:
“Erdogan: “Resurrection of Hagia Sophia” heralds “return of freedom to al-Aqsa,” revival of Islam Uzbekistan to Spain”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/erdogan-resurrection-of-hagia-sophia-heralds-return-of-freedom-to-al-aqsa-revival-of-islam-uzbekistan-to-spain
This is all about violent Muslim conquest.
curious says
+1
SAFI says
Oh shut the hell up, Brian Hoff. None among Turkey’s terrorized Christians would ever dare to suggest that the Hagia Sophia (or any other stolen Church for that matter) be returned to christian service. The Patriarch has been receiving death threats on a daily basis for dacades despite being a cowering groveling dhimmi who has to publicly proclaim his loyalty to the islamo-nazi regime at every opporunity, to the point of saying that he prays regularly for the turkish army to be victorious in its jihad against the Kurds in Syria (to the incredible shame of his Greek orthodox flock who hear such disgusting statements coming out of their Primate’s mouth regularly) just so he doesn’t meet the fate of so many of his predecessors. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Hanging_of_Patriarch_Gregory_V.JPG
FYI says
That Hagia Sophia refers to Jesus Christ as the Divine Wisdom,the LOGOS.
*The second person of the Trinity.
The Hagia Sophia is dedicated to the One…. who will judge the muslims
{erdogan and all muslims will someday be judged by the Hagia Sophia that is Jesus Christ but of course they won’t get that:they think their Arab god ‘al lah’ the champion deceiver[HINT]will be their Judge}
Mr Brian Hoff will himself be subject to the Hagia Sophia,the Wisdom used to judge but he won’t get it..after all he STILL cannot figure out{or more likely, doesn’t want to figure out}that allah{‘the BEST of deceivers’ koran 3:54}isn’t God,muhammed is the most obvious false prophet in world History,the plagiarized holey koran is so full of errors that by allah’s own criterion of koran 4:82 it can only come,in its imperfections,from ‘other than allah'{= totally man made}
*BTW Christians should note that in the {koran 5:116} allah has an EPIC THEOLOGY FAIL where he thinks Christians believe MARY{..yes that’s right,MARY..} is in the Trinity alongside allah and Jesus in some kind of weird polytheistic association:so muslims ‘pray’ to allah.a god who is clearly not all knowing as he gets Christian Theology wrong.
allah MISSED the Holy Spirit and the Golden Rule too…if muslims followed Jesus the HAGIA SOPHIA and understood the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit they would see how wrong islam and the koran is and they would honor the HAGIA SOPHIA.But they prefer to rely on allah the champion deceiver koran 3:54[HINT] as he rightly misguides them in the palms of his TWO RIGHT HANDS.
Brian Hoff says
The Sultan brough the building and land from the Eastern Roman Church. The Sultan have than elite military unit guard the building and land during the deal makeing they also safeguard the priest and workshipper there. So the beautiful buiding was protect from beingdestory.
gravenimage says
This from “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenederofIslam”–is *absolute crap*.
The claim that Mehmed II bought Hagia Sophia from the Eastern Orthodox Church could not have been more false–he seized the building after having all of the people who had taken sanctuary there–women, children, old people, the crippled, priests, and nuns raped, enslaved, or slaughtered.
Of course, “Brian Hoff” cannot back up his risible claim.
There were those Muslim thugs who wanted to destroy the Cathedral outright–the Sultan only stopped them because he realized that seizing it as a Mosque would make it a permanent source of pain and humiliation for the crushed Christians.
Here’s an account from the time over the treatment of those who had taken sanctuary at Hagia Sophia:
“The Holy Liturgy was ended, and the service of matins was being sung. At the sound of the tumult outside the huge bronze gates of the building were closed. Inside the congregation prayed for the miracle that alone could save them. They prayed in vain. It was not long before the doors were battered down and the worshippers trapped. A few of them, the ancient and the infirm were killed on the spot; but most of them were tied of chained together. Veils and scarves were torn off the women to serve as ropes. Many of the lovelier maidens and youths and many of the richer-clad nobles were almost torn to death as their captors quarreled over them. Soon a procession of ill-sorted little groups of men and women bound tightly together was being dragged to the soldiers bivouacs, there to be fought over once again. The priests went on chanting at the alter till they too were taken…
The pillage continued all day. Monasteries and convents were entered and their inmates rounded up. Some of the younger nuns preferred martyrdom to dishonor and flung themselves to death down well-shafts; but the monks and the elder nuns now obeyed the old passive Orthodox Church and made no resistance.”
mortimer says
Once again, Robert Spencer is right on target. The supremacist implication of making Hagia Sophia a mosque is JUST AS CLEAR as the implications of Adolf Hitler’s Munich beer-hall speeches and his MEIN KAMPF.
If you listen closely, you know that Erdogan is saying openly that he is planning to revive the Ottoman Empire. That is what his party and followers understand.
They are shouting the Islamic WAR CRY in approval.
Tony Naim says
we need to hear from President Trump on this one.
The opinion of Prime minister Netanyahu on the issue of Jerusalem must also be addressed.
I favor Trump and Netanyahu having a joint conference together, to give a clear message not only to Er dog alone but every Islamic radical airhead out there the seriousness of this robbery.
Bashir Magori says
Spain was once a Muslim and an Islamic caliphate but later distroyed by these barbaric christians all mosque distroyed some convert to churches can’t you see From the point of view…I support Racep Tayep Erdogan for the conversion its belong to Muslims…and turkey is a Muslim dominant country.
gravenimage says
What Bashir Magori means is that Muslims invaded Spain and seized most of her Churches for Mosques. Then–after over 700 years of defensive fighting, the native Spaniards were able to finally reclaim their land. Bad dhimmis!
And why is Turkey a “Muslim dominant country” (note that Bashir Magori doesn’t just say “Muslim majority”)? Why, because Muslims there slaughtered most of the remaining Christians there a hundred years ago during the Armenian Genocide.
*This* is how pious Muslims think–and it is *not* pretty.
curious says
+1, as usual
gravenimage says
Thank you, curious.
Kepha says
Actually, Spain (and Portugal) fought a seven-century anti-colonial struggle which was finally successful in 1492.
elee says
Spain preserves the Mosque of Cordoba as a museum, as Ataturk did with Hagia Sophia.
Red Pill says
wtf spain was invaded by Muslims…
SAFI says
No, it does not belong to muslims nor will it ever. Same with Spain. Same with Israel, land of the Jews now and forever.
elee says
+1
gravenimage says
Why Erdogan Converted the Hagia Sophia to a Mosque, and Why the State Department Should Be Concerned
……………..
Spot on analysis from Robert Spencer. I *hope* the US State Department is paying attention.
mortimer says
Turkish students increasingly resisting religion, study suggests
Young people likely to challenge Islam and see themselves as less religious than previous generations
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/turkish-students-increasingly-resisting-religion-study-
suggests
Polling by the agency Konda in 2019 also found that people aged 15-29 described themselves as less “religiously conservative” than older generations, and less religious than the same age group a decade earlier – respondents said they did not necessarily cover their hair, pray regularly or fast during Ramadan.
The overall drop in people who described themselves as religiously conservative was 7%, down from 32% in 2008, and those who said they fast during Ramadan declined from 77% to 65%.
The shift away from religion among Turkey’s younger generation follows a trend seen in many industralised countries. But some wonder if it is also a backlash to almost two decades of the AKP’s pushy brand of political Islam.
The 2019 survey only revealed a slight drop in religiosity overall. In a country where around half of the 82-million-strong population is under 30, however, even small societal attitude changes could have a dramatic impact on Turkish politics in future.
curious says
@Mortimer, “a slight drop in religiosity” does not translate to Muslims leaving Islam “in droves” as you have claimed. Young people describing themselves as less conservative than their parents, and breaking a few rules, are commonplace; it does not mean they will renouce the Koran.
To the contrary, your chosen article says 65% of Muslims 15-29 continue to say they fast during Ramadan. I suspect that’s much higher than the % of Christians who give up things for Lent, for example.
elee says
The strength of Robert Spencer’s analysis here is his penetration to the role of history in the propagation of the worst of Islam. If we want to know the codes that waken sleepers within our walls and galvanise armed millions outside, we can begin by learning the history of Muslim peoples and learning to recognise the allusions as a kind of code, oh and, translate it. How many readers, right now, know what is being said when Muslims are urged to rekindle the glories of Khaybar?
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
What a dopey economic move. Now tourists have less reason to spend their money in Turkey.
gravenimage says
I don’t think this thug much cares–either that, or he is deluding himself.
curious says
Erdogun knows he can always colelct more jizya for himself and his cronies from western Europe simply by threatening to allow Muslim “refugees” to cross the border. Western European politicians lack the nerve to defend their borders, so they pay jizya. For Erdogun, more $ for himself and his family, and less for independent businesses in Turkey, increases his power over them. He is a Muslim, but strategic and alas not dopey.
SAFI says
I’m sure the EU will cover for his losses. Just yesterday they approved another half a billion euros in aid money to Turkey (not sure why the hell they did that, maybe just to show everyone what kind of suckers they are) Maybe Erdolf is also counting on attracting muslim turists from Algeria to Malaysia and beyond.
Donovan Nuera says
It’s time to put up posters “Muhammad was correct about slavery!”… and apostasy!
Make dhimmi actually study his policies!
It’s too bad stupid young liberals can recite all the overwrought “backstories” about the multitude of characters in fictional lame tv series like Games of Thrones or Star Wars … but have NO understanding of Islam and Koran and the women only seem to like hijab she in solidarity with hoax victims because they think the fabrics are neato!!!
ELI says
OK we all agree that this is bad, do we also agree that the below is bad?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190411-israel-converts-historical-mosque-into-a-bar-and-events-hall/?fbclid=IwAR15-u2J6xGIVi7cw_2CC5h_KSss6RhkWN957S_dXwATgARGynAsNQiYvig
If we think that is not bad, we need clear rules why, if not it will be a double standard.
SAFI says
Though I’d like to know the history of that “mosque” before I express my opinion I’m gonna go ahead and say no, it’s not OK. That said this isn’t the reason why Erdolf is seizing “museums”(Churches) and turning them into mosques no matter what he or that filthy Turkish/Qatari sponsored islamist e-rag called MEMO might claim.
DISCLAIMER: That said, just because I’m saying “it’s not okay” doesn’t mean I would ever in a million years join MEMO, which as I just found out, by following your link, has already published a dozen articles defending and praising Erdolf sacrilege, in outrage against Israel. I’m not so stupid as to join forces with my sworn enemies. If Muslims loudly cheer as my culture is being erased then the least I can do for them is to be coldly indifferent when Israel does the same to theirs. It’s called reciprocity dear Muslims, I know the word is not in the bloody Koran (the only book most of you have ever read), but you can still find it in the bloody dictionary.
PS. Maybe they’ll become more sensitive to the destruction of our heritage, when al-Aqsa becomes a restaurant (preferably one that has pork on the menu).
ELI says
Don’t worry it’s OK to be even-handed without one million caveats to appease the more “enthousiastic” jihadwatchers.
SAFI says
I actually think I am being very fair and even-handed when I say I don’t care about the “sovereignty” of a regime that’s presently invanded and occupying several neighboring countries. Those who call for me to respect Turkey’s “sovereignty” are the true hypocrites.
And I feel I can unreservedly support my own culture against those who are trying to destroy it without caveats such as “oh but isn’t it terrible when Israel disrespects some Arab mosque” The Hagia Sophia is not an israeli monument and “Istanbul’s” few surviving christians are not Israelis, nor is Erdogan and his supporters “oppressed Palestinians”. Any equivalency of that sort is false on so many levels.
Gyomza says
Erdogan believes he is the prophesied Mardi (Muslim Messiah) who shall arise in the last days and restore the caliphate and be the last caliph who will conquer the world and make everyone a Muslim. The Bible called such person the Antichrist who will rise as an ordinary citizen and take over his nation and use it to conquer three other nations. Six other nations will willingly submit to him. He will then control ten nations and take over Israel after a seven year treaty.
A Gnostic Agnostic says
Islam is the Deep State / root of Nazism.
If you don’t see it this late in the game, enjoy your sleep.
It takes a “believer” to “believe” themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves, thus in any conceivable “believer vs. unbeliever” situation, all Nazis are pinned to the side of the “believers”.
Muslims are the real book-worshiping “Jews” that pathologically scapegoat their own crimes against humanity onto others. That is the essence of Islam: make others guilty for what Muslims are themselves guilty of. This results in the Left scapegoating their own crimes onto the Right, and the hatred generated for Trump is 100% Islamic. If you realize Muslim = Jew everything will make sense.
gravenimage says
Hitler did indeed admire Islam, but the roots of Nazism were different from Islam. Both vicious totalitarian creeds, though.
And why are you constantly ranting about Jews? No, Jews are not Muslims–this does *not* make sense.
mikehughes says
They the Turks may take over the Christian church called Sophia Hagia but in the end they did not build it in the first place and to hide icons on the inner roof shows they are scared to view them and the world knows the history of this beautiful church so for any follower who goes there to prey shows the world what type of person who preys there is a pretender Pretending it’s really a mosque and the real God looking down will know also.
The world of Islam is slowing collapsing as scholars delve further into Islam and destroys its traditions as lies and to think Mecca was never on any maps before the birth of Mohammed and after his death not till the late 9th century the lies are coming home to roost followers who have been lied to for 1400 years.
Pathet Lao says
It has been long known (since the 1950’s) by the U.S. military/CIA that a secular Turkey is a reliable trustworthy Turkey (re: NATO).
To that end, like it or not, the U.S. had maintained three significant activities regarding Turkey:
1) Advocate/insist on a Turkish civilian secular and democratic government.
2) Advocate/insist on attendance to American military “schools” by Turkish officers.
3) Proactively support the Turkish military in any coups that would restore a secular civilian Turkish government.
If you review the historical/photographic records regarding the U.S./Turkish relationship, you will see that in photographs prior to Erdogan that images of Turkish city life will show western/secular clothing worn by the younger/middle aged woman (post Erdogan, you very rarely will). Additionally, if you check on Turkish military coups of the past (1960, 1971, 1980, 1993, 1997) that the U.S. was proactive (though covertly) supportive of the coups/”memorandums”.
The Turkish military Coup attempt of 2016 failed due a lack of support by the Obama administration – period. Recall this was post “arab-spring” and post 2011 Egyptian “revolution” (via Muslim Brotherhood). The Obama administration was saturated with Islamic zealots in various administrative positions (e.g., Huma Abedin, Mehdi K. Alhassani, Rashad Hussain, etc.).
Now you see the true reason Erdogan is where he is, and why he is~
jewdog says
The State Department has been pandering to Turkey, particularly James Jeffrey. Trump has allowed Erdogan to have his way in Syria, Libya and Iraq. I’m sure that E has taken the hint that the Hagia Sophia mosque conversion would therefore be tolerated by the US, which is the world’s only superpower.
SAFI says
Spot on. I would only add that Russia is almost equally guilty of tolerating Erdolf’s atrocities in Syria despite their supposed alliance with Assad’s regime and guaranteeing Syria’s integrity. EU not much better either, Germany and other EU states still supplying Turkey with weapons despite public outcry and a *theoretical* ban
4dmin says
“European merchants supply the best weaponry, contributing to their own defeat.” – Saladin
the least of terry's says
The man is a buffoon, but a dangerous one. Linked with many nation states, supra-governing bodies, islamism in all groups, international crime cartels, and our own dnc here in America- a very dangerous thug.
towef says
oh…
Brian Hoff says
The Sultan who conquered the Eastern Roman Empire brought the building and land from the Greek Church and only when it was legally his did he change it into a mosque. Since it was own by him he left than will which state it is to remain than. Mosque forever. The first president of Turkey didnot have the legally right to turn it into than museum. The hight court in turkey correct than wrong done by the European powe.
gravenimage says
Why is “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–continuing to spew this bald-faced Taqiyya here? Of course, he’s got nothing to back this grotesque false claim with.
And it was not the “European powe” who turned this into a museum, but Ataturk himself, in an effort to curb the malign effects of Islam there.
Brian Hoff says
After WWI ended the allie want to turn it into than church. What stop was than legal doc where the Sultan brought the building and land and the Sultan will.
gravenimage says
This is claptrap–there is nothing to back up “Brian Hoff’s” claim–not even some sort of faked document. This is completely false.
And no, the Allies did not press for Hagia Sophia to be returned to Christians after WWI–there was no chance of this happening.
The building was turned into a museum in 1934 by Ataturk, who hoped to curb the malign influence of Islam.
SAFI says
The Sultan didn’t buy crap, he took it and everything else at the point of a spear. Also enslaved the entire population including the children many of whom he raped personally as he was a pedo (like the infamous “Prophet” of the same name). He then hunted down and murdered the entire byzantine and balkan nobility to ensure the dhimmis would have no leadership and remain enslaved forever. Also murdered all of his twenty or so brothers. He was also known as the Antichrist by his western contemporaries, with good reason. Naturally he’s revered as a national hero in Turkey and across the islamic world.
Holger Kruger says
A new war can come to Europe. The left want this
gravenimage says
Most on the left don’t believe that Islam is a threat at all.