Friday, July 27, 2012

Tom Menino's Boston Values

The Chick-fil-A kerfuffle was provoked when Boston Mayor Tom Menino said that he would block the chain from opening a restaurant in Boston.

Like Rahm Emanuel after him, Menino insisted that Chick-fil-A did not respect Boston values because its president thought that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Now, the Boston Herald reports that the same Mayor Menino has given city land to a mosque even though one of its “spiritual guides”has repeatedly called for homosexuals to be executed.

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  ...and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

It’s not a new story:

During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides.

 Yusef al-Qadawari has this to say about homosexuals:

[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert  ... Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.

I take it for granted that the gay rights movement has been out front denouncing this depraved imam. Right?


n.n said...

Muslims are ideological allies of convenience for the secular left. They will not protest their incompatible nature. This is not the first time that left-wing fanatics have worked with other left-wing fanatics.

It is a notable paradox to observe a fanatical protest of individuals with a faith who believe in tolerance, while embracing others who would enslave and murder them.

I question the motives of anyone who supports the normalization of a behavior which constitutes evolutionary dysfunction.

I further question the motives of anyone who derives support from a selective history, which indemnifies certain major violators of human and civil rights.

Perhaps there is a different statute of limitation accorded to each group. Still, that doesn't explain indemnifying, let alone allying with, a group which continues to perpetrate human and civil rights violations.

Actually, I don't question their motives at all. Their motives are made plain when they embrace a constructed paradox. Rather than tolerance, they seek normalization of a behavior with no redeeming value to either society or humanity. Rather than acknowledge people who offer tolerance, they embrace people who reject them outright.

Their primary motivation is to marginalize and even remove Christians from seats of power. For example, they promote evolution as a description of origin (an article of faith), while rejecting evolutionary principles (a scientific truth). It seems the target of their ambitious ventures is Christians. In America, Europe, Africa, and around the world.

As for Chick-fil-A, there is no evidence that they discriminate against customers or employees based on their preferred form of sexual gratification.

The controversy is the premeditated creation of a controversy. The American Left is infamous for engaging in this controversial behavior.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

I like the idea of allies of convenience... which is perhaps another way of saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Clearly, they see themselves fighting a war... which is not exactly the same thing as the deliberative democracy they say that they want.

I think that they are playing with fire... one of these days they are going to get burned by this... hopefully, sooner than later.

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind too that liberals/gays/etc. are weenies and are afraid of Muslims (with good reason).

Meanwhile, there's no threat to life and limb from hammering Christians.

Dennis said...

These types of groups always sell themselves out to political expediency. They never demonstrate where they are really putting themselves at any real risk. I have yet to notice any real courage of conviction from the members of these types of groups.
Acting as "thought police" is ultimately going to lead to their own demise. The pendulum always swings both ways no matter how one tries to stop it. Alienate enough people and one might not be surprised what those people will do when they take power.
Given the choice between gay marriage and free speech, freedom OF religion and the rest of the First Amendment, which seems to be under attack here, the First Amendment wins. Gay marriage is not worth a thing without the First Amendment. Stop trying to win by thuggery, judicial fiat or political edict and win legislatively.