Monday, November 14, 2011
Politics Haslam Refuses to Rebuke Womick for Anti-Muslim Talk
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM
"I don’t think I would agree with Rick on that."
OK, governor, but we think Muslims want something a little stronger than that. Would you denounce Womick in some way?
"I don’t know that’s my role. I would just say that on that issue I don’t agree with Rick."
Womick, however, is standing by his comments. To the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal, he said:
"Who are we at war with? We are at war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who are Muslims. It’s a Catch-22. They are not allowed to kill their fellow Muslims, we’re at war with Muslims. The only solution I see is that they not be allowed in the military."
Comments (66)
Showing 1-50 of 66
like
dislike
Gosh. I thought "freedom of speech" is all the rage these days. I guess it only applies if you want to squat on War Memorial Plaza.
The Muslims have their right to freedom of religion, but Mr Womick has his right to freedom of speech. Sad that cry baby liberals who know nothing of Islam wish to defend the very people who would behead them for being infidels if they had the chance to get away with it. Do us all a favor and educate yourself before you whinny hippies open your mouths, but hey I guess you have the right to say whatever you wish huh? :-)
@Emmett:
I'm sorry, is Rep. Womick about to be arrested or charged with drublic punkenness? You are denser than I had thought.
By the way, if anybody wants to call Womick and tell him how they feel, please call 615-741-2804.
Apparently "whinny hippies" wrote the Constitution of the United States regarding religious tests. Or perhaps, in the interest of public safety, Womick was for purging all Christians from the U.S. military during World War II, since most Germans were some sort of Christian..It would have been about as rational and informed.
Could someone skilled in remedial education please sit down with Rep. Rick and explain to him that Muslims have been killing their fellow Muslims for at least 1,300 of Islam's roughly 1,400-year existence?
Emmett,
Ingleweird is correct. No one is denying Representative Womick his right to free speech. But free speech does not protect one from criticism. Real threats to free speech involve all those left-wing morons who show up and shout down conservative speakers on college campuses.
@bmazor being part German and having a great uncle who was drafted into the Wehrmacht during WW2 and a great uncle fighting for the Americans I know alot about that war from both perspectives. I dont see how you can compare this to that smh. I'm not a religious person, but have studied many religions including Islam and none are as violent. Here you go buddy some Koran for you
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who
are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,
and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty"
Qur'an, Sura 9:123 There have been at least two (that I know of) cases of Muslim soldiers killing their fellow Americans in the name of Islam. The facts speak for themselves.
Did you follow the link, Mark? One of the "peace loving" Muslims condemning Womick for his "free speech" says, "I believe he needs to be impeached immediately..."
Sounds like punishment for "free speech" to me. Maybe not you.
I'm sure you intended to make a point in your post, weird, but you covered it up nicely.
I dont' recall it being a duty of the office of governor to rebuke people at the directive of lefty Scene "reporters".
AGAIN, the 1st Amendment ONLY protects citizens from being arrested or charged with a crime. Period. The 1st Amendment will NOT offer protection from peaceful protesters, criticism, getting fired, getting beat up, having your tires slashed, impeachments, or boycotts for mouthing off bullshit.
Class dismissed.
Emmett,
So what? The critic is in no position to get Representative Womick impeached, much less convicted. All such a comment does is strengthen Womick's supporters.
Doesn't the instruction manual for muslims order the death of non-believers who won't convert to Islam? Hmmm....
So... when we were part of the NATO forces attacking the Serbs for their genocidal rampages through the Bosnian populations, we should have... ushered all the Christians out of the US military? Because the Serbs were pretty much all fiercely nationalist Christians.
It's this sort of tortured logic that makes all of us Tennesseans look bad by extension. Kudos, Mr. Womick.
I think any politician who wants to limit certain groups' participation in the military needs to volunteer their first-born children for service. Overseas and on the front lines - and none of those military photographer jobs, either.
Ingleweird,
Does that apply to elitist liberal academics who refuse to allow ROTC programs on college campuses?
@ dont ask, so where in the bible does it say christians or jews should kill all none christians or jews they meet? The answer is no where, but it does tell muslims in the Koran to kill all none muslims. You miss the point completely. @ ashley Arabic translators dont have to be muslim in order to speak the language, or if they are they dont have to be in the military, they could simply be contracted civys. @ Ingleweird I take it you were never in the military or even around soldiers at any time in your life? Simple, the man next to you, you have to trust with your life and you shouldn't have to worry about him screaming allah akbar and blowing you both up! Womick is from my county and I support his veiws 100% who has he harmed by stating his opinion?
@Mark:
ALL politicians.
@Not_PC:
No never served; I doubt I'd pass basic training. Also, I don't care to obey orders or kill strangers.
If you are qualified to serve, you have to be prepared for the unexpected. The military is a high-stress environment. Shell shock (or whatever euphemistic phrase they're calling it now) does not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Who has Womack harmed by stating his opinion? The legacies of our founding fathers and of all those who died to preserve Womack's right to be an outspoken asshole.
If you can't respect religious freedom in America, you don't respect America.
I'll be "not PC": To know even a tiny speck of actual Islamic history, not what some belligerent propagandist at your corner "taught" you -- but the story of the lives of millions of people, in all walks of life, across the globe from Morocco to Indonesia- across a thousand years of history, and also millions of contributing, law-abiding American citizens- today--and to suggest that 'they all must non-Moslems by their law" requires mean-spiritness of a low order, and massive ignorance of reality--sheer bigotry. Billions of Moslems don't hurt a fly. There are maniac killers belonging to every religious group on earth--and it says nothing about the religions they ascribe to.
Republicans think freedom of religion is for Christians only. Okay, maybe Jews too. Maybe even Mormons.
Are you familiar with these verses from the Christian Holy Bible?
-Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish: You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
-Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
-Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
-Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
-Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
SHOULD I GO ON ............ DON'T TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT FROM THE HOLY QURAN!!
the quran isn't holy.. it's plagiarism.. it's historical revisionism.. it's replacement theology.. While Jews and Christians found ways to grow out of the barbarism of the past, muslims are commanded to live as barbarians with a social code that may never change..
let me say this to all of you, its about idiology, christianity never ordered christian to kill non christian, christianty tought people to love their enemy as loving yourself, in Islam it is the teahing it is the koran its the Shria, it is a religin that does not beleve in anything but islam it is a cult, do you understand.
@vangrungy:
And I suppose you contend that the Bible isn't historical revisionism?
AB,
"Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish: You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20"
How many Christians were there in Exodus? Or do you mean the movie?
I note that your other quotes come from Deuteronomy, and none come from the New Testament.
As for taking things out of context, both the Old and New Testament were compiled over time from various sources. The Quran is the comments of one person. It would seem to be hard to take the latter out of context while the former has adapted to multiple interpretations on a range of issues.
Unless you are willing to concede that the prophet got conflicting messages from allah depending on political or social circumstance. I do recall that initial comments on the Jews were favorable until the Jews of Medina refused to convert at which point they were stripped of their property and one tribe was even executed.
I am also curious about the restriction of four wives except for the prophet. But, as you say, context.
Regardless of whether Rep. Womick is rude or whatever else others may want to "label" him as, he is technically correct that Muslims are not permitted to kill fellow Muslims.
It is hypocritical of Muslims in the military and Imams or those in Islamic leadership to criticize Rep. Womick when they themselves ARE NOT offering an answer to the obvious issue.
Eddie Garcia
I just thought of something - we should populate our military with ONLY Muslims, since they're not allowed to kill one another, apparently. Peace in a heartbeat!
Well I'm glad it's been established Jesus supported Non-Violence. Certainly reflected in the behavior of American Christians.
Man, now I'm on a tangent reading about the Iran-Iraq War. You KNOW hostilities run deep when the article is like, "Well, this all started in the SIXTEENTH CENTURY over a waterway, if you really look it."
"...standing up for freedom of religion"
Oh shut up, already. Islam is totally AGAINST religious freedom, fool.
Inbreeding and low IQ? You mean, like this:
Muslim outrage as professor warns first-cousin marriages increase risk of birth defects
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage-professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html#ixzz1dnytO7al
Let's be realistic here, folks. If the President had to rebuke his friends for every stupid thing they say, then he'd have no friends left. The double-standard lives on at The Scene.
@AshleySpurgeon: Or the taliban killing those who won't submit to their wishes. Or the various "honor" killings of females (right here at home, even) by male relatives for whatever muslim edict they got sideways with.
(in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.
The verses regarding the fighting and killing came during a time of war. A war that was persued by the pagans of the area at that time in history. The pagans oppressed the Muslims, forced them out of their homes, etc etc. After years of oppression were endured by the followers of the fledgling new religion of Islam, a verse was revealed that gave permission to the Muslims to finally fight back.
All of you who bash Islam and honestly think you know anything about Islam, you know nothing at all. It is sad really, how little you know and yet purport to be some sort of expert because you read a couple of verses. Sad, the lack of respect towards knowledge.
Ray,
Can you explain how 'defensive warfare' resulted in Muslim conquests from India to Spain? For a peaceful religion it is worth mentioning that the armies that expanded Islam to that extent was funded by conquest, encouraging new invasions of new lands with new wealth.
The problem for you is that you seem to have two choices:
A) To claim that all that expansion was against the teachings of Muhammad and that those who talk about using violence to restore Islam are violating the core of Islam or
B) To accept that violent expansion was in keeping with Muhammad's teachings and his practices and that Muslim believers of this view are legitimate followers.
Now you may make the case that the same is true of Christianity. And I would agree. But I would argue that Christianity has wrestled with this for centuries and today there is no serious group that wants to spread Christianity through violence.
@gast
Fun fact, the number one cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is murder. Misogyny is often justified via religion, but it's not as if Muslims are the only ones playing that particular game.
Just curious -- how many Muslims would be too many? Or could there be too many -- in our military or in the United States?
Mark,
Are we moving away then from the teachings of the Qu'ran to the actions of those who are Muslims?
There are current Christian terror groups, use the googles.
Are we on the the one hand to blame the religion, its teachings etc. for the actions of its followers, and then when presented with theological evidence that the your conclusion is false, then on the other hand blame the religion for the actions of those who claim to be Muslims?
If you take only anecdotal evidence, like what you see on the news, what is fed to you by the Islamaphobes etc, you will always come to the same conclustion. However, if you recognize that the evidence is in fact ancedotal, and is creating for you a generalization, then perhaps you will strive to seek the truth thru those who actually study, those who do extensive scientific research, extensive scientific polling etc. And frankly, if you just open your mind to the fact that there are 1.5 Billion Muslims, that is 1 million million Muslims, that this extremely small set of data you get from Fox news, Rush limbaugh etc, is...meaningless.
If you want to get into a fight about which religion has killed more, which religion has done this and that...well...we'll be here all month.
Why don't you look this up: Which Muslim army went to Indonesia? The largest populated Muslim country in the world?
Why don't you look up how Muslims conquests differed from Christian conquests.
I would have to argue, based on my limited knowledge, that if my conclusion is correct that Muslims are commanded to only wage defensive war, that conquests, or offensive based wars are not in line with the Qu'ranic teachings.
Come on, blind idealists, let's talk numbers. How many Muslims would be too many? Enough to start making American females nervous? Enough to gain majority or significant swing vote to begin replacing your government and imposing their own theocracy? Would that be too many?
Ray,
"Are we moving away then from the teachings of the Qu'ran to the actions of those who are Muslims?"
No. You argued that offensive war was not Koranic. I pointed out that much of the greatest expansion of Islam took place under people who knew Muhammad or knew people who were his closest allies. The compilation that is the Koran was drawn up by the same people who were busily invading in all directions. It is hard to think of them as being wrong about Muhammad's intentions without undermining the whole nature of the Koran.
"There are current Christian terror groups, use the googles."
But how many of those are involved in forced conversions?
"Are we on the the one hand to blame the religion,"
Me? I blame no one. I was only seeking your view on whether Islamic teachings encourage military conquest and violence or that the consensus of Muslim scholars held that it didn't and those who do use violence are outside the true belief of Islam.
I don't know what you mean by anecdotal. History records that Muslim warriors invaded Egypt, marched across North Africa and eventually led to the conquest of Spain. Not to mention the invasion of France that was blunted at Tours. Unless you have some knowledge of Frankish aggression against Islam.
"If you want to get into a fight about which religion has killed more, which religion has done this and that...well...we'll be here all month."
Not my intention. I suspect that Christians have killed more people in the name of God. But today that is no longer the approach of the vast majority of Christians. Mainstream Christians cannot fall over themselves fast enough to apologize for everything from the Crusades to Columbus' voyages to the 30 Years War to slavery to Pat Robertson. Where is the similar public embrace of peace in the Muslim world?
"Why don't you look up how Muslims conquests differed from Christian conquests."
Conquest is, at heart, conquest. But thanks for agreeing with me that Islam is a conquering religion.
Does anybody remember that what set Osama Bin Laden off was the temerity of Americans to set foot in his homeland during the Gulf War, thus defiling the Holy Land. Never mind that the Saudi government was fine with our troops defending the country from possible Iraqi aggression; it only took one rich guy to put out the call and all of a sudden there's thousands of volunteers to fight the Great Satan, America. There was even had a sympathetic government in Afghanistan to offer shelter and encouragement. If only one tenth of one percent of muslims hate us enough to join a jihad, that's sixteen million that would actively wage war against us. So, how many of them are living here already, ready to go?
Gast, I think many choose to be blind to numbers or the effect of numbers when it comes to a subject like this. That is my point above: Numbers change everything. Numbers make it a whole new game. It is so easy, convenient, and profitable (for some) to go through life with short sight, never thinking ahead.
Our government is filled with such minds.
OK, right-wing-hypocrites-who-claim-to-revere-the-constitution-but-really-don't:
Here is what Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America syas about this subject (you can look it up, too):
"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States."
Pretty damn clear. Words like "ever" and "any" have not changed in meaning.
And since service in the military is a position of public trust under the United States, then I suppose anyone--except, of course a Limbaugh-listening dittohead moron, who can rationalize any hypocritical double standard--would understand that Womick's little fit of hysterical bigotry is absolutely and undeniably unconstitutional and an unworthy statement or suggestion from any electied official who, as part of his own oath of office, is "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (a provision also in Article VI, and you can look that up, too).
Let me see if I've got it. My son of Abraham can beat up your son of Abraham. However a Christian son, following the beating, will feel remorse and go soak in a cleansing deep water spring before he/she goes and beats someone elses butt(It is written). A Muslim, however, kicks butt with relish and will get his buddies together after a butt kicking and barbeque a goat. Then go kick some more butt(It is written). (And just to be fair a Jewish son feels guilty all the time and just wants to break something.) Therefore, under the US Constitution, kicking butt but feeling remorse is ok but kicking butt and barbequeing is not. Therefore never trust a son of Abraham who likes barbeque or let them serve in public office or join the military (Unless it's the 4th of July, then it's ok to nuke Iran and Barbeque without fear of retribution.)(It is written)
