That's a viewpoint that, thankfully, is not widespread in this day and age. Unfortunately, the words in this case were spoken by the man who crafted the anti-Sharia legislation which was put on the fast track this week in the Missouri House of Representatives.
In an article earlier this week, investigative magazine Mother Jones noted that the model legislation, which mirrors the anti-Sharia bill sponsored by Paul Curtman, R-Pacific, nearly word for word, was written by David Yerushalmi for the Public Policy Institute. From the Mother Jones article:
But it's not just Muslims who draw Yerushalmi's scorn. In a 2006 essay for SANE entitled On Race: A Tentative Discussion (pdf), Yerushalmi argued that whites are genetically superior to blacks. "Some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones," he wrote.
Yerushalmi has suggested that Caucasians are inherently more receptive to republican forms of government than blacks—an argument that's consistent with SANE's mission statement, which emphasizes that "America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white." And in an article published at the website Intellectual Conservative, Yerushalmi, who is Jewish, suggests that liberal Jews "destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite." Unsurprisingly, then, Yerushalmi offered the lone Jewish defense of Mel Gibson, after the actor’s anti-Semitic tirade in 2006. Gibson, he wrote, was simply noting the "undeniable Jewish liberal influence on western affairs in the direction of a World State."
3 comments:
Hi Mr. Turner it's Jessica Turner i was actualy looking for Joplin Highschools Mission Statement when i found this but i just wanted to comment and say hi!
Jessica, this is a nice surprise. It was good to see you at East the other day. I am glad you are doing well at JHS.
I'm posting the salient paragraph in this legislative language in hopes that some wise liberal can explain to me precisely WHAT is objectionable to it. It seems like it is simply state legislation that ensures the courts will honor the rights enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. I saw nothing in the entire language of the legislation directed at any one religion or group. So I ask: what part of our Bill of Rights do you find objectionable (besides the 2nd Amendment, of course)? Here is the language in question:
[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
Post a Comment