Rick Perry and IslamDaniel Greenfield has a lengthy analysis of Texas Governor Rick Perry's record on dealing with Islam and Muslims in his home state. He raises some valid concerns, but he also raises some concerns which I found irrelevant.
For instance, he worries that under Texas' Halal law (see signing above), which he admits is similar to Kosher laws in many states, militant Islamists may get to decide... whether meat is Halal or not.
Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.Not really. Is he suggesting that the statute should have named an organization? That would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is precisely why it's not done that way. Besides, the law is a consumer protection law, designed to make sure that there is some minimum standard. It doesn't preclude more than one authority and it doesn't mean that everyone has to accept one particular authority. There are plenty of 'rabbinic authorities' who have the right to advertise themselves as Kosher in New York and New Jersey (and Israel for that matter) whose Kashruth I would not trust."Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.
On the other hand, this point raised by Greenfield bothers me more.
As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.Well, yes. And unless we can elect someone like a Marco Rubio or Allen West - whose pro-Israel credentials are solid and long predate their running for President - we're going to see Presidents in the US who will come under pressure from the Arab world and who
At the end of the day, Greenfield has this right:
Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.Well, yes. But Palin's not running yet, and Gingrich and Cain have no chance (I guess Daniel did a quick edit to take Pawlenty out). Are Bachmann and Santorum electable? Because much as I like them, I'd rather have Perry (or Romney for that matter) than four more years of Obama (something from which - in my view - neither the US nor Israel is likely to recover in our lifetimes).
Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam-- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?
Read the whole thing.