What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Stop Muslim immigration for the sake of parental rights

Privilege implies responsibility. Conservatives realize quite well that it is not laws, or not laws alone, that best guard our freedoms but mutual trust and common understandings. Which is not to say that laws are unimportant. Indeed, they become more important the more mutual trust and common understandings go by the board.

The trust that people have in parents is a result of the fact that most parents don't abuse their children. The trust that people have in parents in raising their children is a result of a common understanding--however loose--of what constitutes good motherhood and fatherhood.

Conservatives are quite rightly concerned that parental rights be maintained. In fact, our best hope for influencing the future lies in the education and upbringing of our own children, and we rightly feel horrified and chilled by liberal statements to the effect that parents have no right to raise their children in ways that conflict with a liberal view of society.

For this reason, the Home School Legal Defense Association and its spin-off group, Parentalrights.org, constantly warn about possible dangers to parental rights and strongly urge support for a parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What does all of this have to do with Muslim immigration?

Consider the following problems: How well can you trust parents whose cultural context excuses honor killings? We now have in Canada a defense attorney about to argue that a murderer's sentence for the murder of two people should be lessened because of "provocation." What was the "provocation"? His sister got engaged without her family's approval. (See also here where Islam Said, brother of Texas honor-murder teenage victims Sarah and Amina, defends their father's actions.) How well can you trust parents who mount a Moroccan "cultural" defense of daughter-beating on the grounds that it was "for her good"? How well can you trust parents whose cultural context calls for genital mutilation of their young daughters, whether secretly in a Western country or on summer trips back to the homeland? (See here, here, here, here, and here, and that's just for starters.)

Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America.

All home schoolers know the harm it does to home schooling when there is some story in the media about a home schooled child (or supposedly home schooled child) who has been abused, about crazy parents who let their child die in a diabetic coma because they believe only in prayer for illness, and the like. It does harm to all parents' rights when trust in parents is undermined. And it undermines trust in parents when a particular culture routinely abuses that trust in ways that are understandably abhorrent to men of goodwill. Since liberals refuse to make any distinctions among cultures, abuses of parental authority and of the privacy of the family will simply lead to crackdowns on all parents. This is already the case in Germany, where home schooling is attacked on the grounds that it creates "parallel societies"--a clear allusion to German worries about unassimilated immigrants.

For this reason, those of us who support parental rights need to recognize the danger posed to us by the continual importation of people from an alien culture which excuses abuse and mistreatment of women and children. Our liberal enemies will never make distinctions. They will not say, "We should be especially alert to the danger of female genital mutilation among Somali immigrants." Instead, when they hear a story of a child narrowly saved from being taken back to Africa to be mutilated, they will say, "This is why all children need to be in school. So they can be watched by people outside of the family."

As things presently stand, membership in the Home School Legal Defense Association is not restricted to Christians. This has been to their credit in the past, and I am not urging them to change it. After all, changing this policy would mean, beyond doubt, endless wrangling over what constitutes a Christian, wrangling over creedal formulations, and questions about how to grandfather present members. Moreover, the HSLDA has such a strongly Christian (even Protestant evangelical) cultural "feel" to it that it is unlikely that a lot of Muslims will want to join. However, I do urge that the HSLDA consider and try to head off the worrisome possibility that they might end up having to defend a Muslim family that really was abusing its children for cultural reasons. One possible approach would be to publish articles alluding (with or without naming Islam) to religious defenses of child and wife beating, mutilation, and honor killing and expressly stating that the organization will not defend any member if the organization's own lawyers become convinced that the member has in fact committed such abuses.

Beyond that, the time has come for conservative American parents to consider the danger posed to them by immigrant cultures that, to put it bluntly, make traditionalist parents look bad. It is in our interests to support the ending of Muslim immigration, thereby blocking a route by which the public will plausibly be made suspicious of parental rights and of countercultural groups.

Comments (179)

"Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America.
.........
It is in our interests to support the ending of Muslim immigration, thereby blocking a route by which the public will plausibly be made suspicious of parental rights and of countercultural groups"

I hope this is some type of provocative statement meant to stimulate a discussion, and not your true opinion. If it is your opinion I am simply stunned.

Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America.

How can anybody who've written a thing like that, sensibly claim that she wants to guard "our freedoms"? Wake up, Lydia! Free yourself from all these islamo- homo- and liberalophobic demons.
True - there certainly will be people who will eagerly exploit (the all in all: rare cases of) honor murder and genital mutilation in America or Europe for their evil (anti-home-schooling) goals, but you cannot sensibly offer this as an argument for cleaning the US from muslim immigrants, let alone citizens! Come to your senses, some passages of your post are on the edge of fascism.

I said nothing about citizens. What to do about the past orgy of "non-discrimination" in immigration and the result--communities in America full of Muslim citizens--is something for which I do not have a solution to sell. We (Americans on immigration) were stupid. Stupidity has consequences. But that doesn't mean we have to _keep on_ down the same road.

There is nothing about freedom _within_ the United States that calls for our having open borders and allowing indiscriminate immigration _into_ the United States. To the contrary. In numerous situations (think airport security) the more indiscriminate our immigration policy, the fewer freedoms we have within our own country. I mean to point out in the main post that this principle, which has been noted in other contexts, applies also to the freedom of families to be left alone and raise their children. Just as the freedom of travelers not to be patted down and bugged has been compromised by bombers who abuse that freedom, so too, I believe, our freedom as families to raise our children as we see fit will likely be compromised by the presence of people who abuse that freedom. Therefore, we should stop importing more and more people from cultures known to encourage such abuses.

Therefore, we should stop importing more and more people from cultures known to encourage such abuses.

Or we could just remind new immigrants not to break our laws.

Oh, yah, a _reminder_. That'll do it. I could post link after link after link here from (among other places) England--to which we would do well to take heed--about how immigrants somehow "forget" not to break laws against terrorizing, beating, murdering, and mutilating their young women and wives. Somehow culture matters. There isn't magic in the mere fact of landing on a soil with laws that conflict with one's cultural background. Who'd a thunk it?

I am not convinced. Lydia. What would you say, if liberals were trying to bar roman catholic latinoamericans from immigration because their conservative attitudes tend to agressively interfere with an ouvertly homosexual way of life - thereby threatening our freedoms? I guess, you were the first to protest - and rightly so!
There is another severe problem with your "argument". It does not discriminate between religion and culture. But neither genital mutilation nor honor murder are generally approved of in present Islam - quite the contrary. They are a problem mainly of rural regions. However, you are eager to construe a kind of kin liability for the muslim lawyer or University professor at Istanbul, Kairo or Teheran as well, which is simply absurd. The only explanation for this, I am afraid to say, is that you want to play the islamophobic card, thereby in fact undermining religious freedom, which should, of course, include without reservation all people who do not deliberately harm others. The latter holds, believe it or not, for the vast majority of Muslims.

They are a problem mainly of rural regions.

I hear that a lot, but the problems arise again and again and again in Muslim immigrant communities in the West. Including those who do not live in "rural regions." You deal with that issue. It isn't my problem. I'm recognizing the correlation and not trying to use special pleading to get around it.

Your point about homosexual-sympathizing immigration laws is...curious. Perhaps you are under the impression that _truth_ is irrelevant to our public policy and in particular to immigration policy? You know, like the truth that honor-murdering your daughter or sister is _bad_ but voting against homosexual "marriage" is _not_ bad? Guess what: Conservatives are not obligated to ignore moral facts in making their public policy recommendations. Some sort of morally neutral non-discriminatory-between-worldviews meta-policy is _not_ a necessary part of conservatism. In fact, such a meta-policy is inimical to conservatism.

By the way, Mr. Worried, words ending in -phobic have the effect of making me want to roll about on the floor and laugh derisively, which is probably not the effect you intend in using them over and over again.

-phobia - an irrational, intense, disabling fear

WorriedAboutLydia: I'm worried about you. You misunderstand the meaning of the word Islamaphobia and you are ignorant about the facts of the the Islamic religion. You clearly have not read the Koran nor the hadith - otherwise you would know of the sanctions of behavior that we in the west rightly detest.

Islam is a religion, a culture, and a totalitarian system that is anathema to the foundations of western civilization. It is rightly detested, not irrationally feared.

Come on, Lydia, I was trying to make some serious points and you react with poor polemics.

1. Since you are identifying genital mutilation with Islam in general, it is your problem to show some evidence for this claim. Just to repeat it three times like Alan will not suffice. (Look at the Wikipedia article for a first try and you will find that things are not as simple as you think.)

2. Given your answer to my thought experiment concerning latinoamerican immigration, you obviously think, that if the liberal sincerely holds that an homosexual way of life has equal worth, he can justifiedly use your kind of argument to bar conservative Christians from immigration. Do you really want to say that?? Liberals as well as Conservatives

are not obligated to ignore moral facts in making their public policy recommendations.

3. You do not care whether I call you an islamophobic or not, that is you do not care whether one might think that you hate Muslims just for being Muslims. If so, I guess, this might be your problem, too. Have a good laugh.

Good thoughts on how the HSLDA should prepare now.

Regarding immigration, I tend to believe that doing things the right way is always better than doing things the easier way, so I wouldn't support a blanket prohibition of all Muslim immigration since I would hope that candidates screened to meet a certain cultural standard would assimilate--and they certainly should be screened, and we probably should screen more stringently.

That said, I'm not sure our culture is strong enough at this point to assimilate them rather than the other way around, but in that case, the U.S. doesn't deserve to continue its existence, sadly. I won't let the country go down without a fight, but neither would I support a blanket prohibition. A more robust set of screening requirements seems more practical. But until we can even enforce what border laws we have by persuading others of the validity of concerns, this is all just theoretical talk.

hmyer:

Or we could just remind new immigrants not to break our laws.
This kind of naivete reminds me of Dubya's naivete in assuming that the Iraqis would instantly turn into Jeffersonian democrats once Saddam was removed from power. Culture doesn't change that easily. My guess is the root of your disagreement with Lydia concerns precisely where Muslims are, culturally speaking, when they immigrate. Are they at a point where a simple reminder will suffice? Either that or you really do think a people's culture can change instantly.

------------------------------

At any rate, I think the question of what proportion of Muslims are radical is, practically speaking, pointless. A more fruitful avenue of discussion would be concerning a more robust screening requirements for citizens that would distinguish between acceptable candidates and unacceptable candidates. Being a natural born citizen, I'm not sure of what the requirements for gaining citizenship are, but it would be interesting to hear thoughts on how they could be improved to address radical ideologies.

This is already the case in Germany, where home schooling is attacked on the grounds that it creates "parallel societies"--a clear allusion to German worries about unassimilated immigrants.

The German law against homeschooling dates back to the Nazi period. Hitler didn't like the notion that non-Nazis were getting exclusive access to their kids' minds.

Beyond that, the time has come for conservative American parents to consider the danger posed to them by immigrant cultures that, to put it bluntly, make traditionalist parents look bad. It is in our interests to support the ending of Muslim immigration, thereby blocking a route by which the public will plausibly be made suspicious of parental rights and of countercultural groups.

While I generally agree with you on the ending of Islamic immigration, I think this is a poor reason to do so. The left's only motive for attacking parental rights is that they need access to as many kids as possible to brainwash them.

With regard to moderates, to paraphrase Brian from Family Guy, there is no political block more stupid than moderates and undecided voters. I don't think it would even occur to your average moderate that there is a link between Muslim primitive cultural practices and American traditionalists, as would happen with the left in their futile attempt to make their opposition look bad.

I am not convinced. Lydia. What would you say, if liberals were trying to bar roman catholic latinoamericans from immigration because their conservative attitudes tend to agressively interfere with an ouvertly homosexual way of life - thereby threatening our freedoms? I guess, you were the first to protest - and rightly so!

To make that equivocation, you'd have to first prove that the average conservative hispanic believes that it should be considered right and legal to use force to stop people from all homosexual acts, including non-legally-binding homosexual marriages. However, many studies have shown that a significant number of Western Muslims do hold views on matters of Islamic culture and law which are not very far divorced from their ancestral lands. Based on that, one could make a better case that many Muslims probably tacitly or fully support the violent repression of women than one could that the average conservative Hispanic supports the use violence to repress homosexuals.

WorriedaboutLydia:

Do you really want to say that??
Why wouldn't she want to say that? "Liberals" don't have any good rational arguments concerning the morality of homosexual acts, which is precisely why they, like you, try to sidestep the issue by making (certain disfavored) moral judgments off-limits in public policy. If you don't believe me, try arguing in favor of the morality of homosexual acts on this website.

It is the "liberal" who fears rational argument concerning morality precisely because he (incorrectly) presupposes the fundamentally irrationality of morality. Conservatives are fine with making moral arguments and are increasingly pointing out the hypocrisy of liberal who pretend to be morally neutral in public but propagate in fact their own moral vision of society resting on liberal moral values.

Mike T, if you look at the article I linked about Germany, you will see that _right now_ German officials are making remarks about how home schooling is bad because the state has an interest in preventing the rise of "parallel societies." Sure, the history of the German hatred of home schooling (and independent families!) is a lot older than that. Heck, the Prussian system of mandatory public schooling predates Hitler by a long way and was in fact a model for American mandatory public schooling. But the point is that present concerns that are obviously a result of trouble with immigrant assimilation are right now being used as arguments against legalizing home schooling. And if such a connection would never occur to the moderates (and maybe right now it wouldn't), give it time. Their liberal controllers will have no trouble introducing the talking point in the schools, colleges, etc., later on.

Albert, I think one question is why the burden of "screening" in that way should be upon the host country. Why do we have some sort of duty to admit some percentage of people from a particular religious group, so that we are obliged to try to find some way of telling which of them are likely to have undesirable qualities that we _know_ are encouraged by their cultural background? I just don't see this. It would be, to my mind, incredibly hard to find some way of "screening" people who are likely to excuse honor-murdering their daughters, taking their daughters back to Afghanistan for forced marriage, mutilating their daughters, and the like. It's not like people go around with, "I don't think honor murder is really all that bad" written on their foreheads, and it's not like they have to answer questions on a form truthfully. But if they are from regions and cultures that we _know_ tend to treat such crimes leniently and to make culture-based excuses for them, we should take that into account.

A few threads down, someone asked if I was calling Lydia a racist. Ha! Jumped the gun on that one!

Your worries here depend on everyone who disagrees with you being dumb, just plain dumb, so dumb that it would be remarkable if they could hold down jobs. Why gleefully wallow in strawmen like this?

It's now "racist" to point out issues with Muslim cultural attitudes. Since when is Islam a race, anyway? But y'know, they do that in England. Criticize Islam and you're a "racist." Gosh, I'm so impressed and upset. And notice that another commentator here wants me to notice (as though I didn't know) that many African animists also engage in FGM. Yep, I knew that. But I suppose pointing that out would be even more "racist" than focusing on the problems with Muslim immigrant cultures. You just can't win if you criticize any non-Western cultural practices. It ain't allowed.

Are the saner contributors to this site going to weigh in on this one? I'd love to know what Paul, Jeff, Steve, Zippy Catholic, Francis, and Ed have to say about this. Is this about the time they abandon ship and start up a new blog?

By the way, Mike, I know you aren't dumb. Most post-modernists of your sort have quite high IQ's. But that doesn't mean they are anything other than completely messed up--and deliberately so--on a whole bunch of issues. Who was it that said there are some things so foolish that only really intelligent people can believe them?

I resent being referred to as one of the "saner contributors" to W4.

There is another severe problem with your "argument". It does not discriminate between religion and culture.

It now seems like it was light years ago that men knew Islam was a religion and a totalitarian ideological political movement that could not be separated. I guess the reality has been dissolved in the ideological solvents of relativism and non-discrimination.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm

...Religion and the State are not separated in Islam. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence, civil and criminal, is mainly based on the Koran and on the "Traditions". Thousands of judicial decisions are attributed to Mohammed and incorporated in the various collections of Hadith. Mohammed commanded reverence andobedience to parents, and kindness to wives and slaves. Slander and backbiting are strongly denounced, although false evidence is allowed to hide a Moslem's crime and to save his reputation or life....

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

Over at, View From the Right, great ideas abound vis a vis allowing Muslims immigration America. I see what Lawrence Auster describes as the deadly liberal principle of non-discrimination is already being exercised in here.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011473.html

Kudos, Lydia. You are standing-up in defense of your own country. Expect violent and nasty opposition.



Behold the ratchet effect at work! What was plain commonsense within living memory (countries should not admit large numbers of immigrants with values opposed to our own) is now unspeakable.

Ten years from now, the WorriedAboutLydias will be likewise horrified by her retrograde opposition to polyamorous homosexual adoption, and will urge the other blog contributors to pull the plug.

It does seem to me that American society group-think has a bit of a jamb, as presently constituted:

1. We'd never accept, in general, the idea that we must "convert" people when it comes to social mores/beliefs.

2. We'd never accept, in general, discrimination against certain social mores/beliefs.

Well if our distaste for "conversion" on the one hand and "discrimination" (in this case, prosecuting "actions good according to your beliefs" which happen to be "bad according to our almost-equally valid beliefs") on the other place us in a bind, we need some sort of pre-emptive. I guess Lydia is saying of the apparent alternatives, she'll take "circumvent by not letting those beliefs/social mores into our society" because it has fewer negative side effects.

I think the better approach (and hopefully one that won't get us put on a gov't watch list) is just to reject "problem 1." We can do so modestly, without upsetting people by trumpeting one way of life over another "absolutely." I think we should simply be unafraid to say, "In this matter, when it comes to treatment of women, respect for personal liberty, freedom to act on the dictates of conscience, and the like, 'our' way of life is better. If you want to live and work side-by-side with us, you need to accept that. You'll find that it really is better, and you don't have to give up the good things of your culture to do it. And if you break the laws we enact to protect those things, you'll go to jail."

If our country doesn't actually think those things inside my fictional quote, then there's nothing really else to argue about.

Albert, I think one question is why the burden of "screening" in that way should be upon the host country. Why do we have some sort of duty to admit some percentage of people from a particular religious group, so that we are obliged to try to find some way of telling which of them are likely to have undesirable qualities that we _know_ are encouraged by their cultural background?

How about because of the Biblical injunction to be merciful to the foreigner in your land, and to treat travelers with kindness?

I do believe that we need to crack down on immigration in a serious way, at first making sure that illegals don't come here at all (fence, wall, shooting zone, dogs, minefields, all of the above are OK with me). Then making sure that those who come here legally are here appropriately (not taking flying lessons but forgetting to learn how to land, hmmm?) I am all for screening out people who will not follow the laws of the land, and if they don't like those laws, they are not welcome. (Those who have already become citizens and who don't like the laws have a method of changing them. If you are not yet a citizen you have no standing to comment on them, so if you don't like them, go back to where you DO like the laws.)

The reality is that America is much more a set of ideals than it is a place, and in agreeing to take in immigrants we have just much right (actually, more) to maintain those ideals from being damaged or torn down as we do to protect our physical integrity. We have no obligation to be open to receiving people who will destroy those ideals. Even if they do it merely by coming here and pushing on the culture to assimilate to them. Even if they do it inadvertently by not realizing just how much their ideals are contrary to ours. Even if they do it (once here) in ways that are not overtly illegal. The point is that we have a legal and moral right to refuse admittance to those who will do us harm, and those rights may be applied in ways that are legitimate with respect to foreigners that will become illegal once they are residents. So apply them when we can, before they are here. So, basically I agree with Lydia's main point.

Unfortunately, I don't think that identifying a person as having Islamic heritage is sufficient, by itself, to show that he is someone whose presence will "do us harm". We turned away Jewish refugees from Europe in the early days of WWII, to our great shame, because of doubts about assimilation and such concerns. I don't think we can use a broadcast, one-size-fits all method to do this.

In the current political and legal climate, I don't see any method at all working, but that's another issue of course. What method will work best is not the same question as what methods are we allowed to put on the table for discussion.

In illustrating why Islamic culture is utterly inimical to our own, it's probably apposite to quote from Ali Allawi's recent book The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. The author, in attempting to prescribe a way forward for Islamic cultures, argues that notions of individuality and human rights are alien to Islamic theology (excerpted from Spengler's recent review in Asia Times):

In classic Islamic doctrine, the problem of the nature of the individual as an autonomous entity endowed with free will simply does not arise outside of the context of the individual's ultimate dependence on God. The Arabic word for "individual" - al-fard - does not have the commonly understood implication of a purposeful being, imbued with the power of rational choice. Rather, the term carries the connotation of singularity, aloofness or solitariness. The power of choice and will granted to the individual is more to do with the fact of acquiring these from God, at the point of a specific action or decision - the so-called iktisab - rather than the powers themselves which are not innate to natural freedoms or rights. Al-fard is usually applied as one of the attributes of supreme being, in the sense of an inimitable uniqueness. It is usually grouped with others of God's attributes (such as in the formula al-Wahid, al-Ahad, al-Fard, al-Samad: The One in essence, state and being, and the everlasting), to establish the absolute transcendence of the divine essence. Man is simply unable to acquire any of these essential attributes ... Therefore, to claim the right and the possibility of autonomous action without reference to the source of these in God is an affront.

Western civilization is (even now) fundamentally Christian in its values and assumptions, even among its most fervent internal enemies on the political left. Our notions of individual rights are rooted in our belief that human beings possess the innate property of free will, as granted by God. Muslims do not come close to sharing these values (though they make use of them when convenient), are often openly hostile and derisive towards them, and expecting them to come around is not far short of expecting them to convert to Christianity.

How about because of the Biblical injunction to be merciful to the foreigner in your land, and to treat travelers with kindness?

The Bible also had an injunction about foreigners obeying the laws of Israel when in Israel, including abstaining from the worship of pagan deities, and to become a traveler in this age, one must first gain legal access to a country. If a country's government denies them that opportunity, then nothing the Bible says on travelers would apply.

How about because of the Biblical injunction to be merciful to the foreigner in your land, and to treat travelers with kindness?

Tony, I just can't agree that those sorts of Biblical injunctions mean, "You cannot use 'Muslim' as a negative group indicator in making immigration admission decisions." It just doesn't follow. Nobody is recommending being unkind to travelers and foreigners. I'm recommending having fewer travelers and foreigners here in the first place who fall into group designations known to be correlated with culture-specific negative behaviors. Immigration decisions have to be made on some basis, and it is just naive to think we can or should try to sort through individual-by-individual and separate all the good guys from the bad guys, the probable bad guys, the potentially radicalizable guys, etc. Nothing in the Bible obligates us to try such an impossible task. We're going to have to make some rough cuts. I see nothing un-Christian about using various cultural markers, including religion, for purposes of such decision-making.

Nyssan recommends telling immigrants that they do have to obey our laws and prosecuting them if they don't. Certainly, for people who are here, we have to do that. It's unnerving to see ways in which cultural excuses are, in fact, corrupting Western judicial systems, as in the Italian and Canadian cases mentioned in the main post. We all know that defending attorneys often bring up far-fetched extenuations. Now, "His sister violated his family honor by getting engaged without their permission, and he just couldn't stand it" is the latest. It might have been expected.

But for the most part, the first response of Western governments _has_ been to investigate and prosecute honor killings, genital mutilation, and the like. But that just isn't a solution by itself. For one thing, it is just foolish to keep on burdening the system with more and more problems the social services and law enforcement systems have to deal with. Murderers are often defended by the communities, foiling law enforcement efforts and stone-walling. In England, the social services and law enforcement have been sufficiently infiltrated by people sympathetic to "the families" that girls are sometimes betrayed when they run away. FGM is performed in secret, or girls are taken away from the country without warning for FGM or forced marriage, which is a _very_ hard thing to catch or prevent. And on and on. We are not obligated to keep on importing these pathologies into our communities and just telling law enforcement, "You deal with it. That's what you're there for." Secondly, the more we do that, as the main post points out, the more we undermine trust in the family and cause notions like religion and family privacy to be regarded as cover-ups for abuse. That's what liberals _already_ think. They already talk like any Christian family that doesn't buy feminism has the woman barefoot, pregnant, and chained to pieces of kitchen furniture. Now along comes a religion the leaders of which approve of wife beating, etc., a culture that looks _far too much_ like the liberal caricature of conservative Christianity, and I guarantee you, this is going to be used against conservative Christians. "See, that's what religious conservatism and raising your children to support your values really mean!"

Then what will happen to the person fleeing his Islamic country because he is thinking about converting to a form of Islam that is frowned upon by his rulers, or is thinking about becoming a Christian, or a Jew, or just does not want to be bound by a religion that is so irrational at root (because he is a good philosopher, say).

Lydia, I will admit that by right of sovereignty, the US has the right to refuse him admittance, on any grounds or none at all. But if we are going to use his Islamic background as the initial cut, then he will never get a chance for us to ask more telling questions, and we will never hear his reasons, and we will turn away someone who might have been a real boon to our society. (Such as, someone who can interpret the Islamicists to us so we can deal with them effectively).

While we CAN use a broad-cutting tool, and we have the legal RIGHT to do so, I don't think it is the sort of thing we want to do. Of, if we do, only for a very limited time, under strict scrutiny.

To be fair, I think that your concern is exactly why God told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites when moving in. He wanted to get rid of the damaging influence those left behind would be to the Israelites, something we see time and again in the Kings / Chronicles. This was certainly the broad stroke approach to a problem, and God commanded it, so it does have precedent.

Tony, I just can't agree that those sorts of Biblical injunctions mean, "You cannot use 'Muslim' as a negative group indicator in making immigration admission decisions." It just doesn't follow.

It doesn't follow because if you read the part of the OT that he is referencing, the Bible specifies that a condition of receiving permission to stay in Israel was obeying the criminal laws of Israel and not worshiping foreign gods. Under the very text he cites in defense of his position, Muslims would have no right to live in a region governed by that text.

I would say that this is a typical "error of philosophy" that one finds in the high churches, wherein they pooh-pooh the idea of taking the scriptures at face value, and instead twist them until the spirit of the text vaguely resembles their argument.

Lydia, I will admit that by right of sovereignty, the US has the right to refuse him admittance, on any grounds or none at all. But if we are going to use his Islamic background as the initial cut, then he will never get a chance for us to ask more telling questions, and we will never hear his reasons, and we will turn away someone who might have been a real boon to our society. (Such as, someone who can interpret the Islamicists to us so we can deal with them effectively).

I've met people from Islamic countries who had no problem admitting, when confronted in a setting where they were free from reprisal, that they rejected Islam. Back home they were, to Islam, what the conversos were to the Catholic Church in the 1490s. I think the telling point for any immigration agent would be to put a plate of fresh, well-cooked bacon and a tall glass of beer in front of them, get them to down the whole thing and say that Mohammed was a pedophile who no one in their right mind would emulate.

It's now "racist" to point out issues with Muslim cultural attitudes.

Well, Lydia might not herself be racist; however, it shouldn't be inconceivably surprising that certain people happen to find her entries of this sort themselves "racist" given its tenor and the fact it happens to target a certain people; more specifically, people of a certain religion.

I would think that had leftists likewise done the same and generated similar articles specifically targeting Christians themselves, who in their fear of our creating a theocratic nation, that they would make illegal the subsequent entry of any foreign nationals hailing from the Christian religion; that we would likewise vent such opposition and rage towards its author.

Yet, seldom is such empathy demonstrated; particularly amongst those purportedly Christian themselves.

Tony, could there ever be sufficient reasons for exceptions to rules of thumb about non-admission of Muslims to the U.S.? Sure. Every rule has to be applied by people who can see extraordinary times to make an exception. Your ex-Muslim philosopher example wouldn't matter anyway, because he is no longer a Muslim. But I think we've been far, far too inclined to assume that the benefits of Muslim immigration outweigh the disadvantages, or even that we are bound to admit people because they _might_ convert, or _might_ assimilate, or _might_ help us understand their co-religionists, or whatever. It seems to me that we have to look, empirically, at how that's working out, especially in countries that are much smaller than the U.S. where the effects are magnified--sort of experimental opportunities for observation. And I think the results are very telling and are negative as far as the wisdom of current non-discriminatory-on-the-basis-of-religion-and-culture immigration policy.

Stop Muslim immigration for the sake of parental rights

Wouldn't it have been better to say for the sake of preserving the last remaining vestiges of Western civilization and pretense to cultural cohesion than making the case under the rubric of parental rights?

Besides, I could easily see dual legal systems operating. One for the denizens of McWorld based on secular materialism and liberal proceduralism, the other being Sharia as proof of our multicultural sensitivity and infinite tolerance for all things not Christian.


You know who else has a long history of familial violence that could (and has) been used as a justification for clamping down on parental rights? Men. Maybe we should stop allowing them to immigrate, too.

The reality is that America is much more a set of ideals than it is a place

I've got some, ah-hem, land for sale, if you're interested.

Lydia may not be a racist? That certainly is lavish praise.

Lydia, (even though you did not mention a race)if you do want to be able to wear the mantle of racist, you have got to, for instance, include Semitic Christians and not just Semitic Muslims,in those you do not want to let immigrate into America.

So far, you are a miserable failure at being a racist.

By the way, something I want to challenge here is what one might call the criminal-justice model of immigration. What I mean by this is the unspoken assumption that not giving somebody a visa and permission to enter and work in the U.S. is an individual punishment and therefore can't justly be applied without proving an individual crime or, at a minimum, a specific problem with _that individual_. I think this is just a misguided way of looking at immigration. It's not as though everyone who wants to come and live and work on these shores automatically, by mere request, places himself within our justice system in such a way that we now owe him, qua individual, a detailed and individualized justification for not admitting him. That's just crazy. We cannot possibly operate that way. Yet I think a lot of times objections to any sort of use of _data_, specifically, data about groups, for guiding immigration practice, are based on this unspoken assumption.

I Am Spartacus:

Perhaps I should've employed the word "bigoted"?

I only continued to use the term "racist" in order to allude to sentiments earlier expressed/implied by certain participants.

Although, as I mentioned before, if the shoe were on the other foot, I wonder to what extent you yourself would describe such an author and/or their writings that with such inflammatory speech vehemently expressed the incredible desire to make illegal the entry of any Christian foreign nationals due to their overwhelming fear that such Christians might very well transform America into a dreadfully hostile theocratic nation formed after their own image?

Is bigotry only acceptable to you when it targets other religions/peoples of a certain religion?

Aristocles, bigotry is by definition irrational. I simply do not understand why people seem to think they can make these facile equivalences. The truth is that Christians _don't_ defend mutilating their daughters by reference to their religion and culture, _don't_ have a contemporary cultural context of "honor killing" (did you know that in Jordan you get a much reduced sentence for an honor killing?), and so forth. That's why it would be bigoted to try to block the immigration of all Christians. This is just a matter of observing evidence and being rational. We can't make all groups equal and make all noting of group characteristics "bigotry" just by foot-stamping.

I appreciate your writings, Lydia. Thank you.

isocles. I wouldn't use the word "bigot" to describe any American who had the common sense to exclude from immigration into America those who Faith commanded them to impose Sharia Law on their host country.

I'd use another word ending in "ot" to describe such a person, "patriot."

Wouldn't it have been better to say

Kevin, I don't think that is necessarily _better_. There are many angles on this immigration thing, and I think the one in this post is a new and important one. As I said, we've seen it already in airport security: You let people into the country willy-nilly and then count on the police (or security at some level) to protect everybody and enforce the laws. It should be self-evident that in a fallen world this is the straight road to a police state. I'm just not sure that the application of that insight to the privacy of the family and the domestic violence aspects of foreign cultures has occurred to some people. And believe me, if the opportunity of Western Christian parents to control the education and upbringing of their children is overthrown, the "last remaining vestiges of Western civilization" will be one of the first and worst casualties!

My post came across as a naive pie-in-the-sky stuff, partially because I sent quickly and partially because a 7th-grader was jabbering in my ear (and partially because I'm naive).

I think that Lydia's post highlights a genuine problem: the collision of some of our own societal forces and internal problems meeting a different way of seeing the world, ethics, duty, law, etc. There is certainly some serious pragmatism to what she suggests, and I take very seriously her point about dumping the problem on law enforcement as being worst alternative available.

What I should have said more clearly is that we should attack the underlying pathologies in our own society that make it a problem in the first place--progressive notions that conversion and "discrimination" are bad. To put this site's slogan into action: combat "Jihadism" by defeating "progressive liberalism."

Does that solve the problem of immigrants forming urban enclaves and perpetuating "Old World" practices antithetical to our way of life? No. But at least it takes off the table the force that stops our most effective means of dealing with it.

No one in their right mind wants to assimilate with our godless, materialist, capitalist culture. That's easy to resist. But resisting a culture that champions the various virtues I outlined above? I think assimilation of that kind works and wins the war in the only way that it can be won. I worry that sealing the borders to keep the infidel out leads to military "solutions" in the long run.

Lydia:

As before, I think you neither racist nor bigot; however, you cannot simply dismiss the opinions of certain individuals who, because of your most recent entry here (as well as many other similar online publications authored by your person in the past), happen to deem you as such.

At worst, your entry comes off as bigoted. I only hesitate to call you a bigot yourself due to my past interactions with you, which would seem to suggest otherwise.

Yet, you will have to forgive me if to me it would seem that you are simply resting your principles on what appears to be something of a double standard.

Many Brits I happen to know cringed quite spectacularly at the very mention of John Kerry's "God Bless America" speech just a few years ago.

To them, it seemed America was morphing into an increasingly theocratic nation on the verge of playing into the menacing grips of a tyrannically Christian dominated government, let alone, society.

That fear is as very real to them as the one which you yourself have expressed here concerning the Mohammedans.

Either way, it does no good to dwell on bigotry (worse yet, to act principally on it) in order to advance our supposedly noble cause.

Now, if we were talking about certain terrorists -- that would be an entirely different story altogether...

Lydia:

Albert, I think one question is why the burden of "screening" in that way should be upon the host country. Why do we have some sort of duty to admit some percentage of people from a particular religious group, so that we are obliged to try to find some way of telling which of them are likely to have undesirable qualities that we _know_ are encouraged by their cultural background? I just don't see this.
It's certainly the case that no foreigner or people group has a right, as a matter of justice, to U.S. citizenship. I was merely pointing out that any immigration process necessarily requires some form of screening, so we might as well think constructively about how we might improve our lackluster process. Rejecting all Muslims outright is one option, but will not likely be passed (what about the Muslims currently in the U.S.?).

A more realistic option would be to screen for particular beliefs by asking general questions about the rights of women and religious freedom. They could lie, but then again they could lie about being Muslim and say they're Arab Christians or white British agnostics (if they're Anglo converts) or whatever. I also think there are moderate Muslims who would assimilate, and considering we ought to revamp our immigration system anyway, there wouldn't be additional costs that wouldn't already be paid anyway.

It would be, to my mind, incredibly hard to find some way of "screening" people who are likely to excuse honor-murdering their daughters, taking their daughters back to Afghanistan for forced marriage, mutilating their daughters, and the like. It's not like people go around with, "I don't think honor murder is really all that bad" written on their foreheads, and it's not like they have to answer questions on a form truthfully. But if they are from regions and cultures that we _know_ tend to treat such crimes leniently and to make culture-based excuses for them, we should take that into account.
Why would it be harder to screen for particular beliefs than to ascertain whether they are Muslims? If they are willing to deny their obedience to Allah in honor killings, then they'll be just as likely to call themselves Christians or agnostics and bypass your Muslim test. If your test is a regional test instead, there are plenty of non-Muslims in majority Muslim regions of the world. Would you exclude your Christian Arab brothers and sisters?
Many Brits I happen to know cringed quite spectacularly at the very mention of John Kerry's "God Bless America" speech just a few years ago.

This is because Brits believe large amounts of disinformation about what America is like. The fear is "real to them"? Well, bully for them. I don't believe in "real to..." locutions. A statement is either true or false. The statement that America is morphing into a theocracy with a tyrannically Christian-dominated government is ludicrous, an absolute joke, and the fact that left-soaked Euros and Brits have been taught to believe such nonsense about America from childhood up doesn't make it something we have to ponder over or something that should modify our policy recommendations.

And believe me, if the opportunity of Western Christian parents to control the education and upbringing of their children is overthrown

Lydia, isn't this the end-game for Liberalism; the complete erasure of Christianity from our civilizational DNA? If mass immigration from Islamic cultures helps facilitate the process, all the better.

The Liberal is convinced the Moslem will be subsumed within the McDonald's, Microsoft, MTV social construct and give up his prayer mat for lap dances in due course. It is a gamble, but one he is happy to make.

To clarify, I don't oppose an immigration policy that is selective with respect to cultural beliefs and practices that are antithetical to U.S. political values, institutions, and laws. To deny that an immigration policy ought to be at some level selective in this manner is to deny that both culture and politics matter for a polis, which is retarded. This is really the underlying issue at stake, and the question is to what extent foreign Muslim identity is antithetical to U.S. political values and institutions, not whether Lydia hates people with brown skin. Some commentators are confused on this matter.

Nevertheless, there are better and worse ways to form a policy, and I'm uncertain that Lydia's suggestion is as fruitful as mine, though I could certainly be mistaken.

I am Spartacus:

isocles. I wouldn't use the word "bigot" to describe any American who had the common sense to exclude from immigration into America those who Faith commanded them to impose Sharia Law on their host country.

I'd use another word ending in "ot" to describe such a person, "patriot."


Aside from the remarkably puerile gesture on your part (by the way, are you perchance still kindergarten where such playground tactics usually won for you your childish disputes? do you still engage in tantrums in order that your da-da and ma-ma succumb to your expressed wishes), if you are even in the least capable of adult conversation; then kindly provide answer to my previous inquiry --

If the liberal, secular forces of society were to advocate similar measures/attitudes concerning Christians for fear of being subjected to what they themselves fear the tyranny of imposed Christian morality upon the masses through what they perceive as the ever-increasing population (and, therefore, power) of a Christian majority that they fear is already dominating politics to the extent of predominantly influencing government, government policy & even law itself; if these were, in fact, to act in the very same manner as you have above, would you yourself not find such behaviour unacceptable & even bigoted, were they to propose and, even further, implement certain measures that would also call for blocking the immigration of Christian foreign nationals and stamp out this perceived (and perhaps even paranoid) threat of Christian dictatorship in America?

Just practically speaking, Albert, I think it would be easier to tell if someone were Muslim--more likely for there to be an independent trail and so forth--than to figure out whether he was answering truthfully to specific questions about his beliefs on the treatment of women, sharia, etc.

You ask if I would exclude my "Arab Christian brothers and sisters." Well, I have to say that we just need to slow down immigration altogether. But there are other issues there too that I'd rather not get into in this thread. Suffice it to say that I think Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch (or used to be? he hasn't posted there in a couple of months) is onto something when he uses the concept of Islamo-Christians. And that's all I'll say about that for now.

But I will say right now that given especially our present President but also (sadly) our previous President, these _are_ all theoretical discussions, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The thing is, though, as Auster is always saying, it's worth getting the ideas out there among conservatives, circulating them. One has to start somewhere.

The thing is, though, as Auster is always saying, it's worth getting the ideas out there among conservatives, circulating them.

How's Auster's circulation holding up after the Pope's "Tear down this Wall" speech in the Palestinian territories today? He must be a darker shade of purple and gearing up his readership for a late-night assault against the Vatican.

So we're gonna threadjack this to a discussion of Israel and the Pope? Not on my watch. I know your opinions about Israel, Kevin, and you know mine (I'm pretty sure). That's not what we're going to discuss here and now.

Lydia, you brought Auster's Army into it, but fair enough. We agree on the effects of multiculturalism and our immigration policies.

The Liberal is convinced the Moslem will be subsumed within the McDonald's, Microsoft, MTV social construct and give up his prayer mat for lap dances in due course. It is a gamble, but one he is happy to make.

I think this one is way off the mark Kevin. The liberal's (no doubt) tender and brimming heart dictates that integration is the last thing that is needed, let alone is it any cause for us to hold our breath gambling about. The whole point of their position, and the most fundamental error in this whole debate, is that that there is no gamble: integration is not requisite to being American.

To the broad minds on the left, expecting others to come into a country and actually want to emulate anything about it, is much too onerous and narrow.

I'm surprised that no one has attacked Lydia yet on the grounds that this is just a rehash of past American nativism. While I can't speak for her, I think this should be pre-empted by placing the crux on integration. One of the many consequences of the identity crisis that has paralyzed America for the past sixty years is the pervasive sentiment that Americans should somehow feel guilty about expecting immigrants to acclamate to American life. That is what distinguishes today's immigration issue from past nativist suspicions about Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Asians, ect. In those cases, the fear was an unjustified belief that foreigners wouldn't integrate; today, these discussions always adopt the curious tone that somehow we should be embarrassed to expect them to integrate. An honest analysis of the breakdown of the european identity (evidenced presently by an enflamed racism there in a belated response to the breakdown of nationalism i.e the Paris riots, anarchist uprisings, and very real "parallel societies") offers plenty of evidence that reckless immigration policies and non-existent integration does not work. Still, every day we push, ever more strongly and with such impassioned voices, multiculturalism in our education while simultaneously advancing children to the next grade who can't even speak english.

The apologetic tone about our immigration policy (or our even having an immigration policy) has alot in common with the embarrassed tone about the way America dispenses humanitarian aid. At some point the fact that aid is a gift not an entitlement was overturned and the U.S. was subject to the world court as to how it should bestow its charity. Articles were written in countries around the world about it, all with heated opinions about how backward the American policy of not funding abortions was. But the thing which puzzled me then, and continues to puzzle me about certain elements of the immigration debate, is that somehow the United States has become so embarrassed about what the recipients of its gifts should ever think.


Not threadjacking but some needed clarification

The Pope's speech had:
-How earnestly we pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused this wall to be built!-

Its obvious that the Pope has some sympathy for the Israeli position that the wall (much of which is a fence actually) is a necessity as long as hostilities continue. It wasn't quite a - Mr Peres tear down this Wall - moment.

Aside from the remarkably puerile gesture on your part

In my sandbox, puerility is virility. Isocles, it was you who began acting like a baby by changing my S/N and then you perfected the childishness with the name calling: racist, bigot (what, no sexist, homophobe?). All I was doing was having sport with your rhetoric and approach to a reasoned proposal.

The rest of your post has to do with the putative imputed subjective feelings while Lydia's sensible, and unique, proposal deals with objective, observable, behavior anchored in the Doctrines of a particularly pernicious religion.

Brett
The Liberal is not interested in greeting new arrivals with a unifying myth based on a traditional religious creed or a "hypocritical" narrative around the nobility of our slave-owning,male-chauvinist founders. He is too embarrassed by his cultural patrimony to do so.

While he is troubled by the tribalism and social conservatism of the Moslem, he is convinced that the mosque will give way to the mall and assumes a thousand Middle Eastern versions of Carrie Prejean will be shedding their burqas.In his mind, assimilation means pursuing a life of consumption and physical gratification, and accepting the State's role in ensuring everyone equal access to the Pleasure Dome.

Not much of a vision,but noticed you failed to pose an alternative.

Brett, I think that you are of course right about asking integration. When we have stores where a Muslim worker cannot be fired for refusing to handle a shrink-wrapped pepperoni pizza, publicly-funded religious footbaths at state universities, meat-packing plants threatened with worker riots if they don't force their non-Muslim workers to carry the bag so the plant doesn't shut down at sundown in Ramadan, and noise ordinance easements in New York so the cry of the muezzin can go out over a loudspeaker system several times a day, we have a problem with integration. And that's just for starters. In part the problem arises from the sheer aggressiveness of Muslim demands that we assimilate to them. It's as true in politics as in the rest of life that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and when the squeaky wheel is a determined group that has no problem meeting in mobs and screaming out calls for beheading its opponents, business and government are likely to cave. Add the "anything-but-Christianity" suicidal multiculturalism of the Left to the mix, and we are not going to be demanding anything remotely like assimilation.

But I also think we're looking at a sheer numbers problem. Even if we had a more robust Christian culture, more determination to enforce laws and resist calls for special accommodation, it would be foolish to think that these numbers of Muslims would assimilate. I read a story a year or two ago about a little town--sounded very picturesque--filled with Catholic Austrians out in the middle of nowhere in the Alps, in Styria. They ended up with a large (for that town) Muslim population, and before long the nice Catholic peasants were nicely giving in on an exception to the building code (against buildings over a particular height, I believe) so the Muslims could build an in-your-face minaret-bearing mosque. Some people protested, a few people left, but the sign of occupation was built nonetheless for later generations of archeologists to puzzle over.

This is one reason why, while I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of The Nyssan's comments, I don't think reviving Christian culture can be a solution without a hearty amount of sealing the borders (as it were) as well.

Kevin: "It is a gamble, but one he is happy to make"

Brett: "there is no gamble: integration is not requisite to being American"

I believe Kevin and Brett are both right, but regarding different aspects of the issue. In one regard liberals see the influx of Muslims as a blow against what they perceive as Christian hegemony in the U.S. This they welcome. On the other hand, they find Islamic fundamentalism problematic, and hope, as Kevin states, that it will become diluted by the Muslims' exposure to commercial pop culture. Hence, what liberals want isn't integration/assimilation in the old 'melting pot' sense (they don't want the Muslims to become 'good Americans,' in other words), but rather in the sense that Muslims integrate to the point of becoming commercial culture consumers and faithful members of the mass bureaucratic state.


"...what liberals want isn't integration/assimilation in the old 'melting pot' sense (they don't want the Muslims to become 'good Americans,' in other words), but rather in the sense that Muslims integrate to the point of becoming commercial culture consumers and faithful members of the mass bureaucratic state."

Exactly, Rob G. So before demands of integration will get a fair hearing, we need to hear what is expected of a "good American" beyond frequent appearances at the check-out counter.

Well, one would think "not murdering your daughter" would be included in "good American" even by a liberal. But liberal attitudes to crime generally, especially when committed by a member of a mascot group, are utterly insane.

Three cheers and hearty endorsement on critiquing the "make them consumers" approach to conversion.

I'm reminded of our insane plan to build a luxury hotel-center in the Green Zone. I cannot use the word insane strongly enough. This is what we have to offer the world? A Babel-monument to consumerism?

Don't mind the gurgling sound, that's my brain cooking from the inside out.

Is bigotry only acceptable to you when it targets other religions/peoples of a certain religion?

By definition, a religion is a set of ideas, and as such it is useful for making judgment calls about its adherents. You have no more of a right to be free from being judged for the religion you adhere to than you do the political philosophy you adhere to. As such, it can never be legitimately said to be bigotry if you have an informed reason to despise their religion or political philosophy. The only way it could be bigotry on Lydia's part would be if she said that we don't want them because they're Arabs or Pakistanis. Even that has its limits as there are cultures that are just so far apart from ours that we can't reasonably expect more than a handful of their members to be able to live as Americans and in America.

Its obvious that the Pope has some sympathy for the Israeli position that the wall (much of which is a fence actually) is a necessity as long as hostilities continue. It wasn't quite a - Mr Peres tear down this Wall - moment.

The Pope should also have reminded the world that every time Hamas or a similar group bombs Israeli property or kills an Israeli citizen, it illegally declares war on Israel and creates a moral duty for the Israeli state to defend its citizens and their property.

Mike T, I cannot tell you how sympathetic I am to your position, my own being somewhere to the right of Likud. _But_, since I told Kevin we weren't going to discuss Israel in this thread, I must apply that consistently to those with whom I'm likely to agree as well as to Kevin, with whom I'm certain I disagree.

Consider the following problems: How well can you trust parents whose cultural context excuses honor killings?

Please explain the difference between excusing honor killings and excusing abortion, because effectively there is none. Abortion is merely another form of honor killing, with the child killed to uphold the mother's honor.

I understand point you're making, but the proper context is not about nationalities or even cultural differences but a more fundamental one, which is civilization vs barbarianism.

Casting it as a problem of immigration throws it into the wrong light, specifically because immigration would not be an issue with a burgeoning, healthy U.S. population that produced the fruit of parenthood - children and soundly demonstrated through them the fundamental principles and values that promote civilization. The incentive to enter the USA is here because there has been a decay of those principles.

Appalled at beheadings?

Apparently not enough when it comes to murdering our own children.

I am Spartacus:

Where exactly did I do what you accuse me of?

Apparently, bigotry aimed towards Christianity is a "no-no", but when it comes to other religions, you consider that fair game.

Of course, I would expect nothing less from somebody whose idea of Christianity is nothing more than paying lip service.

Engaging enemies in the War Against Terrorism is one thing; persecuting an entire people due to their religious background is an entirely different matter altogether.

If anything, doing something as broad and clearly as unjustified as this will only exacerbate the situation and cause those people who would otherwise become our allies to join with our most fierce enemies!

Ari, it isn't "persecuting" people to decide it's unwise to import them in swathes into our country. Really, it's not. See above on the "criminal justice" model of immigration.

I have more to say in response to Chris Arsenault, but no time now.

aristocles:

How on earth is it persecution to restrict the ability of Muslims to gain residency in Western countries?

doing something as broad and clearly as unjustified as this

Explain by which principles you have decided that Lydia's proposal is clearly unjustified. Because I and a whole bunch of other folks here don't seem to have achieved your level of clarity.

I should also point out that you have conspicuously avoided the following argument made by Lydia, which directly addresses your "bigotry towards Christians" thought experiment:

Aristocles, bigotry is by definition irrational. I simply do not understand why people seem to think they can make these facile equivalences. The truth is that Christians _don't_ defend mutilating their daughters by reference to their religion and culture, _don't_ have a contemporary cultural context of "honor killing" (did you know that in Jordan you get a much reduced sentence for an honor killing?), and so forth. That's why it would be bigoted to try to block the immigration of all Christians. This is just a matter of observing evidence and being rational. We can't make all groups equal and make all noting of group characteristics "bigotry" just by foot-stamping.

Instead of re-re-repeating this tu quoque, how about you try actually addressing the substantive cultural and theological differences between Christianity and Islam, and explain why you find them to be "clearly" compatible?

immigration would not be an issue with a burgeoning, healthy U.S. population that produced the fruit of parenthood - children and soundly demonstrated through them the fundamental principles and values that promote civilization.

Of course, shrinking native populations are an elephant in the room in many countries. Europe needed and needs immigration to lever against its own barren fashion; otherwise, it would be Japan, whose culture discourages immigration and is presently shutting down under the weight of its immense elderly population.

The situation isn't entirely different in America, although there is a higher birthrate (at least according to some of the studies I've read) and plenty of beautiful land.

Concerning the transmission of values which promote civilization part of the above quote, I think that is something government can only inhibit and not effectively promote.

mgl,

how about you try actually addressing the substantive cultural and theological differences between Christianity and Islam, and explain why you find them to be "clearly" compatible?

Clearly, you aren't familiar with my own opinions concerning the Mohammedans.

To even suggest that I myself find the two, Christianity & Islam, compatible is like claiming that the Once Great Lion of England himself, Churchill, found then Hitler Germany & his Great Britain as compatible as deserving an alliance of amity.

Quite simply, in matters of diplomacy, appearances matter very, very much.

A measure that would seem to oppress a people specifically of a certain religion would only result in dire consequences given our current predicament where we are actively engaged in actual War with a certain faction of the same.

As I cannot devote even more commentary to this at the moment, allow me to just simply say that such an action as this will be perceived as an unjustified act of hostility towards people of that religion and those who would've been sympathetic to our Cause and even adopted it would perhaps, at minimum, begin to adopt a greater sympathy for our enemies in this War we are currently engaged or, at worst, cause them to join the ranks of our enemies.

Personally, I would rather we do not adopt such a measure that would be misperceived in such negative light so as to cause greater emnity amongst a people whose sympathies and even contributions would prove valuable to us in this War -- but that's just plain "great level of clarity" me.

Quite simply, in matters of diplomacy, appearances matter very, very much.

Ari is absolutely right on this. On its front-end, immigration policy can't be divorced from foreign policy. The ramifications of an overt blanket supression of Islamic immigration would be severe. Some would argue tolerably severe, others, that it is inimical to peace in the region. But in light of the connection between immigration policy and foreign policy, Lydia's comments--so far as prevention is concerned--become moot for the next four years, given the recent showing by Obama in the middle east.

My lunch break is over, have fun for the rest of the day without me.

Lydia - I dashed my response off earlier in the day, and upon a re-reading it appears I'm being accusatory regarding the beheadings. Sorry, that particular line wasn't intended to apply to you (at your being appalled) but generally, in terms of cultural sensitivities of the US.

cause greater emnity amongst a people whose sympathies and even contributions would prove valuable to us in this War

I don't know who those people are. Please, don't say "moderate Muslims." And honestly, I don't agree with those who imply that because of the inter-relation of foreign and domestic policy we shouldn't do domestic things that are going to anger Muslims. To my mind, that's a recipe for surrender. Indeed, domestic measures are by far the _best_ response to Muslim aggression. Iran isn't going to attack us militarily because we stop Muslim immigration.

And honestly, I don't agree with those who imply that because of the inter-relation of foreign and domestic policy we shouldn't do domestic things that are going to anger Muslims. To my mind, that's a recipe for surrender.

Oh, that's right --

I'm sure American Muslim communities will simply be overjoyed at such an act.

And, certainly, such an act which would ultimately perceived by them as being either unjustified or even hostile, would not at all serve as a recipe for disaster but, instead, only promote greater sympathy for the United States in its War Against Terrorism in them but also in those other Muslims elsewhere who were originally for our Cause.

When our leaders declared that this War we're engaged in was NOT against their Religion; Lydia rather unwittingly and, in fact, very conspicuously proves that it actually is! If ever there was more effective anti-U.S. propoganda, this would be it. Our enemies will simply be overjoyed at the fact that we're only happy to destroy ourselves.

Yet, you will have to forgive this feeble-minded Romanist for actually believing that such act would only stir greater hostility towards the United States both here and abroad amongst once-U.S. friendly Muslim peoples & nations and, indeed, advance the Cause of our enemies rather than our own.

Thanks for your temperate reply, aristocles. I still think you're engaging in question-begging by using terms such as "persecution", "oppression" and "unjustified" to describe activities long claimed by every sovereign nation; that is, the ability to decide who enters their territory, for how long, and under which terms. Apparently I have not lost my ability to be surprised by how frequently we seem to discover novel conceptions of "rights"!

You're correct that I was not familiar with your opinions on Islam, but now that have an inkling, I am even more surprised at your response to Lydia. It appears now to have morphed into foreign-policy pragmatism while originally it seemed to be quite something else, but perhaps I misread.

I'd respond, briefly, to the effect that I do not believe we are merely at war with one isolated faction, but with a movement has such solid historical and theological claims to Islamic authenticity that "moderate" Muslims often find it impossible to disavow them in Islamic terms. For the last couple of decades, in the face of growing Islamist barbarism, the response from mainstream Muslims has too often been "yes, but" equivocations, or carefully parsed Kornaic excerpts, often taken out of context. In any case, if I accept your implied argument that we have to choose between domestic- and foreign-policy concerns, I'd choose the former every time. I am entirely unconcerned with the opinions of those who live in the highly disinformative environment of Middle Eastern despotisms, and believe there are no solid, reliable alliances to make with their governments in any case.

(As a postscript, not entirely addressed to aristocles, the "shocked and horrified" commenters on this thread only serve to demonstrate how deep the rot of anti-discriminatory liberalism has gone. Apparently it is now unthinkable not only to act on obvious and stark differences between groups, but even to notice that such differences exist in the first place.)

You know, Ari, I'm not responsible for what the Republican leaders have said. I didn't tell them to say it. Am I now to start intoning, "Islam is a religion of peace" because GWB said that, too? And if we are to be held hostage *even in our future immigration policy* to our present Muslim population, bound to bring more and more and more Muslims into the country because we already have so many and don't want to "offend" them by limiting _further_ Muslim immigration, we might as well just tell the world that America is resigned to becoming a Muslim country in a few generations and be done with it.

That's an absolutely terrible argument: "We've already surrendered so much that we can't afford not to keep surrendering more, because we might make the Muslims already here angry." Sheesh. By that logic, let's just give up altogether and give them whatever they want, world without end.

I don't agree with those who imply that because of the inter-relation of foreign and domestic policy we shouldn't do domestic things that are going to anger Muslims.

How about we alter our energy-based foreign policy that does anger Moslems and cease the tawdry exports into their lands, in exchange for a restrictive immigration policy that does offend them?

Can we at least agree to being less pugnacious abroad and more exclusive at home? Right now, we have the worst of both worlds.

The link illumined here between liberal society's fearful vision of home schooling and Christianity and how they perceive the opaque practices of Islam is brilliant. Very likely fodder for some future battleground.

As I read this thread I can't help wonder what Moslems would think of sincere efforts to seriously curtail their religious advances in America. Of course there are the belligerent types, we know them from their increasingly shrill outspokenness. But probably there is a majority who may reflect "Well, we wondered when you people might start waking up. Of course Islam commands us to dominate everywhere! Maybe I am not so keen on the idea since living here a while, but I am one of the umma. What can I do? There can be no mutual respect so long as you are blind as to the nature of our beliefs and culture."

I don't care much what they think of us in this regard. It is our response to their religious practice that matters. But more productive shifts cannot occur without profound changes in how Moslems and non-Moslems view one another. Breaking through the "blanket of liberalism" is vital in this regard.

One need only read what is happening in Europe to recognize the basic incompatibility between Islam and the West. The numbers don't even have to be large for effects to appear in the justice system and the arena of speech issues. It's obvious by now that far too many Muslims in Europe function as colonists, oblivious to the idea of assimilation and patiently awaiting the day their ancestors will gain control of the continent, fully in line with the Koran's injunction to spread the faith to all. A society that cannot recognize the need for self-preservation is ultimately a society not worthy of preservation. Has the West reached that point? Or America? Political correctness has turned Westerners into an intimidated "silent majority," but in time, I believe, a voice will be unmistakeable, recognizing the simple concept Lydia has courageously expressed. Congratulations, Lydia!

Kevin, what I'll certainly agree with is that we must not curtail our willingness to be exclusive at home *because of* any present or future plans to be pugnacious abroad. And that is what I seem to be hearing from Ari: "Since we're in a war abroad with Muslims, we have to avoid angering Muslims already in the U.S." That seems to be completely backwards.

Hannon, you wouldn't be the first person to notice that Islam goes quiet (not to say compliant) whenever it's faced with the prospect of overwhelming force. Its modern belligerence is likely due to Muslims' perception that we are weak and they are in the ascendance. All the "religion of peace" nonsense from our leaders has likely only made things much worse.

Lydia,

That's an absolutely terrible argument: "We've already surrendered so much that we can't afford not to keep surrendering more, because we might make the Muslims already here angry."

That's a far worse strawman than mgl's (though I'm not at all surprised).

The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't be engaging in certain actions (not that we don't have the right or even power to do so) that would be misperceived as unjustified and even hostile by U.S.-friendly American Muslim communities & those U.S.-friendly Muslim peoples/nations elsewhere -- the very ones who prove vital in our War Against Terrorism.

Had it been under any other national climate (like, say, in the good ole' pre-9/11 days), I would most certainly concur with this type of action (in fact, perhaps proposing addendums above and beyond just this).

Of course, do whatever else you will and produce yet another one of those strawmen that would make me the liberal and whatever else.

Perhaps you might encourage Beckwith to post another one of those precious comments under the pseudonym "A Leftist".

Apparently, bigotry aimed towards Christianity is a "no-no", but when it comes to other religions, you consider that fair game.

Of course, I would expect nothing less from somebody whose idea of Christianity is nothing more than paying lip service.

Engaging enemies in the War Against Terrorism is one thing; persecuting an entire people due to their religious background is an entirely different matter altogether.

In order for it to be persecution, you have to grant them the natural, God-given right to be on American soil. Are you prepared to give foreigners an inalienable right to be here?

If anything, doing something as broad and clearly as unjustified as this will only exacerbate the situation and cause those people who would otherwise become our allies to join with our most fierce enemies!

Yes, those "moderate Muslims" sure have done a lot to marginalize and wipe out the extremists in their countries. To paraphrase Mao, an Islamist is like a fish and the people are the water.

Ari, you can't even seem to make up your mind (or make yourself clear) as to whether it is _naturally unjust_ for us to stop Muslim immigration or whether we should not do it for purely pragmatic reasons. Sometimes you refer to it as "unjustified," other times you simply say that we shouldn't do it because it will be "misperceived." But as to your pragmatic argument, it seems to me totally backwards to say that because of 9/11--in which Muslims allowed to come into our country used that privilege to hijack planes and murder thousands of our fellow citizens--we should _not_ stop Muslim immigration. What kind of a crazy way is that to look at it? Because of 9/11 we need to be _more_ deferential to Muslim sentiments and perceptions? That's just absolute balderdash. Why? Because otherwise they might get mad and fly more planes into our buildings? Because if we don't make the "moderates" mad maybe they'll tell us which of their co-religionists are planning to fly planes into our buildings next? Good luck with that.

By the way, Ari, you are mostly lacking in self-control as a commentator, but do your best to stop flailing around with stupid accusations, like that one about my co-blogger Frank and the comment above signed "A Leftist." I can't even imagine where you get your wild ideas from sometimes, but (as I seem to be saying to you a lot lately) bag it.

That's a far worse strawman than mgl's

Hey!

Sincerely, aristocles, I intended no caricature of your views. I may have mistaken your views, but that's because a) You have never actually expressed them with clarity, and b) They appear to be a moving target. Lots of adjectives, beaucoup emotionalism in place of argument, but little else. To the extent that you have expressed identifiable views, they're pretty standard foreign-policy "realism", which are immediately belied by the vehemence with which you express yourself.

You worry that restricting or eliminating Muslim immigration might result in less friendly Muslim populations at home and abroad. Fine, we get that--life is full of tradeoffs. I--How to put this?--don't care. Islam is innately hostile to Western society and so, given the choice, I'd prefer them disliking us from without (which, note, they already do in huge numbers) than from within. So I just draw the line in a slightly different place than the foreign-policy realist version of aristocles does. The other versions--the ones that yell about oppression and persecution--well, I'm not at all sure what they're on about. Perhaps you could clarify?

Because if we don't make the "moderates" mad maybe they'll tell us which of their co-religionists are planning to fly planes into our buildings next? Good luck with that.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the Muslim world has had ample opportunity to control its extremists, but has usually allowed them to thrive. If anything, the United States needs to play hardball with the Muslim world through actions like shutting down all Saudi-financed Islamic schools and mosques on our soil. Cutting off immigration from countries like Saudi Arabia would be a great step. We need not extend it to the whole Islamic world, as countries like Turkey and Albania would be included. Even countries like Thailand could be affected (Thailand has a large Muslim population in its southern region).

Hannon, you wouldn't be the first person to notice that Islam goes quiet (not to say compliant) whenever it's faced with the prospect of overwhelming force.

You can probably thank Genghis Kahn for that...

Morbid joking aside, the US' problem is mainly that it hasn't made state sponsoring of terrorism against Americans an extremely painful choice of proxy warfare for states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Our best response to 9-11 would have been a massive aerial bombardment of the Saudi military, police and royal family's private property as retaliation for Saudi financing of Al Qaeda.

That would have been a message that the Muslim world would have gotten through as crystal clear as though it were spoken in classic Arabic by Lucifer in disguise as Gabriel.

Lydia:

Clearly, by your subsequent replies, your only purpose is to twist what I have said into a manufactured version of your own making.

Did I not mention repeatedly the monumental significance of "perception", especially amongst certain communities?

Or perhaps you simply neglect or are wont to ignore the negative repercussions of your proposed action especially given an already precarious climate?

Never mind the fact that I had already expressed quite extensively the fact that had it been under any other circumstances, I would more than gladly concur with the proposed measure; however, in light of the times we live in today, we should strive in our efforts to nurture continued ongoing cooperation of our fellow American Muslim communities and U.S.-friendly Muslim peoples/nations -- NOT give them additional reasons to join the ranks our enemies instead!

Either way, let us do away with all the disingenuous dribble and simply leave it at that.

I have too much personal respect for you to continue what seems will undoubtedly be an exercise in utter futility with my having to wrestle with your strawmen as your having to endure my "torture".

we should strive in our efforts to nurture continued ongoing cooperation of our fellow American Muslim communities and U.S.-friendly Muslim peoples/nations

It just ain't gonna happen, Ari, and IMO it's a bad idea to try. I'm not twisting your words; you just aren't always consistent in your comments. But since this is the position you've chosen to come down on in the end, I say that you are foolish to recommend modifying our policy recommendations in the hope of some sort of material help from such groups, which hope is not only vain but also, in my opinion, would not if it panned out be nearly so substantially helpful as our continued Muslim immigration policy will be harmful.

That would have been a message that the Muslim world would have gotten through as crystal clear as though it were spoken in classic Arabic by Lucifer in disguise as Gabriel.

:D

Mike T has just lost us the sympathy of 28,830 previously-friendly Muslims.

For those saying we should strive for cooperation, have they heard what happened at Harvard recently. The head imam for the school, a paid position as Harvard, said that it was acceptable to kill apostates from Islam based on the Koran. He quickly backed off when the outrage started by saying that he personally didn't believe it and it would apply in the current situation. Now what is interesting is that some Muslim students who were quoted as disagreeing with the imam wanted their names withheld for fear of how their fellow Muslims would respond.

Now this is at Harvard, not in Egypt or some other Muslim country. If they are scared to speak out now, how scared will they be if we continue adding to the Muslim population.

Group psychology is not a simple adding up of individual psychology.

Aristocles writes:

Quite simply, in matters of diplomacy, appearances matter very, very much… A measure that would seem to oppress a people specifically of a certain religion would only result in dire consequences given our current predicament where we are actively engaged in actual War with a certain faction of the same.

At first sight, this appears very plausible and prudent.
However, there are several flaws I’d like to look at.
First, American immigration policy will not be as salient for Muslims as American foreign policy and the American occupation of Muslim lands. Have we any reason to believe that for a Middle-east Muslim, exclusivity abroad is a significantly pressing concern compared to war on a Muslim land?

It’s reasonable to think that some Muslims will be swayed into anti-Americanism by Lydia’s proposed policy. However, for the layman it will be difficult to make a useful guess of their numbers and influence.

One could even present the policy as a realistic trade-off, telling the Muslim world: Would you rather have Americans remain in Iraq, or would you rather see them go home and seal Muslims out?
Second, there are many American policies that may be more offensive to the Muslim world than our immigration policy. There are benign American characteristics offensive to them: our Christianity, our women’s standards of dress, or our Jewish population. There are also malicious features: our increasing advocacy of same-sex “marriage,” our porn industries, or our support for dubious governments and businesses.

Obviously we will not change our benign features just to please the Muslim world. Perhaps the question should be whether restrictive immigration is a benign or malicious policy in itself.
If you argue that we can’t implement restrictive immigration policy because the Muslims will dislike us more, surely you’ll have to argue the same about same-sex unions. Considering all the other factors in these disputes, is the appeal to Muslim opinion really a good argument?

Mike T:

The "best response" is still available. Too bad we chose to expend gargantuan quantities of blood, sweat and gold on the lost cause of Iraq instead. Not only has this been unsatisfying but it has left us in a worse position vis-a-vis Islam than before. It also undermined the whole concept of pounding the enemy to send a clear message.

Chris makes an excellent point and illustrates it well. I have never yet once seen any evidence that the whole "winning hearts and minds" "outreach to moderate Muslims" approach has helped us. Not one whit. And the dynamic Chris mentions is one--though only one--of the reasons.

I have never yet once seen any evidence that the whole "winning hearts and minds" "outreach to moderate Muslims" approach has helped us

Please elaborate on this approach, I've yet to see it in action.

We have troops in their lands, propping up regimes that are corrupt, authoritarian and incompetent, and the "cultural exchanges" they typically experience with us are the sort most here decry as vulgar, profane and offensive. So please, before we get lost in our own intrinsic goodness and some deranged meta-narrative about the WWIV, lets be humble enough to at least try to see ourselves as others do. Such an exercise is good for both the individual Christian and the prudent statesman.

Islam is a dangerous threat to the West, but not the most lethal one. For that you have to look within.


Kevin, President Bush spent post-9/11 doing everything he could to "win hearts and minds." He called Islam "A religion of peace." The government pretty much bent over backwards to convince Muslims that we were not at war with Islam. Bush even held Eid dinners at the White House. The FBI spends a lot of time trying to work with Muslim groups to find radicals and establish good relations. I could go on, but I think I made the point.

"We have troops in their lands, propping up regimes that are corrupt, authoritarian and incompetent,..."

Should Americans of German descent have hated the US because we fought Germany in two different wars? Either you are a citizen of this country or you aren't. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with foreign policy. But it doesn't mean that because you or your ancestors came from a country involved with US foreign policy, you get to side with someplace you immigrated from. If you do, then you make the point we shouldn't let them in the country.

"...and the "cultural exchanges" they typically experience with us are the sort most here decry as vulgar, profane and offensive."

Qutb was offended by a square dance in the 1950's and used it as a highlight of Western decadence. Now, I'm not denying that we have problems. However, this reason just doesn't cut it because Muslim will always find things offensive about Western society because Western society has key positions that are in direct conflict with Islamic positions.

Nothing we do is going to make Muslims happy. The best we can hope for is to get their respect which we do not have right now. The only way to get their respect is to act in a manner which shows we are willing to defend ourselves from Islam. They won't like it, they'll scream about it, but they'll not mess with us.

President Bush spent post-9/11 doing everything he could to "win hearts and minds." He called Islam "A religion of peace." The government pretty much bent over backwards to convince Muslims that we were not at war with Islam.

Chris, wow what an exhaustive list of diplomatic and strategic achievements. The only thing missing were minor details like; closed military garrisons and a smaller footprint on their soil.

Either you are a citizen of this country or you aren't.

The audience I am talking about is most of the 1 billion Moslems that happen to cluster around "our" oil supply. I don't see much threat from our own population of Moslems and see no reason to increase their presence here. Or continue to sustain our imposing presence there.

Now, I'm not denying that we have problems. However, this reason just doesn't cut it because Muslim will always find things offensive about Western society

Sure. No need for us to change. Here comes McWorld folks, and you just have to trade in your minarets for the golden arches. Can we super-size you?

The only way to get their respect is to act in a manner which shows we are willing to defend ourselves from Islam.

The best way to defend ourselves is decrease our dependence on their oil, adopt a lower profile in their region and secure our own borders and ports. Any suggestion that we have to embark on more armed invasions is mindless chest-pounding.

I strongly, strongly disagree with the "they flew planes into our buildings because we had troops on their sacred soil" version of history. I can hardly say how strongly I disagree with this. But I don't have time to argue about it.

Kevin, I could list but don't have time to list many of the kinds of things I had in mind as "winning hearts and minds efforts," and they are all stupid, stupid, stupid. I'm thinking of things like giving Muslim sensitivity officers veto power over intelligence personnel so that people who tell the truth in our intelligence community get fired for offending Muslims. I'm talking about taking CAIR around our airport security to prove we're not "profiling." (Why the dickens _not_?) I'm talking, too, about "interfaith" conferences in which people utter utter nonsense about how we should all join together, we all worship one God, etc., etc., etc. I'm talking about the many appeasement efforts by government and business, including apologizing for accidental resemblances of marks on the sides of shoes. I'm talking about the Muslim "community officers" in England who get to harass Christian street missionaries and threaten them, with support from their Anglo colleagues. None of this has won anyone's hearts or minds.

But you, I'm afraid, will just say that none of this "counts" because "we" are over "there" which somehow gives "them" an excuse for hating us.

Well, I'm with Chris here: They are going to hate us anyway. Oh, and by the way, they would dislike my dear fundamentalist friends whose girls wear dresses and never cut their hair, too. So our "decadent society" isn't why they hate us, either. The Dinesh D'Souza routine just will not wash.

There may well be good reasons for reducing our foreign military involvement. I daresay there are. Believe it or not, I've always had some isolationist sympathies. It just isn't a major passion with me as it is with the paleos. But winning Muslim hearts and minds is a will-o-the-wisp and not one of those good reasons. Don't even bother trying.

The really cool thing about this discussion is that it is actually occurring at all. It happens because it is borne of a civilization that believes and upholds (for now) the freedoms of speech, religion, and press. It allows people to convert from Islam to Christianity and vice versa; it does not tell women like Lydia to remain silent (or behind a veil) or face punishment; and it has a government that is ultimately answerable to the people. This is just not possible in a Sharia regime.

Kevin,

Were you one of those kids who would give up all his marbles or lunch money to the schoolyard bullies in the hopes that 10% of the time that strategy would work, and therefore it was successful?

Did you ever turn on one of those punks and say "Bring it, b!tch" with irrational adrenaline and vicious apathy? When you genuinely had had it and just didn't care about the outcome? I did that once and it shocked me how effective it was. When someone expects you to (continue to) act like a wimp, you have a certain slim advantage when you decide to turn the tables and display abject aggression. But you have to really mean it and in a sense you have to not care about the immediate outcome.

I'm not talking about military conquest but the little things that go to make up relations between the West and Islam, from personal to political.

Sorry to reduce a portion of this argument to the 4th grade level. But that's what gets through to bullies (Islam)-- when they sense the change, when you just don't give a damn about their threats. The younger ones will be amused and excited that you have finally com out to play. When we turn out in greater numbers, the wiser ones will know better.

We need to get to that assertive and dynamic playground state before we, the United States, get to survival mode.

I strongly, strongly disagree with the "they flew planes into our buildings because we had troops on their sacred soil" version of history.

First, who is they? I don't think it too nuanced to ask you to elaborate on your all-inclusive, but never defined they. The broad-strokes you rely on to paint your caricatures are part of the problem.

Second, your stubborn refusal to engage in a moment of self-examination, let alone criticism is truly scary. If foreign troops were installed here to act as the praetorian guard for a corrupt and oppressive oilarchy that was enriching itself by selling off our only natural resource, I suspect you would be hoping for sterner stuff than merely reading Thomas Paine tracts in the basement.

any of the kinds of things I had in mind as "winning hearts and minds efforts," and they are all stupid, stupid, stupid.

Gross multiculturalism does not constitute a winning geopolitical strategy in dealing with the Islamic world, or a legitimate form of engagement. It is a shabby ploy born of guilt and guile. Eddie Haskell goes to Washington. Such policies you describe are as stupid and self-defeating as those that have us enmeshed in the Middle East. In fact, they were conceived by the very same people; our globalist elites who will sell-off the genuine interests of our particular nation in exchange for a universal Empire of their design.

What is incredible to read over and over is how shocked, yes shocked everyone is that other people around the world react to some of our policies and practices as we do or would if we were on the receiving end.

There may well be good reasons for reducing our foreign military involvement. I daresay there are
.

Well, its not like you to be shy. Give us a couple.

But winning Muslim hearts and minds is a will-o-the-wisp

There was once a time when the West could raise up statesman able to sincerely engage an enemy in order to carve out a space and time for relative order, while also subtly exploiting the many diverse strands and different interests within his camp. Now we're stuck with folks whose idea of diplomacy is formed by Hollywood action movies.

Sorry to reduce a portion of this argument to the 4th grade level.

Hannon, I'm guessing you're manning the foreign policy desk for an ostensibly conservative think-tank in Manhattan. Am I right?

Kevin- Yes, but it's not as glamorous as you make it sound. Pay cuts all around, you know.

The underlying reason Muslims hate us is the fact that we are not Muslims. But this doesn't mean that our foreign policy and our decadence play no part. Even the neo-con notion that they envy us isn't entirely untrue. All of these things play a part, and the problem cannot be reduced to any one of them.

"What is incredible to read over and over is how shocked, yes shocked everyone is that other people around the world react to some of our policies and practices as we do or would if we were on the receiving end."

Very true. It's like Manifest Destiny expanded to an international scale.

Kevin, I'm not shy. I just like to stay on-topic. But one major reason to reduce our foreign military involvement is to restore the limitations of the Constitution and the idea of wars that are declared by Congress and that begin and end, as well as to break down the false idea that we are responsible for the entire world. To this end I think some actions that would be _more_ hawkish than those that have become normal since WWII but also _much_ shorter--no "you broke it, you bought it" assumption--would probably be better *for us* as a country and would reduce the notion of a one-world government/community that is growing far too strong. Reducing our military presence abroad and the assumption of long-term occupation after military action would also help psychologically and financially to allow us to re-focus on matters that should be higher priorities than they are _as matters of national defense_, such as serious border patrol along our southern border (and no sending border patrol officers to federal prison for shooting drug dealers in the hinder end). But obviously, even the previous administration would not have listened to these recommendations, and the present one is far less likely to do so.

other people around the world react to some of our policies and practices as we do or would if we were on the receiving end

Of course, men are all fallen, but suicide bombing just isn't part of our culture, and I have absolutely zero sympathy for such indirectly worded defenses of horrific behavior. Everything is now a matter of American foreign policy. Chabad House in Bombay invaded by terrorists and Jews tortured--gotta be something to do with American foreign policy. Enough already. I don't accept this, "Well, wouldn't we 'react' that way if they..." etc., etc. "That way" is flying planes into buildings, hijacking boats and murdering civilians, suicide bombings, taking over hotels and murdering civilians, and so on and so forth. If individuals among "us" would do that under any circumstances, they deserve to die and go to hell, and so do Muslim terrorists who do so. All this "Now, Johnny, wouldn't you feel like fighting back if Joey hit you?" stuff really is for the birds.

Nor, for that matter, do I agree with the extremely tendentious characterization of our dealings with, say, the Saudis. *If anything* we are far too friendly to them and have far too close a relationship with them, but to listen to the R.P. crowd talk, one would think we _had_ destroyed the palaces of their royals and enacted a brutal occupation. "We have troops on their sacred soil" is such a conveniently equivocal phrase, and "exploitation" is a conveniently anti-American way of talking and thinking about buying their oil. I'm sure all the Saudis would be _so_ thrilled if we suddenly _stopped_ buying their oil: "Hurray, hurray, the Americans aren't exploiting our natural resources anymore! Justice has prevailed!!!" Please.

Okay, enough of that sub-thread.

If individuals among "us" would do that under any circumstances, they deserve to die and go to hell, and so do Muslim terrorists who do so.

But, apparently, even in spite of these baleful atrocities and other actively engaged terrorist plots pursued even on American soil, terrorists who engage thus are not so deserving so as to endure EIT in order to obtain life saving information concerning impending terrorist attacks on innocent civilian American populations!

Deserving to Die & Go to Hell: Yes.

But having them endure EIT for the sake of saving innocent Americans: HELL NO!

But, enough of that sub-thread, too.

Yep, Ari, enough of it. Hast thou not yet learned of the terrible swift sword of my delete key? Never mind; don't answer that.

Reducing our military presence abroad and the assumption of long-term occupation after military action would also help psychologically and financially to allow us to re-focus on matters that should be higher priorities than they are _as matters of national defense

Lydia, amen.

but to listen to the R.P. crowd talk, one would think we _had_ destroyed the palaces of their royals and enacted a brutal occupation. "We have troops on their sacred soil" is such a conveniently equivocal phrase, and "exploitation" is a conveniently anti-American way of talking and thinking about buying their oil

You're confused here. We are the one's that keep the House of Saud in power, to the disgust and anger of much of the Arab world. And given the disparate concentration of petro-dollars in the hands of so few, I can think of no better term than exploitation.

Now, let me take my place amongst other unpatriotic subversives and Islamist-sympathizers, while David Frum and Rahm Emmanuel lead our nation to even greater glory.

"...disparate concentration... in the hands of so few..." equals "exploitation". Such a condition might lead to to thinking in that direction, but flimsy circumstantial evidence will not support an argument for what you wish to be true in this case. It simply does not follow by reason let alone logic.

Do you suppose the ME date hawkers are exploiting the people by their disparate access to the supply of dates?

To paraphrase Mao, an Islamist is like a fish and the people are the water.

Here's some roiling water for you;

“The Taleban is a stigma on Islam,” says Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, a Sunni cleric who heads the madrassa. “That is why we will support our Government and our army and their right to destroy the Taleban. We will save Pakistan,” he told The Times...
Analysts say, however, that the alliance still marks the first time that the silent majority of moderate Pakistanis have found a voice."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6283118.ece

Who was it that said there are some things so foolish that only really intelligent people can believe them?

George Orwell, who went onto say, "No ordinary man would be such a fool."

I'm not generally in favour of home schooling, but of less state control in schools. However, the general point about Islam not being compatible with America (or England) is spot on.

However, the general point about Islam not being compatible with America (or England) is spot on.

Yes, and the converse appears almost equally as true; America (or modernity for that matter) is not compatible in Islamic lands. Not that either fact will influence our policy-makers.

I would like to say that I have spent half my life living in muslim countries and that contrary to what many people in the west would say Muslims are not bad people. In most muslim countries crime is much below common Western rates (Iraq and Gaza are the only exeptions, because of internal unrest). Also most child abuse cases in the U.S. and Europe are perpetrated by non-muslims. Therefore the argument given in this article is inapplicable, false, and most definitely goes against the principles of freedom written about in the U.S. constitution. It greatly grieves me to see that conservatives have stooped so low as to completely depart from the founding principles of christianity and the constitution: the principles of love, mercy, hospitality, patience, and kindness.

What you bring up is irrelevant to the points I am making in the main post, Teo. For example, "most child abuse is perpetrated by non-Muslims." So what? I was talking about culture-specific actions such as FGM and honor killing, both of which are likely to be covered up and/or excused by family privacy and traditionalism, which gives those concepts a bad name. Total numbers are not relevant to that point.

Teo,

No-one is saying that Muslims are bad people; I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm saying that Islam is implacably hostile to Western Civilization, that this hostility is soundly based in the Koran and hadiths, and that as a result, we should not be allowing Muslims to immigrate in large numbers into the West.

Your points about crime and social peace may or may not be true, but if these countries are the pleasant places you imply they are, then their inhabitants should be happy to stay put. There is no "right" to migrate to the West, and it is a serious confusion of terms to assert such a right.

It's also a fact that there is a difference between behaviors within Muslim countries and in Western countries. It's certainly true that Muslim countries are big law-n-order places. For sure. But it's also true that there are now major problems with Muslim gangs and public crime by groups of roving Muslim "youths" in places as far apart as Sidney, Australia, Brussels, Belgium, and Paris, France. Make what you will of this. One could make conjectures about why it's true, but since it is true, it has to be taken into account in immigration policy.

most child abuse cases in the U.S. and Europe are perpetrated by non-muslims.

Rape, child abuse and domestic violence are crimes in the West and are reported. Islam does not see rape as crime if it is within marriage, and marriage may be child marriage. If a woman or girl is raped in a Muslim country, she, rather than the rapist is punished and often killed, so of course she doesn't report it.

Domestic violence likewise goes unreported in Muslim countries because it is not a crime. The Koran itself sanctions wife beating.

When they come to the West, Muslims bring this baggage with them.


A sensible policy for Christians in the West to pursue vis-a-vis the Muslims is to demand reciprocity in their treatment of the Christian minorities in their midst. Whenever a new mosque is to be built in any Western town or city, or allowances made for the Muslim worship, the Christians in their turn should press for land to be set aside for churches and a reduction in harassment in countries as disparate as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia. But instead of displaying tough-minded solidarity with their fellow Christians, the Western Christians would rather sing mushy songs and toast marshmellows. They ignore the fact that the Muslims in general do not pay for goods already delivered.

Mary Jackson mentions the unmentionable facts. Good on her.

Long-time friend of the blog, Brian Leiter, has responded to Lydia here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/antimuslim-bigotry-at-western-michigan-university.html

LeiterFan, that's not a response. Here's a response:

Margaret Urban Walker on Brian Leiter

When I gave these remarks on a panel at the Pacific Division Meeting of the APA in March 2003, I found it disconcerting to be told more than once that I was “brave” or “courageous” to do so. Why is it something brave to state an opinion publicly about whether Professor Leiter’s cottage industry is useful or not to the profession? Isn’t philosophy the profession that celebrates the shared pursuit of truth and the vetting of sound perception and reason, undaunted or unseduced by the patronage of the powerful? Aren’t philosophers supposed to have a keen critical sense, to probe misleading appearances, to hound down the bases of knowledge claims, not resting content with what is said either by the many or the wise? Why is it daunting to express an opinion about a philosophy poll? It is puzzling to me that Professor Leiter now looms as a powerful—and threatening?—presence over a profession with a lot of very clever people who have earned reputations for the philosophical work they have done, not for the polls they have taken or responded to. I wonder, Who do they think he is, the IRS? For that matter, who does he think he is, Johnny Depp?

(Margaret Urban Walker, "Waiter, There's a Fly in My Soup! Reflections on the Philosophical Gourmet Report," Hypatia 19 [summer 2004]: 235-9, at 238-9 [italics in original])

http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2008/12/margaret-urban-walker-on-brian-leiter.html

Leiter is a bully. The more people call him out, the better the profession will be.

Isn’t philosophy the profession that celebrates the shared pursuit of truth and the vetting of sound perception and reason, undaunted or unseduced by the patronage of the powerful?

Why, yes. It is. Thanks for the quote, Thomas Aquinas. I hadn't seen it before.

A total ad hominem note, Leiter is proof positive that by the time you are 45 you get the face you deserve. If the eyes are the windows to the soul, someone should purchase some curtains:

http://federalist.uchicago.edu/images/photos/IMG_0178.jpg


Leiter on Larry Summers:

"Larry Summers is a man of considerable professional accomplishments and, not unrelatedly, he can be arrogant and confrontational."

Pot, kettle; kettle, pot.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/02/academic_freedo.html

The "vetting of sound perception and reason" - sounds like Leiter spent as much time vetting this post as he needed to.

I was gratified to read this from Prof. Allhof in WMU's philosophy department: "Certainly Dr. Lydia McGrew’s [views] should not be taken to reflect those of the department, with which she is not affiliated."

Praise Jesus. I'm happy to allow you folk to spin in your void in cyberspace, as long as you don't wield any real power over people. One of the beauties of the internet, Lydia, is that it allows crazies like you to vent your ravings in an enclosed space and out of real harm's way. I only feel sorry for your kids, who I imagine have these sorts of views rammed down their throats on a regular basis. But karma's cool that way - there's still time for them to convert to Islam. (Alan Keyes anyone?)

One thing we know for sure is that Lydia's children will not be taught Sharia Law, be a victims of honor killings, undergo genital mutilation, or be taught to hate Jews.

Tommy, you're a bigot. You know nothing of Lydia, her beliefs, her family, or the community she belongs to. What you are relying on is your preconceived and wicked prejudices about Evangelical Christians who homeschool their kids. These prejudices are unrelated to reality and without foundation.

"I'm happy to allow you folk to spin in your void in cyberspace, as long as you don't wield any real power over people"

The feeling, of course, is mutual.

"This is already the case in Germany, where home schooling is attacked on the grounds that it creates "parallel societies"--a clear allusion to German worries about unassimilated immigrants."

I happen to be German and very familiar with the German school system. Homeschooling is not forbidden in Germany because we are worried about immigrants forming parallel societies. In fact, it seems like many homeschooling advocates are very conservative Christian Germans, who fear not being able to completely influence what their children learn in school. As far as I understand, that is precisely the reason homeschooling is not legal in Germany: it is seen as part of education that children and young adults are exposed to a variety of viewpoints, learn to think critically about them, and engage with other people who have different opinions. Even though this is not impossible when children are homeschooled, the motives most people have for homeschooling their children do not foster these goals.

Yes, Julia, I agree that this is the umbrella under which the concern is cast in Germany (about a variety of viewpoints, etc.), but that actually fits with what I said. I actually linked to a story in which a German official expressly refers to concerns about parallel societies and uses this as an argument against home schooling. You are the second reader apparently not to notice this. I'm not saying (and my comments earlier in this thread made clear) that home schooling would be legal in Germany if it weren't for concerns about immigrants and parallel societies. I am saying that those concerns are being used as part of, and consonant with, the overall German rejection of home schooling. In other words, those concerns feed conveniently into the German picture of "what's wrong with home schooling." And the German official's words illustrate the way that an argument might later be made here in the United States, where as of now home schooling is both legal and widely accepted.

I, for one, think it's wonderful that Dr. McGrew has chosen to use her platform here to discuss the awful practice of honor killings. I think it's terribly unfortunate that she has so completely misunderstood what it is that's wrong with them--the wrongness of honor killings has everything to do with the killings themselves, and nothing whatsoever to do with any tenuous residual effects for Dr. McGrew and her family, which strike me as falling in the range between paranoid and extremely paranoid.

It's also a tragic irony that her solution to what she fears is the approach of religious bigotry is naked religious discrimination. This sentence, for example:

Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America.

is amazing. Does she really think that it is possible to respect the due process rights of muslims, and to regard muslims as innocent until proven guiltly, while simultaneously denying all muslims the right to immigrate because a small minority of them engage in awful crimes? Because it's obviously not possible.

Finally, though I'm not a homeschooler myself, I have no beef with homeschooling per se and would be somewhat surprised to find that there was any genuine popular opposition to its legality. If there were any genuine popular opposition to Christian homeschooling in particular, I would be dumbfounded to discover that it had anything whatsoever to do with Muslim honor killings. If I were a homeschooler, I would be much more worried about the homeschoolers who appear on the television show Wife Swap, who are typically worse than incompetent, and I would be extremely worried about Colleen Hauser. These are the people who make homeschoolers look bad.


Because it's obviously not possible.

You mean psychologically, I can only assume. Because it is clearly logically possible, and importantly so.

I don't have television channels, but I'm sure you're right about home schoolers on "Wife Swap"! I'm equally sure that there are a couple of different types of selection bias going on there. First, the media is not exactly killing itself to find _positive_ examples of home schoolers. Second, it is unlikely that the many highly competent home schoolers would have any interest in participating in such a show. So the sample should be considered biased. But I'm sure anyone with an interest in analytic philosophy will understand this and discount the sample accordingly.

Finally, my point in the post is to alert fellow conservatives to something I see coming down the pike, not something I see going on here in the U.S. right now. One of my intents is to raise questions about the idea that conservatives should make common cause with Muslims because of shared values on issues such as abortion, though I don't say that in the main post. Another intent is to draw the attention of advocacy groups such as HSLDA to possible difficulties they may have later defending indefensible clients, a possibility they should think about now rather than then.

Because it is clearly logically possible, and importantly so.

You're funny. In good faith, and without engaging in a much more pernicious sort of religious bigotry than the kind you're worried about being a victim of, it's obviously not possible.

So the sample should be considered biased. But I'm sure anyone with an interest in analytic philosophy will understand this and discount the sample accordingly.

I don't see how this is a response. I clearly didn't suggest that the manner in which homeschooling is portrayed on Wife Swap constitutes a good reason to be suspicious of homeschoolers in general, or even that it was reasonable for homeschoolers to be concerned about the portrayal. I definitely didn't suggest that my opinion of homeschooling was affected by Wife Swap. My point was merely that it constitutes an actual unflattering portrayal of homeschooling, and is therefore a more reasonable thing for homeschoolers to worry about than Muslim honor killings, which literally have nothing whatsoever to do with homeschooling. I don't want to get into a whole big thing about what kinds of skills someone with exposure to analytic philosophy ought to possess, but come on.

my point in the post is to alert fellow conservatives to something I see coming down the pike, not something I see going on here in the U.S. right now.

Again, this isn't really a response. I would simply say that the prediction that this is a problem "coming down the pike" is over on the paranoid spectrum, and the fact that you don't see a nutjob like Colleen Hauser as much more urgent source for attacks on homeschooling is pretty weird. Because that kid was homeschooled, he can't read, and now she's going to kill him.

Mr. Zero, I was actually thinking of some rather interesting points about law enforcement practice, statistics, and due process this afternoon apropos of your earlier comment. There are a lot of obvious things one could say about the fact that immigration policy and law enforcement policy are quite different things. Or there are examples like the fact that detectives (for instance) often start first investigating the spouse of a murder victim, but this doesn't mean the spouse doesn't get due process, so...But I really fear, come to think of it, that if I went on any farther interacting with you on this I'd be casting pearls before...well, you know.

And, no, I don't think I'm going to rise to the bait and start discussing when, how, where, and why parents should or shouldn't have the right to choose medical treatment for their kids. A big topic, and not one I'm planning to get into. Suffice it to say that, certainly, big kids of otherwise normal intelligence who can't read are a very bad advertisement for home schooling.

There are a lot of obvious things one could say about the fact that immigration policy and law enforcement policy are quite different things.

I mean, only you know what you were going to say, and so it's possible that it was going to be really awesome. However, I don't see much reason to be optimistic. In good faith, and without resorting to a deeply pernicious sort of religious bigotry, there is no way to deny immigration rights to all Muslims because of the very few Muslims who engage in honor killings. It would be one thing, though still a neat trick, if you were motivated by compassion for the victims of the killings. Maybe you think that honor killings would be reduced by an immigration ban. But you're not; you're worried about how the presence of these honor-killing Muslims might affect your legal right to homeschool your kids. This is a paradigm example of bad faith.

Or there are examples like the fact that detectives (for instance) often start first investigating the spouse of a murder victim, but this doesn't mean the spouse doesn't get due process, so...

There doesn't seem to be any analogy between the fact that standard operating procedure for murder investigators is to start with the spouse and your proposal to deny immigration rights to all Muslims because some Muslims engage in honor killings. Whether the murder investigators violate the spouse's rights to due process depends very much on how they come to decide that the spouse is guilty (assuming that's what they decide). If they decide the spouse is guilty because some spouses kill their spouses, that would violate some due process rights. If they decide to lock up all spouses because some spouses kill their spouses, that would be a problem, too.

Similarly, it would be one thing if the INS performed a good-faith investigation of the likelihood that a potential immigrant would perpetrate an honor killing before granting a visa. But if the INS uses honor killings as a justification for a policy denying entry to all Muslims whether there is any reason to suspect any particular individual of being an actual or potential honor-killer, that would violate due-process rights of Muslim immigrants, and would also constitute a deeply awful form of religious bigotry. And there you are, acting in bad faith again.

big kids of otherwise normal intelligence who can't read are a very bad advertisement for home schooling.

Couldn't agree more.

casting pearls before...well, you know.

Yes, well, we don't have to get into a whole big thing here. I'm happy to declare victory on all points and draw our discussion to a close. Have a nice weekend.

that would violate due-process rights of Muslim immigrants,

Upthread I said something about the "criminal justice model of immigration." This is a paradigm case. I deny that refusing someone immigration permission is a punishment, so you don't have to be "convicted" of something to be denied entry to the United States. Denying someone due process is a possibility that arises in criminal, child-abuse, etc., investigations by law enforcement in the country. Those occur when people are already in the country.

Mr. Zero's brother's name is Ground, whose home is a well-known meeting place for Muslim immigrants in Manhattan. It's like Ellis Island, except that everyone dies.

I am in total agreement with lydia and I am a Jew, the islamic culture is a primitive culture and should be looked upon as such ...jews and christians were treated as second class citizens in all islamic countries and 1 million of my people were thrown out of countries they had lived in for far more generations than the islamists that took over those countries. these people are barbarians, they know nothing of a civilized society and schooling? what in? In Shariah law? In the Koran? The literature , if you can call it that of the islamic world is nothing more than the primitve lust for murder put down on paper and couched in stolen verses from the torah b" sinai.

These primitive peoples are the enemies of civilization they must be separated from civilized societies lest they destroy those scoieties

"criminal justice model of immigration."

I'm not a lawyer, and cannot speak with authority about the details of constitutional or immigration law, and did not think I would be interpreted as doing so. My "oughts" should be construed first and foremost as moral and ethical in nature, and should be construed legally only insofar as the government, like everyone else, shouldn't do immoral or unethical stuff. I assume there's a law against denying immigration to all Muslims on the basis of their adherence to Islam; if there's not, there ought to be. You rightly point out that the government shouldn't use honor killings as an excuse to engage in religious discrimination against you; it also shouldn't use honor killings as an excuse to engage in religious bigotry against Muslims.

St. Thomas and Stan, thank you for making the point about the ugly, evil nature of religious bigotry as forcefully as possible. I wouldn't have been believed if I had merely reported the existence of views like yours.

I must admit that I'm a little surprised by the bigotry of St. Thomas. I would have thought that he'd be at least slightly inclined toward tolerance, seeing as how it was Islamic culture that preserved the writings of Aristotle during the 1,000-year period when he was lost to the West.

Not that I compare the events of September 11 with the preservation of Aristotle, or suggest that one excuses the other. It was different individuals in each case, of course, which is why I prefer to judge Muslims (as well as Jews, Christians, and homeschoolers) on a case-by-case basis.

Zero, I would say I took you to be making a quasi-legal statement--that is, using a legal phrase like "due process" in a morally important sense. It does not seem to me that one can apply the notion of "due process" to immigration in the way you want to do unless one construes immigration as being some sort of prima facie right which one can be denied only on the basis of a specific process directed at ascertaining fairly detailed facts about the individual. This is, at a minimum, highly impractical in immigration, and I find it difficult to see the argument for its being morally required. But I do sometimes wonder if non-discrimination (against preferred groups, at least, though sometimes not against white males) is liberals' one deontological category. The one thing you must not do, that is absolutely wrong to do in itself, even if not doing it has disastrous consequences.

I took you to be making a quasi-legal statement

Well, you were the one who mentioned due process in connection with immigration proceedings; I was just following along. Nevertheless, I assume that immigration decisions should not be made arbitrarily, and have been willing to use the expression 'due process' to describe the procedures the government must take in order to ensure that this process is executed in a fair manner. I guess I also figured that the Muslims who are also American citizens would be entitled to some sort of procedural justice if, under the McGrew plan for homeschool justice, they were made to leave the country. If you've got a problem with that use of that expression, I would suggest you take it up with yourself.

This is, at a minimum, highly impractical in immigration,

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I know some immigrants. It seems to me that people are typically allowed to immigrate unless there is some good reason to disallow it. It has been the experience of my immigrant friends that the government goes to some trouble to discover whether there is any reason to disallow it, and that the government does not seem to take the practicality of this process to be particularly important. Ultimately, it seems to me that potential immigrants are typically treated in a curt, borderline disrespectful, but ultimately fair manner. In any case, I think that our government ought to treat people fairly, and that if this is inconvenient for you, that is your problem.

I do sometimes wonder if non-discrimination (against preferred groups, at least, though sometimes not against white males) is liberals' one deontological category.

I must confess that I literally have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. Discrimination is morally important because it is deeply unfair; when powerful institutions engage in systematic discrimination, great injustices result. If I were to play along, I would retort that we liberals often wonder why conservatives seem so insensitive to injustice. You want to declare that all Muslims, over a billion people, are summarily ineligible to immigrate to the US. Not because they're all bad; because a small minority of them engage in depraved "honor" killings. But it's not that you're worried about the killings in themselves, how to stop them, or how to protect the victims; it's that you're worried that there is an outside chance that the killings might possibly inconvenience you. You're worried about yourself, not the victims. The idea that you would then lecture me on what you infer must be my moral priorities is a pretty funny joke.

Brian Leiter calls conservative Christians the "Texas Taliban," but when conservative Christians want to ensure that the real Taliban does not come to America, Brian Leiter calls it bigotry. On another note, an attribute of the Taliban is thinking that a husband is always responsible for what his wife does. Apparently, some red diaper offspring never lose their baby fatwa.

Mr. Zero--if that's who really are--why is it that when a sniper shoots at an abortion doctor, it is okay for the Left and the media to infer that it is the fault of the prolife movement, but when someone points out that Muslim theology as taught in the Middle East seems inexorably linked to anti-semitism, misogyny, and hatred of the West, you scream bigotry when it is even suggested that the U. S. government ought to be careful in its immigration policies and take this religiosity into serious consideration.

Why do you, Leiter, and so many others in the academy hate the country and civilization that provides to you the finest lifestyle in the history of humanity? Is it because you cannot accept that its Christian roots--which you also loathe--made your success possible? If you look at the foundation of Western Civilization you will not see Marx, Freud, or Nietzsche. What you will see is Moses, Jesus, and Socrates. No matter how much want to think otherwise, reality did not begin in 1962

Mr. Zero--if that's who really are--

LOL! You are hilarious, St. Thomas! It's a pseudonym. It's obviously not really who I am. I'm not Brian Leiter, though. Over at my own blog, I've posted several criticisms of the PGR. Plus, I think I've been much nicer than he would have been.

you scream bigotry when it is even suggested that the U. S. government ought to be careful in its immigration policies and take this religiosity into serious consideration.

I have no idea why you think this is what I'm up to. Of course I think the government should be careful about whom it permits to cross our borders. Dr. McGrew has not suggested that the government "be careful," though. She wants the U.S. government to completely shut our borders to all Muslims. She says, "they should not be in America." Why not? Because they are Muslims, and a tiny minority of Muslims do bad things. And if they come here, somebody who opposes Dr. McGrew's educational practices might use their presence as a weapon against her. In this post, she is not worried about terrorism or moved by compassion for the victims of honor killings. She proposes what is obviously bigotry out of naked, paranoid self-interest.

why is it that when a sniper shoots at an abortion doctor, it is okay for the Left and the media to infer that it is the fault of the prolife movement...

Why is it that when a Muslim is anti-semitic, misogynist, and hates the west, it is the fault of Islam, but when a Christian sniper shoots an abortion doctor it is not the fault of Christianity? Did you ever notice that Christianity has its own problems with anti-semitism and misogyny? Let's not even discuss child rape. Also, though you lump Socrates together with Jesus and Moses, he wasn't a part of that tradition (duh). Christians outlawed the reading of Plato (and all other pagans) for a thousand years, which halted philosophical and scientific progress in the West until you came along and were persuaded by the Muslim Averroes to read Aristotle. I mean, really. If it weren't for Islamic culture, we would have no access to your hero Aristotle, or Algebra, or the concept of zero, or a numeric system that makes advanced mathematics possible.

Why do you... hate the country and civilization that provides to you the finest lifestyle in the history of humanity?

Again, I'm confused. I have no idea why you think I hate our civilization. I don't hate it. I think certain parts of it are unfair, and think other parts could be improved in other ways. For example, one way I would improve our civilization has to do with conservative touchiness: when I disagree with some piece of religious bigotry, I do not thereby express hatred for All Of Western Civilization. But anyway, when I see someone propose an egregiously unfair overreaction to an imaginary, paranoid threat that undeservedly impugns an entire civilization, I certainly don't think I owe it to my civilization, in repayment for my comfortable lifestyle, to keep quiet about it.

because a small minority of them engage in depraved "honor" killings.

Actually, because their overall culture actually does excuse and encourage such honor killings. In England they have had a lot of trouble investigating and preventing honor killings because the people in the culture tend to lie to protect the guilty, the threateners, etc. Islam Said, the brother of honor killing victims Sarah and Amina, excused their father's actions in typical blame-the-victim Muslim culture terms. It was their fault, it was the fault of their boyfriends. Their boyfriends were gangsters. Their father is the victim. They broke the rules. As I pointed out, in Canada the criminal justice system is already being attacked by an attempt to use "provocation" to excuse an honor killing. In court. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen. But we are not just talking about some incidental connection to Islam but about major cultural clash with detrimental influence upon our Western culture. The possibility of backlash against Christian conservatives is just one aspect of that whole situation which I highlighted here in this post because as far as I know nobody has pointed it out before.

As for citizens, I know it's a long thread, but at the very outset of the thread I said that I have no solution to sell regarding actual Muslim citizens. Their presence here in such numbers is a result of our having been stupid and foolish in the past, but stupidity and foolishness cannot always be simply reversed, and this is obviously one such instance. I'm certainly not recommending revocation of citizenship on the basis of being Muslim. My post,after all, was about _immigration_ and says--deliberately--nothing about Muslim citizens. But we don't have to _keep going_ down a foolish road.

Oh, and that road is foolish for many reasons, by the way. Just because I didn't get into the terrorism connection in the main post hardly means I'm not concerned about it. But my focus here on making a particular, Islamic type of domestic violence (or a set of types) a part of American culture--which we Americans have a right not to want to have happen--does point to a limitation to a solution sometimes proposed: that prospective immigrants swear off commitment to jihad. There are more problems with Islamic culture than jihad.

And certainly, I don't think that anybody should just be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. unless there is some highly specific reason, pertaining to the individual, for them not to do so. Nor do I identify such a virtually open-borders policy with "justice." Why should I? Coming to live and work in the U.S. isn't a natural right, and nobody has given a good argument for thinking that it is.

Addendum: I agree with Mr. Zero (surprisingly enough) that he is behaving much better than one would expect Prof. Leiter to behave under similar circumstances--in fact, professionally, which is not (sad to say) the sort of behavior I've come to expect from Prof. Leiter. And that is appreciated.

"Thomas Aquinas", you dishonor the reputation of your namesake. Linking to unflattering photographs of someone to mock the person? Linking to the insane Keith Burgess Jackson, whose bizarre obsession with Leiter has made him the laughing-stock of the philosophy blogosphere? Are these actions befitting a Thomist?

Dear Another Leiter Blog Reader or "AL BoRe":

First, I'm just a peeping thomist. Second, I linked to KBJ's blog for Walker's article. You're right; KBJ is nuts. But for a Leiter apologist to say that someone is "the laughing-stock of the blogosphere" is like [edited for language--LM].

In some possible world, we could have been friends AL BoRe. It makes me sad to think that.

TA

Mr. Aquinas, I'm afraid I had to edit your comment a bit for language.

I beg your forgiveness, Ms. Lydia!


These primitive peoples are the enemies of civilization they must be separated from civilized societies lest they destroy those scoieties

Stan, if you are auditioning for the role of "Defender of the West", I don't think you deserve a callback. The house of Islam is divided as this story suggests;

The tradition of besa--keeping one's word--is so deeply rooted among Albanians that when they committed themselves to saving the lives of Jews during World War II, they did so despite the danger they put themselves in. It is because of the courage and conscience of the mostly Muslim Albanians that the country's 2,000 Jews survived the Holocaust.
http://jewwishes.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/jew-wishes-on-besa-muslims-who-saved-jews-in-world-war-ii/

Thanks, Lydia. Excellent analysis.

I don't think that anybody should just be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. unless there is some highly specific reason, pertaining to the individual, for them not to do so.

That would be a reasonable thing to say, except that there are clearly specific legitimate reasons for Muslims to immigrate to the US. To pursue an education; to be with a loved one or a lover; to find a better life for his or her family; pretty much all the reasons all our ancestors immigrated. (Even Native Americans came from somewhere, however long ago...). It would be tragic, awful, and unjust if the government made an immigrant's religion a criterion for immigration. And again, although I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, this seems like the sort of thing that the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.

Again, I haven't suggested that the government be careless about immigration. On the contrary, I have suggested that the government completely disregard practicality when investigating potential immigrants. I have not suggested that the government enact an "open-border" policy. On the contrary, I have suggested that when the government's exhaustive investigation turns up a good reason to disallow immigration, it ought to disallow it. I have simply suggested that the government ought to regard irrelevant considerations as irrelevant, and that it apply its laws in a fair and consistent manner.

Mr. Zero,

I think you and Lydia are going to disagree very much about what counts as a good reason for a nation to allow someone in. I, personally, have to think a little harder before I can conclude whether a nation is prima facie obligated to let people in unless they have, say, a security concern against doing so. (Is that what you're saying? If not, apologies for misinterpreting you--I've sort of skimmed this discussion.) What do you think of the following kinds of concerns? Government officials restrict immigration because...
(1) they don't want to tax their social safety net
(2) they think new immigrants would change their cultural values in an objectionable way
(3) they don't want their current poor people to have to compete with a new crop of poor people for jobs
(4) they don't want more unskilled workers
(5) a strong majority of their populace vociferously asks them to (e.g., votes out the ones who won't restrict, sends letters, etc.).

Also, re: religion. If there's a Wahhabist (or a Christian like Fred Phelps) from out of the US, are their religious beliefs adequate grounds to restrict them from entering?

I know I've asked you a lot of questions; I won't hold it against you if you don't answer them.

I think part of the issue between me and Mr. Zero is that he believes that anything like your 1 & 2 (e.g.) may be applied justly only if one has specific information about _that individual_ who is applying for entrance to show that he is a significant problem in those regards, where such "specific information" cannot (!) be a reference to his cultural background and religious affiliation. In other words, it wouldn't be enough if his religious background in the cultural context of his particular country (e.g. Somali Muslim) does usually consider FGM to be required. One would have to, for example, get him to admit that he considers FGM to be required and intends to try to carry it out on his children.

Now, this is why I use a phrase like "criminal justice model." The idea, I think, is that the sorts of information (for example, statistical information or information about religious beliefs) that would be inadmissible in court to convict someone of a crime after the fact is _unjust_ to use for screening purposes in other contexts. So, e.g., if you were trying somebody for allegedly having gotten FGM performed on his daughter, they wouldn't allow you to come in and say, as a prosecuting attorney, "You, the jury, should consider it more probable that this man had his daughter mutilated because of this statistical information about Somali Muslims and because he is a Somali Muslim." Now, this is an understandable restriction in a court of law, but of course it isn't an actual restriction on the use of evidence for rational belief. A rational person with the relevant background evidence will _of course_ consider it more likely that S believes in FGM upon learning that S is a Somali Muslim. Because I don't believe that it is a punishment to be kept out of the country, I don't think the use of statistical information for purposes of screening is illicit even though it wouldn't be admitted in court.

And, no, the First Amendment has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with immigration policy. How in the world could it? Just look at the text. You're going to have to have one heck of a penumbra to get that out of it!

Given your approach to these things, Lydia, why restrict ALL Muslims from entering the country? Why not just certain sects? E.g., a Shiite quietist from Nablus would be much likelier to peacefully assimilate than a Wahhbist from Riyadh. Obviously, you'd have to be convinced of the benefits of allowing any sect of Muslim in, but some of these Muslims are, say, engineers who could contribute to US GDP, and who may also help out with US culture through their support for socially conservative policies.

Bobcat,

I agree that Dr. McGrew and I probably have substantial disagreements about what would count as a good reason for a nation to permit someone to immigrate. However, I don't think any such disagreement could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. As long as Dr. McGrew thinks that the United States could have a good reason to allow someone--anyone--to immigrate, my point stands. Take a person whom Dr. McGrew would agree is a suitable candidate for immigration, and call her "A". Suppose A is a pacifist, well-educated, independently wealthy, involved in humanitarian work, engaged to marry an American citizen, has been admitted to Stanford Law School, and that her home country's government has been overthrown by a brutal totalitarian regime, which she strongly desires to escape. Suppose she's very likely to be killed unless she escapes. Suppose she has a minor in her charge who would be subject to female genital mutilation unless A can get her into the US. Suppose whatever other conditions it might take to satisfy Dr. McGrew are satisfied.

Now take a person exactly like that, only who is a Muslim, and call him "B". B is an otherwise iron-clad candidate for immigration, and Dr. McGrew would deny him entry on the basis of his adherence to Islam. She thereby accepts a morally repugnant form of religious bigotry, whatever other philosophies of immigration she might accept. It's very simple.

Dr. McGrew,

You say that I believe "that anything like [Bobcat's] 1 & 2 (e.g.) may be applied justly only if one has specific information about _that individual_ who is applying for entrance to show that he is a significant problem in those regards, where such "specific information" cannot (!) be a reference to his cultural background and religious affiliation." (my emphasis)

I was surprised when I read the bolded text, too, though not for the same reason you were when you wrote it. I obviously have not made such a strong claim. I don't claim that the government shouldn't avail itself of relevant information, or that the person's cultural or religious background cannot be relevant. I don't claim that the government should be careless with respect to immigration. I simply deny that the US should adopt an immigration policy that prohibits Muslims. I claim that for the government to do so would be a repugnant form of religious discrimination. The nice thing about this position is that it is correct; my opponents here, you and Thomas Aquinas, have been forced to mischaracterize and distort my position before you could present seemingly cogent responses.

I think the government should consider the possibility that your Somali Muslim immigrant would mutilate his daughter's genitals. However, I don't think that the government should be so careless and bigoted as to assume he will simply because he's Muslim, as you do. I think they should make an exhaustive effort to determine whether he is, in fact, dangerous. As they do with all immigrants, and as they would do if he were a christian. I say that the government should treat Muslim immigrants no worse (and no better) than they treat Christian immigrants. And if the INS were to discover that he is a genital mutilator, I think they should deny him permission to immigrate. But if they discovered that he was trying to rescue his daughter from his genital-mutilating brother, then, ceteris paribus they should permit him to immigrate. The fact that he's a Muslim is irrelevant and should be regarded as such.

I have more to say about the First Amendment, and will post it in a second comment.

Well, Bobcat, I've gotta tell you that I think the word "quietist" is doing nearly all the work in that question. Consider the fact that Hezbollah is a Shiite group and the apparent existence of a connection between Hezbollah and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade. Or consider this poisoning plot in...Nablus:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ck3B80hVeEsJ:www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost%252FJPArticle%252FShowFull%26cid%3D1207649983255+%22Aham+Rial%22+poison&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

(It's cached. That's why the URL is so long.)

Now, once we recognize that the Shiite-Sunni thing isn't going to do the work of finding only Muslims we should want rather than Muslims we should be very concerned about, then we go right into the territory of some other kind of screening just to find, at an individual level, the ostensibly peaceful, moderate, ones eager to assimilate. But there are problems with that at any level, it seems to me, and I cannot for the life of me see that it's incumbent upon the host country.

And I think it's important to remember the many axes involved here. Mr. Zero faults me because in the main post I didn't mention terrorism. But in reality we have to think about the terrorism axis, the domestic violence--wife-beating, honor killing, not allowing strangers to say "hello" to your wife, FGM--axis, the constant demands for concessions and special privileges and the change of the public face of our own culture axis (e.g., the publicly funded religious footbaths in Dearborn), the _sympathy_ and _support_ for all these things (funding terrorism, concealing information about fellow Muslims involved in these other activities, etc.), and so forth. I know of no identifiable Muslim group qua group that raises no legitimate concerns along any of these axes.

However, I don't think that the government should be so careless and bigoted as to assume he will simply because he's Muslim, as you do.

No, I hold that the connection between Somali Muslims and FGM is sufficiently strong that it isn't necessary to prove that some particular individual one is "dangerous" or "a mutilator" (notice, again, that implication that we're talking about proving past actions). I'm sure you know the word "utilities," Mr. Zero, from a decision theory class somewhere or other? I think it's legitimate for our utilities to be such that we don't have to do all this further exhaustive work to prove something against the individual when we have this statistical evidence. The probability is high enough that such a person will bring this repugnant practice or _at least_ sympathy for it and an inclination to protect others who do it, into our culture. We have a right not to want this repugnant practice and acceptance thereof to become part of our culture and to have our social workers, law enforcement, etc., have to deal with it. It's perfectly legitimate (on multiple bases, I might add, not only this one) to make a general rule not to admit Somali Muslims into the U.S.

Could there ever be a good reason for an exception to a ban on Muslim immigration? Again, I know it's a long thread, but I expressly said above that I suppose that there could be. But it would be very rare and should be an exception to a very strong general rule. In other words, I think it would be highly rational and good for many legitimate government reasons to discriminate to a huge extent against Muslims in immigration. So sue me. :-)

Regarding the First Amendment: Again, I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I sent an email to a friend who is a professor of law. The relevant text says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The usual test case for this sort of thing is Lemon v. Kurtzman, which requires (1) the law have a legitimate secular purpose; (2) the law not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) the law not cause excessive government entanglement with religion. A law that failed to satisfy any of these conditions would be unconstitutional; your law would fail to satisfy them all. It would violate (1), since there's no legitimate, rational indication that the presence of Muslims interferes with your homeschool situation; it would probably violate (2), since it's primary effect would be to inhibit immigration on a religious basis; it would also violate (3), since it would involve the government deciding who is a Muslim and who is not. So you've got a trifecta.

Though you didn't really articulate your objection to taking the First Amendment to protect against this kind of law in a clear way, I initially took you to be saying that since immigrants aren't here yet, the Constitution doesn't protect them yet. My friend indicated that this is controversial. Although the Court has deferred to Congress on immigration policies concerning political views, the text of the Amendment says Congress shall make no law--suggesting that Congress cannot make such laws.

My friend also indicated that the better argument is based on--get this--due process. Since religion is a fundamental liberty, the law must serve a "compelling end," rather than a merely legitimate one, and the means employed by the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that end, and be necessary, so that if less restrictive alternatives are available, those must be chosen instead. So the purpose of the law--in this case, the protection of homeschoolers from a potential attack from liberals that uses Muslim honor killings as a weapon--must be "compelling" rather than merely legitimate. I doubt the Court would find this purpose compelling. The means employed by the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve its end, but this proposal, with its blanket prohibition on Muslim immigration, is anything but narrow. And there cannot be any meaningful alternative, when there clearly is. The government could simply try to determine whether some particular Muslim immigrant is likely to be used as a weapon in a potential attack on the McGrew homeschool situation. Which wouldn't be recognized by the court as a good reason to prohibit Islamic immigration anyway.

In any case, comparing your remarks concerning the First Amendment with those of my law-school-professor friend I am forced to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

P.S. I didn't fault you for not mentioning terrorism. I fault you for having an extreme position--that all Muslims should be barred from immigrating to the US--for an extremely terrible reason--that continued Muslim immigration might possibly provide a way for some whacko to oppose your right to homeschool your kids.

I hold that the connection between Somali Muslims and FGM is sufficiently strong that it isn't necessary to prove that some particular individual one is "dangerous" or "a mutilator"

1. No it isn't. What is the correlation between being a Somali Muslim and being a genital mutilator? How strong is it? What number expresses it? Is it possible to have good evidence that some particular Somali Muslim is not a mutilator? What if the government has evidence that the person is trying to protect a loved one?

2. Your proposal is not that Somali Muslims be prohibited from immigrating; it's that all Muslims be prohibited. Not all Muslims are from Somalia. Some of them are from England. How do you go from Somali Muslims to Muslims?

3. Your rationale for prohibiting Muslim immigration had nothing to do with female genital mutilation. Your initial proposal had to do with what you saw as a potential attack on your homeschooling rights. Though you shifted to terrorism and genital mutilation when your initial rationale was shown to be wholly without merit, this was not your proposal, and I can only think that you must have made this move because you have seen how awful with respect to truth, ethics, justice, and law your initial position was.

Hi Mr. Zero,

I haven't read the whole thread, so I could be off on this, but my sense is that Lydia is arguing as follows:

(1) her primary concern is with her ability to homeschool her kids freely.
(2) She fears that if Muslim immigration is free-flowing, there will be several cases of Muslim home-schooling parents who do things to their kids that US society finds extremely objectionable. I.e., there will be many more cases of abuse than there are now.
(3) Since she fears there is already a special animus directed against home-schooling parents, opponents of home-schooling will seize upon abuses by Muslim parents as reason to shut down the whole institution.
(4) Therefore, since she, admittedly somewhat self-interestedly, wants to minimize the chances of homeschooling being stopped, she thinks an appropriate way of doing that is stopping all Muslim immigration.

Given (1)-(4), it seems to me that your 3 is misplaced. Your 3, by the way, reads: "Your rationale for prohibiting Muslim immigration had nothing to do with female genital mutilation. Your initial proposal had to do with what you saw as a potential attack on your homeschooling rights. Though you shifted to terrorism and genital mutilation when your initial rationale was shown to be wholly without merit". She brings up FGM as an example of the kind of practice that, if it were perpetrated by Muslim homeschooling parents in the US, would increase the chances that home-schooling would be shut down.

In any case, my problem with Lydia's proposal is not the fact that it takes into account a person's religious background. For instance, if you knew that someone were a Nazi (I know, it's not a religion, but it seems as though it has a lot of proxy beliefs), then I don't know that I would be opposed to preventing any member of a sect of Nazis from immigrating, even if they had heretofore done nothing illegal. No, my problem is that I think "Muslim" is too large--much too large, I would guess--a category to prohibit. There are some--I should think many--sects of Muslim, I'm guessing, that we have no reason to think would create serious opposition to home-schooling if they were here (most Muslims already in the US, for example). It should be fairly easy to discover which sects these are, no?

I get the feeling that I have not been clear enough, given that Mr. Zero thinks I've somehow shifted. Let me clarify: My post was chiefly addressed to my fellow conservatives and home schoolers. I want to warn them against some sort of "making common cause with Muslims because they are conservatives too" idea. I want to point out that common-cause buddies like that can cause aspersions to be cast on one's own movement. But this would not be the case if that group did not have tendencies and characteristics that are objectionable in themselves. It is because of those tendencies and characteristics--many of which I listed in my above comment to Bobcat--that the _government_ should restrict Muslim immigration. But the home schooling conservative should recognize that it is in his interests to _support_ such restrictions because of (among many other considerations) the way that those objectionable tendencies and actions could be used against him later on because of the association "traditional, conservative, want family privacy, want to pass on their values to their kids" with "abuse of wives and children."

Hypothetical: Imagine a group of Scandinavian self-styled Christians, a particular sect, who want to home school their children, who quote the Bible all the time, and who expressly believe in blowing up public buildings to bring in the Kingdom of God. Imagine that some members of this group have already been arrested in Scandinavia and that the rest of them want to come here to the U.S. The government should refuse to let them in because of their building-blowing-up teachings. Home schoolers should not support their cause and should oppose their immigration, also because of their building-blowing-up teachings, but with the additional twist that home schoolers shouldn't want to be associated with that sort of behavior, as that could have repercussions for home schoolers.

I hope this is clarifying.

Bobcat,

The reason why the US should be careful about permitting potential female genital mutilators to immigrate is because female genital mutilation is a brutal, barbaric practice that should not under any circumstances be permitted. Since we cannot eradicate it everywhere, we should at least try to keep it from happening here. The fact (it's not a fact) that the government might overreact to a Muslim homeschooler who committed female genital mutilation by shutting down homeschooling altogether (it wouldn't) is no reason to mount a wholesale opposition to all Muslim immigration. As I pointed out in my very first comment, this reaction involves a terrible irony: she wants to use an egregious instance of religious bigotry to pre-empt an attack on her religious freedom. And as I pointed out in my first amendment post, the Court would never go for it, since there is a much more narrow and simple way to accomplish Dr. McGrew's goal: fight to keep homeschooling going in spite of the government's imaginary attempt to halt it. So I'm inclined to stand by my point #3, since I don't think the protection of one's homeschooling rights has any place in a rationale for such an extreme immigration policy. But even if my #3 doesn't stand up, I've got 9 or 10 other devastating objections to Dr. McGrew's proposal.

So, just to respond to your numbered list, I would say that (1) is perfectly fine with me; (2) is a total straw man, since nobody--nobody--thinks that immigration should be "free flowing"; (3) is silly; and (4) is obviously unconstitutional for all the reasons I mentioned in the First Amendment post and more, and is also nuts.

Mr. Zero, I thought that my clarification would have answered something you've been saying here. I'm not saying that _the government's_ reason for restricting Muslim immigration should be because of possible backlash against parental rights. I'm saying that the government's reason (one of them) should be because of the tendency to approve negative practices in Muslim culture which are as a category abuses of family privacy and parental rights. That tendency, in turn, because it is an abuse of parental rights and concepts like family privacy, may be used _in fact_ against conservatives who wish to retain parental rights and family privacy. Therefore, those conservatives have a particular interest in supporting restricting Muslim immigration.

It seems to me that my point ought to be pretty clear. Freedom implies responsibility. It is foolish to set up a system that gives people a lot of freedom and not expect this system to be harmed in various ways when you deliberately bring groups of people who have as part of their cultural baggage a tendency to use those very freedoms in a way that the host country will (rightly) regard as abuses. The analogy to airport security seems to me a good one, which is why I made it above. We in America used to take for granted the ability to travel around without being extensively searched. We valued that freedom. But people abused it, and we have now lost it. The government would have done well to work harder to exclude those from our shores who belong to groups that approve actions abusing those freedoms. If we could do that, we could hopefully go back to air travel without being extensively searched. We could regain our freedom there, a freedom which, in turn, presupposed a populace not inclined to abuse the freedom. If I said that we should support restrictions on Muslim immigration so we could have easier air travel, perhaps you, Mr. Zero, would be horrified. But the motivation there for ordinary Joe Citizen is _related to_, but not _identical to_, the governmental reason involved. The governmental reason involved is to have fewer people in the country who are likely to try to hijack, bomb, etc., airplanes.

Once again, I hope this is clarifying.

Information relevant to a question above. According to UNICEF, FGM has an incidence in Somalia of about 95%. UNICEF states (no kidding) that the practice is deeply embedded in Somali culture.

http://www.unicef.org/somalia/cpp_136.html

Numerous links give a Muslim population in Somalia of 99%.

Dr. McGrew,

Your comment @ 13:13 was definitely clarifying. It clarifies how disingenuous you are.

Look. You've got a proposal up there. The proposal is, "stop Muslim immigration." You say, "they should not be here." That's the proposal I'm talking about. You've also got a reason for making the proposal. The reason why you think we ought to stop Muslim immigration is "for the sake of parental rights." The rationale you present is this: some Muslims engage in honor killings, and these honor killings might possibly be used as a weapon against the rights of parents to homeschool their children. That's the reasoning I'm talking about. I am talking about your reasoning for your proposal. It's fair for me to criticize this reasoning and this proposal because this is the thing you've proposed and this is the reasoning you've presented in its defense.

Now you say, this isn't the reasoning the government should employ when it adopts this policy; the government should adopt this policy, but the government's reasons for adopting the policy should be entirely different from the ones I'm advancing here; and furthermore, you, Mr. Zero, are unfairly attacking this line of reasoning which I have never suggested that the government employ. Puh-huh-lease.

In any case, I do not think that the ease and convenience of air travel should be prioritized ahead of safety, nor do I think that ease and convenience of immigration should be so prioritized. I have never suggested otherwise. I do not think it should be easy or convenient for anyone to immigrate to the United States. I therefore do not think it should be easy or convenient for Muslims in particular to immigrate to the United States. I do, however, think it should be possible for Muslims to immigrate to the United States, and I have thoroughly demonstrated that your reasons, as you have stated them for disagreeing are practically, morally, and legally completely worthless.

(The other set of reasons you present, the ones you think the government ought actually to employ, are also worthless. If it's possible for the government to keep us safe from Jihadists and honor killers and mutilators without broadly prohibiting Islamic immigration, it must do so. This is, obviously, possible. And the government should not be in the business of deciding once and for all who is a Muslim and who is not. The problems: myriad; your comprehension if immigration and first amendment law: stunted.)

P.S. I was aware that genital mutilation was big in Somalia. That's why I think it's important to allow certain Somalis to immigrate. Suppose the government has compelling reasons for thinking that this applicant is one of the 5% who's not a mutilator. Suppose the person is trying to escape mutilation. I propose a flexible immigration policy that would allow the government to gather information and to make use of relevant information it possesses.

No, I didn't say that the government's reasons are "entirely different" in the sense of "unrelated." Obviously, the fact that a group of people has a cultural background that excuses horrific behavior is at the root both of governmental interests here and of the interests of conservatives in supporting that governmental action. I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you. There's nothing disingenuous about it. I'm spelling it out over and over again. Conservatives like any other group have a perfectly legitimate reason for looking at how negative cultural changes may impact them, including in unexpected ways, and using that consideration to avoid making unwise alliances. Letting groups in whose cultural background excuses horrific behaviors affects all of us, and one of the ways it affects us is that we end up with fewer freedoms as the government tries frantically to control said behaviors. This is especially true where the government isn't allowed to make religious distinctions among groups once they are in the country--hence, for example, no "profiling" at the airports, so the little Japanese grandmother is as likely to get wanded down as the 23-year-old Saudi male. Hence, ordinary citizens have an interest in preventing the entry into the country of people who, by their bad behavior, are going to prompt government crack-down. The government has an interest in preventing entry of people who are going to behave badly. There is nothing disingenuous here at all.

I notice you are a little unclear in stating your position on the burden of proof issue. Sometimes you talk as though your objection is merely to a no-exceptions no-Muslim immigration policy. This could mean that the you're okay with having a prima facie case against Muslim immigration and having the burden of proof be on the Muslim to convince immigration officials that he's (as in the case you give above) one of the 5% or whatever. But other times you talk as though the burden of proof is on the government and that burden _cannot be discharged_ by citing even very strong statistical evidence but only by evidence that ties that person as an individual to negative practices. I conclude from the preponderance of your comments that the second is your actual position, but if so, you should leave out "suppose the government has compelling reasons for thinking that _this_ applicant is one of the 5%," which seems to imply the first position.

I didn't say that the government's reasons are "entirely different" in the sense of "unrelated."

You said that you support a ban on Islamic immigration for the purpose of erecting a Rube Goldberg protection of your right to homeschool your kids. Then you said that the government shouldn't employ that reasoning, but rather should impose a ban on Islamic immigration because of terrorism and stuff. Disingenuous. Unjust, too.

Sometimes you talk as though your objection is merely to a no-exceptions no-Muslim immigration policy.

Well, you've proposed a no-exceptions no-Muslim immigration policy. I object to it. Very simple.

other times you talk as though the burden of proof is on the government and that burden _cannot be discharged_ by citing even very strong statistical evidence but only by evidence that ties that person as an individual to negative practices.

I think it depends very much on what kind of statistical evidence the government has and how it is employed. I don't have a fully worked-out view concerning the ins and outs of the burdens of proof in immigration law. Since I have no formal legal training, anything I could come up with would be amateurish and legally unacceptable, just as your analyses of the "criminal justice model of immigration," due process, and the first amendment all are. This is why I asked a law professor for help.

Anyways, the lucky thing for me is that I don't need any such worked-out view on the burdens of proof in immigration proceedings, since I have shown that your proposal is wrong in about ten or fifteen ways that don't depend on what burden of proof the government must meet. Although you persistently misread me as saying so, my position is not that the government must permit immigration unless it can prove that a denial is warranted. My position is simply that the government should not deny immigration to all Muslims, and that your reasons for thinking it should are worthless. The reason I've been unclear about the burden of proof issue is that my position doesn't depend on it at all.

Mr. Zero, I have said that I suppose there could be grounds for _very rare_ exceptions to a strong prima facie rule against Muslim immigration. I've said it twice. My browser is slow now, and I don't have time to look them up and give you the links. One of them I said after you joined the discussion, in case you hadn't seen it above. You'd make quite a fuss if I misrepresented your position even to that extent, but I merely mildly point out what I've said, now for the second repeat since you joined the discussion.

I'm no more interested in trying to spell out what such grounds would be, as they would be highly specific to the situation, than you apparently are in spelling out what relevance you _do_ think statistical information about Islam legitimately has (in justice if not in existing law) to immigration practice. So somehow I don't think our positions have moved any closer together.

I totally agree with the opinions expressed in this work. I, too believe that muslims (lower-case by intention) should not be allowed to immigrate to the US or any nation has that a love for free markets and other freedoms. Muslims constitute a tyrannical oligarchy within the world and do so in the US as well. It is not permitted to have such an institution in the US by law. The government is in Washington, not in the mosque. Already we see what is happening with the islamization of Europe. You can tell by the smoke rising from those nations as the by product of their vast foreign, islamic, unassimilated populations. Tolerance of evil will be the downfall of us all if things are not quickly mended. Thank you for speaking out on this issue.

I was a Muslim for many years, a convert who studied my chosen religion passionately. What I discovered was so horrifying that I could no longer defend Islam. I agree with you, Lydia! Stop Muslim immigration. Muslims should remain in the Muslim countries. Why do so many of them want to come live among the despised infidels (and yes, all of you whose hearts bleed for the "oppressed", super-sensitive
Muslims, they despise YOU, too, and scorn your weakness.) They should be overjoyed to remain in the land of the sharia, the "house of peace".
Why do you think they come to the Western countries, which in Islam are deemed "the house of war"?
They have come to fight - or to support others who fight. WAKE UP!!! Are you going to tell me I don't know about the Quran, Hadith, Muhammed's history, and The Ummah (Muslim community acting as one entity)? I know more than the average "born" Muslim on this subject...and far more than the naive Westerners who think that if we're really, really nice to the crocodile, he won't snap your head off. Right. That'll work. LOL! (But it's not funny: it's crazy and dangerous.)

You have created a very nice article. This article would like to thank you for sharing with us.

In de lente van dat jaar 1683, vertrekt een leger van driehonderdduizend moslims, onder bevel van Karà Mustafà uit Istanbul en trekt naar het Westen. Een machtig leger. Het machtigste dat Europa ooit gezien heeft. Een indrukwekkende massa mannen, paarden, kamelen en wagens. Ze plunderen dorpen. Ze roven alles wat eetbaar is. Ze ontvoeren vrouwen om de seksuele driften te bevredigen van duizenden soldaten die twintig, dertig kilometer per dag moeten marcheren. Het doel dat Mohammed IV zich stelde was het veroveren van Wenen, om daarna met zijn legers naar Rome te trekken en, eenmaal daar aangekomen, om de Sint-Pieter basiliek in een moskee te veranderen. Net als zijn voorouders, jaren daarvoor, hadden gedaan met de schitterende, weergaloze basiliek Aya Sophia te Constantinopel (naam verandert in "istanbul"). (.....)

De elfde september 1683 is Wenen verloren. De kanonschoten van het leger van Karà Mustafà hebben kraters geslagen in de bastions van de verdediging. De waterwegen worden verontreinigd. Besmette ratten worden over de stadsmuren gegooid(....) Het Westen staat aan de afgrond van een definitieve vernietiging.

Bij het aanbreken van de twaalfde september valt de verdediging aan. En tegen iedere voorspelling in winnen ze.

Tussen dat Europa en het Europa waarin wij nu leven bestaan angstaanjagende overeenkomsten. De geschiedenis heeft ons geleerd dat de Islam virus een zeer gevoelige antennes heeft. Het «voelt» de zwakheid van Europa en beweegt zich westwaarts." (zie: Ottomaanse invasie)

Bendes moslims teisteren Nederlandse steden.
Onderzoek wijst uit dat maar liefst 86% van de tweede, derde en nu ook vierde generaties Turken en Marokkanen kiest voor een huwelijkskandidaat uit het herkomstland van de ouders. De omvang van de generatie huwbare Moslims neemt flink toe, waardoor op korte termijn een aanhoudende stroom huwelijksstrijders, maar ook als Turkije lid wordt bij EU, een complete volksverhuizing uit deze landen valt te verwachten. Meer dan een derde van de Turken zal proberen weg te vinden in het Westen als Turkije toetreedt tot de Europese Unie en er geen beperkingen worden gesteld aan het vrij verkeer. En dit is de belangrijkste eis van Turkije. Turkije wilt ten koste van alles "het vrij verkeer" van haar heilige volk mogelijk te maken. Islamitische Turken zijn nog steeds tegen de westerse cultuur, ze willen ook geen enkele raakpunt hebben met de "kaffers". Wat een Europeaan nu doet is een taboe geworden voor een Moslim. Moslims die Turkije lid willen maken bij EU zijn de opvolgers van Kara Mustafa. Onderhandelingen over toetreding zijn irrelevant, tot nu zijn er honderden miljoenen Euro gekost. AKP en de leger zeggen dat ze graag lid willen worden, bereid om alle hervormingen die nodig zijn door te voeren( tot nu allemaal schijn!!!) maar gelijktijdig eisen ze: "het vrij verkeer van de Turken naar Europa". Turken zijn bereid om: 1- Stoppen met de bezetting van een deel van huidige EU grondgebied (Noord Cyprus). 2- erkenning van Koerden. 3- Erkenning van Armeense genocide. 4- Hervormingen van het leger, politie, justitie, wetgeving (schijn activiteiten om naïeve Europeanen af te leiden) etc. Maar daar tegenover willen ze één ding zeker: "het vrij verkeer naar Europa". En dit is alles wat de Turken steeds eisen. Ze dreigen steeds harder!. Ze weten heel goed wat ze willen. Het vrije verkeer naar Noord Cyprus resulteerde extra 300 000 duizend Turken op het Eiland en het was gelijk afgelopen met die vrije Cyprus. Turken hebben een deel van deze Eiland compleet bezet en gaan ze nooit terug. 26 EU landen bij elkaar kunnen niet een bezette deel van hun grondgebied verdedigen tegen de Islamitische Turkije. Noord-Irak weer hetzelfde, Turken smokkelen steeds meer rasgenoten naar deze gebied en eisen gelijk olievelden van Kirkuk en Mousoel. Het vrije verkeer van de Turken naar Europa kan er immers voor zorgen dat overbevolkte regio's compleet gedestabiliseerd raken met de meerderheid van Moslims. De toevloed aan moslims zorgt er bv. voor dat wonen in en rond grote steden van europa onleefbaar wordt en als gevolg veel gebieden praktisch in handen van de Moslims gaan vallen. Dit is wat de Turken zeker weten, Turkije nu met een kleine 80 miljoen inwoners + in EU landen circa 10 miljoen en in omringende landen met honderden miljoenen Moslims heeft genoeg met een "kleine " eis: "vrije weg naar EU", voor deze optie zijn ze bereid om alles te doen. Maar met deze wapen kunnen ze hele EU definitief vernietigen. Nu wordt het hoogtijd dat het vrije verkeer van Moslims naar Europa compleet gestopt wordt.
Veel hier geboren moslimjongeren, willen graag deelnemen aan nieuwe strijdtonelen in West-Europa.
Deze islamitische jongeren vormen een diffuus netwerk van internationaal georiënteerde vijandelijke organisaties en blijken vaak bereid enige vorm van ondersteuning te verlenen aan islamitische activiteiten. Westerse invloed is nog steeds schijn op deze nieuwe generaties en zijn ze langzamerhand in de handen van de gevaarlijke machthebbers gevallen. Deze jongeren laten een 'soldatengodsdienst' zien die is vormgegeven in een soort 'georganiseerde tegenstander van de westerse cultuur. De aantrekkelijkheid voor deze jongeren is dat ze gezamenlijk voor de zaak van hun ouders gaan vechten. Als ze onderling Nederlands praten, beginnen ze constant met, Allah, hallal, wallah, billah, insallah, masallah... Hun manier van organiseren wordt als 'echte opdracht' voorgesteld zodat ze 'voor de zaak van Allah' werken...Dit is wat Mohammed aanbood aan zijn volgelingen, en je hoeft niet lang te denken over wat voor slag mensen hier graag deel van zouden willen uitmaken. De erecode voor deze 'heilige bende' is vastgelegd in de Constitutie van Medina', en dat is een duidelijk erecode voor roofridders, die elkaar bijstaan door dik en dun en geen afvalligheid en verraad toestaan." Nederland staat een ware invasie van dit soort Islamitische tijdboom te wachten. De komende jaren zullen nog vele, voornamelijk Turkse, Marokkaanse en Somalische tijdbomen, onder de naam "immigranten, bruiden en bruidegoms, allochtonen, gelovigen" naar Nederland gehaald worden.
Nu zijn er miljoenen moslims binnen EU landen en een "paramilitaire" huiding hebben tegen de Europese volkeren is een grote gevaar....Moslims verspreidden zich over diverse landen en vestigen zij zich zonder problemen in West-Europa. Deze nieuwe generatie islamitische nomaden worden eveneens onderdeel van het diffuse internationale netwerk. Hun inspanningen zijn er sterk op gericht de moslims in het Westen zich van westerse waarden en normen te doen afwenden. Daarbij prediken zij een extreme afzijdigheid van de westerse samenleving, propageren vaak onverdraagzaamheid ten aanzien van andere groepen en de omringende samenleving en zetten aan tot het (heimelijk) uitbouwen van parallelle samenlevingsstructuren en eigenrichting .
In de grootsteden zijn er veel gevaarlijke Moslims actief. Ze stellen onomwonden dat Europa moet worden overgenomen en zijn bereid daartoe geweld te gebruiken. In de afgelopen jaren heeft er een toename plaatsgevonden van hun destructieve activiteiten. Bijna elke wijk in de grote steden krijgt moskeen, islamscholen, internaten, TV schotels etc.. Deze Moslims zullen nooit stoppen en gaan ze weer hun nieuwe eisen stellen, bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van de onderwijs, justitie, politiewerk en geloof... De segregatie gaat onverminderd door en de verhouding moslim/niet-moslim wordt steeds groter. Instroom van nieuwe Moslims en vervolgens de geboortecijfers er bij pakt, dan krijg je een heel ander beeld...Steeds meer wijken en gebieden worden van Nederlanders gezuiverd. Nu zie jij daar alleen moslims. Ze spelen alsof ze antiracisten zijn.. Deze valse antiracisten zijn zelf grote racisten. Geen enkele Islamitische vrouw mag met een westerse man trouwen (bloed en ras bescherming). Turken en Arabieren zijn raciaal tegen de Koerden, Joden, Christenen en Berberen etc... Deze mensen vinden het immers nodig om bij iedere mogelijkheid die zich voordoet de racist-kaart te spelen. Heel dit gedoe was te verwachten nadat in onze grotere steden de criminele Turken, Marokkanen, Somaliër, en Antillianen de dienst uitmaken,en van onze steden een hel gemaakt hebben. Veel corruptie, dat staat vast, een maffiabende binnen de politiek en justitie, ze stelen, roven en vullen hun zakken goed. Niet voor niks komen ze allemaal weg met een mooi baantje na hun loopbaan. Ze zorgen in ieder geval goed voor elkaar en voor hun Moslims. Zonder massa criminele Moslims hebben ze helemaal geen werk! Nu een lid van het Hof Amsterdam van tevoren geprobeerd een getuige van Wilders, een belangrijke arabist, een hoogleraar dus, te beïnvloeden?!! Zo van "wees maar tegen Wilders". Maffia-achtige ontwikkelingen bij de Hof, dat is al jaren bekend (zie ook IRT affaire, Commissie Van Traa en dood van, Van Traa zelf die veel wist, auto ongeluk was een toneelstuk! Natuurlijk is Nederland geen snars beter dan Italië, waar de Maffia vandaan komt. Natuurlijk viert Islamitische invasie macht, corruptie, misdaad en criminaliteit hier door de gehele bv Nederland hoogtij, bijna altijd ongestoord.). Wilders moet nu helemaal vrijgesproken worden! Op het moment dat er veranderingen op komst zijn en mogelijk de rechtstaat op de schop gaat (eindelijk). Gaan ze hun ware gezicht laten zien. Oplichters, dieven, draaideurcriminelen hebben hier een paradijs. Aangestuurd vanuit de politiek dat is nu wel duidelijk. Het is een Politiek proces om een parlementaire monddood te maken. Er wordt álles aan gedaan om iemand met een afwijkende mening weg te pesten! Het is een corrupte rechtsgeleerden cabaret. Het is al ziek om te bedenken de vrijheid van meningsuiting te vervolgen en de miljoenen haat-Moslims ongedeerd te laten in Nederland en Europa. Dit is wat Libische Dictatuur Kadaffi met zijn kleine 190 miljoen dollar wilde bereiken...(Omkoop in EU landen van Libische piraat is jaarlijks minimaal 190 miljoen dollar. Veel EU politici en hoge ambtenaren worden omgekocht om het "vrij verkeer van de Moslims" mogelijk te maken). Wanneer worden er eens kamervragen gesteld over de onafhankelijkheid van een OM én rechters?! Het hele zgn. rechtsysteem hier is één grote farce. Je hebt hier nergens recht op tegenwoordig! De rechterlijke macht moet van onbesproken gedrag zijn en elke schijn die partijdigheid zelfs maar suggereert moet voorkomen worden. Hier is meer aan de hand dan de case Wilders alleen! De reputatie van de onafhankelijke rechtspraak is inmiddels in het geding, dat is met zo'n publieke zaak een slechte gebeurtenis. Veel ambtenaren staan openlijk aan de kant van de Islamitische invasie. Islamitische invasie moet juist nu veroordeeld worden. Diegenen die hier nog gekampeerd en een hand boven het hoofd gehouden worden, zijn de échte criminele moslim strijders. We zijn echt zelf ziek bezig om ons Europa ondersteboven te zetten. We blijven maar in die droom dat alles goed blijft gaan. Ook al was Geert Wilders er niet, de terrorisatie gaat gewoon lekker verder en zal zich in de toekomst alleen maar uitbreiden. De gewone burger niet die wordt gefrustreerd achter gelaten. De rechterlijke macht in dit land is dringend aan verversing toe! Er wordt reeds decennia lachwekkend recht gesproken. Het is meer old-boys-network binnen de rechtspraak in Nederland. Geen wonder dat steeds meer burgers in verzet komen tegen de willekeur en wildgroei in ons land! De schijn ophouden door met meters dossiers naar buiten te treden... Het zit diep geworteld, taak van overheid om alles onder het tapijt vandaan te halen en de schuldigen keihard aan te pakken.
Dubbele Nationaliteit

Er is natuurlijk een duidelijk verschil tussen mensen met een dubbel paspoort samen met zweden of Engeland of de mensen met een dubbel paspoort samen met Marokko en Turkije. De Marokkaanse en Turkse staten menen iets anders met de dubbele nationaliteiten..., ze willen invloed uit te oefenen op de Turken en Arabieren hier. Verder moeten ze zorgen dat er veel Moslims bij komen om zijn rijk uit te breiden.
"Immigratie" van Moslims heet nu volksverplaatsing!

De gestaag groeiende Moslims populatie vormt een grote probleem. Nu zeg 7.6%, straks 15%, over zeg 15 jaar 28% - over 4o tot 70 jaar 50%? Daar zit het probleem. Dat gaat de hele maatschappij veranderen. Dat begint al met kleine dingen in het dagelijks leven: zwembaden reserveren tijden alleen voor islamitische vrouwen. Islamitische omroepen. Werkgevers houden rekening met de islamitische ramadan. Scholen krijgen nu al islamitische gebedsruimte, Hallal kantines (zie: UVA,VU en allerlei Hogescholen met de mescit (kleine moskeen) in hun gebouwen!!!), veel docenten zijn bang voor de Moslim jongeren die meerderheid vormen in hun scholen. HBO-Raad die burka-hoofdoek moest verdedigen is een gevaarlijke voorbeeld voor de andere scholen.!? Gemeenten die kickboxen organiseren zijn gevaarlijker dan de gewelddadige Islamitische jeugd zelf. Gedwongen huwelijken, eermoorden, demonstratieve hoofdoek-burka-moskee minaretten, veel kinderen, integratieonwillig, gewelddadig en werkloos – de kenmerken zijn de basis elementen om Nederlandse maatschappij ten val te brengen...De vlag van de politieke islam waait steeds harder en de strijd tegen de Nederlanders wordt op alle fronten uitgevoerd,(zie: georganiseerde politieke groeperingen die binnen de grote politieke partijen zich schuilen en opeens zeggen, "ja we zijn Turken en we willen nu anders!!) . Het kenmerk van de Islamitische organisering heeft geen enkele samenhang met de Nederlandse cultuur. Westerse regeringen hebben een prioriteit gemaakt van het integreren van de moslims in hun samenlevingen. De Turken en Arabieren echter trachten deze integratie te voorkomen omdat ze deze moslims willen inzetten ten bate van hun eigen politieke agenda. Zij staan parallelle samenlevingen voor, waarin moslims feitelijk in een status aparte leven. Dit politiek islamisme vormt dus een grote bedreiging. Geen enkel moslims in staat is zijn ‘wortels’ los te laten of te ontkennen is nu ook in Nederland bewezen . Ze zijn bijna 50 jaar binnen en geen enkele heeft een Nederlandse naam, ze doen mee aan de moskeebouw die volgens hen bezetting van het land betekent: deze is namelijk onverbrekelijk verbonden met de identiteit van een Turk of Arabier die de integratie met een andere cultuur uitsluit. Alle historische voorbeelden wijzen er op dat er met het groepsvorming kunnen ze nooit geïntegreerd worden met een andere cultuur waar ze binnengedrongen zijn. Segregatie is dus enige feit, je krijgt zo een snelgroeiende staat binnen de staat en dat kan niet altijd zo blijven gaan. Huidige immigratie en integratie beleid zal nooit een succes worden zolang de grote meerderheid van de Moslims zich geen immigrant beschouwd...Het gaat om een soort nieuwe type “hicret”, wat mohammedanen periodiek moesten doen. Zich verplaatsen naar de nieuwe gebieden en daar groeien tot de meerderheid. Naast elkaar leven met de oorspronkelijke volkeren, mag alleen om tactische redenen en mag niet langer…Meerderheid vorming en de bezetting van het land, De vooruitgang in de islamitische wereld wordt al eeuwen door deze collectieve waanzin tegengehouden. Nu in alle redelijkheid gesteld kan worden dat er hier groeiende Moslim kolonies zijn, dus geen sprake van een integratie proces.

Brutale moslim dictators en hun handlangers in Nederland.


Het proces tegen Geert Wilders, is oorspronkelijk een internationale actie van de moslimdictators via Nederland en is een schande, het is niet legitiem!


Zie de eerdere opmerkingen van moslim dictators, als:Abdullah van Saudi Arabië, Kadhaffi van libie, Ali Abdullah Saleh van Jemen, Ahmedinejad van Iran , de Mohammed, Leiders van Turkije, Omar al-Bashir van Soedan...Even later een rechtbank tegen Geert Wilders. Aangezien deze dictatoriale regime's niet legitiem zijn, zou dit waanzinnige proces samen met de dictators, zo snel mogelijk moeten verdwijnen. Het proces tegen Geert Wilders, dat dankzij de medewerking van deze dictators tot stand kwam, is dodelijk. Door de islamitische cultuur-wetgeving gestimuleerde bevolkingsgroei, die nog steeds exponentieel is, betekent dit, dat in alle moslim-landen de gevreesde overbevolking zeer snel plaats vindt.
Neem nu Egypte, de overbevolking daar, is een groot probleem. Het bewoonbare gedeelte van Egypte is zo groot als Nederland, maar er wonen wel negentig miljoen mensen, vijfmaal zo veel als in Nederland. De hoofdstad Cairo beslaat een oppervlakte van Amsterdam en haar voorsteden maar het herbergt meer mensen dan in heel Nederland. Pakistan is weer hetzelfde. In Marokko, zijn er binnen 23 jaar meer dan 28 miljoen moslims bij gekomen. Turkije stijgt naar 80 miljoen. Iran telt meer dan 85 miljoen moslims. Pakistan meer dan 110 miljoen: dat is ook een groot probleem.
Snel groeiende bevolkingen en dictators die nog meer moslims willen. Moeder aarde is in groot gevaar!

Turken hebben circa 12 miljoen moslims geëxporteerd, 99% naar Europa en leider Erdogan die nog meer bevolkingsgroei wil,beschouwt deze volks verplaatsing als een buitengewoon belangrijke job voor Turkije. Moslim dictators willen via hun vijfde colonne in Nederland gaan domineren door te terroriseren. Het zijn juist deze dictators die massa moslims onder de controle houden.In Marokko, wordt alles streng gecontroleerd en zware onderdrukking wordt ook buiten de grenzen toegepast. Marokkaanse en Turkse leiders hebben hun handlangers tegen Geert Wilders gemobiliseerd. Corrupte advocaten, rechters en gesubsidieerde stichtingen gaan gewoon door met hun activiteiten, terwijl er nu in veel landen opstanden begonnen zijn tegen hun bazen. Moslimdictaturen die nu aan het wankelen zijn, hebben miljoenen moslims naar Europa gesmokkeld om strategische doelen te bereiken. De 5de colonne, hoofdproduct van deze dictators, heeft vaste voet in Nederland. Deze moslims krijgen orders voor het stichten van een islamitische enclave. Moslim bewegingen die hun steun vinden in hun thuis-basis. Dat is het wanbeleid van de EU landen, zij hanteren anti-westerse ideologieën om mensen te mobiliseren. Als je alles goed volgt, dan zie je hoe deze moslims met niet te noemen methodes worden  gedwongen te vermenigvuldigen. Nergens kan een immigrant zo het zo snel het voor het zeggen krijgen als in Nederland.

Als we naar de islamitische wereld kijken, zien we vooralsnog alleen maar armoede, analfabetisme, onwetendheid en onvrijheid, met steeds meer invloed van de radicale islam, waardoor deze landen steeds meer achterblijven en richting duistere Middeleeuwen gaan. En nu moeten we al die islamitische ellende na 1400 jaar vrijheid, hier weer gaan stimuleren, terwijl veel landen in opstand komen tegen die brutale moslim-dictators. Als de huidige, door de elite gedoogde, trend van ongecontroleerde voortplanting,doorzet, zullen wij binnen de kortste keren een islamitische staat zijn, met alle gevolgen van dien. Wij worden dan weer onderworpen aan de moslim dictators met hun zeer verouderde cultuur van achterlijkheid!
De oude garde met hun dictatoriaal nationaal socialistische islamitische regimes, proberen door dit proces de verdediging van Neder land definitief af te breken. Dit proces is als een hetze aangewakkerd door o.a.:"Kleurrijk Neder land."
{Een organisatie, met militante moslims, die alleen één kleur erkennen, subsidie vreters!} Een obscuur clubje narrow-minders die nauwe banden heeft met de hand-langers van islamitische regimes, waarbij ook Nederlanders, zijn.
Het is toch te gek, dat een rechtbank het OM kan dwingen, Geert Wilders aan te klagen. Daar blijkt duidelijk uit, dat de rechterlijke macht vooringenomen is en probeert haar invloed buiten haar grondwettelijke grenzen uit te breiden.
Orders, (in die zin van "schakel eerst die Wilders uit") aan de Nederlandse ambtenaren zijn puur terroristisch. Het is een politiek proces met de bedoeling een politieke partij te ontmoedigen die tegen de islamitische verbreiding is en niet om de grenzen van de vrijheid te toetsen. De islam is een misdadige en abjecte ideologie en verdient het predikaat religie m.i. niet.
Het geeft alleen meer geweld en meer onderdrukking. Kijk maar eens naar de vergiftigde verhoudingen in sommige wijken van grote steden, waar met name islamitische jongeren de autochtone burgers terroriseren en buurten onleefbaar maken.
Kijk naar hun herkomst landen waar de islamitische dictatuur heerst. Je ziet dat ze geen respect hebben voor alles wat niet-islamitisch is. De laffe en walgelijke terreurdaden van dictators tegen hun burgers is hier het zoveelste bewijs van.
De islam van deze dictaturen is in opmars en zorgt overal ter wereld voor ellende, genocide, terreur en vervolging. In 1973 waren er ongeveer een half miljard moslims in de wereld, vandaag is dat aantal ongeveer 1.8 miljard. In afwachting van een machtsovername in West-Europa bouwen zij met de steun van de Europese regeringen hun structuren uit. De islam heeft in Europa voet aan de grond en zal niet rusten voor ze het publieke domein overheerst en andere levensbeschouwingen kan onderdrukken, nog voor het jaar 2050. Zoals bekend groeien moslims razendsnel in Nederland; 9 keer meer dan de Nederlanders. Verscheidene haat predikende imams roepen op voor non stop groei tot de meerderheid bereikt is en jonge moslims polariseren nu al via hun omgangsvormen en de gelaatsbedekking. Turken en Marokkanen controleren grote massa moslims binnen west Europese landen:
Als voorbeeld,
Landelijk beraad Marokkanen
Contactgroep Islam (CGI)
Federatie van Marokkaanse gemeenschap Nederland
Milli Görüs Noord Nederland
Nederlands Islamitische Federatie (NIF)
Raad van Marokkaanse Moskeeën Nederland (RMMN)
Stichting Islamitisch Centrum Nederland (SICN)
Turkse Islamitische Culturele Federatie (TICF)
Unie van Marokkaanse Moskeeorganisaties Amsterdam en Omgeving (UMMAO)
Federatie van Islamitische Organisaties Nederland (FION),
Islamitische Stichting Nederland (ISN) enz. enz..
Deze organisaties hebben tienduizenden leden en haar groei is nog steeds gestaag.
Dit moet de basis worden van hun toekomstige Islamitische dictatuur.

In de islamitische wereld word precies bijgehouden hoe ze de "racisten" via hun eigen wapens kunnen vervolgen. Kijk maar hoeveel moskeeën en moslimscholen er in europa worden gebouwd. Dat is om hun eigen volk te laten zien dat europa veroverd kan worden.
Het is een feit dat allerlei politieke partijen meer dan 40 jaar lang dictaturen in het Midden Oosten financieel en militair hebben gesteund. Ze kunnen hun verantwoordelijkheid hiervoor niet langer ontlopen.


PVDA, CDA, Groenlinks, CU, D66 zeggen dat ze voor de hoofddoek zijn en bovendien is die voor hen een belangrijke breekpunt!.
Ze zeggen elke keer dat ze verdragen hebben aangenomen en onderschreven hebben van moslimlanden met hun dictators.
Deze moslim-dictators hebben allerlei contacten die kunnen zorgen voor een langer verblijf in Nederland. De miljoenen burgers echter komen nu in opstand tegen deze dictators en eisen hun rechten op. PVDA, CDA, Groenlinks en D66 hebben het elke keer over de rechtsstaat, maar tegelijkertijd steunen ze in Nederland een nieuwe implementatie van al die dictatoriale regimes:Haram - Salam bij Utrechtse gemeente, Hallal eten bij overheid instellingen, Hoofddoek implementatie met de steun van corrupte ambtenaren, korancursussen, Overal moskeen neerzetten, Islamlessen steeds uigebreide hersensspoeling bij het onderwijs, Aparte zwemplaatsen en Regels voor vrouwen met een andere achtergrond, Subsidies aan hoofddoek organisaties, Iraanse Nederlandse vrouw doodgemarteld in Iran en PVDA, CDA, Groenlinks, D66 en CU zeggen weer niks, voor hun walgelijke hoofddoek hebben ze wel een breekpunt! Deze partijen willen niet zien en horen hoe miljoenen mensen onderdrukt worden in hun "geliefde" Islamitische wereld. Je kunt aan de opstanden in Tunesië, Egypte, Iran, Jordanië, Algerije, Marokko en Jemen zien dat de mensen daar niet houden van dictatuur.Moslim wethouders en burgemeesters die banden hebben met hun dictators openen nog steeds grote moskeen in Nederland. PVDA, CDA, Groenlinks en D66 en hun burgemeesters, wethouders gaan gewoon door met hun wanbeleid; Ahmed Aboutaleb en
wethouder Hamit Karakus, hebben regelmatig overleg met de dicterende macht uit hun herkomst-landen. Ze bouwen islam structuren en de orders van dictators worden nog steeds doorgevoerd, zo zorgen ze ervoor dat de structuren van verovering doorgaan.  Je ziet overal werkloze moslims rondlopen die hier al 35 jaar van ons uitkeringssysteem leven,
aan hun geloof doen ze weinig maar er moet wel een moskee voor ze gebouwd worden. De financiering daarvoor wordt bewerkstelligt via zware uitbuiting van overbevolkte moslimlanden. Dus met het bloed van die mensen daar, kunnen hier in Nederland moskeeën neergezet worden i.o.v. die dictators.  Het gevolg van dit systeem is een complete verval van de samenleving. Hardwerkende mensen die het land ontvluchten. Politieke partijen die de macht in de steden hebben kunnen kopen met subsidies en uitkeringen. De onzekerheid over de vrijheid in de toekomst kweekt wantrouwen. De Koran, het rode boek van al die dictators, geeft uitdrukkelijk opdracht tot de bekering en onderwerping van andersdenkenden.
Dus: De islam is een misdaad, niet alleen tegen de mensheid, maar ook tegen de dieren.Terecht wil Geert Wilders een verbod op deze misdadige politieke ideologie.

Het is nu tijd om te stoppen met dit waanzinnige proces. Moslim dictators en hun druk op de Nederlandse politiek kan nu afgebroken worden. Het moet nu maar eens afgelopen zijn, de opstanden zijn begonnen. De hele strijd kan weer teruggeplaatst worden naar hun thuis landen. Meer dan 2 duizend jaar geleden deden de Romeinen dat ook: Hannibal zat in Europa en kon niet verslagen worden, Uiteindelijk wist Scipio de oorlog naar Noord-afrika te verplaatsen. Na een jaar van voorbereidingen landde Scipio in 204 v. Chr. in Afrika, waar hij de Carthaagse stad Utica innam. Anders zou Hannibal zijn blijven kampen en zich continue verbreiden. Meer Romeinse successen volgden en de situatie was nu zo ernstig dat Hannibal met het restant van zijn leger naar huis terugkeerde (202 v. Chr.).  Wij moeten ook de huidige moslim export van de dictators zo snel mogelijk stoppen en via remigratie de hele strijd naar hun eigen landen terugplaatsen. Het is nu tijd om het hele proces terug te draaien! Niet Geert Wilders maar moslim dictators moeten veroordeeld worden.

Met vriendelijke groeten

Adriana Thraces

The problem with Americans like you is, showing your ignorance.
i'll put it this way.
if you want to critisize Islam, get the Quraan, read it and come up with your points. how do you know if all the above examples you gave is actually allowed to be practised in ISLAM. crime is a crime, MURDER is MURDER, there is nothing like islam projecting purnishment to be lessened if the killer and the victim are families. if a muslim, robs a bank, or does any crime that anyone is also liable to commit.. the crimes are linked with islam. i wouldn't be suprised if you jump to a conclusion, if you see a Muslim father having sexual relationship with his daughter, saying it is allowed in Islam therefore there shouldn't be Muslim immigrants.
As for the diabetic patient, if she wasn't taken to the hospital for treatment meanwhile they just kept praying, that is clearly a child abuse. it's just like a muslim writing an exam he hasn't studied for , and expecting to pass it. God said do your best and i will help, so if they had taken her to the hospital and then kept praying, that would have been the best option. Lydia, you know nothing about islam.
Next time you wanna critisize , you should try and point fingers at the criminals and not trying to associate the crime with Islam.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.