What’s Wrong with the World

This is like reality TV. If you know someone is recording you with the intention of publicly documenting your behavior, why on Earth would you behave like such a jackass unless you either are dumber than a box of bricks or just twisted on the inside?

Or are a Muslim with the usual supremacist assumption that you can get away with whatever you darned well please on your Arab Festival turf. And maybe that assumption is correct.

Most Western European countries have gone further down this road than we have, if only because they're more multi-culti and have proportionately bigger Muslim populations. But the backlash is beginning; most of you are familiar with Jihad Watch and Geert Wilders, so you don't need me to provide the evidence. As more and more people Europeans perceive the danger to themselves posed by the double standard, the nationalist and nativist parties gain strength, and dhimmitude is no longer considered morally obligatory. Unfortunately, things will probably have to get worse here before they get better. But we are not doomed to remain an Obamanation. There's still plenty of time to fight this.

I'm not at all sure how much success said parties will have in the European countries. To my eyes they look like they may be doomed rearguard actions. Part of the problem there is the fragmentation among those resisting Islamicization, the unfortunate past histories of some of these parties (though not all) with white supremacism, as well as the absence of a robust European tradition of freedom of speech. It will take long here for us to get as bad as Europe. I just don't know how far it will go and when or whether it will turn around. Many things are bellwethers--the ACP's suit, whether there are any charges brought in this case from this video, and so forth.

With the possible exception of Wilders' party in the Netherlands, the right-wing European parties probably won't attain political power at the highest level. But I don't think their importance depends on their attaining that goal. Rather, their resurgence is a sign that many Europeans are getting fed up with the dhimmitude double standard. That disgust should, and I suspect will, work its way into more mainstream channels.

The main problem is not the direction attitudes are heading in, but the demographic trends: European Muslims more than replace themselves, while the natives' birth rate is below replacement level. The reasons for that disparity are spiritual and moral: the secularism and materialism of the natives and the "spiritual energy" (to use the Pope's phrase) of the Muslims. Europe, including Eastern Europe and Russia, is doomed unless that turns around.

As for the U.S., I have much more hope. There's a lot more spiritual energy here than across the pond.

I have much _more_ hope for the U.S. But the situation depicted in this video is a very bad sign. Things should not have gotten to this pass, and we are definitely moving toward "no-go" areas where Muslims simply run their own affairs regardless of law. We absolutely must face the problem of Muslim immigration, but there is no will on the part of anyone in power to do so. Too many conservatives, even, shy away from the issue, and the previous president was entirely uninterested in considering what Islam is up to in the U.S. and much more interested in telling us that it is a "religion of peace." And even if we did halt the influx, I do not know how much could be done about enclaves such as Dearborn, as I fear many of the people engaging in this behavior in these places (including yelling, "No way" when the woman behind the camera declared, "This is the United States of America") may be birth citizens.

I'm inclined to think there is a lot more hope for Europe than Americans acknowledge; and somewhat less hope for America than most Americans acknowledge.

For instance, the political consequences of the recession in Europe have generally redounded to the benefit of right-wing parties over there, in stark contrast to the situation here. The Conservative Party in Britain may be a pale shadow of robust Conservatism, but it is certainly a more conservative force than Labour or the American Democrats. A recent election in Poland produced an astonishing 75% vote for right-wing parties, and strong votes for conservative all across Europe.

In short, while the baseline position of Europe is well to the Left of ours, the current political trends are far more conducive to conservative rebounds; and it wouldn't take long to switch positions.

Call Amnesty International! Some Christians in Michigan just got their camera's blocked!

Quick! Someone call the children in Africa! You know, the kids with the distended bellies! Someone needs to tell those starving kids to stop what they're doing immediately! Ignore the hunger! Ignore the worms! It's an emergency and we need all the prayer that we can get! Everybody say a prayer for all the persecuted Christians in Michigan!

A recent election in Poland produced an astonishing 75% vote for right-wing parties, and strong votes for conservative all across Europe.

In short, while the baseline position of Europe is well to the Left of ours, the current political trends are far more conducive to conservative rebounds; and it wouldn't take long to switch positions.

I would be cautious about drawing such conclusions. Even though Bush won in both 2000 and 2004, the country as a whole continued moving further left during the whole period (indeed, as it continued moving during the Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton years: nobody with Obama's views could have even won the Democratic nomination in 1980, much less the national election). Unless the conservative wins in Poland and elsewhere help bring back nuclear families and a notion of limited government with subsidiarity, any advances won by the conservatives will be superficial, short-lived and ultimately futile. And it is hard to see real substantive gains towards conservatism as a whole as long as both media and schools are controlled elsewhere. Why oh why can't conservative parents see that sending their kids to schools means turning them into little socialists?

You guys do realize that Muslims constitute .6% of the population of the United States while Christians constitute 76%. God forbid an actual fact might get in the way of your medieval blog's crusade against "jihad," but an Ottoman invasion is not coming to America.

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

K:

An injustice occurred in Dearborn. The purpose of righting this wrong is not to stop an Ottomon invasion. The purpose is to make sure that the rights of our fellow citizens are protected. By bringing up generalities, you ignore the specific wrong.

Engaging in Christian evangelism is protected under the freedoms of speech and religious free exercise. Being a member of the majority religion does not mean one must relinquish those liberties. Below is a link to the Constitution. Let me highly recommend you read the First Amendment in a section called "The Bill of Rights." You can find it here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html If you're having a tough time finding the Bill of Rights, here's a direct link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends The First Amendment is called "Amendment One." It appears right before "Amendment Two." Enjoy.

So how does the calculus work here? At what percentage does it become ok to point out these infringements of rights? 50/50? Or do Christians have to wait until they're all the way down at 0.6%?

I'm not denying that rights were violated. The point is that your entire blog is devoted to a trivial problem.

The blog is devoted to a problem that can be, and very likely will be, a serious problem -- both here and in Europe, just as it is already in other parts of the world.

The blog states that it's for a "defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ." The blog also states that one of the "hostile powers" to which it stands against is "Jihad." Now based on that apocalyptic description, I would think that Christianity comprised .6% of the American population, while Islam comprised 76% of the population. In fact, it's the other way around. This blog takes a trivial issue, adds apocalyptic language, and produces blog posts. Christianity in America requires absolutely no defense against Islam.

Obviously, the small percent of the American population which Muslims constitute does not prevent them from changing the quality of American life, particularly in places where they are concentrated and hence in a position both to make unreasonable demands (as in numerous instances I could cite) and to bully others and set aside the rule of law, as in this video. This is a problem sensible people should be concerned about. K., if you don't like my priorities, you are welcome to go and agree with someone else somewhere else, or even to snark at someone else somewhere else. I'm certainly not going to let you waste a lot of my time.

It doesn't matter whether or not I like your priorities. What matters is that your priorities are falsely grounded in a apocalyptic view of a American demographic whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the American Buddhist population. Sensible people should not be concerned with your "problem." More importantly, sensible people ARE not concerned.

You know what? The commenter is right. Our blog's purpose was plainly never very well thought out. We neglected demographic statistics, of all things! We operated under the assumption that the country was 75% Muslim, without ever checking into it. Wow. How foolish.

So let's close up shop. It's the only reasonable thing.

I thank the commenter for so selflessly discovering our errors, so anonymously exposing them, and thus so helpfully turning us from what is clearly a waste of time. Whatever would we do without one-letter commenters who can discern these things in the course of a few minutes and rescue us from our folly?

K- you're bogging down the opportunity for sensible conversation by looking at the forest and not at the trees. This blog, as I understand it, is not opposed to Islam. It's purpose is to examine the voluntaristic force opposed to reason that is jihad. Islam is not synonymous with Jihad, as you seem to assert, but Jihad is not possible without Islam.

Finally, while Muslims make up .6% of the population in America, Muslims account for 22% of the world's population. That fact does make Islam a sensible topic to address.

I am especially grateful to K for pointing out that Buddhist and Muslims are basically the same minority because they represent the same percentage of the American population. Here I was worried that principles like Dar al Islam & Dar al Harb, sharia law, female genital mutilation, jihad, dhimmitude, and Taqiyya were important differentiating characteristics of the Muslim culture. Turns out, I was totally mistaken. What the heck was all that rioting about in France and througout Europe where the Muslims have grown in population? They are just like Buddhist people.

Thanks for the keen insight there, K.

Perhaps commenter "K" would like to apply the same logic to the alleged problems confronted by homosexuals in American society, inasmuch as homosexuals do not constitute 10% of the American population, but more probably somewhere between 2-3% - surely a percentage so low as to warrant complete and utter disregard of the caterwauling from that 'community' about marriage, partner benefits, and so forth. If a mere .6% of the population, some sizable fraction of which effectively establishes Constitutional-rights-free zones, does not suffice to arouse rational concern, then surely a mere 3% of the population, engaged mainly in cloying whining, does not suffice to engage our interest in their grievances.

In other words, I suspect that the size of the minority population is a matter of utter indifference to commenter "K".

No concern for you, K--natch. You and all who think as you are "sensible people."

Never mind the thousands who chanted "Who is our leader? Nasrallah! What is our army? Hezbollah!" in the streets of Dearborn back in 2006. Nor the wanderings of gun-toting self-described jihadi and medical student Houssein Zorkot through a Dearborn park back in the fall of 2007. Nor U of M Dearborn's use of public money to build Muslim footbaths (what happened to that "wall of separation" again?). Nor the mass purchases of disposable cellphones by Dearborn Muslim high school grads (the guts of which make ideal radio detonators) back in 2005...

Nope. Nothing to be concerned about at all. Unless you live within 100 miles of Dearborn.

I doubt you'd call ignoring similar behavior from members of a Christian [sic] Identity compound in Idaho or Meir Kahane's fanatics in Brooklyn "sensible."

Baiting accomplished.

Now suppose that an American Muslim went to a Christian festival for the purpose of evangelization, and suppose that this American Muslim brought a camera along with him to document the experience. I ask you folks to honestly consider whether the American Muslim evangelizing at the Christian festival would receive better, worse, or equal treatment than the American Christian evangelizing at the Arab festival. If you think that the American Muslim would receive equal or worse treatment, then the relevant feature in the above video is not that those violating first amendment rights were Muslim, but some other feature. As for myself, I do think it is wrong that first amendment rights were violated in the above video. Given the above thought experiment, though, I think that it is incidental that those who violated rights were Arab (and so quite possibly Muslim).

And now for my anecdotal information. I'm Orthodox and we have church festival every year. And it is very large, in fact the largest "ethnic" festival in our state (MO). We don't have private security, but real police (and fiefighters too!) present. Of course we feed them for free so perhaps the baklava prejudices them, but in general we haven't had problems like this. This doesn't mean we don't have interlocutors. I work the book table and do the church tours. Last year we had some Landmarkian Baptists, who are some of the more annoying inhabitants on the planet. Things got heated, but it remained civil. Every once in a while we get an overzealous Catholic or Protestant. In any case, its a bad idea to get your own people to do security. They have too much invested in the activity to effectiely diffuse situations like these.

As for "K", given their Ottoman remarks, perhaps they would feel more comfortable protesting the Muslim equivalent of Jim Crow in modern day Turkey. Or perhaps they'd feel better protesting Turkish occupation of Cyprus, where human rights violations make the above look like pre-school. And oh, btw they're a minority. Of course the Orthodox make up the same amount of the US population.

Lydia,

The very fact that the police not only allowed the violation of the rights of these people, but executed their own violations is part of a growing trend with law enforcement acting as an authoritarian force in society. The overall trend toward militarization and the violation of constitutional rights, as well as the exclusive authority to maintain public order and bring law breakers to the courts for justice has resulted in a situation similar to what made our founding fathers loath the British for their law enforcement methods. It is for that reason that I think general police forces as they are constituted need to be seen as the modern analog of the standing army that our founding fathers feared would lead to gross violations of liberty and damage toward law and order.

There is a tendency among many conservatives to fearfully cling to government, to say that without it maintaining a firm grasp on society, civilization will collapse. That may be true today, but that isn't inherently true. For a long time, the English-speaking world thrived without much public law enforcement, and instead got along just fine with a combination of a sheriff, his small corps of deputies, and the general posse comitatus. If we cannot return to that without civilization coming crashing down, then it's already too late; we're simply delaying the inevitable, inescapable fate. If that be true, then it is best to simply get it over with like men and women of principle, rather than grasp like cowards at the chains of our masters hoping for what will never come.

It's time to look at cases like this, and the many thousands of violations, crimes, etc. that professional law enforcement commits and freely gets away with with the state's backing, and say that the entire modern system has failed. Abolish it. Give the entire Dearborn PD pink slips, turn over law enforcement to the county sheriff, and restore genuine community policing where no law enforcer is above the law because everyone is a civilian, fully operating under the civil law and accountable to it.

In cases like this one, professional law enforcement not only did not keep the peace and enforce the law, but was active in undermining it. That is a growing trend in professional law enforcement, and it is one that cannot be reformed out of the system.

In Texas, this would not happen, since most of the Christians here pack heat. With a Bible in one hand and a Colt 45 in our holsters, we will tell y'all about Jesus. :-)

Unfortunately, K is right, there are not enough Muslims at Christian festivals. I wish there were more showing up and seeking to dialogue on issues of theological truth. Sadly, Islamic apologetics has not developed past a crude a priorism. This is what happens when the denigration of reason is integral to your theological project. Thus, it is not surprising that some enclaves of Muslim culture cannot tolerate real dialogue on matters theological.

In contrast, as Avery Cardinal Dulles, S. J. points out in his History of Apologetics, Christianity has a long and noble history of intellectual engagement with its rivals.

If Islam is the obvious truth, why do these Muslims in Dearborn seem so afraid of Christian evangelism that they believe they are justified in employing the instrument of the state to sequester it from public view? This is still a free country. This means that no matter how much you like Shar'ia law, it is inconsistent with the principles of American constitutional democracy. In this country, we believe in religious liberty and that converts from Islam to Christianity have a right to keep their heads. You could say that America is, still, a Mecca of religious liberty. And that's a Mecca we can all visit.

And let us not allow K. to perpetuate the delusion that America is a Christian country whatsoever. To say that 76% of America is Christian is so vague that it is meaningless. All of my friends and their families are Catholic in the sense that they were baptized. That's it. Not one of them is an actual Catholic, and the same goes for most of this country. We have a government and a mass popular culture that is virulently anti-Christian in almost every way, and any remnant of Christianity that is left in this country is just that, a remnant.

America, and the West in general, is liberal. Liberalism is our faith, and it is the only one that we are allowed to practice publicly. Historically speaking, though, Muslims have never had the ability to exercise power over Christians, but, because we are liberal and thus allow minorities to do things that we would never allow the majority population to do, it is now being allowed and therefore merits our attention.

Mr. Beckwith thinks that the reason that American Muslims do not evangelize at Christian festivals is because they lack confidence in the rationality of their faith.

He makes this point shortly after saying half-jokingly that in Texas Christians evangelize with a Bible in one hand and a colt-45 in the other.

There is some truth behind Mr. Beckwith's joke. The more pertinent reason why Muslims do not evangelize at Christian festivals has to do with a justified fear for their own safety. The pertinent reason for their inaction is likely pragmatic, rather than theological.

As for myself, I do think it is wrong that first amendment rights were violated in the above video. Given the above thought experiment, though, I think that it is incidental that those who violated rights were Arab (and so quite possibly Muslim).

Incidental, huh.

Beckwith simply restates the age-old question regarding Islam's relationship with reason. History shows that Islam has evangelized with scimitar in one hand and Qur'an in the other. Muslims need to fear for their safety? See the video above...

K,

Care to back up your claims that American Christians would treat Muslims attempting to convince them of the the truth of their faith claims the same with any actual facts? My own church has an outreach ministry that is designed to invite Muslims in to discuss their faith. I can think of at least three other ministries in Atlanta alone, where I live, that spend massive amounts of money and effort to get Muslims to dialogue in any capacity.

In general, most of the Christians that I know welcome every opportunity to talk to people who want to try to convince them of the truth of their beliefs. So much so that I pity the poor Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that show up to their doors.

My own church had a protester that sat out every Sunday with signs accusing our pastors of all sorts of vile things. How did our members respond? They practically lined up to talk to the guy about what he believed. When he proved less than interesting, we all just ignored him. He moved on eventually.

So aside from referencing Dr. Beckwith's joke and ignoring the substance of his claims, please provide the evidence that Christians are equally as likely to respond to one guy video taping a question that he wanted to ask at a "question booth" by rallying 10 security guards and running the questioner out of the area all the while threatening violence.

Since K. says that his purpose is baiting, one suggestion would be to ignore him. Since he's obviously completely out of touch with reality (suggesting, for example, that Muslims engaging in similar dialogue at a Christian festival--if such exist--would receive similar treatment, which is a ROTFL howler), and since he wants to annoy, there's the old "do not feed the trolls" idea. I'm not saying I'll enforce this in some rigid way, but I suggest it as something to consider.

I plan to have some updates later. Nothing more on the legal situation in this particular case, but a little more info. about the Arab festival and, hopefully, a link to some info. on the further development of Muslim independent areas and treatment as above the law in the UK.

"Care to back up your claims that American Christians would treat Muslims attempting to convince them of the the truth of their faith claims the same with any actual facts?"

"suggesting, for example, that Muslims engaging in similar dialogue at a Christian festival--if such exist--would receive similar treatment"

All Lydia has shown is that evangelizing Christians at ONE Arab festival received poor treatment, so all I would need to show is that evangelizing Muslims at ONE Christian festival would receive poor treatment. I don't have to show that Muslims receive poor treatment at every Christian festival.

The quickest way for me to demonstrate the desired conclusion would be to show that evangelizing Muslims at a Christian festival did in fact recieve poor treatment. What's actual is possible, etc.

But I can't proceed that way. As Beckwith agrees, evangelizing Muslims simply do not show up at Christian festivals. So how could I show a case where they showed up and received poor treatment. The reason why there's not a case is not because Christian festivals do not exist. Here's one: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/world.pulse.festival.attracts.50000/1301.htm

So the argument is theoretical: for at least one Christian festival, it is plausible that an evangelizing Muslim would receive equal or worse treatment than the Christians received in the above video.

David Goldman, aka Spengler, takes note of an aspect of the wider phenomenon: Why do the Spanish Hate the Jews? (Hint: for the same reason they hate Christians). A Russian Israeli journalist, an Alexander Maistrovoy, provides a take on another, far more thematic aspect.

K, the colt-45 line wasn't a half-joke. It was a full joke.

K, Christians welcome debate and dialogue. It is not against the law in our nations to convert from Islam to Christianity and vice-versa. We do not seek to squelch debate under "hate speech" legislation, as has been done in Canada.

When the mullahs embrace the principles of Humanae Dignatus, we can start to talk. Until then, the only thing theoretical is an Islamic philosophy of religious liberty. When it is as easy to build a church in Medina as it is to build a mosque in London or New York, then a conversation has begun. But that is not even on the horizon. This is why the Dearborn thugs are manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence that must not be permitted to flourish in the soil of a civilization that provides the believer in every faith tradition, including the Muslim one, to practice it without fear of reprisals or punishments. All that the Arab Christians in Dearborn are requesting is that the principles of the same Constitution that allows Arab Festivals in Michigan be extended to Christian evangelists who want to express their faith at those very festivals.

The more you fight the obvious, the more reasons you give for us to think that your words are mere rhetorical distractions so that we don't see the sword behind the curtain. I would like to not think that way. Give us, therefore, the reason why I should not think that way.

David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi actually have a blog where they discuss this too.

I am eager to call someone in government in Dearborn so this does not go unnoticed! Any recommendations?

Mr. Beckwith--I live in a city with the highest concentration of Muslims in North America. I interact with Muslims every day. I work with Muslim students. Never have I found among them "manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence." I do not believe that such a commitment governs the behavior of even a single ordinary Muslim that I have come across. I would be interested in hearing your personal experiences to the contrary, however, though I am suspicious that your claims are a priori. That's fine. Muslims are scarce in the States. But if your claims are a priori, then at least admit that you are making an a priori assumption about what is governing the behavior of individual Muslims. Admit that it would be better to see what is governing Muslim behavior by actually interacting with Muslims themselves and not by tuning into "jihad watch."

Related: Here are several anecdotes from a Brit about police refusal to investigate and punish violent crimes in Dover when performed by Muslims, including knifing and threatening with a knife. According to the commentator, the police threatened a local paper with prosecution for "inciting hatred" even for reporting one such crime, thus effectively muzzling the press.

Remind me again why professional police forces do more good than harm to law and order? I am confused, since by definition uniformed, professional police are usually nothing more than enforcers of the raw will of the state. At least in the olden days of the anglosphere, the King or President had to call out the Army to massively violate the public's rights since the local sheriff had to rely on the public for aid.

"I live in a city with the highest concentration of Muslims in North America. I interact with Muslims every day. I work with Muslim students. Never have I found among them "manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence.""

That's very nice. I am happy for you. But I was not talking about your friends, which I am sure are just the sort of lovely people one often finds in a university community in a cosmopolitan city protected by centuries of English common law (though that is fading fast; just ask Mark Steyn). What I am talking about is what happened in Dearborn, which I suspect did not involve your friends. What it reveals is the sort of totalitarian impulse that one finds when anyone dares to suggest that Islam could be false and that we should be free to debate it. This is why there is no archbishop of Mecca, while there is mullah in Rome.

Who needs thoughts experiment proposed by K when one can travel to Europe.
No, not to see Moslems evangelizing. Not that they haven’t tried to do so. I have seen quite a few attempts of Mohammedans pushing their Cult. But I have never, never seen the accosted Christians reacting violently, indignantly or threatening - On the contrary they seemed to enjoy the opportunity to debate the Moslems while the Moslems, whose intellectual capacities were as a rule quite poor, could not restrain their frustration and became angry and offensive. WHat was striking is that even though, at that time, the Moslems were only a very small foreign-born minority the demeanor of their “missionaries” was always confrontational and irritable when cornered by a good argument. It struck me that they behaved more like conquerors than immigrants. And that was in the time when Moslems were still a very small minority…

In short, the palpable facts make K’s invitation to a thought experiment both belated and moot. Instead I propose a thoughtful engagement with some facts. For example that Christians, who (still) are an overwhelming majority in, for example Denmark, Sweden or Norway are routinely physically attacked and their women raped by gangs of mozlem youth. For example, a church in a small Danish town of Gellerup Parken, inhabited almost exclusively by Mohammedan population, has been repeatedly vandalized and attacked with rocks. I really have no time and patience to report endless incidents of almost daily attacks on Christians by Moslems in Northern Europe and France. Incidentally, the UK’s papers are mostly in English, so unless K tries hard not to understand he should get the picture who bullies whom in England. The situation is very much the same in Scandinavia.
Now in a normal world such gross violation of basic norms and understanding between native majority and most recent settlers would create a massive retaliation usually disproportional to the transgression. Yet nothing of the kind has ever happened here. On the contrary, the feeble cries of indignation are either ridiculed or relegated to last pages or simply ignored by the PC-paralyzed media.
K asks what would happen to a Moslem proselytizer if he accosts a Christian during, let’s say Easter street celebration. Well, extrapolating from the few facts I rather casually draw above – the answer is: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. In the worst case he may be ignored, or even told to get lost. But there is not the remotest possibility that some Christian Security may try to harass, intimidate, push him out, or prevent him making photos.

The obvious thing is that K would be a total idiot if he didn’t know the answer to his “thought experiment”. So why did he propose it? Because, as Francis Beckwith and anyone with eyes in his head can see his “words are mere rhetorical distractions so that we don't see the sword behind the curtain”.

He is a crude troll and as Lydia says “since K. says that his purpose is baiting, one suggestion would be to ignore him.” I agree.

"What I am talking about is what happened in Dearborn, which I suspect did not involve your friends."

If the argument only concerns the few Dearborn Arab-Americans in that video, then fine.

But you said:
"When the mullahs embrace the principles of Humanae Dignatus, we can start to talk. Until then, the only thing theoretical is an Islamic philosophy of religious liberty. When it is as easy to build a church in Medina as it is to build a mosque in London or New York, then a conversation has begun. But that is not even on the horizon. This is why the Dearborn thugs are manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence that must not be permitted to flourish in the soil of a civilization that provides the believer in every faith tradition, including the Muslim one, to practice it without fear of reprisals or punishments."

I fail to see how these claims could possibly concern only the Arabs in the Dearborn video. They are claims about Islam in general. Or at least, they are not limited to the Arabs in the Dearborn video.

If your arguments concern Islam in general, it's perfectly legitimate to bring up my acquaintances as counterexamples.

If your claims apply only to the Dearborn Arabs, then they are trivial. If they apply to Islam in general, then they are false. If your claims apply to some the Dearborn Arabs and some other groups, then you are wrong to say "What I am talking about is what happened in Dearborn."

This is why the Dearborn thugs are manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence that must not be permitted to flourish in the soil of a civilization that provides the believer in every faith tradition, including the Muslim one, to practice it without fear of reprisals or punishments.

Dr. Beckwith points out something that unfortunately escapes the swathes of commenters here; that is, I find it ironically hilarious that the noble army of purportedly Christian interlocutors here are complaining at the gall of such an injustice, while at the same time, these are the very ones who would themselves advanced a similar injustice in kind by manner of anti-Islamic legislation. Not that Islam is something I myself particularly welcome; yet, Christian charity unfortunately demands something of me other than blatant bigotry, which I'm glad Beckwith himself opposes and, even further, acknowledges the tyranny of "authoritarian religio-jurisprudence that must not be permitted to flourish in the soil of a civilization that provides the believer in every faith tradition, including the Muslim one, to practice it without fear of reprisals or punishments".

It appears the good doctor gets it; unfortunately, nobody else seems to do same.

If you're right, Ari, then, admittedly, I don't get it. I'm one of those who thinks that the sorts of legislation Lydia seems to endorse (on other threads) are both prudent and just. By supporting Lydia, on this point, I'm not saying that Frank Beckwith is wrong about the importance of dialogue and debate. He's not. I am saying that Islam, in general, is not interested in such debate and its consequences. Those Muslims who are interested pose no threat, so far as I can tell. Those who are not can be very, very dangerous indeed, as the world has seen countless times across many centuries. Against them we ought to protect ourselves, our families, our friends, our cities, our country. The right sorts of legislation can be of help, though they will not cure the disease or eliminate the problem.

Dr. Bauman,

Those Muslims who are interested pose no threat, so far as I can tell.

Then, if you truly believe thus, then why enact hostile legislation against this particular group of Muslims, which are the very ones I'm actually interested in preventing such injustice for rather obvious reasons?

Against them we ought to protect ourselves, our families, our friends, our cities, our country.

As I've said before, committing such blatantly hostile acts against Muslims friendly to our nation can only be counterproductive and, indeed, may ultimately endanger us in the long run.

Thought: Religious freedom is best upheld when there is general respect for the religions involved. Neither an increase in disreputable religions, nor an increase in disrespectful secularists, will serve the cause of freedom.

who would themselves advanced a similar injustice in kind by manner of anti-Islamic legislation.

Yah. Stopping new Muslim immigration is _just like_ getting a gang of people together on American soil and driving away (with threats and violence) people who are talking peacefully with a member of your group on a public street. A "similar injustice."

Ah, shoot. I forgot, I'm trying to ignore Aristocles. Why are the most annoying commentators always the stickers?

"Why are the most annoying commentators always the stickers?"... or else the ones that write the posts.

Yah. Stopping new Muslim immigration is _just like_ getting a gang of people together on American soil and driving away (with threats and violence) people who are talking peacefully with a member of your group on a public street. A "similar injustice."

Oh wow -- what a remarkable example of taking things out of context in order to achieve a sly win; too bad the "similar injustice" wasn't regarding a particular element of bigotry remarkably evident in both acts -- although, I take it so long as it's "Christian" (or, at least, "Christian" persuant to how a particular person defines it as such), it has to be "good".

A charity that asks the West to commit suicide by flooding itself with Mohammedans can not possibly be Christian. And resisting the spreading of Islam - the most bigoted religion founded by a perfect murderous bigot - can not possibly be bigotry.

"Muslims friendly to our nation"?
I don't know about your nation, but I have spent many years looking for one in Denmark and I can honestly say I have never met a serious and honest Moslem friendly to the traditional Christian Denmark - although quite a few openly loved the idea of the Islamic Republic of Denmark. A good Moslem takes his Koran seriously. And the Koran commands hatred toward the Infidel. Now how can one expect a good moslem to square that circle and be friendly? From our Christian perspective the only good Moslem is a bad Moslem.

As I'm sure many readers are aware, the term 'jihad' has at least two referents. Its generic sense is 'struggle'. The primary referent is the inner, spiritual struggle to know and do the will of Allah in one's life. Nobody finds jihad in that sense morally objectionable. The secondary referent is struggling to spread Islam. That in turn has both peaceful and militaristic aspects. Our tradition of religious freedom in America permits peaceful efforts to spread Islam, which are not uncommon. It's only the militaristic aspect of jihad, which Islam has regularly manifested since its beginning, that non-Muslims object to--and rightly so. The video Lydia has posted only shows that Muslims feel justified in doing violent jihad when they can. The evidence for that in Western Europe is overwhelming. Not to mention the Iranian regime and its proxy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the religious persecution in Saudi Arabia, the squeezing of the Coptic minority in Egypt, the attacks on Christians in Pakistan, and on and on...

The outcome of the confrontation between Islam and the West, which is indeed "civilizational," will be determined by several factors. Among them is our ability and willingness to fight and kill those who fight and kill us. Since 9/11, the U.S. has been doing a fairly good job of that. Another factor is our ability and willingness to wean ourselves from Middle-Eastern oil, some of the revenues from which are used to finance jihadis. We flunk miserably on that one, and thus are largely financing our enemies. But the most important factor of all is how the respective religious heritages of the West and the Dar-al-Islam evolve.

If materialism and relativism, as worldviews, hold or gain ground in the West, we will lose the spiritual energy necessary to recognize the real threat of militant Islam and confront it bravely. I see evidence of that in liberals all the time. They think the jihadis are just a scattering of crazy criminals who need to be policed, and that less violent Muslims can be negotiated with in the same way as Westerners. But most Westerners don't understand that Islam itself is not only a missionary religion, which Christianity is too, but also a form of political totalitarianism whose founder imposed such a regime, and whose sacred scripture justifies imposing it, by force. Christianity went through a long period of religious imperialism too, but at least we've learned by now. It will be interesting to see whether Muslims learn too. A few Westernized ones have, and perhaps more will. But I'm not holding my breath. Secular liberalism is likely to continue weakening our will to resist before recognizing the moral obligation of religious tolerance weakens the Muslim appetite for miitaristic jihad.

It's only the militaristic aspect of jihad, which Islam has regularly manifested since its beginning, that non-Muslims object to--and rightly so.

Wellll. I'm not sure that is so simple. I think it's perfectly legitimate to _object to_ even "peaceful" means of spreading sharia law. For example, suppose that the peaceful means used is simply to take over a given town demographically and then to put people into the police and the local government who will tacitly or explicitly acquiesce in the setting up of sharia courts and the quiet setting aside of the on-the-books laws of the land. Sharia courts, in turn, will do things like setting family-to-family compensation for violent crimes rather than permitting the criminals to be punished for harm to the individual victim according to statutory law. Sharia courts will force women to be divorced against their will. And with local law enforcement determined to look the other way, there will not be recourse. And it is under sharia that the sorts of scenes in the video take place. That scene itself--of so-called "violent jihad"--was made possible by the supposedly "peaceful means" of simply having a huge population in Dearborn and pressuring police not to protect the rights of those who go into Arab-designated areas during an Arab festival and engage in activities Muslims disapprove of. I think that this shows that the distinction between "peaceful" and "violent" means is actually quite fluid. And the reason it is so fluid is because the spreading of Islam is ipso facto the spreading of sharia, and sharia, once it is in place, is entirely contrary to our own Western laws and abrogates the rights we and all those who live here have under those laws. The men in the video who bully the Christians are not _spreading_ Islam by violence. They are _living out_ Islam, which quite naturally (in their view) legitimates violence against pesky Christians who ask the wrong questions in the wrong place.

I changed all instances of "Sharia courts" to "Intergalactic courts" and all instances of "Islam" to "The Dark Side" and Lydia's post started to make a bit of sense.

Lydia,

The non-violent spread of sharia zones in the West is not a phenomenon I blame Muslims for. Since they believe sharia is divinely sanctioned, it makes perfect sense for them to want to live under it. No, I blame Western governments for allowing Muslim citizens to replace for themselves, with their own laws, the laws the rest of us are expected to obey. Not even Jews, ever a minority, have ever been permitted to do that.

Nor do they demand that. And there's the difference. Aside from the double standard, which is outrageous enough, I agree that Muslims get away with creating sharia zones in Western countries because we fear violent reprisal if we refuse them. So I would also agree with you that resisting sharia zones is a necessary part of the resistance to "militaristic" Islam.

Best,
Mike

I changed all instances of "Sharia courts" to "Intergalactic courts" and all instances of "Islam" to "The Dark Side" and Lydia's post started to make a bit of sense.

Yes, the similarity between these two realms of evil, one imaginary the other real, is quite striking and K's substitution, although meant to mock Lydia, is unintentionally very apt.

Speaking about analogies; one often hears native Danes who know Tolkien’s trilogy referring to Mohammedans as Orks. They obviously see the similarity between the conquest of the West by the armies of evil Sauron and the spectre of Eurabia.

No, I blame Western governments for allowing Muslim citizens to replace for themselves, with their own laws, the laws the rest of us are expected to obey.

With all respect Mr. Liccione, increasingly more here blame the Western governments for the wholesale importation of Moslems to Europe despite many voices warning that it will inevitably result in Moslems, as their number grows, demanding to replace for themselves, with their own laws, the laws the rest of us are expected to obey. Unfortunately

Please look away from the last word in my comment. I don't know how it ended there.

Michael said: "Among them is our ability and willingness to fight and kill those who fight and kill us."

This doesn't really apply too well to the specific incident in Dearborn. Any group that puts on an event like this has to pull a permit. There is probably something in the permit about providing security and maintaining order. If this event does not comply with the permit regulations, the government authority that issues these permits should be contacted with complaints concerning this incident. If the event organizers cannot comply then they should be denied future permits. The "Security" people that were involved in the physical harassment in this incident should not be rehired since they were obviously incompetent. People on this blog who are concerned should forward this video clip to all the Christian and first amendment blogs they know and ask them to take action.

This should be sufficient (along with courageous individuals to do a follow-up visit to the event next year)to resist the trends we see in Dearborn.

I hope even K. would not find an objection to that.

The non-violent spread of sharia zones in the West is not a phenomenon I blame Muslims for. Since they believe sharia is divinely sanctioned, it makes perfect sense for them to want to live under it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "blame," Michael. I (and you, previously) spoke of _objecting to_. I _object to_ the spread of Islam because of what Islam is, because it is not a religion of peace, because it alters and damages Western cultures in various ways, etc., even when the means used are immigration rather than some sort of direct military conquest (which is not being used in any event). Since we _know by experience_ the special demands made by Muslim immigrant populations and the changes in culture involved, we should get smart and stop importing more and more of such populations, rather than doing so and then hoping that we will resist their many and varied demands all along the line--in government, accommodation, employment, no-go zones, etc.

K.'s claim that --

"The more pertinent reason why Muslims do not evangelize at Christian festivals has to do with a justified fear for their own safety"

-- is idiotic and ignorant. In fact, if small groups of Muslims did exactly as these Christians did, walk around engaging people in conversation, passed out leaflets, and other peaceful behaviors, and did this at any Christian fair in the country, they would be treated with friendliness and respect, though a few Christians might put up attempts at challenging counter-arguments in terms of verbal debate.

For one thing, probably the majority of Christians in America are either 1) liberal-minded and flaccidly multi-cultural; or 2) so wishy-washy they are not really religious at all (except on Easter and Christmas, at best) -- and usually it's a mix of 1 and 2. Of the remaining Christians who are more serious about their religion, the vast majority of them are nice, polite and civilized -- boringly so. The bromide of a "tiny minority of extremists" actually applies to Western Christians, though it does not apply to Muslims -- and that minority is so tiny, it is practically eensy-weensy.

What goes on in the minds of Muslims -- as with Leftists like K. -- is unjustified fear: i.e., paranoia, Infidelophobia. Indeed, what is going on here is that Muslims -- due to their own cultures of sociopolitical intimidation, oppression, corruption, official fascism of "Religious Police" (the Muttawa) from tin-pot dictators and unofficial violence from roving lynch mobs ready to attack people at the drop of a Koran or to riot when a teddy bear is named "Mohammed" -- have a constant fear that the cushy and tolerant Western societies they have immigrated into might be like their own Islamic socieites. This is a totally unjustified fear, but their enculturation of the aforementioned paranoia coupled with hatred of our ways prevents them from being able to appreciate the difference.

And this should not be surprising.

What is maddening is when Western Leftists like K. adopt pretty much the same irrational paranoia based on ignorance and stereotyped, bigoted, prejudiced caricatures of their own Western societies.

Lol!

There's another reason why Christians at any such festival would welcome questions of a similar kind from Muslims: Many Christians at such a festival are missionary minded and would like the opportunity to meet and talk to Muslims who were at least engaging them. Indeed, if you get to know missionary minded Christians you realize that they are usually fairly fearless and are desperately anxious for a chance to talk to members of the "target group," even if those members might seem like un-hopeful prospects for conversion. The missionary passion among Christians takes _precisely_ the form of talk, soliciting questions, answering questions, seeking more chance to talk, etc. Sometimes there is a kind of naivete there to the effect that people are more interested than they actually are, but that's the mind-set in the culture. Believe me, I know. I come from a background in which Christians would go outside on their front porch (because of some verse that says not to let false teachers into your house), sit down, and spend hours with a Greek New Testament trying to counter-evangelize the Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons who came to their house trying to evangelize them! Liberals who think Christians would get violent in such a situation are know-nothing idiots. Active Christians (like the kind I would expect to be at any "festival") would welcome such a situation as a golden opportunity to talk, and this is *all the more true* the more "fundamentalist" the Christians in question.

"since K. says that his purpose is baiting, one suggestion would be to ignore him. I agree."

Ditto. These people are like stray cats who show up on your porch; ignore them and eventually they go away.

Michael Liccione wrote:

The primary referent is the inner, spiritual struggle to know and do the will of Allah in one's life.

Michael Liccione is incorrect. This "referent" of jihad stems from a hadith that not only is a hapax legomenon (thereby rendering its authoritativeness dubious for Muslims), but it does not even appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah (those collections deemed to be authoritative, in ascending order, with the 6th in the series the least authentic, but still more authentic than hadiths outside the 6 collections). In fact, this single hadith about the "greater jihad" being an "inner struggle" has even been challenged as spurious altogether.

Cf. http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad03.htm

In fact, the other "referents" to jihad that pepper the Koran and even more copiously the Hadiths and the Sira (not to mention innumerable statements and sermons by innumerable Muslim clerics and scholars and agitators over the years, decades, centuries) overwhelmingly signify a struggle from which geopolitics, supremacism, a fanatical belief in shariah law, and military expansionism utilizing qital (physical combat of various flavors), cannot be teased out.

K. wrote --

"I interact with Muslims every day. I work with Muslim students. Never have I found among them "manifestations of a deep intellectual commitment to authoritarian religio-jurisprudence." I do not believe that such a commitment governs the behavior of even a single ordinary Muslim that I have come across."

We who have come to a point in our learning curve about Islam realize, I should hope, that the reasonable thing for us to do is conclude that the K.s of the West must be either

1) lying;

or

2) strangely and profoundly deficient in perception and intelligence -- despite the ability of some of them (like K. here) to construct intelligent-seeming sentences that ostensibly reflect intelligent thought.

And our reason, and our own intelligence from having digested a mountain of facts about the horror of Islam (including the testimonies of the best and brightest of the world of Islam -- ex-Muslim apostates such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and many more who know Islam up close and personal), should force us to conclude that to explain a K., there is no third option beyond the above two.

And this, in turn, should lead us to Lydia's conclusion above: to wit, that there is no use in engaging a K. in a debate on this matter -- except as a spectacle for the edification of other readers of this blog.

I do think that a point I made above needs to be borne in mind--namely, the distinction between _spreading_ Islam and _living_ Islam. Trying to fit the actions of the crowd into this video into the box of "violent jihad" is okay as far as it goes but is, in the end, a bit confusing, and in an important way. Sharia is a better term here than jihad. These guys were trying to force Christians off of their turf and to confine them to a dhimmi "preaching place." Having established themselves in an enclave, they were simply running that enclave as a Muslim place in which Christian questioners are not allowed. It cannot be stressed too strongly that this sort of situation can *and does* arise by means that are in and of themselves not violent--simply coming into Dearborn, solidifying into a group, and then living out the natural consequences of the assumption that one has now established a little bit of Muslim turf in the heart of Michigan. Those consequences are in the end sometimes violent and even when not inherently violent (as in the case of demanding public religious footbaths as a concession) are unacceptable. But they come about as a result of the _presence_ of large numbers of Muslims in one place, not as a result of violent conquest. For that reason, we in the West should stop being stupid and reticent about the problems of Muslim immigration.

"this sort of situation can *and does* arise by means that are in and of themselves not violent"

No, it is inherently and unavoidably violent. All you have to do to agree with me is think a little further: what would the Muslims have done if the Christians stood their ground and refused? Resorted to violence.

This is not to mention that an implicit threat of violence -- particularly one bristling with belligerent implications such as this one -- is part of violent intimidation.

All laws are based in violence in part, but unavoidably, for there will always be a certain percentage of people who refuse to abide by laws. That's why all societies have police and prisons, to enforce the laws when they are resisted. If I refuse to pay my income tax, I get threatened with a fine and/or imprisonment. If I continue to refuse, they send a sheriff out to my house to arrest me. If I continue to refuse -- and resist arrest (even peacefully) -- the arresting officers will have no choice but to inflict violence upon me -- taking hold of my person, putting cuffs on me, and forcing me into a car to be taken against my will to a jail. This is all violence.

Same goes for Sharia -- only, of course, worse in terms of both violence and injustice.

That's why I never liked this "stealth jihad" formulation that depends upon a separation of violence from jihad. Western people do not want to have a law on the books that makes wife-beating a permissible virtue. If Muslims try to "creep" such a law into Western societies, they can only "creep" so long before the rubber meets the road, and Westerners will resist, and then violence will be necessary from one side or the other -- or both.

I don't actually think we disagree on this issue, H. The point I am trying to make is that I disagree with any statement to the effect that "We shouldn't object to the spread of Islam by non-violent means." The truth is that even if what you say weren't true--even if, for example, people weren't _afraid_ to modify our immigration law to stop or significantly lessen Muslim immigration, mass Muslim immigration would still be a bad idea because of the consequences that follow. I think some, particularly of an even more "neo-con" stripe than I, are of the opinion that we _must not_ restrict Muslim immigration because merely immigrating isn't in itself a violent act and that the only thing we are _permitted_ to do to defend our culture is, while we continue with unrestricted Muslim immigration, to resist the inevitable demands and attempts to set up sharia zones that follow. I think this is madness, and there I think you and I are in full agreement.

I agree that we shouldn't want Sharia to creep in non-violently, and I also agree that we have innumerable idiots among us who will allow it to creep in to certain degrees -- but I do maintain that Sharia law cannot go past a certain point in the West without violence on one side, or the other, or more likely both, happening when the stage of realization comes about. And that stage, of course, is necessary for the full satisfaction of Sharia.

To K, either you have not read the Koran or you are a muslim. The Koran is a violent document of war, promising sexual rewards for men who wage jihad, the rape of captive women is permitted, and the promise of virgins in paradise. Walid Shoebat, an ex muslim terrorist who always questioned the rape of women permitted in the Koran he read as a child, read the Bible after marrying a christian woman and found out the truth. He states that the Koran is nearly the opposite of the Bible, and things holy in the Bible are evil in the Koran, and things holy in the Koran are evil in the Bible. Why not educate yourself and go to experts on the matter. Walid also points out in his book, "God's war on terror", that every nation set for judgement in the end times by Jehovah God, who is not allah, (no we do not all worship the same God, and that is why muslims wont discuss christianity with us, they already know this) anyways, every nation set for judgement in the Bible in end times is a muslim nation. The reason being the muslims evil treatment of Jews, (who by the way can also be christians), and anyone who is not muslim. You need to read your Bible and read the Koran and educate yourself before you enter discussions. Islam is unique from all other world religions, in that it is very nearly the opposite of the Bible. Jesus considered women, and liberated them to equality with men, Islam enslaves women in burqas, sharia law requires two womens testimonies in court to equal one mans, allows polygamy, etc. There is no comparison between the civilities and love called for by Jesus, and the attrocities called for in Islam, but come back and talk , k, once you have educated yourself. Another good read of reality is a book by Bridgette Gabriel, "Because they Hate", she was a lebanese christian, who was forced to live in a bomb shelter during the islamification of lebanon. Christians were massacred. She is a more loyal american than most americans because she truly understands how precious our freedoms are.

The USA was founded upon the recognition that people should be allowed to worship or not worship how they choose and that each citizens rights were equal(Though imperfect because of the male land ownership requirement that disenfranchised the poor, women, and blacks who were treated as third rate humans and were used as slaves and the genocidal slaughter of the Indigenous American people .) The USA has from this awful beginning evolved towards the goal of equality for all and our country would be a driving force for good in the world if not for the exploitative nature of capitalism and the inevitable control of our government and media by corporate interests that place profits before people or our earths health.

The many pitfalls and obstacles towards creating a sustainable and caring world of responsible tolerant and considerate people may have been possible to overcome if the worlds resources were endless, unfortunately they are not only endless but at this time under severe stress and the likelihood of continual population growth is not sensible. Because of the severity of our overpopulation/diminishing resource/climate change/ etc.. problems and because of the many distinct cultural/ religious/ ethnic communities here in the USA, our country's grand experiment of everyone from every culture and religion and ethnicity living together peacefully will likely not have the time necessary for the societal adjustments to be made.

Another problem concerning overpopulation is that these Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions and the followers of them have no desire to restrain or decrease their reproductive activities and think that the future has been foretold already in the scriptures.

Islam may be a violent religion with little tolerance for other religions or non-believers but bestowing the violence mantra on them alone is unfair since humans of many different races and religions have waged violent wars and committed genocide.

The contrast one poster made comparing the establishment of mosques in western countries compared to the restrictive laws in Islamic countries concerning the building of churches or synagogues is very illustrative of Islam's inflexible belief in spreading their belief by any and all means. The establishment of Sharia Law in western countries can be thought of as basically transposing Islam on top of the established law and abrogating it.

When immigrants refuse to assimilate and behave according to the laws of the country they have resettled to it is a form of colonization and with Islam there is no such thing as debate or discussion or even an iota of doubt whether their beliefs are valid or consistent with real world history, or science. This failure to refute religion and recognize it as a primitive social manifestation to help explain the world, events or natural disasters etc..

We as a species are now responsible for the greatest number of species becoming extinct ever even surpassing the great dinosaur extinction period. This great diversity of biological life could perhaps be illustrative of the point that IF there were a creator the great diversity and number of creatures on our planet were meant to make our world a complex and interesting place. Instead religion seeks to homogenize people and cultural beliefs and practices. So even if there were a creator or god, religion would not be required because it stifles diversity and it's a pretty plain fact that the world is very diverse.

Anyhow it should take more than a decade or three now before the oil wells can't keep up with demand, our oceans fisheries collapse, freshwater becomes very scarce and our oceans rise several feet further diminishing our most populated coastline civilizations.

The true horror ahead will be unimaginable but we will probably fall short of establishing a world government to coordinate the rescue of our planet, religious people will say it's god's will and tribes, clans and walled cities will become the overarching social arrangement. In this scenario the Islamic jihadists will find plenty of infidel fodder to slaughter but as the remaining cultures of the world become incensed at these atrocities Islam and it's followers will become the hunted and as the natural world slowly struggles to return to a natural state people will see that religion is a primitive construct that has no place in a physical world in which science rule not a prophet, priest, rabbi, Iman, or otherworldly creator.

Given Up On Finding A Great Looking Woman Who Likes You? Follow My Guaranteed Step-By-Step System for Success with Women and I’ll GUARANTEE Your Success!