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

It's the ideology, stupid

Predictably, in the wake of a Muslim Bonnie and Clyde's jihad murder of the husband's kindly co-workers who had recently thrown them a baby shower, our chattering classes are getting grim-jawed in their determination to take guns away from the law-abiding. Enough is enough indeed. But the idea that "enough is enough" means "ban more guns" is as ludicrous as the idea that it means "ban more pipes." After all, the couple was also building pipe bombs in their home.

No, "enough is enough" should be, but won't be, an expression of enlightenment: It's the ideology, stupid.

One of the most disturbing points in this jihadist murder spree is that there may well have been no warning sign except Islam itself that Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook posed any threat. True, Tashfeen began making more "radical" posts to her Facebook page, but only after she had already received the necessary background clearance to get a "fiancee visa" and a conditional green card. Why should any law enforcement agency have been trying to look at her Facebook page after that any more than that of any other recent Muslim immigrant to the United States?

It is impossible for leftists at this point to lose face by admitting that Islam is a poisonous ideology and that the latent danger of "self-radicalization" is always there in Muslim immigrants and even second-generation children of Muslim immigrants (like Syed Farook), that this springs from the teaching of jihad itself within Islam, and that this should influence our policies.

But there may still be self-styled conservatives who are not beyond realizing this or beyond connecting the dots. The connection to increased Muslim immigration, such as the Syrian immigration President Obama is insisting upon, should be evident. More rigorous "vetting" processes are going to be impossible anyway in a crisis situation, when, "They're gonna die if you don't hurry up and get them over here!" is the cry. But even if we had more time, as we did in the case of Tashfeen Malik, who did not come in a crisis situation, there might be nothing apparent to see. Except, of course, that religion which is emphatically not a religion of peace. A great irony in all of this is that some leftist commentators are attempting to blame a man who argued with Syed Farook over whether Islam is a religion of peace! Yes, that's it: If you tell someone that his religion is not peaceful, thereby implying that he should embrace a different religion, you risk angering him so that he will go on building pipe bombs at home and perhaps come back with his wife and a bunch of guns and murder you and co-workers. Clearly the fault lies with the person who says that the religion is not peaceful!

If mainstream conservatives can begin to get the message that

--Islam is an inherently violent religion,
--There is no good way to screen for potential terrorists among potential immigrants, and
--Immigration to Western countries is not an entitlement,

a time may come when they are willing to consider a saner, less mindlessly "compassionate," religiously non-neutral, approach to immigration. And no, in case you are wondering, that is not unconstitutional.

I'm not saying it's very likely, and even if it happened, I'm not saying that it would be adopted by our government. But if we who are considered well to the right cannot even point to events like the San Bernardino shooting to convince those closer to ourselves on the political spectrum, we are indeed in danger of doing nothing but wallowing in bitter impotence. I therefore suggest that, perhaps more tactfully than the title of this post suggests, we explain to our conservative friends and family that it's the ideology, every time.

Comments (51)

A quibble.

Agreed, immigration to Western countries is not a human right or an entitlement. If truth be told, most of those leaving Syria and Turkey for Greece are economic migrants not displaced persons or refugees.

Agreed, screening potential terrorists from among potential immigrants, is not an easy task, and not one that can be quickly accomplished.

Is Islam that an inherently violent religion? Or would it be more accurate to say that orthodox expressions of Sunni Islam, like Wahhabism, are inherently violent religions?


I've been arguing for 20 years, after reading the Qu'ran and studying Islam, that violence is so clearly part and parcel of their religion that it takes a whole lot of rationalisation to deny it. And that's where the overwhelming power of political correctness does it works. PC thinking trumps everything else and seems to be the most potent force in the West today. We who value truth must continually call it for what it is, and declare the obvious when the king has no clothes.
It does not take much study to see that the origins of Islam, the founder, the means of it's propagation, and it's current manifestations all trace directly to the Qu'ran. The more devout a Muslim, the more violent and murderous he or she has to be. We should not insist on moderation, so much as we should emphasize right belief and truth. And there is abundant evidence for the truth or falsity of various worldviews. A so-called 'moderate Muslim' is always at risk of becoming a truer ("better"), more obedient Muslim. That's when the murder begins. We need clear thinking about the reality of Islam. Asking Muslims not to be Muslims might be necessary to save lives, but we must point out a better way.

Perhaps the basis for the ideology, that tends to make Wahhabism, and for that matter Salafi Sunni Islam in general, so culturally alien to the West might be found in its rejection of rational disputation. Many orthodox Sunnis believe that truth can be known, both in matters of faith and practice, only from the clear teaching of the Qu'ran. Rational disputation, as a way of coming too know the truth and true path, is to be rejected, even if it leads one to the correct conclusion.

Many of us, especially those of us who live or work in proximity to a University, know moderate Sunni Muslims who do not reject al-Kalam [the Islamic scholastic science of discourse.] Additionally their is a tendency among educated Sunni Muslims to abandon the essential beliefs of Sunni Islam; and become functionally deists, just as some North American Christians [think of Thomas Jefferson here] have kept the trappings and vocabulary of the Christian faith while becoming deists.

The public policy question is; 'Can someone who is culturally a Sunni Muslim, successfully make the cultural transition to be a contributing member of our western democracy?'

Is Islam that an inherently violent religion? Or would it be more accurate to say that orthodox expressions of Sunni Islam, like Wahhabism, are inherently violent religions?

No, not _more_ accurate. I think Shia Islam can be pretty darned violent, too. More importantly, Islam has been a religion of conquest and subjugation from the outset. I believe therefore that the Sunni-Shia distinction is far less important than the essence of the religion as historically expressed from its inception.

our chattering classes are getting grim-jawed in their determination to take guns away from the law-abiding. Enough is enough indeed. But the idea that "enough is enough" means "ban more guns" is as ludicrous as the idea that it means "ban more pipes." After all, the couple was also building pipe bombs in their home.

To quote our AG: this is a "wonderful opportunity."

And you say that I am the one with issues...

There is no rational discourse with someone who sees this situation as a good excuse to take away guns. The only response to them should be [edited]

Sorry about the language. Been trying to work on that.

Lydia,

A second quibble.

Unlike Mr. Yeutter, I don't disagree with your policy recommendation one jot or tittle (true fact: I was trolling a left-wing, atheist website -- I know I have better things to do but I get a kick out of it -- and it was only my second comment this time that got me banned. My comment, in response to various attempts to prayer shame Republicans was to say, 'I know, those Republicans really should be ashamed of themselves -- I don't know why they haven't banned all Muslim immigration yet.')

My quibble is with this statement: "that there may well have been no warning sign except Islam itself that Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook posed any threat." I'm afraid it is worse than that. Political correctness and the left-wing attacks on folks who dare to see differences in those who are Islamic (like their co-worker who was conservative) produce the opposite of 'you see something, say something':

http://www.unz.com/isteve/another-triumph-in-the-war-on-racial-profiling/

We need more and more people to wake up to the dangers of Islam -- and the left in this country will fight us every step of the way.

Additionally their is a tendency among educated Sunni Muslims to abandon the essential beliefs of Sunni Islam; and become functionally deists, just as some North American Christians [think of Thomas Jefferson here] have kept the trappings and vocabulary of the Christian faith while becoming deists. The public policy question is; 'Can someone who is culturally a Sunni Muslim, successfully make the cultural transition to be a contributing member of our western democracy?'

I can't in honesty regard that as the most important public policy question. As you hint, such a person has abandoned both the theology and the historical core of Islam, just as Christians who retain the trappings of Christian faith are, in fact, retaining nothing but trappings. Now, I fully believe that there are individual Muslims who do do that, and I have not intended to deny it. But in that case, they are no more Muslims than Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. There is something, to my mind, fundamentally dishonest about encouraging a phony liberalizing reinterpretation of Islam while pretending that it is "real Islam," as if that has been what Islam has been about all along. Hence, I cannot encourage that in any individual Muslim, and I certainly cannot encourage a belief in this phony "religion of peace," utterly evacuated "Islam" as a basis for public policy.

But aside from my scruples or matters of principle about such things, there is a very hard-edged practical issue, which I think we see in the "radicalization" phenomenon both here and in the UK. (There was a survey some years ago in the UK that found that younger Muslims were more "radical" than their first-generation immigrant parents.) People raised in that sort of "mere trappings" Islam, precisely _because_ they are in a fundamentally false position vis a vis the history and teaching of their own supposed religion, are always "possibles" for waking up one day and "getting religion" in a stronger sense. Tashfeen Malik's family in Pakistan is (according to the article I linked in the main post) appalled at what has happened to her and what she has done, but she did it nonetheless. So is Syed Farook's father. Fine, so they're appalled. I mean, that's a lot better than their dancing in the street. But familial identification _with Islam_, their teaching their children, "We are Muslim" carries _much_ more of a danger of very bad results, if and when the children have a kind of "religious revival" one fine day, than some deist Episcopalian family's self-identification as "Christian"!

And _that_ has got to be borne in mind in public policy.

Jeff, I've mulled what to think about that ever since it came out.

From a purely human perspective, it definitely _is_ negative evidence. But this is thinking in very broad terms: An influx of a half dozen Middle Eastern men at the home of a Muslim couple does (somewhat) increase the probability that Something is Going On.

But it only increases it somewhat. Middle easterners have big families, and there could have been plenty of innocent explanations: A bunch of cousins are in town and came to visit. He's having the Muslim equivalent of a "prayer and Bible study" meeting at his home. Etc.

I doubt that law enforcement would have the wherewithal to follow up on every report of "six Middle Eastern men recently visited my Muslim neighbor," nor am I entirely sure that I want them to.

There are much worse instances of this kind of self-censorship, as in the Fort Dix case where the worker at Circuit City asked his co-worker if it was "racist" for him to be disturbed by the footage he'd been asked to copy of men running around firing guns and yelling, "Allahu Akbar!" (Fortunately, his co-worker convinced him that he should report it, which is how the Fort Dix plot was uncovered.)

An influx of a half dozen Middle Eastern men at the home of a Muslim couple does (somewhat) increase the probability that Something is Going On.

The cost of getting it wrong is still too high. Even if you're right, you have to fight against the probability of some spontaneous Taqqiya being lapped up by the local media that is hungry to believe stories of Muslim immigrants being victimized by wild-eyed nativist bigots. I can just see the spin now: "Muslims that got together to discuss new business venture over coffee in their garage terrorized by police after bigot hears them speaking Arabic and calls the police."

Our society doesn't forgive people who make honest mistakes on this stuff. You'd have to be about as insane to take a chance here as a woman reporting rape in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The only response to them should be [edited]

The molon labe part didn't need censoring...

Jeff, speaking of the left, it's truly inspiring to see that they aren't blaming the victim or anything like that. You know, consistency and principle. It's what the left's known for.

Jeff, speaking of the left, it's truly inspiring to see that they aren't blaming the victim or anything like that.

I am sure that each one of those people who got shot had somehow deeply offended Syed at some point, and he specifically targeted only those who deserved it. They probably made cartoons of "the Malevolent prophet". Or, laughed at said cartoons.

It is also obviously true that the Justice Dept. idea of taking away our guns will interfere with Muslims' rights of self-expression and freedom of religion, so the liberal courts will block that.

Progressive Christians will fall all over themselves now to push harder for inviting Syrian and Saudi and Iranian Muslims, recognizing in themselves a deep need to hate themselves and love "the other". Compared to a bleeding heart liberal mainline Christian, you can hardly get more OTHER than people who hate everyone else and want nothing better than to blow up peaceful non-Muslims. Or even a few fellow Muslims, if that's what it takes to push terror.

Leftism itself is a poisonous ideology and yet the conservatives are supposed to be for endless happy dialogs with them.
Consider the track record. Even after the Moslem conquest of Middle East, the Christian communities continued to exist there and flourish for more than a thousand years.. The Mass was never proscribed there as it was in Elizabethan England.
Yet, wherever the Left has gained power, it has treated the Christian communities with far greater rigor e.g. France, Russia, Spain, Mexico.

The current virulence (IS and AQ) are NOT representative of the historical Islamic tradition which was more of co-existence. I note that Hindus are still living in 99 percent Islamic Afghanistan. The present anomaly owes more to infusion of Western thought --leftist as well as rabid rightist into the Moslem discourse.

And to extend my earlier comments, we all know that Islam is tolerant of other religions of "the Book" - that's what "dhimmidute" means, you know. Co-existence with other religions is its standard-bearing principle: conversion by the sword, or just decide how you want to worship, either one its all good. The Moors and Christians in Spain lived side by side for a thousand years, what could be more proof of good-will and peace? In the Balkans, sometimes weeks at a time go by without a single instance of religious-motivated violence. In Africa, Muslims don't kidnap whole schools of girls, guns do.

And besides that, it should be clear that any violence that The Malevolent prophet preached was due to the leftist influence in Arabia at the time, infiltrating his pure intentions for peaceful co-existence with the harsh bleeding-heart rhetoric of "love your enemies until they drown in blood" and "do good unto those who hate you, with a keen-edged blade".

Tolerant is the precise word for Moslem rule in ME and elsewhere, in the sense of enduring an evil (the evil being infidels in their midst).
Yet the same toleration was not shown by the Christians--witness the expulsion of Moslems from Spain and the sorry fate of Moslems in independent Balkans.
The Moslem society was not monolithic-it was much more a multicultural patchwork of sects and devotions to local saints.
And as for the irruptions of violence, the Christendom itself had no lack. The destruction wrecked by the sectarian wars of the Christendom dwarfed any damage the Moslems caused.

The Moslems present little cultural or military challenge to the Christian West, unlike the Left, who have subverted it from inside. Yet, total war is preached against the Moslems and total dialog with the Left. This strategy is unlikely to work.

Tolerant is the precise word for Moslem rule in ME and elsewhere

Since one just doesn't even know where to start replying to this reality-challenged statement...I won't.

The Moslems present little cultural or military challenge to the Christian West

That's another one that is so bizarrely contradicted by fact that I would go blind and my fingers would fall off if I started listing all the facts that contradict it.

But really BI, you should be celebrating your agreement with the leftists you dislike so much. You and they concur that Muslims are no threat and that anyone who recommends restricting Muslim immigration is a -phobe preaching "total war."

The only reason the Moors were "tolerant" is that they never were more than about 10% of the population of Spain. It's hard to be intolerant when you're a minority small enough to be pushed into the sea if you provoke a sufficiently violent response from the majority by your abusive conduct.

Jeff and Tony,

Another good reminder of why we should not assume the other side's good intentions. Jeff balks at calling out their traitorous tendencies, but they can't wait to accuse of us committing or aiding and abetting murder. You can't productively work with people like that.

Mike T,

Well, the Moors were a small percentage of the population **at first**but they were hardly tolerant -- it was only thanks to the courageous fighting of some brave Christians in the northwest of Spain that they didn't conquer the entire Iberian peninsula. They did, however, manage to convert many Christians and pagans:

Though the number of Moorish colonists was small, many native Iberian inhabitants converted to Islam. By 1000, according to Ronald Segal, some 5,000,000 of Iberia's 7,000,000 inhabitants, most of them descended from indigenous Iberian converts, were Muslim. [La Wik]

That's why the Reconquista took some time and was bloody and difficult and why the Spaniards (and Portuguese) were smart to expel every last Moor from the peninsula when they had the chance!

One last comment about what to call the Left and then I'm done with the subject (unless I decide to write my own post): I'm sorry Mike but once again you send me to a link that highlights the stupidity, foolishness, perhaps even malicious nature of the radical left-wing in this country. But not for a minute do I think they don't really believe that they are true believers in the sense that they want what is best for America and see themselves as leading the vanguard of liberals against a right-wing that is preventing a better, brighter future. In other words, they disagree with us in a profound, serious way -- and yes, we can't work productively with them -- we'll have to beat them at the ballot box by convincing people who are reasonable and able to be persuaded that the folks who hang out at the Daily Kos are politically insane and do not have their interests or the country's well-being at heart (if we were to follow the Daily Kos' political advice.) But for the 100th time, I don't think we do that by calling the Daily Kos gang "traitors" or people with "traitorous tendencies." I just don't think that is true and I think we need to be honest about our opponents and to the people we are trying to persuade in the righteousness of our cause. Plus, when we start to use words like "traitor" I worry about the tendency to dehumanize our opponents (which is always a danger even when we make fun of their political intelligence) and slide into dangerous places like excuses political murder as some in the neo-reactionary movement attempt to justify people like Breivik. That is a dark and dangerous place to go and I suggest you pull back from websites that excuse such behavior.

Jeff,

Someone who can write that a man deserved to die because of his posts on Facebook has dehumanized others in a way that is quite literally up there with the Nazis. Do you see me and those with similar views saying people deserve to die because of their Facebook posts and Twitter snarks in favor of SJW causes? No because the right side recognizes some limits on these things (and hopefully that won't change).

I worry about the tendency to dehumanize our opponents (which is always a danger even when we make fun of their political intelligence) and slide into dangerous places like excuses political murder as some in the neo-reactionary movement attempt to justify people like Breivik.

I worry about that too, but I think I'm just a bit ahead of you as I recognize that the left is already there. This is why Christians have to stop pretending that the old liberal consensus still exists. There are a lot of people on the left who really would seize your guns, fire you from your job, burn you church down and take your kids away for your views.

The answer is not Breivik, but it's not pretending that these people have any love in their hearts for you and yours. They literally regard you as a social force that is fungible with radical Islam in terms of danger.

Mike T,

"They [left-wing radicals] literally regard you as a social force that is fungible with radical Islam in terms of danger." I think it is worse than that -- many think social conservatives/Christian traditionalists are **worse** than the Islamic radicals (because they don't think much about what the Islamic radicals are doing over in Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.)

That said, unless they advocate outright violence, they have every right to ghoulishly celebrate the death of their enemies and advocate for insane liberal policies (like taking away the children of religious conservatives to be raised by the state) and we will use every legal means at our disposal to fight back and expose them for the crazed radicals they have become. I still have hope for this country and think people can be persuaded by rational argument and common-sense appeals to natural law morality and Christian witness. Yes, things are bad and many have been indoctrinated by liberal ideas -- so we have our work cut out for us (hence this blog.) So we fight politically and keep fighting the good fight with respect to evangelization and apologetics and building up the culture with all that is good and true and beautiful as long as it takes -- there is no other option.

Calling them what they are does not bind us to act on the crazy they do, per se. Many of them are traitorous, but that doesn't oblige us to amend the constitution to allow for their execution for treason. It does not even oblige us to prosecute their speech as sedition. What it does, is oblige us to take them seriously as a menace. That means no longer hiding behind the excuse that they are misguided and accepting at face value that they are committed to harming us. Most conservatives don't want to believe that there is a sizable contingent of their countrymen who would quite cheerfully upend and destroy them.

many think social conservatives/Christian traditionalists are **worse** than the Islamic radicals

And that, Jeff, is why I don't believe that the status quo will survive.

I would respectfully recommend reading Culture Wars magazine which has been running an irregular series of articles and letters to the editor over the past few years on the subject of Shia Islam and the use of logos/reason in Islam. Bottom line is Shia Islam can be made to be more congruent with Western values. If you want to have Muslims in the west, (which is a separate question), the only practical way to do it is to go Imam by Imam and set up some sort of review board of the opinions of the Imam.

Tolerant is the precise word for Moslem rule in ME and elsewhere, in the sense of enduring an evil (the evil being infidels in their midst).

Wait... You didn't notice the /sarc/ tag? Sheesh, I guess you can't even satirize with the most extreme nonsense without some dodo taking you seriously.

United Nations Refugee Agency and other global human rights groups have published several reports describing forced conversion to Islam in nations with majority Muslim and large regional Muslim populations. Many Hindus in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been forcefully converted to Islam by Islamic extremist groups in the region.[58][59][60] Similarly, Christian women have been abducted and forced to convert to Islam in Pakistan.[61] Many Hindu temples have been destroyed in recent decades in Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh by Islamic extremist groups in the region.[62] There are also several cases of forceful conversion in Europe. For example, some Muslim prisoners in the UK have been forcibly converting people to Islam in prisons.[63] A common theme of conversions by extremist groups is the choice between conversion or death. In Nigeria, the Islamist group Boko Haram has demanded Christian women to convert to Islam or die.[64] In Iraq, the Islamic extremist group ISIS has demanded non-Muslims to covert to Islam or face execution.[65]
During the Noakhali genocide of Hindus in 1946, several thousand Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by Muslim mobs.[69][70] In Bangladesh, the International Crimes Tribunal tried and convicted several leaders of the Islamic Razakar militias, as well as Bangladesh Muslim Awami league (Forid Uddin Mausood), of war crimes committed against Hindus during the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. The charges included forced conversion of Bengali Hindus to Islam.[71] In the 1998 Prankote massacre, 26 Kashmiri Hindus were beheaded by Islamist militants after their denial of converting into Islam. The militants struck when the villagers refused demands from the gunmen to convert to Islam and prove their conversion by eating beef.[72]
After the initial, massive conquests of Islam ended in the eighth century, Muslim jurists ruled that the caliph (the supreme Muslim ruler) “had to raid enemy territory at least once a year in order to keep the idea of jihad alive.”[10]

This was the dominant view of jihad until modern times. If anything, the last Islamic empire—the Ottoman Empire—was even more zealous about expansionist jihad than the early empires.[11]

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.[13]

According to some Muslim jurists, the jizya had to be paid by each person at a humiliating public ceremony, in which the person was struck on the head or the nape of the neck. According to historian Bat Ye’or, this ceremony “survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century.”[14]

Both the jizya and the land tax were often extorted through torture, and were frequently so exorbitant that whole villages would flee or go into hiding.

/SARC/ Islam is a "religion" of "peace." Only Muslims who believe in the Quran and follow the Malevolent prophet's teachings would ever commit these attrocities, not the average syed. The average syed would only cheer on the violent events that take place 3000 thousand miles away. Tolerance in ALL THINGS if they obey your wishes, that's the spirit.

Lydia, on your point about more radical British Muslims in the younger generations (18-24) the Pew forum found another increase in extremist views. Its similar in France.

However, whenever I bring this up I'm told something along the lines of 'don't worry they are just young and are hitting back against their parents' and society's views'. As though it's that teenager angst playing up again.

You've got to love the left's ability to slip and squirm out of direct evidence against Islam and muddle eastern culture. An academic recently released a book on her time in sharia courts here and how women are laughed at when wanting a divorce from a hurtful husband. With the topic to be discussed in parliament, the squirming has already begun ('ofcourse us muslims don't really mean state marriages mean nothing'). Where the US has guns, the UK doesn't even allow pepper spray .

don't worry they are just young and are hitting back against their parents' and society's views'. As though it's that teenager angst playing up again.

That's some pretty dangerous teenage angst. The guy whose name I can't remember who stood in the middle of the street in England knifing a soldier was precisely such a radicalized second-generation person, as I recall.

Was the academic upset about the sharia courts' treatment of women? Did she suggest that anything be done about it?

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions.
Minorities too suffered various disabilities in Christian lands. Jews were only emancipated in 19c Europe as a result of liberal tendency (in Russia after March 1917). English Catholics were emancipated only in 1829. Political equality was no part of Christendom and it was the French revolution that brought in political equality.

There are periods of upheavals in every society. Europe had them as late as 1945. Ukrainian Christians massacred 250,000 Polish Catholics in Volhynia in 1943-44. The Islamic world is undergoing a period of upheaval right now.

If the Muslims are bent on Jihad all the time, how do you explain the millions of Christians living in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Palestine even after more than a thousand years of continuous Muslim rule? (I have to explicit here for people are apparently not getting ME right--Spain is no part of ME).

Jeffrey S.
Your position does not seem very strategic or even logical. Your say that the Left has right to advocate insane policies "like taking away the children of religious conservatives to be raised by the state."
Leaving aside what sort of "right" this is--the resident Thomists can, I suppose, explain better. But politically, this is absurd. By granting them this "right", don't you realize you are giving respectability to this idea? Now this idea is put to political debate, and you would craft arguments to prove that your children shouldn't be taken away from you? Do you really think it is a matter of debate?
If you are willing to debate this, what will you not debate?
And what happens if you lose the debate?

people can be persuaded by rational argument and common-sense appeals to natural law
The same common sense says that some matters are simply not debatable. That they are becoming debatable signals an end to the common sense of the debate itself.

That guns are the last defense against tyranny is a conservative truism (not that I agree). But, if you are willing to have debate about your children being taken away by the state, it means that this is not the tyranny you would be willing to counter with guns.

Lydia,
You are misrepresenting me. I have never advocated Muslim immigration, only Christian.

IS is only a nuisance to US, at maximum, and that even when the Americans give themselves to hysteria. It possesses no military challenge, whatsoever. The challenge is political and is created by American allies like Turkey and KSA.

If the Muslims are bent on Jihad all the time, how do you explain the millions of Christians living in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Palestine even after more than a thousand years of continuous Muslim rule?

What, are you stupid? It's already been said, about a dozen times: dhimmitude.

The Islamic world is undergoing a period of upheaval right now.

Correct. The Muslims who insist on following the Quran & Hadith of the Malevolent "prophet" fully are getting even more violent than the standard fare. You've said one true thing, anyway.

You are misrepresenting me. I have never advocated Muslim immigration, only Christian.

Now you're being mendacious. You have advocated completely ignoring borders, by anyone who wants to give a shot at immigrating. Kind of like Syrian Muslims are doing in Europe, where they can manage it.

I have to explicit here for people are apparently not getting ME right--Spain is no part of ME).

Well, Spain is not part of the Middle East, but I don't rank this comment as "true" because you are trying to pretend that those of us who pointed to Spain somehow FORGOT where it is. But it was included because of your comment

Tolerant [sic] is the precise word for Moslem rule in ME and elsewhere,

"and elsewhere" includes, you know, OTHER places besides ME. Places like Spain, and Dearborn MI. I have to make it explicit here, because you are NOT GETTING the fact that you're being an idiot, forgetting your own comments, and trying to make issues out of complete trivialities like whether Muslim Spain was located in the ME when its location had nothing to do with its character as an example.

It is one thing, Bedarz, to attempt to justify or excuse all that is disgusting and evil in this world, as you've been doing. It is another thing to do so with some kind of argument, evidence, logic, at least a shred of plausibility - which you have not. And you never do. You have painted yourself as a creature, an ugly spidery thing, a caricature of the evil people who actually do these things and who push them in places of power. We can always count on you to take a stupid idea and make it stupider.

If the Muslims are bent on Jihad all the time, how do you explain the millions of Christians living in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Palestine even after more than a thousand years of continuous Muslim rule? (I have to explicit here for people are apparently not getting ME right--Spain is no part of ME).

BI, the reality on the ground is not pretty for the Christians living under Islamic rule. My father did contract work in Egypt a few years before the Arab Spring, and he got a real taste for how the Christians are treated there. It's a step just below Jim Crow treatment of blacks because the violence that Christians could face in the community was more open and their recourse against Muslims in court even less than blacks victimized by whites.

We see what happens when a strongman is not keeping the Muslims in check in that region: what's happening right now to Christians in Syria and Iraq.

Best meme I've seen on Facebook in a long time about these gun-grabbing efforts:

If Bruce Jenner can [ed.] and be considered a woman, I can keep my guns and call myself disarmed.

an irregular series of articles and letters to the editor over the past few years on the subject of Shia Islam and the use of logos/reason in Islam. Bottom line is Shia Islam can be made to be more congruent with Western values.

John Jones, perhaps this is valid. Maybe. But I have a question: what is the rate of conversion of Shiite Muslims to other forms, like Sunni? Or, to take a tendentious approach, what is the rate at which Shia Muslims radicalize (i.e. "return to their roots", thanks to Jeff Culbreath for this clarification ) and become attuned to a more violent version of Islam?

I would hate to hinge my approach to letting Muslims in on an assumption that we can successfully transmogrify the Shia sect of Islam into a fully liberalized, reasonable and tolerant religion, in despite of Islam's roots. And, by the way, it seems plausible that the amount of effort it would take might better be put to simply evangelizing them to accept the Christian faith, which is both in itself reasonable and true religion, so it has no underlying tensions between accepting faith and adhering to reason.

In this thread B.I. declares that we should not even be conversant with people on the Left who believe religious conservatives can have their children taken away -- in other words, people who believe in socialism: community of goods and persons, "it takes a village," etc.

In another thread he denounces individualism, extols the "moral authority" of the community, and recommends voting for Bernie Sanders, and avowed socialist.

Fascinating.


Lydia,

You've mention the Sunni vs. Shia element. What of the Ahmadiyya and Sufis? Do they condone violent jihad? State-enshrined Sharia? I'm curious.

I can't believe I'm answering "someone" with the handle Raymond Luxury Yacht...

Here is a link to check out, relevant to your question:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/05/sufi_jihad.html

Also, remember that sharia and other cultural issues are also relevant to the matter of immigration, and that Ahmadiyya Muslims (who are a minority in any event) do not reject sharia.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/ahmadi-muslim-leader-claims-ben-carsons-words-intolerant-and-wrong-dissembles-about-political-aspects-of-sharia

It is also worth noting that _any_ version of Islam that putatively rejects jihad is out of touch with the history of Islam itself from its inception and hence is intrinsically unstable.


Thanks for the info, Lydia...I asked because a certain XM Radio station The Patriot channel of 'conservative' bent has a host who, lately, has been saying - and I'm paraphrasing - "We need to get the Sufis and Ahmadis on our side in a fight against the Jihadis and radicals"...so I thought maybe there was something to that.

oh, and...I was considering the handle of 'Throat Warbler Mangrove' as well.

on that last quote:

I am not at all certain that it was the "Patriot" station on XM radio, only that it was a certain XM channel and a certain host (or two)

There do seem to be some facets of Islam, facets which are more heavily emphasized by certain minority sects, which play down aggressive violent jihad and play up other elements in the religion. I think it would be wonderful if, in all those Islamic countries from Morocco to Indonesia, these sects won out over Wahhabis and Sunnis and those who promote violent jihad. We don't need to IMPORT those minority sects to our shores. It's not a matter of "Go get Ahmadis or you'll get the jihadis instead". We can decide not to get any more of either one of them.

Ultimately, what would be great is if all those countries converted to Christianity. To that end, I would love it if Pope Francis told all his confreres the Jesuits, and his brothers-in-spirit the Franciscans, to line up and start marching into Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Iran, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is, after all, gung ho on evangelization. Sure, a few thousand of them would be murdered, which would be horrible. But eventually some of the Muslims would tire from murdering priests and monks singing the praises of God while being killed. And the rest of the world would react in disgust to Islamic violence - including, perhaps, Sufis and Ahmadis.

Paul Cella,
I am not aware that Bernie Sanders ever called for State takeover of conservative children. Your point is groundless.
In any case, my point regarding Bernie Sanders was conditional--if your priority is stopping abolition of man, then a spell of (mild) socialism would be useful.

Tony,
And what is particularly objectionable about dhimmitude?
Political equality, as I have pointed out, dates only from the French Revolution. It is not even clear that equality is a Christian virtue or a political good. Alt-right rejects political equality and would implement its version of dhimmitude on foreign elements, similar to what Germans and other Europeans implemented against Jews in 1930s.

Small point, Mr. Luxury Yacht: I believe it's actually Throatwobbler Mangrove.

In any case, either one remains a much more user-friendly handle than Johan Gambolputty De Von Ausfern Schplenden-Schlitter Crasscrenbon, etc., etc.


And what is particularly objectionable about dhimmitude?

Oh, nothin' nothin'. Why should Christians care about being able to be beaten up at will by mobs and having no legal recourse? And as for laws prohibiting conversion to Christianity, why, pshaw, that's a mere nothing! Only a rabid, liberal commitment to absolute political equality could make that a cause for concern. (Pay no attention to that Great Commission behind the curtain.)

BI's comments really defy satire.

They really do, Lydia. Look at this gem:

Alt-right rejects political equality and would implement its version of dhimmitude on foreign elements, similar to what Germans and other Europeans implemented against Jews in 1930s.

Then alt-right can go pound sand, along with Bernie Sanders and his "mild" socialism.

Mild socialism, mild dhimma, mild 1930s German anti-Semitism: these things are by B.I. and his lot recommend to us, as against -- what? The horrors of prosperous capitalistic economies that permit an excessive individualism?

The very best that can be said of this mindset is that its is woefully misguided. Much worse can be justly intuited.

And what is particularly objectionable about dhimmitude?

/SARC/ Whadya mean "particularly objectionable"? Ain't nothing particularly objectionable to it. As long as we're talking about YOU'RE being in dhimmitude relationship to ME, I got no problem with it in principle.

What is particularly objectionable to satan worship? To murder, slavery, and theft? Nothing, really: All these things are perfectly OK in their proper place. What is particularly objectionable to cutting out your tongue if you say one wrong word? Nothin'. What is wrong with sticking a knife in your belly if you don't feel subservient and controlled by your masters? Nothing.

What's wrong with taking a perfectly peaceful society, like Main Street, Small Town, and turning it into a war-oriented totalitarian dictatorship run by murdering thieves who enslave the rest? What's wrong with invading a peaceful place with barbarians who grab everything they can lay their hands and and wreck the rest, and then move on? Nothing at all, those are just other names for "immigration". What's wrong with overturning an existing culture with a violent jihad and imposing a completely foreign culture at sword point? Nothing, that's just the market-place of ideas, after all. What's wrong with stoning, burning, and shooting people who won't listen to you tell them that Jim Jones and David Koresh are The Prophet? Nothing at all, that's just persuading through more effective means. All perfectly appropriate in their proper place, pretty as you please.

But let me tell you what's wrong: Selling an object for more than you paid - THAT's evil, that is. Also, cooperating with others on a project larger than you can achieve alone, by pooling your resources, that's disgusting and unnatural, that is. Also, protecting yourself and your family and your neighbors from those who decide they have as much right to your property as you do, that's baaaaad, I tell you. Allowing people to have a say about local government EVEN AFTER they propound that they are opposed to any one of your chosen "non-negotiables", instead of killing them and leaving them for the hyenas, that's cowardly, craven wrong-headedness. Participating in any public process which MIGHT turn out to reject your preference is horrendously evil.
\SARC\

There appears a total refusal to consider that all Christian societies had their own version of dhimma imposed on the Other, be it Jew, a Protestant in a Catholic country or a Catholic in a Protestant country. Muslims they expelled en masse.

So, before 19c liberalism, the condition of dhimma would be considered entirely unexceptional. In this context one asks

what is particularly objectionable here?
and receives only sneers.

Participating in any public process which MIGHT turn out to reject your preference is horrendously evil.
Political history of social conservatism, an almost unbroken series of staggering defeats, just MIGHT suggest that the view that compromise is possible in some areas but not in all and it is wise to have certain non-negotiables, this view might have averted certain defeats and even more important, ideological confusion among social conservatives.

Paul Cella,
I am neither alt-right nor do I sympathize with their positions. I am more of a social conservative that would compromise on economic questions but less on social questions. The nation would survive 40% tax rates but perhaps not partial birth abortion.
I see capitalism as the main factor in social disruption. Abortion in the West is never justified on
collectivist grounds but on individualist grounds of personal choice and self-ownership.

There appears a total refusal to consider that all Christian societies had their own version of dhimma imposed on the Other, be it Jew, a Protestant in a Catholic country or a Catholic in a Protestant country.

So are you recommending that our societies today should emulate, e. g., the treatment of Jews in Christian kingdoms of the Middle Ages? Or is this just a tu quoque against critics of Islam?

Imposition of disability on particular groups has been a great constant in history. Hindus impose upon untouchables and Muslims (you can't eat beef in India and butchers need to close on certain religious holidays that the butchers do not celebrate). Muslims impose on the People of the Book and Christians of one denomination frequently imposed on Christians on other denominations, not to speak of atheists and Jews.

The liberal idea of political equality is unstable and breaking down before our eyes and leading to imposition of disabilities on dissenters from the sexual revolution.

Thus, while dhimma while obnoxious in itself and more so as imposing on one's fellow believers, is merely one form of disability among the whole universe of them. Given the reality of political nature of man, some imposition of mores of a group on other groups is unavoidable.

Jeff,

I want you to read this and keep that in mind the next time you accuse me of extremism for calling many of those on the SJW end of spectrum traitors.

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.