What’s Wrong with the World

the attendant rattled off a series of questions, including, "Do you feel safe at home?"

I took my wife to the emergency room after she nearly took her thumb off with a box-cutter. While checking her in, with my hulking self sitting right next to her, they asked "do you feel safe at home?"

She said "yes" of course. As we were headed home she mentioned that she had to bite her toungue to keep from pointing out how stupid the question was with me sitting right there.

I think, in the emergency room context, it's bureaucratic CYA. As for the cops, I can't call it either. It's just . . .off.

But as part of the routine check-in process, the attendant rattled off a series of questions, including, "Do you feel safe at home?"

That's the hospital equivalent of the airline's "Has anyone put anything in your bags without you knowing it?"

I think it safe to assume the religion of the alleged kidnappers plays an important role in the hesitation of the authorities to bring the appropriate charges. The Rifqa Bary case revealed how disinclined the liberal-dominated court system is to take on cases that would paint Islam and\or Muslim culture in a negative light.

But that doesn't make any sense, that liberals in the criminal justice system would be concerned with the public image of Islam. Beyond not being Christianity and not being a white thing (with the implicit assumption of oppression that goes with it), there's nothing in Islam to remotely interest a secular liberal. It's a totally backwards, unmodernized religion that tends to produce societies that are undesirable, to say the least.

While I generally think of our political elites at the highest level as being completely duplicitous, corrupt, and untrustworthy; I can't justify extending that all the way down to the local police department.

Welcome to the brave new world, Matt Weber. I can say that there is a ton of evidence that secular liberals are incredibly careful not to offend or tread on the toes of Muslims and that they make excuses for them. The logic of it, bizarre as it seems in the abstract, appears to be "anything but Christianity." Heck, the American Pediatric Asso. is even trying to make provision for female genital mutilation recently.

In the UK, it's even worse and strongly implicates the police departments. The police departments deliberately have Muslim community officers who "help" them to be sensitive, chase Christians out of Muslim communities, and the like. That this should come to the U.S. would not surprise me in the slightest.

But again, I can't be sure of what is going on here. Everything in the story indicates that what the woman is alleging is credible. Therefore, it seems that there should be charges and questioning; certainly, we shouldn't have a story that gives us nothing from the police but a lame excuse for their not having done anything more.

If I were to speculate, I would think this is typical for what is at root a domestic dispute. Any further charges would require the cooperation of the victim which may not be forthcoming. That said, the nature of this case has the kinds of complications and the benefit of all parties being known that there would be no real advantage to arresting and forcing an arraignment. Adding complications is that the arresting agency (the ones that discovered her) weren't the investigating agency. From the article you linked, it sounded like the police were very cooperative and even proactive. I imagine this story will continue.

Any further charges would require the cooperation of the victim which may not be forthcoming.

the nature of this case has the kinds of complications and the benefit of all parties being known that there would be no real advantage to arresting and forcing an arraignment.

Baloney. There were even other men, so far unidentified, involved besides her own family. Presumably from the "Muslim community." The parents and their associates are a danger to her. She needs to be protected, and there is at least as much "advantage" in prosecuting this abduction and set of threats as in prosecuting any other. She could end up dead next time.

She is an adult, and parents who kidnap their adult children, take them across state lines, falsely imprison them, and threaten them should not be treated with kid gloves any more than anyone else who does these things. "The Family" should not get an advantage, or we're back to the mafia. "Hey, it was my cousin Vinny and a few of his buddies who kidnapped my niece because The Family didn't like what she was doing. It's just a domestic dispute."

I would bet that this has nothing to do with sensitivity to Islam and everything to do with the family nature of the dispute. The victim claims she wasn't injured and likely sought to minimize things when the responding jurisdiction found her. If there was no warrant and no obvious crime (injury, body, etc.), the responding jurisdiction has limited options.

I'd use this as an opportunity to make an example pour les autres and throw the book (I count at least seven possible felonies) at the parents, brother, and anyone else associated with this (Ten years minimum on a plea would be a good start - more is better).

Yet again I would point out that liberalism per se has nothing to do with this and cultural conservatism everything. If her family understood that their traditional, conservative moral and religious values have no place in this country this wouldn't have happened.

The victim claims she wasn't injured and likely sought to minimize things when the responding jurisdiction found her.

I hope not. I'm seeing nothing in the story indicating that. On the contrary, it seems like the text message to the husband couldn't have contained all the details in the story, which would indicate that her allegations have been made since her rescue. While a refusal to press charges on the part of the victim could explain the absence of charges (and hence is at least an hypothesis "in the picture" now), it seems to me not to fit with the facts as a whole.

Obviously, Al, the words "conservative" and "liberal" can be used in such a way that "conservatism" is said to be on the side of the parents. But people who look at the big picture see time and time again the--yes, strange, yes, surprising, yes, almost inexplicable--tendency on the part of the left in the U.S. to downplay the dangers of Islam, to be hyper-sensitive to Islam, to make excuses for it, and so forth. That's background information that we cannot discount.

Speaking for myself, I have always been adamant that American Christian conservatives _should not_ make common cause with Muslims in defense of traditional values. I view left-liberalism and Islam as incommensurable evils which Christian conservatives like myself must fight as different fronts, alone, if need be, being always careful not to make compromising alliances with one against the other. Co-belligerance may happen by chance, and if so, well and good as far as it goes. But I will not be fool enough (as are, for example, the Catholic writers Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Kreeft) as to think that we Christian conservatives have anything to gain from "reaching out" to Muslims in defense of "family values."

But I will not be fool enough (as are, for example, the Catholic writers Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Kreeft) as to think that we Christian conservatives have anything to gain from "reaching out" to Muslims in defense of "family values."

As a Catholic, I wholeheartedly agree with you here. When it comes to speaking about Islam, or politics in general, Dinesh D'Souza has no clue what he is talking about, and thus proposes dangerous policies. Likewise, Peter Kreeft exhibits a gross ignorance about Islam, and like D'Souza proposes dangerous things when it comes to Muslims. I much prefer St. John of Damascus and his views on Islam, which were based an a clear Christian understanding, rather then short-sighted political opportunism. Muslims are not allies of Christian traditionalists in the crusade against liberalism. Rather, Islam is an eternal enemy of Christendom, by its own confession, and only a fool would think otherwise.

and cultural conservatism everything. If her family understood that their traditional, conservative moral and religious values have no place in this country this wouldn't have happened.

No, Al, sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want to call the parents' attitudes "conservative" in some weird, far-fetched construction, you would have to at least make it consistent with itself: their conservative values wouldn't have brought them to our shores to begin with, they would have stayed with their own families in their own culture enjoying their own traditions and eating their own measly meals. Their uprooting themselves and depositing them here in the US in the midst of OUR culture and OUR values means, by itself, that they decided that something different about America was more worthwhile than staying put, more worthwhile than remaining 'enriched' in their customs in the place where those customs grew up. Whatever difference that was, embracing it enough to uproot wasn't "conservative" at all. And therefore the clash between their benighted customs and ours cannot be laid to their "conservative" values. It must be laid to their disjointed, anti-American free-basing wish to have wealth or other American goods without the costs that these bring. (I would say "Kind of like liberals" except there are plenty of quasi-conservatives who do the same.)

Not to mention the fact that merely having a custom that one prefers doesn't make one a conservative. If it did, "conservatism" couldn't possibly be a political force, it would be a universal human trait.

I think everyone's missing the larger point: Al just acknowledged that Islam is incompatible with American society.

Muslims are not allies of Christian traditionalists in the crusade against liberalism. Rather, Islam is an eternal enemy of Christendom, by its own confession, and only a fool would think otherwise.

And to prove my point, a pair of Moroccan Muslims were recently deported from Italy after authorities learned they had expressed an interest in assassinating Pope Benedict XVI. Are Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Kreeft still so certain that their brotherly feelings toward the Muslims and their desire for a political and social alliance with traditional Muslims are such a good idea?

If you want to call the parents' attitudes "conservative" in some weird, far-fetched construction, you would have to at least make it consistent with itself: their conservative values wouldn't have brought them to our shores to begin with, they would have stayed with their own families in their own culture enjoying their own traditions and eating their own measly meals. Their uprooting themselves and depositing them here in the US in the midst of OUR culture and OUR values means, by itself, that they decided that something different about America was more worthwhile than staying put, more worthwhile than remaining 'enriched' in their customs in the place where those customs grew up. Whatever difference that was, embracing it enough to uproot wasn't "conservative" at all.

I don't know about that, Tony. In the abstract - apart from the details of this specific family - one might voluntarily migrate or emigrate for the sake of conserving one's traditions, or finding a place where one's traditions might be lived in peace and with greater freedom. Migration is not something that conservatives embark upon lightly, but sometimes it's necessary for the sake of preserving families, communities, and culture itself.

I don't see the point in quibbling with Al about whether foreign-born American Mohammedans are "conservative" or something else. They might well be very conservative. But they're the wrong kind of conservative for America (or any other place, frankly) because their conservatism appeals to a false, cruel, tyrannical, pernicious and hostile religion.

Lydia and Daniel:

I'm ignorant about the instances where you think Dinesh D'Sousa and Peter Kreeft are making an alliance with Muslims. Perhaps you've pointed this out and I've missed it.

I don't follow D'Sousa at all, but I have read quite a bit of Kreeft. He has used the character of a Muslim conservative against an atheist or agnostic liberal character in a dialog which defended the moral absolute against moral relativism. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that you two find unacceptable.

I do agree with Kreeft in the article from which Daniel gave a link:

Christians should hope and pray that their separated Islamic brothers and sisters be reunited with our common Father by finding Christ the Way. We cannot stop "proselytizing," for proselytizing means leading our brothers Home.

Based on past dialog, I recognize that Lydia would deny that we share a common Father (since she believes Muslims don't worship God), but that's not the thrust of his statement. I think that we should all love our Muslim brothers such we work toward and pray that they come to Christ. That's not a bad sentiment.

If you want to call the parents' attitudes "conservative" in some weird, far-fetched construction, you would have to at least make it consistent with itself:

I would like to add that a wholly consistent "conservatism", of any kind, is undesireable. American conservatives want to conserve, among other things, a prudent means of evaluating and assimilating necessary change (i.e., religious, cultural, and political traditions). The precepts of Christianity, for example, often demand or encourage change. This could make conservatism look "inconsistent" at times, but once again, that's because conservatism by itself is never enough.

Years ago, Bob, Kreeft was famous in some circles for coining the phrase "ecumenical jihad" to refer to joint Christian-Muslim efforts, which he advocated, to defend social conservatism. The other things you have noticed about him are, shall we say, compatible with that.

Years ago, Bob, Kreeft was famous in some circles for coining the phrase "ecumenical jihad" to refer to joint Christian-Muslim efforts, which he advocated, to defend social conservatism. The other things you have noticed about him are, shall we say, compatible with that.

He has another book out, published earlier this year, entitled "Between Allah and Jesus: What Christians Can Learn from Muslims". He stipulates that aggressive violence is not a part of "true" Islam and the Christians and Muslims have a common enemy in secularism and moral relativism. The book, incidentally, has received high praise from Dinesh D'Souza. Of course, having a "common enemy" hasn't stopped those natural allies of traditional Christians from persecuting and killing actual traditional Christians in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Turkey.

It would be best for men like Peter Kreeft to avoid the subject of Islam and Muslims entirely and leave the topic to men like Robert Spencer and Serje Trifkovic. Again, Kreeft and D'Souza are not only wrong in proposing an alliance with traditional Muslims against secularism and liberalism, but what they propose it down right reckless and dangerous.

Thanks Lydia and Daniel.

Regarding Between Allah and Jesus, I took a look at IVP's webpage on the book. These are other folks who have endorsed the book:
* Dr. Nabeel T. Jabbour is a Lebanese Christian who has lived in Lebanon and over 15 years in Egypt. According to his website, his Doctorate is in "Theology (in Islamics)."
* Habib C. Malik (his name is spelled incorrectly on the IVP page) is another Lebanese professor. According to Indymedia, Malik "is a proponent and apologist of American and Israeli militarism with a special axe to grind against Islam."
* Hicham Chehab is a former Muslim (trained to kill Christians) and now a Lutheran.

Now, these endorsements don't make Kreeft an expert, and I'm not about to purchase Kreeft's book. Subjectively, I don't see the need to emulate Muslim submission (although it might help some of the more liberal Christians). These points seemed interesting to me, so I thought I might pass them on.

"Al just acknowledged that Islam is incompatible with American society."

I would also point out that Islam is concentrated in places where tribe and clan values often prevail. Many of the most obnoxious practices predate Islam. When we look at some of the attitudes of Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, Christianity doesn't come off so well. European Christianity matured under fire following the Reformation. The fractured (even in the so called HRE) governance was also a factor.

We should welcome all who wish to breath the sweet air of freedom and that includes those followers of Islam who have transcended the false values and blind loyalties of the cultures into which chance placed them. Those who wish the benefits of our culture for themselves and also want the freedom to impose values from the benighted cultures they fled on others (regardless of personal relationship) need to not be here.

We should welcome all who wish to breath the sweet air of freedom and that includes those followers of Islam who have transcended the false values and blind loyalties of the cultures into which chance placed them.

What about the false values and blind loyalties to the religion of Islam itself? We have seen many Muslims who were not raised in some backwater in Pakistan or Yemen, but rather raised in a Western country that felt obligated to resort to jihad terrorism. Just look at Anwar al-Awlaki and Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Neither men were raised in their ancestral homelands in the Middle East, both men were born, raised, and educated in the US. What compelled them to join the jihad caravan? The problem isn't merely backward, third-world culture, but the religion of Islam itself.

To return to the title, Lydia asks "do you feel safe?". After hearing Eric Holder in front of the House Judiciary Committee the other day I must answer with a resounding "No!".

I would also note for the proponents of an alliance between traditionalist Christians and traditionalist Muslims that not all tradition is inherently good or worth protecting. The tradition that Muslims would defend is one that is the antithesis of the tradition that Christians strive to protect and preserve. The traditional culture of much of the Muslim world is one that is sick and inherently antagonistic toward the West. The former Muslim turned conservative Christian Nonie Darwish has written much about the traditional culture in the Arab world that should be studied by all those self-styled traditionalist Christians who have advocated jumping in the trenches with the Muslims.