This post inaugurates a series co-written with my colleague Jeff Culbreath on the topic of disinviting Islam. Each individual post will be written by one of us, allowing us each the freedom to state opinions with which the other might not agree in every detail, but allowing us to show our general agreement on the topic by rolling out the series as a joint project. The first part will argue for a need to disinvite Islam. Part II will make policy suggestions. Part III will address the question of Christian charity.
It is no secret to the readers of What's Wrong With the World that I have expressed elsewhere, as has Jeff Culbreath, the position that Muslim immigration to the United States should be halted and that measures should be taken to make it clear that the religion of Islam is not just another religion and is not welcome in the United States.
Why, to begin with, should we disinvite Islam? To go into detail on all the reasons that could be adduced would take far, far more than a blog post, and much spadework has been done on this issue elsewhere. Indeed, one of the reasons that Robert Spencer's work is so valuable is that he has given all the ammunition necessary for the argument that Islam is incompatible with American values and that, e.g., our current non-discriminatory immigration policies are dangerous and out of touch with reality. Whether and to what extent he has personally made a point of the immigration issue is a question that is relatively unimportant in comparison with the sheer quantity and quality of detailed work he has done that supports, de facto, a restrictionist position.
In relatively brief compass, then, for so large a topic:
I. We should disinvite Islam because unrestricted Muslim immigration and/or a large Muslim presence in the United States unnecessarily increases the danger of terrorist attacks on American soil or on American airplanes.
It should not really be necessary to talk about this, nor should we have to document it at length. Please, do not waste our time with talk of Timothy McVeigh. Muslim attacks have taken place or have been intercepted before taking place time and time again in recent years against American citizens on American soil or airplanes, from 9/11 to Nidal Hasan to the Christmas underwear bomber to the plot against the fuel lines at JFK to a plot to bomb the subways in D.C. to the New Jersey Muslims planning to train abroad to commit terrorism at home--the list goes on and on and on. The most recent as of this writing is, of course, Somali immigrant Mohamed Osman Mohamud, the would-be Christmas tree bomber, but he won't be anywhere near the last. Jihad Watch, with typical dark humor, refers to such terrorists as "misunderstanders of Islam," and googling that phrase at Jihad Watch turns up a huge number of highly informative posts, a compendium of the acts and plans of those "misunderstanders" of the Religion of Peace here and abroad.
It is folly to try to tell us that this has nothing to do with Islam. This is not a matter of abstract argument. Tell it to the perpetrators, and let us know how that's working out for you after a few more plots and attacks. And tell it to all the air travelers and victims who have paid the price for multiculturalism in loss of time, loss of privacy, and loss of freedom, not to mention loss of life.
Really, point I is almost too easy to substantiate. It is so easy to substantiate that the really religiously committed multiculturalist tacitly acknowledges it when, as in the case of General Casey, he implies that the deaths of Americans really don't matter all that much, that non-discrimination is more important than saving lives. We should be willing to die for the religion of non-discrimination--no airport profiling, no sacrificing of diversity in the military, no matter what the cost. One blogger has said as much, calling on the people of the West to be "brave" by refusing profiling on airlines, because "it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip." (Link HT: VFR)
II. We should disinvite Islam because too many Muslims in the West stubbornly refuse to assimilate or to assimilate fully and, by their refusal, succeed in changing and interrupting Western life in unacceptable ways.
The only difficulty in discussing this point is one of organization of the wealth of material available. First, there are the many relatively small incidents of assimilation refusal and Muslim bullying, but those relatively small incidents may not be small to those directly affected. They also add up.
--A Muslim woman brings a complaint against a gymnasium for not taking her side when she was interrupted in prayer by another woman trying to get past her to a locker.
--Somali meat packing workers have caused enormous problems by demanding that they all receive the same time off for prayer day after day, resulting in unfair treatment of other workers and interruption of the plant's work.
--At George Mason University, Muslims have taken over the supposedly non-denominational "prayer room" and on one occasion refused to allow a Christian to pray the rosary there.
--Muslims have received the privilege of special religious footbaths, installed in state facilities, so that they can wash for prayer.
Under "miscellaneous and disturbing" we can file...
--A Muslim woman refuses to allow her face to be seen when she testifies in court, challenging the centuries-old Anglo legal principle that seeing the face is important for evaluating testimony. She sued over the judge's refusal to allow her to testify with her face covered.
--A Muslim woman demands that the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, make an exception for Muslim women to its standing security policy requiring that faces not be covered when traveling on public transportation. Grand Rapids caves and rescinds the rule.
--Muslim taxi drivers refuse to accept blind people with dogs.
--Muslim husbands in Western countries have put medical workers in intolerable positions by refusing to allow treatment of their wives by male doctors, even in emergency situations.
Under "serious problems" we can file...
--Medical workers demand that they be allowed to wear long sleeves, despite public health concerns.
--Muslims take over Paris streets during certain hours. A similar problem appears to be beginning in New York City now. Reportedly, the mayor of New York City has ordered that those clogging the streets with illegally parked vehicles for prayer not be ticketed.
--Attacks on Christian missionaries, preventing Christian missions work, that involve the police of a heavily Muslim town. (See my series of detailed posts about the persecution of missionaries at the Dearborn festival at my author page.)
--Honor killings in the West (too many to list)
--Female genital mutilation in the West (many incidents)
--A fatwa against American citizen Molly Norris for angering Muslims, together with the presence of people in the U.S. who might carry it out, forcing her to go into hiding.
Americans have legitimate reasons not to want a population that brings these problems with it. There is nothing wrong with not wanting our streets clogged week after week with praying (not to mention belligerent) Muslims and their vehicles. There is nothing wrong with wanting Western rules of hygiene observed in hospitals. There is nothing wrong with wanting our factories to be able to continue to operate even when it is sundown during Ramadan. And there is certainly nothing wrong with not wanting our citizens forced into hiding by a murderous immigrant population.
Moreover, it is entirely legitimate for us to say that we simply do not want our police forces and our social workers to have to deal with problems so horrific and so alien as female genital mutilation and with cultural groups that carry out these mutilations in secret. Honor killings, too, ought to be something that "does not happen here." The notion that our country should have a distinctive cultural quality and should be a haven from such practices is a good one and one of which we should not be ashamed.
But there is more than that. Last summer one author (Lydia) caused a great deal of shock by relating the issue of Muslim immigration to Christian parental rights. That post has been repeatedly denounced and even misunderstood. The point was not that liberals will come to like conservative Christians if we gang up on Muslims. The point was simply this: When one group of people abuses its freedoms, those freedoms become tenuous for other people. In our present, increasingly anti-Christian culture, the upside-down truth is that the people most likely to suffer are not those who are actually guilty of, say, threatening, abusing, and murdering their children for religious reasons but rather those who are entirely innocent, who adhere to a completely different religion that does not support such abuses, but who will be targets of opportunity for social workers once it becomes acceptable to say that our country has a growing problem with "religious fundamentalist" child abuse. Just as the refusal to profile in airlines and even ethnic quotas on stopping passengers mean that people who are extremely unlikely to be terrorists must submit tamely to humiliating and inappropriate pat-downs, body scans, and searches, so an increased awareness of Muslim abuse of parental authority, combined with a refusal actually to admit that Muslims are a special problem, is likely to result in increased persecution of innocent Christian families. The Melissa Busekros case in Germany illustrates this point quite well; German authorities specifically cited their interest in preventing the rise of "parallel societies" (a clear allusion to concerns about immigrant groups) as a reason for outlawing home schooling for everyone and for persecuting the completely German and mainstream Busekros family. Americans have a legitimate interest in not importing populations whose members are especially likely to abuse the freedoms that America offers. Doing so places those freedoms at risk.
The third type of objection to our importing these problems should be discussed as a partially independent point:
III. We should disinvite Islam because of the real danger that we will assimilate to Islam and change important things in our country that must not be changed. This will, among other things, make it difficult if not impossible to do any good for those who wish to leave Islam in the United States or who are victims within Muslim groups and families in the United States.
--I have already discussed above, as a very disturbing consequence of the development of unassimilated Muslim groups, the dangers to Christian freedom to evangelize. But it is especially important to emphasize the way in which the Dearborn police and mayor have become complicit in this problem. They have so internalized the norms of the Muslim populace that they consider the missionaries who simply engaged in peaceful conversations to be the problem, and they considered them to be the problem because the Muslims did not like their behavior. This means that, in effect, the City of Dearborn has assimilated to Islam in this area, not the other way around. What that means, in turn, is that it is now harder than it would otherwise be to evangelize the Muslims that do reside in Dearborn. Insofar as Muslim values are adopted by Western jurisdictions, our ability to help Muslims to (for example) leave Islam, understand the problems with Islam, and learn about Christianity is compromised. This is a point that too many Christians, concerned merely with reaching out to Muslims, do not understand. When too many Muslims are present, concentrated, and not well assimilated, you cannot help them. You will be stopped from doing so. Those who want to witness to or change Muslims have, therefore, an interest in limiting their numbers.
--This problem is particularly noticeable in the United Kingdom, where reports have surfaced of Muslims in the social work professions who betray women attempting to flee their abusive families. In a related and specific story, UK social workers attempted explicitly to dissuade a teenage girl from converting to Christianity, forbidding her to attend Christian activities, firing her Christian foster mother, and urging her to reconsider on the grounds of the danger to her from Muslims for converting. So much for the "helping professions." It is obvious that the UK is losing its ability to help the victims of Islam in its midst and that it is losing this ability precisely because there are already so many Muslims in its midst! When you invite Muslims to your country and treat Islam as just another religion, this is an entirely natural and predictable result.
Repeatedly, in ostensibly Western countries, courts have either been asked or, even more disturbing, have agreed, to consider "cultural" excuses for outrageous Muslim behavior.
--In Canada, defense attorneys for a brother who murdered his sister and her fiance literally argued "provocation" in mitigation of his crime, attempting to reduce the crime to manslaughter. What was the provocation? The daughter's bringing "dishonor" on the family by becoming engaged without the consent of her own male relatives and moving in with the family of her fiance. So the Western lawyers for a murderer in a Western country have deliberately attempted to get honor killings treated as mere manslaughter because they are honor killings.
--In Italy, a daughter was beaten by her parents and brother, but the sentence was struck down by the high court for "cultural" reasons on the grounds that the parents' motivation had been for her own good and not out of anger.
--A German judge, later removed from the case, expressly relied on the Koran's permission to beat wives in her denial of a fast-track divorce to an abused wife. It was the husband's culture, you see, that he was permitted to beat his wife, and his wife was supposed to have taken that into account when she married him.
--In New Jersey, a judge refused to consider a husband guilty of spousal rape in a protective order case because his religion (Islam) teaches that he should have sexual access to his wife at all times. While the decision was struck down by a higher court, it is extremely disturbing that it should have been made at all.
Some would try to say that these courts or judges are just being "bad judges" or "jerks" or "insensitive to domestic violence," and are not really enforcing sharia, as though it is illicit for Islam critics to mention sharia in these contexts at all. But these decisions expressly cite the religious beliefs of the Muslims involved, which are, like it or not, beliefs fostered by sharia. By deferring to these cultural beliefs and expectations, the courts are deferring to sharia whether they call it that or not. In America, it is entirely unacceptable that this should happen in any shape or form. It should not even need to be said, but laws against raping and beating wives and beating daughters, much less killing sisters, are good laws, and it should not make the slightest difference in a legal context to charges, sentencing, or other legal matters such as protective orders or divorce law if someone's "culture" tells him that such behaviors are permitted. Western laws should not budge on these matters, yet they are budging.
The very existence of large populations or heavy concentrations that hold these cultural views exerts a tacit pressure on the legal system of a region to accommodate it. The mechanisms for this pressure are multiple. There is, of course, sheer fear and intimidation, but that is only the beginning. Mayors, police, prosecutors, judges, and social workers want to be perceived as culturally sensitive. Those tasked with enforcing laws rejected by a resistant immigrant population are likely to suffer from sheer fatigue and frustration. And ultimately, democracy takes over. Today's immigrants are tomorrow's citizens, and their children, born on American soil, are today's citizens.
Muslim populations that do not assimilate produce members of the voting public who elect people who represent or at least defer to their values and who will appoint others who do the same. Where those values are destructive of important aspects of the American way of life, the result is disastrous.
End of Part I
Comments (64)
After picking my jaw off the floor, I realized this beats the time I read a comboxer say in all seriousness, "My 'holy book' is the U.S. Constitution."
Posted by Scott W. | November 29, 2010 9:39 AM
Excellent article Lydia; my own collage Experience (In the UK) is that despite having their own designated prayer room the muslims also demanded (and got) that signs pointing the way to mecca be put up in the inter-faith prayer rooms; whilst we Catholics (and non catholic christians) had to share the inter-faith room with wiccans, buddists, hindus ect.
Posted by Jack | November 29, 2010 10:05 AM
Yep, Scott, it's right in there with General Casey's statement that diversity would be the worst casualty if we actually took seriously the implications of Nidal Hasan's rampage. The worst of it is that these liberals can't just be suicidal all by themselves. They have to take the rest of us along with them.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 10:09 AM
Certainly intellectual suicide since those same people are just fine with the government touching our privates for dubious airline safety. A hardened Machiavellian would favor both profiling and fondling, a zealous libertarian would sanction neither. It would take alot of Zoloft to reach the liberal point of view. (Apologies to P.J. O'Rourke)
Posted by Scott W. | November 29, 2010 10:26 AM
Does "disinvite" mean reduce the numbers of Muslim immigrants at some future time? Does it mean putting an embargo on further Muslim immigration right now? Or does it mean refusing to pander to the whims and demands of Muslim already settled in the US?
Posted by Alex | November 29, 2010 12:31 PM
I think you've missed a subtler but still important point: the undesirability of living in a society influenced by Islam in "safe" but annoying and culturally erosive ways. You, I, and hundreds of millions of other people enjoy living in a society where pork is readily available, viniculture is practiced and alcohol commercially available, that has its traditional Christian-related holidays, etc. That's how we live, and we're not in any hurry to change, because the little recreational things in people's lives are just as important as their jobs, if not really more so. We have just as much interest in preserving our purely cultural identity, reflected in pork, wine, and Christmas, as we do in not being subjected to a double standard at the DMV and in the courtroom. Even if nobody ever dies over sausage, this component is hugely important, and it only buttresses your point to articulate it more forcefully.
Bottom Line: men of the west have spent over a thousand years fighting for the right to live in a society not dominated by Muslims. I see no reason to stop now.
Posted by Titus | November 29, 2010 12:37 PM
Alex, specific proposals will be discussed in a later post by my colleague.
Titus, I agree.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 12:39 PM
Lydia, I was going to say something wise and intelligent, but you said it all! however, I do wish to say this: Islam has a proven track record of violence that goes back to it's very begining. It was stupid of the Westeren nations to let the Muslims in and it's madness to let them stay. We need to deport every foreign born Muslim back to their country of origin. The ones who were born here or who foolishly converted to Islam, must be told that any loyality to sharia law will be considered subversive, and stiff penalties will be levied against people who try to practise or enforce it. And please, all you bleeding hearts out there, don't tell me it can't be done. When the territory of Utah wanted to become a state, the Mormons were told by the federal government that polygamy would have to be outlawed. The LDS accepted this condition, and they forbade polygamy so they could get statehood.
Posted by Stephen E Dalton | November 29, 2010 1:02 PM
I want to thank the formidable Lydia McGrew for agreeing to do the "heavy lifting" in this first post by outlining the urgency of the problem. She did not disappoint. The next post, up Wednesday, will discuss a variety of specific proposals, so if possible it would be nice to save detailed proposal-oriented comments for later.
Personally, I would not have used "assimilation" to describe what we want, or "assimilation resistance" to describe what is happening. I know what Lydia means by this, of course, and so do most of our readers, but the problem here transcends what Americans generally mean by assimilation. An unassimilated Mexican farm worker in California may present a problem of sorts, but it isn't the problem of Islam, and there is nothing particularly urgent about his assimilating. On the other hand I have met seemingly assimilated Muslims - well-educated, well-spoken, and outwardly Americanized - who nevertheless remain committed to the doctrines of Islam and represent, for that reason alone, a civilizational threat of the first order.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 29, 2010 1:37 PM
The choice of the polite word "disinvite", in Lydia's commentary, suggests to me an ambivalent attitude towards the severity of what needs to be done. A charitable guess about the use of "disinvite" rather than, say, "expel" might associate the word with the almost unconscious assumptions of a considerate way of life. A cynical guess might associate the choice of that word with a failure of nerve.
A number of unpleasant measures would have to be persevered with in order to get control of Muslim effrontery in the Western societies. These measures would amount to a cultural revolution. To succeed in such an undertaking (in the US) would probably require the unambiguous vocabulary or maybe the rhetoric of American nationalism.
(I look forward to reading specific proposals on Wednesday).
Posted by Alex | November 29, 2010 1:52 PM
Jeff raises the interesting question of what is meant by "assimilation." I would be inclined to say that a Muslim of the sort Jeff describes--"well-educated, well-spoken, and outwardly Americanized" but nevertheless "committed to the doctrines of Islam"--is in an important sense not assimilated, because he is seeking vast changes in the nature and culture of America in a Muslim direction.
A further interesting question is to what extent this will come out in his other behavior. And if it doesn't, is this because he is _pretending_ to be Americanized when he is not? For example, consider such a man's treatment of family members who convert to Christianity. If he is really committed to the doctrines of Islam, he believes that they should be killed. If he doesn't kill them, this isn't because he is really Americanized, because if he were he wouldn't even want to kill them. If he doesn't try to kill them or have them killed, this is presumably because he realizes that for the time being he can't get away with it and believes that he will be of more value to the Ummah by not getting himself locked up for murder.
A similar analysis would probably apply to things like forcing his womenfolk wear hijab and even to more minor but (as Titus has pointed out) cumulatively significant matters like tolerance of alcohol, pork, and dogs: If a person is committed to the doctrines of Islam he will want to change all of this, and if he doesn't at the moment make a fuss about it or do "un-American-looking" things, it is because he is biding his time, not because he has really accepted American values on these points.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 2:16 PM
Alex - the "Disinviting Islam" title is my own idea. It's meant to acknowledge that we foolishly invited Islam here in the first place. Now, however, we must remove the welcome mat. I don't know how anyone could read Lydia's post and come up with "an ambivalent attitude towards the severity of what needs to be done", but if there is any doubt, it will dispelled soon enough.
Lydia - You make some good points, of course. Muslims are indeed instructed to "bide their time" by assimilating in this way (see, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood "Project" - http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2671 ). From another angle, too, I don't see the hypothetical assimilation of Muslim immigrants to America's toxic anti-culture as much more than a marginal improvement barely averting disaster. Generally speaking, immigrants today (just like the rest of us) need some assimilation resistance mechanism. Islam is a resistance mechanism, to be sure, but the cure happens to be worse than the disease.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 29, 2010 3:52 PM
Well, it may sound a bit thin and negative, Jeff, but I don't think what one might call generically "American values" are toxic on questions like killing your relatives for apostasy. I think "American values" on that point are good, i.e., the idea that it's a wrong and horrible thing to do that.
Again, that's a pretty thin notion of "values," though, and to have a full-blown and good culture one needs a lot more--for example, a positive and true religion and a proper and loving sense of grief over children who leave that true religion.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 4:02 PM
One tangential question worth exploring ... if the goal is a restoration of Christian order and civilization in the United States, which kind of society is more resistant to this: Islamic or secular-materialist-pagan? My answer is the former. The latter has no staying power.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 29, 2010 4:03 PM
Excellent thank you Lydia. I agree it is time to disinvite Islam. Leave them be where they are, let them work things out for themselves. Its uncharitable to invite them and not expect assimilation; its uncharitable to have the expectation but not be willing to do the hard work and redirect large amounts of resources required to assimilate such an intractable heresy.
Absent a determined, religiously serious effort to treat their distinctiveness in a loving way - it's necessary to leave them where they are. We're just not theologically literate enough to deal with these numbers of muslims I'm afraid. Fr Bhoutros has the more excellent way.
Posted by Martin Snigg | November 29, 2010 4:07 PM
Martin, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "treating their distinctiveness in a loving way." Let me put it this way: All the theological literacy in the world will only get the theologically literate person killed or driven out when he tries to preach in a Muslim enclave unless his ability to preach is protected by large men with side-arms who are willing to stop those who try to kill the theologically literate preacher or drive him away. If that doesn't sound loving, too bad. Effective missions efforts to Muslims will be squelched by Muslims, as indeed they are in, say, Saudi Arabia, if we allow our country to become like Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps you and I are on the same page, but I'm just not at all sure that heresy, theological literacy, and loving-ness are the most relevant categories here.
Jeff, good question. I think there are probably very blunt and crude reasons why an Islamist society is more resistant than secular paganism to Christianity of any sort, including Christian order and civilization: The Muslims will more often kill the Christians if they can, especially if the Christians speak up for themselves and for Christ. The secular pagans will exercise totalitarian laws over them if they can but will be slower to resort to immediate violence. It may just be that simple. And that quickness to resort to violence--whether it be terrorism or schoolyard beatings or street gang violence--may also be the reason why Islam will ultimately conquer secularism in Europe.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 4:21 PM
That's exactly right. And that is why the fight against Islam, even necessitating a temporary alliance with secularists, has the greater urgency.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 29, 2010 4:26 PM
Lydia and Jeff,
While there is much to agree with in this post (only those who would deny reality can disagree), I still find myself saying, "yes but..." Only because I hold out hope that the ever elusive moderate Muslim does in fact exist:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
and that even when we throw around terms like sharia, we have to be careful about what we mean:
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/42898/lawless/
(note I don't endorse everything Smith says, and I think he downplays the threat to our way of life from sharia, but he is certainly right that some sharia is theoretically possible in a multicultural society in the same way that Orthodox Jews are able to keep kosher in a largely Christian society).
Muslim men (and maybe even women) are dying for the U.S. in our armed forces -- it seems to me they deserve our respect as our fellow citizens. Or to put it another way, if Muslims are willing to live their lives as true Americans, I think we need to respect the American Muslims already here.
On the other hand, I eagerly await your specific proposals related to "disinviting" future Muslims as I'm basically onboard with the idea -- for all the reasons Lydia lists above and because I doubt the U.S. government can figure out how to screen out good vs. bad Muslims.
Posted by Jeff Singer | November 29, 2010 6:21 PM
Jeff, of course the moderate Muslim does exist - but he's most likely a bad Muslim, one who doesn't take his own religion seriously enough to challenge his comfort zone. Sure, we can hope for more bad Muslims, but as W4's Statement of Purpose explains, the doctrine of jihad (and by extension, sharia) "is at least latent in all Islamic societies". Insofar as we allow Muslim societies to establish themselves here, we are inviting disaster.
You bring up something that I expect to be addressed in Part-III, the fact that disinviting Islam is going to hurt some well-intentioned people. In fact, it will seem like a betrayal to them: they thought America was one thing, but now they find it is another. That is part of the tragedy of the whole situation, but the longer we postpone solutions, the greater the tragedy will be in the future.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 29, 2010 6:40 PM
Jeff S.
Starting with the Tablet Magazine article, would you please tell me what you see of value in it? Because I'm seeing _nothing_. Not one single, solitary thing. I think he talks like a fool. Sorry to speak so bluntly, but there it is. Let's start with this doozy:
"Sharia is no more likely to affect the American way of life than the burial rituals of the ancient Egyptians are likely to influence our funerary rites."
Charming, Mr. Smith. Please tell that to the woman in New Jersey who almost didn't get her restraining order against the husband who raped her. And, unless Smith would make some gigantic and principled difference between America and Italy, perhaps he should tell it to the Italian girl whose parents and brother got to tie her to a chair and beat her without conviction because of a cultural excuse. Oh, wait, I know: It's "just divorce and family law." Well, _that_ makes it okay. Hmmm. Maybe not. How likely is it that women who "agree" to have their marriages arbitrated by sharia--under which they have many fewer legal rights than under American marriage and divorce law--are really agreeing freely and without duress? What about (I didn't have time to find every link for this article) the situation in England where a sharia court has opinions on its web page about "marriages" of underage girls? Oh, what about sharia-compliant finance? Is Mr. Smith aware of the connection between such financial arrangements--now coming up in various Western countries--and the financing of terrorism? No? You see, the money earned in such funds has to be "purified" by giving a portion of the proceeds to "charity." But Muslim "charities" are notoriously often funneling groups for money to terrorists.
So, y'know, maybe sharia gives us more to be concerned about than Smith lets on.
Okay, now, what exactly was your argument about Muslim soldiers? Because some Muslims are American soldiers and some are (or we assume they are) doing a good job in our armed forces, we shouldn't disinvite Islam despite all the reasons brought up in the main article? You know, I don't see that. I really don't. In fact, after Nidal Hasan's rampage, I think any Muslim in the U.S. armed forces has no right to object to extra scrutiny being given to his record for signs of similar problems.
About that AIF Democracy group. In looking into them a bit, I did what I always urge: I googled their name and, later, the name of their leader along with the Jihad Watch site name. Here's what I found, in brief: Their leader makes lots of commendable statements against terrorism, etc., and (this is an interesting one) he supports the Oklahoma anti-sharia initiative. So far, so good. _However_, there are problems: The leader has gone on mass media saying that honor killing is a "pre-Islamic" practice which has "nothing to do with Islam." Moreover, as Robert Spencer points out in one post, he does not specifically address the many passages in the Koran, etc., which really do teach wrong things like holy war, death for apostasy, etc. If such passages are not met head-on, then even if a given person is "personally moderate," what he is teaching leaves the problem in place--namely, that it really does _make sense_ to believe that Islam mandates all of those bad things. Moreover, the denial of a connection between Islam and honor killings now, in the real world, is being "in denial" in the bad sense and makes this leader just one more voice in the ears of the American people darkening counsel and dulling their understanding of the dangers of Islam, telling them that these things have nothing to do with Islam. That is a _big problem_ and is one of the worst things about even Muslims who are, personally and as individuals, non-dangerous: As long as they remain in denial about such matters, the very fact of their personal good behavior gives them more of a hearing among Americans which means that the silly things they say are accepted as a true representation of Islam, thus lulling Americans further into suicidal slumber.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 6:54 PM
Treating their theological distinctiveness in a loving way means, I'm reasonably certain, following the thinking of Robert Spencer. Spencer-Kreeft debate 'Good Muslim:Bad Muslim' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA
Posted by Martin Snigg | November 29, 2010 7:27 PM
All the theological literacy in the world will only get the theologically literate person killed or driven out when he tries to preach in a Muslim enclave unless his ability to preach is protected by large men with side-arms who are willing to stop those who try to kill the theologically literate preacher or drive him away.
Today, probably, but St. Francis survived. It was probably because he preached to an open-minded Sultan. Things have changed a lot since the twelfth-century. Still, is the only option simply to give up on any hope of conversion? Does this not limit God's abilities and grace to some extent? I realize that one must deal with practical realities, but that does not mean that one should give up on either the hope or the prayer even while one is fleeing the bullets, does it. Some thought Rome would never fall. Prayer is usually overlooked. Along with what must be done, now, the best way to defeat Islam is to convert it. Probably impossible, but love believes all and hopes all.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | November 29, 2010 7:30 PM
Unfortunately we find the opposite happening: Secularists forming a temporary alliance with Islam for the express purpose of wiping Judeo/Christian thought from the planet.
Posted by Daniel Smith | November 29, 2010 7:55 PM
No, Chicken, it isn't. But attempts to convert are probably best done in ways and in places where one cannot simply be killed, mobbed, or arrested, unless of course (as in the case of the Acts 17 missionaries) one is trying by the very attempt to make a point upholding the freedom to preach itself. That is to say, the Acts 17 guys go and try to preach at the Arab festival every year in part to show that they will not be intimidated and to challenge the American powers that be to protect their freedom to do so. I think this has value, though it is chiefly an indirect value. Probably the most fruitful actual conversion attempts will take place in less dangerous venues--with searching individuals, especially young people, for example. And even to continue to make that possible, we must uphold the rule of law in America, which is not best done by continuing to bring in more and more Muslims.
Posted by Lydia | November 29, 2010 8:14 PM
One way to get Brian Leiter on your side is to tell him that the Muslims are against gay marriage and in favor of teaching intelligent design in public schools. Then he can call them the Taliban Taliban.
Posted by Thomas Aquinas | November 29, 2010 9:15 PM
Dear Lydia and Jeff,
Great work! My only comment is to Jeff about alliances with secularists. I agree with Daniel Smith - a couple posts above.
"Unfortunately we find the opposite happening: Secularists forming a temporary alliance with Islam for the express purpose of wiping Judeo/Christian thought from the planet."
If secularists were concerned about Islam, you would hear great weeping and nashing of teeth by Feminists over the honor killings on our soil and the general abuse of young Muslim women by their men folk. The silence is deafening. That's because feminism is not about women. It IS about wiping out the Judeo/Christian worldview and the America it has produced. You'll see Gloria Steinem in a burka sooner than in a march to protest Sharia law. The secularists see Muslims as their useful fools. They do underestimate them. It will be the secularist who will turn out to be the fools.
And could somebody tell me how to highlight my quotes from other peoples posts?
Posted by Gina Danaher | November 30, 2010 12:37 AM
One hundred and fifty years ago arguments were raised against the nations open immigration laws that permitted papists to immigrate and subvert the good Protestant order of our nation.
Posted by Thomas Yeutter | November 30, 2010 1:37 AM
Gina Danaher made reference to Judeo/Christian
worldview and the America it has produced. Really? To what extent have Talmudic thinkers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg contributed to an America we should admire.
All the Muslims I know are Theists. That is more then I can say for most liberal Christians and most liberal Jews. We can at least talk with them [and disagree.] When we talk with liberals we talk right by each other. Liberal Christians and Jews use God words but with an alien content to them.
I would rather work to have a liberal free society then a Muslim free society.
Posted by Thomas Yeutter | November 30, 2010 1:53 AM
Agreed Thomas, and for theological reasons they were just as wrong as the multiculturalists who promote Muslim immigration are today. It's just as wrong theologically as comparing the ban on inter racial marriage with defence of marriage against gay redefinition today. Your argument is anachronistic. You need to change at least as fast as Satan does my friend.
Posted by Martin Snigg | November 30, 2010 2:04 AM
I guess I don't understand the title of this post, how it describes the contents. The post showed that Islam, and Muslims, cause serious problems for America and that the current approach is bad. It showed a need for certain changes, for instance in immigration. But as far as I can tell, it didn't show any need to disinvite Islam.
Why is there a need to disinvite Islam, to show that it's not welcome in America? Why is it not sufficient, say, to Americanize it - to make Muslims into "bad", American-Muslims, as many already are? In fact, I didn't see much if any need even to go that far, from what was presented here. All the stuff about foot-baths, dogs not allowed in taxicabs, burqas in courtrooms, etc., can be handled simply by standing up to Muslims. Honor killings and other domestic violence, yes - serious problem at the individual level. But not a threat to the American way of life
So, I don't think you've made your case even this far. You've shown a need for change in policy and attitude. Possibilities include Americanization and (less strong) standing-up, plus other possibilities I'm sure which haven't occurred to me. And (to anticipate an objection) note that I'm not jumping ahead to the topic of policy here. You haven't even argued that there's a need specifically for disinvitation, much less shown it.
Posted by Aaron | November 30, 2010 2:33 AM
Aaron, you are incredibly ignorant of history if you think "Americanization" is going to stop Islamism in this country. Turkey is often touted as the model secular Muslim state, but it too is plagued with a violent Islamist minority. The fruits of Islam in America are 9-11, 25+ thwarted terrorist attacks on American soil that we know about, countless Muslim enclaves that breed sedition, the corruption of our legal system, the accelerated marginalization of Christianity, and the tender mercies of the DHS and TSA. The idea is to not let this go any further and to avoid the Islamic cloud that now threatens to swallow all of Europe. See: http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/ .
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 30, 2010 2:55 AM
To Gina Danaher: I'm probably naive, but I'm thinking that as the crisis mounts, a sizable number of secularists will be moved to some degree of action. How many, and to what degree, I don't know but hope for the best. You're right about one thing, though: most secularists will cave when it comes to a jihadist's sword at their necks.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 30, 2010 3:02 AM
Gina,
There are several ways to highlight quotes. Blockquotes or italics are best. I'm trying to figure out how to post the code without tripping the html parser. More, later, unless so kind soul can solve the problem in the meantime.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | November 30, 2010 6:09 AM
The analogy to Turkey is shaky at best. Muslims have always been more dominant in Turkey than in America. That's an important difference.
Obviously, security would be easier if there were no Muslims in America, but that's never going to happen unless you want to disinvite them all by force. Even with no Muslim citizens security would be difficult, because America would still be a target of foreign Muslims. Regarding the TSA, Israel has never "disinvited Islam", but it's also never had a hijacking like 9/11, and it doesn't make fliers take off their shoes or get body-scanned or go through any of the other silliness that American travelers go through. I'm almost certain that terrorist attacks by Muslim citizens are much less common in Israel than in America, especially relative to population size. There are obvious differences between the American and Israeli situations, but most are to Israel's disadvantage. I repeat, Israel has never disinvited Islam or even tried to "Americanize" Israeli Muslims.
Some European countries are seriously threatened by Islam, but America is luckier. Its Muslim population is proportionately much smaller and relatively moderate and integrated. And there's no economic pressure to import Muslim workers.
America has a luxury which neither Europe nor Israel share: it can effectively disengage from jihad by taking a more neutral policy towards the Middle East. That wouldn't totally eliminate the terrorist threat, but it would reduce it dramatically.
Problems like "the corruption of our legal system" and "the accelerated marginalization of Christianity" could be solved very easily and moderately, without any disinviting or Americanizing. Simply stand up to Muslim demands.
Posted by Aaron | November 30, 2010 6:43 AM
Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are the most faithful of Mahometans because they actualise the putative commands of Allah as recorded in the Koran and they imitate the actions of the putative "perfect man", Mahomet, as recorded in the ahadiths and siras.
And if anyone tries to tell you differently, tell them to go to hell.
Serdja's memorable description of Mahomet is spot-on; He was part John Gotti, past David Koresh.
Posted by Vermont Crank | November 30, 2010 6:47 AM
Serdja Trifkovic's quote...
Posted by Vermont Crank | November 30, 2010 6:49 AM
Turkey is often touted as the model secular Muslim state, but it too is plagued with a violent Islamist minority.
Dear Mr. Culbreath. That "model" has been decapitated and a Mahometan rules..
http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2010/10/26/neo-ottoman-turkey-a-hostile-islamic-power.html
Posted by Vermont Crank | November 30, 2010 6:52 AM
And the guys unconvinced by them were suckers. Muahahaha! Fish Fridays for everyone or I keeel you!
Posted by Scott W. | November 30, 2010 7:22 AM
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Muslims are Semites!!!!
What you are engaging in is Anti-Semitism.
It is alright for you to engage against Muslim Semites but not against Jewish Semites.
What a bunch of hooey!
What about the Jewish threat to our society? Nowhere---but you freely talk about the Muslim threat?
Hypocrites. You are nothing but hypocrites! Who sits on the Federal Reserve? Who are the advisors to Bush and Obama? Libby, Adelman, Axelrod, Saul Alinsky, Rahm Emanuel, etc etc. Muslims are a threat? While you turn a blind eye?
It's alright to be a Muslim anti-semite isn't it. Sanctimounious BS.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler | November 30, 2010 8:42 AM
That last takes the taco for the dumbest comment all month.
Posted by Paul J Cella | November 30, 2010 9:06 AM
Lots of things to respond to here and not a lot of time at the moment. I'll leave the totally stupid anti-semitic comment two comments ago up _for now_ _for laughs_, but let's get it understood that anti-semitism is not welcome in my threads, and I'm not going to be tolerant of it, and that's all that's worth saying about that.
In answer to Aaron:
1) It's not sufficient to try to make Muslims into bad Muslims because a) it's lying to Muslims to tell them that moderate Islam is true Islam, and I don't believe in lying, b) where it seems to work, it's unstable, because of point a. Muslims are always subject to noticing that they've been lied to about moderate Islam or that they just haven't looked into it, and then they start living like good Muslims, and we have a problem.
2) I did address the "standing up" point. Standing up becomes more and more difficult and less and less likely the more Muslims we have in the society. Muslims in America are the ultimate squeaky wheel. They just never, never stop pushing. You give them an inch and they take a mile, and if you don't give them an inch they _at least_ complain if not threaten. I could have given a lot more examples than I did, starting with yells and threats over the Nike swoosh. It's like letting a bunch of bullies into your club and then saying, "Oh, it doesn't matter, we'll just stand up to them." It's stupid to go there, and it's even stupider to keep going there after you see what has already happened.
Posted by Lydia | November 30, 2010 9:43 AM
Having talked with Jeff Culbreath about the very subject of making alliances, I know that this reference to making common cause with secularists should not be misunderstood. Jeff and I are fully agreed about the need to be _very_ careful about alliances. For example, Robert Spencer did something very worrying when he abruptly disassociated himself from an anti-Islamicization rally on the grounds that the organizers had opposed the homosexual rights movement and had documented the perversions of "gay days" at Disney World.
Liberal totalitarianism and Islam are incommensurable evils. Christian conservatives will always to no small extent stand apart from either of them, the target of both. There is no _categorical_ sense in which one is the "worse problem." It is utterly feckless and blind to say that secularism is the worse problem and to imply that we should prefer an Islamic society to a secularist one. But while Christians can survive better and worship and witness more freely in a secularist society than in a Muslim one, we should also realize that the secularists are totalitarians as well and will not thank us for the kinds of moves that Spencer made there. They will just go on their way advancing their own totalitarian agenda, which we must be careful not to aid.
Again, I know that Jeff and I are in complete agreement on this.
Posted by Lydia | November 30, 2010 10:02 AM
WLindayWheeler is obviously an "open society" person, just not the type Karl Popper would recognize.
Next, "The so and so's have won when we", do something or other to resist.
WLW may be a staff writer for the NY Times.
Posted by johnt | November 30, 2010 10:04 AM
Lydia,
You never have to apologize for talking bluntly to me -- it is a quality of yours I have always admired! As to the substance of your critique of Smith's article, I think Aaron got at the point Smith was trying to make (perhaps awkwardly):
"Honor killings and other domestic violence, yes - serious problem at the individual level. But not a threat to the American way of life."
Your (#2) answer in turn to Aaron is smart as it recognizes the power of group dynamics and the limited effectiveness of assimilation when Muslims are allowed into this (or any Western country) in large groups.
As for your #1 answer -- I agree that folks like Dr. Jasser at the American Islamic Forum should take on the tough passages in the Koran head-on; but when moderates do try and interpret these passages in a more moderate, modern context they are still told by the Spencer's of the world (not to mention the imams in Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) that their interpretation is incorrect and they need to get on board with holy war, etc. I know I've talked about this before but it is still strange to me to find Christians arguing about the meaning of Islamic texts -- in the end we think they are all lies so why not support those who think they can find a more peaceful meaning if it buys us time (i.e. there will eventually be fewer crazy Muslims willing to kill and be killed) to convert Muslims to the Truth? It's not as if we are arguing over 2+2=4; the arguments are usually over subtle matters like "did Mohammed's command to kill the Jews apply only to the 7th Century during his war with the tribes of Mecca or is the command timeless"?
Jeff C's comment about the tragedy of the situation makes me sad but I suspect he is right.
Posted by Jeff Singer | November 30, 2010 11:39 AM
Well, I completely disagree that honor killings, FGM, etc., are not threats to the American way of life. Surely you're old enough, Jeff, to remember when these were _not problems in America_. Many of these things that can be spoken of as "individual problems" are problems for the American way of life insofar as we now have to think of them as a category of the type of thing that happens in America or to people in America and that has to be dealt with in America. For example, consider FGM: Now we have to think about situations where parents are disagreeing over taking their children abroad (or bringing in someone secretly) to have them ritually mutilated, where a parental disagreement call to law enforcement may have this bizarre and horrific, alien aspect to it. We're importing alien _types_ of problems, and our law enforcement, child protection, etc., are not prepared to deal with them and, for that matter, should not have to deal with them. Consider the Rifqa Bary case: CPS in Ohio was unwilling to deal with the Islamic aspect of it, and in so doing did not take all the relevant evidence into account and left us all (including Rifqa herself) wondering for far too long if they were going to return her to her parents. Now when little Somali girls start talking on the school yard about being taken back to Somalia in the summer for a "big party" where the girl will be "made a woman," teachers need to be pricking up their ears and notifying the authorities. That's terrible. That shouldn't have to be.
So, yes, I consider these things to be relevant problems to the American way of life.
As for telling moderate Muslims that they are misinterpreting Islam, I just disagree with you that because Islam is false, there can be no such thing as telling people falsehoods about what Islam means. Islam is no more about being a religion of peace than it is about the tooth fairy. That's the problem. There is a basic falsehood at the heart of the approach of any moderate, and, like a glitch in a computer program, that basic falsehood is always threatening to mess up the whole system. The fact that a _religion_ is false does not mean that there are no _true or false statements_ about what the religion's texts mean, amount to, etc. These things are less subtle, difficult, and esoteric, I think, than you believe them to be.
Posted by Lydia | November 30, 2010 11:54 AM
Quite right. Thanks for clarifying that.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | November 30, 2010 2:03 PM
Right on, Lydia. This urge to brush it all off as "serious problems at the individual level" evidences a perilous willingness to simply overlook a key aspect, which is precisely that for Muslims the decisive perspective is the communal perspective. The very reason these crimes can be carried out is the shroud of communal solidarity that is thrown around them, which pushes even those within the community uncomfortable with them into a position of acquiescence.
This communal solidarity, coupled with multicultural cravenness, is what renders social services and even law enforcement impotent.
The parallel with Mormon polygamy is instructive. In that age, when the American way of life was far more robust, hardly anyone thought twice about the answer to the question: "is plural marriage compatible with the American tradition?" They answered "no" and proceeded to effect that answer in law and practice. Congress passed laws proscribing polygamy, then passed enabling legislation that in effect disenfranchised any Mormon who refused to renounce it, and the Supreme Court upheld all of it. Politicians linked polygamy with slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism." This was the 1870s-90s. It could not have been far from the minds of Americans what it took to stamp out that other relic. That was a self-confident America prepared to make a defiant community submit to our laws and our ways.
The mere fact that folks want to make our troubles today out to be a consequence of isolated individual behavior is a demonstration of the loss of that confidence.
Posted by Paul J Cella | November 30, 2010 3:00 PM
I agree completely with Lydia about not letting bullies into your club because "we'll just stand up to them" is harder the more there are and the more demanding they are. So, no more immigration. But we've already let some bullies and lots of people who might be bullies but probably aren't into "our" (and now their) club. It's hard, socially and politically, to stand up to them because of the liberal mindset today. But even aside from moral questions, the problem with your idea is that it would be even harder to "disinvite" their religion than to stand up to their demands. In other words, if your proposal were ever to become politically feasible, it would be unnecessary, because in an America where it had become feasible, the problem would already mostly have been solved anyway.
I stand by what I said about honor killings, etc. When I said they're not a threat to the American way of life, I meant they don't threaten the way Americans generally live day to day. In contrast, speech codes (for instance) restricting the kind of opinions on Muslims expressed here are a threat to the American way of life.
I don't see "Americanization" as lying to Muslims. It can be either a (possibly heretical) re-interpretation of scripture, which I guess is what Lydia means by lying, or it can be the definition of being a Muslim as a mostly private or even secular thing, like Christians who go to church on Christmas and Easter. It could even be done in good faith: "this is what religion is in America, and we expect you to come on board". Of course there's always a danger of a religious revival, but such an indefinite possible future danger doesn't justify drastic action today. But I want to repeat that even Americanization is probably unnecessary, even if we knew how to do it.
Posted by Aaron | November 30, 2010 3:07 PM
Actually, even that is probably false, Aaron. Consider, for example, the implications for dating in America. Suppose that your twenty-something son meets a Muslim girl and begins dating her--takes her out to dinner, etc. Her male relatives object, because he's not Muslim and/or because her marriage to a cousin was already arranged, and now instead of that meaning simply that they won't be invited over for Thanksgiving dinner, it can plausibly mean that your twenty-something son and the girl both end up shot to death in a parking lot. Or consider situations where Muslim men forbid their wives to speak to strangers and resent any friendly gestures between unrelated men and their wives. That can mean that a simple, friendly "hello" to the neighbor lady gets you snarls and threats both to you and to the woman herself. (This is a real case, by the way, though the concrete instance I read about happened in Canada.) That's relevant to the American way of life!
Those are just a couple of examples.
By the way, I _don't_ believe that all religion in America should be merely nominal, so it would be dishonest for me to tell Muslims that "this is what religion is in America." The problem is that you are recommending trying to get Muslims to continue to have the kind of weird, dishonest relationship to their religion that I don't think anybody should have; instead, they should ditch their religion because it's a bad religion. It's really that simple. I can't see trying to induce them to hang onto a Muslim identity but pretend that Islam means something it doesn't.
Paul, very, very good point about community solidarity. This has been huge in England and is becoming a problem here as well.
Posted by Lydia | November 30, 2010 3:39 PM
Lydia,
Thank you for a tough, insightful and intelligent anaylsis and your clear recommendation for limiting Muslim immigration. I do not often read or hear open and honest discussion about this issue.
Where can reliable statistics be found on honor killings in the US and worldwide?
I look forward to the next installment.
Posted by Paul J. Cella, Sr | November 30, 2010 3:41 PM
Very good question about honor killings and statistics. I suspect that it will be very difficult to gather statistics because a) no big enough body is interested in gathering them, and b) it is often denied by the media and the legal establishment that even the most blatant cases really are honor killings. Sometimes you will see media outlets saying, "So-called honor killing" even when the very description of the case--e.g., father kills daughters for wearing Western clothes--is paradigmatic.
So it's very difficult.
I know Pamela Geller collects lists of victims (sometimes, unfortunately, with gruesome pictures), but this isn't the same thing as statistics.
Posted by Lydia | November 30, 2010 3:46 PM
Dear Lydia. If only The Holy Father would man-up like you have.
Instead, for the past half-century we Christian Catholics have heard sung the usual flaccid hymns about peace and love and the dignity of man while The Mahometans threaten, mug, rape, and murder our brothers and sisters and attack our Sacred Consecrated Churches all over the globe.
I was born into the dying age of Catholic Triumphalism but I never attended the funeral.
That triumphalism lives on inside of me and woe betide that Mahometan who walks on the fighting side of me.
The proper thing to do for any Parish with a sizable population of Mahometans living nearby is to educate and encourage its Parishoners to arm themselves so they will be awake to the threat and be prepared to protect Clergy, Congregation, and Church.
Posted by Vermont Crank | November 30, 2010 4:42 PM
It also shows that it's not religion, theocracy or totalitarianism that liberals are worried about. It's the Christian God they hate and they are united with Muslims in that hatred. (And most aren't even aware of this hatred, it's simply the consequence of a godless soul.)
This is also why Christians won't find many secularists to unite with against Islam. Secularists are more likely to view the "disinvitation" sentiments shared here as "intolerance" (while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the violent intolerance of Islam.)
Posted by Daniel Smith | November 30, 2010 7:15 PM
Hmmm, so how do you think that things like holy war and death for apostasy became unacceptable to modern societies? Was it accomplished by embracing the values which prevailed during the glory days of Christendom?
I also enjoyed reading that a migrant Mexican farm worker isn't a clear threat, because the brutal drug cartels would never think of taking advantage of his situation to promote their interests.
Posted by Step2 | November 30, 2010 7:20 PM
I just want to clarify something I said that didn't come out right. I didn't mean just turning Muslims into "nominal Muslims", though that would be great. By a "private" religion, I meant the way that other Americans, including devoutly religious Christians and Jews, view religion: religious tolerance, "render unto Caesar", and all that. Those principles are antithetical to Islam, but I think America could say in good faith, "this is what religion means here".
Posted by Aaron | December 1, 2010 12:48 AM
Christianity contains within it a sizeable faction of determined men whose politics derive from the warmaking doctrines of the Old Testament. Wherever Christianity is, this faction will be also.
Posted by Loonesta | December 1, 2010 1:56 PM
Wrong, but good try.
Posted by Paul J Cella | December 1, 2010 8:37 PM
Thanks, Aaron, that is clarifying. I'm afraid I think that any Muslim who really believed that would be a bad Muslim. Hence, as I said, it would be an unstable "solution." He or his children would always be vulnerable to figuring out, "Hey, wait, this isn't what our religion really teaches."
Posted by Lydia | December 1, 2010 8:42 PM
Loonesta said -
"Christianity contains within it a sizeable faction of determined men whose politics derive from the warmaking doctrines of the Old Testament. Wherever Christianity is, this faction will be also."
Yeah, but then it's time to watch football and all the "warmaking doctrines" are acted out on the football field by their favorite team.
Posted by Gina Danaher | December 1, 2010 11:56 PM
I have Muslim colleagues and Muslim students at work as well as Muslim neighbors. They're as American as I am, and for many of them you wouldn't even recognize them as Muslim at first. Indeed, I've found many of the students to be more hard-working and more well-rounded than their American counterparts. The only possible perspective I can see this post being written from is that of someone who has never met or spoken with very many Muslims (certainly a lot of the comments appear to reflect the same perspective). Here's a suggestion: Why not have a guest post from someone who is Muslim and who disagrees with some of your ideas expressed here? Otherwise, aren't you just living in an echo chamber?
Posted by TimC | December 2, 2010 8:30 AM
I don't think anyone disputes that Muslims are busy bees.
Posted by Scott W. | December 2, 2010 8:41 AM
Wow I guess if you're a blatantly racist moron who posts blogs that misinterpret & understand all the supposed "evidence" then you don't care if you also post things which are blatantly false. Good job promoting ethnic & religious discrimination on account of your own bigotry and ignorance.
Posted by Sarah Ali | December 5, 2010 8:35 AM
Wow. Wonderfully persuasive case. I had never thought about most of this. Immigration has been absorbed into the civil rights type of argumentation, but this is a category mistake.
Also, I wondered if you were aware of this site, which chronicles all of the murders perpetrated by Muslims across the world? Very good resource: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Posted by bossmanham | December 14, 2010 12:49 AM
I think that you have to be more specific.
Not all Muslims would create the type of problems that you descibe.
To make sure that Muslims do not cause the type of problems that you describe possible Muslim immigrants really any immigrant for that matter should have to sign a contract before comming to the US or the EU that if they are working as a taxi driver and they refuse to pick up a blind passenger with a dog they along with their wife and any children under the age of 18 will be deported, except for any children that file an emancipation claim.
This contract can also forbid the wearing of a full face veil in inappropriate places. It should of course forbid gentil mutilation. It should also specifically state that if they hear anyone mock Mohammad or God or Jesus or Catholic or Shia Saints that they renounce any right to take retribution.
But in some ways we can make reasonable Muslims feel welcome in America. What is wrong with allowing Muslims to build foot bathing places in work locations where space allows it and they can pay for it with their own money. Or providing female doctors for female patients in non emergency situations. Or allowing the Muslims workers off at the CORRECT time each day to PRAY. That complaint against Muslims sounds like Bullshit to me.
First of all any factory in the US should be a UNION Factory like here in Germany.
In a UNION factory workers get coffee breaks and they get lunch breaks. I see no good reason why an intellegent manager could not accomodate his/her Muslim employees.
If there is someone that you have a beef with it is far better that you convert that person than kill them. That person can then convert another that believes in what he/she previously believed in. Well how are you going to convince Muslims that some of their ideas are backwards if you do not talk to them because you can not talk to them because they live an ocean away?
Furthermore how can you convert a Muslim who has backwards views if you have never read the Koran and never studied all the many forms of Islam so that you can make arguements to a Muslim that make sense to the Muslim. Do you think that Muslims do not argue about religous or social questions? No they have their religous liberals and conservatives just as Catholics and Protestants do. Wouldn't it make sense to know a little about the arguements that these groups have with each other so when some woman hating Muslim quotes a line from the Koran to support his position you can quote a line from the Koran that contradicts his position just like Christians do with each other and Muslims too.
Yes I agree some lines have to be drawn. But you have to show that you are not drawing these lines because you hate Muslims but because you love Muslims.
Do not take from my use of the word love that I am a pacifist. I am a cold blooded killer. The thing is killing is a very serious business. You have to go not only an extra mile but an extra marathon for your advisaries. Each time that you take a life you should feel as bad as if you had killed your own sister but that it was neccessary to prevent a even worse event if you had not done it.
Again you have to talk with your adversaries to say that you have gone that extra distance to avoid violence.
How many Muslims do you know? How many Muslims have you ever had dinner with?
Posted by Curt | March 19, 2011 4:00 PM